Do you believe that your team could ever win an NBA championship? Title teams STAY OUT.

[GhostOfPoverty]

Close to half of the 30 current NBA teams have never won a title, or have a title wins(s) that were strictly from previous locations of the franchise. My Minnesota Timberwolves are one of those teams. Feel free to include your thoughts on your own team if it has only 1 or 2 titles. Fans of teams with several titles feel free to add your thoughts on the teams of us who suffer title droughts.

As much as I want to believe, when I look at it logically, I just don't see an NBA title coming to Minnesota. Whereas it's at least feasible with the Vikings in the NFL if they could get over their choking ways, the culture of the NBA makes it almost impossible for small market teams like Minnesota to do anything. Anytime we draft or even trade for a high quality talent, they all eventually bail for teams and markets with legitimate chances to compete for championships, so we're constantly restarting anything good that does happen to occur here. The culture of the NBA is simply too heavily focused on name brands for the top superstars, and hardly any of them will pick a place like Minnesota over a place like L.A., Boston, etc. regardless of whether or not Minnesota could afford their NBA salary demands. This problem branches beyond trying to form a title contending core of players into making it difficult to attract legitimate coaching leadership, and it seems to require a local billionaire owner to even keep them in the state in the first place.

If only we had offered up Andrew Wiggins to Cleveland last year for Kyrie after Kyrie mentioned Minnesota as a preferred landing spot, maybe we could have had a big 3 of KAT, Kyrie and Butler to build on. Wouldn't have propelled them past the Warriors on its own, but now it's looking like Butler will bail, Wiggins probably won't ever live up to his hype, and who knows if KAT will even want to stay long-term whether or not his development continues.

*shrugs* I guess we can still blindly hold out hope that they get it together enough next season to convince Butler to stay and that a legit big 3 can come of KAT/Wiggins/Butler. I don't see it, though. Probably back to square one within a couple of years.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

It doesn't matter where your team won their title. They still won it.

 

[rtfgbfan]

It doesn't matter where your team won their title. They still won it.

I see what you did there. Nice.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

It doesn't matter where your team won their title. They still won it.

On the official record books, teams don't always retain the titles from their previous locations. See OKC for example, they didn't retain the banner for the 1979 championship won in Seattle, and the city retained it.

On a more figurative level, you can view it how you want I guess. Like with L.A., they retain the titles won as the Minneapolis Lakers on an official level, and they are always counted whenever their total title count is brought up. If I were a Lakers fan, I wouldn't ever be able to view the titles won in the 40's and 50's in Minneapolis in quite the same light as the titles won in L.A. That's not to delegitimize those championships by any means, but I would think that titles won when they were actually the L.A. Lakers would mean more to the fans than ones they won when they were located in Minneapolis. I put my money where my mouth is on this too. I don't say the Twins have 3 MLB titles instead of 2 just because they won a World Series in 1927 as the Washington Senators that's still technically retained by the current team. It feels disingenuous to view it in the same light as the ones they won in Minnesota.

Again, just my 2 cents. Feel free to hold your own opinion on the matter. Obviously you're going to be a lot more inclined to count old location championships in the same light as current location ones when your team won 5 of them their previous location.


Edit: You are one cheeky fellow, m8.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

On the official record books, teams don't always retain the titles from their previous locations. See OKC for example, they didn't retain the banner for the 1979 championship won in Seattle, and the city retained it.

On a more figurative level, you can view it how you want I guess. Like with L.A., they retain the titles won as the Minneapolis Lakers on an official level, and they are always counted whenever their total title count is brought up. If I were a Lakers fan, I wouldn't ever be able to view the titles won in the 40's and 50's in Minneapolis in quite the same light as the titles won in L.A. That's not to delegitimize those championships by any means, but I would think that titles won when they were actually the L.A. Lakers would mean more to the fans than ones they won when they were located in Minneapolis. I put my money where my mouth is on this too. I don't say the Twins have 3 MLB titles instead of 2 just because they won a World Series in 1927 as the Washington Senators that's still technically retained by the current team. It feels disingenuous to view it in the same light as the ones they won in Minnesota.

Again, just my 2 cents. Feel free to hold your own opinion on the matter. Obviously you're going to be a lot more inclined to count old location championships in the same light as current location ones when your team won 5 of them their previous location.


Edit: You are one cheeky fellow, m8.

I don't get why some people say the Lakers shouldn't count the 'ships won in Minneapolis.

I root for the team, not the city.

 

[GhostOfPoverty]

I don't get why some people say the Lakers shouldn't count the 'ships won in Minneapolis.

I root for the team, not the city.

Like I said, I get that perspective. I don't know if you have any ties to L.A. or are from that area, but it makes more sense when you're just deciding to root for a random team. But I would think that titles won in the current location would mean more to local area fans, or at least fans from the same state.

And from an unofficial perspective, I don't see how the Lakers hold any more credibility to claim the Minneapolis titles than the city of Minneapolis itself does. They won those titles when people who would likely be rooting for the Timberwolves today were supporting them and going to games back then. To say Minneapolis holds no credit for those and only L.A. does completely discredits all of that. The city of L.A. had no ties to those championships besides happening to have a team with titles already under their belt from their former fan base moved there. Like I said, it's not just the Lakers I feel that way about; I'd say the same thing about the Twins and their World Series win from 1927 as the Washington Senators.

Out of curiosity: Would you remain a Lakers fan if they moved again? Did you root for the Seattle Supersonics before they moved to OKC?

