Next Move Or Expansion

[crashcarson15]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Tying a couple of these themes together, I'd have to side on the "I think of the Ravens as the old Browns" side, legally so or not. If one of my teams moved, I'd follow the team, not wait for a replacement of the same name to show up, pretending to be the same team when everyone knows they're not. If the expansion Browns wanted to recognize the "Cleveland Browns records" separately from their new franchise's records, they could have done that. They could have even incorporated the Rams' time there and tracked "Cleveland" records. But to pretend that team didn't pick up, move exactly as-is, and eventually win a Super Bowl in Baltimore? I never bought it.

I also don't buy that a team name needs to be "retired" if it doesn't travel with the team. There's no reason the Houston Texans couldn't be named the Oilers after the Tennessee Oilers decided to be no more. Of course, as much as it doesn't always make sense and leads to countless posts (at least in NBA threads) of name switching, I personally like the continuity of the franchise names. Plus, there are only so many suitable names, apparently, so it's not like they don't recycle them (and throwback to them, too). Texans play in Kansas City and Houston, Titans play in New York and Tennessee, etc.

I love that some history follows the Cleveland, Los Angeles and St. Louis Rams or the Tri-Cities, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Atlanta Hawks.* In fact, I like how the Rams honor both the St. Louis (football) Cardinals' and Rams' histories in their dome, but they are still the Rams franchise. Of course, having three versions of the Washington Senators/Nationals in existence at the same time is interesting as well (and it's understandable why some names just don't carry -- namely Texans).

A complication of this "saving the franchise records" concept is that the void almost always has to be filled with an expansion team for it to work, and that's just not always going to be a reality. So what happens when an existing team wants to enter a previous market that's holding onto its history? It gets too messy.

There was an SI report in July that led to some talk of the Sacramento Kings exploring a move to Seattle and then trying to trade Kings history to OKC for Sonics history, since of course the NBA declared that the Thunder and the city of Seattle would both lay claim to it under their version of the "Browns deal." (Splitting histories is another problem for another day.) So who would be the all-time leading scorer on a Kings-turned-Sonics franchise? Would the Thunder get the Rochester Royals' title, and the Kings would get the Sonics'? It doesn't make any sense, and gets way too complicated. That's why you have to let the team and its records go. You can still honor them both like St. Louis does. Let Seattle put up a banner in its new arena no matter who comes to play there. But don't pretend the Sacramento Kings (or whoever) are the Sonics reborn in every way, even if you choose to call them that.

---

*Yes, they were the Tri-Cities Blackhawks to be precise.... but close enough. My hometown NBA team still exists, and had I been aware of that as a kid, I probably would have been a Hawks fan instead of a Bulls fan. So I guess I should be glad I wasn't that bright...

[The_Admiral]

There's no reason the Houston Texans couldn't be named the Oilers after the Tennessee Oilers decided to be no more.

Yes there is; Bud Adams still owns the rights to the Houston Oilers and wasn't interested in selling.

[Eye]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

I think it's better that way (what Drakonius26 said) because seeing a team leave a city for another, saying how wrong it is, heartbroken the people are and all that whacked out :censored:, then graciously accepting another team's city makes one look like a douchebag Baltimore Colts fan.

[CubsFanBudMan]

There's no reason the Houston Texans couldn't be named the Oilers after the Tennessee Oilers decided to be no more.

Yes there is; Bud Adams still owns the rights to the Houston Oilers and wasn't interested in selling.

Yep, that would be a good reason. That's what I get for rambling.

[DustDevil61]

But don't pretend the Sacramento Kings (or whoever) are the Sonics reborn in every way, even if you choose to call them that.

This is where I would stand on the Browns' situation. I'm fine with the name, logos, colors, and player records staying in City A when a team moves to City B (as long as City A has a considerable history with the team), but I don't like the part of the Cleveland Deal that says that the "New Browns" are the same franchise as the "Old Browns" (Ravens) in every way, shape, and form. Keep the off-field operations (operations, staff, roster, team records) consistent with the move, while the "heritage" stays (name, colors, player records) in City A. So, using this example on the Browns/Ravens situation, this is how it would pan out:

--Jim Brown's rushing records and other on-field player records stay with the current ("New") Cleveland Browns franchise.

--The current Browns franchise is not the same as the original Browns franchise, but has inherited the original Browns' name, colors, and player records.

--The franchise operations (ownership, organization, staff, and roster) remain with the Ravens; that is, the Ravens are the continuation of the original Browns franchise.

--The Ravens retain the original Browns team records, such as W-L records and the like. The original Browns franchise has won the Super Bowl as the Ravens.

--No more of this "when the Browns returned to the league in 1999" business. The Browns franchise didn't leave; they moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens in 1996 and a new franchise was made in 1999 that inherited the Browns heritage. More like, "when the 'New Browns' started up."

I am fine, however, and do prefer that teams keep their name, logos, colors, records, etc. upon moving (AZ Cardinals, Rams, A's, Hornets, Grizzlies, Flames), so long as the name is either consistent with the new locale (Flames), or is just a more generic team name and can fit just about anywhere (Rams, Athletics, Grizzlies, Cardinals, Hornets). Even if a name change is done, the franchise continues on and its history should be acknowledged, as the Titans have done with their history as the Houston/Tennessee Oilers.

In summary, I think any future Cleveland Deal should differentiate between "heritage" and "franchise." So, if/when the NBA returns to Seattle and the team moving there dubs themselves the Sonics, and if it is the Kings that do move there, the "New Sonics" (Kings) would still trace their franchise history all the way back to the Rochester Royals days, while the Oklahoma City Thunder remain the "Old Sonics;" however, the Kings would inherit the Sonics name, colors, and individual records.

I've heard that if the Rams do leave St. Louis, the Cleveland Deal would be in effect and the Rams' name remains there. If you ask me, to say that this is the case for St. Louis (if true) is like saying that Kansas City has all rights to the Athletics' name, colors, and overall heritage, especially if the Rams move back to the city where the majority of their history takes place (Los Angeles). Is this the case? What if the Jaguars or Chargers move to Los Angeles? Would they keep their name, or would they change?

[CubsFanBudMan]

That Rams news would be a surprise, especially if they lost the team to L.A. (Hopefully it doesn't happen.)

I always assumed if the Rams, Raiders or Chargers moved back, they'd keep the name, while the Jaguars would be up in the air.

And just to throw it out there, I've seen more and more comments from frustrated Bears fans ready to see a second team in Chicago, especially since that Forbes report that said they do the least with the most opportunity and that the team has great potential to add value.

Many seem to be frustrated that Indianapolis is getting Super Bowls and Big Ten championship games because of the short-sightedness of the Soldier Field renovation and want to see someone build a new stadium in the suburbs for a new team. Not saying it will happen "next," if ever, but I see more rumblings about it than ever from the "one city, one team" crowd (Bears marketing slogan).

[rams80]

I've heard that if the Rams do leave St. Louis, the Cleveland Deal would be in effect and the Rams' name remains there. If you ask me, to say that this is the case for St. Louis (if true) is like saying that Kansas City has all rights to the Athletics' name, colors, and overall heritage, especially if the Rams move back to the city where the majority of their history takes place (Los Angeles). Is this the case? What if the Jaguars or Chargers move to Los Angeles? Would they keep their name, or would they change?

St. Louis putting the Rams identity on ice would be one of the biggest travesties in the history of professional sports fandom. Outside of 1999-2001 the market has never really supported the team or expressed that fanlike "ownership" of them. For the city to all of a sudden act like losing the team is such an affront that a 70+ year old identity must be put on hiatus so they can properly ignore the next team that comes to town is ludicrous.

If St. Louis pulled that off, it would be the end of me saying or even thinking good things about the city.

[tBBP]

I've heard that if the Rams do leave St. Louis, the Cleveland Deal would be in effect and the Rams' name remains there. If you ask me, to say that this is the case for St. Louis (if true) is like saying that Kansas City has all rights to the Athletics' name, colors, and overall heritage, especially if the Rams move back to the city where the majority of their history takes place (Los Angeles). Is this the case? What if the Jaguars or Chargers move to Los Angeles? Would they keep their name, or would they change?

St. Louis putting the Rams identity on ice would be one of the biggest travesties in the history of professional sports fandom. Outside of 1999-2001 the market has never really supported the team or expressed that fanlike "ownership" of them. For the city to all of a sudden act like losing the team is such an affront that a 70+ year old identity must be put on hiatus so they can properly ignore the next team that comes to town is ludicrous.

If St. Louis pulled that off, it would be the end of me saying or even thinking good things about the city.

And plus, wouldn't a Cleveland Deal for the Rams make more sense in, say...Cleveland?

[rams80]

I've heard that if the Rams do leave St. Louis, the Cleveland Deal would be in effect and the Rams' name remains there. If you ask me, to say that this is the case for St. Louis (if true) is like saying that Kansas City has all rights to the Athletics' name, colors, and overall heritage, especially if the Rams move back to the city where the majority of their history takes place (Los Angeles). Is this the case? What if the Jaguars or Chargers move to Los Angeles? Would they keep their name, or would they change?

St. Louis putting the Rams identity on ice would be one of the biggest travesties in the history of professional sports fandom. Outside of 1999-2001 the market has never really supported the team or expressed that fanlike "ownership" of them. For the city to all of a sudden act like losing the team is such an affront that a 70+ year old identity must be put on hiatus so they can properly ignore the next team that comes to town is ludicrous.

If St. Louis pulled that off, it would be the end of me saying or even thinking good things about the city.

And plus, wouldn't a Cleveland Deal for the Rams make more sense in, say...Cleveland?

Probably. Of course sees as they are named after Fordham and all...

[IceCap]

I've heard that if the Rams do leave St. Louis, the Cleveland Deal would be in effect and the Rams' name remains there. If you ask me, to say that this is the case for St. Louis (if true) is like saying that Kansas City has all rights to the Athletics' name, colors, and overall heritage, especially if the Rams move back to the city where the majority of their history takes place (Los Angeles). Is this the case? What if the Jaguars or Chargers move to Los Angeles? Would they keep their name, or would they change?

St. Louis putting the Rams identity on ice would be one of the biggest travesties in the history of professional sports fandom. Outside of 1999-2001 the market has never really supported the team or expressed that fanlike "ownership" of them. For the city to all of a sudden act like losing the team is such an affront that a 70+ year old identity must be put on hiatus so they can properly ignore the next team that comes to town is ludicrous.

If St. Louis pulled that off, it would be the end of me saying or even thinking good things about the city.

The funny thing is that if they move they'll likely move to LA first. They were the LA Rams longer then they've been the St. Louis Rams. If St. Louis even attempts to get a Cleveland Deal out of this they can, in the words of the internet, GTFO.

[DustDevil61]

Concerning the Rams, I don't see them leaving the name if they leave St. Louis. To once again hear "Los Angeles Rams" is too much to pass up for the NFL and many of its fans (myself included), whether located in Los Angeles, Rams fans, or not. Guess we'll likely see after 2014, right?

[BaltimoreFan]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

I think it's better that way (what Drakonius26 said) because seeing a team leave a city for another, saying how wrong it is, heartbroken the people are and all that whacked out :censored:, then graciously accepting another team's city makes one look like a douchebag Baltimore Colts fan.

LOL, what was Baltimore supposed to do? We waited until the next round of expansion. The NFL screwed us by picking lesser markets in Charlotte and Jacksonville. If we didn't take the Browns, we'd probably still be without a team.

I do agree the team history thing is stupid. Baltimore fans would have never accepted the Browns name or history regardless of the NFL's deal with the city of Cleveland. The city will always remember the history they experienced. Baltimore has a Johnny Unitas statue in front of M&T bank stadium and his number has essentially been retired (its not official, but I'm pretty sure no one's ever worn it). Likewise, nobody here cares about the Browns past. There would never be a celebration here for Cleveland's moments and players. It really doesn't matter what the NFL considers official history.

I do wish teams would change their names when they move. The names usually have a significance to the area in which they play. I don't care if they keep the name and refuse to let another team use it (i.e. Tennessee Titans with Oilers). It would just been nice if teams would respect the fans of the past city and try to create a new brand to represent the new city.

With that said, I do wish the old Baltimore Colts fans would just let it go. We got a new team and its been very successful. The Ravens are by far the biggest news in town come football season. No need to whine, cry, and bring up the past every time the Colts come to town. We did do a much better job in 2009.

[Drakonius26]

Yeah, that's really unfair to say that about Baltimore fans. Some of my best friends are Ravens fans, and it's not the community's fault that Art Modell moved the Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore. The same goes for St. Louis and Indianapolis, since you're spraying venom at the wrong people. I'm not excusing any franchise relocations, because I don't agree with them, and certainly have seen enough of them to last me a lifetime, but the venom should be saved for the owners, and strictly them.

