OT: NBA Sacramento sale moves along
View Single Post
01-27-2013, 11:27 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally Posted by
Legacy is based on popularity. The media harped more on the loss of the Sonics than the creation of the Thunder which is held over Stern's head rather than the good that came from OKC.
This time around it's the return of the Sonics which gets most of the press which in this effort will make Stern look good even with the loss of Sacramento. Just to add to that it also means getting rid of the worst owners in the NBA which will make Stern's legacy look that much better.
His legacy will be that he brought back a franchise to a city that lost its team, not that he lost the Kings. For Pete's sake this would be the 2nd time the Kings have moved since he was commissioner. Does anyone even remember Kansas City at this point?
Same can be said for Bettman and Winnipeg. Winnipeg's loss was a bigger deal than Phoenix getting a team and Winnipeg getting a team back was bigger than Atlanta losing a team(again).
Some teams are just more iconic/memoriable than others and in this case, Sonics > Kings.
One problem with this whole spiel. You're vastly underestimating the hit the NBA will take by moving the Kings at this point. Your Winnipeg example actually is closer to identifying the current Kings situation than Seattle. Seattle has three other teams in that area to identify with. Sacramento has none. The Kings were more relevant to this league in recent history than Seattle was on the court. That doesn't even matter really.
The big key here is that the NBA will take a huge hit as a league when the fans AND their local government support the franchise and do what they're asked to do and it's still not enough. Seattle, at the time, didn't get one put together and yes ownership had something to do with it but they didn't get to the point that Sacramento has gotten to and had it ripped away from them. There's a reason why Stern keeps giving Sacramento more and more opportunities. They've been putting the work together and he knows that this market solely identifies with one of his franchises. If they relocate this franchise, it is at best no different than having to move Seattle. The league doesn't gain any good image-wise from this relocation.
No matter what your views are on the franchises in terms of who is more iconic, this market has proven that it values its franchise more than most that have had their team longer or have more people or resources at their disposal to support it. The Kansas City example is a horrible one. Nobody cared about the franchise in KC and it was nowhere near the support the same franchise got here with by and large the same on-court results.
The important part is that your argument is baseless. What proves that your statement is accurate that the Sonics are more iconic than the Kings? It's nothing more than your opinion and that's fine to have but it doesn't make it right.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Pinkfloyd