orangefaniniowa

Seattle NBA Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

How was the Warriors' move from Philadelphia to California handled by the 76ers in terms of retired jersey, history, stats, titles and throwback jerseys/logos and Hardwood Classic Nights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

If I bought the old Carnegie Deli in New York, and opened a new deli in Seattle called it the Carnegie Deli, you are saying that the Seattle one would be the real one since I own the rights to the name? Seems crazy to me but I know there are probably 50% of you that think that's perfectly reasonable. Different people, different ideas of reality, makes life interesting.


It's not just about buying the rights to a name.  In all the cases we are talking about, the management and employees all moved to the new city and continued continuous operation.  No honest analysis could call the relocated team a different entity.  Yet that's the fiction the NFL created when it deemed the Ravens a new team.  This is not a matter of different ideas of reality; it is a matter of honestly describing reality, versus dishonestly misrepresenting reality.

 

The thing most worth repeating is that the matter had been settled.  Many times.  It was settled that a relocated team was still the same franchise. The St. Louis Browns became the Baltimore Orioles; the Syracuse Nationals became the Philadelphia 76ers; the original Washington Senators became the Minnesota Twins; the Dallas Texans became the Kansas City Chiefs; the Cincinnati Royals became the Kansas City Kings; the expansion Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers.

 

It was also settled that a new team with the same name as a previous team was a separate franchise.  The Baltimore Orioles include the history of the St. Louis Browns, not the history of the Baltimore Orioles team that was in the American League in 1901 and 1902 and later moved to New York.  When the Baltimore Colts were created by the NFL in 1953 as an expansion team, this team did not include the history of the Baltimore Colts team which had folded a few years earlier, after having joined the NFL from the AAFC.

This was settled; and no one -- absolutely no one -- was complaining about it.  

 

The idea of abandoning franchise continuity is a latter-day abomination.  And it is fundamentally dishonest.  There is no spin or clever language that can change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:


It's not just about buying the rights to a name.  In all the cases we are talking about, the management and employees all moved to the new city and continued continuous operation.  No honest analysis could call the relocated team a different entity.  Yet that's the fiction the NFL created when it deemed the Ravens a new team.  This is not a matter of different ideas of reality; it is a matter of honestly describing reality, versus dishonestly misrepresenting reality.

So if in my scenario I brought many of the staff and some management of Carnegies to Seattle, then that would make it the real Carnegies? I get what you are saying but I still think the location, environment, fan base, etc. is so deeply tied to the city that you can't honestly separate them. Once a relocation is made, it starts a new history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DustDevil61 said:

 

Unfortunately for Seattle (and possibly Sacramento, given Vivek Ranadive's ownership) but fortunately for this debate, the proposed 2013 sale to Chris Hansen and subsequent relocation to Seattle was shot down.

 

Again, I'm a Utah Jazz fan, so I'm very familiar with records/retired numbers staying with the team and I still think it's the lesser of two evils compared with Cleveland Deal-type situations. That said, I'm also OK with the "team legacy" (i.e., team name, colors, records, titles, etc.) staying in the city and being adopted by a new franchise, right up to "old franchise=current franchise" (think Cleveland Browns, Charlotte Hornets, and in the future Seattle Supersonics...ugh). Lenny Wilkins, Gary Payton, and Sean Kemp played for a team named the Seattle Supersonics, but not the original Sonics franchise that now plays under the Thunder moniker in Oklahoma City.

 

It wouldn't bother me when (not if IMO) a new franchise named the Seattle Supersonics begins play that they'd inherit the 1979 title, retired numbers, records, banners, etc. along with the Sonics "legacy" because I think all those things are part of a city's sports history. Did a different team accomplish all those feats? Yes. Was that team a different franchise? Most certainly. But all those accomplishments were done in the same city and under the same team name and colors. I guess I consider team names/colors/records as a title that can be handed down [like monarchy, Caesar, USS Enterprise (not that one!), HMS Swift, Donkey Kong, or live animal mascots like UGA] so long as the franchises are distinguished from one another (which is why I always emphasize Browns v1.0 and v2.0 or Hornets v1.0 and Hornets v2.0).

 

But it's that blatant lack of distinguishing one franchise/organization with the same title from another that gets me, where the official word from the NFL is that today's Cleveland Browns is the same Cleveland Browns organization that Jim Brown, Otto Graham, and Bernie Kosar played for but "went dormant" from 1996 through 1998 and was "reactivated" in 1999, while the Ravens are a whole new franchise that started play in 1996.

