No Love for the Philly Years?

[The_Admiral]

You guys are missing my point about there not being a finite limit on nostalgia. You can easily slap together an exhibit in the Nationals Park concourse about the Montreal Expos, say something about the 1994 Champs That Weren't, Pedro's No-Hitter That Wasn't, and other fun facts about the team that currently...isn't. They can bring back smoked meat sandwiches at a concession stand and sell them as "Expo-wiches" or something. None of this precludes the Canadiens from putting up an Expos banner, or Montreal building a statue of Kirk Reuter, or whatever. They can do whatever they'd like to do to recognize the Expos up there, but the truth is that the Expos are the Nationals and the Nationals are the Expos, and the team's highs and lows ought to be acknowledged by the organization in its current form. That's what, 36 seasons of baseball that we're supposed to pretend never happened because the city is off the circuit?

The sad thing is that even when Jeff Loria ran the team into the ground and then sold them to the commissioner's office after ransacking the offices of everything from scouts to paper clips, they were still a better organization than they are today.

[OnWis97]

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.

Good.

[Waffles]

For what it's worth, the A's are commemorating their 1929 World Championship (won in Philadelphia) next month.

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/sched...orld_series.jsp

[friarcanuck]

As an Expos fan, if MLB wanted a winning team in Washington, they should have put money into the franchise in the dying years of Montreal. I am still a supporter of the idea that if there was no strike in 1994, the Montreal would still have a team. Maybe with multiple World Series titles like Toronto.

I don't know about the history in St. Louis that the Orioles once had, but he Expos were a great franchise. Unfortunately, "were" if the only word to describe them now and it's sad that one team would remove the greatness of one franchise to build a local fanbase.

[Gothamite]

The only difference between the St. Louis Browns and the Montreal Expos is that we have first-hand memories of the Expos (Well, that and the Browns won a pennant ).

What the Nationals did is exactly what the Orioles did with the Browns. Or the Browns did with the Brewers. Or the other Brewers did with the Pilots. They are all relocated franchises which acknowledge the prior history but don't promote it.

[The_Admiral]

Was it the Brewers or the Mariners that played dress-up as the Pilots recently?

[Discrim]

most recently? the Mariners. I know the Brewers wore the Pilots uniform once at home about a decade ago, and wore Pilots roads for other teams' TBTC days a few times.

[illwauk]

I always felt that history and accomplishments should stay in the city. Especially when billionaire owners keep insisting that its the fans "civic duty" to foot the bill for the palaces their teams play in. Otherwise, you're admitting that the locations of pro sports teams are meaningless (even though it is true, to some extent).

Of course, this is coming from someone who gets salty everytime the Atlanta Braves try to claim Milwaukee's accomplishments when most Atlanta-era Braves fans have no idea what "Bushville Wins" means.

If the A's or Browns history should be acknowledged by anyone, it should be by the Phillies or Browns (respectively). I'm not saying they need to go as far as retiring numbers, but giving them a section of the outfield for a "wall of fame" or something would be nice.

[no97]

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.

Alright then - I was just at Nationals Park last week, and was looking for an Expos area (obviously didn't find it), and then was left wondering, "what the hell's up with the pictures of Stan Musial, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, etc. aroound the concourse?" If Washington's got this great baseball history, then why are the Nat's pandering to all the out of town fans? Build up the Washington history! I thought it was dumb...

Moose

[cappital92]

Strange. I've been to Nationals Park three times and have only seen profiles of Walter Johnson and several Homestead Grays. Aaron, Musial, and Cobb never played in D.C., or were from the area, so having pictures of them is rather odd.

[The_Admiral]

Of course, this is coming from someone who gets salty everytime the Atlanta Braves try to claim Milwaukee's accomplishments when most Atlanta-era Braves fans have no idea what "Bushville Wins" means.

But they are the Braves' accomplishments. The Braves won a championship in Milwaukee. They can put a sign up in Miller Park, but it's the Braves' to call their own.

If Washington's got this great baseball history, then why are the Nat's pandering to all the out of town fans? Build up the Washington history!

Washington doesn't have great baseball history, though; that's sorta the dilemma. The Grays, okay, but both iterations of the Senators had little to contribute. When the best major leaguer you can honor in town is Frank Howard, giving props to Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Pedro Martinez, and Vladimir Guerrero isn't the worst idea.

[BBTV]

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.

Alright then - I was just at Nationals Park last week, and was looking for an Expos area (obviously didn't find it), and then was left wondering, "what the hell's up with the pictures of Stan Musial, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, etc. aroound the concourse?" If Washington's got this great baseball history, then why are the Nat's pandering to all the out of town fans? Build up the Washington history! I thought it was dumb...