When it comes to the Cleveland Deal, and I'm sure Ice_Cap and some others might disagree, but what should be the standard is that a franchise if relocated should have their initial history put "on-hold" until a replacement arrives in the form of expansion, and that the only time that rule should be overridden is if the actual founder of them relocates them (Bud Adams, Wayne Weaver - who are we kidding the Jaguars are as good as gone, etc.) Secondly, if the team that was relocated had significant history (perhaps 20-25+ years in the city, whatever other statistical considerations), they should be put at the top of the list when it comes to future expansion sites. Baltimore got constantly shafted, and that in a way led to the Browns move in the first place (See: That Band That Wouldn't Die).

Yes, that should the standard for the Big 4 leagues, but if you think it's absurd that the NFL considers the old and new Cleveland Browns one franchise, then it's just as absurd that the NFL considers the Baltimore Colts/Indianapolis Colts as one franchise. Remember, a lot of the former Colt players were upset, Johnny Unitas, specifically, for being referred by the NFL/Canton as also an Indianapolis Colt legend... Hint: he never played there.

[Eye]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

I think it's better that way (what Drakonius26 said) because seeing a team leave a city for another, saying how wrong it is, heartbroken the people are and all that whacked out :censored:, then graciously accepting another team's city makes one look like a douchebag Baltimore Colts fan.

LOL, what was Baltimore supposed to do? We waited until the next round of expansion. The NFL screwed us by picking lesser markets in Charlotte and Jacksonville. If we didn't take the Browns, we'd probably still be without a team.

I do agree the team history thing is stupid. Baltimore fans would have never accepted the Browns name or history regardless of the NFL's deal with the city of Cleveland. The city will always remember the history they experienced. Baltimore has a Johnny Unitas statue in front of M&T bank stadium and his number has essentially been retired (its not official, but I'm pretty sure no one's ever worn it). Likewise, nobody here cares about the Browns past. There would never be a celebration here for Cleveland's moments and players. It really doesn't matter what the NFL considers official history.

I do wish teams would change their names when they move. The names usually have a significance to the area in which they play. I don't care if they keep the name and refuse to let another team use it (i.e. Tennessee Titans with Oilers). It would just been nice if teams would respect the fans of the past city and try to create a new brand to represent the new city.

With that said, I do wish the old Baltimore Colts fans would just let it go. We got a new team and its been very successful. The Ravens are by far the biggest news in town come football season. No need to whine, cry, and bring up the past every time the Colts come to town. We did do a much better job in 2009.

My beef is with stupid Baltimore Colts fans who were so sad a team left, yet have no problem cheering for the Ravens, who left another city to go to another, just like the Colts. Those people are hypocritcal and ridiculous.

[raysox]

I think it would be cool to have an NFL team in the Oregon area with the passion that runs strong for football there. But maybe the college football passion wouldn't translate to the NFL.

And the Rays to anywhere but the Tampa area. Orlando, Vegas, somewhere.

Dude, all you do is complain about the Bay Area, and the Rays.

I don't really think any major league needs expansion. Minors move all the time, so its anyones call.

[rams80]

And the Rays to anywhere but the Tampa area. Orlando, Vegas, somewhere.

Winnipeg?

[IceCap]

The Tampa Bay Rays are kind of an interesting case. On one hand, yes they need to move. They're one of the best teams in MLB and they can't sell out their stadium. Something's wrong there. On the other hand Tropicana Field is an absolute dive. Honestly, I can see otherwise willing fans being turned off by that stadium. So I can't bring myself to condemn the Rays in the Tampa Bay area until they have a stadium that's worth going to.

[NorthStar74]

I just wanted to be sure I can specifically get each major sport team (NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB) an etc to follow the team heritage and history, and be sure it is the specific team that is going along the years and more.. I'm just being more specific with each team history to make sure it all is the right one... and yeah I am picky about how the team history go on that.. so..

As for the Tampa Bay Rays, I do hope they can get a new baseball stadium and I would hate to see the Rays move.. what's the deal with the Florida Marlins? I heard they will change the name to Miami Marlins once they are in the new ballpark? I dunno about that and any chance they might move or not?

[The_Admiral]

They're going to change their name to the Miami Marlins, yes. Once they're in an expensively taxpayer-funded stadium, no, they're not moving.