OT: Will the Raptors and/or Blue Jays keep its legacy in the event of relocation?

[SilverPlaqueVII]

Like the Cleveland Browns, will the Raptors and/or the Blue Jays keep its legacy, such as the name, colors, history, records, awards, and archives in Toronto? The city and/or the province may have to pass a special law allowing them the right of first refusal to buy the team if it is ever sold.

The Raptors have yet to win their first NBA title and the Blue Jays won two World Series titles as well as 13 Stanley Cup titles for the Leafs. So why not have this idea proposed?

Click to read more...

 

[Brodie]

I don't think they would ever relocate?

 

[ACC1224]

Why are they relocating?

 

[OG6ix]

They won't relocate... if anything a hockey team in another Canadian city may relocate before either of these teams.

 

[Grudy0]

Like the Cleveland Browns

This is a full stop:

The NFL assigned the history and legacy of the Browns to the City of Cleveland in order to allow the Browns to break the lease on Municipal Stadium and relocate to Baltimore. It was an exceptional circumstance.

The city and/or the province may have to pass a special law allowing them the right of first refusal to buy the team if it is ever sold

And practically any league then has to approve the new ownership group, so the NBA or MLB can simply say "no" to allowing a government entity to own a club.

That's one of the few perks about living near Baltimore all this time - first the Colts to Indianapolis using the famous Mayflower Moving Trucks and then the Modell to Baltimore move of the Browns give some special insight.

 

[tony d]

I doubt very much either of these teams will be relocating.

 

[Mightygoose]

Why is this a thread? There's no talk of any of these 2 teams moving.

 

[Fantomas]

?

 

[razor ray]

Like the Cleveland Browns, will the Raptors and/or the Blue Jays keep its legacy, such as the name, colors, history, records, awards, and archives in Toronto? The city and/or the province may have to pass a special law allowing them the right of first refusal to buy the team if it is ever sold.

The Raptors have yet to win their first NBA title and the Blue Jays won two World Series titles as well as 13 Stanley Cup titles for the Leafs. So why not have this idea proposed?

What about the Leafs? They won a bunch of cups when their was 6 teams in the league. It’s been 51 years since they won one and have not won a playoff series in the salary cap era....because of that should they relocate as well?

Would Toronto keep the Leafs colors/logo if they relocate?

 

[rojac]

The legacy should go with the team that built it. It should not go to some stupid replacement team that steals the original team's name.

To me, the whole Cleveland Browns think reeks of a fanbase that was too delusion to admit that their team left town.

 

[Brodie]

The legacy should go with the team that built it. It should not go to some stupid replacement team that steals the original team's name.

To me, the whole Cleveland Browns think reeks of a fanbase that was too delusion to admit that their team left town.

What is a "team" in your conception of the world? The entire concept is more or less nonsense in the first place, but relocation makes it even more nonsensical... it's at least conceivable that there is continuity between the player in your avatar and Mitch Marner, it would be hard to mentally connect them if the team had left Toronto 25 years ago and was now the Houston Torros or something

How does it make any logical sense that the name can change, the players can change, the ownership can change, the coaches can change, the front office can change, the arena can change, the city can change and yet somehow the "team" and the "legacy" stays the same?

 

[DowntownBooster]

The legacy should go with the team that built it. It should not go to some stupid replacement team that steals the original team's name.

To me, the whole Cleveland Browns think reeks of a fanbase that was too delusion to admit that their team left town.

Totally disagree with this line of thinking. It's the passion of the fans that makes the team important. Without them there is no team no matter what the market. Players come and go and owners come and go but the fans remain. It's the fans that are loyal to the brand and it should not be taken away from them. I'm not sure why anyone would be so callous about it when it's obviously something important to sports fans.

Perhaps pro teams should only go by their city or state name without any moniker and then it wouldn't matter as much if a team moves from one location to another. At least with college teams like Duke there's no risk the Blue Devils name will be taken by anyone else because no one can simply uproot the university. If an owner wants to move the team they should give the team a new moniker upon relocation and leave the previous name with the original location.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Like the Cleveland Browns, will the Raptors and/or the Blue Jays keep its legacy, such as the name, colors, history, records, awards, and archives in Toronto? The city and/or the province may have to pass a special law allowing them the right of first refusal to buy the team if it is ever sold.

The Raptors have yet to win their first NBA title and the Blue Jays won two World Series titles as well as 13 Stanley Cup titles for the Leafs. So why not have this idea proposed?

