Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: is Matt Kemp the best Dodger including the Brooklyn Dodgers?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    816
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    Obviously not true.
    Please explain to me whi it is obviously untrue. You have the Brooklyn Dodgers and then yo have the Los Angeles Dodgers.

    How is that different from the ew York Titans and the Tennessee Titans in the NFL?

    Oh BTW, who owns the legacy of Walter Johnson? Is it the Minnesota Twinkies, the Texas Rangers or the Washington Nationals?

    Gary Carter? Washington Nationals?

    There should be one rule about this and the one that makes the most sense is if yu leave a city,m you forfeit the history. It belongs to the city of origin. At least that's what I think is the way that makes the most sense. The Los Angeles team ot today, remember, is no longer owned by the O'Malley family so it has nothing to do with Brooklyn (other than, of course, Vin Scully). Like I say, not so obvious.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,109
    Quote Originally Posted by MATHA531 View Post

    Oh BTW, who owns the legacy of Walter Johnson? Is it the Minnesota Twinkies, the Texas Rangers or the Washington Nationals?

    .
    The Cleveland Indians have a better case for Walter Johnson's legacy than any of these teams.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    6,069
    Quote Originally Posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    The Cleveland Indians have a better case for Walter Johnson's legacy than any of these teams.
    Yeah I agree, Nothing against Minnesotta but I dont think they care too much for the old Washington Senators. I'm sure they have something to remember the old Senators though. I'm kinda curious on that now. I always kinda thought the Giants and Athletics never did alot for thier old citys teams but Minnesotta would have them beat i'm sure.

    Again nothing against the Twins. It's a different city and name so of course most fans wouldnt even know who the old Washington players were . I can kinda see Baltimore giving Goerge Sisler and some other old St. Louis Brown players respect but I cant see Minnesotta doing too much for Walter Johnson. I'm probally wrong though. I would think Atlanta would be the best for the old cities they played in. I've never been to any of these stadiums so I wouldnt know though.
    "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

    "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    6,069
    Quote Originally Posted by MATHA531 View Post
    Please explain to me whi it is obviously untrue. You have the Brooklyn Dodgers and then yo have the Los Angeles Dodgers.

    How is that different from the ew York Titans and the Tennessee Titans in the NFL?

    Oh BTW, who owns the legacy of Walter Johnson? Is it the Minnesota Twinkies, the Texas Rangers or the Washington Nationals?

    Gary Carter? Washington Nationals?

    There should be one rule about this and the one that makes the most sense is if yu leave a city,m you forfeit the history. It belongs to the city of origin. At least that's what I think is the way that makes the most sense. The Los Angeles team ot today, remember, is no longer owned by the O'Malley family so it has nothing to do with Brooklyn (other than, of course, Vin Scully). Like I say, not so obvious.
    I dont think any team should forfeit there old citys legacys. I think they should do more to remember em. I can see where most fans dont care about some team who played in 1934 but theres still alot that do. If I owned a baseball team I would put a museam in the ballpark where fans could go after a game and learn about the history of the team. I dont know if any teams really do this except by putting retired numbers on a flag or wall but the GreenBay Packers have one in thier stadium and I hate the Packers but i'll admit it was pretty cool visiting thier museam.
    "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

    "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    816
    Blog Entries
    1
    .....but sometimes it's the players too who have something to do with it. The late Johnny Unitas avoided any semblance of respect for Irsay and the Indianapolis Colts in the years before his death; he cast his lot with the Ravens. Jim Brown, I understand, can be a very angry person. Does he attend Ravens games as one of the faces of the franchise? Or is he at Cleveland Browns games? Is it the city? Is it the organization? Is it the corporate name? In many cases, franchise shifts occur when new owners take over. Does the entire history of the baseball in Philadelphia reside today with the Phillies? Who claims the legacy of Jimmy Fox? Cornelius McGilicuddy (Connie Mack)? Does the legacy of Hank Aaron reside with the Atlanta Braves (well at least Aaron played in Atlanta) or do the Milwaukee Brewers have some claim to his legacy? It goes on and on.

    Look at the situation with the Mets. They took a lot of flack for, as an example, the Jackie Robinson rotunda a tribute to Ebbets Field (let me add here that manyh people forget about the pressure that was brought on the Mets while Citi Field was being constructed to name the whole park for Robinson). Citi Field, bts, has no resemblance whtsoever inside to Ebbets Field. Does a good part of the legacy of National Legue baseball in New York reside with the Mets? (The valid criticism of the Mets on this is the much greater emphasis placed on the Brooklyn Dodgers than the New York Giants)/

    Whether you agree with my view point on this or not, at least let's agree that the issue is very murky and it would be preferable to be consistant one way or the other. To that end, I still believe the city is more important that the name of the organization but I respecdt anybody who disagrees. Just respect my views on this.;

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    me
    Posts
    4,633
    homerun kemp

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,681
    Blog Entries
    1
    I find it odd that a team like the Dodgers with such a long and rich history doesn't really have a "face of the franchise" type of player like a Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, or even a Mike Schmidt. They've had great players of course but none quite at the level of "all-time" great. I suppose Mike Piazza could have been that player if he didn't leave the Dodgers half way through his career.
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 05-02-2012 at 04:11 PM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    5,539
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    I find it odd that a team like the Dodgers with such a long and rich history doesn't really have a "face of the franchise" type of player like a Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, or even a Mike Schmidt. They's had great players of course but none quite at the level of "all-time" great. I suppose Mike Piazza could have been that player if he didn't leave the Dodgers half way through his career.
    I agree, but I think it has a lot to do with them having a history laced with so many greats, especially in their final decade in Brooklyn. That Robinson-years-unity alone from '47 to '57 could be considered the "face(s) of the franchise."

    However, even when considering only those who played for Los Angeles, I'd have to count guys like Koufax, Garvey, and Piazza before even considering Kemp just yet. Perhaps in a few more years.
    "And their chances of getting back into this ballgame are growing dimmer by the batter."


    Put it in the books.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    565
    Kemp has a few more years to establish himself. If he can keep his nose, and body clean, he could.

  10. #30
    I guess the Dodgers will have to be content with having had the most important player to ever play the game and every April 15 every player in the game honors him and the team by wearing his number 42.
    After 1957, it seemed like we would never laugh again. Of course, we did. Its just that we were never young again.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by MATHA531 View Post
    .....but sometimes it's the players too who have something to do with it. The late Johnny Unitas avoided any semblance of respect for Irsay and the Indianapolis Colts in the years before his death; he cast his lot with the Ravens. Jim Brown, I understand, can be a very angry person. Does he attend Ravens games as one of the faces of the franchise? Or is he at Cleveland Browns games? Is it the city? Is it the organization? Is it the corporate name? In many cases, franchise shifts occur when new owners take over. Does the entire history of the baseball in Philadelphia reside today with the Phillies? Who claims the legacy of Jimmy Fox? Cornelius McGilicuddy (Connie Mack)? Does the legacy of Hank Aaron reside with the Atlanta Braves (well at least Aaron played in Atlanta) or do the Milwaukee Brewers have some claim to his legacy? It goes on and on.
    The Browns case is unique in the sense that the name and records were required to remain in Cleveland so Jim Brown is always a Brown. I guess it each team chooses to handle it differently.

    The LA NL Franchise seems to love trading on the Brooklyn history while the Orioles went out of their way to distance themselves from all things St Louis Browns. As far as successor franchises go the Phillies apparently give a nod to the A's since they have a statue of Connie Mack and some A's stuff at their stadium. Not sure how KC handles it though

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •