Seattle Sports Insider

Sonics Tradition

of leagues, cities, and owners

Posted by

1/15/13

On the subject of NBA franchise relocation, James had an intriguing way to organize our thoughts:

Personally, I don't think it's important to preserve [statistical] records, because we'll adapt to the new records, just like we adapted to huge strikeout changes, etc, (or NFL going from 14- to 16-game season and eventually 18). Even so, going to 8-inning game will radically change bullpen usage, but, we've seen that over the past 30 years anyway.

Asked by: tangotiger

Answered: 1/14/2013

Well. ...philosophically, you and I share a predisposition in favor of change; I think we're both inclined to believe that baseball hurts itself more than it helps itself by its fear of change.

But at the same time, it does not follow that all changes are good changes, or that there is no value in tradition. Indeed, almost the ENTIRE value of a sports franchise is in its traditions. You and I could design a game which is as entertaining to watch as baseball or football, but were a league to be launched based on that game, its revenues in Year One would be less than 1% of the revenues of the NFL or MLB.    The other 99% is accounted for traditions.

The value in the franchises is in the traditions which bind its fan base to the team.    While I agree that baseball needs to be open to change, I also think that it needs to be not TOO anxious to change.

This is a thought-provoking suggestion -- that 99% of the Seahawks' shirt sales* are really because of a contextual backdrop. The fact that they're playing in the NFL(TM), the league of Lombardi and Walsh and Unitas and etc., and the investment that sons and fathers have made over the years -- this is the fabric of fan loyalty and intensity.

Compare the value of a product's "brand"; the Coca-Cola "brand" is worth 60-something billion. The memories, feelings, and attitudes are themselves the marketable product.

Obviously, most of this is true. You could build a USFL team to play in Portland, and it might have great players, but it's not going to have anything that we value about a Felix Hernandez - Albert Pujols matchup on Friday night. This would be true even if Felix and Pujols jumped to the USFL.*

Continuing:

...........

A question I've never gotten my ethical bearings on -- the potential move now of the Sacramento Kings to Seattle. As you see it, should a Seattle basketball fan feel sheepish about the situation in general? The new franchise will, or won't, be (or feel like) the Sonics on a civically psychic level?

Just noodlin' ... certainly you have a strong perspective on the general issue of sports teams relocating, the ethic that applies, and the tendency for it to turn out to be emotionally satisfying, or to manifest good karma so to speak, or not ...

Asked by: jemanji

Answered: 1/14/2013

Well, it relates to the value in tradition, which I was just talking about with Tom. There was a 20-year period, 1953-1972, in which baseball franchises hopped around chasing bigger markets. This was period of near-zero growth in baseball attendance--certainly the worst 20-year period growth record in baseball history (I think the exact worst is 1948-1968, and I believe that PER GAME attendance actually declined significantly over than 20-year period). Eventually baseball realized that it was hurting itself by allowing franchises to move around willy-nilly, and put a stop to it.

This is not to say, either, that a team should NEVER move. A league should never allow the OWNER of a team to move the team for his own personal reasons--as, for example, Irsay did in moving the Colts out of Baltimore. The team, in a more enlightened sense than legal ownership, belongs not to the person who has purchased the team, but to its fans, to the city, and to the league. It damages a league for the league to allow the "owner", as one of the rights of ownership, to severe those other ties. Nothing in the law, nothing in the concept of "ownership", says that an owner has the right to make that decision without considering the long-term best interests of the league.

.

James acknowledges that the LEAGUE gets half of the credit for the psychic "brand", and the CITY the other half. It's a Lennon-McCartney partnership, and he sees (transitory) owners as little more than band managers in this equation.

He also calls into question whether it should be a "right of ownership" to move a team, given that it uproots the psychic value (and thus the brand and cashflow) of the franchise.

You might protest, well, the Oklahoma Thunder became marketable pretty quick. Yes, that's why James acknowledges the league -- the NBA, not Clay Bennett -- as equal partner in this equation with Seattle. Kevin Durant is scoring 30 a game in the contextual backdrop of the Kareem and Magic and Bird league.

You might ask, why didn't the NBA care more about tradition in Seattle? James has great disdain for Larry Stern.

I don't care about the 'legal' aspect; it just strikes me as historically inaccurate to say that they are one and the same franchise, which really isn't true.

Asked by: jimmybart

Answered: 1/15/2013

Well. . .why isn't it true? It's like adoption. Aren't you basically saying that adoptive parents are lying when they say this is "their" child, when it really isn't their child? If I refer to my mother-in-law as "Mom", is that lying? Why is it in any sense deceptive to refer to a Seattle basketball team as the Sonics?

So this has led us to a philosophical position that the NBA owes it to Seattle to return the Sonics to them; the travesty will be that they were ever gone for a few years. The way in which the NBA -- a weasel organization -- chooses to do that, is a different subject.

Finally:

I agree about the "legal" parameter not being relevant. In terms of the "continuity" of a franchise, I treat the Nationals as a break from Expos. Washington didn't honor the retired numbers (at least for the first several years), Montreal fans didn't follow the team, and the ownership obviously had no continuity. And if Montreal would have gotten a new team today, they'd honor their past history completely. The right thing is to let involved fans judge the continuity, and not have some legal or formulaic bean-counter process to decide how fans of Montreal and Washington should decide on the continuity.

Asked by: tangotiger

Answered: 1/15/2013

That's entirely right, I think. Good to be able to agree with you about something. . ..I think we've missed like four in a row.

Comments

Sonics, Plunder, and the Kings

Ever since Clay Bennett plundered the Sonics to OKC, I have thought that the only real Sonics return should be that actual team for the line of history to be intact. If we get the Kings, they should remain the Kings, but not the regal variety. They should wear the shadow of MLK on their chests, just like what the county did in dumping Vice President William King in favor of MLK back in 1986. It's only fitting that the history is denied, no matter how painful the past may have been. We can't and shouldn't pretend it never happened.

Well, looks like the sell of the Kings

to Hansen is pretty much official, pending the leagues sign off. However, the more I think about all this and read the Sacramento reaction, the more I feel queasy about it...
It's hard to believe there could be a bigger villain than Clay Bennett, but the Maloofs are giving him a STRONG run for his money.
In an earlier comment on SSI I put out the stance that the Seattle / Sacramento situations were very different so we shouldn't feel bad about taking their team. But really the only difference is that their sell and move has taken the better part of a decade, and so it was the team itself that killed a once large and rabid fan base over that time. What looks like an uncaring / nonexistant fanbase was really just one that was beaten down by terrible managemnt and a constant haranging with the sell of their team used as a sledge hammer to the forehead to try and get the owners whatever they wanted. After reading more of the history it is apparent that the fans, the city and even local billionaires have tried like mad to keep the team in Sac-Town, but the Maloofs have done everything in their power to squash local deals, it seems apparent to me the reason for this is because they didn't want to sell the team out right they want to keep part of it (which is exactly what Hansen is giving them, his group will own 65%, and the Maloofs will still own 35%). Seattlites should be quite concerned that those sharks will still own part of their team...
Here is a good bit of fan reaction from Tom Ziller over at LLs Sacremento BBall sportsnation brother SacTownRoyalty. Warning p[robably not entirely safe for work, but it is all text, no audio or video. It cuts pretty deep and really makes me wonder if I can root for / hate (since I am a Blazer fan :) ) the new Sonics or the Zombie Kings the way I really want to, the way i used to be able to before Clay took them.... Sigh what a mess this all is. Sucks that for my wants / desires to be restored another franchises fans have to suffer deeply...

I'll just look at it as, OKC stole the Kings

It isn't like we, the fans of Seattle, raided Sacramento and rationalized it after the fact. We're completely hapless bystanders as the NBA moves their teams around.
Agreed that it's a shame what the NBA has done to Sacramento, and to a lot of people.
After youse guys' rundown of the shape the Kings are in, I think I'd much rather have an expansion franchise anyway...

I was ok with it until...

I went over to the SacTownRoyality blog and read / saw some of the blood, guts and mortal wounds down on the front lines. Kind of like a General who, while in the war room, feels like his next planned attack has reasonable losses for the rewards, but then gets a tour of the bleeding in the hospitals and the carnage at the front lines and his stomach turns over a dozen times. Not pretty. I guess that why I would probably not make a good General :)
Oh well, what's done is probably done at this point, and yes there are two clear villains here, Clay and the Maloofs so Seattle is safe from being criticized, but at this point I think it will take me a while (a season or two) before I feel comfortable with the Seattle Kings...