 

But even that's pretty easy to follow (disingenuous, yes, but easy) compared to the Hornicans and Bobnets. Is the NBA's official word on the Hornets history that the Hornets moved to New Orleans, then moved back to Charlotte, with the expansion Pelicans taking their place in New Orleans with virtually the same personnel and Charlotte having a completely different staff and oh no I think I've gone cross-eyed. Are the Charlotte Bobcats technically a defunct franchise? Who knows. Whether you agree records should be kept with the franchises or locations, this situation would be far more simplified by, at the very least, stopping to pretend that the two (three?) Hornets organizations (Charlotte v1.0, New Orleans, and Charlotte v2.0) are the same.

 

It won't happen in the foreseeable future, but this playing fast and loose with history by the NBA is one thing that would terrify me if the Jazz were to ever leave Utah. The Jazz name would likely return to New Orleans and Utah Jazz moniker would be banished to the same nebulous nether realm as that of the Charlotte Bobcats. What team would Adrian Dantley, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Andrei Kirilenko, and Rudy Gobert have played for then?

 

Maybe it's best to stick keep records/titles/banners/etc. with the franchise, but this could be the most reasonable loophole around it. But I think leagues need to clamp down on these kinds of things and emphasize franchise/organizational continuity.

 

Anyways, I could go on for hours on this (I kinda already have).

I see some inconsistency here...or, rather, trying to have it both ways.  

 

Doesn't the idea of the "New" Sonics inheriting the title, records/history (your first bold) go hand-in-hand with the NFL/NBA's treatment of history (your second bold)?  It seems like you want the new Sonics to officially lay claim to those, but then somehow the NBA to acknowledge what really happened.  I'm not quite following.  I think to be totally consistent and true to history we cannot "give" the Sonics the history and the championship.  They happened to a different franchise.  As other "history first" posters here have suggested, the city and even the franchise can have tributes to all that stuff.  Arenas adorning themselves with history (not just franchise history but history of *sport* in *city*) is great.  So the New Sonics could have a team picture and a visual/bulletpoint rundown of the 1979 and call it "Seattle Basketball History."  As I've pointed out before, the Target Center has a statue of George Mikan and a banner of Minneapolis Lakers in the Hall of Fame.  It's a good balance; we're acknowledging that some real NBA history happened in Minneapolis but not pretending it happened to the Timberwolves.

 

I guess the league could let teams pretend to be the same team as some old franchise that plays elsewhere while maintaining reality in the books.  But it all serves to blur the lines. Once someone on the New Sonics is trying to break a Kevin Durant rookie record, I kinda think the reality/honesty ship has sailed.

 

Regarding your italics, I've thought about this with the Sonics; what if the Kings move there?  They'd likely just become a defunct franchise.  They've been around since the 1940s and won a championship.  And if they move to Seattle, they just disappear.  Similarly if the Timberwolves move to Seattle (which is not likely for a while with the money going into the Target Center), then KG's primary franchise just disappears.  Yeah, the Wolves have a sad history and the Kings have been pretty poor for a while, but they are still part of history. 

 

As time goes on, two things are becoming clear:  First, fans in spurned cities want the old name (and colors) back.  The Winnipeg Jets and Charlotte Hornets prove that.  Of course, the two situations were handled completely differently and the NHL did it right by continuing to reflect reality.  Whether it'll be maintained remains to be seen.  Second, the history-shuffle model is probably the new normal.  The NFL started it because Cleveland's a lunch pail town and the NBA doubled down with significant headache-inducing after-the-fact shifting.  And I think that's what most fans, when asked, want.  I think we're in the minority.  

If Seattle gets an NBA team, there's a 99% chance they'll be called the "SuperSonics"* and a 98% chance they'll have that history, relocated frachise's history be damned.

 

*Honestly, I'd rather that not happen. I'd rather team names (when they make sense) move with the team.  But maybe the Jets solution is a decent compromise.  I get that the NBA needed the Hornets name to survive in Charlotte but I don't think it needed the history shuffle; for the same reason most fans are not bothered by history shuffling, they also would not be upset had that that shuffle not happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Once a relocation is made, it starts a new history. 

 

Absolutely, fundamentally, categorically wrong.  

Sports franchises are entities that are continuous despite relocations (New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants) or changes of name (Washington Bullets --> Washington Wizards) or both (St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles).  This cannot be emphasised strongly enough.

People who want to flush actual history down the toilet should at least be intellectually honest about it and admit that they're ignoring the facts and substituting their fantasy in its place.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Absolutely, fundamentally, categorically wrong.  

