Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation

[cubsfan2015]

Raiders from Oakland to LA to Oakland again.

The Lakers kept their heritage from until 67-68(?) when they changed to their classic purple and gold. (insert purple rain)

The (old) hornets from Charlotte to NOLA.

[hawk36]

San Franciscan's [sic] claiming any part of the New York championships is like a second husband claiming to be part of the successes of his wife's first marriage.

Today's Giant fans have every bit as much right to revel in the team's 1954 World Championship as Yankee fans have to revel in the many titles from the Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle eras.

Note also that the Dodgers have been great in this regard, never failing to remind their fans of their 1955 World Championship in Brooklyn. Indeed, at this year's Old-Timers Day, they made special mention of the members of the 1955 team in attendance, including Don Newcombe and Roger Craig.

The point of all this (and, indeed, of this thread) is that franchises are continuous entities. And real fans of a team grasp this fact.

I disagree. Different owners, players, coaches, fans, and CITY.

Those who played on the team can celebrate it. Those who coached on the team can celebrate it. Those who owned the team can celebrate it. Those who were fans at the time can celebrate it. And those who are part of the city where the champion came from can celebrate it. I have a huge problem with anyone in a relocated city talking of "our" championship, unless they were somehow fans of the team back when it won in New York. They have no connection to anything about that New York team.

Again, claiming to be part of what you're wife and her first husband accomplished when they were married.

[Xist2inspire]

San Franciscan's [sic] claiming any part of the New York championships is like a second husband claiming to be part of the successes of his wife's first marriage.

Today's Giant fans have every bit as much right to revel in the team's 1954 World Championship as Yankee fans have to revel in the many titles from the Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle eras.

Note also that the Dodgers have been great in this regard, never failing to remind their fans of their 1955 World Championship in Brooklyn. Indeed, at this year's Old-Timers Day, they made special mention of the members of the 1955 team in attendance, including Don Newcombe and Roger Craig.

The point of all this (and, indeed, of this thread) is that franchises are continuous entities. And real fans of a team grasp this fact.

I disagree. Different owners, players, coaches, fans, and CITY.

Those who played on the team can celebrate it. Those who coached on the team can celebrate it. Those who owned the team can celebrate it. Those who were fans at the time can celebrate it. And those who are part of the city where the champion came from can celebrate it. I have a huge problem with anyone in a relocated city talking of "our" championship, unless they were somehow fans of the team back when it won in New York. They have no connection to anything about that New York team.

Again, claiming to be part of what you're wife and her first husband accomplished when they were married.

Ah, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging, and even celebrating, what your wife accomplished in her past life, when she was married to another man. It's a part of her, whether you like it or not. It'd be stupid (and petty, and egotistical) for you to pretend that your wife had/did nothing before she met you, just as it'd be silly for her ex-husband to act as if she never moved on. Should one love their mate's children any less because they don't share blood? Should one disown their franchise's accomplishments because it didn't happen in "their" city? If your mate received money from their divorce, or are wealthy because of their previous marriage, should you refuse to use the money because how it was gained had nothing to do with you? History cannot be changed, and it doesn't exclusively belong to one person, or group, or city. It's not always pretty, not always clear-cut, and not always easy to follow. It is what it is. The Giants accomplished things in New York, then they moved on to San Francisco. Whether or not a person chooses to acknowledge that is their hang-up, but it doesn't change the fact that those things happened, and are a part of the Giants' history, which won't change no matter what one thinks is "right" and "proper."

Claiming to be a part of what your mate and their ex accomplished is a form of revisionist history. However, willfully ignoring your mate's past is also a form of revisionist history, and thus, is just as bad.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Franchise continuity on display: the only latter-day shot that I have ever seen of Willie Mays in a New York Giants uniform:

[rams80]

San Franciscan's [sic] claiming any part of the New York championships is like a second husband claiming to be part of the successes of his wife's first marriage.

Today's Giant fans have every bit as much right to revel in the team's 1954 World Championship as Yankee fans have to revel in the many titles from the Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle eras.

Note also that the Dodgers have been great in this regard, never failing to remind their fans of their 1955 World Championship in Brooklyn. Indeed, at this year's Old-Timers Day, they made special mention of the members of the 1955 team in attendance, including Don Newcombe and Roger Craig.

The point of all this (and, indeed, of this thread) is that franchises are continuous entities. And real fans of a team grasp this fact.

