All-time Roster Project: Expansion Team Name

GForce22 · 10-22-2002, 01:40 PM

I'm wondering...for the all-time project. I already said one of the two extra teams (it's the 26 before the last 4 expansion teams, plus 2 added teams for 14 in each league) will be a conglomeration of the past 4 expansion teams' guys not claimed by other teams. I'm wondering where I should put this team.

a) Florida - the first of the 4 expansion teams to win the World series
b) Arizona - The other of the four to win a World Series. Gets a nod from me because, unlike the Marlins, their team wasn't torn apart right after
c) A different city

If you choose C, please give me an option. Keep in mind, the other extra team will probably go in Washington D.C. and get the Senators name (likely comprised of a conglomeration of negro league and Japanese league guys).

Input, as always, is appreciated.

GH

Eugene Church · 10-22-2002, 03:38 PM

Arizona deserves it over the others.

LivnLegend · 10-22-2002, 03:47 PM

Florida does not "deserve" anything but just by having one World Series title they have a richer history than the Texas Rangers, San Diego Padres, and (hopefully ending this year!) Angels.

My choice: Phoenix

TSmith1969 · 10-23-2002, 06:22 AM

Denver.

The Mile High City should have been in the major leagues 30 years before the Rockies came along.

Jake · 10-23-2002, 08:04 AM

>>Florida does not "deserve" anything but just by having one World Series title they have a richer history than the Texas Rangers, San Diego Padres, and (hopefully ending this year!) Angels<<

I don't agree. Free agency has changed how good or bad an expansion team will be. The Padres and Expos had really sorry teams for a quite a few years. The couldn't go out and buy an Alou or Fernandez type player back then. The last four expansion teams had it pretty easy compared to thier predecessors.

TC Dale · 10-23-2002, 02:35 PM

I tend to shy away from the "spring training" cities no matter how deserving.

Denver is a good choice, but the last 30 years? I don't think Colorado was ready for a MLB team until about 10 yrs before they got one. They had NFL and it wasn't good until the 1980's.

And the NBA team was a joke since they joined the league when the ABA joined in the merger. So the "pro image" was not there until the 90's when Broncos finally broke through and became one of the elite.

Maybe Arizona was the only strong candidate. I wish I could give you a strong support for a city like New Orleans, but, their lack of success until recently makes it a moot subject.

I agree FA has changed expansion teams. I remember 1969 and how those teams did. The KC Royals were probably the only one that had a good jump out of the gate and made a good showing while the Kaufmann's ran the franchise. Their Royals Academy brought in a lot of Royal superstars, and while it was found to be illegal in baseball terms, the Academy was a unique idea for it's time.

Arizona and Florida got probably oh.......8 yrs taken off their development time when the FA and "cherrypicking" expansion drafts, I wonder if the D'Back fans would keep coming if the team lost for the first 5 yrs or so of existence.

Nice thread GForce.

Yogi

GForce22 · 10-23-2002, 03:18 PM

thanks yogi, though it's purely for selfish reasons related to the roster set. I want as much input on this as possible from the people here.

GH

View Poll Results: Where Should The "Expansion" Team Go
Florida	1	6.67%
Arizona	13	86.67%
Somewhere else (please give choice if you pick this)	1	6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

10-22-2002, 01:40 PM	#1
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	All-time Roster Project: Expansion Team Name I'm wondering...for the all-time project. I already said one of the two extra teams (it's the 26 before the last 4 expansion teams, plus 2 added teams for 14 in each league) will be a conglomeration of the past 4 expansion teams' guys not claimed by other teams. I'm wondering where I should put this team. a) Florida - the first of the 4 expansion teams to win the World series b) Arizona - The other of the four to win a World Series. Gets a nod from me because, unlike the Marlins, their team wasn't torn apart right after c) A different city If you choose C, please give me an option. Keep in mind, the other extra team will probably go in Washington D.C. and get the Senators name (likely comprised of a conglomeration of negro league and Japanese league guys). Input, as always, is appreciated. GH

10-22-2002, 03:47 PM	#3
LivnLegend Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: 100% pure adrenaline! Posts: 5,624	Florida does not "deserve" anything but just by having one World Series title they have a richer history than the Texas Rangers, San Diego Padres, and (hopefully ending this year!) Angels. My choice: Phoenix __________________ Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling.

10-23-2002, 06:22 AM	#4
TSmith1969 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 253	Denver. The Mile High City should have been in the major leagues 30 years before the Rockies came along. __________________ United League https://sites.google.com/view/circuitclouts

10-22-2002, 03:38 PM	#2
Eugene Church Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 36,237	Arizona deserves it over the others.

10-23-2002, 08:04 AM	#5
Jake Minors (Single A) Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 55	>>Florida does not "deserve" anything but just by having one World Series title they have a richer history than the Texas Rangers, San Diego Padres, and (hopefully ending this year!) Angels<< I don't agree. Free agency has changed how good or bad an expansion team will be. The Padres and Expos had really sorry teams for a quite a few years. The couldn't go out and buy an Alou or Fernandez type player back then. The last four expansion teams had it pretty easy compared to thier predecessors.

10-23-2002, 02:35 PM	#6
TC Dale Global Moderator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,983	I tend to shy away from the "spring training" cities no matter how deserving. Denver is a good choice, but the last 30 years? I don't think Colorado was ready for a MLB team until about 10 yrs before they got one. They had NFL and it wasn't good until the 1980's. And the NBA team was a joke since they joined the league when the ABA joined in the merger. So the "pro image" was not there until the 90's when Broncos finally broke through and became one of the elite. Maybe Arizona was the only strong candidate. I wish I could give you a strong support for a city like New Orleans, but, their lack of success until recently makes it a moot subject. I agree FA has changed expansion teams. I remember 1969 and how those teams did. The KC Royals were probably the only one that had a good jump out of the gate and made a good showing while the Kaufmann's ran the franchise. Their Royals Academy brought in a lot of Royal superstars, and while it was found to be illegal in baseball terms, the Academy was a unique idea for it's time. Arizona and Florida got probably oh.......8 yrs taken off their development time when the FA and "cherrypicking" expansion drafts, I wonder if the D'Back fans would keep coming if the team lost for the first 5 yrs or so of existence. Nice thread GForce. Yogi

10-23-2002, 03:18 PM	#7
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	thanks yogi, though it's purely for selfish reasons related to the roster set. I want as much input on this as possible from the people here. GH