Rumor: Kings moving to Seattle, will become Sonics

[Phrazbit]

Tell that to Lakers fans who gladly revel in Minnesota's accomplishments.

They're idiots. None of them can sit back and say "remember how great ... blah blah blah finals was (when the team was in Minnesota)". If they move had happened now with a more entrenched sense of history in the league there is no way that the Lakers would have gotten to take the name or trophies with them.

I am very glad that leagues are now changing the way they handle franchise moves. Its how it should be.

 

[BC867]

They're idiots. None of them can sit back and say "remember how great ... blah blah blah finals was (when the team was in Minnesota)". If they move had happened now with a more entrenched sense of history in the league there is no way that the Lakers would have gotten to take the name or trophies with them.

I am very glad that leagues are now changing the way they handle franchise moves. Its how it should be.

There are two strong opinions about teams relocating and taking their identity with them. It looks like there will continue to be two valid opinions.

But in response to your opening sentence, were Lakers fans really idiots for accepting the team's ID and history as well as the team itself, just as they later did with the Dodgers? I don't think so.

When the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson moved from N.Y. to L.A., they didn't change the name of the show, just the locale.

But, as previously posted, the "Utah Jazz" made no sense for a team relocating from New Orleans.

 

[chickenhead]

If a team moves and changes their name, I think the former city should have the right to use the name again. The "history" is a little harder to
leave, because there will be players who were on the team at the time of the move, and it wouldn't make sense to take away their franchise numbers.

But I tend to associate a team with the city as well, and wouldn't "follow" a team. I was actually an Expos fan, and once they moved to DC that was the end of it. Within a few years there wasn't any continuity to the roster anyway. They have a different name, different uniforms, and play in a different city. Yes, Vladimir Guerrero's Expos numbers are part of the Nationals history now, but in essence they are a different team to me. I guess the same could be said for the Senators who became the Twins, and the Senators who became the Rangers.

 

[Phrazbit]

There are two strong opinions about teams relocating and taking their identity with them. It looks like there will continue to be two valid opinions.

But in response to your opening sentence, were Lakers fans really idiots for accepting the team's ID and history as well as the team itself, just as they later did with the Dodgers? I don't think so.

When the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson moved from N.Y. to L.A., they didn't change the name of the show, just the locale.

But, as previously posted, the "Utah Jazz" made no sense for a team relocating from New Orleans.

It wasnt the "New York Show". Its like saying that if Carson's show were called "Johnny Carson's Empire State Show" that they would still call it that in LA. And the fans of Carson's show were national, they didnt derive their revenue from the local area.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

But, as previously posted, the "Utah Jazz" made no sense for a team relocating from New Orleans.

It really and truly didn't at the time.. However, after 30+ years in Salt Lake City, the name Jazz is associated far more with Utah and all the accomplishments they've had (0 NBA titles notwithstanding) make it almost an impossibility to change the name.

In a correct world and history of franchises is thrown out the window, Utah becomes the Grizzlies, Memphis becomes the Kings, Charlotte regains the Hornet moniker and New Orleans gains the name Jazz back.