Bye Bye Kings, Hello Royals

[chakfu]

I don't see a difference at all between the Lakers' "gift" of Gasol and the Celtics' "gutsy move" in getting Garnett for nothing. They were both monstrously imbalanced, and the league probably would have stopped either one if it were proposed by any other franchise besides the Lakers and Celtics.

I don't see a difference at all between the Lakers' "gift" of Gasol and the Celtics' "gutsy move" in getting Garnett for nothing. They were both monstrously imbalanced, and the league probably would have stopped either one if it were proposed by any other franchise besides the Lakers and Celtics.

Seriously though. This argument makes no sense. From the politics thread I expect bats*** crazy illogical arguments from some people, but there are some sensible seeming folks in this thread...

For real though, I don't see a difference at all between the Lakers' "gift" of Gasol and the Celtics' "gutsy move" in getting Garnett for nothing. They were both monstrously imbalanced, and the league probably would have stopped either one if it were proposed by any other franchise besides the Lakers and Celtics.

Raliff = Kwame

1 low #1 pick + return of a #1 pick Minnesota was never going to give up anyway = 2 low #1 picks

Gomes + Green + Telfair = Crittenton + McKie + M. Gasol (at the time of the trade, Gomes made the C's package better; after M. Gasol turned out to be decent, in retrospect, the Laker's part of this package was better; call it a draw)

so it's all a draw, until you throw in Al Jefferson, who was 22 years old and coming off a 16.0 ppg / 11.0 rpg season.

Maybe if the Lakers had thrown in Bynum it would have been even. But that would be generous, as Bynum was coming off an 8 ppg 6 rpg year and had shown very little.

The fact is that Al Jefferson was the only asset in either trade that wasn't neglible at the time. The Celtics ultimately got KG for Garnett. The Lakers ultimately got Gasol for nothing.

That's the object facts, and anyone who says otherwise either wants to sell a story about an Ainge/McHale conspiracy, or thinks Memphis really fell in love with Marc Gasol in the 6 months after he went 48th in the draft.

Anyone who says the deals were similarly lopsided never saw Al Jefferson play in 2006-07 or thinks that a 22 year old low post machine is equivalent to a 48th pick with half a good season in the Spanish league under his belt.

This is the part of the program where I point out that Minnesota hasn't even crossed the 25 win threshold in a season since the Garnett trade. Granted there is more to their woes than discarding their Superstar for every last one of Boston's toxic contracts, but that didn't help them.

A toxic contract wasn't involved in either trade, unless you consider Pau Gasol a toxic contract, a common justification for the trade used by Laker apologists. Minnesota got Ratliff's insurance covered expiring contract, the most untoxic contract possible. The rest of the guys were cheap youngsters.

And the fact that McHale was replaced by a worse GM who blew lottery picks on redundant mediocre PGs (I think Rubio is going to be a slower, worse shooting Jason Williams) and that Jefferson got hurt, and that Minnesota ultimately dumped him for pennies doesn't alter the fact that Big Al was and is a stud. The guy put up 20/10 for a year and a half in Minnesota, and you're calling him nothing. And you're conflating the concepts of fair trades with trades that worked out well. Minnesota made a fair trade and a reasonably smart trade that they still managed to foul up. Memphis made an unfair and very dumb trade that they have managed to salvage through Marc Gasol's development and Zach Randolph's success. And they've still made the playoffs as many times as Minnesota.

You're repeating a false story that spins the trades as equivalent, makes a neat matching return to glory through unfair trades stories...and deflects attention from the singular crime of the Gasol trade.

[McCall]

Why not royal blue for a team called the Royals? Accent it with orange for Orange County and you have a unique color combo. Something the Knicks should embrace yet they continue and mess it up with black.

That's a pretty cool idea.

Blue and Orange too close to Blue and Red (Clippers).

If they want to use orange, go black and orange, something not used in the NBA (little with the Knicks, but not the main 2 colors) or black and gold. Or black and orange with gold accents (also ties into the Ducks). They already use black so it's not adding another team with black. Also there are currently only 4 of 15 teams in the Western Conference that use black, so it's not oversaturating.

[chakfu]

Meanwhile, every Celtic "steal" actually is a clever or gutsy move.

Garnett was clever insofar as it's clever to fleece a dumbass.

Can this be moved to sports in general, or split into another thread?

You always seem like a reasonable person...

Can you name a superstar trade that netted a better prospect than Al Jefferson?

Barkley for Hornacek? maybe, but Hornacek was old

Richmond for Webber? only better return that I can think of.

Carmelo for Galinari? ugh

Daron Williams? Favors is like an unproven version of Jefferson

Kidd for Devin Harris? I've never liked Harris much.

