the celtics are actually the clippers?

[zerophase]

this is from a story posted on the main page:

Prior to the 1978-79 season, Boston Celtics owner Irv Levin and Buffalo Braves owner John Y. Brown agreed to trade places. Levin, a California native, would takeover the Braves and move them to San Diego, where they became the Clippers, while Brown would takeover the Celtics.

http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/07/do-celtics-play-in-boston-or-la.html

first read of it i blew it off, but now it got me thinking: in seattle, if a team were to move there, wouldn't it be named the supersonics again due to the legal agreements made? so therefore the with the current seattle team in oak city, isn't that like the situation this article is describing?

[Roy Hobbs]

It's more like the situation of the Cleveland Browns in the NFL.  The original Browns franchise now plays in Baltimore, where they go by the Ravens.  The new "Browns" were an expansion team (although the NFL tried to avoid that characterization).

[paintitgreen]

To me, it's not like either situation really. Both those situations (if a team goes back to Seattle) involve a team moving to a new city, and a few years later, an expansion team coming in. In this Celtics/Braves/Clippers thing, it was just owners switching spots and a big trade. The T Wolves aren't the Celtics because their best player came to Boston and 6 of our players went to Minnesota. And if Wyc and Mark Cuban decided to switch spots, Dallas wouldn't become the Celtics. The history of the team is not the owners. Now, if the Celtics had moved to San Diego and the Braves moved to Boston, yes, the franchises would have changed and the Clippers would be the old Celtics. And arguably, if the entire rosters had switched places, it would be the same situation. But the Celtics franchise and most of its players (and most importantly, its GM Red Auerbach) remained - only the owners and some players changed places.

The new Browns are not the old Browns and any new Sonics team will not be the old Sonics team. Even if the league placed a new Sonics team in Seattle now, it wouldn't be the same thing, because the entire roster would be gone. Now, if the Sonics got to keep Durant, then I'd say they're still the Sonics. But when a team takes part in an expansion draft, it's an expansion team, and not an extension of a previous team.

[Emmette Bryant]

To me, it's not like either situation really. Both those situations (if a team goes back to Seattle) involve a team moving to a new city, and a few years later, an expansion team coming in. In this Celtics/Braves/Clippers thing, it was just owners switching spots and a big trade. The T Wolves aren't the Celtics because their best player came to Boston and 6 of our players went to Minnesota. And if Wyc and Mark Cuban decided to switch spots, Dallas wouldn't become the Celtics. The history of the team is not the owners. Now, if the Celtics had moved to San Diego and the Braves moved to Boston, yes, the franchises would have changed and the Clippers would be the old Celtics. And arguably, if the entire rosters had switched places, it would be the same situation. But the Celtics franchise and most of its players (and most importantly, its GM Red Auerbach) remained - only the owners and some players changed places.

The new Browns are not the old Browns and any new Sonics team will not be the old Sonics team. Even if the league placed a new Sonics team in Seattle now, it wouldn't be the same thing, because the entire roster would be gone. Now, if the Sonics got to keep Durant, then I'd say they're still the Sonics. But when a team takes part in an expansion draft, it's an expansion team, and not an extension of a previous team.

Actually, the new Browns are the old Browns.  Baltimore is the expansion team.

The Baltimore Ravens history started when Art Modell (spit) moved his team to Baltimore.

[Roy Hobbs]

To me, it's not like either situation really. Both those situations (if a team goes back to Seattle) involve a team moving to a new city, and a few years later, an expansion team coming in. In this Celtics/Braves/Clippers thing, it was just owners switching spots and a big trade. The T Wolves aren't the Celtics because their best player came to Boston and 6 of our players went to Minnesota. And if Wyc and Mark Cuban decided to switch spots, Dallas wouldn't become the Celtics. The history of the team is not the owners. Now, if the Celtics had moved to San Diego and the Braves moved to Boston, yes, the franchises would have changed and the Clippers would be the old Celtics. And arguably, if the entire rosters had switched places, it would be the same situation. But the Celtics franchise and most of its players (and most importantly, its GM Red Auerbach) remained - only the owners and some players changed places.

The new Browns are not the old Browns and any new Sonics team will not be the old Sonics team. Even if the league placed a new Sonics team in Seattle now, it wouldn't be the same thing, because the entire roster would be gone. Now, if the Sonics got to keep Durant, then I'd say they're still the Sonics. But when a team takes part in an expansion draft, it's an expansion team, and not an extension of a previous team.

