I just bought OOTP 2006, and I'd like to create an All-Time league. The issue is, what connection do fans feel towards players from teams in earlier locations. For example, how excited would Baltimore fans feel about ex-St. Louis Browns, who they never saw play unless they traveled to Philadelphia over 50 years ago? Same thing with the Oakland A's. What sense does it have for Lefty Grove to represent a city he never pitched for in real life? On the other hand, the Dodgers would have a pretty solid connection to Brooklyn even now.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject? Is it better to represent all incarnations of a franchise? Or is it better to take the best players of the old Washington Senators' teams and create a team representing Washington?

I always tend to associate the player with the city they played in. Even though the Expos just recently moved away from Montreal, I could never consider Tim Raines to be one of the greatest Washington Nationals of all time.

 

BTW, how is OOTP 2006? If others would be interested, we could always set up an online OOTP league.

I always had the same issue when playing NBA Live.

 

Do I put George Mikan in Minnesota or with the Lakers?

I want to believe that once a team leaves a city its history starts new at the new city. So I would consider the current Washington Nationals as an expansion team with only one year of history and have nothing to do with the Expos.

I always tend to associate the player with the city they played in.  Even though the Expos just recently moved away from Montreal, I could never consider Tim Raines to be one of the greatest Washington Nationals of all time.

 

BTW, how is OOTP 2006?  If others would be interested, we could always set up an online OOTP league.

;; I made a whole thread on the subject and nothing happened concerning the online league. But I would definitely be up for it.

 

OOTP is pretty fun to be honest. I like it, and play it a lot.

 

On the subject, I agree with MiB. Where the player played the most would be the team I associate him with over where he was most famous (but those usually go hand in hand).

I always thought that everything followed the franchise, the only exception being for the Cleveland Browns, who were promised a new team with the same name/colors as soon as Modell left. Football especially is strong on this, with the Cleveland/LA/St. Louis Rams, St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals, and the Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs all having one set of records

 

 

The first Nationals team, for example had pretty much the same staff as the last Expos team, so I don't know how you can consider it an expansion team just because they moved and changed their name. Would you consider them differently if they had been named the Washington Expos instead?

The name change is a big deal it shows that the Expos died in Canada and that the Nationals were born in Washingon.

I always thought that everything followed the franchise, the only exception being for the Cleveland Browns, who were promised a new team with the same name/colors as soon as Modell left.  Football especially is strong on this, with the Cleveland/LA/St. Louis Rams, St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals, and the Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs all having one set of records

 

 

The first Nationals team, for example had pretty much the same staff as the last Expos team, so I don't know how you can consider it an expansion team just because they moved and changed their name. Would you consider them differently if they had been named the Washington Expos instead?

That's usually been my criteria. But the logic of Lefty Grove representing Oakland, or Tim Raines representing Montreal, where they never even played ROAD games, is a little troublesome.

 

Washington I think would be better represented by an All-Washington team. Assembling such a team we have Joe Cronin, Goose Goslin, Frank Howard, Sam Rice and Walter Johnson. That's a heck of a squad.

 

The only problem is that making an All-Philadelphia team for example would make a stronger team than one might want, and that is doubly true for the New York teams. If I split them however, the St. Louis Browns would be fairly awful, and that would also create close to 40 teams.

The name change is a big deal it shows that the Expos died in Canada and that the Nationals were born in Washingon.

.....but it's the same franchise, with the same personnel. If the Yankees move today with the same staff and become the Birmingham Bumblefucks, it doesn't make them an expansion team.

 

I guess what I'm saying is the Expos as a team name are dead, but the Montreal Baseball Franchise is alive and well in Washington, just like the previous Washington team is alive and well in Texas.

So if you were to make a all time great lineup for the Senators would you include Rangers, Twins, Expos?

So if you were to make a all time great lineup for the Senators would you include Rangers, Twins, Expos?

It would include either...

 

Washington Nationals (2005-06)

Montreal Expos (1969-2004)

 

or

 

Washington Senators (1901-60)

Washington Senators (1961-71)

Washington Nationals (2005-06)

 

If the former option were used, the Twins and Rangers would have the players from their respective Washington clubs. If the latter is used, it would only be Twins from 1961 on, and Rangers from 1972 on.