I disagree. Different owners, players, coaches, fans, and CITY.

Those who played on the team can celebrate it. Those who coached on the team can celebrate it. Those who owned the team can celebrate it. Those who were fans at the time can celebrate it. And those who are part of the city where the champion came from can celebrate it. I have a huge problem with anyone in a relocated city talking of "our" championship, unless they were somehow fans of the team back when it won in New York. They have no connection to anything about that New York team.

Again, claiming to be part of what you're wife and her first husband accomplished when they were married.

We have very different sports traditions than you. Accept it. Deal with it. We also don't throw flares in stands, basically let the teams become fronts for the mafia, throw bananas at black players (not since the initial integration era, anyway), or have teams that must play in empty stadiums because of fan misbehavior.

[Silver Shamrock]

I have to agree with Hawk36 on this. This is a curious thing....... I guess it's fine if the S.F. Giants want to bring their trophy to New York,(yet a little presumptuous) but, really, how many NYC fans actually care about what the San Francisco Giants do? New Yorkers have had their own National League team to root for, for the last 50-plus years.

I would imagine that the majority of fans who remember the Giants in New York, and were fans, are bitter about them leaving. They were replaced by the Mets.

Imagine the Los Angeles Dodgers returning to Brooklyn to show off a shiny new trophy! I would think the reaction would be, "Who the _ _ _ _ cares?!!"

Again, they can do whatever they want, but for example, San Franciscans getting overly excited about championships won in New York, as something "we did", would be a little weird. Those championships were won by a team 3,000 miles away, decades ago, in a ballpark that is long gone. A San Francisco native would have no connection to the Giants of that time, and neither would their family. No stories from parents or grandparents about going out to the ballpark, and rooting the team on during that championship season. It just couldn't be as special as if those events took place while representing the city of San Francisco.

I think it is great if a franchise wants to recognize former players and traditions from time in another city, but for fans to go nuts over it just doesn't quite work for me.

[C-Squared]

I wonder if the BIlls would have been rebranded if they moved to Toronto seeing as the name "Toronto Bills" loses the Buffalo Bill homage... my buddy (a Jets fan) suggested the "Niagara Fails"

[swilson160]

I wonder if the BIlls would have been rebranded if they moved to Toronto seeing as the name "Toronto Bills" loses the Buffalo Bill homage... my buddy (a Jets fan) suggested the "Niagara Fails"

Toronto Teds.

[rxmc89]

I have to agree with Hawk36 on this. This is a curious thing....... I guess it's fine if the S.F. Giants want to bring their trophy to New York,(yet a little presumptuous) but, really, how many NYC fans actually care about what the San Francisco Giants do? New Yorkers have had their own National League team to root for, for the last 50-plus years.

I would imagine that the majority of fans who remember the Giants in New York, and were fans, are bitter about them leaving. They were replaced by the Mets.

Imagine the Los Angeles Dodgers returning to Brooklyn to show off a shiny new trophy! I would think the reaction would be, "Who the _ _ _ _ cares?!!"

Again, they can do whatever they want, but for example, San Franciscans getting overly excited about championships won in New York, as something "we did", would be a little weird. Those championships were won by a team 3,000 miles away, decades ago, in a ballpark that is long gone. A San Francisco native would have no connection to the Giants of that time, and neither would their family. No stories from parents or grandparents about going out to the ballpark, and rooting the team on during that championship season. It just couldn't be as special as if those events took place while representing the city of San Francisco.

I think it is great if a franchise wants to recognize former players and traditions from time in another city, but for fans to go nuts over it just doesn't quite work for me.

I agree with everything you said, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the same franchise. The New York Giants and SF Giants are one in the same. The Brooklyn Dodgers and LA Dodgers are one in the same. They may have two different fan bases, but they're the same organization. Pretending they're two different franchises is willful ignorance. Pretending the original Charlotte Hornets and the new Charlotte Hornets are the same franchise is revisionist history.

[mjmatias]

I'll throw my two cents in, I was born and raised in San Francisco in 1958 the year the Giants moved to San Francisco. The way I feel about the New York Giants their history and World Series championships is that it never meant much to me...it was the New York fans team and championships. I'm glad to hear they were a successful franchise, but they were not San Francisco's. I have been a fan of the Giants since the McCovey, Mays, Alou, Cepeda, & Marichal years up to now, It was a lifetime dream come true when they won the Word Series in 2010, in my mind that was "our" first World Series victory. I take pride in the Giants history, but as far as this SF Giants fan is concerned, anything prior to 1958 is all New York. Of course other Giants fans might feel differently, it's all about personal choice and their is no right or wrong choice...again, just my two cents!

[ColeJ]

i wonder if personal background has anything to do with this debate...

for instance, i was born in salem, mass... to parents from alabama, where i also lived as a child, between stints in new york and texas.

to me, hometown is a relatively fluid concept, and no matter where i live, i maintain my sports allegiances. basically, if i can't promise i'll be in dallas for my entire life, why should i expect the same from the dallas stars?

if i leave my hometown, i'll still be the same me. i see sports teams in the same light. giants are giants, colts are colts. stars are stars. dodgers are dodgers. lakers are lakers.

[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?

[IceCap]

hawk36's argument that the city is the one consistent factor while players, coaches, and owners come and go is fundamentally flawed. The Bidwills have owned the Arizona Cardinals since their Chicago days. Three cities, same owners. Seems like they have every right to claim the records of the team from all three locales.

Bigger picture though? Cities are NOT the most consistent factor. The organization is. Let's use the New York/San Fransisco Giants as an example. What's the one consistent factor? Players? No. Owners? No. Coaches? No. City and fans? No. Organization? Yes. That spans everything from their earliest days in New York to their recent success in San Fransisco.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I'll throw my two cents in, I was born and raised in San Francisco in 1958 the year the Giants moved to San Francisco. The way I feel about the New York Giants their history and World Series championships is that it never meant much to me...it was the New York fans team and championships. I'm glad to hear they were a successful franchise, but they were not San Francisco's. I have been a fan of the Giants since the McCovey, Mays, Alou, Cepeda, & Marichal years up to now, It was a lifetime dream come true when they won the Word Series in 2010, in my mind that was "our" first World Series victory. I take pride in the Giants history, but as far as this SF Giants fan is concerned, anything prior to 1958 is all New York. Of course other Giants fans might feel differently, it's all about personal choice and their is no right or wrong choice...again, just my two cents!

Here is my personal perspective: It's hard for me to imagine how a person can be a baseball fan without caring deeply about history; for me, the two are inextricably linked. At least in my era, baseball fans were characterised by our interest in and our love for history. When I was growing up, all baseball fans whom I knew were aware of Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner and Walter Johnson. They may not have had detailed knowledge about these guys; but they sure knew the names. (Just as people in general are aware of the personages of George Washington and Abe Lincoln, even if they don't know details about them.) But some fans from that era became completely immersed in the history; Keith Olbermann comes out of this tradition.

I became a Yankee fan; but, more than that, I became a fan of baseball history. I thus took on board the team's entire history. I had of course never seen Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Ford, et al.; but those guys became as real to me as Munson, Murcer, Stottlemyre, and the rest of the then-current team. Because I was a Yankee fan, the team's whole history became "mine". And I am absolutely certain that, had I been a fan of a team in a city whose team had arrived via a move, such as the San Francisco Giants or the Oakland A's, I would have identified just as strongly with that team's history from before my time, regardless of the fact that it occurred in another city; it still would have been "mine".

And, of course, when I learnt that the Giants had originated in New York, and that they had a great championship history that predated even that of the Yankees, it was only natural for me to adopt the Giants as my favourite team in the National League. The fact that Willie Mays was still active and had just come to the Mets certainly helped encourage this perception. (I will note that I looked at the Mets with more pity than derision, because they were just an expansion team. For me as a historically-minded fan, being an expansion team was deeply unattractive. I sneered at them all, until the Blue Jays made me soften on this position.)

Also still active were Harmon Killebrew and Jim Kaat, who had been with the Twins since before their move from Washington, and Hank Aaron, who had been with the Braves since before their move from Milwaukee. And the Braves were managed by Eddie Mathews, who had played for the team in Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. In addition, there were any number of A's players who had been with the team since it had moved from Kansas City, such as Jackson, Bando, Hunter, Campaneris, Fingers. So I firmly internalised the idea that sometimes a team moves; but that this move does nothing to disrupt its continuous history.

