Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation

[Silver Shamrock]

I didn't say that they were different franchises. I am saying that I find it odd that a team who hasn't represented a city for 57 years, wins a championship(s), and then returns to that city like they are conquering heroes

They more I think about that, the more I don't like it. I think it is a little bit of an "in your face" to the Mets, who have represented the city of New York in the NL very well since the Giants and Dodgers willingly left. It seems a little tacky to me. The Mets have "New York" in front of their name, the Giants have "San Francisco", which means when they visit New York, they are a rival team:)

It is just weird. It would be like the A's returning to Kansas City or Philadelphia during one of their WS wins with their trophy, or the Braves to Milwaukee or Boston. The Indy Colts to Baltimore?? I would really like to meet a person from Philadelphia who was giddy over the A's in '72, 3 and 4 when they were winning those Series as Oakland's team.

Sure, same franchises, but has anyone cared in years?

I'm fairly certain the Colts would be run out of town on a rail in that event.

Good. Thanks to Cesarano, I don't have to write words about this topic. I'll just link his post.

There seems to be a thought that we expect SF fans to embrace the NY Giants or NY fans to forget that the Giants were there. And that's just not true. My favorite NHL memories to this day involve the North Stars, not the Wild. And a renaming / history shuffling of the Wild would not impact that one bit. Cole, a Dallas Stars fan, chooses to learn about the Minnesota history. Some other Dallas fans probably do not. Neither is right nor wrong. But what happened is still the truth. It's still the way the franchise and league evolved.

Overall, my take on this is that many fans in the new city embrace the history after a move, but few fans in the old city maintain any connection (at least not regarding the current team).

To follow OnWis97's point, some of my favorite NFL memories from my childhood involve the Baltimore Colts. I grew up in the Bert Jones/Lydell Mitchell/Roger Carr era and still have fond memories of those teams. I also have strong positive feelings for the Colts of the 50s and 60s even though they are from before my time (or at least my memory, since I was born in 1967). I also still cringe when Super Bowl III is mentioned even though I wasn't even 2 then. None of that is likely to change even though the Colts have been gone for 32 years and the Ravens have been in town for more of my lifetime than the Colts.

All that said, none of those feelings followed the Colts to Indianapolis. Instead, like most other Baltimoreans, I was ready to put out a bounty on Bob Irsay and hoped the Colts would go 1-15 in perpetuity. The move extinguished any connection I had going forward.

I am also very aware of the Orioles' history as the St. Louis Browns. In that case, there isn't much history to embrace. Therefore, I don't spend much time thinking about team/franchise greats George Sisler and Urban Shocker.

I guess that at least somewhat contradicts my point about fans in the new city embracing the history. However, I suspect if a team with an more distinguished history had moved to Baltimore, I might have embraced the history a little more closely.

Exactly. Your memories of the Colts are when they played in your city. They were no longer your team when they moved to Indianapolis.

When a team skips town, it is hard to ignore, and harder to forgive.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Exactly. Your memories of the Colts are when they played in your city. They were no longer your team when they moved to Indianapolis.

When a team skips town, it is hard to ignore, and harder to forgive.

I don't deny anyone's emotions at losing a team, nor do I begrudge them their bitterness. If I had been a fan of the New York Giants when they moved, I am sure that I would have been very hurt. (Still, I think that I would have continued to follow them to some extent, despite the hurt, because of the continuity of the players.)

But even the unpleasant facts of history are facts. We don't get to pick and chose.

I'd have to lean toward keeping the records and team name in the city in which the team was originated. I feel like the current-day Cleveland Browns should have the rights to the history of the former franchise that is now the Baltimore Ravens. I feel like the players earned their stats and records on the field in Cleveland, not in Baltimore.

Of course if this same move happened tomorrow, I can understand the issues that would arise in the form of stats and record keeping. However, I don't believe the Pittsburgh Steelers should remain the Steelers if they ever left the "steel city". It just doesn't make sense. I appreciate the history behind the name of a team having ties to the city itself. Thus, I believe the name should remain with that city (or be retired if a new franchise in that city is formed using a different mascot).

