The Sonics' Pending Move

[teke184 0]

And stern has told the seattle they won't get a team in the future unless they allow the team to leave. How is that not strongarming.

 

This wasn't their best chance to get a team. There teams in failing markets right now that would be giddy to get moved.

 

They are jacking a team with 40 years of history from a fanbase that still wants their team.

 

Like, how in the FUCK did Charlotte even get another team. No one gave one tiny bit of a shit when the Hornets left. Yet Stern is telling them that if they don't break their contract for his friend, he will block them ever getting a team.

 

How can you NOT see something wrong with this.

 

Charlotte's problems with the Hornets were mainly centered around Hornets owner George Shinn, who was publicly accused of rape by a woman. He defeated her civil suit against him, but his reputation in Charlotte was ruined and people didn't want to throw money his way.

 

The city's politicians, after a failed vote on a new arena, set an ultimatum for the Hornets - Shinn sells to someone else and the team gets a new arena.

 

(The vote failed because the Charlotte mayor vetoed a "living wage" bill shortly before the referendum and, in response, the black ministers of Charlotte lead a grass-roots campaign to kill the arena funding.)

 

 

Shinn's response to the ultimatum was to revive the notion of moving the team, later settling on New Orleans.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I hate this because it's bad for Seattle, bad for the northwest, bad for the Blazers...

 

I don't get this because it seems like it's bad for the NBA.

 

Seattle/Portland is a natural rivalry, but the two teams have never really been great at the same time. With Oden and Durant landing in the two cities at the same time, it seemed like that time had come. It sucks that we wont be able to see that now.

 

Plus, Oklahoma City? This is the next NBA town? I mean no offense to anyone, but it's boring. It's fucking boring. I can't even get up for the new name/uniform. We'll see if it ends up being like Sacramento and Portland, but I don't think supporting a heartbreak team for a limited basis means you're a viable NBA city. Portland sells out arenas when Premier League teams come visit, but we wouldn't sell out a whole season.

[Guest blame that goot.]

Sacramento wasn't even a success as an NBA market until the mid to late '90s, right? The Kings were god-awful for a long time and played inside a converted office complex. It's not like they were a cherished local institution.

 

I find it interesting that the two dissenting votes were Mark Cuban (get off my de facto territory) and Paul Allen (give me my money-making rivalry back). Where was Herbie Kohl (D-Wisc.) to stand up for the underdog? As for the city being boring, if NBA players can find a way to cause trouble in Indianapolis, boring doesn't matter. I wonder if David Stern has considered moving a team to Omaha yet.

[cabbageboy 0]

Yeah but Indy is at least in a big state for basketball, but even still the Pacers are the worst drawing team in the league. I'd blame that more on everything they've done since the 2004 brawl in Detroit than on the fans however.

 

I don't get this Sonics move to OKC. Or well I get the logic behind it from the ownership end, but I can't see how this is good for the NBA. I've never been a Sonics fan particularly, but I can't fathom that team moving somewhere else. Think about it, if someone told you in 1996 that the SuperSonics would leave Seattle for OKC (where the federal building had been blown up), wouldn't that just sound insane on every level?

 

OKC has shown that they are worthy of having a team, but that team should be the Hornets in some sort of split deal, though I have no idea how playoff home games would go. But to leave a major market like Seattle to go to a mid level city in a football state with no serious history of basketball (okay maybe OK A & M in the 40s) just seems like a backward move. It would be like if the Rockets had actually gone through with the idea of moving to Louisville in the late 90s.

[Damaramu 0]

As for the city being boring, if NBA players can find a way to cause trouble in Indianapolis, boring doesn't matter. I wonder if David Stern has considered moving a team to Omaha yet.

 

 

I honestly don't see how the city is boring. I really don't know what people want exactly. Unless people still have that perception that we're fighting Indians and going to the bathroom in outhouses. I had a friend in HS move from San Diego and she seriously thought that. She said she was shocked to arrive and find out it was an actual state with actual cities.

 

So I'm not sure where the "boring" thing is coming from. Plus, Chris Paul said it was a great city and he had fun there. I know a lot of the Hornets had a lot of fun in the city.

[Maztinho 0]

Salt Lake City has a team, can we can the OKC is boring talk? It doesn't matter. Also wouldn't that be better that the city is boring, since people would be more likely to go to games?

 

[Golgo 13 0]

Salt Lake City has a team, can we can the OKC is boring talk? It doesn't matter. Also wouldn't that be better that the city is boring, since people would be more likely to go to games?

