PDA

View Full Version : If OKC wins the title, will it be their 1st or 2nd title?



JordansBulls
06-14-2012, 12:54 PM
If OKC wins the Title, will it be there 1st Title or 2nd Title?

Right now they have the Sonics history, but let's say the Sonics get a team back or the city of Seattle. Will the 1979 title automatically be given back to Seattle?


Personally if the OKC Thunder wins the title I would consider it there first title, but I'm curious on how you would feel on it. Would you say it is there 1st title personally or would you say it is there 2nd title?

JEDean89
06-14-2012, 01:17 PM
i think it should be their first because a large part of me wants a team to move back to seattle under the name the supersonics. if that happens that organization should be given their 2nd title. kind of a idealistic view but the thunder are not the supersonics. no only a few players that every played in supersonic jersey still play for the thunder.

Jayrich28
06-14-2012, 01:37 PM
2nd the lakers was in minnesota and those r the same titles in la even though minnesota has a team again..plus durant was drafted by seattle .........if seattle gets another team they should change the name

BobbyHillSwag
06-14-2012, 01:38 PM
after thunder 3peat it wont matter about that title in seattle.

JordansBulls
06-14-2012, 01:39 PM
Seattle kept all that stuff temporarily because bennett gave Seattle 5w years to find a new team. If Seattle doesn't get a team by next year, all Seattles history is permanently tied to the thunder.

So if that is true then really it will be OKC's first title then because that history isn't tied to OKC yet.

KnicksorBust
06-14-2012, 01:41 PM
"On June 28, 2007, Durant was taken second overall in the 2007 NBA Draft by the Seattle SuperSonics."

As long as that sentence is attached to his name. I personally consider them linked. It'd be their 2nd title.

Jayrich28
06-14-2012, 01:43 PM
Well seattle wont have a team next year so okc history is theirs

Chronz
06-14-2012, 02:04 PM
wow so they only have another year to retain their teams history? I never knew that, god that sucks

kozelkid
06-14-2012, 02:45 PM
In other news, Clay Bennet is an *******.

Baller1
06-14-2012, 02:49 PM
In other news, Clay Bennet is an *******.

This.

AntiG
06-14-2012, 02:52 PM
if the Lakers took their titles/history from Minnesota to LA, Warriors from Philly to SF, Jazz from NO to Utah and Hawks from StL to ATL... then so should the Thunder/Sonics.

Fever45
06-14-2012, 02:57 PM
If it were to be technical, it would be their second. Other teams have numbers, trophies, etc as a team from a different city (I'm looking at you Lakers), this should be no different.

LAKERMANIA
06-14-2012, 02:59 PM
2nd the lakers was in minnesota and those r the same titles in la even though minnesota has a team again..plus durant was drafted by seattle .........if seattle gets another team they should change the name

The Lakers keep the minneapolis history because they kept the name... The Thunder changed their city and name, it doesn't count anymore (even though I am aware that technically it does because of their agreement.)

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-14-2012, 03:00 PM
And the NOLA Hornets took their history from Charlotte (and a small part of OKC when they had to relocate their for 1 season) even though we have the Bobcats.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-14-2012, 03:01 PM
Also, 2 players that were on that last Sonics team in 07-08 are now on the Thunder and were both drafted by the Sonics to begin their careers: Kevin Durant & Nick Collison.

JordansBulls
06-14-2012, 05:47 PM
The Lakers keep the minneapolis history because they kept the name... The Thunder changed their city and name, it doesn't count anymore (even though I am aware that technically it does because of their agreement.)

This is how I was thinking as well. For instance in the NFL didn't the Houston Oilers become the Tennessee Titans and they got all the history? And now Houston has another team in the Houston Texans and have brand new history.

JasonJohnHorn
06-14-2012, 06:22 PM
Great question. It's odd because the new ownership didn't keep the name, so it would be weird hanging a banner for a team with a different name and city on it, but that is still apart of that franchise's history.

It's like the Lakers hanging the banners for the titles they won in Minnesota. Shouldn't those titles be hung in Minnesota? That is where they were won? The T-Wolves haven't won a title yet, but Minny as a city has won several.

I voted for the first option. The new ownership really seemed to remove themselves from the franchise's history, so I would see it as their first title.

