Fuzzy Bear
01-22-2003, 06:37 PM
There are very, very few players that were big stars for a team playing in one city that were also big stars in the city that the team moved two.
Out of all the franchise relocations that have occurred, the only three players I can think of that had big careers in two cities with the same team were Willie Mays (NY and SF Giants), Henry Aaron (Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves), and Henry Aaron (Boston and Milwaukee Braves).
One thing that strikes me hard is that the Brooklyn Dodgers were not the Los Angeles Dodgers. The guys who were pennant winners in 1956 were either retired or diminished in the 1959 championship year. Not a single Brooklyn Dodger carried his stardom over from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, except (maybe) Snyder, and he was in decline. Drysdale and Koufax were nobody in Brooklyn, while Campy and Jackie were done come moving time. The two Dodgers who had good careers in both Brooklyn and L. A. were Jim Gilliam and Johnny Podres, in that they were about the same in both places.
Why is that? Why does a team lose all continuity when it moves, to the point where stars in mid-career fade after the move, and new players take their place?
It may be that teams move when they are down in the standings. But the 1957 Dodgers finished 3rd, and were one year removed from winning their second consecutive pennant, and two years removed from their first World Championship.
I can't think of a single Philadelphia Athletic who was anything in Kansas City. (Campaneris was the only established minor star who maintained the same level of play when K. C. moved to Oakland.) Who was a memorable Brown AND Oriole? Besides Mays, the S. F. Giants were a new crew quick; only John Antonelli did anything to speak of out west. Frank Howard, the Senator's biggest star, disintegrated upon arriving in Texas. Killebrew and Allison were stars in Washington, but played only two years there before moving to Minnesota.
These moves happened during the years of the reserve clause, so free agency can't be blamed.
Why the lack of continuity when a team moves from one city to another? Is it because the team doing the moving is likely to be in deep decline? Or is there just an impulse, logical or otherwise, to discard all of the old when a team moves, that is not necessarily locigal?
Out of all the franchise relocations that have occurred, the only three players I can think of that had big careers in two cities with the same team were Willie Mays (NY and SF Giants), Henry Aaron (Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves), and Henry Aaron (Boston and Milwaukee Braves).
One thing that strikes me hard is that the Brooklyn Dodgers were not the Los Angeles Dodgers. The guys who were pennant winners in 1956 were either retired or diminished in the 1959 championship year. Not a single Brooklyn Dodger carried his stardom over from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, except (maybe) Snyder, and he was in decline. Drysdale and Koufax were nobody in Brooklyn, while Campy and Jackie were done come moving time. The two Dodgers who had good careers in both Brooklyn and L. A. were Jim Gilliam and Johnny Podres, in that they were about the same in both places.
Why is that? Why does a team lose all continuity when it moves, to the point where stars in mid-career fade after the move, and new players take their place?
It may be that teams move when they are down in the standings. But the 1957 Dodgers finished 3rd, and were one year removed from winning their second consecutive pennant, and two years removed from their first World Championship.
I can't think of a single Philadelphia Athletic who was anything in Kansas City. (Campaneris was the only established minor star who maintained the same level of play when K. C. moved to Oakland.) Who was a memorable Brown AND Oriole? Besides Mays, the S. F. Giants were a new crew quick; only John Antonelli did anything to speak of out west. Frank Howard, the Senator's biggest star, disintegrated upon arriving in Texas. Killebrew and Allison were stars in Washington, but played only two years there before moving to Minnesota.
These moves happened during the years of the reserve clause, so free agency can't be blamed.
Why the lack of continuity when a team moves from one city to another? Is it because the team doing the moving is likely to be in deep decline? Or is there just an impulse, logical or otherwise, to discard all of the old when a team moves, that is not necessarily locigal?