NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Dodgers' Roy Campanella Night in Los Angeles was attended by 90,000 fans.

 

In the 1972 World Series, the A's had Lefty Grove throw out the first ball. 

 

The Nationals honoured Gary Carter and Andre Dawson, and have worn Expos throwbacks at home.

 

The A's have worn both Philadelphia and Kansas City throwbacks at home.

 

The Lakers have worn Minneapolis throwbacks at home; the Clippers have worn Buffalo Braves uniforms at home; the Carolina Hurricanes have worn Hartford Whalers uniforms at home.

 

So, no.

 

Franchise continuity is of the utmost importance. History is precious.

 

 

Did any fans care about that?  Does anybody in DC give a rats ass about Gary Carter?  Or even know Andre Dawson (unless they were of an age to see him with the Cubs, where he had his best season.)

 

Sports is a TV show.  Nothing more.  If they can retcon Star Wars, then they can retcon sports.  Just like TV, it's up to the viewer to decide what's important to them.  

 

This isn't real, where South Sudan and Western Sahara carry with them the history of their former nations (or, in the latter case, will), or a situation where a nation is the legal successor state of a collapsed country.  

 

Or despite all of the reorganization and division, the Federal Republic of Germany declared itself the "continuation" of the German Reich, which had for all intents and purposes been inactive for years, and not a "successor", despite not resembling it's predecessor in many (if any) ways.

 

It's sports, man.  Nobody is dying from these decisions, and. nobody is going to forget about Jim Brown just because the lineage of the old Browns flows through Baltimore.  Commissional Silver isn't deciding on Hornets history the same way Harry Truman was deciding on the fate of Japan.

 

It's sports.

[YelichGraphics]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Dodgers' Roy Campanella Night in Los Angeles was attended by 90,000 fans.

 

In the 1972 World Series, the A's had Lefty Grove throw out the first ball. 

 

The Nationals honoured Gary Carter and Andre Dawson, and have worn Expos throwbacks at home.

 

The A's have worn both Philadelphia and Kansas City throwbacks at home.

 

The Lakers have worn Minneapolis throwbacks at home; the Clippers have worn Buffalo Braves uniforms at home; the Carolina Hurricanes have worn Hartford Whalers uniforms at home.

 

So, no.

 

Franchise continuity is of the utmost importance. History is precious.

 

I can speak to this a little from the Buffalo Braves standpoint. People in Buffalo bought the hell out of the last Braves throwback however no one in the area actually cares or likes the Clippers. It's more of a mod-poged fandom of Raptors, Cavs, and or any other bandwagon team. I'm sure if the Braves ever came back, which I doubt, no one would care about the team they would inherit if that were the case. And honestly most of the things on this list is more due to ownership keeping the history alive. I guarantee no one in LA gives a flying f about Buffalo, or Hurricane fans care at all about Hartford besides the occasional once a year jersey night.

[LMU]

Why on earth would we in California care about some guy who played on the opposite side of the country?

 

[SFGiants58]

I’d say there are different levels of caring, usually depending on how good the team was before they moved to their current location.
 

If they were godawful/mostly mediocre, the new team/fans tend not to care. Look at how Bob McAdoo, the Buffalo Braves’ biggest star, is absent from Clippers-related material.* Not a whole lot of Orioles fans parade around old Browns stars and the Devils only started bringing up the Scouts and Rockies once Lou went away.

 

 

*Bob McAdoo deserves more credit than he gets.

[YelichGraphics]

25 minutes ago, LMU said:

Why on earth would we in California care about some guy who played on the opposite side of the country?

 

I mean that's a bit of a different case no? Dodgers kept their name when they moved and Jackie is famous for breaking the color barrier and being a baller. However you think of Jackie and you think Dodger, not Los Angeles.  The same argument keeps on being cycled around where some people want to acknowledge the history before and others don't and as much as the fan wants to be apart of that conversation its more controlled by the leagues. I'm on @BBTV side that you cheer for the laundry and the city. In this case its the laundry and the player who actively changed the league and country. 

[YelichGraphics]

2 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I’d say there are different levels of caring, usually depending on how good the team was before they moved to their current location.
 

If they were godawful/mostly mediocre, the new team/fans tend not to care. Look at how Bob McAdoo, the Buffalo Braves’ biggest star, is absent from Clippers-related material.* Not a whole lot of Orioles fans parade around old Browns stars and the Devils only started bringing up the Scouts and Rockies once Lou went away.

 

 

*Bob McAdoo deserves more credit than he gets.

The greatest (Buffalo) basketball player to do it. Or you could give that to Christian Laettner considering he's from the area but no one wants to claim him.

