Sharing Seattle's team history - yay or nay?

OKCFan · Post #1 » by **OKCFan** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:12 pm

Personally I think this idea is ludicrous and makes absolutely no sense. Our team history started the day that the former Sonics were released to move to Oklahoma City. This upcoming season will be our first season, and any championships we may win in the future will start with OKC's first championship.

It would feel entirely wrong to see a 1979 championship banner hanging in the rafters at the Ford Center. The people of OKC and the fans had no part in that, and it will have nothing to do with the current team.

Oklahoma City will have its own history soon enough, we absolutely do not need to steal another team's history and claim it as our own...

Post #2 » by **wizkid27** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:23 pm

I totally agree with you

I'm not sure exactly what arrangment the settlement worked out... but I think I remember something about us keeping the historical part (not the name/colors/jerseys), unless the event occurs that Seattle gets a new team. I know that Clay made some comment about that being part of the product they bought from Schultz, but I think I like the idea of starting a new legacy in OKC more.

oksportsguy · Post #3 » by **oksportsguy** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:44 pm

OKCFan wrote:Personally I think this idea is ludicrous and makes absolutely no sense. Our team history started the day that the former Sonics were released to move to Oklahoma City. This upcoming season will be our first season, and any championships we may win in the future will start with OKC's first championship.

It would feel entirely wrong to see a 1979 championship banner hanging in the rafters at the Ford Center. The people of OKC and the fans had no part in that, and it will have nothing to do with the current team.

Oklahoma City will have its own history soon enough, we absolutely do not need to steal another team's history and claim it as our own...

I am somewhat in agreement. The only reason for OKC to keep some part of the old Sonics history is be cause it is part of the history of the team. Should they hang banners from the rafters -NO-, what they should do is set up a place where they can be displayed somewhere in the arena and display the history of the team so fans will know where they come from and what they have done in the past. Like it or not we will always be connected in that sense.

The Favero · Post #4 » by **The Favero** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:45 pm

It's customary for teams chaning cities to talk their old championship banners with them. Two good examples of this are the Lakers and the Hawks. There is however, a precedent of teams who move "giving" the history back to the city they moved from if said city does receive an expansion franchise. The Ravens gave their history back to the Browns when they were granted an expansion franchise.

oksportsguy · Post #5 » by **oksportsguy** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 pm

The Favero wrote:It's customary for teams chaning cities to talk their old championship banners with them. Two good examples of this are the Lakers and the Hawks. There is however, a precedent of teams who move "giving" the history back to the city they moved from if said city does receive an expansion franchise. The Ravens gave their history back to the Browns when they were granted an expansion franchise.

I can live with that, but if someone buys a team in Seattle doesn't that history go along with it or do they take back their old history?

No opinion, just asking.

bmw42690 · Post #6 » by **bmw42690** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:03 pm

Yeah we had no part in their championship. If they put replicas up in a trophy case or something that would fine but they shouldnt put up a banner to hang down from the top.

oksportsguy · Post #7 » by **oksportsguy** » Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:03 pm

Here's another question for everyone.

If the history for the Sonics should stay in Seattle, should the LA Lakers return any records or titles back the the Timberwolves, or that matter any team that has moved to another city return their records back to the city where they started. This starts to get complicated.

sonic-ben · Post #8 » by **sonic-ben** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:14 am

fans have more character than the two faced owner

OKCFan · Post #9 » by **OKCFan** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:05 am

oksportsguy wrote:Here's another question for everyone.

If the history for the Sonics should stay in Seattle, should the LA Lakers return any records or titles back the the Timberwolves, or that matter any team that has moved to another city return their records back to the city where they started. This starts to get complicated.

As of right now, I don't think it is so much a league-regulated thing so much as a self-regulated thing. I think Bennett and Co. should take it upon themselves to do the right thing and leave the history in Seattle. The other franchises should still be free to do as they wish.

At the moment, I still don't think I've met anyone that actually likes the idea of taking the Sonics history and sharing it / hanging a banner. I wonder what sort of petition / what size it would take to not have them do that?

Tony Plow · Post #10 » by **Tony Plow** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:54 am

As far as I am concerned, with the rudeness Bennett was shown in Seattle, he should take the name, colors and history and leave Seattle with his center finger in the air... And still change the name and colors. Seattle wants it back? Fine. Fork over the cash.

Post #11 » by **wizkid27** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:37 am

Aside from just trying to rub it in the faces of the Seattle people, the colors and name were definitely part of the settlement and will be left in Seattle, so there isn't anything to be decided there. From what I know, the history part was a little more vague.

The Favero · Post #12 » by **The Favero** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:40 am

I can live with that, but if someone buys a team in Seattle doesn't that history go along with it or do they take back their old history?

No opinion, just asking.

The only reasons the Ravens gave their history to the expansion Browns was because the Ravens were the original Browns before they moved. When Baltimore gave the people pursuing an expansion team in Cleavland the permission to used the Browns name they also agreed to "give" their history "back" to them. If Seattle gets an expansion team that IS NOT named the Sonics then, in theory, they shouldn't get the Sonics history either.

mnkinga23 · Post #13 » by **mnkinga23** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:41 pm

I heard a lot about "sharing" the history between OKC and Seattle but what does that mean exactly? An example would be if Kevin Durant puts up 70 points in a game and then someone in Seattle puts up 72, who would have the highest scoring mark in the shared franchise records? Can anyone explain?

