share

Hornets history problem

Tioseco
Registered User
Joined: 07/31/2011
Posts: 87
Points: 329
Offline
Hornets history problem

This may be unnecessarily long, but the celebration of Alonzo Mourning Night last week and the Dell Curry Night earlier in the season just got me thinking - why do the current Charlotte Hornets (from the Bobcats) own the history of the old Charlotte Hornets (has since moved on to New Orleans and now called the Pelicans)? I read somewhere that they went into the agreement with the NBA for this, but I just find this weird and also a bit troubling for historical purposes.

I know the "reasoning" as to why the people from Charlotte would want the current set-up and all that - they still feel connected with the Charlotte Hornets of old, they've always owned the team name, that history matters more for their people than those in New Orleans, etc etc. But still. For all the other 29 NBA teams today, every franchise that has moved from city to city keeps and brings along their history with them, no matter if they change their team name or what. Simply put, that's how it should be and that is what makes the most sense. Should the Lakers championships from their Mineapollis days not count for them? Should the Kings just remove the history made during the Cincinnati Royals days and wait for a team to pop up there to pick it up? We can go on with just about every other team. Everything has been consistent - except for the Charlotte Hornets now.

The historical stat-keeping side of things of this whole issue is what is really interesting. What do they do with the stats of players who overlapped between the old Charlotte Hornets and the New Orleans Hornets teams? The NOH stats are kept in the history of the Pelicans franchise. Now for players like Jamal Mashburn and Baron Davis, isn't it just unfair that their stats for their years on the old Charlotte/New Orleans Pelicans are now divided into two separate teams when they really only played for one? What if Baron Davis should be something like 3rd all-time in assists for the Pelicans franchise but is now a lot lower because the stats from the Cha. Hornets days are now kept by the new Cha. Hornets? How do they even technically explain on paper how players under contract (old Charlotte Hornets) got moved to another team (New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans) without their contracts being bought out or without being traded? How do they explain the (now) first years of the New Orleans Hornets without going through the process of being an expansion team?

Outside of all the emotional and familiarity reasons, this whole thing just doesn't make sense to me and I honestly find it weird that the NBA agreed on this and also how it hasn't/wasn't a bigger issue than what it is. I mean the team name (Hornets) should only serve as a nickname anyway. Maybe if the old Charlotte Hornets had more success like conference/division titles or championships, those from the New Orleans franchise (the same franchise that *hypothetically* won those) would've protested. I dont know. What do you guys think?


Tioseco
Registered User
Joined: 07/31/2011
Posts: 87
Points: 329
Offline
For the record

For the record: I am not saying that the current team shouldn't be named the Charlotte Hornets. I am perfectly fine with that

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 13072
Points: 14965
Offline
this is something ive never

this is something ive never really thought about. yeah its kind of odd when talking about franchise history and stats and things of that nature. Ive always considered George mikan a member of the laker family and I doubt the current twolve fans consider him one of their own. But when its more modern times, it just doesn't feel right for the pelicans to celebrate people like Alonzo mourning. Same thing if seattle ever gets another team. Do you think the thunder should hang gary payton and sean kemp's jerseys up in Oklahoma or should seattle'snew franchise do it? Seems simple enough, those guys should be considered part of the new franchise in seattle whenever they get one. The stats thing and franchise history stuff can make things a little more confusing though.

Tioseco
Registered User
Joined: 07/31/2011
Posts: 87
Points: 329
Offline
But

I do understand the whole "emotion" side of things, but with this being a business, this being consistent to every team in history except now, and also given the fact that it really gives historical record problems makes me stick to my stand. You say that it doesn't feel right in "modern times" and I understand. But soon, the "modern times" you speak of will soon be the past and part of history, and then it will seem weird. Earl Monroe, who played for the Baltimore Bullets (now the Washington Wizards), had his jersey retired in 2007 by the Wizards franchise. With your argument, this shouldn't have been done. And for your argument for Payton and Kemp, what if Seattle never gets a team again? Then their contributions to a franchise that still exists (OKC Thunder) wouldn't be recognized? Also, if Seattle gets a team again (whatever the name) and acquire the history of the old Sonics, how about Kevin Durant's rookie year stats? Same question i posed in my original post, how do they explain him changing teams while under contract without being traded or bought out? And would that reduce his stat totals for th Thunder?

llperez
llperez's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/13/2009
Posts: 13072
Points: 14965
Offline
I don't disagree with

I don't disagree with anything you have said. Just giving my two cents on the subject. I dont think in the big picture there is any issues. Durants rookie stats haven't been lost. im sure the thunder recognize all his career stats. Baron davis career stats are readily available and recorded for the franchise he played for. if the current hornets want to recognize past hornets, then thats up to them. If the pelicans want to recognize or not recognize guys who played in charlotte, thats up to them too. if a city wants to start fresh with a new identity and not recognize guys who had played for a different franchise that you used to be in that city, that's up to them. Im not really sure what the problem is. Also the city of seattle already made the deal prior to the sonics leaving for Oklahoma that they would retain all rights to the sonics brand and name.

rope
rope's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/16/2013
Posts: 463
Points: 1403
Offline
The Cleveland Browns left to

The Cleveland Browns left to become the Baltimore Ravens. When Cleveland got an expansion team, they called it the Browns and wll records stayed in Cleveland. This isn't that different.

When Seattle eventually gets a new team, they will be called the Sonics and they will reclaim the records that went to OKC.

This is pretty much how it works.

Tioseco
Registered User
Joined: 07/31/2011
Posts: 87
Points: 329
Offline
Thanks for the nfl reference and example

But i'm not sure that that's "pretty much how it works" because in the NBA, except for Charlotte now, cities that have lost teams but regained another one (Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Chicago) never really got their old city team's records.

RSS: Syndicate content