Jump to content

MLB 2019 Changes


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

I'm with you on this.

 

I have always had mixed thoughts about one franchise trying to preserve the continuity or lineage of one that's been relocated. It should be a clean slate even if front office personnel and players made the migration. For example, I don't think the Nationals need to retire Expos numbers (Dawson or Carter). Washington Senators, yes.

 

This might go against the concept of a "franchise" but a team's identity is more tied to a city or geographic region than it is an ownership group. Although technically a relocation, in my mind, the Expos were contracted and the Nationals expanded simultaneously.

 

I understand the reasoning behind MLB structuring it the way it does, but I do not imagine that many Expos fans kept allegiance to the Nationals just because the players moved there, but correct me if I'm wrong. If the Marlins moved to Portland, I'd be too stung to follow them there.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. Of course, I say this as a burned Hornets fan, but under no circumstances should a franchise keep its name/mascot/history if it moves to a new city. When a team moves, it ceases to be the franchise it used to be. The new fans have no memory/attachment to whatever a team did in its previous city, but the fans who suffered do. I see the Expos and Nationals as two different franchises, the (old) Hornets and Pelicans as different franchises, and the Browns and Ravens as separate franchises. If the MLB ever returns to Montreal (I'm not sure if it will, or if it will be successful, outside of initial nostalgia), then the Nats should turn over all "their" history in Montreal. Similarly, the Thunder should do the same when the NBA returns to Seattle. A team isn't tied to its name or mascot, those can change. However, the city is what makes a team successful. It's the fans that should keep the identity of a team, not the ownership group screwing them over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

I do suppose that something does make sense for the continuity between the Dodgers and Giants to be retained. This might have something to do with the mascot name staying the same and there only being minor changes to the uniforms and colors. The existing star power (Mays, Jackie Robinson although he didn't make the trip) also factors in somewhat. I'd say this occurrence is more of an outlier. In most cases it doesn't make sense for the continuity to be preserved, such as the Senators moving to Texas/Minnesota or the Pilots moving to Milwaukee.


In looking at the 50s-60s era of relocation, it seems the deciding factor in whether or not to keep the old name was the level of success attached to it.  The Giants and Dodgers were considered "glamour" teams, and the A's were a very successful club up until their final years in Phily.

The Braves were a bit of a curveball, as they weren't quite as successful, but had history in Milwaukee where their top farm club had been playing.

Obviously, that wasn't the case with the Browns or the Senators.  And the name "Minnesota Senators" could have been taken to mark them as strictly a St. Paul team, which was the last thing they wanted ("Senators" being a common nickname for teams who represented their state's capital).

With expansion teams, there was little to no history to be preserved anyway.  The Brewers have always measured their anniversary seasons from 1970, not 1969.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like MLB’s version of interpreting franchise history. I like knowing the Orioles can be traced back to Milwaukee. I like the Braves tracing back their existence to 1871.

 

I’d like to see the NL teams celebrate their pre-1901 pennants. It’s something to say your team won the 1879 NL pennant and have that displayed at your ballpark. It shows the tradition and heritage of the sport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NicDB said:

In looking at the 50s-60s era of relocation, it seems the deciding factor in whether or not to keep the old name was the level of success attached to it.  The Giants and Dodgers were considered "glamour" teams, and the A's were a very successful club up until their final years in Phily.

The Braves were a bit of a curveball, as they weren't quite as successful, but had history in Milwaukee where their top farm club had been playing.

 

Also worth remembering that the Braves moved to Milwaukee just days before the start of the 1953 season.  There wasn’t time to re-brand even if they ever considered it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem like the preservation of lineage must be done on a case by case basis. But in the modern era (say the last 30-40 years), with the league being much more stable than it was pre-1970, the link between old and new franchise is best severed in most instance. This applies to the Expos/Nationals and the Rays too if they end up moving. The A's might be a unique case and likely exception because while there's a lot of history and Oakland, that franchise has already moved around a lot.

 

But if the Tampa Bay Rays become the Portland Beavers, I would find it strange if they kept #12 retired for Wade Boggs, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 10:15 AM, Marlins93 said:

I understand the reasoning behind MLB structuring it the way it does, but I do not imagine that many Expos fans kept allegiance to the Nationals just because the players moved there...

 

I'm sure they didn't.  But that is irrelevant. 

 

Washington Senators fans would not have been expected to have allegiance to the Minnesota Twins when the team moved in 1961, considering that an expansion Senators team was placed in Washington in the same year.  Yet the Senators/Twins and the expansion Senators (later the Texas Rangers) are two separate franchises.  And the Twins and Rangers have each worn throwbacks to their respective former Washington identities.  The continuity of a franchise is purely a definitional thing.



Related image    Image result for texas rabgers senators throwbacks


(Side note: Hamilton is wearing his stirrups absolutely perfectly. That is what a ballplayer looks like.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Nobody voting for the mess that is the Twins?  Also not a surprise.

The only good twins uniform they have now is the gray aways with the classic cap. I cant stand the direction they are taking with their uniforms. They should just mix the 60s with the world series set, for a perfect uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Players poll on best MLB uniforms.  D-Backs ranking?  I suppose not a surprise.

 

Nobody voting for the mess that is the Twins?  Also not a surprise.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-players-on-the-best-uniforms

 

"Fun" read but I wish they would do this a little more thoroughly and with more players and allow players to choose their own teams, I think it would be interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camouflage Across MLB All Weekend For Armed Forces Day 2019

May 17, 2019 - 15:42 PM

Why are they wearing camouflage uniforms today in baseball? New for 2019 is a league-wide Major League Baseball celebration in honour of Armed Forces Day, each team will wear camouflage caps and socks in recognition of Armed Forces Day on […]

Read More...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

"Fun" read but I wish they would do this a little more thoroughly and with more players and allow players to choose their own teams, I think it would be interesting. 

I don't think most non-uni-related articles about uniforms are too interested in much more than fun.  

 

One thing  I noticed is that a lot of the quoted players cited teams they grew up cheering for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I'm sure they didn't.  But that is irrelevant. 

 

Washington Senators fans would not have been expected to have allegiance to the Minnesota Twins when the team moved in 1961, considering that an expansion Senators team was placed in Washington in the same year.  Yet the Senators/Twins and the expansion Senators (later the Texas Rangers) are two separate franchises.  And the Twins and Rangers have each worn throwbacks to their respective former Washington identities.  The continuity of a franchise is purely a definitional thing.



Related image    Image result for texas rabgers senators throwbacks


(Side note: Hamilton is wearing his stirrups absolutely perfectly. That is what a ballplayer looks like.)

 

"That is what a ballplayer looks like." Thanks MIKE, FIRST TIME LONG TIME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 9:38 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Tell that to a Rays fan, see how they react.

Rays fan here.

 

In the past, I’ve posted official Expos attendance records (from an Expos fan site, no less) that prove that they were doing far worse than the Rays ever have. People will have you think that every single person in Montreal adored the Expos, went to every game, etc., while the Rays are playing in front of 5 people, and 3 of them are for the away team.

 

Here’s the Expos numbers, again, from a website called “Expos Nation”

 

...and here’s the Rays numbers.

 

Tampa Bay has never gone as low as Montreal did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Rays fan here.

 

In the past, I’ve posted official Expos attendance records (from an Expos fan site, no less) that prove that they were doing far worse than the Rays ever have. People will have you think that every single person in Montreal adored the Expos, went to every game, etc., while the Rays are playing in front of 5 people, and 3 of them are for the away team.

 

Here’s the Expos numbers, again, from a website called “Expos Nation”

 

...and here’s the Rays numbers.

 

Tampa Bay has never gone as low as Montreal did. 

 

Admittedly, there was no attempt to “salt the earth” like there was for the Expos, nor were there the critical demographic issues. Those numbers need that context. However, it doesn’t change how moving to Montréal would be a lateral move for the team’s fortunes (especially after the nostalgic novelty wore off).

 

Nostalgia is a heck of a drug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Rays fan here.

 

In the past, I’ve posted official Expos attendance records (from an Expos fan site, no less) that prove that they were doing far worse than the Rays ever have. People will have you think that every single person in Montreal adored the Expos, went to every game, etc., while the Rays are playing in front of 5 people, and 3 of them are for the away team.

 

Here’s the Expos numbers, again, from a website called “Expos Nation”

 

...and here’s the Rays numbers.

 

Tampa Bay has never gone as low as Montreal did. 

 

Nor as high. Those numbers show that the Expos six times had better than league-average attendance, in 1970 and for five straight years from 1979 through 1983.  (They ranked second in the league in 1983.)  Whereas, the Rays have had attendence above the league average only once, in their inaugural season.

Indeed, even the claim about the Tampa Bay never having gone as low as Montreal is questionable, considering that the Rays have been last in their league in attendance for 6 of the past 8 years, rising all the way to next-to-last in the other two years of that period.  The Rays have ranked last or next-to-last in attendance in their league in 16 of their 21 seasons; and, in a truly impressive feat, they currently rank last in attendance while being in first place.  Meanwhile, the Expos ranked that low in their league in 12 of their 32 seasons (including ranking last in each of their final seven seasons, after it had become clear that their owner had given up on them and that a move was imminent).

So, based on historical trends, it would be reasonable to expect that a move to Montreal would improve the Rays' fortunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like @Ferdinand Cesarano described, the numbers need context (both with league-wide attendance and demographic/team-running trends). 

 

Also, Expos fans showed up when the team was successful. We keep pointing out that the Rays had to give away tickets during their World Series trip. I’m a Giants fan, and I’m damn sure that the Giants didn’t give away tickets to Candle$hit in 1989 or during the 1960s success period.

 

I’m just not bullish on moving the team (or any team) to Montréal. Maybe merging the Marlins and Rays (with Sternberg taking over in Miami and the team moving to the AL) would be the best solution for both teams, with an expansion into the Carolinas.

 

The whole “Tampa Bay Sweepstakes” and Naimoli salted the earth for baseball in the Tampa Bay Area.

 

Edited by SFGiants58
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Also worth remembering that the Braves moved to Milwaukee just days before the start of the 1953 season.  There wasn’t time to re-brand even if they ever considered it. 

 

Are we sure about this? The Brewers managed it even though they left spring training as the Seattle Pilots and made it all the way to Salt Lake City before they found out they moved to Milwaukee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Rays fan here.

 

In the past, I’ve posted official Expos attendance records (from an Expos fan site, no less) that prove that they were doing far worse than the Rays ever have. People will have you think that every single person in Montreal adored the Expos, went to every game, etc., while the Rays are playing in front of 5 people, and 3 of them are for the away team.

 

Here’s the Expos numbers, again, from a website called “Expos Nation”

 

...and here’s the Rays numbers.

 

Tampa Bay has never gone as low as Montreal did. 

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Admittedly, there was no attempt to “salt the earth” like there was for the Expos, nor were there the critical demographic issues. Those numbers need that context. However, it doesn’t change how moving to Montréal would be a lateral move for the team’s fortunes (especially after the nostalgic novelty wore off).

 

Nostalgia is a heck of a drug.

 

I think this highlights the real problem... too damn many teams. It's completely asinine that expansion is seriously being considered. I would argue that 24 teams is all baseball should actually have, but I'd be more than happy with simply contracting the two Florida teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.