Tony Plow · Post #14 » by **Tony Plow** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:31 pm

wizkid27 wrote:Aside from just trying to rub it in the faces of the Seattle people, the colors and name were definitely part of the settlement and will be left in Seattle, so there isn't anything to be decided there. From what I know, the history part was a little more vague.

I am aware of that. I am only saying that I am tired of this Kumbayah (sp) attitude. Those people were VERY rude to him, so, as far as I am concerned, Seattle can kiss my (insert whatever).

"Revenge is sweet, sayeth the Lord."

ponder719 · Post #15 » by **ponder719** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:59 pm

Tony Plow wrote:I am aware of that. I am only saying that I am tired of this Kumbayah (sp) attitude. Those people were VERY rude to him, so, as far as I am concerned, Seattle can kiss my (insert whatever).

Wait a minute. I think you need to back up the truck a bit here. "Rude" started happening when the people of Seattle found out that Bennett was planning on taking their basketball team away from them. What the hell kind of reaction did you expect them to have? If someone told me that one of my teams, one of the four reasons I watch professional sports, was going to get ripped away from me on some rich bastard's whim, I wouldn't be taking it lying down, I assure you. And I suspect if someone buys the team away from Bennett and pulls it out of Oklahoma City after a decade or so, you won't be interested in being polite to the man who's taking your team from you.

Tony Plow · Post #16 » by **Tony Plow** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:53 pm

dilbert719 wrote:
Tony Plow wrote:I am aware of that. I am only saying that I am tired of this Kumbayah (sp) attitude. Those people were VERY rude to him, so, as far as I am concerned, Seattle can kiss my (insert whatever).

Wait a minute. I think you need to back up the truck a bit here. "Rude" started happening when the people of Seattle found out that Bennett was planning on taking their basketball team away from them. What the hell kind of reaction did you expect them to have? If someone told me that one of my teams, one of the four reasons I watch professional sports, was going to get ripped away from me on some rich bastard's whim, I wouldn't be taking it lying down, I assure you. And I suspect if someone buys the team away from Bennett and pulls it out of Oklahoma City after a decade or so, you won't be interested in being polite to the man who's taking your team from you.

I have been in cities (or broadcast areas) when teams moved, and NOT ONE of the cities displayed the hostility the people (if you must call them that) of Seattle did. Maybe they were a bit upset. However, they displayed tact and professionalism. I am also aware of WHEN the rudeness started since I did not climb out from under a rock. I stand by my comments.

BTW. As the son of a large business founder, and a business owner myself, I understand these things. Granted. I may be disappointed, but FAR from rude about it. I would simply say "too bad. Now let's move on." Good advise.

Post #17 » by **dflash3** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:17 pm

^But then again the Seattle SuperSonics are a team with a rich history with the franchise having been founded in 1967. When teams are still relatively new compared to teams that have been around for many decades or never got a chance to establish a solid fan base like the Clippers there isn't as huge of an attachment to those team.

And the fact that youre a businessman shows why youre fine with the move. Business is about making money and at times you have to put your emotional feelings aside to make deals.

But, fans don't care about business deals and the potential revenues that can be generated from them. All they care about is rooting for their team. And the Sonics fans showing hostility is a sign of a loyal supporter since they are doing everything they can to keep their team as opposed to casual fans who just admit defeat and don't do anything about it. Its difficult to get a team you have supported for many years to have ripped from you. They have every excuse to be bitter and angry about the relocation.

pr0wler · Post #18 » by **pr0wler** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:53 am

^^

Please don't act like Bennett did nothing wrong. He basically lied to Seattle fans so they have every right to be angry. I'm past what happened since business is business and I don't have any hostility towards his intent of trying to bring a major sports team to his home city, (as opposed to purely money purposes) but please don't say Seattle fans were rude with the underlying tone like they had absolutely no reason to.

McG · Post #19 » by **McG** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:45 pm

Tony Plow wrote:
dilbert719 wrote:I have been in cities (or broadcast areas) when teams moved, and NOT ONE of the cities displayed the hostility the people (if you must call them that) of Seattle did.

I'm guessing this list of cities doesn't include Cleveland or Houston.

Dtown84 · Post #20 » by **Dtown84** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:51 pm

Outside perspective. OKC should leave the history behind, have a fresh start and help everyone move on. Besides it makes everything they accomplish in the future mean that much more, and they won't have to spend years catching up to all the green and yellow in the rafters.

On the 'rude thing', I'm pretty sure Cleveland was 'rude', Baltimore when they lost the Colts too. Really in the modern era these are the only two teams that can really compare to what the Sonics went through. The only reason they didn't do more, was because unlike Seattle they had no legal footing to put up any fight. But you can be damn sure if they had, they would have.

edit: Wow completely forgot about Houston, yeah that wasn't pleasant either.