NateyB24
06-14-2012, 08:10 PM
wow so they only have another year to retain their teams history? I never knew that, god that sucks

Nah it's actually shared that was for the Sonics to keep the history all to themselves.

DeRaptor95
06-14-2012, 08:24 PM
Keyword IF

todu82
06-14-2012, 09:14 PM
Their 2nd as they`re carrying Seattle`s history.

Corey
06-14-2012, 09:57 PM
It's funny that so many people are voting 1st title...Yet everyone includes the Minnesota Laker titles when discussing total Laker titles.

Hmm.

AntiG
06-14-2012, 10:05 PM
^ exactly. If the Thunder don't keep the Sonics' title, then the Lakers drop down to 11 NBA championships.

Agar81
06-14-2012, 10:15 PM
It is still the SAME organization that had that history etc. The city didn't have it, the organization did. It will be the second if they win.

JordansBulls
06-15-2012, 12:09 AM
Keyword IF

Yes, because some fans get cocky thinking a series is completely over.

Wolfman01
06-15-2012, 12:47 AM
1st title as the OKC Thunders and 2nd title as a whole franchise.

FriedTofuz
06-15-2012, 12:55 AM
stop making threads, wait till the finals are over, sheesh

THE GIPPER
06-15-2012, 01:09 AM
Also, 2 players that were on that last Sonics team in 07-08 are now on the Thunder and were both drafted by the Sonics to begin their careers: Kevin Durant & Nick Collison.

Westbrook was also drafted by the Supersonics but only played for the Thunder.

Lakers + Giants
06-15-2012, 02:53 AM
Lakers were still the Lakers in Minnesota, that's the difference. They changed location but they kept the name, making it easier to keep the history. The reason some fans consider the Sonics different from the thunder is because they changed BOTH the location and the team name, that's a big *** difference IMO.

AntiG
06-15-2012, 02:58 AM
Lakers were still the Lakers in Minnesota, that's the difference. They changed location but they kept the name, making it easier to keep the history. The reason some fans consider the Sonics different from the thunder is because they changed BOTH the location and the team name, that's a big *** difference IMO.

Yeah, well they figured the old name wouldn't fit and changed it, which is what the Lakers should have done. The Lakers to this day have one of the worst names in sports now due to the fact that the term "Lakers" specifically means Minnesotan. Its kinda like the Chiefs, except the Texans changed their name when they moved to Missouri.

Bottom line is, the hardware and history should always stay with the franchise that moves.

Lakers + Giants
06-15-2012, 03:02 AM
Yeah, well they figured the old name wouldn't fit and changed it, which is what the Lakers should have done. The Lakers to this day have one of the worst names in sports now due to the fact that the term "Lakers" specifically means Minnesotan. Its kinda like the Chiefs, except the Texans changed their name when they moved to Missouri.

Bottom line is, the hardware and history should always stay with the franchise that moves.

I know i NEVER said i agreed to it I was just saying that's why a lot of fans don't think the thunder are the sonics. I agree that the history should stick with the team and not the city.

BTW, i also agree that Lakers is a stupid name, it was a name meant to for the team in Minnesota. Los Angeles Lakers? LMAO what lakes? I got used to it now but I definitely agree it's stupid.

ChitownBears22
06-15-2012, 03:04 AM
Nick Collison was drafted by the Sonics. He stayed with the team though the transition. They are in my opinion the same team.

AntiG
06-15-2012, 12:04 PM
BTW, i also agree that Lakers is a stupid name, it was a name meant to for the team in Minnesota. Los Angeles Lakers? LMAO what lakes? I got used to it now but I definitely agree it's stupid.

