Is it fair the Lakers can count the Minnesota titles as their achievements?

[gift]

What bothers me about it is that they never did this in the Forum.  It was only after their move to staples, with Phil Jackson coming aboard that they started to acknowledge anything about those titles.  Seems like some marketing ploy that the media and league were more than willing to go along with.

I didn't realize that. That's a good point.

[Donoghus]

Same ownership, same management, same players?  Then yes, it’s the same franchise, and accordingly, those titles belong to that franchise.  The city of LA doesn’t own those titles, but the Lakers franchise does.

My opinion only, but I feel like Boston fans seem incredibly insecure when they try to take away the Lakers titles from Minneapolis.

This.  Especially the 2nd part.

[Redz]

Yes.  Hate the Lakers all you want, but the franchise is the franchise.

Where I ind things to get more blurry is with things like the Hornets moving to New Orleans, then Charlotte getting a new franchise (the Bobcats), but later taking back the name the Hornets.  Or the Cleveland Browns in the NFL.  Those aren't direct lineages of franchises, but the records count the same.

[Who]

Titles and team history should belong to the cities they represent. Not some team name that wanders around the country. That is wrong.

That said, this is not how things are done in the NBA so I have no issue with LAL doing the exact same thing as almost all other teams who have moved locations over the years.

[footey]

Fair or not, the national and media consensus is that they should be included.

Get over it.

We just have to win more titles, man.

Lakers will have the edge going forward to surpass us since they are the sexier destination for FAs, and franchise players demanding trades. But that has been the case since Wilt the Stilt in '68, and Kareem in mid 70's.

Makes us more special that we win with home grown talent combined with smart trades.

[KGs Knee]

Titles and team history should belong to the cities they represent. Not some team name that wanders around the country. That is wrong.

That said, this is not how things are done in the NBA so I have no issue with LAL doing the exact same thing as almost all other teams who have moved locations over the years.

I disagree.  Titles are a franchise accomplishment and belong to the franchise, regardless of where it is located at any point in time.

When a team moves the players, coaches, managers, ect don't stay with the city, they stay with the franchise.  So does what they accomplished.

[Surferdad]

Titles and team history should belong to the cities they represent. Not some team name that wanders around the country. That is wrong.

That said, this is not how things are done in the NBA so I have no issue with LAL doing the exact same thing as almost all other teams who have moved locations over the years.

I disagree.  Titles are a franchise accomplishment and belong to the franchise, regardless of where it is located at any point in time.

When a team moves the players, coaches, managers, ect don't stay with the city, they stay with the franchise.  So does what they accomplished.

Agreed.  Geography is irrelevant.  Otherwise, the NBA should mandate that teams only draft players from their own cities/states and any trades for non-locals is forbidden!   

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Part of the issue here is the "franchise" concept, and the NBA's own inconsistency in defining that concept.

Not long ago, the NBA "awarded" the new Charlotte Hornets all of the history, stats, and records of the old Charlotte Hornets, who are now the New Orleans Pelicans, so now "the history of the Hornets" actually comprises TWO franchises. And I wonder, would the NBA have done that if the old Hornets (the current Pelicans) had won a title? Because in that case, the new Hornets could say that their franchise had a title, AND the Pelicans could say that their franchise had a title.

Also, if a team in City X goes defunct (something that used to happen fairly often in all major sports), but then a few years later the people who owned the defunct team are awarded an expansion team in City Y, that would technically be two franchises, yet having the same ownership would make them functionally the same team/franchise.

Quote from: Roy H. on Today at 03:49:45 AM

Same ownership, same management, same players? Then yes, it’s the same franchise, and accordingly, those titles belong to that franchise. The city of LA doesn’t own those titles, but the Lakers franchise does.

So then, by this logic, fans of the Los Angeles Lakers shouldn't be saying that they're the 16-time (soon-to-be 17-time) NBA champs. Yet they do.

Quote from: gift on: Today at 06:15:03 AM

The franchise certainly owns those titles. Modern Lakers fans probably can't really celebrate them though.

Oh, but they do. In their minds, their upcoming title will make "their team" equal to "our team," even though "their team" (the Los Angeles Lakers) will still trail the Celtics by 5 titles.

[RJ87]

Part of the issue here is the "franchise" concept, and the NBA's own inconsistency in defining that concept.

Not long ago, the NBA "awarded" the new Charlotte Hornets all of the history, stats, and records of the old Charlotte Hornets, who are now the New Orleans Pelicans, so now "the history of the Hornets" actually comprises TWO franchises. And I wonder, would the NBA have done that if the old Hornets (the current Pelicans) had won a title? Because in that case, the new Hornets could say that their franchise had a title, AND the Pelicans could say that their franchise had a title.

