Expos Rights question

[OnWis97]

Sounds to me that your problem with the Cleveland Browns' franchise transfer is really a problem with Cleveland in general.

Me? No. I just felt that the who "Dog Pound" thing was a part of what drove the frenzy. I don't like what's happening with the Sonics either.

My problem is the revision of history.

[Gothamite]

There's no "revision of history" here.

The organization left, the franchise stayed. Unusual, perhaps, but not incomprehensible.

As for the "Pound", that undoubtedly did have something to do with it. The Browns had a large, stable and high-profile fanbase. Support was never the issue, unlike most teams that relocate.

[DCDuck]

It's uncanny how every thread gets turned into a thread about Cleveland fans. It's like some CCSLC equivalent to Godwin's Law.

On topic:

One possible reason for Nats fans' reluctance to embrace the Expos' past is that they're a team called the Nationals situated in the nation's capital, and taking in a Canadian franchise's history would be somehow unpatriotic.

Just a theory.

[bosrs1]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

While this may be correct, it is at best a stupid "officially-sanctioned" revision of history.

"wow, it looks like the Cleveland Browns took three years off, the first of which included an expansion team in Baltimore. Since the Browns were on sabbatical, I guess their players were all available for the expansion Ravens. That's convenient. Then the Browns came back...well, they did not really come back since they were never really gone. They were not an expansion team...but they were able, it appears, to get players in an expansion draft. Weird."

I understand what happened, but it was the wrong move and was made because media ran with the "poor blue collar fans" angle. I hope it does not happen again in any sport.

I am OK with the name and (lack of) logos staying for an expansion team, but the history should have remained true. Much like is the case with the Winnipeg Jets.

Already has happened again, twice. In MLS, the San Jose Earthquakes franchise was put on hiatus and their owners AEG granted a new expansion franchise in Houston. AEG proceeded to take their head coach and players with them. It could also be in the NBA's future as well as currently the Seattle SuperSonic's history is still retained by the city of Seattle for use by a new/replacement team should they acquire one.

I cannot pretend to care about MLS.

So does this mean that there is no history attached to OKC? They were an "expansion team"? If so, then I guess it has happened again. And again it's stupid. And no matter how official it may be, it's dishonest.

And it may even be worse in this case because who's to say Seattle's ever going to get a team? I don't know how many NBA arenas I see being built in America in the future. Stern accuses the people of Seattle of not caring about the league and then they get the name/logos/history saved for them? If the Sonics don't get replaced then that team's history just hangs in limbo? They were essentially contracted?

I've learned alot from this thread. But I remain more convinced than ever that the Browns deal is the wrong way to go, no matter how much it pleases fans. There were two MLB franchies called the Baltimore Orioles and two called the Milwaukee Brewers (the originals gone by about 1903). There could have been two called the Cleveland browns without making this dishonest history transfer. Or we could have the Baltimore Browns, which would be my preference...just like the St. Louis Rams and the Arizona Cardinals (both have about as much history as the Browns). This deal happened because "Cleveland is blue collar and LOVES its Browns...DAWG POUND!!!)

The North Stars move to Dallas hurt. Bad. But honestly, I love how they've handled this. I love that they acknowledge their history in Minnesota. I love that they kept our two retired numbers. I love that they retired Neal Broten's number; he played there, but they essentially regognized his time in Minnesota, where his prime was spent. I appreciate that about the Dallas Stars today and I prefer it to all that stuff being hung up in Minnesota for our "one franchise" that took a seven year break.

Frankly I think it's more than a 2 prong issue, it's really a 3 prong issue. There are in fact several styles of moves.

I mean you have the traditional move style, like say the A's, Dodgers or Giants. They were the Philadelphia A's, Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants. They moved and became the KC/Oakland A's, LA Dodgers and SF Giants. They're still the same franchise, still the had the majority of the same team players wise before and after, and most importantly they're still the same team identity wise (ie: they were the A's, Dodgers and Giants pre move and post move). This was of course the simplest to deal with as the team took everything with them and if the old city got a new team they had to start completely from scratch in every facet.

