Los Angeles NBA Team Has 12 Championships

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

The region of fans that financially support the teams own the championships. The franchises would be bankrupt without a strong 💪 supportive fanbase.

[Who]

Agreed that team names, team history and team accolades should belong to the city that earned them.

I find this moving elsewhere and taking all the history with them to be weird. I hate OKC having Seattle's history. I hated New Orleans having Charlotte's history (Alonzo, LJ, Muggsy, G Rice, A Mason, Vlade). I was very happy when New Orleans returned the name and history to Charlotte where it belongs.

Now some things are just too far in the past. I wouldn't bother correcting them at this point. The Jazz for instance are synonymous with Utah at this stage due to great success they have had there (largely with Stockton and Malone). It would be wrong to take their name from them. But I would like to see a change to ensure this no longer happens in the future.

[Who]

The part I find funny is LAL had no interest in that Minneapolis 5 titles until they started to get close to Boston. They saw it as two separate teams. LA won their first title in 1972 or 1973 whenever it was. They called it their first title. They kept the same stance throughout the 70s and later in the 80s with Magic Johnson and Kareem. They continued this in the 90s. They continued in the early 00s with Shaq and Kobe. It wasn't until sometime in the late 00s or early 10s that they started to recognize those Minneapolis titles because they felt they could tie / surpass Boston.

So they had no interest for something like 40 years and now they had a change of heart in an effort of one upmanship and we are all supposed to go along with it.

[jambr380]

I'm curious, how far does a franchise have to move before the titles don't follow?

Like, the Nets moved from NJ to Long Island to NJ to Brooklyn.  They've played in 4 cities in NJ and 4 in NY.  Their move from Newark to Brooklyn was about 13 miles.

Same franchise?

I assume the Dodgers and baseball Giants don't get to count their prior titles in Brooklyn / NYC?

That is all the same region, so it makes sense that the Nets should share a history, even though they technically crossed state lines.

I'd even argue that if a team moved from say Tampa Bay to Orlando that it should work the same way. Basically, if you were a fan of a team and you can still comfortably drive to see them. And there's no new replacement, then it is still the region's team.

I realize this goes against one of my arguments that the fans partially own the team (due to funding stadiums), but everything else falls in place. If the Lakers called themselves the Movie Stars and Minneapolis reclaimed the name Lakers name, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It happened with Charlotte and it's going to happen with Seattle. It's ridiculous that LA has the Lakers and Utah has the Jazz. Franchises should be forced to change names if they relocate. Even if you do try to claim a former city's history (like the Royals/Kings), it's just a slap in the face to the city the team left to keep their name.

I don't see it that way.  Look at the Boston Braves.  A generation of fans followed that team after they left town. 

Or, more recently, Oakland, LA, and LV have all claimed the Raiders.  It's weird to consider them a different team.

If the Celtics packed the team up tomorrow and moved to Montana, I'd still be a fan.  Same team, same players, same loyalty.

Maybe, but not everybody would feel that way. I know a number of Browns fans who absolutely had no interest in becoming Ravens fans. Then Cleveland got a new Browns team and many of those fans gladly became fans of the Browns again, even though they didn't even live in the area anymore. This goes for a few Charlotte Hornets fans I know, too. They certainly don't care about the Pelicans.

The Celtics are a special case because of how many Titles and how much history they have in the city of Boston; but it's likely that after our generation dies off, Boston fans would stop following the Montana team. That would be even more accelerated if a few years later after they left, Boston got a new Celtics team.

[celticinorlando]

LA stole the Lakers. Nothing should follow them. I will maintain the Lakers only have 12 titles.

[green_bballers13]

I'm curious, how far does a franchise have to move before the titles don't follow?

Like, the Nets moved from NJ to Long Island to NJ to Brooklyn.  They've played in 4 cities in NJ and 4 in NY.  Their move from Newark to Brooklyn was about 13 miles.

Same franchise?

I assume the Dodgers and baseball Giants don't get to count their prior titles in Brooklyn / NYC?

That is all the same region, so it makes sense that the Nets should share a history, even though they technically crossed state lines.

I'd even argue that if a team moved from say Tampa Bay to Orlando that it should work the same way. Basically, if you were a fan of a team and you can still comfortably drive to see them. And there's no new replacement, then it is still the region's team.

I realize this goes against one of my arguments that the fans partially own the team (due to funding stadiums), but everything else falls in place. If the Lakers called themselves the Movie Stars and Minneapolis reclaimed the name Lakers name, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It happened with Charlotte and it's going to happen with Seattle. It's ridiculous that LA has the Lakers and Utah has the Jazz. Franchises should be forced to change names if they relocate. Even if you do try to claim a former city's history (like the Royals/Kings), it's just a slap in the face to the city the team left to keep their name.

