Jump to content

No Love for the Philly Years?


rebelx

Recommended Posts

I continually wonder why the A's seem to avoid their past in other cities by not retiring some of their great players' numbers or bestowing some similar honor upon them. Kansas City, I can understand, but look at all the success they had in Philadelphia. Does anybody know or have any idea how guys like Jimmie Foxx or Lefty Grove are snubbed by the organization?

Also, why did Washington un-retire the numbers of guys who played for the Expos? Are they really claiming to be a completely new organization or something? That seemed like an injustice to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As for Washington, we're quite the conundrum. From my understanding, the Nats like to reflect on the history of the District's previous baseball teams, two of which now play in Minnesota and Texas. At times I feel we're an expansion team due to our lousy play on the field, enticing fans of opposing teams to visit our stadium, and the misadventures of the Front Office. On the other hand, when the TV announcers bring up statistics, they always show records from Montreal. So there in lies the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with I think I'm getting from Rebelx, which is that franchises ought to keep retired numbers from past locations. It's too bad for a player that only had a retired number in Montreal (Staub?) to lose that distinction because his team moved. At least they could put names up with "MTL" like I think the Giants do with "NY" for New York players. I was always appreciative that Dallas kept the North Stars two retired numbers, along with adding Neal Broten, primarily for his years in Minnesota. Bill Goldsworthy is worthy (no pun intended) of a retired number and would not have one if Dallas had decided to totally ignore that part of the franchise's history.

I have another question about Oakland. Why did they decide not to retire Ricky Henderson's 24? I still see that number used? (I just learned that he wore 35 for his first stint, so did they retire that?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has alot to do with the city. It would be weird to honor a player you never rooted for. Its like the Orioles with George Sisler, they don't acknowledge him or any of the St. Louis Brown's history. Thats the way I think it should be. I would find it really strange for the O's to put up George Sisler's name somewhere in Camden Yards because nobody in Baltimore ever rooted for the guy. Yea it sucks for some of them, but if they were truely great they will be honored in the hall of fame. For guys like Rusty Staub they'll just have to be remembered by the fans of the organization's past city (I'm sure he'll get his number retired again if Montreal ever gets another team).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has alot to do with the city. It would be weird to honor a player you never rooted for. Its like the Orioles with George Sisler, they don't acknowledge him or any of the St. Louis Brown's history. Thats the way I think it should be. I would find it really strange for the O's to put up George Sisler's name somewhere in Camden Yards because nobody in Baltimore ever rooted for the guy. Yea it sucks for some of them, but if they were truely great they will be honored in the hall of fame. For guys like Rusty Staub they'll just have to be remembered by the fans of the organization's past city (I'm sure he'll get his number retired again if Montreal ever gets another team).

In my mind, you can easily make the case that it's still worth retiring numbers of those players to help educate the fans, or rather, keep them in touch with the team's history. Unless, of course, some organizations don't care much about their fans from a newer era connecting with the team's past, or believe that the fans won't be interested, which I think is a damn shame, being so fond of sports history myself. Besides, as OnWiz97 pointed out, a team could very easily denote players from previous cities with an abbreviation or other such designation; this wouldn't be hard to do at all.

Admittedly, I had forgotten about the Orioles not acknowledging their years as the Browns. With them, though, it might be a little bit more passable than the A's ignoring Philly, seeing as how their years in STL were so lean, and produced very few greats. Sisler, though, is very deserving of being recognized somehow, but Angelos sure ain't the owner to do it <_< .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well take this opportunity to point something else out: the Dodgers still haven't retired the number of one of their Brooklyn greats, Zack Wheat. He, along with Garvey, are the two players the Dodgers really should be so honoring and aren't. Any other True Blue fans out there know why Wheat has been snubbed for so long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with honoring a player from another city that played for that franchise. Heck, Ty Cobb never played a game in his life for the Braves, but there is a huge statue of him outside of Turner Field.

The Braves have been in 3 different cities too (Just like the A's) and they honor their Milwaukee players that deserved it. There were really no players that played primarily during the Boston era that would warrant consideration. This is why it seems odd to me that the A's won't do the same thing. I think the A's are going to retire Henderson's number though.

Another thing to consider is that some teams have rules (Written or otherwise) regarding eligibility of a player's number getting retired by that team. Some teams have hardly any standards at all. But some require that they play at least 10 years with that organization and be elected to the Hall of Fame. I believe the Red Sox have those standards.

I know the Yankees made a deal with Reggie Jackson that if he went into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee they would retire his number. Had the current standards been in place for HOF caps, he would have went with an A's cap. Little side deals like that are the reason players are no longer allowed to pick what team they go to the Hall of Fame with.

Anyway, there is a little insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with honoring a player from another city that played for that franchise. Heck, Ty Cobb never played a game in his life for the Braves, but there is a huge statue of him outside of Turner Field.

The Braves have been in 3 different cities too (Just like the A's) and they honor their Milwaukee players that deserved it. There were really no players that played primarily during the Boston era that would warrant consideration. This is why it seems odd to me that the A's won't do the same thing. I think the A's are going to retire Henderson's number though.

Another thing to consider is that some teams have rules (Written or otherwise) regarding eligibility of a player's number getting retired by that team. Some teams have hardly any standards at all. But some require that they play at least 10 years with that organization and be elected to the Hall of Fame. I believe the Red Sox have those standards.

I know the Yankees made a deal with Reggie Jackson that if he went into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee they would retire his number. Had the current standards been in place for HOF caps, he would have went with an A's cap. Little side deals like that are the reason players are no longer allowed to pick what team they go to the Hall of Fame with.

Anyway, there is a little insight.

Isn't Cobb from Georgia? That might have something to do with it.

It's not difficult to understand why there may not be Philly love for A's fans. They left town over 50 years ago, and last played in a WS in 1931. Should the A's recognize the Philly dynasties? Sure. But the Philadelphia A's are a different team from a different time. I'm a fan of the deadball era, and, to me, those guys are honored because they played the game. Where they played isn't as important. Does a baseball fan from Philly think icons like Foxx, Mack, and Grove should be honored by Oakland (and that's not meant to be rhetorical)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retired numbers rarely travel with the team, especially when moves happened decades ago. Heck, the Lakers don't even have Mikan's number retired, and he single handedly defined an entire era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Washington, we're quite the conundrum. From my understanding, the Nats like to reflect on the history of the District's previous baseball teams, two of which now play in Minnesota and Texas. At times I feel we're an expansion team due to our lousy play on the field, enticing fans of opposing teams to visit our stadium, and the misadventures of the Front Office. On the other hand, when the TV announcers bring up statistics, they always show records from Montreal. So there in lies the confusion.

BRING BASEBALL BACK TO MONTREAL AHORA!!!! MON AMOURS SIEMPE!!!! :flagcanada:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Washington, we're quite the conundrum. From my understanding, the Nats like to reflect on the history of the District's previous baseball teams, two of which now play in Minnesota and Texas. At times I feel we're an expansion team due to our lousy play on the field, enticing fans of opposing teams to visit our stadium, and the misadventures of the Front Office. On the other hand, when the TV announcers bring up statistics, they always show records from Montreal. So there in lies the confusion.

I think they have to recognize the records since theyre not an expansion franchise, but DC has a rich baseball history that deserves (frankly) more recognition than the time in Montreal. If i go to a game at Nats Park, and I see a statue of Rusty Staub rather than Frank Howard, im thinking "what the hell? this guy never played in our city". IMO its more important for the Nationals to recognize and educate young fans about the greats of DC baseball past, rather than Montreals baseball past, thats for Montreal to recognize in their own way. To me baseball, and sports in general is about representing your city, they play in Washington now, not Montreal. Im not saying this is the case in all cities, where transcendent players have played for the franchise (like Jackie Robinson) or they won World Championships in their other cities, thats different IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well take this opportunity to point something else out: the Dodgers still haven't retired the number of one of their Brooklyn greats, Zack Wheat. He, along with Garvey, are the two players the Dodgers really should be so honoring and aren't. Any other True Blue fans out there know why Wheat has been snubbed for so long?

I agree %120 percent here. Zach Wheat was the Dodgers' first superstar, a do-anything talent with a picture perfect swing, and oh yeah, he was one of the first primary Dodgers to be elected to the hall of fame.

But I think if my facts are correct, he may have never worn a number. His career (1909-1927) spanned a time when numbers were either non-existent or just barely coming into use.

That being said, I think the Dodgers should at least honor Wheat with a Brooklyn "B", much Like the Cardinals honored Rogers Hornsby with an interlocking "SL".

Just to give perspective on Wheat's importance in Dodger history, he's STILL the all-time leader in games, at-bats, hits (2,884, almost 3,000), doubles, triples, and total bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not saying this is the case in all cities, where transcendent players have played for the franchise (like Jackie Robinson) or they won World Championships in their other cities, thats different IMO.

Which is exactly why the A's don't get a pass here. Besides, unlike the 'Spos/Nats or Browns/O's, the franchise never changed its name, which implies more connection and continuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Washington, we're quite the conundrum. From my understanding, the Nats like to reflect on the history of the District's previous baseball teams, two of which now play in Minnesota and Texas. At times I feel we're an expansion team due to our lousy play on the field, enticing fans of opposing teams to visit our stadium, and the misadventures of the Front Office. On the other hand, when the TV announcers bring up statistics, they always show records from Montreal. So there in lies the confusion.