Then you have the variant of the traditional style, like say the Senators to Minneapolis, Expos the Washington or the Jets to Phoenix, where yes it's the same franchise and most of the same players, but the team all but eliminates its previous identity becoming a newly identified team (ie: Expos become Nationals, Senators/Nationals become Twins, and Jets become Coyotes). This type of move seems logical as it allows the new city to identify the team more in line with their city (eliminating stupid things like the Lakers being in a city that has no lakes, or the Jazz being in an area that doesn't really like Jazz). But it also creates a few issues; First is what we've seen come up repeatedly lately in places like Winnipeg and DC where if the city gets a new team the old identity is available to use in the old city creating issues where officially the records etc... went with the teams, but the new team with the old name is to an extent both by fans and the team treated as a revival of the old team. Secondly it creates issue where because the team moving has abandoned their previous identity their history under that old identity gets largely ignored in their new cities, which leads into the third issue when you combine both situations, again like in Winnipeg for example where you get a team that abandoned it's old Thrashers identity to take up an old identity in turn left behind by the first Jets. While officially the Jets history is with the Phoenix club they don't do much to acknowledge it, but the new Jets do to some extent from the organization and definitely from the press and fans, meanwhile Atlanta's history is largely ignored.

And then back to simplicity you have the Cleveland/San Jose/Seattle model where the history/records/titles/etc... all officially remain with the city. Period. If there is a team in that city in that league they have the identity and the official history and if they move the new city Baltimore/Houston/OKC start from scratch. Only real issue with this model is if the city they left doesn't get a new team the history just kind of sits there, but that's not much different than how it's treated in many of the move situations above.

So IMO the real issue isn't the traditional moves, or the Cleveland style official history separations, it's that middle model ala Jets/Thrashers, Nationals/Expos, etc... that creates the biggest issues for both fans and organizations despite what the history books say. The solution to me seems simple. Either require a moving team to retain their old identity post move (Atlanta Flames become Calgary Flames, Brooklyn Dodgers become LA Dodgers). Or if they want a new identity in the new city, force them to relinquish all claims to everything that went with that identity including the name/history/records/etc... and grant them a new franchise in the new city. Limiting it to those two models would eliminate a lot of the angst and confusion that comes with moves.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Sounds to me that your problem with the Cleveland Browns' franchise transfer is really a problem with Cleveland in general.

Me? No. I just felt that the who "Dog Pound" thing was a part of what drove the frenzy. I don't like what's happening with the Sonics either.

My problem is the revision of history.

This bothers me, for exactly the same reason. Franchise continuity matters; history matters. I was recently watching the last two games of the 1987 World Series on ESPN Classic; and Al Michaels mentioned that, at that point, the only World Championship in the Twins' franchise history was the 1924 title which the franchise had won when it was the Washington Senators. This is indicative of the correct view of franchise continuity. Neither the Giants nor the Dodgers nor the Braves make any secret of acknowledging the entire history of their franchises; and the same view should hold in those relocated franchises which changed nicknames.

To declare that a team's "history" can somehow stay behind when team itself moves, this is an absurdity. The idea of regarding a relocated team as having moved only the "organisation" but having left behind the franchise, this is a step that the NFL took as a PR move. The blame for mucking up history is on the league.

As has been noted, this silly precedent of "let's pretend" has been picked up by other leagues, by the MLS's San Jose Earthquakes and by the NBA's Seattle SuperSonics. Furthermore, other teams have decided to simply ignore their histories, even without the cover of this sort of ahistorical technicality -- the CFL's current Montreal Alouettes are the former Baltimore Stallions; yet they make no acknolwegement of the Stallions' 1995 Grey Cup victory. Let's see what the new Winnipeg Jets do on this question.

I am glad the Nationals have included the two Expos greats in their ring of honour, alongside the players who played in Washington with other franchises. But their citing of 1905 as some kind of founding date is pretty ridiculous. Of course the actual date of the Nationals' franchise's founding is 1969. But, if they want to indulge in some kind of fantasy by selecting an old-timey date, then there are several other dates that make some sense: 1891, the founding of the first Major League team in Washington, the Washington Statesmen of the American Association; 1892, the first year of Washington in the NL, as the Amer. Assoc. club changed leagues and changed nicknames to become the Washington Senators (a club which would ultimately fold in 1899); 1901, the founding of the AL's Washington club, officially named "Nationals", but called "Senators" by almost everyone (the franchise which is still in existence in Minnesota). But nothing special happened in 1905.

[DCDuck]

I'd hesitate to compare the Expos to DC with the Thrashers to Winnipeg. The time frames were different and the circumstances were different. The Senators left DC in 1971, the Jets left Winnipeg in 1996.

When the Expos moved to DC, there were about a dozen things that could have hindered the move. The team at that point was owned by MLB. There were issues with stadium funding. Those issues led to protests and ideological debates about how the city could allot all that money to the Southwest Waterfront stadium (now known as Nats Park) while the public school system was in shambles. RFK Stadium made the Trop look like Camden Yards. Fan support was lukewarm at best, and there wasn't any TV rights deal until Peter Angelos let the Nats piggyback off of the Orioles TV Network (MASN).

Any of those things going wrong would have absolutely killed the move to DC. The Expos could have just as well ended up in a half-dozen other cities.

[Gothamite]

Or Montreal could have built them a stadium, and they'd be there still. That would have killed the move to DC right quick.

[bosrs1]

Or Montreal could have built them a stadium, and they'd be there still. That would have killed the move to DC right quick.

Labatt Park have been a beautiful stadium... Shame Jeffery Loria was their owner which nearly guaranteed they were screwed.

[DCDuck]

Or Montreal could have built them a stadium, and they'd be there still. That would have killed the move to DC right quick.

Honestly I think we're lucky to have the franchise in DC. All things considered, MLB could have just said that Metro DMV belogs to the Orioles and that would be the end of it too. There are so many things that went just so, and that resulted in the team being here for the foreseeable future.

[Gothamite]

Labatt Park have been a beautiful stadium... Shame Jeffery Loria was their owner which nearly guaranteed they were screwed.

You can't blame Loria. The only reason he was able to buy the team was because the previous owner couldn't get the stadium built, either.

If there is to be a villain in this story, it's Montreal and Quebec. Public money is part and parcel of having a sports franchise in town, and it's been that way for over half a century. They couldn't get a deal done, so they lost the team.

Now, there are those who don't like the public money model. Fair enough. In that case, the Expos' story doesn't have a villain, just a tragic set of circumstances without anyone to blame.

I think Loria is a tool. But it's not his fault that the Expos aren't still in Montreal.

Shame, too. This would have been very cool.

[CC97]

Labatt Park have been a beautiful stadium... Shame Jeffery Loria was their owner which nearly guaranteed they were screwed.

You can't blame Loria. The only reason he was able to buy the team was because the previous owner couldn't get the stadium built, either.

If there is to be a villain in this story, it's Montreal and Quebec. Public money is part and parcel of having a sports franchise in town, and it's been that way for over half a century. They couldn't get a deal done, so they lost the team.

Now, there are those who don't like the public money model. Fair enough. In that case, the Expos' story doesn't have a villain, just a tragic set of circumstances without anyone to blame.

I think Loria is a tool. But it's not his fault that the Expos aren't still in Montreal.

I believe the option put before Quebec parliament was "money for new hospitals" vs. "money for a new stadium"; it's an obvious choice when presented that way.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Loria reject an eventual offer from the Quebec or Montreal governments? I thought they offered funding plus land but he played a "you missed the deadline" card. Loria also terminated all English radio and television deals (Montreal is nearly 50/50 between French and English citizens).

Going to an Expos game was tough and anyone who ever tried to go to a game would get the sense that whoever ran this team did not want you to be there, especially during the MLB ownership years...

One parking lot for the stadium was available to the fans, every gate entrance except for the one on the complete opposite end of the stadium (from the parking lot) did not allow fan access.

Once inside the stadium fans were treated to the most intense security I've ever seen in a baseball stadium (outside Yankee Stadium's Legends area), security guards dressed in police officer style outfits would pounce on any fan who stepped foot in the lower 15 rows of seats (yet stopping fans from tossing golf balls on the field was a concept which escaped them)

One game we went to it was raining, the roof leaked into the row of seats in front of us, a worker came around in the 6th inning to mop up the water

The seats were horrid, nothing I've ever seen, two separate pieces that would pinch your ass if you dared jump to your feet to cheer or celebrate or, you know, do anything a fan would do at a sporting event

Smoking was permitted pretty much everywhere, nothing like crowding into a cramped corridor with the other 7000 people who went to the game all trying to get to the only open exit while 3500 fans are blowing smoke into the air

After every Expo game I'd swear to myself that this is the last time I'll ever go because the experience was that terrible, however I'd keep returning annually for the last game of each season with the thought that "this is probably it"

As for the quality of the team itself, we know what happened with the '94 club, but when MLB was in control the Expos did somehow field a semi-successful club in 2002 - even making a splash at the trade deadline acquiring Bartolo Colon (in one of the worst trades in MLB history) - fans started showing up after they made that trade... until Colon was traded again a few days later; when time came to expand the rosters that season MLB refused to allow them to call up any players, gotta keep that salary down (as if a month of minor leaguers costs that much)... not that it would have made a difference but imagine they were in a playoff race with a 25-man roster against clubs with a 30-35 man roster? Seems unfair to me.

It's the little things all added up that just ruined the whole experience of attending a MLB game to the average Montrealer... if there was another local group that wanted to own that team and a smaller outdoor stadium (worked for the Als) there's no doubt in my mind that Montreal wouldn't be a thriving baseball market right now but there's neither the owner nor the stadium.

[Gothamite]

I don't remember a serious offer from the government. Got me there.

Nor do I doubt that MLB was desperate to move the team by the end. But that was after nearly five years of failed stadium attempts. Can't blame them for that.

Was it really stadium v. hospitals? Maybe. But that loops back in with the "no public money" argument. Shame that municipalities are forced to make those choices. They shouldn't have to make those choices in a perfect world. Which is why the story might not have a villain at all.

[DCDuck]

Incidentally I had the chance to go to two Expos games in 2003 while staying in Montreal before driving down to Vermont to attend a wedding, and I can truly say that Stade Olympique was pretty atrocious. That said, attending Nats games at RFK wasn't much better while MLB owned the team. The first season in DC the Nats went 81-81, then promptly traded or let walk every decent player on the roster.

The goat of the RFK "era"? Austin Kearns. Jim Bowden did his best to acquire every just-over-the-hump player he could at a sizable discount then try to market the acquisition as "progress". Eventually it got to the point where our pitching staff was the laughing stock of baseball, and every month there would be five new players in the starting rotation.

But like I said, we've been lucky. Absolutely very lucky. Now we Nats fans have to hope the Lerners don't take a page out of the Jeffrey Loria book by trying to make a mass salary dump just when it looks like we're about to turn the corner.

[yh]

What's all this about the Expos moving?

[Lee.]

What's all this about the Expos moving?

Back to Winnipeg with 'em!

[DCDuck]

EDIT - never mind

[cajunaggie08]

I know Earl Campbell and a few other former Houston Oilers have been hesitant to do anything involving the Tennessee Titans. The move was a complete franchise move from Houston to Nashville so it makes sense that the history went with them. Since Bud Adams has been the only owner of that franchise, it makes sense for him to have the team honor its past. But it has created a few akward PR events. Warren Moon's jersey was retired a few years back and he had to give a speach to a stadium crowd where 99% of the crowd never saw him play football in person. While I commend the Titans for continuing to respect its club's past it does stink as a Houstonian that the retired numbers of our greatest pro football players are sitting in Nashville. Hopefully the Texans will get their act together someday and have something worth celebrating and remembering besides a series of flops and failures.