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/basketball/nba/raptors-jurassic-park-maple-leaf-square-1.5141822
The backlash would immense if the nba left the 3rd largest market in the North America there is still a pr hit to this day from the Seattle relocation even though they where justified because the speaker of Washington state insulated the nba to the commissioner's face.

 

[rojac]

What is a "team" in your conception of the world? The entire concept is more or less nonsense in the first place, but relocation makes it even more nonsensical... it's at least conceivable that there is continuity between the player in your avatar and Mitch Marner, it would be hard to mentally connect them if the team had left Toronto 25 years ago and was now the Houston Torros or something

The team is the legal entity that is moved from owner to owner. The city is just where that entity currently resides. And I have no problem with the idea that the

Using the Winnipeg Jets for two different franchises (the one that currently resides in Arizona and the one that began its life in Atlanta) causes far more of a disconnect for me than the idea that while Bobby Hull never played in Phoenix or Arizona, he did indeed play for the Arizona Coyotes franchise when they went by the name Winnipeg Jets.

How does it make any logical sense that the name can change, the players can change, the ownership can change, the coaches can change, the front office can change, the arena can change, the city can change and yet somehow the "team" and the "legacy" stays the same?

It's the same legal entity. Makes far more sense to me to have the Kansas City Scouts/Colorado Rockies/New Jersey Devils as one franchise with a continuous 45 year history than to have:

* A Kansas City Scouts team that played from 1974-76 and then disappeared.
* A Colorado team that played from 1976-82 under the name Rockies then disappeared and reappeared under the name Avalanche in 1n 1995.
* A New Jersey Devils team that started play in 1982.

And if the new Jets were allowed to claim the old Jets records and history and combine it with their post-Thrashers history just based on the fact that the two teams both played in the city of Winnipeg, what about cities where there have been two teams simultaneously.

For example, should the Montreal Canadiens get to claim the Montreal Maroons records? Should the New York Rangers get to claim the New York American records? And should the New York Islanders move or fold, would the Rangers be allowed to claim the Islanders records and hang their Stanley Cup banners? And if you're going to say that Long Island is a different location than NYC, did the Islanders become a different team when they moved to Brooklyn? And if they did, what about this year where they played in both Brooklyn and Uniondale? Would we have something like this?

* A NY Islanders team from 1972-2015 and 2021-??.
* A Brooklyn Islanders team 2015-21 (since the majority of Isles games are still being played in Brooklyn from 2018-21, let's continue to call Brooklyn their home for those years.)

This assumes the Belmont Park arena being finished for the 21-22 season.

When the move to Belmont Park is done, would the Rangers be considered to own the Brooklyn Islanders records since they were based in NYC?

And if we consider Brooklyn to be part of Long Island as opposed to NYC, so that the Islanders history is unified, do the Rangers or the Islanders get to claim the 1941-42 Americans season when the team had changed its name to Brooklyn Americans but still played in Madison Square Garden?

 

[rojac]

Totally disagree with this line of thinking. It's the passion of the fans that makes the team important. Without them there is no team no matter what the market. Players come and go and owners come and go but the fans remain. It's the fans that are loyal to the brand and it should not be taken away from them. I'm not sure why anyone would be so callous about it when it's obviously something important to sports fans.

Perhaps pro teams should only go by their city or state name without any moniker and then it wouldn't matter as much if a team moves from one location to another. At least with college teams like Duke there's no risk the Blue Devils name will be taken by anyone else because no one can simply uproot the university. If an owner wants to move the team they should give the team a new moniker upon relocation and leave the previous name with the original location.

As a Montreal Expos fan, I consider that brand to belong to the franchise which now resides in Washington. As a fan, I do not want a new Montreal baseball team to use that brand (unless it was the Washington Nationals moving back to Montreal). I feel the Expos brand represents a given era of the Expos/Nationals franchise and see no reason to give that brand to an unrelated team. I would far more likely to cheer for a new Montreal team with a non-Expos name than one that tried to steal the legacy of the real Expos by stealing their name.

 

[Brodie]

As a Montreal Expos fan, I consider that brand to belong to the franchise which now resides in Washington. As a fan, I do not want a new Montreal baseball team to use that brand (unless it was the Washington Nationals moving back to Montreal). I feel the Expos brand represents a given era of the Expos/Nationals franchise and see no reason to give that brand to an unrelated team. I would far more likely to cheer for a new Montreal team with a non-Expos name than one that tried to steal the legacy of the real Expos by stealing their name.