[chakfu]

By the way, the night before the trade Jackie MacMullan wrote that KG was coming to Boston for the same package but WITHOUT Jefferson. I knew that was obviously too good to be true and that Big Al would be gone. THAT trade would have been criminal, and I would have reacted the same way any Laker fan with sense or class would - I would have been thrilled and would freely admit that my team completely screwed the other one and got a huge favor from Ainge's friend McHale. I wouldn't try to excuse that one and say that Minnesota made a great move clearing cap room and that Ryan Gomes was such a great role player it was a reasonable move.

[Lights Out]

Carmelo for Galinari? ugh

I'm trying to ignore your little public breakdown here but this is too much. Remind me again which team has the better record since that trade? Pretty sure it worked out just peachy for them.

[rams80]

Can this be moved to sports in general, or split into another thread?

NBA season thread right here.

You can find my rebuttal there.

[jaha32]

Why not royal blue for a team called the Royals? Accent it with orange for Orange County and you have a unique color combo. Something the Knicks should embrace yet they continue and mess it up with black.

That's a pretty cool idea.

Blue and Orange too close to Blue and Red (Clippers).

If they want to use orange, go black and orange, something not used in the NBA (little with the Knicks, but not the main 2 colors) or black and gold. Or black and orange with gold accents (also ties into the Ducks). They already use black so it's not adding another team with black. Also there are currently only 4 of 15 teams in the Western Conference that use black, so it's not oversaturating.

To me a team named Royals should have royal blue. Black doesnt seem like a good match IMO.

To everyone saying Lakers fans won't jump to the Royals, of course they wont. The Maloofs know this too. But if youre a Laker fan in Anaheim, and you havent been able to get tickets at Staples Center (or if you do get tickets, you always have bad seats), I think a Royals game would give you a better chance to get decent seats to watch an NBA regardless of how much you love the team. It doesnt matter how much people truly care about the team, but as long as they can get enough half-hearted fans to watch, they'll do ok. I might be wrong since Im not from the area. We've seen teams go to professional-sports-starved towns recently like Memphis, where it hasnt worke so much, out and OKC, where it's been working great, so maybe going to Anaheim at least avoids the chance of having it turn out like a Memphis. I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

[KJTALBOT]

Would you people take your basketball bickering elsewhere and leave this thread for logo news?

[IceCap]

I don't think it's a given that a team named the Royals has to wear royal blue. It's not like the Red Wings having to wear red. The name and the colour, though they share a name, are not that connected. The Royals are, first and foremost, named after royalty, not the colour royal blue. So that being said purple is probably the best choice for a fitting colour, though that's likely not possible given the attempts to downplay the similarities to the LA Kings.

Black and Vegas gold is probably their best bet, actually. Gold certainly fits the theme of royalty, and the similarities to the Ducks' colour scheme allow both teams to market black and Vegas gold as Anahiem's "own" colour scheme.

[yh]

I don't think it's a given that a team named the Royals has to wear royal blue. It's not like the Red Wings having to wear red. The name and the colour, though they share a name, are not that connected. The Royals are, first and foremost, named after royalty, not the colour royal blue. So that being said purple is probably the best choice for a fitting colour, though that's likely not possible given the attempts to downplay the similarities to the LA Kings.

Black and Vegas gold is probably their best bet, actually. Gold certainly fits the theme of royalty, and the similarities to the Ducks' colour scheme allow both teams to market black and Vegas gold as Anahiem's "own" colour scheme.

Or meld the imagery of basketball, royalty, Orange County and the colors of the team's Honda Center co-tenant by running with an orange-dominant uniform scheme trimmed in black, white and gold. I really think the gold has to be played down into minor trim status (no R. Kelly jokes, please) because any liberal use of the color (in any shade) will still garner sniping about Laker similarity. Not saying it would be well-reasoned sniping, but why even go there in the first place?

[IceCap]

I don't think it's a given that a team named the Royals has to wear royal blue. It's not like the Red Wings having to wear red. The name and the colour, though they share a name, are not that connected. The Royals are, first and foremost, named after royalty, not the colour royal blue. So that being said purple is probably the best choice for a fitting colour, though that's likely not possible given the attempts to downplay the similarities to the LA Kings.

Black and Vegas gold is probably their best bet, actually. Gold certainly fits the theme of royalty, and the similarities to the Ducks' colour scheme allow both teams to market black and Vegas gold as Anahiem's "own" colour scheme.

Or meld the imagery of basketball, royalty, Orange County and the colors of the team's Honda Center co-tenant by running with an orange-dominant uniform scheme trimmed in black, white and gold. I really think the gold has to be played down into minor trim status (no R. Kelly jokes, please) because any liberal use of the color (in any shade) will still garner sniping about Laker similarity. Not saying it would be well-reasoned sniping, but why even go there in the first place?