The New Orleans Hornets and Charlotte Bobcats never sat well with me. Growing up it was always the Charlotte Hornets. I was very glad to see that changed back. I'm not old enough to remember the Giants being in New York or Brooklyn Dodgers (MLB). For me, it's always been the San Francisco Giants and LA Dodgers. But, I can certainly understand those who feel the same way I do about those teams.

My first favorite NFL team was the Houston Oilers. When a franchise re-emerged in Houston I was praying they would bring the Oilers back. But, the Texans were born. I'm glad Tennessee changed it's name to the Titans. The big-time oil industry had nothing to do with Tennessee at all and the Oilers name didn't make sense being in it's new town.

Just my $.02

You seem to be conflating two things -- nicknames and franchise lineages.

Of course the nickname should be changed if it doesn't make sense in the new location. The original Washington Senators and the expansion Washington Senators changed their nickname when they became the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers, respectively, because the old nickname would have been inapplicable.

The same thing occurred in other sports when the Dallas Texans, the Quebec Nordiques, and the Hartford Whalers moved to their new cities. (We can only wish that the Minneapolis Lakers and the New Orleans Jazz had done likewise; but, alas, that ship has sailed.) The new nickname didn't indicate that new franchise had been established.

Furthermore, it is no problem for a new franchise to adopt an older nickname. Again we must reference the Senators. There was never any confusion about the fact that the expansion Senators were a different franchise from the original Senators, despite the fact that they were created the season right after the original Senators moved.

Another example is the Baltimore Orioles. When the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore in 1954, they took the nickname that had been used twice before: first by the legendary American Association / National League team in the 1880s and 1890s which folded in 1899 when the NL contracted; and again by the original American League team in 1901 and 1902 before it moved to New York. Yet no one asserted that the new Orioles (the relocated St. Louis Browns) should adopt the history of the previous Orioles teams.

Staying in Baltimore: the Colts of the AAFC joined the NFL in 1950 along with the Cleveland Browns and the San Francisco 49ers, and folded after one year. In 1953, an expansion team was granted to Baltimore; that team took the name "Colts", but did not presume to adopt the history of the previous Colts team.

Just recently, the Altanta Thrashers became the new Winnipeg Jets. Yet, everyone acknowledges that this is a different franchise from the original Jets, which had become the Phoenix (now Arizona) Coyotes.

So it was not wrong for the Charlotte Bobcats to rename themselves "Charlotte Hornets", as certain nicknames naturally go with certain cities. However, it was was very wrong of them to screw with the franchise lineages and clam to be the original Hornets. Previous generations were no smarter than we are; yet they had no problem understanding the differences in franchises.

As I and others have indicated before, it's all the fault of the expansion Cleveland Browns. Taking the "Browns" nickname was just fine; but when they "acquired the history" of the original Browns (a concept which invites derision from any intellectually honest person), they poisoned the landscape for all time. Their ugly and destructive precedent has been followed several times:

* by the CFL's Montreal Alouettes (the relocated Baltimore Stallions, which are now actually the third Alouettes franchise)

* by MLS's San Jose Earthquakes (an expansion team claiming to be the the same franchise as the original Clash/Earthquakes, which moved to Houston)

* by the MLL's Rochester Rattlers (the relocated Chicago Machine, which claim to be the same franchise as the original Rattlers, which moved to Toronto).

And I don't even want to get into the awful mess that the Arena Football League has made of its franchise lineages in the case of the original Nashville Kats which became the Georgia Force, the expansion Nashiville Kats, and the Alabama Vipers which became the second Georgia Force.

The expansion Cleveland Browns are thus my most hated sports team, for the irreparable harm that they have done to sports history.

[Fassy]

Exactly. Your memories of the Colts are when they played in your city. They were no longer your team when they moved to Indianapolis.

When a team skips town, it is hard to ignore, and harder to forgive.

I don't deny anyone's emotions at losing a team, nor do I begrudge them their bitterness. If I had been a fan of the New York Giants when they moved, I am sure that I would have been very hurt. (Still, I think that I would have continued to follow them to some extent, despite the hurt, because of the continuity of the players.)

But even the unpleasant facts of history are facts. We don't get to pick and chose.

I'd have to lean toward keeping the records and team name in the city in which the team was originated. I feel like the current-day Cleveland Browns should have the rights to the history of the former franchise that is now the Baltimore Ravens. I feel like the players earned their stats and records on the field in Cleveland, not in Baltimore.

