Bye Bye Kings, Hello Royals

[Lights Out]

Yeah, but rebuilding years for us are still playoff years.

Not always.

That's the thing, we've always done that. WIth the exception of some good draft picks (a la Magic, Worthy, Kobe, West), we've always been able to reload on the fly. How else could we have missed the playoffs only 5 times?

You know who else always did that? The Celtics... until they didn't. Then they spent over a decade drafting busts and either losing in the first round or not making the playoffs at all. Point is, you're not going to be able to get by forever based on trading and signing free agents.

And since when has Casspi ever been talked about?

[BBTV]

Lights Out - serious questions: How old are you (mid teens, late teens, early 20s, late 20s, 30s?), what region do you live in, and have you lived anywhere outside that region?

[Billy B]

But it's not because of a single player. Analysts don't only talk about Griffin, you know. They mention the other young talent that the Clippers have, like Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan, and the smart moves for the future they've recently made such as the Baron trade. The Kings don't have anything beyond Tyreke and a couple good years in the early 2000's. DeMarcus Cousins gets talked about too but not in a positive way.

Nobody outside of LA talks about anybody but Griffin on the Clips. The Kings are mostly Tyreke, but Casspi and Cousins get talked about all the time on ESPN. See? I can play that game too.

Actually I hear quite a bit about Jordan, Gordon, Bledsoe, Kaman and now Williams. And I don't follow the NBA all the much anymore and live in the middle of the country. Only Kings I know are Evans and Cousins. Clippers are far more well known nationally than the Kings, however little it is. And why should the Clippers move cuz the Kings are moving in? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to just NOT move there? And thats directed at those who think the Clips should in fact leave so the Kings can be the Lakers bitches. Lack of common sense always annoys me.

I'm not saying the clips should move, because they shouldn't. I don't believe the Kings will do well in SoCal, but saying that the Clippers are relevant and the Kings aren't nationallyisn't true, because Lights Out is using two different weights. However, if the Kings move to Anaheim, Clippers fans wouldn't switch because they both suck.

I'd say it is true that the Clippers are relevant and the Kings aren't. The Clippers have highlights on ESPN daily because of Griffin. Besides watching the Bulls/Kings game last night, I can't really remember the last time I've seen the Kings.

[loogodude90]

But it's not because of a single player. Analysts don't only talk about Griffin, you know. They mention the other young talent that the Clippers have, like Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan, and the smart moves for the future they've recently made such as the Baron trade. The Kings don't have anything beyond Tyreke and a couple good years in the early 2000's. DeMarcus Cousins gets talked about too but not in a positive way.

Nobody outside of LA talks about anybody but Griffin on the Clips. The Kings are mostly Tyreke, but Casspi and Cousins get talked about all the time on ESPN. See? I can play that game too.

Actually I hear quite a bit about Jordan, Gordon, Bledsoe, Kaman and now Williams. And I don't follow the NBA all the much anymore and live in the middle of the country. Only Kings I know are Evans and Cousins. Clippers are far more well known nationally than the Kings, however little it is. And why should the Clippers move cuz the Kings are moving in? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to just NOT move there? And thats directed at those who think the Clips should in fact leave so the Kings can be the Lakers bitches. Lack of common sense always annoys me.

I'm not saying the clips should move, because they shouldn't. I don't believe the Kings will do well in SoCal, but saying that the Clippers are relevant and the Kings aren't nationallyisn't true, because Lights Out is using two different weights. However, if the Kings move to Anaheim, Clippers fans wouldn't switch because they both suck.

I'd say it is true that the Clippers are relevant and the Kings aren't. The Clippers have highlights on ESPN daily because of Griffin. Besides watching the Bulls/Kings game last night, I can't really remember the last time I've seen the Kings.

One (almost strictly) highlight reel player isn't enough to make a team relevant. I watch a lot of NBA and if it weren't for reading LightsOut's posts, I honestly wouldn't know anyone on the Clippers besides Griffin (highlights) and Kaman (because he's been there so damn long). Without looking it up, I already forgot who they got for Baron Davis (was it Mo Williams?). I can name about the same number of players on the Kings (Casspi, Evans, Cousins). That's about it. The Clippers are about as irrelevant as the Kings.

[bosrs1]

But it's not because of a single player. Analysts don't only talk about Griffin, you know. They mention the other young talent that the Clippers have, like Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan, and the smart moves for the future they've recently made such as the Baron trade. The Kings don't have anything beyond Tyreke and a couple good years in the early 2000's. DeMarcus Cousins gets talked about too but not in a positive way.

Nobody outside of LA talks about anybody but Griffin on the Clips. The Kings are mostly Tyreke, but Casspi and Cousins get talked about all the time on ESPN. See? I can play that game too.

Actually I hear quite a bit about Jordan, Gordon, Bledsoe, Kaman and now Williams. And I don't follow the NBA all the much anymore and live in the middle of the country. Only Kings I know are Evans and Cousins. Clippers are far more well known nationally than the Kings, however little it is. And why should the Clippers move cuz the Kings are moving in? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to just NOT move there? And thats directed at those who think the Clips should in fact leave so the Kings can be the Lakers bitches. Lack of common sense always annoys me.

