Jump to content

NBA back to Seattle? NHL too?


WSU151

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 512
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I've also seen Thunder references that include the Sonics' history, usually in on-screen graphics. What will really complicate things is if a new Seattle franchise starts counting from the same point. Say the Thunder win the title and "it's the franchise's second championship." Then down the road the new Seattle Supersonics could also win the franchise's second championship?

These deals are messes. Move the history with the franchise. Keep the name, colors and the memories in the city, but nothing else. Fly a banner if you like, but don't pretend it's the same team. If down the road the Thunder/Sonics are winning titles while the Sonics/Kings are still being the Kings... it's almost an insult to the history.

Or do the Cleveland Browns/San Jose Earthquakes thing (though that admittedly works better with an expansion team, not a team moving in with it's own history like the Kings). Particularly since the Thunder changed the name and other than a few graphics all but ignore the Seattle portion of their history. They already left most of the Sonics identity behind including the championship trophy, what do they need the rest of it for? Particularly if they win the title this year. They've already made their own history down in OKC, let Seattle have theirs as their own. But I agree, either way the sharing idea is a bad one compared to either of the alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Seattle Kings" sounds good to me, though I'm not sure that the green and yellow scheme works too well (and I would like to see them use that scheme, even though they're not the real Sonics.)

Seattle is in King County it is a perfect name.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kings in my opinon will go to cincy, cincy has an incredible fan base with the bengals and reds, their age demograhics are great for young sports fans to mature under a new sport, however the only problem with the kings gong to cincy is that the cavs, bulls, okc, and pacer's owners will not allow this. with in cincy there is already to many markets and with less of a market for each team someone will complain and no movement will hppen this is the same for seattle only there was less interest at the time when seattle moved to okc.

I don't know if Cincinnati has the population size to support an NBA team in addition to our NFL and MLB teams. We're overextended as it is (http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/denver-is-most-overextended-market.html?appSession=58178326258674&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=) Also, there's no arena. Also, it's a huge college basketball town.

Cleveland probably wouldn't care that much if Cincy got a team. Indianapolis might, though they're a closer city and we get cavs games on the FSO alternate channel.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Seattle Kings" sounds good to me, though I'm not sure that the green and yellow scheme works too well (and I would like to see them use that scheme, even though they're not the real Sonics.)

Seattle is in King County it is a perfect name.

There's almost zero chance of an NBA team coming to this city being named something other than the SuperSonics. It won't and shouldn't happen.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys do know that Chris Hansen, the prospective owner/facility builder held a chat with The Seattle Times today, right?

1:11

Comment From Kevin Palacpac Are you planning on purchasing the SuperSonics history in full from Clay Bennett? I can't stand this shared history between SEA and OKC. Have you thought about it?

1:11

Chris Hansen: The shared history is tough. But at least we have it. And of course, I would be open to the possibility of making it ours. But that's really more of a question for Clay than it would be for me. At least we have the name the Sonics!

1:53

Comment From Nate Diggity If you could pull a magical, yet slightly realistic opening date for the arena out of a hat.. When would it be? fb_share2.png 1:54

Chris Hansen: My style is to under-promise and over-deliver. And one of the biggest worries I have is that people's current enthusiasm will fade before we have a realistic opportunity of making this a reality. So I'm going to say 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Chris Hansen, the memorandum of understanding between the hedge-fund manager who will be the principal investor in Seattle's proposed $500 million arena, the city, and King County expressly stipulates that any NBA franchise calling the facility home will have to be named the SuperSonics, subject to NBA approval.

In other words, "Seattle Kings" isn't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Chris Hansen, the memorandum of understanding between the hedge-fund manager who will be the principal investor in Seattle's proposed $500 million arena, the city, and King County expressly stipulates that any NBA franchise calling the facility home will have to be named the SuperSonics, subject to NBA approval.

In other words, "Seattle Kings" isn't happening.

That's a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Chris Hansen, the memorandum of understanding between the hedge-fund manager who will be the principal investor in Seattle's proposed $500 million arena, the city, and King County expressly stipulates that any NBA franchise calling the facility home will have to be named the SuperSonics, subject to NBA approval.

In other words, "Seattle Kings" isn't happening.

That's a shame.

I disagree. This is New Winnipeg Jets-ish sans history of course because it's a cluster :censored: with regards to a new (aka moved) Seattle franchise. Everyone will want them to be the SuperSonics.

10 second later edit: Unless you mean from the Kings perspective, what with them having a royal name in every city they've been in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Chris Hansen, the memorandum of understanding between the hedge-fund manager who will be the principal investor in Seattle's proposed $500 million arena, the city, and King County expressly stipulates that any NBA franchise calling the facility home will have to be named the SuperSonics, subject to NBA approval.

In other words, "Seattle Kings" isn't happening.

That's a shame.

I disagree. This is New Winnipeg Jets-ish sans history of course because it's a cluster :censored: with regards to a new (aka moved) Seattle franchise. Everyone will want them to be the SuperSonics.

10 second later edit: Unless you mean from the Kings perspective, what with them having a royal name in every city they've been in.

Yep that's it. The Kings may not have the most illustrious history, but they're one of the Association's oldest teams. It would be a shame to ditch an identity that's existed, in one form or another, since 1945 (the team itself dates back to the 20s) just so they can pretend to be another team. Especially when Seattle lends itself to the Kings name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Move OKC back to Seattle and name them the Sonics.

2. Move Sacramento to OKC and keep regal name.

3. Swap rosters between teams.

/tired CCSLC meme.

Tired? That's the first I've seen that scenario. Congrats on coming up with it. We can call it the Epiphanic meme. And I'm sorry, but I cannot support your idea. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Move OKC back to Seattle and name them the Sonics.

2. Move Sacramento to OKC and keep regal name.

3. Swap rosters between teams.

/tired CCSLC meme.

Tired? That's the first I've seen that scenario. Congrats on coming up with it. We can call it the Epiphanic meme. And I'm sorry, but I cannot support your idea. :)

I'd fully endorse moving OKC's roster to Sacramento! :P

san-francisco-giants-cap.jpgsanfranciscob.gifArizonaWildcats4.gifcalirvine.jpg
BEAR DOWN ARIZONA!

2013/14 Tanks Picks Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the SuperSonics move was itself a shame. Hard to rectify one with the other, but there you go.

Besides, maybe ditching the name will improve the Kings' luck. Six home cities is hardly a worthwhile legacy.

The most illustrious in the NBA? No, but it's still a lengthy history in and of itself. The fact that they've kept, more or less, the same identity through six cities further adds to to the fact that it shouldn't be changed.

The Sonics moving was a shame, but it happened. The team left. Having the Kings ditch an identity that's been around since 1945 so they can pretend they're the same team that played in Seattle for decades would be a real shame.

Besides, it would really complicate already messed up historical situation. Apparently the city of Seattle and the Thunder "share" the history of the Sonics. Which means that this would transfer to any new team using the Sonics name. Thing is, the Kings already have a history. One that pre-dates the existence of the Sonics. One that includes a NBA title.

So currently Seattle and the Thunder share the Sonics history, which means you could reasonably say that the Thunder already have an NBA title to their name. So what happened if/when the Kings move and become the new Sonics? Do they share that NBA title with the Thunder? What about the Kings' own NBA title? Is that thrown out if they've adopted the Sonics' history as their own?

At least the Cleveland deal was straightforward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.