Expansion/Re-Alignment

[Donoghus]

Not that I particularly care one way or another on the matter, "petty" could also be used to describe the Lakers organization seemingly disregarding the Minneapolis history until the early 2000s when it all of a sudden became convenient.  Not to mention not retiring Mikan's number until 2022.  Nearly 20 years after his death. 

At the end of the day, I don't really care but it's telling where the organization's head was at when it seemingly ignored the Minnesota days until this century.

[Celtics4ever]

We all know the only reason LA claimed them was to be closer to us.   I think titles should be counted in the City they were won in.

The Minneapolis Lakers won what 5 titles, The LA lakers  12, everyone of ours was won here in Boston.

LA Fakers.... 

[angryguy77]

Settlement: To move, Bennett reached a $75 million settlement with the city of Seattle in 2008 to terminate the KeyArena lease early, which allowed the team to move in exchange for leaving the team's name, colors, and history for a potential future team.

I think the above explains a lot.  It was a side deal with the city.  The new owners got out of a lease and were otherwise allowed to move the franchise, but they had to leave the brand behind.

I'm aware.  It also happened when the Browns became the Ravens.  I was more commenting on the Lakers needing to leave the banners in Minnesota.  I just don't find that to be a strong argument.  It comes off as petty since the Lakers are right behind the Celtics in total titles.

The problem is they didn't recognize them until years after they left.

The taxpayers fund where many of these teams play so it does make a case that the titles should stay with the city. The team is tied to that city and the history was made there, supported by the people there. If the Celtics  moved to another state, it would be weird seeing it play on the history of a place it cut ties with.

I do however get that they also belong to the franchise and I can see why that argument makes sense. I'm not 100% either way, but I do lean toward the titles staying.

[Moranis]

Settlement: To move, Bennett reached a $75 million settlement with the city of Seattle in 2008 to terminate the KeyArena lease early, which allowed the team to move in exchange for leaving the team's name, colors, and history for a potential future team.

I think the above explains a lot.  It was a side deal with the city.  The new owners got out of a lease and were otherwise allowed to move the franchise, but they had to leave the brand behind.

I'm aware.  It also happened when the Browns became the Ravens.  I was more commenting on the Lakers needing to leave the banners in Minnesota.  I just don't find that to be a strong argument.  It comes off as petty since the Lakers are right behind the Celtics in total titles.

The problem is they didn't recognize them until years after they left.

The taxpayers fund where many of these teams play so it does make a case that the titles should stay with the city. The team is tied to that city and the history was made there, supported by the people there. If the Celtics  moved to another state, it would be weird seeing it play on the history of a place it cut ties with.

I do however get that they also belong to the franchise and I can see why that argument makes sense. I'm not 100% either way, but I do lean toward the titles staying.

So only Foxboro gets credit for the Patriots titles? Or because they are New England and not Boston they get to keep them?  What about the New York Giants? NY doesnt actually get credit for the Eli titles since they were won in New Jersey.  When the Browns move to Brook Park, OH or the Bears move out of Chicago to the suburbs, do they leave their history behind?

I think it is a weird argument.  The franchise is the franchise.  The location doesn't matter.