[spartacat_12]

15 hours ago, BBTV said:

If the Phillies moved (and at this point they really should) and the Rays moved here after their new stadium is proven to be the same failure as their current one, and they adopted the name Phillies with similar uniforms, then guess what - I'm considering them the successor of the Phillies, and Mike Schmidt is their home run leader..  It's not up to anyone to tell me I'm wrong - how I treat the team is my choice - and I would wager I'm not alone in how I would treat it.

 

Well if you want this hypothetical scenario to be relevant to the Sens, imagine the Phillies moved and the city of Philadelphia went 60 years with no MLB team before getting the Phillies "back" as an expansion team. Would you expect your grandkids to care about Mike Schmidt?

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Well if you want this hypothetical scenario to be relevant to the Sens, imagine the Phillies moved and the city of Philadelphia went 60 years with no MLB team before getting the Phillies "back" as an expansion team. Would you expect your grandkids to care about Mike Schmidt?

no. After some number of generations pass, it may as well be a new team, even if the records still stand (though I guess they don’t have to in this case). As I originally stated, there’s not a one-size-fits-all approach to any of this. At the end of the day, let the fans decide, and if they don’t care about Schmidt, then so be it. Make it separate. 

 

 

1 hour ago, YelichGraphics said:

I mean that's a bit of a different case no? Dodgers kept their name when they moved and Jackie is famous for breaking the color barrier and being a baller. However you think of Jackie and you think Dodger, not Los Angeles.  The same argument keeps on being cycled around where some people want to acknowledge the history before and others don't and as much as the fan wants to be apart of that conversation its more controlled by the leagues. I'm on @BBTV side that you cheer for the laundry and the city. In this case its the laundry and the player who actively changed the league and country. 

Yeah, what @LMU posted is a different case.  1) Robinson is one of the all-time most important players in the history of the game, and 2) his jersey says “DODGERS” on it - just like the current LA ones do. 
 

I do think there’s a difference and more continuity if the name stays the same. I also think that all names should change when a team moves. 

[WestCoastBias]

I'd say the Dodgers celebrate their history the most out of any other relocated franchises. I think the fanbase is pretty well aware of the history and old players as well, I see a good amount of Brooklyn hats and jerseys whenever I go to games. 

[chcarlson23]

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Dodgers' Roy Campanella Night in Los Angeles was attended by 90,000 fans.

 

In the 1972 World Series, the A's had Lefty Grove throw out the first ball. 

 

The Nationals honoured Gary Carter and Andre Dawson, and have worn Expos throwbacks at home.

 

The A's have worn both Philadelphia and Kansas City throwbacks at home.

 

The Lakers have worn Minneapolis throwbacks at home; the Clippers have worn Buffalo Braves uniforms at home; the Carolina Hurricanes have worn Hartford Whalers uniforms at home.

 

So, no.

 

Franchise continuity is of the utmost importance. History is precious.

 

But as a fan of the Minnesota Twins, I’m not super interested in the Washington era of the franchise, and not really gonna rush out and buy any merchandise for the Washington Senators/Nationals. I know they have worn those before, but honestly it means more to the people of the area when they wear Millers or Saints or Colored Gophers throwbacks, because those are part of the history of the Cities. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, you can honor former cities from a franchise, like you’ve mentioned, and there are instances where people have superseded the franchise in terms of popularity or importance, like Jackie Robinson, but like, does it really matter to the people of LA that Bud Grant played for the Lakers? Do they even know who Bud Grant is? Probably not. Because he made an impact in a specific location, and never played in LA (I don’t think lol) 

 

I mean you don’t have to erase history and say that one franchise is or isn’t another, but it’s a nice sentimental thing if you can feel like it’s the same team that never left, especially considering sports is all sentimental anyways. History is precious, but sports history? Maybe not so much. 

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

History is precious, but sports history? Maybe not so much. 

 

Especially when sports history can be taken away, like how Reggie Bush was wrongfully robbed of his Heisman. He only got it back because the Heisman people needed a win after memorializing OJ.

[OnWis97]

I've accepted that I'm on the losing side of this. (Not the argument here but the trend towards ignoring the lineage).

Maybe I'm just old and because this never happened before the Cleveland Deal, I found it odd once I realized it was about the history and not just the name and colors.

The Twins are frequently brought up as a fanbase that should not care about a very woeful period of franchise history before their arrival. The terribleness of the Senators and the name change make it different than the Giants and Dodgers (not to mention great players bridging the move, which the Twins only had with minimal play from Killebrew).  I thought it was interesting last year when they put up three banners (one WS Champs and two AL pennants) for the Senators last season. This year they have a 100th Anniversary logo of the 1924 World Series Champs on the outfield wall. I was even more blown away to see a guy a couple rows in front of me with a Twins hat and that logo on the side. I love history, but I would not buy that hat. 

