No announcement yet.

Does this make sense

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If you go to the following link, and click on "hall of famers by team" (on the right) you will see that MLB's rule for this list is that a current team only gets to count pre-franchise shift Hall of Famers if the franchise did not change its name. Therefore, no team gets to count e.g., Walter Johnson or Willard Brown, and George Sisler is a Brave only and Goose Goslin a Tiger only. And there is no provision for defunct teams (like there is on good ol'

    The one exception is the Washington Nationals, who for some reason alone get to hold onto their history, despite changing both city and mascot. Too recent a switch, I guess, for MLB to feel comfortable sending it down the memory hole.

    Other weirdnesses:
    John McGraw and Wilbert Robinson *are* Orioles but Hugh Duffy is not counted as a Brewer.

    All this focus on mascot name is *despite the fact* that the Dodgers, Giants, Indians, Phillies and countless others did not always have their modern mascot.

    The expansion Senators' lone Hall of Famer, Ted Williams, is not listed on the MLB 'by team' list under Senators or Rangers (or Nationals for that matter). But Teddy Ballgame is listed for his 1972 year with the Rangers on Wikipedia only.
    Go figure.

    P.s. Seems like an odd dearth of Hall of Famers for a team with an 11-year history, especially compared with the N.L. 1962 expansion teams. But the Angels only produced one: Hoyt Wilhelm in his 1969 bow in L.A.


    • #17
      I believe that part of the deal in allowing the Old Senators to move was that the "Senators" would continue on in if nothing had happened. (And the Griffith family enterprise was legally something like "The Washington Baseball Club Operating in Minneapolis")

      There was no such deal when Bob Short, the infamous, moved the new Senators to Texas.

      However, I doubt that the Rangers would demand compensation, or even argue, if the new team called themselves the Washington Senators. MLB is a large genetleman's club, anyway, carefully exempt from anti-trust laws and such.

      The only issue might be over which franchise gets a cut of any merchandise with any of the Nats/Senators logos. Cooperstown Caps have had sometimes offered a replica 1960 Senators hat; I used to have both the new Senators "swirly-W" blue and red fitted hats. Years ago, I bought a tee-shirt at the HOF with the late-50's Nats (Senators) logo: the cigar-chomping politician throwing a pitch.

      Who claims royalties? I have no idea.

      (I do know that the LA Dodgers blocked a Brooklyn man from calling his hotdog stand Brooklyn Dodgers Hotdogs.)


      • #18
        The expansion Houston NFL franchise comes to mind as another example of a team that couldn't use its nickname from the previous team in town. When Bud Adams moved the Oilers to Tennessee, for their first season in Tennessee he used the nickname Oilers. Adams though changed the nickname to the " Titans" when the team went from their temporary home in Memphis to the city of their current home, Nashville. The uniforms were also changed, including the logo.

        Despite the radical changes, Bud Adams still owned the Oilers name and everything associated with the franchise, including it's records. I believe the Houston Oilers records are still associated with the current Tennessee " Titans". The end result is the name of the new Houston franchise became the" Texans" , as it was chosen in a contest of 5 possibilities.

        It disturbs me to no end that nicknames, records, and logos remain the property of franchise when it moves to a different market. Though I would like to have seen the new Washington baseball franchise have the option of bringing back the name Senators, logo, and records, thankfully the Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers have their own identity. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about a number of other franchises, lead by the Los Angeles NL baseball team and the Indianapolis NFL team. Traditions in Brooklyn and Baltimore, which ranked with any in Pro Sports, were destroyed by greed. In the case of the Baltimore Colts, incompetence by ownership in addition to greed.

        Originally posted by bkmckenna View Post
        art modell gave the city of cleveland the name browns - he could very well have kept it - likewise i would imagine calvin griffith gave the name senators to the city or the american league after he moved

        I believe that Art Modell would have preferred to bring the Browns name, colors, and records to Baltimore. But because of substantial public pressure, the NFL would only approve Modell's request to move to Baltimore if he left the Cleveland Browns name, team colors, and records behind him. When the move was approved in early 1996, part of the agreement was an expansion version of the Cleveland Browns would start playing in 1999. A new stadium was built on the site that Cleveland Stadium, the long time home of the Indians and Browns, existed.


        Ad Widget