- Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:46 pm
#5593
The ongoing debate about the identity and history of MLB franchises, particularly the Oakland Athletics, raises some fascinating questions about what it truly means to be a franchise in professional sports. As we witness the A's potentially moving yet again, it begs the question: how do we define a franchise's legacy?
Some argue that a franchise is a continuous entity, regardless of its geographical changes. Others believe that each relocation creates a new identity, akin to the NFL's handling of the Browns and Ravens situation. This brings us to a critical point: should the history of a team be tied to its original city, or should it evolve with its current location?
Consider the implications of this debate. If we start to separate histories based on location, what happens to the legacies of players who have donned different uniforms throughout their careers? Should Reggie Jackson's time with the A's in Kansas City be considered part of the Royals' history? And what about the Milwaukee Brewers' lineage? Should we acknowledge the 1901 Brewers as part of the current franchise, or do they belong to a different era altogether?
As fans, how do we reconcile our emotional ties to teams with the fluid nature of franchises? Are we more attached to the players, the city, or the brand itself?
I want to hear your thoughts! Do you believe a franchise's history should be preserved regardless of its location? Or do you think each move creates a new chapter that should be recognized separately? Share your experiences and insights on how you view the evolution of teams and their legacies in the ever-changing landscape of Major League Baseball.
Some argue that a franchise is a continuous entity, regardless of its geographical changes. Others believe that each relocation creates a new identity, akin to the NFL's handling of the Browns and Ravens situation. This brings us to a critical point: should the history of a team be tied to its original city, or should it evolve with its current location?
Consider the implications of this debate. If we start to separate histories based on location, what happens to the legacies of players who have donned different uniforms throughout their careers? Should Reggie Jackson's time with the A's in Kansas City be considered part of the Royals' history? And what about the Milwaukee Brewers' lineage? Should we acknowledge the 1901 Brewers as part of the current franchise, or do they belong to a different era altogether?
As fans, how do we reconcile our emotional ties to teams with the fluid nature of franchises? Are we more attached to the players, the city, or the brand itself?
I want to hear your thoughts! Do you believe a franchise's history should be preserved regardless of its location? Or do you think each move creates a new chapter that should be recognized separately? Share your experiences and insights on how you view the evolution of teams and their legacies in the ever-changing landscape of Major League Baseball.
- By Anonymous