orangefaniniowa

Seattle NBA Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

If an owner (say, Sacramento) decides to move his team to Seattle, is he required to rename his team the SuperSonics? Or can he stick with Kings, or choose an entirely new name?

Share this post


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

If an owner (say, Sacramento) decides to move his team to Seattle, is he required to rename his team the SuperSonics? Or can he stick with Kings, or choose an entirely new name?

My guess is that there'd be no requirement to do so.  There may have been in the five-year window after the move, but not now.  However, I wonder whether they'd be going into a Hornets nest (pun intended) with the fan base.  They may need the Sonics name and colors in order to thrive, as was the case in Charlotte with the Hornets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the solution for all you Seattle SuperSonics history haters on the board is for:

 

1. Seattle to get a team

2. New Seattle ownership sells their new team to OKC and buys the Thunder and renames them the SuperSonics

3. Then Seattle and OKC trade their entire team/staffs to each other 

4. Then Seattle sells back the Thunder history to OKC

 

Finally, we'd have "factual" history in its right place since according to some of you on the board the only way you can claim history is to BUY it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

I guess the solution for all you Seattle SuperSonics history haters on the board is for:

 

1. Seattle to get a team

2. New Seattle ownership sells their new team to OKC and buys the Thunder and renames them the SuperSonics

3. Then Seattle and OKC trade their entire team/staffs to each other 

4. Then Seattle sells back the Thunder history to OKC

 

Finally, we'd have "factual" history in its right place since according to some of you on the board the only way you can claim history is to BUY it. 

Bureaucracy sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pharos04 said:

Supersonics is likely the route to go (or hell, make it just Sonics to really separate from the original franchise), but I do like a more overall Seattle name like Emeralds or Rainiers or something inherently Seattle that isn't a holdover from Boeing having a giant factory nearby

 

Boeing does still have a pretty significant presence in the region, so it still fits in that regard. It's also the name in our brains for Seattle basketball. Now, whether a kind of retro-futurist name in Supersonics works as a name for a new-born or re-named NBA team in present day Seattle is another thing. I'm not sure anything outweighs the connection between the name with the city and basketball, outside of a Kings scenario where the new resident has their own long-standing name, and for the Kings just happens to fit in with Seattle as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this for a Sonics 2.0 secondary mark...an "S" (in the right font!) with either the Space Needle or a jet silhouette cut into it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 3:03 PM, RichO said:

 

Boeing does still have a pretty significant presence in the region, so it still fits in that regard. It's also the name in our brains for Seattle basketball. Now, whether a kind of retro-futurist name in Supersonics works as a name for a new-born or re-named NBA team in present day Seattle is another thing. I'm not sure anything outweighs the connection between the name with the city and basketball, outside of a Kings scenario where the new resident has their own long-standing name, and for the Kings just happens to fit in with Seattle as well.

 

I think 90% of the fans would wear green and yellow/gold Sonics gear no matter what. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2017 at 2:38 PM, hawk36 said:

I guess the solution for all you Seattle SuperSonics history haters on the board is for:

 

1. Seattle to get a team

2. New Seattle ownership sells their new team to OKC and buys the Thunder and renames them the SuperSonics

3. Then Seattle and OKC trade their entire team/staffs to each other 

4. Then Seattle sells back the Thunder history to OKC

 

Finally, we'd have "factual" history in its right place since according to some of you on the board the only way you can claim history is to BUY it. 

My head hurts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-04 at 3:38 PM, hawk36 said:

I guess the solution for all you Seattle SuperSonics history haters on the board is for:

 

1. Seattle to get a team

2. New Seattle ownership sells their new team to OKC and buys the Thunder and renames them the SuperSonics

3. Then Seattle and OKC trade their entire team/staffs to each other 

4. Then Seattle sells back the Thunder history to OKC

 

Finally, we'd have "factual" history in its right place since according to some of you on the board the only way you can claim history is to BUY it. 

My response is "why is it so important for a new Seattle NBA team to have the records of the original Sonics?"

 

Hell, I'm all for the Winnipeg Jets solution. New team has the name of the old team, honours the accomplishments of the old team, but doesn't have the record books.

 

So what would be so wrong with giving Seattle a NBA expansion team, calling them the SuperSonics, and letting them honour the accomplishments of the original team while keeping the records in Oklahoma City?

The new team could even honour the 1979 Championship. That's fine. I just take issue with the idea of an expansion team founded in, say, 2019 claiming they won a title in 1979. Let that record stay with the Thunder while the new team honours its memory and what it means for Seattle. 

Win-win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

My response is "why is it so important for a new Seattle NBA team to have the records of the original Sonics?"

 

Hell, I'm all for the Winnipeg Jets solution. New team has the name of the old team, honours the accomplishments of the old team, but doesn't have the record books.

 

So what would be so wrong with giving Seattle a NBA expansion team, calling them the SuperSonics, and letting them honour the accomplishments of the original team while keeping the records in Oklahoma City?

The new team could even honour the 1979 Championship. That's fine. I just take issue with the idea of an expansion team founded in, say, 2019 claiming they won a title in 1979. Let that record stay with the Thunder while the new team honours its memory and what it means for Seattle. 