Also, if a team in City X goes defunct (something that used to happen fairly often in all major sports), but then a few years later the people who owned the defunct team are awarded an expansion team in City Y, that would technically be two franchises, yet having the same ownership would make them functionally the same team/franchise.

Quote from: Roy H. on Today at 03:49:45 AM

Same ownership, same management, same players? Then yes, it’s the same franchise, and accordingly, those titles belong to that franchise. The city of LA doesn’t own those titles, but the Lakers franchise does.

So then, by this logic, fans of the Los Angeles Lakers shouldn't be saying that they're the 16-time (soon-to-be 17-time) NBA champs. Yet they do.

Quote from: gift on: Today at 06:15:03 AM

The franchise certainly owns those titles. Modern Lakers fans probably can't really celebrate them though.

Oh, but they do. In their minds, their upcoming title will make "their team" equal to "our team," even though "their team" (the Los Angeles Lakers) will still trail the Celtics by 5 titles.

The Lakers never went defunct. They just moved cities between seasons.

[apc]

Freakin hate them, terrible management for the last 7-8 years and here comes LeBron and AD for the rescue.

[Ogaju]

Yes.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Part of the issue here is the "franchise" concept, and the NBA's own inconsistency in defining that concept.

Not long ago, the NBA "awarded" the new Charlotte Hornets all of the history, stats, and records of the old Charlotte Hornets, who are now the New Orleans Pelicans, so now "the history of the Hornets" actually comprises TWO franchises. And I wonder, would the NBA have done that if the old Hornets (the current Pelicans) had won a title? Because in that case, the new Hornets could say that their franchise had a title, AND the Pelicans could say that their franchise had a title.

Also, if a team in City X goes defunct (something that used to happen fairly often in all major sports), but then a few years later the people who owned the defunct team are awarded an expansion team in City Y, that would technically be two franchises, yet having the same ownership would make them functionally the same team/franchise.

Quote from: Roy H. on Today at 03:49:45 AM

Same ownership, same management, same players? Then yes, it’s the same franchise, and accordingly, those titles belong to that franchise. The city of LA doesn’t own those titles, but the Lakers franchise does.

So then, by this logic, fans of the Los Angeles Lakers shouldn't be saying that they're the 16-time (soon-to-be 17-time) NBA champs. Yet they do.

Quote from: gift on: Today at 06:15:03 AM

The franchise certainly owns those titles. Modern Lakers fans probably can't really celebrate them though.

Oh, but they do. In their minds, their upcoming title will make "their team" equal to "our team," even though "their team" (the Los Angeles Lakers) will still trail the Celtics by 5 titles.

The Lakers never went defunct. They just moved cities between seasons.

Yeah, I realize that. And I never said that was Lakers' situation.

But like the OP, I see the city as part of the team's identity, and Angelenos don't give a rat's patoot about Minneapolis or Minnesota.

So, fine, say that the franchise has 16 (soon to be 17) titles, but the Los Angeles Lakers have only 11 (soon to be 12). Splitting hairs? Maybe. But I feel that's my duty as a Celtics fan.

Besides, in head-to-head Finals matchups, the Celtics lead 9-3 (that includes one Minny title).

[CelticsElite]

Titles and team history should belong to the cities they represent. Not some team name that wanders around the country. That is wrong.

That said, this is not how things are done in the NBA so I have no issue with LAL doing the exact same thing as almost all other teams who have moved locations over the years.

I disagree.  Titles are a franchise accomplishment and belong to the franchise, regardless of where it is located at any point in time.

When a team moves the players, coaches, managers, ect don't stay with the city, they stay with the franchise.  So does what they accomplished.

Agreed.  Geography is irrelevant.  Otherwise, the NBA should mandate that teams only draft players from their own cities/states and any trades for non-locals is forbidden!   

If geography is irrelevant. Why did this exist : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_territorial_pick

[RPGenerate]

It'll be fun to see that horrible Lakers front office completely falls apart when Lebron inevitably leaves one day.

[Donoghus]

Titles and team history should belong to the cities they represent. Not some team name that wanders around the country. That is wrong.

That said, this is not how things are done in the NBA so I have no issue with LAL doing the exact same thing as almost all other teams who have moved locations over the years.

I disagree.  Titles are a franchise accomplishment and belong to the franchise, regardless of where it is located at any point in time.

When a team moves the players, coaches, managers, ect don't stay with the city, they stay with the franchise.  So does what they accomplished.

Agreed.  Geography is irrelevant.  Otherwise, the NBA should mandate that teams only draft players from their own cities/states and any trades for non-locals is forbidden!   

If geography is irrelevant. Why did this exist : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_territorial_pick

To help the league get off the ground back in the 50s & early 60s.  It made sense to try and attach the local talent to the local teams to help get the league gain some sort of foothold to grow.  A familiar name to put butts in the seats when professional basketball was still in its infancy.