I know these debates with you on this matter have gone back years and years now so it must be obvious to you that you are in minority on this matter, I have to say I do respect your logical consistency in the face of overwhelming opposition

 

[DowntownBooster]

The team is the legal entity that is moved from owner to owner. The city is just where that entity currently resides. And I have no problem with the idea that the

Using the Winnipeg Jets for two different franchises (the one that currently resides in Arizona and the one that began its life in Atlanta) causes far more of a disconnect for me than the idea that while Bobby Hull never played in Phoenix or Arizona, he did indeed play for the Arizona Coyotes franchise when they went by the name Winnipeg Jets.

And if the new Jets were allowed to claim the old Jets records and history and combine it with their post-Thrashers history just based on the fact that the two teams both played in the city of Winnipeg, what about cities where there have been two teams simultaneously.

A sports team is not like a McDonald's franchise in which it doesn't matter if one restaurant closes and a new one opens up a few blocks down the street with new management. They serve the same menu and that's all people care about for the most part. Nobody buys McDonald's merchandise to wear, hang on their wall or fly a McDonald's flag from their car window or let out a cheer in the restaurant to motivate the employees to do better. To try and reduce the significance of what a team means to a city by stating it's just an entity that is moved from owner to owner is disingenuous.

It's really not that difficult to separate the history of a franchise when it relocates to another city especially when the name is different. It's basically the same as treating it like a player that's traded from one team to another. His stats stay with him throughout his career but are comprised of different teams. They don't disappear from the NHL record books as a result of the player moving from Team 'A' to Team 'B'.

It's not just the fans that identify with a team name but also the players who once played for those fans. For example, when it was made known that the NHL was returning to Winnipeg, former Jets players were interviewed about the situation and asked about the team name and it was overwhelmingly 'Jets' that got their support. They recognize the bond shared between the players and the fans. I don't recall hearing any of them say "Oh, that team now belongs to Phoenix so the new team should be called something else". Former NFL legend Johnny Unitas understood this concept when he refused to be honored by the Indianapolis Colts shortly after they moved from Baltimore when he stated that he played for the fans of Baltimore not Indianapolis. Although the 'franchise' was technically the same, to him it was no longer the same 'team'.

When Dale Hawerchuk was inducted into the Winnipeg Jets Hall of Fame and had a banner raised in his honor in November 2017, it meant much more to him than being inducted into the Phoenix Coyotes Ring of Honor in April 2007. The reason it meant more was because he played for the fans of Winnipeg. The memories of his playing days here are shared by the fans and himself. The emotions and memories cannot be transplanted to another fanbase. That's not a knock against Arizona but simply a reality. Players like Hull, Hedberg, Nilsson, Sjoberg, Hawerchuk, Steen and Selanne never played in Phoenix and have no connection to the fans there. The exploits of their playing days reside with the fans of Winnipeg and that is why it's appropriate for the Jets name to also reside in Winnipeg.

I know I won't be able to convince you as already indicated by Brodie in the post above but I do know that the importance of team names and what they mean to fans should never be underestimated or dismissed out of hand because it's the passion of the fans that gives meaning to the sport.

 

[Boeser Fan]

As a Montreal Expos fan, I consider that brand to belong to the franchise which now resides in Washington. As a fan, I do not want a new Montreal baseball team to use that brand (unless it was the Washington Nationals moving back to Montreal). I feel the Expos brand represents a given era of the Expos/Nationals franchise and see no reason to give that brand to an unrelated team. I would far more likely to cheer for a new Montreal team with a non-Expos name than one that tried to steal the legacy of the real Expos by stealing their name.

You have the right to your opinion, but like when Winnipeg got an NHL team again I promise you a majority of fans would want the Expos name back.

 

[The Lemonheads]

What if the actual city moves?! Just asking questions!

 

[LeHab]

You have the right to your opinion, but like when Winnipeg got an NHL team again I promise you a majority of fans would want the Expos name back.

Absolutely, Expos marchandise in particular still enjoys notable sales numbers.

Montreal Expos logo enjoys afterlife across Canada and U.S.

Expos brand and Youppi! would be back for sure.

 

[cheswick]

First off. Weird question since neither of these teams are being talked about relocating and there are numerous teams in far greater risk of being relocated.

The answer to the question is basically if the league wants that to happen it will. There’s precedence in the NBA since the Charlotte hornets retain the records of the original relocated hornets when they played on Charlotte.

If a team relocated it would only really be an issue if a team then came back to the city.

 

[Jumptheshark]

See Arizona coyotes, Carolina hurricanes, Washington senators, Memphis grizzled and the list goes on


There have been a lot of relocation so we have the answer