Of course if this same move happened tomorrow, I can understand the issues that would arise in the form of stats and record keeping. However, I don't believe the Pittsburgh Steelers should remain the Steelers if they ever left the "steel city". It just doesn't make sense. I appreciate the history behind the name of a team having ties to the city itself. Thus, I believe the name should remain with that city (or be retired if a new franchise in that city is formed using a different mascot).

The New Orleans Hornets and Charlotte Bobcats never sat well with me. Growing up it was always the Charlotte Hornets. I was very glad to see that changed back. I'm not old enough to remember the Giants being in New York or Brooklyn Dodgers (MLB). For me, it's always been the San Francisco Giants and LA Dodgers. But, I can certainly understand those who feel the same way I do about those teams.

My first favorite NFL team was the Houston Oilers. When a franchise re-emerged in Houston I was praying they would bring the Oilers back. But, the Texans were born. I'm glad Tennessee changed it's name to the Titans. The big-time oil industry had nothing to do with Tennessee at all and the Oilers name didn't make sense being in it's new town.

Just my $.02

You seem to be conflating two things -- nicknames and franchise lineages.

Of course the nickname should be changed if it doesn't make sense in the new location. The original Washington Senators and the expansion Washington Senators changed their nickname when they became the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers, respectively, because the old nickname would have been inapplicable.

The same thing occurred in other sports when the Dallas Texans, the Quebec Nordiques, and the Hartford Whalers moved to their new cities. (We can only wish that the Minneapolis Lakers and the New Orleans Jazz had done likewise; but, alas, that ship has sailed.) The new nickname didn't indicate that new franchise had been established.

Furthermore, it is no problem for a new franchise to adopt an older nickname. Again we must reference the Senators. There was never any confusion about the fact that the expansion Senators were a different franchise from the original Senators, despite the fact that they were created the season right after the original Senators moved.

Another example is the Baltimore Orioles. When the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore in 1954, they took the nickname that had been used twice before: first by the legendary American Association / National League team the 1880s and 1890s which folded in 1899 when the NL contracted; and again by the original American League team in 1901 and 1902 before it moved to New York. Yet no one asserted that the new Orioles (the relocated St. Louis Browns) should adopt the history of the previous Orioles teams.

Staying in Baltimore: the Colts of the AAFC joined the NFL in 1950 along with the Cleveland Browns and the San Francisco 49ers, and folded after one year. In 1953, an expansion team was granted to Baltimore; that team took the name "Colts", but did not presume to adopt the history of the previous Colts team.

Just recently, the Altanta Thrashers became the new Winnipeg Jets. Yet, everyone acknowledges that this is a different franchise from the original Jets, which had become the Phoenix (now Arizona) Coyotes.

So it was not wrong for the Charlotte Bobcats to rename themselves "Charlotte Hornets", as certain nicknames naturally go with certain cities. However, it was was very wrong of them to screw with the franchise lineages and clam to be the original Hornets. Previous generations were no smarter than we are; yet they had no problem understanding the differences in franchises.

As I and others have indicated before, it's all the fault of the expansion Cleveland Browns. Taking the "Browns" nickname was just fine; but when they "acquired the history" of the original Browns (a concept which invites derision from any intellectually honest person), they poisoned the landscape for all time. Their ugly and destructive precedent has been followed several times:

* by the CFL's Montreal Alouettes (the relocated Baltimore Stallions, which are now actually the third Alouettes franchise)

* by MLS's San Jose Earthquakes (an expansion team claiming to be the the same franchise as the original Clash/Earthquakes, which moved to Houston)

* by the MLL's Rochester Rattlers (the relocated Chicago Machine, which claim to be the same franchise as the original Rattlers, which moved to Toronto).

And I don't even want to get into the awful mess that the Arena Football League has made of its franchise lineages in the case of the original Nashville Kats which became the Georgia Force, the expansion Nashiville Kats, and the Alabama Vipers which became the second Georgia Force.

The expansion Cleveland Browns are thus my most hated sports team, for the irreparable harm that they have done to sports history.

I certainly see where you are coming from.

I was using this as an example; If Jim Brown's former franchise wanted to honor him on the field for some sort of event, where would this take place? In Baltimore in front of Ravens fans? Speaking in terms of the franchise, that's where it should be done because that's where the former Browns franchise history records should be. (I realize this is not the case, I'm just using it as an example).

In reality the ceremony should (and would) take place in Cleveland. That's where he earned his records and those are the fans (or their descendants) that would want to see it the most. Even if the current day Browns weren't the Browns... Let's say they were known as the Steamers... I still feel the historic players for that city should be honored by the team currently playing there. IMO the only time something like that should be done in the new city is when there is no team left after the move (like the Montreal Expos).

It's a slippery slope for sure.

[OnWis97]

Here is a story about a statue of George Mikan:  http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/news/feature_mikan_2012_04_23.html.  Note that the story is on the Timberwolves web site.

 

The photo below shows the statue

 

Mikan was sort of the NBA's original big man for the Minneapolis Lakers.  He and some of his teams were dominant in Minneapolis.  The franchise, of course, moved to Los Angeles where it has remained dominant. The statue below is in the Target Center, home of the Minnesota Timberwolves.  The T-Wolves honor Mikan as part of Minnesota basketball/NBA history.  It is not necessary for the T-Wolves to pretend to be the same franchise in order to honor him. Likewise, Jim Brown could be honored by the Cleveland Browns (est 1999) or the Cleveland Ohioans even if they were not "those" Browns.  

 

As an aside, how ridiculous would it be for the current Minnesota franchise to be considered the same Lakers that existed until 1960?  The Browns 3-year "hiatus" is nothing compared to a 29-year hiatus.

 

"Kevin Garnett's the best player the Lakers have had."

"Maybe, but don't forget George Mikan."

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I certainly see where you are coming from.

I was using this as an example; If Jim Brown's former franchise wanted to honor him on the field for some sort of event, where would this take place? In Baltimore in front of Ravens fans? Speaking in terms of the franchise, that's where it should be done because that's where the former Browns franchise history records should be. (I realize this is not the case, I'm just using it as an example).

In reality the ceremony should (and would) take place in Cleveland. That's where he earned his records and those are the fans (or their descendants) that would want to see it the most. Even if the current day Browns weren't the Browns... Let's say they were known as the Steamers... I still feel the historic players for that city should be honored by the team currently playing there. IMO the only time something like that should be done in the new city is when there is no team left after the move (like the Montreal Expos).

It's a slippery slope for sure.

But let's remember that it was the Los Angeles Dodgers which held a Roy Campanella night, even though Campanella never played in L.A.

Of course, there were no Mets then, in 1959. But the Mets (nor the Yankees) never staged such a day; the appropriate place for that was the home of the Dodgers.

And in 1972, the Dodgers retired Campanella's number, along with those of Jackie Robinson and Sandy Koufax. Two of those players never played in L.A.

Even the Washington Nationals, who typically ignore the fact that the are the relocated Montreal Expos (their logo said "Established 1905" when it should have said "Established 1969") had a rare moment of decency when they honoured Expos greats Gary Carter and Andre Dawson at the franchise's current home.

If Montreal gets another team, expect those players to be honoured there as well, just as the Nationals honour former Senators players. Also, the St. Louis Rams acknowledge both L.A. Rams greats and St. Louis Cardinals greats. And the New Orleans Hornets retired no. 7 in honour of Pete Maravich, even though he never played for that franchise. All of that is fine. But it's never wrong for the actual franchise to acknowledge its own players.

[OnWis97]

I did not realize the Nats did that. I really wish the Twins would do that for Walter Johnson and maybe Sam Rice.

[IceCap]

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with a new team honouring a player from a past team in the same locale. That's fine. It just gets silly and dishonest when the new team pretends like that player actually played for them. Honour local legends all you want, but keep the record books with the appropriate teams.

[2001mark]

Charlotte Hornets.

[Fassy]

Good point on the Dodgers. I'm guessing the Mets would the "replacement" franchise for the Brooklyn Dodgers? With no team currently in Brooklyn, I can go along with the LA Dodgers taking care of former Brooklyn greats.

I am a Nationals fan and I believe our franchise SHOULD be recognizing those great Expo players. Mainly because there is no team in Montreal. If a team ends up back there, I believe a majority of the honoring should then be done in Montreal, because that's where the fan base is.

