Why don't the lakers have individual banners for the Minneapolis Lakers Titles?

[wegotthabeet]

They really shouldn't count titles from when these franchises were located in a different city. When did OKC win one championship? They didn't. It should just be treated as such. What happens when Seattle gets there team back? If they get their history back then all of a sudden OKC has zero titles again. It's a lame practice in general.

Here's the real title count.

1. Boston Celtics - 17
2. LA Lakers - 12
3. Chicago Bulls - 6
4. Golden State Warriors - 5
5. San Antonio - 5
6. Miami Heat - 3
7. Detroit Pistons - 3
8. New York Knicks - 2
9. Houston Rockets - 2
10. Milwaukee Bucks - 2
11. Cleveland Cavs - 1
12. Dallas Mavericks - 1
13. Portland Trail Blazers - 1
14. Toronto Raptors - 1
15. Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
16. The rest of the NBA - 0

[GWVan]

'49 wasn't even the NBA it was the BAA, same for the Philadelphia Warriors championship in 47, does Golden State hang a banner for that one? Do the Wizards hang the Baltimore bullets banner for 48?

[AbeVigodaLive]

Whether a franchise includes previous incarnations in other cities is often simply by convenience. The Lakers are probably just the most obvious, blatant and egregious.

Somebody mentioned the Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins. Well... the Senators were arguably the worst franchise of the first 60+ years of MLB. So it's no surprise the Twins don't really celebrate futility in a city far away.

The vaunted New York Yankees started out in Baltimore. But because of the short stint and 100+ years of unmatched success in NY... the Yankees can easily dismiss it.

The Atlanta Hawks originated in Buffalo. Then moved to Moline, Illinois and played in THREE different cities at once, then moved to Milwaukee. And then to St. Louis. And finally to Atlanta. What the heck do Hawks fans and the organization do with that mess?

The Baltimore Colts sneaked out of town in the middle of the night to hide from angry local fans. The Indianapolis Colts sorta claim that history... but so does the Baltimore Ravens... a franchise that was taken away from the loyal fans of Cleveland in a similar manner by a different rich guy. They do not have rights to the Browns historical stuff.

____

So in the end, it's either by convenience... or legal maneuvering... about who can claim historical stuff. In the Lakers case, it absolutely has to do with their pursuit of the Celtics titles.

[Ein Sof]

Hold on. I'm sliding into Jeanie's DMs to ask her.

[Ballerhogger]

There isn't enough room in the rafters if they also have had to make room for all the Clippers' title banners.

You mean pacific division title banners

[Optimus_Steel]

Are there any lakes in LA? If not then they should return the name back to Minnesota.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using RealGM mobile app

[Knightfall]

LA kept the name and history for the Lakers so those banners and numbers should be up there retired. They should have the 5 banners for Minnesota Lakers and 2 numbers retired. 99 for Mikan and possibly Clyde Lovelett.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Why don’t the Celtics have separate titles after they traded franchises with the Buffalo Braves?

I mean really the count should be..

LA Clippers 10 titles

Boston Celtics 7 titles

https://celticswire.usatoday.com/lists/nba-boston-celtics-cebraves-swap/

[hoosierdaddy34]

They really shouldn't count titles from when these franchises were located in a different city. When did OKC win one championship? They didn't. It should just be treated as such. What happens when Seattle gets there team back? If they get their history back then all of a sudden OKC has zero titles again. It's a lame practice in general.

Here's the real title count.

1. Boston Celtics - 17
2. LA Lakers - 12
3. Chicago Bulls - 6
4. Golden State Warriors - 5
5. San Antonio - 5
6. Miami Heat - 3
7. Detroit Pistons - 3
8. New York Knicks - 2
9. Houston Rockets - 2
10. Milwaukee Bucks - 2
11. Cleveland Cavs - 1
12. Dallas Mavericks - 1
13. Portland Trail Blazers - 1
14. Toronto Raptors - 1
15. Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
16. The rest of the NBA - 0

Wrong. Here's the real title count based on linear franchise.

LA/Minneapolis Lakers - 17
LA Clippers/Boston Celtics - 10
Boston Celtics/ Buffalo Braves - 7
Chicago Bulls - 6
Golden State Warriors - 5
San Antonio - 5
Miami Heat - 3
Detroit Pistons - 3
New York Knicks - 2
Houston Rockets - 2
Milwaukee Bucks - 2
Cleveland Cavs - 1
Dallas Mavericks - 1
Portland Trail Blazers - 1
Toronto Raptors - 1
Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
The rest of the NBA - 0

You dont get to switch franchises but then get to keep all the historical records of the one you sent away. That’s far more egregious than the Lakers counting Minnesota titles when it’s still the same linear franchise.

[Dick Tate]

You dont get to switch franchises but then get to keep all the historical records of the one you sent away. That’s far more egregious than the Lakers counting Minnesota titles when it’s still the same linear franchise.

I was fortunate to experience the Sonics title and this is an unpopular take in Seattle but I agree with it.
I couldn’t care less if OKC chose to recognize the records/jerseys/whatever. It’s their team now and they can do what they want with it.
What I think is silly is the idea that many have that you could take an expansion team, stamp the name Sonics on it, and expect any sort of continuity.
So really, I guess my main point is, **** Howard Schultz.

[Doctor MJ]

The banner for the Minneapolis year which condences all the titles into one banner is distinct from all the other Laker title banners. It'd be one thing if the Lakers didn't count those titles in their official history, but that isn't the case. They do consider it one franchise and those titles being equal with all the others.

It seems lame to me to count titles for your rivalry with the Celtics but not give those titles the same esteem in your own house.

So count me as someone who absolutely hates that not only do the Lakers give the short shrift to the Minneapolis years, basically everyone ignores their first actual championship because it was in the NBL. Never mind that the Lakers were clearly the best team in the world at the time, we just have to pretend that the NBA's precursor league the BAA had any claim to having the best talent until they sold the Lakers on joining their league.

As we talk about this, and I read the standard comments, some things folks need to remember:

Owners are often more interested in aggrandizing their own accomplishments rather than promoting what the franchise did before them.

In 1972, when the Lakers won their first title in LA, they were owned by Jack Kent Cooke, who bought the team in 1965. It wasn't in his interest to treat that one championship as if it was one out many that had nothing to do with them.

Then Jerry Buss bought the team and he and his family have spent decades trying to make it look like they built the Lakers from scratch, so not in their interest really either.

Folks are right to say that the belated inclusion of the Minneapolis titles to the banners smacks of the ring counting competition with Boston, but they are wrong when they imply those championships don't mean anything.

They don't mean anything to the Buss family, but F the Buss family.

The Laker franchise is the most successful franchise in basketball history because of the success they had in Minneapolis from the jump. If they aren't the dominant team with the best player in the world in the '40s, they don't get invited into the league that becomes the NBA - Minneapolis would be the Western most team in their first year in the league, and were not a big market.

The team then succeeds in LA at the star on the back of a player they drafted while they were in Minneapolis (Elgin Baylor), and another player (Jerry West) drafted by a Minneapolis star then acting as what we'd now call GM (Jim Pollard).

From the perspective of franchises that were starting back from the era, a little start up in Minnesota started what would become the giant of the sport, and those who were involved in beginning that tradition deserve to be honored.

[Johnny Bball]

Why the hell could they not actually write out Minneapolis.

To ensure there’s enough room to accommodate LAkers retired jerseys, LA Kings multiple Stanley cup title banners, LA Sparks multiple championship banners, and some Clippers player posters.

This made me laugh though.

[sp6r=underrated]

Owners are often more interested in aggrandizing their own accomplishments rather than promoting what the franchise did before them.

One thing I loved about Steinbrenner is he always presented himself as a steward of the Yankees dynasty. The Yankees dynasty was far too entrench to allow ignoring the pre-Steinberenner years but neither he or his son gave short shift to the previous regimes. They've always presented themselves as people lucky to own the crown jewel of their sport and responsible for its continued success.

Dicks to managers? Yeah! Unrealistic expectations? Yup!

But Steinbrenners have never presented themselves in the way the Busses, Lacob and so many others do.

[wegotthabeet]

They really shouldn't count titles from when these franchises were located in a different city. When did OKC win one championship? They didn't. It should just be treated as such. What happens when Seattle gets there team back? If they get their history back then all of a sudden OKC has zero titles again. It's a lame practice in general.

Here's the real title count.

1. Boston Celtics - 17
2. LA Lakers - 12
3. Chicago Bulls - 6
4. Golden State Warriors - 5
5. San Antonio - 5
6. Miami Heat - 3
7. Detroit Pistons - 3
8. New York Knicks - 2
9. Houston Rockets - 2
10. Milwaukee Bucks - 2
11. Cleveland Cavs - 1
12. Dallas Mavericks - 1
13. Portland Trail Blazers - 1
14. Toronto Raptors - 1
15. Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
16. The rest of the NBA - 0

Wrong. Here's the real title count based on linear franchise.

LA/Minneapolis Lakers - 17
LA Clippers/Boston Celtics - 10
Boston Celtics/ Buffalo Braves - 7
Chicago Bulls - 6
Golden State Warriors - 5
San Antonio - 5
Miami Heat - 3
Detroit Pistons - 3
New York Knicks - 2
Houston Rockets - 2
Milwaukee Bucks - 2
Cleveland Cavs - 1
Dallas Mavericks - 1
Portland Trail Blazers - 1
Toronto Raptors - 1
Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
The rest of the NBA - 0

You dont get to switch franchises but then get to keep all the historical records of the one you sent away. That’s far more egregious than the Lakers counting Minnesota titles when it’s still the same linear franchise.

yeah that's a real stretch. two owners just swapped teams.

[hoosierdaddy34]

They really shouldn't count titles from when these franchises were located in a different city. When did OKC win one championship? They didn't. It should just be treated as such. What happens when Seattle gets there team back? If they get their history back then all of a sudden OKC has zero titles again. It's a lame practice in general.

Here's the real title count.

1. Boston Celtics - 17
2. LA Lakers - 12
3. Chicago Bulls - 6
4. Golden State Warriors - 5
5. San Antonio - 5
6. Miami Heat - 3
7. Detroit Pistons - 3
8. New York Knicks - 2
9. Houston Rockets - 2
10. Milwaukee Bucks - 2
11. Cleveland Cavs - 1
12. Dallas Mavericks - 1
13. Portland Trail Blazers - 1
14. Toronto Raptors - 1
15. Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
16. The rest of the NBA - 0

Wrong. Here's the real title count based on linear franchise.

LA/Minneapolis Lakers - 17
LA Clippers/Boston Celtics - 10
Boston Celtics/ Buffalo Braves - 7
Chicago Bulls - 6
Golden State Warriors - 5
San Antonio - 5
Miami Heat - 3
Detroit Pistons - 3
New York Knicks - 2
Houston Rockets - 2
Milwaukee Bucks - 2
Cleveland Cavs - 1
Dallas Mavericks - 1
Portland Trail Blazers - 1
Toronto Raptors - 1
Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
The rest of the NBA - 0

You dont get to switch franchises but then get to keep all the historical records of the one you sent away. That’s far more egregious than the Lakers counting Minnesota titles when it’s still the same linear franchise.

yeah that's a real stretch. two owners just swapped teams.

WTF? What exactly do you think that means? If you and I swap sandwiches, I no longer have the same sandwich.

The real stretch is questioning a single franchise records because they moved locations while you don’t even have the same franchise but are trying to claim the record of the previous franchise. That takes some crazy delusions to question the former while accepting the latter.

[wegotthabeet]

Wrong. Here's the real title count based on linear franchise.

LA/Minneapolis Lakers - 17
LA Clippers/Boston Celtics - 10
Boston Celtics/ Buffalo Braves - 7
Chicago Bulls - 6
Golden State Warriors - 5
San Antonio - 5
Miami Heat - 3
Detroit Pistons - 3
New York Knicks - 2
Houston Rockets - 2
Milwaukee Bucks - 2
Cleveland Cavs - 1
Dallas Mavericks - 1
Portland Trail Blazers - 1
Toronto Raptors - 1
Washington Wizards (Bullets) - 1
The rest of the NBA - 0

You dont get to switch franchises but then get to keep all the historical records of the one you sent away. That’s far more egregious than the Lakers counting Minnesota titles when it’s still the same linear franchise.

yeah that's a real stretch. two owners just swapped teams.

WTF? What exactly do you think that means? If you and I swap sandwiches, I no longer have the same sandwich.

The real stretch is questioning a single franchise records because they moved locations while you don’t even have the same franchise but are trying to claim the record of the previous franchise. That takes some crazy delusions to question the former while accepting the latter.

except the Celtics never actually moved. they just stayed in Boston and got a new owner. you forgot that minute detail. we counting chips every time a team changes owners? of course not. changing cities that's another thing.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Fans don't care about owners, Celtics have 17 championships. Arguments otherwise by Lakers fans reinforce the argument that Minesota Laker championships don't count.

But If a new expansion team not named Supersonics shows up in Seattle and wins a championship do you count the Seattle team as having 1 or 2 championships. The City would have 2 championships but the team would have one Championship.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Nice try Celtics fans for the weak spin and inaccuracies …I’ll defer to Russ Granik who was on the leagues general counsel overseeing the swap.

“My understanding, as best as I can remember, is that the current Celtics team is a successor to the Buffalo Braves,’’ Russ Granik, former deputy commissioner of the N.B.A., said in a telephone conversation on Tuesday. He was the N.B.A.’s assistant general counsel in 1978.

And that would mean that the current Clippers team is the successor to the Boston Celtics?

“Yes,’’ Granik said. “In a strictly legal sense.”


The Lakers 17 are far more legitimate than the Celtics 17. I can’t wait for the lame takes that how the legal paperwork was drawn up doesn’t matter.

Going to take the word of the general counsel at the time on how it was legally written up over a couple hurt feelings Celtics fans.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Fans don't care about owners, Celtics have 17 championships. Arguments otherwise by Lakers fans reinforce the argument that Minesota Laker championships don't count.

But If a new expansion team not named Supersonics shows up in Seattle and wins a championship do you count the Seattle team as having 1 or 2 championships. The City would have 2 championships but the team would have one Championship.

The NBA counts the Sonics championship for OKC.

And all the old Sonics players as franchise “hall of famers”?

https://www.nba.com/team/1610612760

So what are you talking about?

[Franco]

As far as I'm concerned, the Lakers currently have 12 titles.

If they're not retiring Mikan's number, why the **** should his titles be counted? Lmao