I don't see it that way.  Look at the Boston Braves.  A generation of fans followed that team after they left town. 

Or, more recently, Oakland, LA, and LV have all claimed the Raiders.  It's weird to consider them a different team.

If the Celtics packed the team up tomorrow and moved to Montana, I'd still be a fan.  Same team, same players, same loyalty.

As a Sox fan, should I feel happy that Sale has won 10 games for the Braves? Is it fair to jump on the Braves bandwagon and consider myself a part of their celebration?

I don't think Red Sox and Braves have a connection in 2024. I feel the same way about Minny's wins prior to 1960. Too much time has passed for there to be a connection.

I love the Celtics, but it is because of Boston. If they move, I'm not going to root for them because Bill Russell won a lot in the 60's, before I was born.

[green_bballers13]

I'm curious, how far does a franchise have to move before the titles don't follow?

Like, the Nets moved from NJ to Long Island to NJ to Brooklyn.  They've played in 4 cities in NJ and 4 in NY.  Their move from Newark to Brooklyn was about 13 miles.

Same franchise?

I assume the Dodgers and baseball Giants don't get to count their prior titles in Brooklyn / NYC?

That is all the same region, so it makes sense that the Nets should share a history, even though they technically crossed state lines.

I'd even argue that if a team moved from say Tampa Bay to Orlando that it should work the same way. Basically, if you were a fan of a team and you can still comfortably drive to see them. And there's no new replacement, then it is still the region's team.

I realize this goes against one of my arguments that the fans partially own the team (due to funding stadiums), but everything else falls in place. If the Lakers called themselves the Movie Stars and Minneapolis reclaimed the name Lakers name, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It happened with Charlotte and it's going to happen with Seattle. It's ridiculous that LA has the Lakers and Utah has the Jazz. Franchises should be forced to change names if they relocate. Even if you do try to claim a former city's history (like the Royals/Kings), it's just a slap in the face to the city the team left to keep their name.

I don't see it that way.  Look at the Boston Braves.  A generation of fans followed that team after they left town. 

Or, more recently, Oakland, LA, and LV have all claimed the Raiders.  It's weird to consider them a different team.

If the Celtics packed the team up tomorrow and moved to Montana, I'd still be a fan.  Same team, same players, same loyalty.

Maybe, but not everybody would feel that way. I know a number of Browns fans who absolutely had no interest in becoming Ravens fans. Then Cleveland got a new Browns team and many of those fans gladly became fans of the Browns again, even though they didn't even live in the area anymore. This goes for a few Charlotte Hornets fans I know, too. They certainly don't care about the Pelicans.

The Celtics are a special case because of how many Titles and how much history they have in the city of Boston; but it's likely that after our generation dies off, Boston fans would stop following the Montana team. That would be even more accelerated if a few years later after they left, Boston got a new Celtics team.

How could a Browns fan become a Ravens fan? They literally moved the best sport away from your historically significant football city. The Ravens would be the last team that I would support in that scenario.

[jambr380]

I'm curious, how far does a franchise have to move before the titles don't follow?

Like, the Nets moved from NJ to Long Island to NJ to Brooklyn.  They've played in 4 cities in NJ and 4 in NY.  Their move from Newark to Brooklyn was about 13 miles.

Same franchise?

I assume the Dodgers and baseball Giants don't get to count their prior titles in Brooklyn / NYC?

That is all the same region, so it makes sense that the Nets should share a history, even though they technically crossed state lines.

I'd even argue that if a team moved from say Tampa Bay to Orlando that it should work the same way. Basically, if you were a fan of a team and you can still comfortably drive to see them. And there's no new replacement, then it is still the region's team.

I realize this goes against one of my arguments that the fans partially own the team (due to funding stadiums), but everything else falls in place. If the Lakers called themselves the Movie Stars and Minneapolis reclaimed the name Lakers name, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It happened with Charlotte and it's going to happen with Seattle. It's ridiculous that LA has the Lakers and Utah has the Jazz. Franchises should be forced to change names if they relocate. Even if you do try to claim a former city's history (like the Royals/Kings), it's just a slap in the face to the city the team left to keep their name.

I don't see it that way.  Look at the Boston Braves.  A generation of fans followed that team after they left town. 

Or, more recently, Oakland, LA, and LV have all claimed the Raiders.  It's weird to consider them a different team.

If the Celtics packed the team up tomorrow and moved to Montana, I'd still be a fan.  Same team, same players, same loyalty.