Respect. A lot of Lakers fans I've come across when discussing this try to point out the numerous small bodies of water around LA or other stupidity :facepalm:

While as a Celtics fan I'm obviously a Laker hater by default due to the rivalry, but the name itself has long been one of my biggest pet peeves in sports regardless of my feelings for your team hahaha

Lakers + Giants
06-15-2012, 12:16 PM
Respect. A lot of Lakers fans I've come across when discussing this try to point out the numerous small bodies of water around LA or other stupidity :facepalm:

While as a Celtics fan I'm obviously a Laker hater by default due to the rivalry, but the name itself has long been one of my biggest pet peeves in sports regardless of my feelings for your team hahaha

Haha, I've always disliked the name cuz it has nothing to do with LA. I also got to admit, I like Boston's white jerseys more than any jersey we have. . .still though, **** boston. :p

LAKERMANIA
06-15-2012, 12:53 PM
Haha, I've always disliked the name cuz it has nothing to do with LA. I also got to admit, I like Boston's white jerseys more than any jersey we have. . .still though, **** boston. :p

:pity:

al232323
06-15-2012, 01:00 PM
It will be the first because the sonics and thunder are two different teams even though they just moved the old roster to the OKC.

Lakers + Giants
06-15-2012, 01:10 PM
:pity:

Haha, I never liked the newer models. I've always liked the 80's/90's home and away ones way more. I also think our sunday white jerseys suck tbh. I ****in wish we would wear these. . .

Home: http://www.buynbajersey.com/images/NBA%20Jerseys/Los-Angeles-Lakers-44-West-Jersey.jpg

Road: http://www.wholesalejerseysauthentic.com/pic/Jerry-West-Jersey-Blue-Throwback---2344-Los-Angeles-Lakers-Jersey-5204-27958.jpg

Corey
06-15-2012, 01:32 PM
It will be the first because the sonics and thunder are two different teams even though they just moved the old roster to the OKC.

Except they aren't two different teams. They're the same team.

TrueFan420
06-15-2012, 01:57 PM
if the Lakers took their titles/history from Minnesota to LA, Warriors from Philly to SF, Jazz from NO to Utah and Hawks from StL to ATL... then so should the Thunder/Sonics.

The difference is Seattle sued for the history and won but it was posted that a time frame was attached to them getting a team and keepin the history

LAKERMANIA
06-15-2012, 04:34 PM
if the Lakers took their titles/history from Minnesota to LA, Warriors from Philly to SF, Jazz from NO to Utah and Hawks from StL to ATL... then so should the Thunder/Sonics.


It's funny that so many people are voting 1st title...Yet everyone includes the Minnesota Laker titles when discussing total Laker titles.

Hmm.

Here, let me clarify... The Supersonics won that title as the Seattle Supersonics... if the Sonics moved to OKC and kept the name 'Supersonics', then the new team still has a reason to identify with the old Sonics teams...

BUT THEY DIDN'T

Because they decided to distance themselves from the Sonics name, and therefore, wanting to distance themselves from the title the SUPERSONICS won... That's why I believe it is their first title.

Also regarding the Lakers point, the Minneapolis Lakers won 5 titles, when they moved to LA, they wanted to still be known as the same team that won those 5 titles in Minneapolis, but in a different city. They kept the name, and the legacy because the name and legacy are synonymous.

There is and always will be one Seattle Supersonics. The Thunder simply aren't the Supersonics.

Bruno
06-15-2012, 04:48 PM
I don't think so. if they took the sonics name to Oklahoma city, i'd say yes. but its a new team name, i dono.

AntiG
06-15-2012, 05:26 PM
:pity:

sorry, but purple and yellow are ugly as **** together. LA should have come up with a new team name and color scheme.

AntiG
06-15-2012, 05:28 PM
Haha, I never liked the newer models. I've always liked the 80's/90's home and away ones way more. I also think our sunday white jerseys suck tbh. I ****in wish we would wear these. . .

Home: http://www.buynbajersey.com/images/NBA%20Jerseys/Los-Angeles-Lakers-44-West-Jersey.jpg

Road: http://www.wholesalejerseysauthentic.com/pic/Jerry-West-Jersey-Blue-Throwback---2344-Los-Angeles-Lakers-Jersey-5204-27958.jpg

That is more like it. Those are sick. Much better than the uglies that they wear now, as well as the ugly court.

LAKERMANIA
06-15-2012, 05:40 PM
That is more like it. Those are sick. Much better than the uglies that they wear now, as well as the ugly court.

:eyebrow: The Gold and Purple is ICONIC.. And it's bad together in any other instance, but looks amazing on the basketball court..