Do I get warm feelings from those banners and the 1924 title? No. Does it mean much to me? No; certainly not in any civic pride way but I do appreciate the franchise recognizing its history. That nobody in Minnesota "cares" about it neither here nor there to me. It's what happened.

However, as I said, I've lost this fight. But along with my favoring the franchise model, the inconsistency almost bothers me more. The Dodgers and Twins have played in two cities. The Utah NHL team is an expansion team. The Coyotes (and Thrashers, I think) are defunct. The Hornets, Winnipeg Jets (I think), and Browns have start/stop histories. There are teams that have played very recently and I'm not even 100% sure of their status. I'd like it to be consistent (of course given the first 100 years or so, that would work out in my favor...) Otherwise, just go all the way and make the Oakland (two-stints) Raiders and LA Raiders two defunct franchises and the Vegas Raiders expansion, and so on. It seems to work for the Hornets...

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

33 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

That nobody in Minnesota "cares" about it neither here nor there to me. It's what happened.

 

This best sums up the entire point. 

 

By the way, happy anniversary. Walter Johnson's only career World Series win is a special story worth celebrating.

[McCall]

Lineage-jacked

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I've lost this fight

It’s not a fight, so there’s nothing to have lost, it’s just differing opinions. Anyone is free to recognize the history however they see fit, and that’ll never change (at least within the sports world). 
 

 I’m older than you (probably) and had the same reaction to the Cleveland deal once I learned it was colors AND history. But then I put myself in their shoes, and I’d want to pretend” too. And to me, it reached a point where it wasn’t worth any unnecessary rise in blood pressure when, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. 
 

 

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This best sums up the entire point. 

 

By the way, happy anniversary. Walter Johnson's only career World Series win is a special story worth celebrating.

Sure, “what happened” matters. But “what happened” locally can be celebrated just as much as “what happened” historically. The two forms of recognition can exist together. 
 

[OnWis97]

22 minutes ago, BBTV said:

It’s not a fight, so there’s nothing to have lost, it’s just differing opinions. Anyone is free to recognize the history however they see fit, and that’ll never change (at least within the sports world). 
 

 I’m older than you (probably) and had the same reaction to the Cleveland deal once I learned it was colors AND history. But then I put myself in their shoes, and I’d want to pretend” too. And to me, it reached a point where it wasn’t worth any unnecessary rise in blood pressure when, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. 
 

 

I think I'm a bit older...Just lost the ability to say that I'm "well into my forties."

[BBTV]

52 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I think I'm a bit older...Just lost the ability to say that I'm "well into my forties."

 

I'm about to cross "mid" into "late", so you don't have me by much 

[gosioux76]

22 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

But as a fan of the Minnesota Twins, I’m not super interested in the Washington era of the franchise, and not really gonna rush out and buy any merchandise for the Washington Senators/Nationals. I know they have worn those before, but honestly it means more to the people of the area when they wear Millers or Saints or Colored Gophers throwbacks, because those are part of the history of the Cities. 

 

I can't really relate to @BBTV's suggestion that these things don't matter to fans, especially in baseball, the sport that has done the most to embrace history and its role in American culture.  As a Twins fan, even as a little kid, I was fascinated that the team's history stretched back to the Washington Senators and Walter Johnson. It made the whole franchise way more interesting to me. 

 

At the same time, I think it's OK to look at this issue as a distinction between brands and business entities. 

 

In this case, @BBTV chooses to view franchises as brands. In that sense, it's 100% accurate say the goals Joe Sakic scored for the Quebec Nordiques are not part of the total he scored for the Colorado Avalanche because they are separate and distinct brands.

 

But most of us, including the people at Baseball/Hockey/Basketball (etc.) Reference, choose to look at franchises as business entities — singular organizations that have existed over long periods of time, sometimes under multiple brands.  In that sense, the goals Sakic scored for the Nordiques should be collectively registered as goals scored for the Avalanche franchise because the business entity is the same. It's one organization that has had two brands. 

[BBTV]

17 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

As a Twins fan, even as a little kid, I was fascinated that the team's history stretched back to the Washington Senators and Walter Johnson. It made the whole franchise way more interesting to me. 

 

 

As a youngster who checked out baseball history books from the library (remember the Dewey Decimal System ) I too was fascinated with history, and how the Oakland A's (which is how I knew them) actually played in Philadelphia, and all of that.  So I would have felt the same exact way.

 

I guess part of what's different now is that it's so much more commercial and driven by branding and merchandise etc, that it just feels different.  Also, anyone can look up anything about history at any time on the internet, and I'm not sure that the history of the game is as glamorized today as it used to be - partially due to short attention spans, which in turn is partially due to the fact that you no longer are held captive by (great) books, but can click on whatever and are bombarded by Fanatics ads in the process.

 

So... I get it.  I just think it's different in 2024.  But again, no right or wrong.