I'm not saying the clips should move, because they shouldn't. I don't believe the Kings will do well in SoCal, but saying that the Clippers are relevant and the Kings aren't nationallyisn't true, because Lights Out is using two different weights. However, if the Kings move to Anaheim, Clippers fans wouldn't switch because they both suck.

I'd say it is true that the Clippers are relevant and the Kings aren't. The Clippers have highlights on ESPN daily because of Griffin. Besides watching the Bulls/Kings game last night, I can't really remember the last time I've seen the Kings.

Which goes back to my original point, Griffin gets hurt or traded and the Clippers fall right back into obscurity and the land of irrelevance where they spent the last quarter century.

[Lights Out]

One (almost strictly) highlight reel player isn't enough to make a team relevant.

So the Cavs weren't relevant for the past seven years? After all, their success was based completely off one player, LeBron.

Lights Out - serious questions: How old are you (mid teens, late teens, early 20s, late 20s, 30s?), what region do you live in, and have you lived anywhere outside that region?

What does that have to do with anything? Just curious.

[UnclearInitial]

One (almost strictly) highlight reel player isn't enough to make a team relevant.

So the Cavs weren't relevant for the past seven years? After all, their success was based completely off one player, LeBron.

Lights Out - serious questions: How old are you (mid teens, late teens, early 20s, late 20s, 30s?), what region do you live in, and have you lived anywhere outside that region?

What does that have to do with anything? Just curious.

But the Cavs were contending for the title, and had the best player in the world. Griffin and the clipppers are nowhere near there yet.

[Lights Out]

But it took two whole seasons before LeBron got the Cavs to the playoffs, yet he made the whole team relevant despite the initial lack of playoff appearances. That's what Blake is doing - he gets on the highlight reel, he gets talked about, and then the rest of the team gets talked about. I think people get too tied up in playoff appearances somehow acting as the be-all and end-all of relevance, when in reality, the NBA is a players' league. If you have exciting and talented players, you'll be relevant no matter where you are in the standings.

[UnclearInitial]

But it took two whole seasons before LeBron got the Cavs to the playoffs, yet he made the whole team relevant despite the initial lack of playoff appearances. That's what Blake is doing - he gets on the highlight reel, he gets talked about, and then the rest of the team gets talked about. I think people get too tied up in playoff appearances somehow acting as the be-all and end-all of relevance, when in reality, the NBA is a players' league. If you have exciting and talented players, you'll be relevant no matter where you are in the standings.

The Warriors are nowhere near relevant, yet they're one of the most exciting teams and were in the playoff race a month ago.

[knnhrvy16]

One (almost strictly) highlight reel player isn't enough to make a team relevant.

So the Cavs weren't relevant for the past seven years? After all, their success was based completely off one player, LeBron.

There's a big difference between the Cavaliers of the past seven years and the Clippers. The Cavaliers actually got somewhere. If you make a finals appearance and constantly contend in your conference, of course your going to be relevant, at least during that era.

And I don't mean to completely bash you, but NO team's success, no matter what the team is, is based off of just one player. Of course he was far and away the best player on his team, without any question. But one player doesn't win 60+ games a year multiple times, and one player certainly doesn't reach an NBA Finals all by himself. No matter how much crap that supporting cast gets, they must have contributed just enough during those years to keep the Cavs in contention during those years. I'm not saying the Cavs were the 90's Bulls by any means, obviously they weren't, but I really don't think the Cavs were as bad as people thought they were. They just didn't have the "final piece", and other teams in the East (Magic, Celtics) and the 2007 Spurs were just flat-out better teams.

But it took two whole seasons before LeBron got the Cavs to the playoffs, yet he made the whole team relevant despite the initial lack of playoff appearances. That's what Blake is doing - he gets on the highlight reel, he gets talked about, and then the rest of the team gets talked about. I think people get too tied up in playoff appearances somehow acting as the be-all and end-all of relevance, when in reality, the NBA is a players' league. If you have exciting and talented players, you'll be relevant no matter where you are in the standings.

Which means the players can be relevant, but not the team. There's no doubt that everyone knows who Blake Griffin is - but could they really name more than two other Clippers if they tried? (And yes, we know you can. But think of the majority of NBA fans across America and Canada) What about Kevin Durant and the Thunder? I know who he is and who Russel Westbrook is, but to be completely honest, I couldn't tell you anyone else on that team. When Gerald Wallace was on the Bobcats, he was the only Bobcat I could name. Same with Chris Bosh when he was with Toronto, and for a blast from the past, how about Mitch Richmond with the Kings in the 1990's? Of course everybody knew who he was, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a whole lot of people out there who could tell you who anyone else was on that team during those years. Hell, I still can't. So what I'm saying is, yes, absolutely it's a players league. But that doesn't always mean that the players' respective teams are relevant, just that the players themselves are relevant.