 

[Nosferatu]

I don't get why some people say the Lakers shouldn't count the 'ships won in Minneapolis.

I root for the team, not the city.

So if the Lakers moved to Des Moines you'd be a Des Moines Lakers fan the rest of your life?

As somebody who has lived with their team moving I can say when the North Stars moved to Dallas I still followed the team but once the last Minnesota North Stars player left the team I stopped caring about them or following the team, now there is not many teams in the NHL I dislike more than the Dallas Stars.

Fuck Norm Green!

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I don't get why some people say the Lakers shouldn't count the 'ships won in Minneapolis.

I root for the team, not the city.

Really easy why they say that - They are jealous and they want to diminish what teams like the Lakers and Boston Celtics have done. Now let me ask a question

How many of the current owners in the NBA have one a title while owning the team? I think it would be more accurate to reset the clock every time the ownership resets. It's really just a retarded argument and a tired old one

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Like I said, I get that perspective. I don't know if you have any ties to L.A. or are from that area, but it makes more sense when you're just deciding to root for a random team. But I would think that titles won in the current location would mean more to local area fans, or at least fans from the same state.

And from an unofficial perspective, I don't see how the Lakers hold any more credibility to claim the Minneapolis titles than the city of Minneapolis itself does. They won those titles when people who would likely be rooting for the Timberwolves today were supporting them and going to games back then. To say Minneapolis holds no credit for those and only L.A. does completely discredits all of that. The city of L.A. had no ties to those championships besides happening to have a team with titles already under their belt from their former fan base moved there. Like I said, it's not just the Lakers I feel that way about; I'd say the same thing about the Twins and their World Series win from 1927 as the Washington Senators.

Out of curiosity: Would you remain a Lakers fan if they moved again? Did you root for the Seattle Supersonics before they moved to OKC?

Academic because the Lakers ain't moving bro, but here is something that you fail to understand: The Lakers own those championship - not Minneapolis and not Los Angeles. Seattle is the only time I can think of in which the team name was owned by the city, so when the current ownership bought out the organization - they purchased the assets and liabilities. The name was not for sale with that so effectively in the law of contracts, the new ownership purchased the contracts of the players, the equipment and then they moved everything to Oklahoma. Jerry Buss purchased the Lakers name, the assets, the liabilities and the rights to the titles and therefore they belong to the Los Angeles Lakers which is the same company as the Minneapolis Lakers - same team. So get over it that your beloved city lost the Lakers - it's ancient history

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Like I said, I get that perspective. I don't know if you have any ties to L.A. or are from that area, but it makes more sense when you're just deciding to root for a random team. But I would think that titles won in the current location would mean more to local area fans, or at least fans from the same state.

And from an unofficial perspective, I don't see how the Lakers hold any more credibility to claim the Minneapolis titles than the city of Minneapolis itself does. They won those titles when people who would likely be rooting for the Timberwolves today were supporting them and going to games back then. To say Minneapolis holds no credit for those and only L.A. does completely discredits all of that. The city of L.A. had no ties to those championships besides happening to have a team with titles already under their belt from their former fan base moved there. Like I said, it's not just the Lakers I feel that way about; I'd say the same thing about the Twins and their World Series win from 1927 as the Washington Senators.

Out of curiosity: Would you remain a Lakers fan if they moved again? Did you root for the Seattle Supersonics before they moved to OKC?

One could argue you are randomly selecting the Losers Timberwolves to root for

 

[Sgt Brutus]

Got to love Lakers fans, aye? Never pretentious assholes. Never.

 

[Bolts]

One could argue you are randomly selecting the Losers Timberwolves to root for

I mean if he's rooting for all other Minnesota teams, I doubt it's just a random choice.

 

[Nosferatu]

One could argue you are randomly selecting the Losers Timberwolves to root for

What the fuck man?

 

[Bolts]

When it comes to the situation with the Lakers still counting their titles, I get that they won them as Lakers but the LA Lakers which is how they present themselves now didn't win 16. Fans will brag about all of the titles even if the reason they root for the Lakers is because of them playing in LA and they weren't around when the team was in Minnesota.

As for if my team will ever win a title, I think Sacramento has just as good a chance of being the home city to an NBA champion as they would if the Kings had moved to Seattle.

 

[Bolts]

What the fuck man?

Someone doubts the credibility of an LA Lakers championship, they obviously are jealous because they chose to root for a loser over the almighty MINLAL.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

So if the Lakers moved to Des Moines you'd be a Des Moines Lakers fan the rest of your life?

Yes. It's really that simple.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

When it comes to the situation with the Lakers still counting their titles, I get that they won them as Lakers but the LA Lakers which is how they present themselves now didn't win 16. Fans will brag about all of the titles even if the reason they root for the Lakers is because of them playing in LA and they weren't around when the team was in Minnesota.

As for if my team will ever win a title, I think Sacramento has just as good a chance of being the home city to an NBA champion as they would if the Kings had moved to Seattle.

You do realise the team name isn't the 'LA Lakers', it's just the 'Lakers', right?

So yes, the Lakers did win 16 'ships.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Got to love Lakers fans, aye? Never pretentious assholes. Never.

I see the cavs fans are still bitter...

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Out of curiosity: Would you remain a Lakers fan if they moved again? Did you root for the Seattle Supersonics before they moved to OKC?

Yes, I root for the organisation, the team, not the city. The fact that they happen to be in LA makes no difference to my loyalty.

 

[Nosferatu]

Yes. It's really that simple.

Honestly, I believe you. I see that you’re from Washington had I noticed that before I wouldn’t have said anything.