Generic

Seattle in NBA again (maybe) - The Branding Discussion

Recommended Posts

So in a thread or two I've noticed a lot discussion about the deal that might be made for the sale of the Sacramento Kings to the Hansen-Balmer group to move the team to Seattle. I've been specifically curious as to what people think the branding direction should be taking.

I personally would prefer either the SuperSonics name or something new to be rolled out. I'd however want that whatever the name is - to have the colours reminiscent of the Sonics colours.

So what are your thoughts - ideas on branding and how they should treat all this? All the franchise history chatter should fit well here too of course, as well as rumours for designs and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle SuperSonics all the way. You acknowledge Sonics 1.0 actively with retired numbers, banners, etc. Then in a indirect way acknowledge the Kings by honoring the numbers by not reissuing them. I think the Thunder do this with the Sonics 1.0?

But, I could see the Sonics 2.0 adopting the last logos and jerseys worn by Sonics 1.0 for the first two years and doing some sort of rebranding when they move into the new arena. I like the idea of them wearing gold and green, but think it would be cool to see them brand themselves with a Seahawks/Mariners color scheme eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the other guys said; the Sonics name/uniform will make a comeback. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they actually go Supersonics and not Sonics like they did in the years just before the move to OKC. I always hated that. Sure it makes sense on the jersey, space saving and all, but beyond that...Supersonics. Looking at you Portland (Trail)blazers and Minnesota (Timber)wolves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there a clause in the new Seattle arena deal that says the team will be the Sonics. The Kings/Royals history, retired numbers and banners need to go to whichever city adopts the name in the future. If Sacramento gets an expansion or relocated team in the future (still think they have a great chance of keeping the team. Seattle will probably have to wait) they will probably adopt the Kings or Royals moniker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just use Seattle Kings. After all the city is in King County. And the Seattle Kings was the name for a possible NFL expansion team in the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I love that logo. If they could find a way to put a jet(the reason the team has its name)in there flying above the skyline, and create a new modern wordmark it would be perfect for the new squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hansen has said they'll be the Sonics. It's not up for any kind of debate. What is a question is the history.

The original deal was that if they got an expansion team in Seattle within 5 years the Thunder would share the history with them similar to the Browns/Earthquakes model. However it's now beyond 5 years and the Kings are definitely not an expansion team, being one of the oldest franchises in the league. But at the same time Bennett has said something along the lines of being willing to send the history back. That of course opens a can of worms we've never dealt with before with a team leaving one 70 year history behind to adopt another 40 year history.

A better route is obviously the Winnipeg Jets model. Same name, logos, colors, etc... as the Sonics 1.0 while at the same time still being a continuation of the older Royals/Kings franchise (and mind you I say this being a Kings fan). Only thing they should leave behind in Sacramento as a courtesy, since they're not using it in Seattle, is the Kings name for a future expansion team in Sac. And at the same time leave the Sonics 1.0 history in OKC with the Thunder as it should be similar to the Phoenix Coyotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short:

The nickname will be SuperSonics.

The colors will be green and gold.

Any questions?

Exactly. Love it or hate it, the fact of the matter is that it will be the Seattle SuperSonics with the green and gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short:

The nickname will be SuperSonics.

The colors will be green and gold.

Any questions?

Exactly. Love it or hate it, the fact of the matter is that it will be the Seattle SuperSonics with the green and gold.

Can someone tell me why the Seattle SuperSonics are somehow worthy of resurrection at the expense of the lineage of the Royals/Kings franchise? I mean you have these Sonics fans saying, essentially, "yeah the Kings have seventy years of history behind them, but it was seventy years of being terrible so who cares?"

The absurdity of cherry-picking the historical record aside, what makes the Sonics' forty year history in Seattle all that more impressive? Like the Royals/Kings the Sonics have one forgettable NBA Championship and a few seasons that ended in post-season disappointment. It's not worth killing off a seventy year old team's lineage so they can *pretend* to be that.

Impressive or not, the Royals/Kings have been around for the better part of a century. They pre-date the NBA, and are one of three teams that can claim a title from before the establishment of the NBA. In a lot of ways they're a relic, like the Green Bay Packers. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not comparing the two teams in terms of overall success. The Packers, however, are a relic in the sense that they're the last team remaining from a NFL that consisted mostly of small and medium sized Midwestern markets. In some ways that's what the Kings are to the NBA. A relic from the NBL days, a team that was there when pro basketball was in its infancy. Their history wasn't the most illustrious, but it did happen, it was significant, and it shouldn't be ignored to placate a group-think induced desire to play make-believe.

Fact is that by forcing the Kings to adopt the name and records of the old SuperSonics you're killing off a significant chunk of pro basketball history. That, I think, is a shame.

So I've said my piece on this topic in every thread where the discussion has come up. I wasn't going to repeat myself here, but I figured I should since this is the "official" thread for the discussion now I guess. Anyway that's my opinion on the matter. So to recap...

The Kings shouldn't have their lineage erased because it's historically significant to the historic narrative of pro basketball.

People would support the Seattle Kings anyway because that's what fans do.

Fans don't own anything, as warm and fuzzy as the idea may make some people.

The forty years of Sonics history should belong to the Oklahoma City Thunder.