Sports franchises are entities that are continuous despite relocations (New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants) or changes of name (Washington Bullets --> Washington Wizards) or both (St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles).  This cannot be emphasised strongly enough.

Someone who wants to flush actual history down the toilet should at least be intellectually honest about it and admit that they're ignoring the facts and substituting their fantasy in its place.  

You just see it one way and I the other. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I think it's just as dishonest to say the SF Giants had anything to do with the NY Giants. There is NY Giants history and SF Giants history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Absolutely, fundamentally, categorically wrong.  

Sports franchises are entities that are continuous despite relocations (New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants) or changes of name (Washington Bullets --> Washington Wizards) or both (St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles).  This cannot be emphasised strongly enough.

People who want to flush actual history down the toilet should at least be intellectually honest about it and admit that they're ignoring the facts and substituting their fantasy in its place.  

So, let me get this straight. The New York Giants (baseball) move to the other side of the coast and become the San Francisco Giants (baseball) and there is absolutely nothing...NOTHING...new about this franchise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

You just see it one way and I the other. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I think it's just as dishonest to say the SF Giants had anything to do with the NY Giants. There is NY Giants history and SF Giants history.

Exactly. They share a history as the Giants, and their colors, but there are vast differences when it comes to location, fans, stadiums...etc. the Giants of today can celebrate the day they came to San Francisco, but also celebrate the day they started out as the New York Giants. That's what makes sports history so much fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2017-5-2 at 3:17 PM, hawk36 said:

You just see it one way and I the other. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I think it's just as dishonest to say the SF Giants had anything to do with the NY Giants. There is NY Giants history and SF Giants history.

 

The Giants themselves recognise the team's entire history in both cities.  And they always have done so, even visiting New York with their three recent World Series trophies, and contributing money towards New York City's refurbishment of an outdoor concrete stairwell that the team had built when it was in New York.  The team management refers to to the team as "the San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants".   

 
The A's recognise their history in all three of their cities.  In the first game of the 1972 World Series, they had Lefty Grove throw out the first pitch, because he was the star of the team the last time it had made the Series in 1931.  

The Braves recognise their history in all three of their cities.  They have a statue of Warren Spahn in Atlanta, even though he pitched for them only in Boston and Milwaukee.

 

More important, the official records of these teams are continuous.  Of course you can decide to look at the New York portion or the San Francisco portion of the Giants' records, just as you could look at any team's history delimited by any two dates.  But the fact -- not anyone's opinion, but fact -- is that the New York / San Francisco Giants constitute one continuous entity.

 

So you are wrong here.   You're wrong on the facts.

 

And when a league enforces pretend history, as the NFL and and NBA have done, it is wrong from the standpoint of ethics.

 

 

On 2017-5-2 at 3:21 PM, Viola73 said:

So, let me get this straight. The New York Giants (baseball) move to the other side of the coast and become the San Francisco Giants (baseball) and there is absolutely nothing...NOTHING...new about this franchise?

 

The thing that's new is that it has a new name.  (This does not make it a new entity.)

I am sorry to have to repeat that, before the Browns and the NFL committed their crime against history, this matter was completely settled.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

You just see it one way and I the other. Doesn't make either of us wrong. I think it's just as dishonest to say the SF Giants had anything to do with the NY Giants. There is NY Giants history and SF Giants history.

There is Giants history.  There is also NY Giants history and SF Giants history.


Obviously the move is a huge part of that franchise's history.  And, obviously, the NY fans care(d) more about what happened in NY and the SF fans care more about what happens in SF.  SF fans can learn as much or as little as they'd like about their franchise's history in New York.  Many won't, and that's fine.  

 

But since the counter-argument to using true history is "these events happened in the city" and we tend to want to give the Oilers history to the Texans, the Hornets history to the Bobcats/Hornets, etc., what would we have done with the Dodgers and Giants history?  Would the Mets have them both? Or would the first team of either Willie Mays or Jackie Robinson be considered defunct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Thunder themselves reject the Sonics history, especially their 1979 championship. See?

 

westbrook-jumper-okc-beat-mavs-nba-2017.

 

Even the trash Kings cling to a 1950s championship captured in a different era far, far away:

9896743-nba-denver-nuggets-at-sacramento

 

Of course I'm referring the championship tags the NBA introduced last season. If the Thunder themselves are abdicating the Seattle championship, why shouldn't it belong in the city that won it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

More important, the official records of these teams are continuous.  Of course you can decide to look at the New York portion or the San Francisco portion of the Giants' records, just as you could look at any team's history delimited by any two dates.  But the fact -- not anyone's opinion, but fact -- is that the New York / San Francisco Giants constitute one continuous entity.

