Who is the face of the Kings franchise?

silky johnson

silky johnson

Prospect
#1
#1
When you think of certain teams, there is usually one player that comes to mind. He's the franchise's "golden boy" i guess you could say. For example, you think of the Bulls and you think of MJ, the Cavs you'd probably think of LeBron, the Celts probably Russell or maybe Larry Legend, Lakers - you got several candidates, the Pacers probably Reggie Miller, Jazz - Karl Malone, Knicks - Patrick Ewing?.... Lions - Barry Sanders, Jets - Broadway Joe,Yankees - the Babe, Broncos - Elway, etc., etc... anyway, you get the point.


When you think of the Kings, is there one player that stands out and embodies the franchise? If so who, in your opinion, is the face of the franchise?
 
PurpleHaze

PurpleHaze

All-Star
#2
#2
I think we've had this discussion here before and the usual answer given is Kevin Martin. To spice it up, how about Kevin's face, RonRon's body, and Reggie's mouth.
 
silky johnson

silky johnson

Prospect
#3
#3
PurpleHaze said:
I think we've had this discussion here before and the usual answer given is Kevin Martin. To spice it up, how about Kevin's face, RonRon's body, and Reggie's mouth.
Click to expand...


Really? K-Mart? That's pretty surprising considering He's only been here four years and has only had two good seasons (in which the team hasnt really accomplished much).
 
Löwenherz

Löwenherz

Starter
#8
#8
In the time of my fandom, the face of the franchise has been, in order: Richmond, Webber, Artest.

And by "face" I mean the one guy opposing teams' fans and casual fans alike immediately think of, for better or worse, when they hear their team is playing the Sacramento Kings.

It could be argued Bibby or Peja was the face of the Kings during the brief period between the Webber and Artest eras ... but I feel those teams were defined specifically for NOT having a face of the franchise.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#9
#9
I think if you have to ask a question like this, the answer is automatically nobody. If you have a true Face of the Franchise, you know. They don't have threads on this in Cleveland or New Orleans or Orlando. And while I would normally consider a question like this to be superficial and meaningless, the fact we don't have a real one is a significant issue for the franchise and its sense of rudderlessness. And we can go ahead and try to annoint whoever we want by a plurality of the vote, but that's just a pale imitation of the real thing. Some teams just do not have them, and randomly trying to label someone as that guy doessn't change the underlying issue.

I would BTW agree with the Richmond/Webber/Artest era thing. But for a variety of reasons Ron can never be embraced and promoted as what the franchise is about. The best player, yes.
 
Last edited:
silky johnson

silky johnson

Prospect
#10
#10
Bricklayer said:
I think if you have to ask a question like this, the answer is automatically nobody. If you have a true Face of the Franchise, you know. They don't have threads on this in Cleveland or New Orleans or Orlando. And while I would normally consider a question like this to be superficial and meaningless, the fact we don't have a real one is a significant issue for the franchise and its sense of rudderlessness. And we can go ahead and try to annoint whoever we want by a plurality of the vote, but that's just a pale imitation of the real thing. Some teams just do not have them, and randomly trying to label someone as that guy doessn't change the underlying issue.

I would BTW agree with the Richmond/Webber/Artest era thing. But for a variety of reasons Ron can never be embraced and promoted as what the franchise is about. The best player, yes.
Click to expand...

Well I figured I'd ask because there's Kings fans here that have been a fan longer than I have. I've only been a fan since the lock-out season (I know lame but his Airness had a hold on me). For the time I've been a fan it's been C-Webb but I know Mitch was a big part of the franchise as was Tiny at one point. I guess you're right, we've never really had a "face of the franchise" type player. It could have been Webber had he stayed healthy and given us a couple more good years but that didnt happen. You're right though, if I have to ask... :rolleyes:
 
One and Done

One and Done

Bench
#11
#11
As many will probably answer, we have no "face of the franchise."

Reason being: we have no franchise player. Kevin Martin ain't it...debate it all you want, he's a great scorer, but by no means a "franchise" player.

Like others have said...Richmond, Webber...those were franchise players.

Right now, it appears the Maloofs are the most recognized personalities of the Kings, nationally.
 
uolj

uolj

Starter
#12
#12
Oscar Robertson.

Sacramento only? Chris Webber.

Right now? I don't know. Joe Maloof, Geoff Petrie, Kevin Martin and Ron Artest are all good answers.
 
silky johnson

silky johnson

Prospect
#13
#13
The big O of course! god i need some rest (finals this week). that would be my choice.

As for the Sac era i guess it would be C-Webb if only because of the success the Kings had with him.
 