Actually, the new Browns are the old Browns.  Baltimore is the expansion team.

That's just the gloss the NFL put on it.  They said the Browns were "inactive" for three years, but all the players went to Baltimore, and the league conducted an expansion draft when the Browns came in.  The NFL takes the position that it was the same continuous franchise, but that's pretty nonsensical.

[paintitgreen]

I'm with Roy - the gloss the league puts on it means nothing to me. The Browns moved to Baltimore. Their players moved, their management moved, their ownership moved. The Baltimore Ravens are the same franchise that used to be the Cleveland Browns. The new Cleveland Browns are a team that began in the mid-90s. Same thing if Seattle gets a new team. They might call themselves the Sonics, but when they do an expansion draft to get their players, it's an expansion team. THat's not to say Modell and Bennett aren't lying scum. But they took those franchises - players, management, equipment, etc. - and left the former home of the franchise with nothing (a promise not to use the team's name or color isn't quite enough to me).

I just see this Celtics-Clippers thing as very different because management and most of the players stayed in Boston and there was no expansion draft and we didn't get the entire Braves roster and management, so it wasn't an exchange of franchises by the cities, just an exchange by the owners. An owner selling a team or trading one team for another doesn't mean the new team takes the old team's history. To say Irv Levin took all the Celtics history with him just because he switched to a different team and brought that second team to San Diego seems wrong to me. 

[Roy Hobbs]

I just see this Celtics-Clippers thing as very different because management and most of the players stayed in Boston and there was no expansion draft and we didn't get the entire Braves roster and management, so it wasn't an exchange of franchises by the cities, just an exchange by the owners. An owner selling a team or trading one team for another doesn't mean the new team takes the old team's history. To say Irv Levin took all the Celtics history with him just because he switched to a different team and brought that second team to San Diego seems wrong to me. 

I can't read the article here at work (blogspot is filtered out), but I agree with you.

If anything, this is similar to the case of John Henry / Jeff Luria:

Henry entered Major League Baseball with his purchase of a small interest in the New York Yankees in 1991. Henry became the sole owner of the Florida Marlins in 1999, purchasing the Major League club for a reported $158,000,000, which he ironically bought from Huizenga. In January of 2002 Henry sold the Marlins in a multi-franchise deal to Jeffrey Loria then owner of the Montreal Expos (now the Washington Nationals). Simultaneously, Henry led a purchase of the Boston Red Sox with partners Tom Werner and the New York Times Company from the Yawkey Trust headed by John Harrington.

So, Henry sold the Marlins, and bought the Red Sox at the same time.  Luria sold the Expos, and bought the Marlins at the same time.

That does not suggest that the Marlins play in Boston, or that the Expos play in Miami.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm just shocked that it turned out Brick was right all along

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=20662.0

[zerophase]

I can't read the article here at work (blogspot is filtered out), but I agree with you.

Prior to the 1978-79 season, Boston Celtics owner Irv Levin and Buffalo Braves owner John Y. Brown agreed to trade places. Levin, a California native, would takeover the Braves and move them to San Diego, where they became the Clippers, while Brown would takeover the Celtics.

However, each owner wanted to keep a few of his favorite players on the team he was inheriting. So on top of the ownership swap, a trade involving seven players and two second-round draft picks was worked out.

Brown took Nate Archibald, Marvin Barnes and Billy Knight with him to Boston. Kermit Washington, Kevin Kunnert, Sidney Wicks and first-round draft pick Freeman Williams accompanied Levin to San Diego.

So what?

I might have asked the same question until I read the Boston Globe's commentary from 1992.

Technically, the Braves' franchise is playing home games in the Boston Garden while the Celtics' franchise is on the West Coast. You want proof? Clippers' owner Donald Sterling was still writing out checks to fulfill the contract of John Havlicek during the mid-1980s.

And if the Celtics are really the Clippers and vice versa, how does this impact the 1985 trade sending Cornbread Maxwell from Boston to Los Angeles for Bill Walton? Did the Boston Celtics really win any NBA titles after 1976? Was Larry Bird really a Clipper?

Whoa.

I just can't figure out if I need to lay off those hallucinogenic drugs or ingest more of them...