De’Aaron Martez Fox

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#61
Because he's part of the franchise? I feel like this must be a trick question.
I just don't understand why he is part of the Kings franchise and not the Cincinnati Royals. He never had a Kings across his chest and he retired long before the Kings moved to Sacramento so it's one of those things that don't add up to me
 
#62
I just don't understand why he is part of the Kings franchise and not the Cincinnati Royals. He never had a Kings across his chest and he retired long before the Kings moved to Sacramento so it's one of those things that don't add up to me
The Royals and the Kings are the same franchise. They changed their name from Royals to Kings when they moved to Kansas City, but the franchise is the same.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#63
The Royals and the Kings are the same franchise. They changed their name from Royals to Kings when they moved to Kansas City, but the franchise is the same.
Yep. Not like the OKC situation where Seattle kept the Sonics name and gear and history and the Thunder pretty much became a franchise squad with a prebuilt roster.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#64
The Royals and the Kings are the same franchise. They changed their name from Royals to Kings when they moved to Kansas City, but the franchise is the same.
I understand all that I just don't understand why that translates over to the Kings when they played in Cincinnati and Kansas City. That has nothing to do with the Sacramento Kings franchise.
 
#70
Yep. Not like the OKC situation where Seattle kept the Sonics name and gear and history and the Thunder pretty much became a franchise squad with a prebuilt roster.
Even that situation is the same. The NBA and NFL can’t erase history.

OKC’s roster is an evolution of everything that happened in SEA. There’s no escaping that, even if they separate their historical stats.

Same is true of the Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns. The current Browns team has no connection to the original Browns except that they share the same name, wear the same colors, and play in the same city. The 2000 Ravens title was largely made possible due to the history of the original Browns.
 
#72
The Royals and the Kings are the same franchise. They changed their name from Royals to Kings when they moved to Kansas City, but the franchise is the same.
IMO the best way for fans to think about it is that it’s a family tree. Some family members change their last name, but they are still descendants from the same family.

The Sacramento Kings roster is an evolution of the same franchise that once was based in Rochester, Cincinnati, and Kansas City.

In fact, our KINGS are the eldest existing franchise in the NBA.
 
#77
history is built over time for each franchise, not transferred from city to city
It is transferred from city to city. If you ask someone how many World Series the Dodgers have won, you don't get two answers based on their time in LA and in Brooklyn. Same with the Giants in NY and SF. The Lakers don't only include their Championships in LA, but also in Minneapolis. There is a reason that the Jerseys of Oscar Robertson, Sam Lacey, Tiny Archibald and Jerry Lucas are in the rafters in Sacramento. They are all part of the same franchise in the eyes of the team and the league.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#78
It is transferred from city to city. If you ask someone how many World Series the Dodgers have won, you don't get two answers based on their time in LA and in Brooklyn. Same with the Giants in NY and SF. The Lakers don't only include their Championships in LA, but also in Minneapolis. There is a reason that the Jerseys of Oscar Robertson, Sam Lacey, Tiny Archibald and Jerry Lucas are in the rafters in Sacramento. They are all part of the same franchise in the eyes of the team and the league.
and that is very unfortunate to the cities where those champions were crowned
 
#80
IMO the best way for fans to think about it is that it’s a family tree. Some family members change their last name, but they are still descendants from the same family.

The Sacramento Kings roster is an evolution of the same franchise that once was based in Rochester, Cincinnati, and Kansas City.

In fact, our KINGS are the eldest existing franchise in the NBA.
Lets not forget Omaha, my original hometown and why I’ve been a Kings fan since before Sacramento.
Two cities sharing a team was a bit of a strange arrangement but in the early 70’s after relocating from Cincinnati they were the Kansas City-Omaha Kings. That lasted about three years until Kansas City built a new arena and eventually Omaha was phased out.
 
#82
Didn't the Royals only change their name to the Kings because Kansas City already had a team with that name?
I don’t remember it as I was just a kid but have since read that’s the case. Also they chose Kings as it kept with KC’s royalty theme.
 
Last edited:
#83
Lets not forget Omaha, my original hometown and why I’ve been a Kings fan since before Sacramento.
Two cities sharing a team was a bit of a strange arrangement but in the early 70’s after relocating from Cincinnati they were the Kansas City-Omaha Kings. That lasted about three years until Kansas City built a new arena and eventually Omaha was phased out.
Good call out. Bad omission on my part.

FWIW, one of my lifelong best friends is from La Vista. He grew up there until he was around 12 or 13.
 
#84
Personally I tie a team to its city before everything else. I root for the Kings because they represent my city, not because of who owns the team or who plays for the team. If the Kings moved, they would no longer be my team. I honestly feel like if a team moves they should change their name, and if the city they moved from should ever get a team again they should have the team name they had before.

Apparently this thread is about Fox. Call me crazy but I think he is quite good. I'm thrilled that he knows who he is now, a leader and a true star in this league.
 
#86
It is transferred from city to city. If you ask someone how many World Series the Dodgers have won, you don't get two answers based on their time in LA and in Brooklyn. Same with the Giants in NY and SF. The Lakers don't only include their Championships in LA, but also in Minneapolis. There is a reason that the Jerseys of Oscar Robertson, Sam Lacey, Tiny Archibald and Jerry Lucas are in the rafters in Sacramento. They are all part of the same franchise in the eyes of the team and the league.
While what you say is generally true amongst fans and media, I don't believe it's true for all. Might not even be a majority.

I mean, as a KINGS fan since they moved to SAC in 1985 I never talk about or claim the 1951 Championship won while playing in Rochester. Even though the banner is rightfully hanging from the rafters.

As a life long Dodgers fan, I only consider their accomplishments after the team moved from Brooklyn to LA in 1958. The rationale being that had they never relocated from Brooklyn, I wouldn't have ever become a fan.

I've made that same point to my rival Giants friends. They like to cite and claim titles won in the 1880's when the team was not only still in NY but when there were only 8 teams in the National League and the American League hadn't even been formed yet. To me that's laughable.

Makes much more sense to debate the accomplishments of the SF Giants and LA Dodgers, who both relocated in 1958. And if neither had done so, we wouldn't be having spirited arguments about them!

I get that, statistically and historically, all the accomplishments travel with the franchise. But as a fan I don't claim or tout any of it.

To a smaller degree I have a hard time touting the Miami Dolphins perfect season in 1972 or their 2 SB wins. Because I was too young to remember any of it! Only difference is they were always in MIA and never moved. So I acknowledge it but certainly didn't get to experience or enjoy it.

Same goes with the LA Dodgers titles in 59, 63 and 65. But when arguing with my friends, it's a much more apples-to-apples comparison between the Giants and Dodgers because of when they relocated and also when both leagues were in existence.

Just my view on it.

Straying further off topic, it's been common practice among media and the MLB itself to cite stats and accomplishments from 1920 on, after the deadball era.

In the NFL 1970 is often used a benchmark since that's when the AFL-NFL merger took place. Anything that took place prior to the 1st SB season in 1966-67 is largely swept under the carpet.

The NBA doesn't seem to have a delineated time frame, other than perhaps the NBA/ABA merger in 1976.

In tennis, they pretty much only talk about records achieved from 1968 on, which is considered the beginning of the "Open Era".
 
Last edited: