Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nationals Park

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • h-man
    replied
    Originally posted by bigworm_122 View Post
    if i remember correctly the baltimore ravens are a new franchise, not a relocation, all the records for the browns stayed in cleveland.
    actually the browns moved to baltimore but after a year of no football in cleveland they expanded and the expansion team became the cleveland browns and they took all the history of the browns of old

    Leave a comment:


  • finch5682
    replied
    nice to see that green grass!

    Leave a comment:


  • willisraverchk77
    replied
    Originally posted by PeteU View Post

    Once a sports team relocates, its history should begin anew with the new city, even if the old name is kept.
    why should a sports business be exempt? when boeing left seattle recently and moved to chicago, it wasnt forced to leave its history in seattle and beging as a new company. its boeing whereever it goes, just like the colts are the colts, braves, dodgers, giants, whereever. i'm sure a lot of people in seattle thought of boeing as thiers just like a sports team. but in reality, it's a business first and "belonging to a city" a distant second.

    Leave a comment:


  • stlfan
    replied
    Originally posted by FearlessFreep View Post
    Wow - looks great with the GREEN of the turf. Doesn't hurt that it's 66 degrees here today, but it's starting to feel like baseball weather.
    God, just listening to spring training games and seeing the green grass of the baseball field gets me going. Nothing says spring is here like the green grass on a baseball field.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilaPhanDave
    replied
    Originally posted by stlfan View Post
    Hey Pete, while we are on the subject, how much of the Browns history is remembered and celebrated with the Orioles? Not that the Browns had much history to celebrate since they weren't that great of a franchise.

    My feelings on this subject are this, once a team relocates and especially if they change thier name, it is like a reboot for the team. I think all records and celebrations should be considered left behind to the city that was vacated. I guess it's a touchy issue when you have superstars of the sport who played in both places, such as Mays with the Giants. The legacy is in both places.
    As someone who's followed the Orioles while living in the DC area for 20 years, I don't ever recall the announcers (at least) referring to anything that happened in the franchise history pre-1954. I'm sure much of that is due to the fact that the Orioles' glory years happened relatively quickly after the move (12 years?), lasted for almost 20 years afterwards, and then another resurgence for a few years after the move to Camden Yards.

    That's what a great majority of the fans are familiar with, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearlessFreep
    replied
    Wow - looks great with the GREEN of the turf. Doesn't hurt that it's 66 degrees here today, but it's starting to feel like baseball weather.

    Leave a comment:


  • stlfan
    replied
    Originally posted by bigworm_122 View Post
    if i remember correctly the baltimore ravens are a new franchise, not a relocation, all the records for the browns stayed in cleveland.
    I was referring the the St. Louis Browns baseball team.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigworm_122
    replied
    Originally posted by stlfan View Post
    Hey Pete, while we are on the subject, how much of the Browns history is remembered and celebrated with the Orioles? Not that the Browns had much history to celebrate since they weren't that great of a franchise.

    My feelings on this subject are this, once a team relocates and especially if they change thier name, it is like a reboot for the team. I think all records and celebrations should be considered left behind to the city that was vacated. I guess it's a touchy issue when you have superstars of the sport who played in both places, such as Mays with the Giants. The legacy is in both places.
    if i remember correctly the baltimore ravens are a new franchise, not a relocation, all the records for the browns stayed in cleveland.

    Leave a comment:


  • stlfan
    replied
    Hey Pete, while we are on the subject, how much of the Browns history is remembered and celebrated with the Orioles? Not that the Browns had much history to celebrate since they weren't that great of a franchise.

    My feelings on this subject are this, once a team relocates and especially if they change thier name, it is like a reboot for the team. I think all records and celebrations should be considered left behind to the city that was vacated. I guess it's a touchy issue when you have superstars of the sport who played in both places, such as Mays with the Giants. The legacy is in both places.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeteU
    replied
    Originally posted by exposhistory View Post
    Expos history belongs to Montreal and Expos fans.
    Amen to that. Ask any fan of Baltimore football that has to watch the Indianapolis NFL Franchise play with blue horseshoes on their helmet and has to see Unitas and Donovan placed in the Indianapolis section of the NFL hall of fame.

    Once a sports team relocates, its history should begin anew with the new city, even if the old name is kept.

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardK
    replied
    Looks like they are taking the tarp off the grass.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearlessFreep
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnCropp View Post
    ... Like stealing a team from another country and branding them "the Nationals" for instance ...

    The stadium looks great, but it would look even better with 8 10 30 42 on the wall.
    Washington is all-too familiar with having teams "stolen." Like having Minnesota "steal" the Senators. Like Texas "stealing" the Senators.

    Montreal lost the Expos. And yes, the 10 on the sign is stupid. But the stadium does look good otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pere
    replied
    I think the Nationals organization showed their attitude toward Expos history when they ordered the Vermont Expos (a fantastic minor league operation, from what I've heard, though I've never been to a game there) to become the "Vermont Lake Monsters."

    Leave a comment:


  • exposhistory
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnCropp View Post
    Is it more shameful to retire #10 patronizingly for "the Fans" or to unretire the numbers of great players in the franchise's history?

    Not that it matters in DC.

    The Expos/Nationals are guilty of both.

    The Washington Nationals could do alot worse than to have these four men as part of their franchise's history. (Like stealing a team from another country and branding them "the Nationals" for instance).

    The stadium looks great, but it would look even better with 8 10 30 42 on the wall.
    Agree 100% - but a this point I'd rather have no connection between the MONTREAL EXPOS and what I consider to be a "new" franchise - they, and mlb, don't give a #$%^& about Expos (or baseball) history anyway. 3+ years after the relocation scam was pulled off I consider it a badge of honour not be part of mlb. Expos history belongs to Montreal and Expos fans.

    Leave a comment:


  • nymdan
    replied
    Here's an article from today's Washington Post that gives a good overview of what's left to be done in the ballpark.

    Of note, the cherry blossom trees will be planted within the next few days, and the Nats might get their certificate of occupancy within the next week.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2008030102078

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X