 

No. Because without becoming a winning franchise or throwing around a lot of money, the question is how they would be able to draw free agents and get their picks to stay. OKC may be boring, it may not be, but I can't see what it could offer that another, more desirable city couldn't.

 

I hate this move through and through. It speaks of corruption and I can't see how anyone but those living in the area can support it.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The Rockets and Trail Blazers already use silver and red.

No they don't.

[Guest blame that goot.]

Pretty sure there's some silver in both teams' color schemes.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Pretty sure there's some silver in both teams' color schemes.

 

Naw nigga.

[Guest blame that goot.]

And there's silver on the Rockets' road jerseys and other associated apparel. Red and silver are their colors. Come on, don't step to me on graphics stuff.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

And there's silver on the Rockets' road jerseys and other associated apparel. Red and silver are their colors. Come on, don't step to me on graphics stuff.

 

 

 

The Blazers might have it in the logo, but they don't wear it. Red, white and black are the colors.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

 

I'd say it's more like red and white.

[Guest blame that goot.]

The Wikipedia pages for both teams list silver as team colors HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY BE ARGUING THIS ANY FURTHER

[Guest Vitamin X]

BECAUSE IT'S WIKIPEDIA!

 

If you want to get into semantics, the Blazers' team colors are red and black with silver trim. Even if you go to their website, you'll see this is the case, and the only silver there is in the text. There's virtually none on the uniform, and the only reason I'd imagine it's on the logo is to create a contrast against the black bacground. Houston, however, doesn't have silver in the logo, and again, only silver trimming on their uniforms.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

The Wikipedia pages for both teams list silver as team colors HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY BE ARGUING THIS ANY FURTHER

 

Wikipedia says I'm a notable alumnus of my high school is how.

[Golgo 13 0]

 

I think what people are arguing is that it's not a dominant or primary color, but that doesn't matter. If it's in the logo and uniform, it's one of their colors, and in the case of the Rockets road uniform it does play a strong part. It isn't white. It's silver. Silver. Not white.

[Damaramu 0]

I was thinking more of a dominant silver jersey with red trim.....more burgundy than red actually.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Sacramento wasn't even a success as an NBA market until the mid to late '90s, right? The Kings were god-awful for a long time and played inside a converted office complex. It's not like they were a cherished local institution.

This is relative; the Kings were awful, but they sold the place out. Four hundred ninety-seven consecutive sellouts from 25 October 1985 until 2 November 1997, which is 4th-longest of all time, IIRC. And then they started another streak after they signed Webber, which had been the longest active streak until this season... Now whether or not you consider that a success as an NBA market depends on your point of view, I guess.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I think what people are arguing is that it's not a dominant or primary color, but that doesn't matter. If it's in the logo and uniform, it's one of their colors, and in the case of the Rockets road uniform it does play a strong part. It isn't white. It's silver. Silver. Not white.

Okay, I'll definitely agree with you there. But if it doesn't play a strong part of the uniform, I really don't think you can say "yeah, that's their color. No one else should use it because it rips off this other team." Saying silver is too much a part of the Blazer's uniform is almost like saying coral orange is too much a part of the Dolphins' uniform and no one else should use it. You can barely see the silver on the Blazers' unis, although on closer inspection, it's certainly there.

I was thinking more of a dominant silver jersey with red trim.....more burgundy than red actually.

Red would work just fine. If it was just red and silver (with white trim) it would work nice, I think.

 

[Golgo 13 0]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it's one of their colors and absolutely no one else can use it, just that it's definitely a part of both. I would hate for more red and silver/white/black combinations to become the next trend anyway, there's already enough of that as it is. If not the Rockets, it would surely evoke any of the other... I'm guessing six or so teams where red already plays a strong part. Yes, with silver and red it would inevitably lead to red as a dominant in some form, only making things worse. I wouldn't want any of that after the influx of blue or even worse trends like turquoise and teal in the 90s.

[Guest blame that goot.]

The NBA has a rule against black uniforms, anyway, except for teams that are grandfathered in. Too gangsta, according to Stern. That's why everyone just wears navy blue now.

[Damaramu 0]

The NBA has a rule against black uniforms, anyway, except for teams that are grandfathered in. Too gangsta, according to Stern. That's why everyone just wears navy blue now.

 

You gotta be shittin' me.

[Broward83 0]

I gotta agree with Czech, we do have silver as a color for the team. Granted its on the red uni's and its only trim, but on that jersey.. its pretty much the only other "big" color aside from the white text.

 

Then again, I'd be more than happy with Houston going back to the mid-90's red/yellow/orange scheme and shift the logo back to said timeframe's logo.

 

On the topic at hand..I hate the Sonics moving. I was never a huge fan of them but to see a city lose its team sucks. I should know..having the Oilers just up and move to Tennessee has left me bitter towards the now Titans and the owner. Of course, his actions after the move (interview on TV saying that he'd place the superbowl ring on his middle finger.. a gesture towards Houston..doesn't sit well with me, also his blocking Houston from using any of the Oilers color scheme or team history) have made me hate him even more.

 

I don't want to see the OKC team fail per se.. I'd just like maybe to see it sit in mediocrity.. always a 9th or 10th seed with maybe an 8th seed here or there for them to get smashed out of the playoffs.

[Guest blame that goot.]

I'm only speculating, but I have a feeling that they initially wanted to revert to red and yellow if not for reservations about it being too obvious of an overture to the Chinese market. I could be way off, but that was my theory as to why they went to an entirely new color scheme.

 

Staying in that vein, the Supersonics have some of the best uniforms in the league, and it'll suck to lose those. Unique among a league where every damn team seems to wear navy blue (often with light blue). What an odd fad. At least we made it out of that stretch of leaguewide purple.

 

http://www.sportslogos.net/images/logos/6/...ufjua3efwvx.gif

This was really cool. They should've added the skyline to the main logo instead of just a circle with an S.

 

Yeah, this would've been cool. The 1996 Bulls-fodder stuff was pretty crappy, though a product of its time.

[River City Rocker 0]

I'm against the move, mostly because I never considered Oklahoma City a first choice for an expansion team, or a relocated one. Aren't there a few other cities out west that sound like a more attractive market for a new or established team? Las Vegas? San Diego? Hell, either Kansas City or St. Louis?

 

Keep the Sonics in Seattle.

[JHawk 0]

Would it fucking kill these teams to at least play out their leases with the city?

 

Art Modell moved his team to Baltimore with three years left on a lease with Cleveland. Advantage Cleveland in the long run, but the NFL basically encouraged somebody to breach a fucking contract.

 

Now it's David Stern not only encouraging the Sonics ownership to breach their contract with Seattle, but actually telling Seattle they'll never get another team if they try to enforce it.

 

Honestly, I don't give a damn if they move or not provided they at least play out their lease.

[Precious Roy 0]

I think at this point Seattle should just make a deal for the name/colors/future team if they get a new arena and move on. It really sucks that the Sonics are moving and I really wish they weren't, but at best they get two years of a lameduck Sonics team and kill their chances at getting a new one. That doesn't benefit anyone. Stern is a fucking prick, they need to suck it up and play nice.

 

I agree with Teke about Schultz. Yeah, there was very little if any "good faith" from Bennett about keeping the team in Seattle, but nobody forced Schultz to sell outside of the state and the reason he sold in the first place was he couldn't get the state to build him an arena. I would think Stern and his lawyers will destroy Schultz.

 

I generally think it's bullshit when taxpayers are expected to pay for what amount to private arenas. Subsidizing the cost because of what it can bring to the city to create jobs, revenue, support locally owned businesses etc., absolutely, that's reasonable and fair. But when the concern is luxury boxes, higher capacity and just generally reasons to grab more money from the very same taxpayers, and they expect the state to pay for it like it's some absolute privilege that their presence is being graced by a pro sports team, well, fuck that. Get the fucking rich as hades NBA and all the corporate sponsors to chip in, it's not like a state like Washington is so awash in cash that it doesn't have anything better to spend the money on.

[Damaramu 0]

I'm against the move, mostly because I never considered Oklahoma City a first choice for an expansion team, or a relocated one. Aren't there a few other cities out west that sound like a more attractive market for a new or established team? Las Vegas? San Diego? Hell, either Kansas City or St. Louis?

 

Keep the Sonics in Seattle.

 

Because once they hosted the Hornets everyone realized they were able to support an NBA city and everyone felt they were the most deserving city. The whole Hornets deal skyrocketed them up to #1 on the list of cities that need an NBA team.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I was pretty young when the Browns were moved to Baltimore. To me, the team in Cleveland seems like the same old Browns as always. Do the older people here feel the same way? Like the Browns just took a few years off?

 

If Seattle gets another team, is it going to feel like the old one?