Win-win.

Because Oklahoma City had absolutely nothing to do with that history. But people here seem to think you can "buy" history. Not surprising given our society's present day infatuation with revising history to fit individual agendas. That's just the world we live in. Nothing is true, nothing is false. 

Share this post


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

But people here seem to think you can "buy" history.

I don't. "Buying" history is silly. That's why I think that 1979 Championship should belong in OKC. That organisation won it in 1979 and moved. Selling it to a new Seattle NBA team would be utterly preposterous. 

 

31 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Not surprising given our society's present day infatuation with revising history to fit individual agendas.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing. By arguing that an expansion team founded in the late 2010s or 2020s has the right to claim they "won" a championship from 1979 you're engaging in revisionist history to suit your fantasy. 

 

31 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

That's just the world we live in. Nothing is true, nothing is false. 

That's ridiculous. This isn't Orwell's 1984. Go to any university library and enter the archives. Read a history textbook.

The past is documented. Sure, historians all argue over interpretation. We all agree on the basic facts though. We all know what is true. We all know what happened. 

 

That's why I feel so strongly about this. The organisation that won the 1979 NBA Championship now plays in Oklahoma City as the Thunder. That's what happened. For you to insist that a newer Seattle NBA team get that history is an affront to the very notion of the historical record.  

 

It's nothing more than a fan fantasy used to drum up good PR.

Share this post


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

Because Oklahoma City had absolutely nothing to do with that history. But people here seem to think you can "buy" history. Not surprising given our society's present day infatuation with revising history to fit individual agendas. That's just the world we live in. Nothing is true, nothing is false. 

After the first sentence this is pretty much my argument for keeping the history with the Thunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2017 at 11:12 AM, RichO said:

 

And that's the problem.

 

There is one organization. That organization moved. The Sonics moved and made some choices about how that organization wants to handle its identity and Seattle roots. If another franchise is either created or moves in and embraces the name and honors the history, it's still a different organization. Same as Browns1 and Browns2. This weird mental gymnastic to deny the fact that teams move makes no sense and is divorced from actual observable reality.

It doesn't matter what the organization decided to do, because once the team moved, everything changed, whether they admitted it or not, There aren't any significant numbers of Ravens fans waxing nostalgic about the Bernie Kosar era, because they just didn't experience it. Sports franchises aren't like a company with branches which decides to relocate. In terms of a possible revival of the SuperSonics, yes, there will be a major connection with the city of Seattle, regardless of what the Thunder's ownership decides to do. There will be countless thousands of fans who either experienced the original Sonics, or have a generational connection. That's why the "new" Sonics will succeed. And that's why nearly every Thunder fan will give you a blank look when the name Jack Sikma is brought up. Almost no one in Oklahoma City cared about the Sonics before they moved to OKC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Almost no one in Oklahoma City cared about the Sonics before they moved to OKC.

And that means exactly zilch when it comes to the accuracy of the historic record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day, I'm going to buy Ice_Cap a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 3:47 PM, Ice_Cap said:

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.

 

Which is exactly how I respond to the "Browns are not the old Browns."

 

The NFL required Art Modell to leave his franchise behind in Cleveland.  The franchise is the right to operate a team in the league, but more than that it has been an actual physical thing, a certificate.  Modell was forced to give his up before moving and was subsequently issued a new one.  So no, the Ravens are objectively not the Browns.  The Browns are, even though the franchise was dormant for a time. And even that has precedent in NFL history - nobody claims that the Cleveland Rams were two separate teams even though the franchise took the 1944 season off.  The franchise continued without a team, just as the Browns did.  

 

I see a real difference between that dormancy, which was planned for and announced contemporaneously, and what the NBA later did in trying to re-assign  team history after the fact.   And that very real difference is also the difference between legitimacy and not. 

Share this post


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

 

Which is exactly how I respond to the "Browns are not the old Browns."

 

The NFL required Art Modell to leave his franchise behind in Cleveland.  The franchise is the right to operate a team in the league, but more than that it has been an actual physical thing, a certificate.  Modell was forced to give his up before moving and was subsequently issued a new one.  So no, the Ravens are objectively not the Browns.  The Browns are, even though the franchise was dormant for a time. And even that has precedent in NFL history - nobody claims that the Cleveland Rams were two separate teams even though the franchise took the 1944 season off.  The franchise continued without a team, just as the Browns did.  

 

I see a real difference between that dormancy, which was planned for and announced contemporaneously, and what the NBA later did in trying to re-assign  team history after the fact.   And that very real difference is also the difference between legitimacy and not. 

I mean I don't *like* that explanation for the Browns and Ravens, given that so much of that last Browns team continued on as the Ravens. The continuity of team from OG Browns to Ravens seems pretty clear to me.

That being said the Franchise bit is a good point and one I (grudgingly) concede to :P

Share this post


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

One day, I'm going to buy Ice_Cap a beer.

Right back at ya :) 

Share this post


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

I want a little of that action, boys. 

You want to move to Baltimore or Seattle? ?

Share this post


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