Expos Rights question

[JohnnySeoul]

I also wish the Jazz would've left their history in New Orleans (Utah and "jazz" just seems dumb) and the Hornets would've left their history in Charlotte. Oh well....you win some, lose some.

I don't know if you were suggesting that the team nicknames should have stayed the same (which would've been great, Hornets > Bobcats) or that New Orleans/Charlotte should honor Jazz/Hornets records, respectively.

If it was that the Bobcats should count Hornets records/seasons in their history, that's completely absurd. The Hornets and Bobcats are two completely different franchises, neither has any connection to the other save the fact that they are both basketball teams and play home games in Charlotte.

No more "completely absurb" than the future Seattle franchise that will inherit the SuperSonics history, records, seasons, and etc.

And that would also be absurd because if a new team ever comes to Seattle it will have absolutely no connection to the Sonics other than the fact that they both play basketball in the same city. The Sonics are the Thunder. Kevin Durant played in Seattle then moved to Oklahoma City with the franchise. No matter what they choose to say is the official history, that's what happened. Having them continue as the Sonics and keep those records would be absurd.

But it is ultimately irrelevant whether or not it is considered "absurd" if and when the NBA makes it a part of their official history. Once they do that, it is fact and no debate can change that. The owner(s) of the Seattle SuperSonics left the franchise with the city of Seattle and took the current roster to Oklahoma City to start a BRAND NEW expansion franchise. Really no different from the Cleveland/Baltimore situation.

What I was saying about the Oilers, Jazz, and Hornets is that I wish the owners would've left the franchise to the city and started over in their new city.

So you believe todays Cleveland Browns are stupid for taking the history from the old browns as well?

If this was directed towards me, I've clearly stated the opposite. Franchise history and etc is better off with the city (unless the city never truly embraced them).

[TheOldRoman]

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.

That is all true except for them trading Colon days later. They traded him to the White Sox in January of 2003.

[hawk36]

Wow, I didn't realize the OKC Thunder left behind the Sonics history in Seattle. They really did that, with no guarantees the NBA will return there? That seems screwy to me, unlike the Cleveland deal where the franchise remained in Cleveland (albeit, dormant) while the Ravens continued in 1997 with all of the staff/players from the Cleveland Browns of 1996. At least with the Browns/Ravens situation, there was a valid franchise in Cleveland that contained/maintained the records. There is no NBA franchise in Seattle.

The Sonics are Seattle's not Oklahoma City's. Let OKC make their own history. I'd think they'd want it that way (rather than taking another city's history).

If a team relocates to Seattle to become the Sonics, I will not care one bit about that team's past history, I'll only care about the Sonics' history. I would think my opinion isn't unique.

Even with teams like the Dodgers and Giants, I can't believe there are any fans in Los Angeles or San Francisco who consider the championships in Brooklyn and New York "theirs". They are Brooklyn's and New York's championships, not Los Angeles' or San Francisco's.

[JohnnySeoul]

Wow, I didn't realize the OKC Thunder left behind the Sonics history in Seattle. They really did that, with no guarantees the NBA will return there? That seems screwy to me, unlike the Cleveland deal where the franchise remained in Cleveland (albeit, dormant) while the Ravens continued in 1997 with all of the staff/players from the Cleveland Browns of 1996. At least with the Browns/Ravens situation, there was a valid franchise in Cleveland that contained/maintained the records. There is no NBA franchise in Seattle.

The Sonics are Seattle's not Oklahoma City's. Let OKC make their own history. I'd think they'd want it that way (rather than taking another city's history).

If a team relocates to Seattle to become the Sonics, I will not care one bit about that team's past history, I'll only care about the Sonics' history. I would think my opinion isn't unique.

Even with teams like the Dodgers and Giants, I can't believe there are any fans in Los Angeles or San Francisco who consider the championships in Brooklyn and New York "theirs". They are Brooklyn's and New York's championships, not Los Angeles' or San Francisco's.

Exactly. Do St Louis residents really care that the Rams won the NFL Championship as the Cleveland Rams (1945) and as the Los Angeles Rams (1951)? Of course not. All they care about is the NFL Championship in 1999 as the ST LOUIS Rams.

[GeneParmesan]

The SuperSonics' history is technically "shared" between the 2 cities, as far as the NBA is concerned. Without going into too much detail, the NBA didn't want the Thunder to start with a clean slate like an expansion team when they were moved there. As part of the settlement the team's ownership reached with Seattle's city leaders to move the team, they agreed to share the Supes' history, with the understanding that a future NBA team in Seattle could lay claim to it. But if you look through the Thunder media guide, they list their first season as being 1967, and their all-time roster includes everyone from Lenny Wilkens to Ray Allen. I can't speak to whether or not Thunder fans consider SuperSonics history their own, but I know people in Seattle aren't crazy about their only modern sports championship being officially claimed in Oklahoma.

There was some controvery when the Thunder were in the playoffs earlier this year and invited Shawn Kemp to sit courtside for a game; he turned them down because he never played there. And Charles Barkley derailed a TNT roundtable when the Thunder's all-time playoff record versus the Nuggets was discussed, because they had never met the Nuggets in the playoffs as the Thunder.

[goalieboy82]

you can say the Colts are "part" of the Dayton Triangles

Dayton Triangles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Triangles

is it also possible to say that the Western Leauge became the American League in 1901.

Western League

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_League_(original)

for those footy fans, North Melbourne Kangaroos are not part of the first North Melbourne founded in 1869.

If Rmered is still posting (or anyone else) they can tell more about it then i can.

[bosrs1]

The SuperSonics' history is technically "shared" between the 2 cities, as far as the NBA is concerned. Without going into too much detail, the NBA didn't want the Thunder to start with a clean slate like an expansion team when they were moved there. As part of the settlement the team's ownership reached with Seattle's city leaders to move the team, they agreed to share the Supes' history, with the understanding that a future NBA team in Seattle could lay claim to it. But if you look through the Thunder media guide, they list their first season as being 1967, and their all-time roster includes everyone from Lenny Wilkens to Ray Allen. I can't speak to whether or not Thunder fans consider SuperSonics history their own, but I know people in Seattle aren't crazy about their only modern sports championship being officially claimed in Oklahoma.

There was some controvery when the Thunder were in the playoffs earlier this year and invited Shawn Kemp to sit courtside for a game; he turned them down because he never played there. And Charles Barkley derailed a TNT roundtable when the Thunder's all-time playoff record versus the Nuggets was discussed, because they had never met the Nuggets in the playoffs as the Thunder.

Never thought I'd agree with anything that came out of Barkley's mouth, but that's the smartest thing he's ever said. Frankly I can understand a team taking the history if they take the name and team identity with them. And to an great extent fans of the LA Dodgers acknowledge Brooklyn, SF Giants fans acknowledge the NY days, etc... If the team retains the identity the new fans and organization tend to acknowledge the continuity. But when a team changes name and identity, it makes little sense to take the history, as they break that continuity despite it being the same "franchise". They're not the same team, they're a new team. Basically it should be a take all of it or leave all of it situation. None of this halfway crap like the Jets-Phoenix, Expos-Nationals, Pilots-Brewers, Oilers-Titans, et al have done over the years.

[Mac the Knife]

On another tack (and not to try and derail the thread), does anyone have any better, sharper images of an NFL franchise certificate?

[DaytonBlue]

I like the idea of take it all or leave it all.

[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.

That is all true except for them trading Colon days later. They traded him to the White Sox in January of 2003.

I wonder who I'm thinking of... Rondell White? Cliff Floyd? I thought they got a decent player then dealt him shortly after during that season.

I believe they traded Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore and Brandon Phillips to land Bartolo Colon... what a deal!

[CubsFanBudMan]

I believe you are thinking of Cliff Floyd. Marlins to Expos to Red Sox.

[TheOldRoman]

I believe you are thinking of Cliff Floyd. Marlins to Expos to Red Sox.

Yep. That's what I thought and I just checked. He was on the Expos for 15 games before being traded again.

[Bouj]

I also wish the Jazz would've left their history in New Orleans (Utah and "jazz" just seems dumb) and the Hornets would've left their history in Charlotte. Oh well....you win some, lose some.

I don't know if you were suggesting that the team nicknames should have stayed the same (which would've been great, Hornets > Bobcats) or that New Orleans/Charlotte should honor Jazz/Hornets records, respectively.

If it was that the Bobcats should count Hornets records/seasons in their history, that's completely absurd. The Hornets and Bobcats are two completely different franchises, neither has any connection to the other save the fact that they are both basketball teams and play home games in Charlotte.

No more "completely absurb" than the future Seattle franchise that will inherit the SuperSonics history, records, seasons, and etc.

And that would also be absurd because if a new team ever comes to Seattle it will have absolutely no connection to the Sonics other than the fact that they both play basketball in the same city. The Sonics are the Thunder. Kevin Durant played in Seattle then moved to Oklahoma City with the franchise. No matter what they choose to say is the official history, that's what happened. Having them continue as the Sonics and keep those records would be absurd.

That's my point. The team in Cleveland aren't the Browns, they are the Expansion Browns. Expansion teams have Expansion Drafts, they don't take a roster/employees/equipment and move them from somewhere else. All the Ravens did when they moved from Cleveland is change clothing. I completely understand the sentiment that Jim Brown wouldn't want to be associated with the Ravens because he played with the Cleveland Browns, but the original Cleveland Browns are dead. Better to have just had a new Baltimore franchise (the Ravens, clock starting with the move there), and a new identity in Cleveland (clock starting in 1999).

My problem (and I was the one who kicked the hornets' nest on this, my apologies) is with the idea that the team in Cleveland is the Browns. They dress like the Browns, but they aren't the Browns. There is no lineage, no matter how many times you say they left the identity behind. I can't break up with my wife and go find another woman with the same name and tell everyone it's the same person.

[JohnnySeoul]

That's my point. The team in Cleveland aren't the Browns, they are the Expansion Browns. Expansion teams have Expansion Drafts, they don't take a roster/employees/equipment and move them from somewhere else. All the Ravens did when they moved from Cleveland is change clothing. I completely understand the sentiment that Jim Brown wouldn't want to be associated with the Ravens because he played with the Cleveland Browns, but the original Cleveland Browns are dead. Better to have just had a new Baltimore franchise (the Ravens, clock starting with the move there), and a new identity in Cleveland (clock starting in 1999).

My problem (and I was the one who kicked the hornets' nest on this, my apologies) is with the idea that the team in Cleveland is the Browns. They dress like the Browns, but they aren't the Browns. There is no lineage, no matter how many times you say they left the identity behind. I can't break up with my wife and go find another woman with the same name and tell everyone it's the same person.

Obviously this is your own personal opinion, but you are wrong. Facts are facts. Facts cannot be disbuted. The Ravens were an expansion team with a BRAND NEW NFL certificate. The ONLY thing they took from the Browns was the 1995 roster and coaching staff....THAT'S IT. The 1995 roster is NOT the entire history of the Cleveland Browns.

[NatsFan2004]

That's my point. The team in Cleveland aren't the Browns, they are the Expansion Browns.

But to Cleveland fans, they are THE BROWNS. It doesn't matter to Cleveland fans that the business isn't the same as the one that existed 4 years prior to its inception. (Frankly, I don't know who this really matters to anyway, other than lawyers and obsessive stat geeks) To Cleveland fans, what's important is that their city's football heritage is honored in their city as opposed to Baltimore - where none of it actually happened.

[sc49erfan15]

Cleveland SuperSonics of Montreal.

This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?

[Bouj]

That's my point. The team in Cleveland aren't the Browns, they are the Expansion Browns. Expansion teams have Expansion Drafts, they don't take a roster/employees/equipment and move them from somewhere else. All the Ravens did when they moved from Cleveland is change clothing. I completely understand the sentiment that Jim Brown wouldn't want to be associated with the Ravens because he played with the Cleveland Browns, but the original Cleveland Browns are dead. Better to have just had a new Baltimore franchise (the Ravens, clock starting with the move there), and a new identity in Cleveland (clock starting in 1999).

My problem (and I was the one who kicked the hornets' nest on this, my apologies) is with the idea that the team in Cleveland is the Browns. They dress like the Browns, but they aren't the Browns. There is no lineage, no matter how many times you say they left the identity behind. I can't break up with my wife and go find another woman with the same name and tell everyone it's the same person.

Obviously this is your own personal opinion, but you are wrong. Facts are facts. Facts cannot be disbuted. The Ravens were an expansion team with a BRAND NEW NFL certificate. The ONLY thing they took from the Browns was the 1995 roster and coaching staff....THAT'S IT. The 1995 roster is NOT the entire history of the Cleveland Browns.

You're right. Facts are facts. The Art Modell took the entire team & front office and moved to another city, just like in the case of almost every other franchise relocation in the history of sports. The Cleveland Browns ceased to exist. This wasn't Loria trading ownership of the Expos for the Marlins, because Modell took everything but the uniforms. You can agree with the NFL and say all you want that the Browns never left Cleveland, but it's just not true. I saw them leave. Everyone in Cleveland saw them leave. They had an Expansion Draft & everything for the new Expansion Browns.

If you buy into the NFL's line of thinking (and it's obvious you do), then the only thing that matters is the franchise identity. I think it's horse[bleep]. The Cleveland Browns aren't some certificate in Al Lerner's office. The Cleveland Browns are either in Baltimore or they don't exist. There is zero lineage aside from a certificate. And the idea that without possession of the specific certificate you aren't a franchise is quaint to say the least. Like I said before, if someone breaks into Reliant Stadium tomorrow and steals the Texans' certificate, the NFL is not going to boot them from the league because they aren't in possession of the certificate.

This is the same sort of semantics that leads to Joe Buck saying Nelson Cruz hit the first walk-off grand slam in postseason history. No, he didn't. Robin Ventura did. It's not Ventura's fault that Todd Pratt stopped him before second base. Call it a single, score it a single, make the final 4-3, but I watched the ball leave the park. You can't retcon actual events. Or maybe you can if enough people don't care.

[Gothamite]

This is the same sort of semantics that leads to Joe Buck saying Nelson Cruz hit the first walk-off grand slam in postseason history. No, he didn't. Robin Ventura did. It's not Ventura's fault that Todd Pratt stopped him before second base. Call it a single, score it a single, make the final 4-3, but I watched the ball leave the park. You can't retcon actual events. Or maybe you can if enough people don't care.

Boy, the facts just aren't on your side today.

Ventura never crossed home plate. Until he does, it's a single. The Mets won that game 4-3, not 7-3, because Robin Ventura ended it with a walk-off one-RBI single.

The defining characteristic of a run is crossing the plate. Knocking the ball out of the park only gives the batter a right to advance and cross the plate. Just like an NFL franchise is the right to field a team, not the organization itself.

[JohnnySeoul]

This is the same sort of semantics that leads to Joe Buck saying Nelson Cruz hit the first walk-off grand slam in postseason history. No, he didn't. Robin Ventura did. It's not Ventura's fault that Todd Pratt stopped him before second base. Call it a single, score it a single, make the final 4-3, but I watched the ball leave the park. You can't retcon actual events. Or maybe you can if enough people don't care.

Boy, the facts just aren't on your side today.

Ventura never crossed home plate. Until he does, it's a single. The Mets won that game 4-3, not 7-3, because Robin Ventura ended it with a walk-off one-RBI single.

haha...poor Bouj is living in a great fantasy world.

[JohnnySeoul]

That's my point. The team in Cleveland aren't the Browns, they are the Expansion Browns. Expansion teams have Expansion Drafts, they don't take a roster/employees/equipment and move them from somewhere else. All the Ravens did when they moved from Cleveland is change clothing. I completely understand the sentiment that Jim Brown wouldn't want to be associated with the Ravens because he played with the Cleveland Browns, but the original Cleveland Browns are dead. Better to have just had a new Baltimore franchise (the Ravens, clock starting with the move there), and a new identity in Cleveland (clock starting in 1999).

My problem (and I was the one who kicked the hornets' nest on this, my apologies) is with the idea that the team in Cleveland is the Browns. They dress like the Browns, but they aren't the Browns. There is no lineage, no matter how many times you say they left the identity behind. I can't break up with my wife and go find another woman with the same name and tell everyone it's the same person.

Obviously this is your own personal opinion, but you are wrong. Facts are facts. Facts cannot be disbuted. The Ravens were an expansion team with a BRAND NEW NFL certificate. The ONLY thing they took from the Browns was the 1995 roster and coaching staff....THAT'S IT. The 1995 roster is NOT the entire history of the Cleveland Browns.

You're right. Facts are facts. The Art Modell took the entire team & front office and moved to another city, just like in the case of almost every other franchise relocation in the history of sports. The Cleveland Browns ceased to exist. This wasn't Loria trading ownership of the Expos for the Marlins, because Modell took everything but the uniforms. You can agree with the NFL and say all you want that the Browns never left Cleveland, but it's just not true. I saw them leave. Everyone in Cleveland saw them leave. They had an Expansion Draft & everything for the new Expansion Browns.

If you buy into the NFL's line of thinking (and it's obvious you do), then the only thing that matters is the franchise identity. I think it's horse[bleep]. The Cleveland Browns aren't some certificate in Al Lerner's office. The Cleveland Browns are either in Baltimore or they don't exist. There is zero lineage aside from a certificate. And the idea that without possession of the specific certificate you aren't a franchise is quaint to say the least. Like I said before, if someone breaks into Reliant Stadium tomorrow and steals the Texans' certificate, the NFL is not going to boot them from the league because they aren't in possession of the certificate.

This is the same sort of semantics that leads to Joe Buck saying Nelson Cruz hit the first walk-off grand slam in postseason history. No, he didn't. Robin Ventura did. It's not Ventura's fault that Todd Pratt stopped him before second base. Call it a single, score it a single, make the final 4-3, but I watched the ball leave the park. You can't retcon actual events. Or maybe you can if enough people don't care.

Wow...too funny.