[bosrs1]

Speaking of the Expos rights. I was hearing rumors that an Eastern League AA team may be trying to move to Montreal. If they succeed what are the chances of them acquiring the Expos name and logo to use?

[The_Admiral]

Low, see also: Hartford Whalers/Connecticut Whale.

Something to consider regarding the Thrashers to Winnipeg is that True North didn't buy the intellectual property of the Atlanta Thrashers, which is retained by Atlanta Spirit. The Jets couldn't sell Thrashers crap or unfurl Thrashers banners if they wanted to, which they don't. Knowing as I'm sure all parties did that

1) the endgame of this whole snafu was that there would be a team called "the Winnipeg Jets" again, and

2) knowing that the chuckleheads still had the logos and stuff, and

3) bearing in mind that the only thing really relocating from Atlanta to Winnipeg were the rights to players while all the hockey-ops and support staff were left behind in favor of True North's staff, they should have done more to underscore the fact that in a zoomed-out, top-to-bottom view of things, Team A is only Team B insofar as Andrew Ladd is there and they kinda suck.

The way to have presented this would have been that owing to the lack of local ownership, the Atlanta Thrashers franchise has been suspended/cancelled/whatevered, and True North has purchased the roster from the tards (sale) and purchased a 30th franchise from the league (relocation fee).

This whole recent wave of contrarian dillweeds screaming "you think you're the Jets BUTTCHUR NAWT! Your best player ever is Ilya Kovalchuk! The worst thing that ever happened to your team was Dany Heatley killing his teammate!" and so forth is even more contrived than anything else in this whole snarl. While lawsuits regarding fantasy sports have affirmed that statistics aren't intellectual property because they're just records of factual events, legally speaking, the team really isn't the Thrashers in a lot of senses. Trying to force this whole "you're the Thrashers and you always will be" meme makes me think of bullies ambushing some poor kid in a bathroom stall and forcing him to eat his own feces. "Go on! It's yours! Own it! Own it!"

[hawk36]

So how long before Washington National starts wearing expo throwbacks in games Vs the Bluejays in Toronto ?

Never. Many Nats fans want nothing to do with the Expos, even if it is just a set of throwback jerseys.

Which is downright appalling. Even when watching Nats games on MASN and MASN2, there is always some reference to the Expos whether it be for nostalgic purposes or to guess which player has the franchise record in a particular statistical category.

I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse when it comes to the Nats/Expos histories, but no matter how the organization wants to spin it, I have a tough time believing that this version of the Nats were "established" in 1905.

That's really one of my pet peeves concerning sports. The Expos began in 1969, and the Nats are that franchise. They have ZERO connection to the earlier iterations of the Washington Baseball Club. Those teams are in Minneapolis & Arlington. I don't have a problem with them honoring the city's baseball tradition by wearing old Nats/Sens stuff, but don't try to tell me you're a descendent of that lineage. I like that tha Mariners honor the old Pilots, that the Padres wear old PCL stuff, and that the Royals honor the Monarchs, but they don't claim to be the same team.

And on that note, the Cleveland Browns can say all they want that they kept the history, but Colt McCoy & Jim Brown played for different franchises. Jim Brown played for the team that is in Baltimore, and his records belong with that franchise. Just because the team in Cleveland wears the same uniforms doesn't mean they are the Browns. The Original Browns are Ravens, the current team in Cleveland are the New Browns and their history should begin in 1999.

Disagree 100%.

The Ravens didn't want Cleveland, they left and became something new, fine. But they are not the Browns any more than the Rams are the Colts (remember the owners of those teams traded franchises back in the 70s I think).

If you want to tie teams to owners, then records/history should start over each time a new owner takes over a team.