Bucfan56

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, the admiral said:

I didn't say they should pretend to give a damn about the Expos. I said they should honestly give a damn about the Expos. Keep the retired numbers retired and publicly honored, the 1994 banner, the whoop-whoop-whoop siren that went off for home runs, whatever else constitutes Exponess other than French. Team was around for 36 years and meant a fair bit; the memories shouldn't just disappear into the ether like they were the Seattle Pilots or something.

 

I don't expect the Washington Nationals to promote the Montreal Expos to their fans the same way I don't expect the Twins and Rangers to do the same with the Washington Senators. What sense does that make? The franchise has rebranded, moved to a completely different city with completely different fans, and are under completely different ownership.The memories of the Montreal Expos are alive in their fans and former players. That is reality. The rest belongs in a museum. Bringing the "whoop-whoop-whoop siren" to Nats Park isn't going to do anything for anybody. We're developing our own traditions here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27 March 2016 at 7:40 AM, Dekabreak said:

They are accurate save for 2013 and 2011.

They've been pretty inaccurate regarding All-Star game unis for a while now. Check out this trailer for the 2012 game. It shows a majority gold Uni for the National League for the 2012 all star game in KC, something that never existed outside of the game. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

I don't expect the Washington Nationals to promote the Montreal Expos to their fans the same way I don't expect the Twins and Rangers to do the same with the Washington Senators. What sense does that make? The franchise has rebranded, moved to a completely different city with completely different fans, and are under completely different ownership.The memories of the Montreal Expos are alive in their fans and former players. That is reality. The rest belongs in a museum. Bringing the "whoop-whoop-whoop siren" to Nats Park isn't going to do anything for anybody. We're developing our own traditions here.

 

This. And this is exactly what should happen from now on. The Avalanche are another perfect example, the banners stayed back in Quebec, they don't pretend being the former Nordiques and it's perfect that way. Taking a city's team and also their history and traditions is simply cruel. Like Dave said there are museums and other occasions to acknowledge the history of past teams. I much rather see some Sonics memorabilia in a Seattle museum and their banners in the future Seattle arena than in OKC where these things have nothing to do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLB, 1901-1955 probably ruined North American sports history for most of you.  During that time we had 16 very stable teams stay in the same place establishing very lengthy histories.  And when two teams from New York went to California, it did not occur to anyone to call them expansion teams.  Or even to change the name.  Same for Boston to Milwaukee.  The only reason the Senators changed their name is because Minnesota Senators would have been goofy.  MLB was keeping its franchise lineage intact and easy to follow.  Because it was the right thing to do?  Maybe, but more likely because it would never have occurred to anyone to do anything else.  Not the ATL-CAL Flames, not the Scouts-Rockies-Devils, and not the KC-SAC Kings.  Then a blue-collar town lost its football team...

 

I am very open to discussions on whether and how teams should acknowledge past locations.  It seems that name-change franchises (e.g., Twins) do a lot less than same-name franchises (e.g., the Giants).  I personally like it in small doses.  I am glad the Dallas Stars retired the numbers of players on my favorite team as a kid, the North Stars.  As much as I hated losing them, I am glad the Stars don't pretend they were an expansion team.  I kinda feel like the Twins should have a retired number for Walter Johnson (OK, he did not wear a number, so it would be initials or something).  Do Twins fans care about the Senators or the 1924 World Series?  No.  I know that.  But it's still part of the franchise's history (which is so key to North American Sports, particularly to baseball).  

 

The only thing I really care about is that we don't take an eraser and white-out to the history.  That Steven Strausberg is not chasing down Walter Johnson's franchise marks (not that they are reachable).  That we don't honestly pretend that this Nationals team is connected to a "team" that existed from 1901 to 1969 and for some reason had an entirely new roster in 1961, while the old roster joined an expansion team in Minnesota.  Man, it sure would be hard to keep up with five decades of Mets split-squad history.  The Nationals are a franchise with roots in Montreal.  Montreal is probably never going to have a team again.  The only way it will be remembered is its connection to the current Washington Franchise (not Established 1905). If nothing else, the record books should reflect that.  They can handle the rest how they want.  But I am really happy the record books acknowledge what really happened. You cannot have that both ways.  Fastest expansion team to win it all...the Diamondbacks?  NO! It was the Avalanche in its first year as a brand-spanking-new team.  Sorry, but whatever happens to the history and uniforms, etc., the "theft" from Quebec had already happened.  

 

Sports history is fun.  For me anyway. I think there is great value to putting it out there a bit and a kid can ask his parent "what's that funny logo on that banner up there?"  "Well Avs used to play in a city called Quebec in Canada.  They were called the Nordiques.  That was their logo."  I think it would be great if there was a Washington Senators area of the concourse at Target field.  Not much, just a few jerseys on the wall, a team picture of the 1924 champs.  And you know what?  Put the same thing in Nationals' Park too.  That's fine.  "Washington Baseball History."  Target Center has a banner displaying MPLS Lakers in the Hall of Fame.  That's fine...the Timberwolves are not claiming them as part of T-Wolves history; but part of Minnesota history.  They know that Kevin Garnett is the best player in T-Wolves history and George Mikan is not part of the discussion.

 

I agree that it would be fairly odd to have Nordiques banners hanging in Denver.  And I really have no problem with them being wherever they are in Quebec.  But should Quebec ever get the NHL back, I really hope they handle it like the new Jets and not the new Hornets.  History, even when it's not good or fair, still happened.

 

EDIT: I realize that nobody in these last few pages specifically advocated for treating all relocations like the Hornets are now treated in the record books...so maybe we are not that far apart.  I still like to see full franchise histories acknowledge though.  My team, the North Stars, was taken.  And I like how the Stars do it.  They don't try to get their fans excited about "their" team in Minnesota but they do acknowledge it and they don't shy away from the history.  The North Stars are long gone...the Dallas Stars keep the memory alive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It makes perfect sense for that Giant fan to identify with the entire history of the team; that's exactly what a fan should be doing.  And the Spahn statue is the appropriate acknowledgement of a Braves legend -- as was Roy Campanella Day at the Los Angeles Coliseum, and as was Lefty Grove of the Philadelphia A's throwing out the first ball at Game 1 of the 1972 World Series in Oakland.  

Anyone can identify with anything, but it seems like a fan has to have low self-esteem to claim something they or their family never experienced across the country. The Spahn statue is so over the top, his career should have been honored in the Braves museum instead.That's a quantum leap from having a day, or a first pitch thrown out at a WS game.

 

If a fan of the SF Giants wants to appreciate the history of the NY Giants, go right ahead. But don't act like it was San Francisco winning the 1954 WS when they didn't, and it's just as wrong as bringing up Mel Ott as if a significant number of SF fans have a connection to that player. The tradition of the San Francisco Giants began the first day they were christened the SF Giants.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SCalderwood said:

 

You can't force a team, or a fanbase, or really anyone, to "give a damn" about anything.  If the Expos mattered that much, they would be honored more than they are being honored.  The team and/or the fans would have already pushed for this.

 

The fact is that Nationals players and fans don't really feel any sort of connection to the Expos.  That's why you don't see what you are asking for.  They were around for 36 years?  So what?  Must have not been such a meaningful 36 years if they just picked up and left, and aren't being remembered very well even with all that "history."  Might be time to move on.

 

Are you sure you're not loogodude? You're contentious and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Anyone can identify with anything, but it seems like a fan has to have low self-esteem to claim something they or their family never experienced across the country. The Spahn statue is so over the top, his career should have been honored in the Braves museum instead.That's a quantum leap from having a day, or a first pitch thrown out at a WS game.

 

If a fan of the SF Giants wants to appreciate the history of the NY Giants, go right ahead. But don't act like it was San Francisco winning the 1954 WS when they didn't, and it's just as wrong as bringing up Mel Ott as if a significant number of SF fans have a connection to that player. The tradition of the San Francisco Giants began the first day they were christened the SF Giants.  

 

 

I don't feel that it is that black and white.  Sure, nobody in San Francisco was probably excited about what was going on in New York in the 1930s.  We all get that.  But a franchise can it proud of its accomplishments.  And sometimes those happened in multiple locations.  And fans can learn about it and care as much or as little as they'd like.  I really don't think wearing gear from a franchie's previous location is a reflection of self-esteem any more than wearing gear from a championship in one's own town.

 

I the 80s, Minnesotans started wearing Washington Senators hats.*  What does that mean?  Is that a problem?  I don't think it's either good or bad.  But they were establishing some sort of connection to the franchise's roots.  Other fans would never do that.  And that's fine too.

 

*Funny thing is those were the curly "w" hats, which were part of the franchise that is now the Rangers.  So that's kinda funny, but the fans thought it was from the Twins version of the Senators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the Nationals honoring the Senators (though what's to honor from the second version?). They should observe civic and club history.

 

Again, this is just baseball I hold this standard to, baseball being the sport most concerned with history. I don't care as much how other leagues do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, the Nationals ARE the Expos, of course they should honor them. How do we know this? When the 05 Nationals started, they were the same team as the 04 Expos. It's not like after 2004 the Expos roster and front office was blown up and then a whole new expansion team emerged in DC. It was clearly an extension of the 2004 Expos so yeah it's the same team even with all the obvious outer changes. And to say Nationals players don't care about the Expos history? What? That's because no one on this current team played an Expos jersey. That's like saying no one on the current Dodgers cares about the Brooklyn Dodgers being part of their history? Current players don't have to care about the history of the team... the history exists regardless.

 

As for the Senators, it's not the same team at all. It's obviously the Expos rebranded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball has neat and tidy franchise lineages and the only one that is sort of muddy is Washington's, but only because of how the Nats treat the Expos, but the record books know who's who. 

 

I don't have a problem with the Cleveland deal because that was established from the beginning of the move and it was understood the Browns were coming back at some point. They didn't move and then 3 years later retroactively decide the Ravens were an expansion team that started with an expansion draft and all of the players picked came from the same team. That was understood from the jump and it's not completely dishonest. 

 

The one I have a problem* with is the Charlotte Hornets - New Orleans Hornets - Charlotte Bobcats - New Orleans Pelicans - Charlotte Hornets mess. They should've just rebranded the Bobcats as the Hornets 2.0 and left the histories alone . You don't see anybody trying to rewrite the Phoenix Coyotes as an expansion team and give their records to the Thrashers I mean Jets. 

 

 

*my problem is that it's messy, not that they're "lying" or being "dishonest" or anything like that. I think that history of that changeroo is just as valid as any history written by a team that relocated. I mean, it happened right? Write down how it went down and then future generation can read about it. Or take an information pill and know about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Baseball has neat and tidy franchise lineages and the only one that is sort of muddy is Washington's, but only because of how the Nats treat the Expos, but the record books know who's who. 

 

I don't have a problem with the Cleveland deal because that was established from the beginning of the move and it was understood the Browns were coming back at some point. They didn't move and then 3 years later retroactively decide the Ravens were an expansion team that started with an expansion draft and all of the players picked came from the same team. That was understood from the jump and it's not completely dishonest. 

 

The one I have a problem* with is the Charlotte Hornets - New Orleans Hornets - Charlotte Bobcats - New Orleans Pelicans - Charlotte Hornets mess. They should've just rebranded the Bobcats as the Hornets 2.0 and left the histories alone . You don't see anybody trying to rewrite the Phoenix Coyotes as an expansion team and give their records to the Thrashers I mean Jets. 

 

 

*my problem is that it's messy, not that they're "lying" or being "dishonest" or anything like that. I think that history of that changeroo is just as valid as any history written by a team that relocated. I mean, it happened right? Write down how it went down and then future generation can read about it. Or take an information pill and know about it. 

I don't think any of them are particularly muddy.  The Nats treat the Expos like the Twins/Rangers treat the Senators or the Brewers treat the Pilots. In all cases, though, MLB is keeping that "tidy" lineage intact and obvious.  Sure the Dodgers and Giants being formerly in Brooklyn/NY is much more common knowledge than the Twins, Rangers, and Brewers pasts, thanks to the names and in two cases the short histories.  Casual fans don't really know about the Pilots, which is fine, so long as history does.

 

Given your take on the relatively "clean" Cleveland Deal and the "messy" Charlotte Deal, I am curious what you'd think of a "clean" MLB deal, given that MLB is more about history than other sports.  Suppose the A's move to San Antonio and are immediately replaced by an expansion team.  Do you want an original AL franchise to just leave it's history to be picked up by a defacto expansion team while the San Antonio franchise becomes the Armadillos and is officially an expansion team?  Just curious because you acknowledge comfort with the Cleveland Deal but also that MLB history is a big deal.  

 

The Senators/Twins had the perfect opportunity to do just that.  The Senators moved and Washington had an immediate expansion team.  Had it occurred to someone to do that, I suppose it may have happened.  I am glad it did not (and not as a Twins fan but as a baseball fan who likes to follow history).  The really funny thing about that is that the Walter Johnson history (not to mention the first couple of years of Harmon Killebrew) would now be attached to the Rangers, adding a whole new layer of dishonesty and confusion.  So watch out for unforseen circumstances when shuffling history around.

 

Funny thing about the Cleveland Deal, where you say "That was understood from the jump and it's not completely dishonest" is that I had NO idea. (OK, it was understood by those paying attention).  I thought "Cool.  They want the Browns and their plain uniforms; they can have them."  I had no idea that the "history" was staying behind.  Why?  Because it literally never occurred to me for a second.  I wasn't on these boards splitting the hairs that we love to split, so it was not until I saw some franchise record discussion during a telecast that it dawned on me.  And it was not until I came to these boards that I learned just how "official" it was.  

 

I happen to disagree with you about it being "not completely dishonest."  Sure it's easier to follow than the Hornets mess.  But it marginalized history...of course who cares since the Browns were so bad in the Super Bowl era and we think there was football before the Super Bowl, but we don't know what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?   It was very clear to me from the start that Modell was leaving the history behind with the name. 

 

Seemed an elegant solution at the time, and frankly it still does. That solution just can't be applied retroactively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I don't think any of them are particularly muddy.  The Nats treat the Expos like the Twins/Rangers treat the Senators or the Brewers treat the Pilots. In all cases, though, MLB is keeping that "tidy" lineage intact and obvious.  Sure the Dodgers and Giants being formerly in Brooklyn/NY is much more common knowledge than the Twins, Rangers, and Brewers pasts, thanks to the names and in two cases the short histories.  Casual fans don't really know about the Pilots, which is fine, so long as history does.

 

Given your take on the relatively "clean" Cleveland Deal and the "messy" Charlotte Deal, I am curious what you'd think of a "clean" MLB deal, given that MLB is more about history than other sports.  Suppose the A's move to San Antonio and are immediately replaced by an expansion team.  Do you want an original AL franchise to just leave it's history to be picked up by a defacto expansion team while the San Antonio franchise becomes the Armadillos and is officially an expansion team?  Just curious because you acknowledge comfort with the Cleveland Deal but also that MLB history is a big deal.  

 

The Senators/Twins had the perfect opportunity to do just that.  The Senators moved and Washington had an immediate expansion team.  Had it occurred to someone to do that, I suppose it may have happened.  I am glad it did not (and not as a Twins fan but as a baseball fan who likes to follow history).  The really funny thing about that is that the Walter Johnson history (not to mention the first couple of years of Harmon Killebrew) would not be attached to the Rangers, adding a whole new layer of dishonesty and confusion.  So watch out for unforseen circumstances when shuffling history around.

 

Funny thing about the Cleveland Deal, where you say "That was understood from the jump and it's not completely dishonest" is that I had NO idea. (OK, it was understood by those paying attention).  I thought "Cool.  They want the Browns and their plain uniforms; they can have them."  I had no idea that the "history" was staying behind.  Why?  Because it literally never occurred to me for a second.  I wasn't on these boards splitting the hairs that we love to split, so it was not until I saw some franchise record discussion during a telecast that it dawned on me.  And it was not until I came to these boards that I learned just how "official" it was.  

 

I happen to disagree with you about it being "not completely dishonest."  Sure it's easier to follow than the Hornets mess.  But it marginalized history...of course who cares since the Browns were so bad in the Super Bowl era and we think there was football before the Super Bowl, but we don't know what happened.

I would support a Cleveland deal for the right MLB franchise if the circumstances were close to what happened with the Browns, which was a very unique situation in that they knew they'd be getting another team very soon. Most fans at the ass end of a relocating team aren't that lucky. You used the Athletics in your example and my first reaction is given their vagabond history, I wouldn't give Oakland the Cleveland deal. At the same time, though, I'd be very upset if the league allowed the new owner in the new city to change nicknames and all of a sudden we were without an Athletics in baseball for the first time in over a century.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Really?   It was very clear to me from the start that Modell was leaving the history behind with the name. 

 

Seemed an elegant solution at the time, and frankly it still does. That solution just can't be applied retroactively. 

Yes, this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Really?   It was very clear to me from the start that Modell was leaving the history behind with the name. 

 

Seemed an elegant solution at the time, and frankly it still does. That solution just can't be applied retroactively. 

I probably was just not following it as closely as you.  I have seen your level of participation in the NFL relocation thread B) 

 

I somehow picked up on "Cleveland will get an expansion team with the name and logos."  Probably not that many people off of this board really would get that bogged down in what happens to the history.  Since I was only loosely following and never heard it phrased that way, I guess I just assumed it would be treated like all previous revocations.  Or maybe I did hear the word "history" but for some reason it still did not compute as the traditional practice for franchise movement was still stuck in my head.

 

It sounds like I am in a minority on this board for the Cleveland Deal.  And I'd be an even smaller proportionate minority among the general fan population.  We've had the fight and it's a bit of a "gray facemask."  And it sounds like many of you do not like something like the Hornets situation since the mental gymnastics go from "pretty minimal" to "ugh."  So I don't want to belabor points that have been made over and over.

 

But I would be curious whether people hold those opinions would be OK with, say, when the Sonics moved, to consider OKC and expansion team and hold Sonics history for an expansion team that may or may not come.  That's not exactly retroactive, though the gap is probably longer than three years.  Is it the Browns guarantee that makes it OK (if so, this would be very much a rarity as relocations rarely come with guarantees).  Or is it the simplicity?  

 

(Beware of the simplicity though, my 1961 Senators example would have turned out to be a mess).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

I don't expect the Washington Nationals to promote the Montreal Expos to their fans the same way I don't expect the Twins and Rangers to do the same with the Washington Senators. 

 

Both the Twins and the Rangers have worn Washington Senators throwbacks.

twins-senators-throwbacks.thumb.jpg.c4e1  josh-hamilton-in-senators-throwback.jpg

 

Even the Orioles have worn St. Louis Browns throwbacks.

 

orioles-brown-throwback.JPG.fbe526dc69cf

 

This is the kind of acknowledgement of franchise history that would be appropriate for the Expos/Nationals franchise.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Pilots are the Milwaukee Brewers yet the Seattle Mariners, not the Brewers, honor the Pilots.

Seattle Rainiers are extinct yet the Seattle Mariners honor them.

 

Goes to the argument that in many cases, the city has the stronger attachment to a team than a franchise.

 

2006-pilots2.jpg6cbbee61f664145db2253e2cfca221e8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I probably was just not following it as closely as you.  I have seen your level of participation in the NFL relocation thread B) 

 

I somehow picked up on "Cleveland will get an expansion team with the name and logos."  Probably not that many people off of this board really would get that bogged down in what happens to the history.  Since I was only loosely following and never heard it phrased that way, I guess I just assumed it would be treated like all previous revocations.  Or maybe I did hear the word "history" but for some reason it still did not compute as the traditional practice for franchise movement was still stuck in my head.

 

It sounds like I am in a minority on this board for the Cleveland Deal.  And I'd be an even smaller proportionate minority among the general fan population.  We've had the fight and it's a bit of a "gray facemask."  And it sounds like many of you do not like something like the Hornets situation since the mental gymnastics go from "pretty minimal" to "ugh."  So I don't want to belabor points that have been made over and over.

 

But I would be curious whether people hold those opinions would be OK with, say, when the Sonics moved, to consider OKC and expansion team and hold Sonics history for an expansion team that may or may not come.  That's not exactly retroactive, though the gap is probably longer than three years.  Is it the Browns guarantee that makes it OK (if so, this would be very much a rarity as relocations rarely come with guarantees).  Or is it the simplicity?  

 

(Beware of the simplicity though, my 1961 Senators example would have turned out to be a mess).

 

This whole topic led to an EXTREMELY heated discussion a few years ago.  Some people feel strongly about the topic.  And it's both sides (the "Relocation doesn't end lineage just because you say so" v "It's a New Franchise if they say it is" groups).

I wish the Expos would get some throwback love somewhere, but it's not meant to be right now.  I'm glad the STL Browns got their day in the sun that one time against the Cardinals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Really?   It was very clear to me from the start that Modell was leaving the history behind with the name. 

 

That was not the plan from the start.  The plan from the start was to take the name to the new city, just as the Colts and the Rams and the Raiders and the Cardinals (twice) had done.  At the introductory press conference in Baltimore in November of 1995, Maryland governor Parris Glendening introduced Art Modell as "the owner of the Baltimore Browns".

 

modell07cut-2.jpg

 

And that's what it was going to be until the threats of lawsuits began.  The NFL eventually saw the expedience of coming up with the novel "solution" (such as it was) which placated the litigants -- and also the Cleveland fans and media -- as much as possible, and which primed the market for the eventual return of the NFL.

In that period, I was a daily listener to radio stations in both cities, thanks to the technical marvel of clear channel stations.  I, as "Freddie from New York", was a frequent caller to the nighttime sports shows on WWWE and WKNR in Cleveland, and to WBAL in Baltimore.  (The stations would even tend to bump me to the head of the queue, as I was calling long distance, in the days when that was significant.)  So I remember very well that the whole "leave the name and history behind" thing was not at all the intention from the start.

 

This decison was, from a history-lover's point of view, tragic.  It left a poisonous wake, as it set a dangerous and ugly precedent.  The first application of this disregard for objective reality occurred almost immediately thereafter, upon the CFL's Baltimore Stallions' move to Montreal.  When the Browns moved to Baltimore, the Grey Cup champion Stallions had to move out, and chose to move to Montreal.  There they took the name "Alouettes", and adopted the history of the team that had folded in the 1980s.


Then came an exact parallel to the Browns' situation: in MLS the San Jose Earthquakes became the Houston Dynamo, and an expansion San Jose Earthquakes team was treated by the league as the same team as the original Clash/Earthquakes.  But, even before that, it had already happened in a smaller league. The Arena Football League's Nashville Kats became the Georgia Force, and a new Nashville Kats team took over the Kats' old history.

 
Then it got worse.  In the MLL, the Rochester Rattlers became the Toronto Nationals.  Soon after, a different team, the Chicago Machine (note: an existing team, not a newly-created expansion team) moved to Rochester and took over the Rattlers' history.  

 

The absurd phenomenon of an existing team taking over the identity of another existing team then reached its most shocking extreme when the Charlotte Bobcats took the name "Hornets", and were awarded the history of the original Charlotte Hornets, right after the actual Hornets had changed their name to "Pelicans".   

 

So seasons played by the original Charlotte Hornets and by the MLL's original Rochester Rattlers were moved from the records of one franchise to the records of another.  And no one at all claims the seasons played in their previous home cities by the Washington Nationals franchise and by the current Montreal Alouettes franchise (including the 1995 Grey Cup championship year).

If this is "elegant", then I'm Totie Fields.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, hawk36 said:

Seattle Pilots are the Milwaukee Brewers yet the Seattle Mariners, not the Brewers, honor the Pilots.

 

The Brewers have indeed worn Seattle Pilots throwbacks.

brewers-pilots-throwback.jpg.a4e85f84241

 

Of course, so have the Mariners; and that is just fine.  Teams have worn plenty of throwbacks from outside their franchise lineage, such as Negro League uniforms, and Tampa Bay's use of the great uniforms of the Senior League's St. Petersburg Pelicans.

But the important point here is that the Brewers acknowledge their history, as do all baseball teams except the Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brewers acknowledge their Seattle history but don't wallow in it. 

 

As as for the Browns, I know that the original plan was to take the name. But once they decided to leave it behind, the history stayed with it.  That was very clear from the start.   

 

And leaving behind the franchise certificate was indeed an elegant solution.  You can't tar it with the Pelicans/Hornets mess any more than you can blame Bill Veeck or Charlie Finley for the Diamondbacks' new uniforms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Both the Twins and the Rangers have worn Washington Senators throwbacks.

twins-senators-throwbacks.thumb.jpg.c4e1  josh-hamilton-in-senators-throwback.jpg

 

Even the Orioles have worn St. Louis Browns throwbacks.

 

orioles-brown-throwback.JPG.fbe526dc69cf

 

This is the kind of acknowledgement of franchise history that would be appropriate for the Expos/Nationals franchise.

 

 

 

We've all seen these throwbacks. One day the Nats will wear Expos throwbacks. Nats honoring the Expos has never been an issue. The extent to which they should is an issue with certain people for some reason. They seem to be more concerned with keeping the Montreal Expos alive, rather than the history being honored. Nats ownership's job is to promote their brand, not dwell on a brand that no longer exists. I repeat , "brand", and not franchise. Yes, it's obviously the same franchise. Other than these cool throwbacks, what else do the Twins and Rangers do to keep the Washington Senators memories alive? I would hope nothing else, for the sake of their fans. Let them enjoy what those franchises are now, the Minneapolis Twins and the Texas Rangers. That's the only rational thing you can expect them to do. We hear in DC will enjoy the actual memories of watching the Washington Senators play here. That's what it's all about at the end of the day.

 

12 hours ago, jp1409 said:

 

This. And this is exactly what should happen from now on. The Avalanche are another perfect example, the banners stayed back in Quebec, they don't pretend being the former Nordiques and it's perfect that way. Taking a city's team and also their history and traditions is simply cruel. Like Dave said there are museums and other occasions to acknowledge the history of past teams. I much rather see some Sonics memorabilia in a Seattle museum and their banners in the future Seattle arena than in OKC where these things have nothing to do...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.