So does this mean I should be a Nuggets fan because I no longer live near Sacramento?
F that. Same for the Broncos. I know where my loyalties lie, even though I no longer live in the region.
So does this mean I should be a Nuggets fan because I no longer live near Sacramento?
F that. Same for the Broncos. I know where my loyalties lie, even though I no longer live in the region.
I appreciate a good math pun - as long as it isn't too graphic.
Kings would be dead in a Seattle move. The only way I switch to Seattle is if there is some player I am fond of gets me there. Right now, that is not the case.
I will always be a Kings fan, even after the day they die.
so you would just choose to be forever alone?Originally Posted by Purple Reign
Totally agree.
I will always be a Kings fan, even after the day they die.
Here's the part that you need to wrap your head around, macadocious: I don't care what they're called. I don't care if they're not the "Kings." If they become the "Sonics," that doesn't magically stop making them the same team I've been a fan of for 20+ years. They can call themselves the Kings, the Sonics, the Blues... Hell, they can call themselves the Lakers, part Deux. They're still the same team.
KingsFans.com Terrorism Threat Level: EXCITED
I would be a Sonics fan and anyone who says I am not a "true fan" can shove it where the sun dont shine. I am moving to Seattle within the year anyways. I would obviously prefer they stay in Sacramento because I have so many memories from Kings games. I could never root for the Warriors or Clippers. The Sonics would be the closest thing to the Kings I could get. Plus they will be the local team.
The whole Sacramento Kings era from Richmond, Theus etc through Webber, Divac, Peja Etc will not be connected to the Seattle Sonics if the team moves. I guess in the mind of some fans they will be, but the franchise will have no ties to that Kings era or those players.
Because they were still The Kings, the orginization still had ties and history to the players, coaches etc from the past when they relocated from Kansas City. And they were acknowledged as such when they came to Sac. That won't be the case in Seattle.
The only reason I've endured these last years of suck was because they were the Kings and had history with other Kings/ Royals teams and players.
The Sonics belong to Seattle. And yes I think of players like Kemp, Payton etc when I think Seattle Sonic basketball.
That makes absolutely no sense. As I stated before, the only thing that would be the same would be a couple players. And within a few years, I am sure there will be zero tie to anything Kings.
Bollocks, that's an utterly false equivalency. It's more like asking, if your kid plays D-I for UNC, and then transfers to Georgetown, who will you root for? If you grew up around Chapel Hill, and/or root for UNC, you might say that you should have loyalty to UNC... But what about if you grew up in Atlanta, and went to Mercer? Then you have no attachment to UNC, or Chapel Hill: your allegiance goes where your kid goes.
The Kings/Royals/Sonics/whatever the **** are my kid. I go where they go.
KingsFans.com Terrorism Threat Level: EXCITED
You are sooo right. I couldn't root for the Seattle Sasquatch. I will change my allegiance back to the Warriors I rooted for before we stole the Kansas City Kings.
Which makes you a fan of a player not the team. Also, you get a mulligan if you child or close family member plays for a different team. So that is not a fair example.
If you were a Bulls fan in the 90's because of Jordan, would you switch to being a Wziards fan?
thank you
Sorry forgot to address this part.
Yes it does. In this scenario, it magically stops making them the Kings. They will be the Sonics, they will also share the Sonics history.
Same thing happened in Cleveland, with the browns.
No they won't. That history will either be gone or staying in sacramento. They would be getting the Sonics history.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
There ain't no such thing as a mulligan.
The Royals didn't become a different team when they moved from Rochester to Cincinnati. They didn't become a different team when they became the Kings and moved to Kansas City. They didn't become a different team when they moved to Sacramento. And they won't become a different team when they move to Seattle. Their history isn't deleted. You can pretend that it didn't happen, or that it happened with a different team, all you want, but you don't get to take the memories out of my head:I know what happened. I know that the team that Richmond and Webber played for is not the same team as whatever team Sacramento ends up with, if the Kings leave.
KingsFans.com Terrorism Threat Level: EXCITED
No, it doesn't. Stick your head in the sand if you want to. The "Cleveland Browns" were created in 1999. Anyone who says that's the same team that won four NFL Championships is lying to themselves.
KingsFans.com Terrorism Threat Level: EXCITED
The great players and history of those teams was acknowledged in Sacramento and the great players' jerseys hung from the rafters. Webber, Divac, Archilbald, Richmond etc will NEVER hang in the rafters in Seattle or be considered by anyone in Seattle as history for them. Webber and Divac will never be invited to attend in a championship parade if the team ever wins one in Seattle. Kemp and Payton will be though.
No. Your missing the point. The sonics history currently ends in 2008. The Thunder started over. They do not own that 1979 championship the sonics do. If the Kings move to Seattle they will no longer be the Kings. The Kings history will stop. The team would continue the history from where the sonics left off.
When you go to look up stats on the 2000 Sonics it will be the Sonics history not the Kings.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall. - Pink Floyd
You can convince yourself of anything if you want it to be right. Logically they are no longer the Kings, that is really no debatable. Hell, part of Clay Bennets deal when he left was to relinquish all Sonics trademark and history back to seattle if they got a team. I guess you could argue that they would merge Kings history into that, but I don't see that happening.
What you said is both ironic and a contradiction. You support his statement (supposedly), but then proceed to do exactly the opposite by switching teams.
I personally would continue to follow the team to Seattle. Of course, I would much prefer the Kings to stay in Sacramento. When I say "Sacramento Kings," there is just a flow to it that no other team has for me. I feel for all the Sacramento region residents. In all honesty, if Sacramento would get a team back, I would once again be a fan of the Sacramento Kings. I just enjoy basketball too much to not have a team. And I refuse to like any other team. This is the closest I can be to being a Sacramento Kings fan.
Last edited by Sac.Kings; 01-10-2013 at 02:28 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks