It's their franchises le, I don't know what they feel or if they hang a banner for it. It's their right. I know Dodger fans are happy with that one le from Brooklyn. I have seen them fly the banner. Unless they have all died, Brooklyn still has plenty of Dodger fans. So, do the Dodger disasters in the World Series against the Yankees when they played in Brooklyn not count anymore, and it's now 2-2 since they moved to LA? Yeah, tell that to a Yankees fan. Giants won nothing in San Francisco, but brought their New York les with them. Willie Mays won a championship in New York and is recognized for it. Ever see that circus catch he made against the Indians? It was in 1954. San Francisco and Mays fans will be happy to tell you about it.
Well, leagues count les won by franchises. I believe the Oakland Raiders count their LA le even though they went back to Oakland.
My argument is similar. A le won before someone is born is still a le, no matter where it was won. It belongs to the franchise. They just weren't around when it was won. Let me attempt to clarify with an example. Say fans of random teams are 31 years old and started watching the NBA at age 10 in 1989:
Bulls fan has seen 6 NBA les.
Lakers fan has seen 4 NBA les.
Spurs fan has seen 4 NBA les.
Pistons fan has seen 3 NBA les.
Rockets fan has seen 2 NBA les.
Heat fan has seen 1 NBA le.
Celtics fan has seen 1 NBA le.
Now, the Celtics fan, for example knows his team has the most les but he hasn't witnessed but one and it sucks. So, he harks back to the history of the franchise for glory, all before he was born let alone a fan, and tries to diminish the Lakers old les. I'd wager back in the 60's you will find Boston newspapers bragging about how the Celtics took over the league lead when they got their 6th championship, wresting it away from the Lakers; who were now playing in Los Angeles. My point is, if the Minneapolis les didn't count and don't belong to Los Angeles, that should have been addressed when they moved. All the record books count them belonging to the franchise. People can disagree with it, and not like it, but the facts say what they say.
I could be wrong, but I believe the deal to allow the move to OKC was the team colors, le, and history stay in Seattle. Cleveland Browns did the same thing when their team moved to Baltimore. NBA-Reference.com doesn't agree with me, they list the Sonics in the Thunder history.
How did they buy 5 les from Minneapolis? The owner moved them west, and again, the nucleus of the team came with them. That's completely different than buying Phelps' gold medals. It was still the same organization and continued to excel. Their home games was the only difference from then on out. Any road game the Lakers played since, including this season, they could be from Timbuktu as far as the host is concerned. It just took another 10 years of Boston dominance before the Lakers could win.
Essentially it's a no win argument. I appreciate your logical input.

Reply With Quote
Go read some stuff about the Celtics vs Lakers so-called rivalry. You can even use the wikipedia.