This can be taken in more ways then one

An orange-dominated uniform with black, gold, and white trim would look quite nice actually. It would certainly stand out in the NBA, especially with the Bobcats downplaying it.

[larrypep]

Why not royal blue for a team called the Royals? Accent it with orange for Orange County and you have a unique color combo. Something the Knicks should embrace yet they continue and mess it up with black.

That's a pretty cool idea.

Blue and Orange too close to Blue and Red (Clippers).

Clippers road uniforms are red, the "Royals" could have royal blue uniforms in orange trim, and maybe weighted towards a heavier orange trim to move away from the Knicks. Possibly, they could incorporate the old vertical "Royals" scheme to give them back their old unique identity as well.

[BBTV]

I don't think it's a given that a team named the Royals has to wear royal blue. It's not like the Red Wings having to wear red. The name and the colour, though they share a name, are not that connected. The Royals are, first and foremost, named after royalty, not the colour royal blue. So that being said purple is probably the best choice for a fitting colour, though that's likely not possible given the attempts to downplay the similarities to the LA Kings.

Black and Vegas gold is probably their best bet, actually. Gold certainly fits the theme of royalty, and the similarities to the Ducks' colour scheme allow both teams to market black and Vegas gold as Anahiem's "own" colour scheme.

Or meld the imagery of basketball, royalty, Orange County and the colors of the team's Honda Center co-tenant by running with an orange-dominant uniform scheme trimmed in black, white and gold. I really think the gold has to be played down into minor trim status (no R. Kelly jokes, please) because any liberal use of the color (in any shade) will still garner sniping about Laker similarity. Not saying it would be well-reasoned sniping, but why even go there in the first place?

This can be taken in more ways then one

An orange-dominated uniform with black, gold, and white trim would look quite nice actually. It would certainly stand out in the NBA, especially with the Bobcats downplaying it.

I think if it's Vegas gold, there wouldn't be much sniping about similarities to the Lakers. This color scheme would work well, but I think that black should be the primary base color, with orange maybe being the color of the alt. I think using the colors in the same proportion as the Ducks' alt would be quite nice.

[chakfu]

There are only so many colors out there...purple/black is sufficiently different from purple/gold, and the Kings have made it theirs with some success in the Webber years. I say keep it for the Anaheim Royals.

The KC Kings and Cincinnati Royals r/w/b have some tradition, limited to the Big O and Tiny Archibald I guess...but another r/w/b? Ugh... the powder blue were more a Sacramento thing and wouldn't make sense after a move.

Interesting how the Rochester Royals logo on this site shares so much color and shield wise with the current logo. Did they ever really wear purple? I think they have a distinctive look still and as lazy as a simple "wordmark swap" would be, I think it would lend an interesting continuity and symmetry, and full circle sense of completion to a unified Kings/Royals identity. For a franchise in its 5.5th city (can't forget Omaha) a 3rd nickname and palette would just add more chaos IMO

[IceCap]

There are only so many colors out there...purple/black is sufficiently different from purple/gold, and the Kings have made it theirs with some success in the Webber years. I say keep it for the Anaheim Royals.

Not possible. The Royals will play in the Honda Centre, home to the Anaheim Ducks. The Ducks' rivals in the greater Los Angeles area? The Los Angeles Kings.

[TruColor]

There are only so many colors out there...purple/black is sufficiently different from purple/gold, and the Kings have made it theirs with some success in the Webber years. I say keep it for the Anaheim Royals.

The KC Kings and Cincinnati Royals r/w/b have some tradition, limited to the Big O and Tiny Archibald I guess...but another r/w/b? Ugh... the powder blue were more a Sacramento thing and wouldn't make sense after a move.

Interesting how the Rochester Royals logo on this site shares so much color and shield wise with the current logo. Did they ever really wear purple? I think they have a distinctive look still and as lazy as a simple "wordmark swap" would be, I think it would lend an interesting continuity and symmetry, and full circle sense of completion to a unified Kings/Royals identity. For a franchise in its 5.5th city (can't forget Omaha) a 3rd nickname and palette would just add more chaos IMO

Here's the Hardwood Classics version of that logo:

It was a dark Royal Blue. As far as I have been able to tell, this shade of Blue was used throughout the Rochester, Cincinnati, Kansas City (plus Omaha), and through the Sacramento days leading up to the new colors introduced in 1994-1995. Even though the Kings wore Light Blue road unis from the 1985-1986 through 1989-1990 seasons, the logo (and the home uniforms) used this darker Blue.