Baseball question slightly O/T which has always bothered me

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Is there any team in baseball which is derived from a long standing previous team (Seattle Pilots do not count) which does not acknowledge the records and achievements of its former team? The LA Dodgers and SF Giants, for example, celebrate the Brooklyn and New York counterparts. The Baltimore Orioles at least acknowledge the St. Louis Browns' achievements (what little there were), ditto the Altanta Braves and the Boston and Milwaukee Braves.
The Minnesota Twins absolutely do not acknowledge in any way, shape or form nor honor their former team the Washington Senators despite their long history. The Twins moved to Minneapolis-St. paul in 1961 and even from the start (I was there) never mentioned the team who moved there. Really sad when you think of Walter Johnson, Cyde Milan, Goose Goslin, Bucky Harris and all the other stars...

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I would imagine the Minnesota situation is a little complicated now that Washington actually has their own team - it wouldn't work to have 2 current teams both claiming the same history. I'm not familiar with the situation surrounding the Washington/Minnesota move, but I can say that when Modell moved the Browns away from Cleveland, the city sued (and won) to keep the history and colors here. Perhaps something similar occurred with the Senators move...

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i think because washington was immediately awarded an american league franchise when the twins moved to minnesota.so there always was a washington senators,but they were an expansion team in 1961. so the pre 61 wash. senators records go with the twins,and the 1961 to 1972 washington senators records go with the texas rangers. making the whole thing kinda hazy to even me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Ivey

Now Washington owes their allegience to Montreal lore.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I think the Nationals celebrate Senators records because of the stadium history and the fact theyre in the same town but theyre going into a new stadium next year so you might hear less about it now. Ive seen the opposite for example,Reds fans claiming their the oldest team in baseball because they were around in 1869 not realizing that the 1869 Reds basically became the Boston team in the National Association which lead to the Boston NL team which is the Atlanta Braves now,so if any team wants to lay claim to the 1869 Reds team its the Braves.

The original Reds team from the NL(1876-80) is a defunct franchise and the National Association didnt even have a Cincinnati team during its 5 year history because Cincy fans gave up on one of the greatest teams ever after it lost a single game

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

The St. Louis Cardinals always begin their history with the 1892 National League team. However, I have found several resources which state that the franchise actually began as a member of the American Association in 1882. In fact, under Player/Manager Charlie Comiskey, they won four straight pennants from 1885-88. When that major league folded after 1891, the team joined the NL. I've always wondered why the Cardinals don't honor that period, especially since the early NL team stunk for their first 30 years or so. Who cares which league your team was in, as long as it was the majors? Surely, the Brewers credit their AL records. I think it is just another increasingly common example of history being forgotten. BTW, the name "Cardinals" did not come about until 1899, so the mascot name has nothing to do with it. I always say that St. Louis has won 21 pennants, instead of the usually stated 17!

[Archive]

Posted By: Howard W. Rosenberg

A related line of complaint can be raised against modern-day p.r. outfits for big league teams that are so arrogant as to find little use for the fact that at some points in their particular city's history, that ALL the baseball fans in the city that rooted for the local team rooted for a National League team that is no longer in that city. Perhaps the best example is the Boston Red Sox, who nowadays are averse to recalling the Boston Red Stockings/Beaneaters of the 19th century. Except in 1890 and 1891, the Red Stockings/Beaneaters were the city's lone big league team until the advent of the Red Sox in 1901. I could see drawing a distinction between wanting to honor 20th century Red Sox over 20th century Beaneaters/Braves/Bees, but if you rely on modern day p.r. outfits for big league teams to perform "community service" for the public interest, then you would have to conclude, in Boston, that the sport of baseball was founded in the city in 1901. Of course the Red Sox do perform "community service" aimed at promoting anything related to the Red Sox brand.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Most people never heard of the Worcester Ruby Legs (sometimes the Brown Stockings) but they were in the National Leauge...many accounts have them as the precursor to the Phillies in Philadelphia but not real evidence shows that there is a link. For some reason though, many Philidelphia fans consider them the orginator of the team and there are some links including players, managers, coaches, and front office staff moving to Philly to start the Philly NL team. There is one notable record that the Ruby Legs held and that is the first perfect game, pitched by John Richmond in 1880. The Phillies do not celebrate this at this time.

Joshua