I would like to know how many former Montreal fans switched to the Nationals when the team moved. Furthermore, I wonder how many of those fans would stay a Nationals fan if a professional baseball team comes back to Montreal.

[bosrs1]

Good point on the Dodgers. I'm guessing the Mets would the "replacement" franchise for the Brooklyn Dodgers? With no team currently in Brooklyn, I can go along with the LA Dodgers taking care of former Brooklyn greats.

I am a Nationals fan and I believe our franchise SHOULD be recognizing those great Expo players. Mainly because there is no team in Montreal. If a team ends up back there, I believe a majority of the honoring should then be done in Montreal, because that's where the fan base is.

I would like to know how many former Montreal fans switched to the Nationals when the team moved. Furthermore, I wonder how many of those fans would stay a Nationals fan if a professional baseball team comes back to Montreal.

I'd guess it's very few who stayed with them, and even fewer who would stay with them if a new Montreal team ever joined the league. Based on a similar basketball situation in my own town, there are almost no Clippers fans in San Diego, and the general feeling about the Clippers is not one I can express in polite society. The only basketball team that gets any large amount of love in San Diego is the Lakers as a result (essentially the Anti-Clippers and closest team).

[hawk36]

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with a new team honouring a player from a past team in the same locale. That's fine. It just gets silly and dishonest when the new team pretends like that player actually played for them. Honour local legends all you want, but keep the record books with the appropriate teams.

As long as the team name is the same (like the Browns), then I think it's completely justified when the team recognizes a player in the city in which they starred.

Here in Seattle the Sounders have honored many of the past Sounders as Sounders since they were Sounders. Granted they played for different leagues, different ownership groups, etc. But, they were all stars in Seattle soccer playing for teams named the Sounders.

[Graham_Clayton]

When the South Melbourne Swans relocated to Sydney for the 1982 VFL season, the team was renamed the Sydney Swans, and played in the same red and white uniform, with the only change being the removal of the red collar from the jumper:

1981

1982:

[Gothamite]

And to take it even further, they wear their former initials on the back of their guernsey.

SMFC = South Melbourne Football Club

[Silver Shamrock]

This topic reminded me for some reason of the lyrics in a Neil Diamond song.

"L.A.'s fine, but it ain't home, New York's home, but it ain't mine no more".

[Ted Cunningham]

Even the Washington Nationals, who typically ignore the fact that the are the relocated Montreal Expos (their logo said "Established 1905" when it should have said "Established 1969") had a rare moment of decency when they honoured Expos greats Gary Carter and Andre Dawson at the franchise's current home.

If Montreal gets another team, expect those players to be honoured there as well, just as the Nationals honour former Senators players.

This is going to be the next tough crossroads in this debate. I follow several Expos and Expo-fan accounts on Twitter and I know that, while still small and lacking the necessary financial support, the fanbase in Montreal is rabid. And they love the Expos. Not just baseball. So I'm of the impression that if and when MLB goes back to Montreal, the team will be called the Expos. Combine the excitement over the "return of the Expos" (for lack of a better way to phrase it/even though it's not the original franchise) with the complete lack of regard for the Expos history by the Nationals, I could see the new Expos (the ex-Rays or whomever would move there) adopting the history of the old franchise. And I don't think that the Nationals would be sad about losing that history, as they go to much greater lengths to claim the history of the Senators (and even the Homestead Grays) as their own. And if this scenario played out with an expansion team instead of an existing franchise relocating to Montreal, I think that adopting of the Expos history will happen, regardless of any qualms about intellectual honesty.

[The_Admiral]

I don't think baseball is ever coming back to Montreal. I have no problem with the Nats honoring franchise history and city history. Should a miracle happen and Montreal gets les Expos back, then they would be able to honor the old Expos as part of their city history under the same principle by which Washington honors the old Expos in franchise history.

That the Canadiens picked up Youppi! and the Expos' banners was a nice touch.

[IceCap]

Here in Seattle the Sounders have honored many of the past Sounders as Sounders since they were Sounders. Granted they played for different leagues, different ownership groups, etc. But, they were all stars in Seattle soccer playing for teams named the Sounders.

That's fine. So long as the current Sounders don't pretend that they're the same organization as the previous Sounders teams. That's when it stops being a "sensible tribute" and turns into "intellectually dishonest groupthink."