Right:  All three histories exist.  "The Giants," the NY Giants, and the SF Giants.  Just because we recognize franchise records and stats of the Giants does not mean it cannot be broken down.  So it does not just have to be "Most strikeouts in Giants history" but you can also say "most strikeouts in San Francisco Giants history."  Stats/records/history can be broken down any way you want.  Just because the Giants are one entity spanning the continent does not mean you cannot focus on the San Francisco part of history.  As long as MLB does not pretend that the SF Giants are an expansion team and that the Mets are just a re-named Giants after a hiatus.  But that said, you can even think that way if you want...who's the New York all-time National League wins leader?  Sure, I guess.  But the Mets are not the Giants (or Dodgers).  The Giants (and Dodgers) are the Giants (and Dodgers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

FWIW, the Thunder themselves reject the Sonics history, especially their 1979 championship. See?

And they can acknowledge that as much or as little as they'd like.  But they cannot re-write history.

 

It seems that re-named teams abandon history more quickly.  The Twins barely acknowledge the Senators, OKC barely acknowledges the Sonics. But the SF Giants, LA Lakers, Dallas Stars, etc. seem to acknowledge more.

 

If the Thunder want to act like an expansion team, that's up to them. But that doesn't change what actually happened to get them into the league.  Do we really want to recognize real history or contrived history based on the degree to which the individual teams acknowledge their pasts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

 

30 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Absolutely, fundamentally, categorically wrong.  

Sports franchises are entities that are continuous despite relocations (New York Giants --> San Francisco Giants) or changes of name (Washington Bullets --> Washington Wizards) or both (St. Louis Browns --> Baltimore Orioles).  This cannot be emphasised strongly enough.

Someone who wants to flush actual history down the toilet should at least be intellectually honest about it and admit that they're ignoring the facts and substituting their fantasy in its place.  

You just see it one way and I the other. Doesn't make either of us wrong.

 

No, facts aren't subjective. Ferdinand is right. You're substituting a fantasy in place of clear-as-day facts. 

There's a lot of subjective stuff we can ageee to disagree on. The clarity of the historical records in these cases, however, aren't subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sayahh said:

How was the Warriors' move from Philadelphia to California handled by the 76ers in terms of retired jersey, history, stats, titles and throwback jerseys/logos and Hardwood Classic Nights?

 

The Warriors history traveled with them to California. The 76ers brought their Syracuse Nationals history with them to Philadelphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The thing that's new is that it has a new name.  (This does not make it a new entity.)
 

No the thing that was new was a city...on the other side of the freakin coast. That makes it a new entity. Now, had they moved from the Polo Grounds to...say...Queens or Red Hook, and kept the New York Giants name then okay it's continuous...as you say. The fact of the matter is they uprooted and traveled across the country an became a new entity. They even had a new identity being in the San Francisco environment. They are the Giants of NY and SF but it has not been a continuous franchise based on location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2017 at 8:03 PM, Quillz said:

Maybe one day the NBA will expand the way the NHL seems to be doing.

Retardedly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Viola73 said:

No the thing that was new was a city...on the other side of the freakin coast. That makes it a new entity. Now, had they moved from the Polo Grounds to...say...Queens or Red Hook, and kept the New York Giants name then okay it's continuous...as you say. The fact of the matter is they uprooted and traveled across the country an became a new entity. They even had a new identity being in the San Francisco environment. They are the Giants of NY and SF but it has not been a continuous franchise based on location.

IMG_3845.GIF.0e4a1a845f035d15dde57f1ab0fb51ee.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Viola73 said:

No the thing that was new was a city...on the other side of the freakin coast. That makes it a new entity. Now, had they moved from the Polo Grounds to...say...Queens or Red Hook, and kept the New York Giants name then okay it's continuous...as you say. The fact of the matter is they uprooted and traveled across the country an became a new entity. They even had a new identity being in the San Francisco environment. They are the Giants of NY and SF but it has not been a continuous franchise based on location.

 

Except they had the same ownership, same manager, 22 of the same players, and basically the same uniforms from the last NY season to the first SF season.

 

Moves happen. Teams fold, expansions happen. Nothing is permanent. Histories belong to both the organization that moved, and the places they occupied. How that gets handled is all up to the teams and leagues involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the Angels? They moved, changed their name, do you consider the original Los Angeles Angels (MLB) to now be defunct? Or is there a minimum distance involved in a move which makes it OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.