For the teams as a whole to be relevant, you have to win. Not only win, but win often and contend in the playoffs. You just have to. Not to be a homer here, but think about a team like the Jazz. A very small market team, which from the get-go, makes it harder to obtain relevancy than other teams. Sure, they had one of the greatest duos of all time in Stockton and Malone, but what made them relevant in the end? Not only winning constantly but going deep in the playoffs constantly. Numerous conference finals appearances (ones which they usually played tough in even in losses), and two NBA Finals appearances. Without that, they'd just be "that one team from po'dunk Utah", or "that team from the middle of nowhere", I'm sure of it. Winning puts you on bigger stages, and puts you, eventually, on league-wide spotlights. Obviously, those help with relevancy. When a visiting team or a young fan looks up at the roof of EnergySoultions Arena and sees all the Division and Conference Champion banners hanging from the rafters, they think "this team's gone places, they've been somewhere."

So, having seen it first hand myself, yes, Winning/Playoff appearances = relevancy.

Anyways, sorry to get off topic.

One more thing regarding the Kings, I would hope they would keep Purple and Black, or at least try Royal Blue and Black. As someone pointed out earlier, it'd be a mistake to switch to Red-White-Blue when the Clippers are nearby. If it were me making the decisions. I'd go with Royal Blue and Black. It'd be different enough from the other two teams, but similar enough to the combo used now and in the past few years, still maintaining (or at least nodding to) some sort of history of the franchise.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

But it took two whole seasons before LeBron got the Cavs to the playoffs, yet he made the whole team relevant despite the initial lack of playoff appearances. That's what Blake is doing - he gets on the highlight reel, he gets talked about, and then the rest of the team gets talked about. I think people get too tied up in playoff appearances somehow acting as the be-all and end-all of relevance, when in reality, the NBA is a players' league. If you have exciting and talented players, you'll be relevant no matter where you are in the standings.

And then LeBron left and the Cavs are the Cavs, the same way the Clippers will be the Clippers as soon as Blake leaves. I've said this a million times, but it's the Clippers. They are who they are.

[bosrs1]

Well back on topic regarding the Kings... it seems another step toward them leaving has been taken. The Anaheim City Council moved up their vote on issuing bonds for renovation of the Honda Center to March 29th from April 12th. This is more in line with what the Maloofs and league were hoping for. Additionally the Anaheim mayor spoke publicly on the issue for the first time and by his tone it seems the vote is a slam dunk and that talks between the parties have been going swimmingly...

The same time Kevin Johnson posts to his blog and it's about as morose as you can get...

[yh]

But it took two whole seasons before LeBron got the Cavs to the playoffs, yet he made the whole team relevant despite the initial lack of playoff appearances. That's what Blake is doing - he gets on the highlight reel, he gets talked about, and then the rest of the team gets talked about. I think people get too tied up in playoff appearances somehow acting as the be-all and end-all of relevance, when in reality, the NBA is a players' league. If you have exciting and talented players, you'll be relevant no matter where you are in the standings.

And then LeBron left and the Cavs are the Cavs, the same way the Clippers will be the Clippers as soon as Blake leaves. I've said this a million times, but it's the Clippers. They are who they are.

But are the Bears who you thought they were?

Oops, wrong DG. Sorry, man.

[larrypep]

Despite the fact that the Clippers have about 25 true fans, they would be fools to leave Los Angeles. They are thriving at the Staples Center even though they put forth the worst product in pro sports (Blake Griffin notwithstanding). No reason whatsoever for the Clips to move from LA.

The Kings moving into LA is another story, they would most definitely be a "third wheel" and I don't see how you fit them into the Staples Center. Anaheim however is a viable option for the Kings should they eventually move. There is room in SoCal for the Kings in Anaheim.

[BBTV]

Lights Out - serious questions: How old are you (mid teens, late teens, early 20s, late 20s, 30s?), what region do you live in, and have you lived anywhere outside that region?

What does that have to do with anything? Just curious.

Just to better understand where you're coming from with a lot of your posts. Not looking for personal info, but I think it makes a difference if for example you're 17, live in San Diego, and have never seen or really experienced anything other than a 50-mile radius around your house, vs if you're 35, live in LA, but spent a few years living on the East Coast, or have traveled around a lot, etc.

[Lights Out]

I'm in my really late teens, an east-coaster, but I've traveled all over the country numerous times. I guess I'm just a west-coast sports fan trapped in an east-coast sports fan's body.

[The Six]

trapped in an east-coast sports fan's body.

So you have pasty skin and a beer gut?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding. There are a few attractive people left on the east coast.

[larrypep]

trapped in an east-coast sports fan's body.

So you have pasty skin and a beer gut?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding. There are a few attractive people left on the east coast.

All 12 of them are transplants from the West Coast.

[loogodude90]

Lights Out - serious questions: How old are you (mid teens, late teens, early 20s, late 20s, 30s?), what region do you live in, and have you lived anywhere outside that region?

[AceHawk447]

As far as a color scheme for the Anaheim Royals...how about orange and Vegas gold with navy accent? [447]