The point is that I knew that the 16 teams that existed at the beginning of the modern era (1901) still existed when I started paying attention as a 6- and 7-year-old in 1972, even if some of them had changed cities and nicknames. (And, by the way, the Yankees in fact were one of those teams which had changed cities and nicknames, having begun in Baltimore in 1901, and having moved to New York in 1903.*) These 16 institutions are pillars of our civilisation (to exaggerate just a little bit); and this is why the (then) 8 expansion teams seemed by comparison to be terribly cheesy, just hollow latter-day constructions.

The view of franchises as continuous entities was entirely mainstream. To illustrate this, I refer to the Topps cards of 1973, the first year that I collected. That set had team records on the backs of the team cards. The Minnesota Twins' card had "Senators & Twins Team Records"; and the Texas Rangers' card had "Senators & Rangers Team Records". The idea that fans were supposed to understand that there had been two Washington Senators teams, one (the team for which Walter Johnson had played) which was now the Twins, and one (the team which Ted Williams had managed) which was now the Rangers, was clear.

And this view continued to be the mainstream view up until very recently. This is illustrated by the many throwback uniforms worn by teams that acknowledge their history in other cities, and sometimes with other nicknames.

Here are the managers Art Howe of the Oakland A's and Tom Kelly of the Minnesota Twins in 2001 wearing their teams' 1901 uniforms, those of the Philadelphia A's and the Washington Senators, respectively:

The Texas Rangers have worn throwback uniforms of the expansion Washington Senators on several occasions:

(Perfect stirrups, by the way: the correct pants length, the correct amount of sock, and the correct height of the stirrups.)

The Orioles once dressed as the St. Louis Browns:

The Brewers dressed as the Seattle Pilots in 1999 on the franchise's 30th anniversary:

This occurred before it became fashionable for a team to wear throwbacks of another franchise, before the Mariners would have thought to wear Pilots uniforms.

We have seen a bit of this ethos even in other sports, when the Kansas City Chiefs donned uniforms from their days as the Dallas Texans, and when the L.A. Lakers wore Minneapolis Laker unis:

When we consider all of this, and also the statue of the Boston Braves' Warren Spahn outside of the Braves' current ballpark in Atlanta, and the Giants' longstanding practice of including the names of Mel Ott and Christy Mathewson amongst their retired numbers, we must conclude that the view of franchises as continuous entities is the correct one.

It is true that individual fans have varying degrees of interest in, and emotional attachment to, this matter: some care about history; some (inexplicably, by my way of thinking) do not. But this interest/attachment in no way changes the underlying facts. By analogy, we can note that very few people have an identity which includes being from the continent of North America; but that doesn't mean that there is no such continent. The existence of the continent of North America is an objective fact, as is the existence of the franchises as continuous entities.

* There exists some revisionist crap that seeks to define the 1901-02 Baltimore Orioles as a separate franchise from the New York Highlanders/Yankees of 1903 to the present. But don't believe it. This is a result of the arrogance of the Yankees rising to such heights that it surpasses the respect for history. Dishonourable business.

[2001mark]

Rays won't be the Montreal Rays. The Expos will probably need a new logo, like the Winnipeg Jets 2.0 went with.

Quebec Coyotes won't work either.

[OnWis97]

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.

[hawk36]

hawk36's argument that the city is the one consistent factor while players, coaches, and owners come and go is fundamentally flawed. The Bidwills have owned the Arizona Cardinals since their Chicago days. Three cities, same owners. Seems like they have every right to claim the records of the team from all three locales.

Good point.

Still I see those as 3, different, organizations and feel the organization and city have equal claim to the history. So the Bidwills can certainly claim all 3. And, likewise, if for some weird reason the NFL created an expansion team in St. Louis called the Cardinals, I feel they too could claim the previous history that the first St. Louis Cardinals created.

[leopard88]

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.

[rams80]

hawk36's argument that the city is the one consistent factor while players, coaches, and owners come and go is fundamentally flawed. The Bidwills have owned the Arizona Cardinals since their Chicago days. Three cities, same owners. Seems like they have every right to claim the records of the team from all three locales.

Good point.

Still I see those as 3, different, organizations and feel the organization and city have equal claim to the history. So the Bidwills can certainly claim all 3. And, likewise, if for some weird reason the NFL created an expansion team in St. Louis called the Cardinals, I feel they too could claim the previous history that the first St. Louis Cardinals created.

The Rams acknowledge the Big Red era in St. Louis happens and will honor players from that, but don't pretend they are the successors to them.

[Fassy]

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