Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

UNI88 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Yep. The franchise started in 1969.

Does that mean that Philly gets credit for Golden State's NBA championships?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

93henfan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:Does that mean that Philly gets credit for Golden State's NBA championships?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Lolwut?

No, the Warriors franchise does. Why would the Sixers? Philly only has claim to one Phila Warriors NBA Championship and one BAA championship.

You understand what a sports franchise is, no?

If you're doing the city thing, then looking at the A's for instance, they won five WS in Philly and four in Oakland. Philly can claim those five WS, but not the Phillies obviously. Different franchise.

UNI88 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Lolwut?

No, the Warriors franchise does. Why would the Sixers? Philly only has claim to one Phila Warriors NBA Championship and one BAA championship.

You understand what a sports franchise is, no?

If you're doing the city thing, then looking at the A's for instance, they won five WS in Philly and four in Oakland. Philly can claim those five WS, but not the Phillies obviously. Different franchise.

But you're dinging the Nats for the
Expo's lack of success.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

93henfan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Nationals - 50 years?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Yep. The franchise started in 1969.

89Hen wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Yep. The franchise started in 1969.

If it makes you feel better.

93henfan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:Does that mean that Philly gets credit for Golden State's NBA championships?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Lolwut?

No, the Warriors franchise does. Why would the Sixers? Philly only has claim to one Phila Warriors NBA Championship and one BAA championship.

You understand what a sports franchise is, no?

If you're doing the city thing, then looking at the A's for instance, they won five WS in Philly and four in Oakland. Philly can claim those five WS, but not the Phillies obviously. Different franchise.

Gil Dobie wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Lolwut?

No, the Warriors franchise does. Why would the Sixers? Philly only has claim to one Phila Warriors NBA Championship and one BAA championship.

You understand what a sports franchise is, no?

If you're doing the city thing, then looking at the A's for instance, they won five WS in Philly and four in Oakland. Philly can claim those five WS, but not the Phillies obviously. Different franchise.

Lakers claim the 5 Minneapolis championships.

93henfan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Lakers claim the 5 Minneapolis championships.

And the LA Rams claim the St Louis Super Bowl.

Franchise is not a difficult concept to grasp.

UNI88 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
And the LA Rams claim the St Louis Super Bowl.

Franchise is not a difficult concept to grasp.

My apologies 93. I was confused (sue me I don't closely follow baseball, golf, billiards, tiddlywinks, etc.) and was thinking that a previous Nat's franchise had started in 1969 and then moved somewhere else not realizing that the current version of the Nats was started in 1969 and came from Montreal. Now that I did a little research and understand, I agree that the Nat's legacy includes the Expos' futility.

Ivytalk wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
My apologies 93. I was confused (sue me I don't closely follow baseball, golf, billiards, tiddlywinks, etc.) and was thinking that a previous Nat's franchise had started in 1969 and then moved somewhere else not realizing that the current version of the Nats was started in 1969 and came from Montreal. Now that I did a little research and understand, I agree that the Nat's legacy includes the Expos' futility.

It might as well be the Washington Senators for all 89 is concerned.

UNI88 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: It might as well be the Washington Senators for all 89 is concerned.

89 can't help it, he was born with an old curmudgeonly soul.

89Hen wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
89 can't help it, he was born with an old curmudgeonly soul.

Kinda funny that I'm the old curmudgeon but it's you guys that want to hang on to the Expos. There is not a fan in DC that gives a rats ass about any of the Expos history, good or bad (obviously mostly bad). Different city, different owners, different name, different team. Counting 50 years as waiting for the Nationals to win a WS is nothing but dumb.

89Hen wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Harper didn't want to play in Philly very bad. It's all about the money, no passion, no championships.

He didn't want to play in DC either. $300M for 10 was on the table, so that he signed for $330 and 13 tells me he wanted out. Nats fans have known this day was coming for a long time. Don't let 93 fool you, his prediction two years ago was chalk. What this has meant is that fans were way over losing Harper before it even happened. He will be missed but I'm not hearing many angry folks around here. Now, the fact that he did sign for basically the same money he was offered here and that he's going to a division rival means that I hope he fails. Either way though, I'm not losing sleep over it.

As for the no passion, no championships... I will have to disagree. The Phillies have a good shot at being very good right away, and certainly in the next couple years. I don't know exactly what their pitching staff looks like, but that can be addressed now that positionally they're pretty set.

GannonFan wrote:Difference is the Nats contract was apparently a ton of deferred money...

89Hen wrote:

UNI88 wrote: 89 can't help it, he was born with an old curmudgeonly soul.

Kinda funny that I'm the old curmudgeon but it's you guys that want to hang on to the Expos. There is not a fan in DC that gives a rats ass about any of the Expos history, good or bad (obviously mostly bad). Different city, different owners, different name, different team. Counting 50 years as waiting for the Nationals to win a WS is nothing but dumb.

css75 wrote:

89Hen wrote: Kinda funny that I'm the old curmudgeon but it's you guys that want to hang on to the Expos. There is not a fan in DC that gives a rats ass about any of the Expos history, good or bad (obviously mostly bad). Different city, different owners, different name, different team. Counting 50 years as waiting for the Nationals to win a WS is nothing but dumb.

Agree with this, though I hope Montreal gets another chance. They got screwed in 1994 and the fans were pissed and quit going.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

UNI88 wrote:fans of the franchise have. I guess I'm

89Hen wrote:

UNI88 wrote:fans of the franchise have. I guess I'm

That's where we disagree. Do you think there is a Montreal Expos fan that was holding their breath during the Bryce Harper saga because they desperately want a World Series for the Nats? Or do you think there is a Nats fan that thinks back on the Expos and what could have been if they had won a WS title?

Gil Dobie wrote:

89Hen wrote: That's where we disagree. Do you think there is a Montreal Expos fan that was holding their breath during the Bryce Harper saga because they desperately want a World Series for the Nats? Or do you think there is a Nats fan that thinks back on the Expos and what could have been if they had won a WS title?

Doesn't matter what some Nats fans think, baseball stats for the Expos, are in the Nats record book. Check the link to the Nats all-time stat leaders.

89Hen wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Doesn't matter what some Nats fans think, baseball stats for the Expos, are in the Nats record book. Check the link to the Nats all-time stat leaders.

The purpose of pointing out championship droughts is to show how miserable a fanbase might be. The Nats are 0 for 13 years. Doesn't matter what some stat guy thinks.

89Hen wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Doesn't matter what some Nats fans think, baseball stats for the Expos, are in the Nats record book. Check the link to the Nats all-time stat leaders.

The purpose of pointing out championship droughts is to show how miserable a fanbase might be. The Nats are 0 for 13 years. Doesn't matter what some stat guy thinks.