Maybe, but not everybody would feel that way. I know a number of Browns fans who absolutely had no interest in becoming Ravens fans. Then Cleveland got a new Browns team and many of those fans gladly became fans of the Browns again, even though they didn't even live in the area anymore. This goes for a few Charlotte Hornets fans I know, too. They certainly don't care about the Pelicans.

The Celtics are a special case because of how many Titles and how much history they have in the city of Boston; but it's likely that after our generation dies off, Boston fans would stop following the Montana team. That would be even more accelerated if a few years later after they left, Boston got a new Celtics team.

How could a Browns fan become a Ravens fan? They literally moved the best sport away from your historically significant football city. The Ravens would be the last team that I would support in that scenario.

You?re making my point. Why would a Boston Celtics fan become a fan of the Montana Celtics? Teams leaving cities these days is rarely a happy event for the city that?s losing the team.

The players in Baltimore (who soon won a SB) were by and large the same ones that played in Cleveland. Why get mad at them because the team ditched Cleveland? But here we are - it?s just what happens

[Kernewek]

It?s truly ridiculous to argue that the Lakers franchise championships shouldn?t count.  We all know that the consensus is that the Minny Lakers championships count. Nothing will change that.  You can call it 18-12 if you want, but that doesn?t change reality.  The bubble championship also counts.  What the Cs need to do is keep on winning championships.

And if Jason or Jaylen ever go to LAL, they will be (in a basketball sense) dead to me.

Agreed. The Lakers have 17 titles. It doesn't matter that 5 of them were won in Minny. Lakers fans root for a franchise that owns 17 titles.

Titles belong to franchises, not cities. If the Celtics ever move away from Boston they will be dead to me and I will not even acknowledge them. Sure, I'll still hold all my memories fondly, but the franchise will be dead to me. Let those new fans have it.

I don't quite agree with the part about the Jays, I suppose it depends on the context of how they ended up in LA. Rondo won a title with the Lakers but I still love Rondo for his time with the Celtics (he kinda sucks as person though). Ray Allen, OTOH, screw him.

Celtics who end up winning in LA are the worst - especially if they chose to championship chase with LAL.   Rondo became a Laker after being a Celtic. You don?t do that.

agree with you and KG's knee - titles belong to franchises - but I have to ask: what if Rondo was facing a situation where LAL was the only team willing to offer him a contract? Still excommunicated?

[Roy H.]

The Celtics are a special case because of how many Titles and how much history they have in the city of Boston; but it's likely that after our generation dies off, Boston fans would stop following the Montana team. That would be even more accelerated if a few years later after they left, Boston got a new Celtics team.

I think that's right, that over time allegiance to the Montana Celtics would fade.  It's like the Philadelphia Athletics, or the Boston Braves.  The people who grew up watching those teams would remain loyal, and some would eventually pass it down to their kids, but the local loyalty would eventually be replaced.

But that doesn't mean their wouldn't be 18 Celtics championships, or that for the first few decades Bostonians without a team wouldn't continue allegiance and count banners #19 if won elsewhere.

[timpiker]

Imagine if hypothetically the Celtics moved to Seattle or some other city then won another championship.  Seattle Celtics could claim 19 championships and their Seattle fanbase can claim championship superiority to Lakers franchise 17 championships. How would Los Angeles fans like that? 😄

The 5 Minnesota Lakers championships were primarily passionately and financially supported by fans local to Minnesota at the time, not local fans to Los Angeles.

I agree 100%.  F LA.

[Moranis]

One of the stranger things is the Lakers don't count the 1947-48 title from the NBL. Mikan started on the Lakers when they were in the NBL and led them to a title in his 1st season on the team.  The next year the Lakers went to the BAA and won the 48-49 title in the BAA.  After that season, the NBL and BAA merged and formed the NBA, but the NBA basically counted it as an expansion and kept only the BAA history (except in a few rare circumstances even though the BAA existed for just 3 years verse 12 for the NBL). Thus, the Lakers 1st title from 47-48 in the NBL has never counted in NBA history.  I just find it odd that the Lakers don't count it as a way to add a title to their list.

Also, as an aside Mikan also won the 46-47 NBL title with the Chicago American Gears (that was his rookie year).  So Mikan played professional basketball for basically 8 years and won the title in 7 of those years (I know he took a year off and came back not all that successfully). So Mikan over his first 8 years playing pro ball won tiles as follows: 2 in the NBL, 1 in the BAA, and 4 in the NBA.  2nd greatest winner in the history of the sport behind only Bill. That early history is just really fascinating.  The NBL in particular has some really strange history.