Oh well, to each their own I guess

topdog
06-15-2012, 05:58 PM
sorry, but purple and yellow are ugly as **** together. LA should have come up with a new team name and color scheme.

What if the NBA sat its odd-named teams down and arranged the biggest trade of all time:

The Kings move to Seattle and become the Sonics.

The Lakers become the Kings - an attempt at merging the fanbases though it's disappointing for anyone to lose a team.

The Wolves become the Lakers.

The Bobcats become the Hornets.

The Hornets become the Jazz.

The Jazz choose Wolves, Bobcats, or something similar like Coyotes (slight alterations to Wolves logo), Cougars or Fishers (slight alteration of Bobcats logo).

Titles and accolades stay with the franchises wherever they moved to (no one wants to forfeit the legacy of their team i.e. current Lakers want to claim all those titles).

topdog
06-15-2012, 06:01 PM
Although it will seem odd to say the Thunder have their second title if they win, the precedent has already been set long ago that the franchise keeps the accolades and it makes sense in the fact that it is a business and the teams are not owned by nor the players from these states/cities.

IDB Josh M
06-15-2012, 06:18 PM
According to this article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nba/2008035531_soni06.html

If they win, OKC Thunder can consider that their second title.

edit: And aparently, Seattle can too consider this to be their second title.

Lakers + Giants
06-15-2012, 06:53 PM
That is more like it. Those are sick. Much better than the uglies that they wear now, as well as the ugly court.

A celtics fan with the same taste as me, damn, I think I might be sick or high. . . :p



:eyebrow: The Gold and Purple is ICONIC.. And it's bad together in any other instance, but looks amazing on the basketball court..

Oh well, to each their own I guess

I have to agree, it would be a ****in travesty if they ever changed their colors now, too much history now to make a big change like that. I just wish they would use throwbacks more often. It seems like every team always uses different jerseys while lakers never wear throwbacks. :mad:

Bruno
06-15-2012, 07:49 PM
sorry, but purple and yellow are ugly as **** together. LA should have come up with a new team name and color scheme.

no way. purple and gold is royal :win:

JordansBulls
06-15-2012, 09:54 PM
Here, let me clarify... The Supersonics won that title as the Seattle Supersonics... if the Sonics moved to OKC and kept the name 'Supersonics', then the new team still has a reason to identify with the old Sonics teams...

BUT THEY DIDN'T

Because they decided to distance themselves from the Sonics name, and therefore, wanting to distance themselves from the title the SUPERSONICS won... That's why I believe it is their first title.

Also regarding the Lakers point, the Minneapolis Lakers won 5 titles, when they moved to LA, they wanted to still be known as the same team that won those 5 titles in Minneapolis, but in a different city. They kept the name, and the legacy because the name and legacy are synonymous.

There is and always will be one Seattle Supersonics. The Thunder simply aren't the Supersonics.

I think this is why it is an interesting debate because of the name change as well.

AntiG
06-16-2012, 01:02 AM
no way. purple and gold is royal :win:

just because they like to pretend that its gold, don't make it gold. it's 100% yellow.

asandhu23
06-16-2012, 01:21 AM
if the Lakers took their titles/history from Minnesota to LA, Warriors from Philly to SF to Oakland and back to SF, Jazz from NO to Utah and Hawks from StL to ATL... then so should the Thunder/Sonics.

fixed.

bagwell368
06-16-2012, 06:11 AM
It would be the 2nd of course.

You guys that didn't see that Sonics team should get some tape. Gus Johnson and Dennis Johnson as young pups - and great ones too. Very unusual team for the period being guard driven in a Center driven league.

PhillyFaninLA
06-16-2012, 07:06 AM
IMO OKC would have 1 but the franchise would have 2

naps
06-16-2012, 08:06 AM
1st.

I can never imagine OKC as the Thunder. Those Thunder memories will forever be in my heart in a different box. OKC has a completely new chamber for me. Gary Payton said he would never want to see Thunder retire his jersey.

naps
06-16-2012, 08:08 AM
just because they like to pretend that its gold, don't make it gold. it's 100% yellow.

Haha...very true. Never figured out why the say Purple and Gold instead of saying Purple and Yellow. I mean it's 100% yellow like you said and has absolutely nothing do with color gold apparently.