Aenadin

Aenadin

Starter
#14
#14
id love to say the face of the sacramento kings franchise is the fans :D one of the best in the world

but in discussing of who is the player who is the face of the kings.... i think its a mystery since its a split btwn artest and martin, when bibby was here it WAS him since he was part of that golden era...

cant say its artest since hes only been here for 2 years cant say its martin since hes too young and still working to earn the respect of many (hes one of the underrated SGs in the league..) and it certainly cant be brad since hes not that vocal when it comes to team mates... so basically we dont have a "face" its like the NBA asks for an id and we give them a family portrait... those are the faces that make the kings :p
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#15
#15
silky johnson said:
Well I figured I'd ask because there's Kings fans here that have been a fan longer than I have. I've only been a fan since the lock-out season (I know lame but his Airness had a hold on me). For the time I've been a fan it's been C-Webb but I know Mitch was a big part of the franchise as was Tiny at one point. I guess you're right, we've never really had a "face of the franchise" type player. It could have been Webber had he stayed healthy and given us a couple more good years but that didnt happen. You're right though, if I have to ask... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I consider "face of the franchise" to be a fluid/ever-changing thing. So I do think we had one there -- it was Webb. And before that we had one who would never have been one anywhere but Sacto, but was still clearly the center of everything we were trying to do in Richmond. And yeah, obviously a long time ago before Sacto The Big O was it, and Tiny Archibald likely rose to that level for a few years there in the 70s. But that's all ancient history. In Sacto there have been just the two, and in truth even Mitch was not a face of the franchise level guy (a major reason why we never won during that era).

In any case I took the question to be about the present, and was answering it accordingly. Right now we don't have one. And really its almost guaranteed that we won't return to the level we were in the glory years until we have one again.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#16
#16
According to Gavin Maloof, the "face of the franchise" is Kevin Martin. Maloof said it, I believe, when they had the contract-signing party for Martin in downtown Sacramento. Of course, that's Gavin - and we know how excited and exuberant he can get.

In all seriousness, I think it is fluid and I think there's a lot of variation in the definition of the term. In the now, I think Martin is closest to how I define it.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#19
#19
VF21 said:
According to Gavin Maloof, the "face of the franchise" is Kevin Martin. Maloof said it, I believe, when they had the contract-signing party for Martin in downtown Sacramento. Of course, that's Gavin - and we know how excited and exuberant he can get.
Click to expand...
I think that's a classic example of what I was saying where announcing "voila! Here is our face of the franchise!" is just puffery and salesmanship. You can of course pretend a guy is the "face fo the franchise" as much as you want if you own a team. You can try to sell it to the fans in the hopes they won't be able to distinguish things. But in many ways trying to falsely annoint a "face of the franchise" -- which is a position that is generally earned, not given -- can be more pernicious than just admitting you do not have one. You figure hey, all the good teams have FoFs, if we call somebody our FoF, then we will be good too! But it does not work that way. You annoint a Michael Redd the FoF, you end up like the Bucks.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#20
#20
Bricklayer said:
I think that's a classic example of what I was saying where announcing "voila! Here is our face of the franchise!" is just puffery and salesmanship. You can of course pretend a guy is the "face fo the franchise" as much as you want if you own a team. You can try to sell it to the fans in the hopes they won't be able to distinguish things. But in many ways trying to falsely annoint a "face of the franchise" -- which is a position that is generally earned, not given -- can be more pernicious than just admitting you do not have one. You figure hey, all the good teams have FoFs, if we call somebody our FoF, then we will be good too! But it does not work that way. You annoint a Michael Redd the FoF, you end up like the Bucks.
Click to expand...
I think I was actually trying to agree with you and expand a bit. I don't think the Kings have really been known as a team with a "face of the franchise." Look at THE TEAM, a classic situation where the total was infinitely better than the mere sum of the parts.

I don't think the Kings need a "face of the franchise" as much as they need a team identity.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#21
#21
VF21 said:
I don't think the Kings need a "face of the franchise" as much as they need a team identity.
Click to expand...
I would certainly agree that team identity is always a key. That's actually one of the major ways a FoF helps beyond just the overwhelming talent. Its a major step toward defining who you are.
 
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#23
#23
Bricklayer said:
I consider "face of the franchise" to be a fluid/ever-changing thing. So I do think we had one there -- it was Webb. And before that we had one who would never have been one anywhere but Sacto, but was still clearly the center of everything we were trying to do in Richmond. And yeah, obviously a long time ago before Sacto The Big O was it, and Tiny Archibald likely rose to that level for a few years there in the 70s. But that's all ancient history. In Sacto there have been just the two, and in truth even Mitch was not a face of the franchise level guy (a major reason why we never won during that era).

In any case I took the question to be about the present, and was answering it accordingly. Right now we don't have one. And really its almost guaranteed that we won't return to the level we were in the glory years until we have one again.
Click to expand...
Mitch was just on ESPN representing the Warriors. So much for that face of the franchise (I know he was there first).
 
Amanjoy

Amanjoy

Bench
#24
#24
Fresno King said:
The face of the franchise will hopefully be Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley.

But for now, it's the Maloof brothers.
Click to expand...
According to what I saw at the Draft Lottery tonight, the Maloof's have designated the title of "face of the franchise" to Margie Parilo! lol!

In all seriousness though...good for her!!! What an honor!
 
A

AriesMar27

Guest
#29
#29
whos the face of the pistons, hawks, grizz, knicks, nets, warriors or clippers? granted only the pistons and warriors are worth mentioning but still... same situation....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.