I think they have to recognize the records since theyre not an expansion franchise, but DC has a rich baseball history that deserves (frankly) more recognition than the time in Montreal. If i go to a game at Nats Park, and I see a statue of Rusty Staub rather than Frank Howard, im thinking "what the hell? this guy never played in our city". IMO its more important for the Nationals to recognize and educate young fans about the greats of DC baseball past, rather than Montreals baseball past, thats for Montreal to recognize in their own way. To me baseball, and sports in general is about representing your city, they play in Washington now, not Montreal. Im not saying this is the case in all cities, where transcendent players have played for the franchise (like Jackie Robinson) or they won World Championships in their other cities, thats different IMO.

Why can't they recognize city history and team history? Are they limited to a finite amount of recognition? If you have a right to honor the history of the Expos, I'm sure there's a place to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Washington, we're quite the conundrum. From my understanding, the Nats like to reflect on the history of the District's previous baseball teams, two of which now play in Minnesota and Texas. At times I feel we're an expansion team due to our lousy play on the field, enticing fans of opposing teams to visit our stadium, and the misadventures of the Front Office. On the other hand, when the TV announcers bring up statistics, they always show records from Montreal. So there in lies the confusion.

I think they have to recognize the records since theyre not an expansion franchise, but DC has a rich baseball history that deserves (frankly) more recognition than the time in Montreal. If i go to a game at Nats Park, and I see a statue of Rusty Staub rather than Frank Howard, im thinking "what the hell? this guy never played in our city". IMO its more important for the Nationals to recognize and educate young fans about the greats of DC baseball past, rather than Montreals baseball past, thats for Montreal to recognize in their own way. To me baseball, and sports in general is about representing your city, they play in Washington now, not Montreal. Im not saying this is the case in all cities, where transcendent players have played for the franchise (like Jackie Robinson) or they won World Championships in their other cities, thats different IMO.

Why can't they recognize city history and team history? Are they limited to a finite amount of recognition? If you have a right to honor the history of the Expos, I'm sure there's a place to do it.

They could. But as a fan, I dont see why they should. The place to do it is in the franchise record books, if Ryan Zimmerman happens to break the franchises all time HR record (for conversations sake) he would break Vlad Guerreros record. Thats enough for me, to keep the records from Montreal but out of respect to Montreal, keep the retired numbers there where they hang at Bell Centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Washington, we're quite the conundrum. From my understanding, the Nats like to reflect on the history of the District's previous baseball teams, two of which now play in Minnesota and Texas. At times I feel we're an expansion team due to our lousy play on the field, enticing fans of opposing teams to visit our stadium, and the misadventures of the Front Office. On the other hand, when the TV announcers bring up statistics, they always show records from Montreal. So there in lies the confusion.

I think they have to recognize the records since theyre not an expansion franchise, but DC has a rich baseball history that deserves (frankly) more recognition than the time in Montreal. If i go to a game at Nats Park, and I see a statue of Rusty Staub rather than Frank Howard, im thinking "what the hell? this guy never played in our city". IMO its more important for the Nationals to recognize and educate young fans about the greats of DC baseball past, rather than Montreals baseball past, thats for Montreal to recognize in their own way. To me baseball, and sports in general is about representing your city, they play in Washington now, not Montreal. Im not saying this is the case in all cities, where transcendent players have played for the franchise (like Jackie Robinson) or they won World Championships in their other cities, thats different IMO.

Why can't they recognize city history and team history? Are they limited to a finite amount of recognition? If you have a right to honor the history of the Expos, I'm sure there's a place to do it.

I just feel its wrong for one city to "steal" another city's history and call it their own. Maybe thats just because I'm from Baltimore and alot football fans here feel that's what Indianapolis did with the Colts. I'm just a big believer that what happens in one city belongs in that city. Maybe the Dodgers, Giants, and A's are a different case because it was a different era when professional sports were exclusive to the east coast and many cities had 2 or 3 teams. Those cities lost teams, but they still had another so the sport wasn't completely gone. But I just believe Expos history should stay in Montreal, then they can honor it if they ever get another team.

Also another point worth mentioning about Rusty Staub. Who says he wants to be honored by the Nats? I know Johnny Unitas wanted nothing to do with the Colts when they moved to Indianapolis. He refused to acknowledge the franchise when it moved. Instead he stayed loyal to the city of Baltimore and the Ravens when they came to town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't they retiring it this year? I saw something about a ceremony for #24 slated for August 1.

Yes Rickey's number 24 will be retired August 1st. I'll be at the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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