Moose

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9040703988.html

[The_Admiral]

Listening to a Nats or Marlins game on the radio messes with your head. You wonder why you're batting in the top of the inning and the whole rhythm of the game gets thrown off.

[BBTV]

Listening to a Nats or Marlins game on the radio messes with your head. You wonder why you're batting in the top of the inning and the whole rhythm of the game gets thrown off.

You should have listened to the Phillies / DBacks series last week... same thing.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, the DBacks are another "come watch us host your favorite team!" team, and they've actually won things. Sometimes I wonder how many expansion teams baseball really needed. Everyone just likes midwestern/east coast/California teams, and the California teams that everyone likes are the ones that were on the east coast first. And the Braves. The Rockies/Marlins/Diamondbacks/Rays/Nationals are pretty much doomed to being inconsequential is what I'm saying.

[JayJaxon]

The Rockies/Marlins/Diamondbacks/Rays/Nationals are the kind of teams that are really only going to draw fans if they are in the playoffs and winning. I was at the 2007 NLCS and at that time you could tell that Denver really cared about their baseball team. But where has the love been since? Same with the Marlins. They have won two World Championships and still don't draw fans.

The Yankees draw fans because, well, they are the Yankees. But it also has to do with the fact that there are not tons of true Yankee fans outside of NYC. So their true fan base lives right there. Same with the Red Sox. The stadiums fill up when these guys come to town because of the fairy-weather fans, and people that wanna see superstars on the field. The Braves are popular because they were on TBS for 30 years, and they were the only southern team for many years. But that doesn't always translate into fans in the stands because they are one of those teams that can have true fans all over the place.

I always thought this issue in Florida (for both teams) was that so many Floridians are transplants from somewhere else, therefore they are going to keep their loyalties to the team they grew up watching. I could be wrong, but that's my theory on that.

[BaltimoreFan]

The Rockies/Marlins/Diamondbacks/Rays/Nationals are pretty much doomed to being inconsequential is what I'm saying.

I think it takes awhile for an expansion team to grow a true fan base. The problem is that so many people from the city are use to rooting for another team because there was no home town team. I see that with football here in Baltimore with people my age. A bunch of people picked up other teams and didn't want to just drop them when they got a home town team. The Ravens have a great fan base because a lot of Colts fans were still around. Once a generation grows up with a team, then those expansion franchises will start seeing a true fan base.

And just a note, I went to a Nationals game earlier this year. I was surprised at the number of college aged fans in attendance. I was under the impression that no cared for the team at all. But there were quite a few people that did. If the team ever gets better they'll have a decent fan base.

[The_Admiral]

I always thought this issue in Florida (for both teams) was that so many Floridians are transplants from somewhere else, therefore they are going to keep their loyalties to the team they grew up watching. I could be wrong, but that's my theory on that.

There's that, yeah. Also, you can't go to games in Miami because they play outdoors. It's too humid! You can't go to games in St. Petersburg because they play indoors. It's too ugly!

[DustDevil61]

A little more in line with the original topic, but here's a little idea of mine for relocating teams that "start anew" by rebranding themselves, ala the Cleveland Browns and Seattle SuperSonics situations: let the new city keep the team name until the original city gets an expansion/relocated team if they (the new city) so desire. Then the new city gets a "new team" with a fresh history, while, in essance, the original city "gets back" its original team.

Under this scenario, we would've had the "Baltimore Browns" between 1996-1998 and the "Oklahoma City Sonics" for now. I know it may be heresy to Clevelanders and Seattlites with this idea, but I like the idea where the name "moves back" to its original city. That gives the new city time to find a new identity for its team, avoiding any potential rush to rebrand the team. Meanwhile, there is still a team in the league named the Browns or the Sonics to keep some kind of continuity (i.e., previously retired numbers, records, etc.), instead of having these 3-year (for the Browns) and x-year (for the Sonics) gaps in the franchise histories.

And no, I'm not trying to say that players whose numbers are going to be retired (in Gary Payton's and Shawn Kemp's case with OKC) should be retired in the new city but rather when the old city gets the name--and history--back.

One more question--I've heard that the NFL has established a rule that when a team moves, it must change its name. Is this true?

[The_Admiral]

If they have, we'd have no way of knowing. The last team to move was the Oilers, and they hung on to their name during the weird pre-Titans Lost Period. Maybe that's why? I doubt this rule exists: if/when the Rams move back to Los Angeles, the league isn't going to make them change their name. They'll be the Los Angeles Rams again.

I used to be under the impression that the NBA, conversely, didn't allow teams to change their names, hence the retention of the Kings, Hornets, and Grizzlies monikers. I get keeping the Hornets, since there's some brand recognition there, but all things being equal, "Memphis Grizzlies" couldn't have been the best they could do.

First person to invoke the Utah Jazz gets punched in the mouth.