no97 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 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.This picture on the column on the left is what I'm talking about:I can't tell who this particular one is of, but they go all around the ballpark, and 99% of them are of HOF'ers not from Washington...Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreFan Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 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.Technically under that scenario, the Browns would have become the Baltimore Colts. Plus I highly doubt anyone from Baltimore would have approved of keeping the name Browns. Many football fans here were sick to see the Colts name and logo move to Indianapolis. There is no way they would want to do the same to another city. I just believe that the accomplishments belong in the city, because thats were it happened. Those fans were the ones to celebrate the team and call it their own. Going back to Andre Dawson, he was a very good player, but certainly not great. The reason he had his number retired by the Expos was because he was a fan favorite with the people in Montreal. It would just seem very strange to me for a Washington franchise to honor a guy because he was popular in Montreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Read the thread: they're honoring people who played anywhere. They might as well clear out a corner of their big new park for the poor old Expos. That's all we're asking. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Read the thread: they're honoring people who played anywhere. They might as well clear out a corner of their big new park for the poor old Expos. That's all we're asking.Stars who've played well everywhere else besides in Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthStar74 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I often wondered why wouldnt the A's stay in Philadelphia after all these years instead of moving first to Kansas City and then Oakland? If the A's did stay there in Philly, would we have seen some Philly battles? the A's vs the Phillies? Would have been interesting.... Ice Hockey International Winnipeg Braves (Bobby Hull Division 18-3-0 1st place as of March 14, 2011)2010-11 O'Brien Trophy for Bobby Hull Division championship & Jack Riley Cup for top team in league regular season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I often wondered why wouldnt the A's stay in Philadelphia after all these years instead of moving first to Kansas City and then Oakland? If the A's did stay there in Philly, would we have seen some Philly battles? the A's vs the Phillies? Would have been interesting....Lack of sufficient funds, absence of a full minor league system, the age of Connie Mack and the growing popularity of the Phillies in 1950 all contributed to empty seats at Shibe Park (re-named Connie Mack Stadium officially in 1953) Eventually, sons Roy and Earl Mack would buy controlling shares of the club from remaining Shibe family members and their half brother, Connie Mack Jr. To do so, they assumed a large mortgage. The debt load, coupled with the unfortunate decision to sell the concessions ( a major income source ) led to the sale of the club in 1954 to Arnold Johnson who moved the team to Kansas City despite several local efforts to buy the club which were not accepted by the American League.They were sold and moved, not just moved. Sounds like the opposite of the Jim Balsille situation.From what I've read and heard, for the overwhelming majority of their existence, Philadelphia was an A's town, and the Phillies were merely the White Sox to Chicago's Cubs... or the Clippers to L.A.'s Lakers. The town fell in love with the Whiz Kids in 1950, and that, coupled with the decline of the A's, pushed the Phillies to the forefront. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Yeah, that's always amazed me. The Phillies just managed to get popular at the one important moment. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Yeah, that's always amazed me. The Phillies just managed to get popular at the one important moment.Yeah, it was really a perfect series of events that lead to the move.I don't want to start a "what if", but if the 1950 Phillies don't win the pennant (forget that they got swept by NY - winning the league pennant was HUGE back then), we could be talking about the North Philly / South Philly interleague rivalry games, or the Center City / North East games, etc.To take it a step further, if the A's don't move, they eventually would have had to develop a new stadium, and from everything I've read, they would not have continued to let the Phils share their park. Depending on how that development went, a neighborhood that is essentially a war zone today, may have turned out very differently. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twi Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Yeah, that's always amazed me. The Phillies just managed to get popular at the one important moment.Yeah, it was really a perfect series of events that lead to the move.I don't want to start a "what if", but if the 1950 Phillies don't win the pennant (forget that they got swept by NY - winning the league pennant was HUGE back then), we could be talking about the North Philly / South Philly interleague rivalry games, or the Center City / North East games, etc.To take it a step further, if the A's don't move, they eventually would have had to develop a new stadium, and from everything I've read, they would not have continued to let the Phils share their park. Depending on how that development went, a neighborhood that is essentially a war zone today, may have turned out very differently.If the A's did get a new Philadelphia stadium, would the Phillies been able to still compete in the older one? It seems feasible to me that the Phillies could have left town at some point for a brand new city if they were playing a clear second fiddle. Depending on when this supposed move occured and where, it could have radically changed the current day MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Yeah, that's always amazed me. The Phillies just managed to get popular at the one important moment.Yeah, it was really a perfect series of events that lead to the move.I don't want to start a "what if", but if the 1950 Phillies don't win the pennant (forget that they got swept by NY - winning the league pennant was HUGE back then), we could be talking about the North Philly / South Philly interleague rivalry games, or the Center City / North East games, etc.To take it a step further, if the A's don't move, they eventually would have had to develop a new stadium, and from everything I've read, they would not have continued to let the Phils share their park. Depending on how that development went, a neighborhood that is essentially a war zone today, may have turned out very differently.If the A's did get a new Philadelphia stadium, would the Phillies been able to still compete in the older one? It seems feasible to me that the Phillies could have left town at some point for a brand new city if they were playing a clear second fiddle. Depending on when this supposed move occured and where, it could have radically changed the current day MLB.Who knows? Of course that would have been a possibility. Based on what I've read, I think that they had stable local ownership and would have been able to survive, but we'll never know. What would have been interesting is if the A's built their own place, and then the Phillies still went on to partner with the city and the Eagles and move into the Vet. I kind of have a feeling that if there were still two MLB teams, and the Phillies weren't the only game in town, that whole deal may not have worked out the same way. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 If the Phillies were second fiddle for long, there would have at least been very real concerns about them moving, as there were with the White Sox possibly moving to Milwaukee or St. Petersburg, or the SF Giants moving to Toronto. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 If the Phillies were second fiddle for long, there would have at least been very real concerns about them moving, as there were with the White Sox possibly moving to MilwaukeeWhich almost happened anyway.I agree that if Philly was a two-town team, you'd never see the Phils go in with the Eagles on a multi-puropse stadium. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.