Should players be associated with a city or with a franchise?

[whizkid]

Spahnie attended the unveiling of his Turner Field statue a few months before his death and spoke. I don't know if the number retirement was done at the same time or previously.

 

IMO the numbers belong to the franchise, the stadium and grounds to the city. There's a statue of Ty Cobb at Turner Field, him being a Georgia boy, but the Braves didn't retire his number. The MP stadium district could do the same with Al Simmons, imo, and it would be fine with me.

 

Eddie played 1 year with Atlanta and managed them for about 2 full seasons over 3 years.

 

 

Did you get a chance to head out to Lloyd Street Grounds at all that year? I heard they had free horse carriage parking.

 

The catch was you had to clean up after your horse, so, being the modern, early adopters that we were, we took the streetcar.

[Crewin06]

Spahn had his number retired in 1965 and rightfully so. I think players have to be associated with franchises especially ones that moved otherwise what happens to the players when the city that loved them does not get another team? I think the way they do it now is the right way. Atlanta retired their numbers, but Milwaukee has done quite a bit to honor the Braves players.

[logan82]

I think when a franchise moves, the city should retain the rights to the name and records of the franchise. The new city should treat the team much like an expansion team. Similar to what happened when Cleveland moved to Baltimore.(I think)

[Invader3K]

Well, the NBA and NFL have sometimes done it that way. MLB has historically not done that, for whatever reason.

[RU Rah Rah]

I think when a franchise moves, the city should retain the rights to the name and records of the franchise. The new city should treat the team much like an expansion team. Similar to what happened when Cleveland moved to Baltimore.(I think)

Yeah, the Baltimore situation is even more convoluted when you thrown in the Colts situation. I have a hard time associating my heroes as a kid (especially Johnny Unitas) with the Indianapolis Colts. Unitas sort of personified Baltimore - beyond the franchise, even -- for all those years, and so it's weird for me to think of his legacy being honored in Indy.

[logan82]

Right, and when the team moved to Baltimore they would become the Colts and have all the history of the Baltimore Colts. The team in Indy would have had to get a new name and restart like an expansion franchise. Boston would still be the Braves. Instead of the Seattle Mariners, they would be the Pilots. Of course that isn't how it usually works.

 

I am young and never saw the Braves as a Milwaukee team. All I have ever known is the Brewers. The Milwaukee Braves history is part of the history of another franchise to me.