I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who lives near Sacramento and knows how much the Kings are loved around here, I personally think this relocation idea stinks. It's exactly what happened to the Sonics when they left for Oklahoma City. Yeah, Seattle wants a team, but at the cost of another cities team? That's not such a good idea. I know Sleep Train Arena is small and can barely work as a main NBA venue these days, but damn...

What should happen is that the Kings banners stay in their arena, and the Sonics banners stay in their own. Just leave everything alone, the NBA is already getting :censored: enough up with the Pelicans and Hornets issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who lives near Sacramento and knows how much the Kings are loved around here, I personally think this relocation idea stinks. It's exactly what happened to the Sonics when they left for Oklahoma City. Yeah, Seattle wants a team, but at the cost of another cities team? That's not such a good idea. I know Sleep Train Arena is small and can barely work as a main NBA venue these days, but damn...

What should happen is that the Kings banners stay in their arena, and the Sonics banners stay in their own. Just leave everything alone, the NBA is already getting :censored: enough up with the Pelicans and Hornets issue.

Honestly, I think if another "Kings" arrives in Sacramento, they will reclaim all of their history. I know this irritates a few on here, but that's probably what will happen. We don't want the history of the Kings and I respect their history and it is a shame that Sacramento is losing their team. We know how it feels. But it will be a great feeling here to have the SuperSonics back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad someone's white-knighting the Kings' history, but really, there's not much there. You can say they're tied with Seattle for one unforgettable championship, but at least the Sonics' was in Seattle. And had one player you can name.

I think even the hardest core Kings fan will admit that the Sonics were relevant in a way the Kings -- outside of a few years in the early 2000s -- never were. One of the things that made the Webber/Bibby/Divac/etc teams so great was that it was the Kings finally doing something after decades of simply existing. There team histories and general prestige within the league, really aren't comparable. The Sonics were among the western conference's better teams for a good part of 20 years. They made conference finals multiple times and played the Jordan Bulls in the finals. Their last couple of years in Seattle were pretty bad, but they did win their division as recently as 2004-2005.

The Seattle Sonics' overall league record was 1745-1585. The Sacramento Kings is 956-1253. The Kings' overall franchise is 2362-2722. In fact, the only iteration of the Kings' franchise to have an overall winning record was the Rochester Royals from 1949-1957. Sacramento made the playoffs 10 times; Seattle 22. Sacramento won their division twice; Seattle six times. And Sacramento has 0 conference titles; Seattle 3. (all data from here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/)

It's nice to root for the underdog, and we all did that back in 2002. But to tell Seattle sports fans "Suck it, you're Kings fans now" is wrong-headed to me. I don't see any good reason that we can't all just pretend the Sonics were on a few-years hiatus and they're back. It's the way the city will treat the franchise, its last great draft pick playing elsewhere notwithstanding. I said it somewhere else, but sports are really, really silly. If you can accept it's entertaining for guys wear to brightly colored uniforms and toss a ball in either end of a wooden playing field for an hour, you can accept that franchise histories are fungible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kings shouldn't have their lineage erased because it's historically significant to the historic narrative of pro basketball.

People would support the Seattle Kings anyway because that's what fans do.

Fans don't own anything, as warm and fuzzy as the idea may make some people.

The forty years of Sonics history should belong to the Oklahoma City Thunder.

I agree with this post, but I am ok with the Kings taking on the Super Sonics name. That would add to their (the Royals/Kings) history, but I'm of the position that you can't pretend this is the old Sonics team and the one in OKC is some kind of expansion team that began in 2006, or worse, "share" the old history. That's dishonestly resetting history.

The bolded sentence above is true - the Seattle fans will support and rally around this team no matter what they're called, but thankfully for them they will be called the Super Sonics so they will at least have that.

The Twins and the Rangers in baseball have acknowledged lineage to the two Senators teams - it's historically correct and fans still support and love their hometown teams. It doesn't erase the true history those franchises experienced while playing as the Senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Seattle would accept anything other than SuperSonics.

I miss this guy...

seattle-supersonics.jpg

This is easily the most life-like mascot in sports. You could throw this guy in the middle of the wilderness and someone would believe it's bigfoot. I mean, if you put the Pistons' Hooper in a farmyard, no one is going to mistake him for a horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to any Oklahoma City fans do you care about the 1979 Sonics championship.

The answer is no most likely because their team did not win that title.

Yes that team came from Seattle but who cares they did not become fans until they became OKC.

Yes we should recognize that this Seattle team is not the same in 2006 but you can say that about every team because most of the players & coaches are gone after a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Thunder fan, no. There's no banner hanging in Chesapeake Arena saying 1979 NBA Champs. In fact, all those banners are locked away somewhere in Seattle. I don't get excited to watch old Gary Payton highlights. Detlef Schrempf doesn't make me weak in the knees. And the THUNDER have never won a championship...yet.

However, when the deal was finalized to move the team to OKC there were some provisions that will be interesting to see how they play out. For one, it says the Thunder and Sonics have a "shared" history. Meaning OKC can claim the titles, but Seattle can as well if/when a team moves back. That makes it all the trickier as to what to do with the Kings' history.

Also, Clay Bennet technically owns the Sonics name and logo, however he agreed in the settlement to turn it over no-contest when they get a new team, pending league approval.

Fun fact: the guy inside the 'Squatch suit moved to OKC with the team and is now Rumble.

Share this post


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