from Amazon
Friday, January 27, 2012
Relocated Team Doctrine v Stationary Team Doctrine
Great post:
Dale Hawerchuk was born in Toronto and played major junior in Montreal. He was drafted by Winnipeg, where he set records for nine years, and then traded to Buffalo. He skated briefly in St. Louis, ended his playing career in Philadelphia, and now coaches in Barrie. And yet it is only in an arena in Arizona that his number 10 hangs, retired, over the ice.
...
The solution to this is (like the Japanese answer to the paradox of Theseus’ ship) to assert that the essence of the team is in its form and its function rather than its substance. A team is not what it is but what it does, defined not by the specific people or buildings or shirts that it uses but by its position in a system of social relations. And in the case of a team, that position is inextricably and fundamentally linked to a place.
Now, I wouldn’t necessarily tie it to a place. After all, if the Jets move from Long Island to NJ (or wherever they came from), that’s not a new thread. What matters is the fan base. Did the fan base follow the team, or not? If so, link them. If not, sever them.
So, you do this on a case-by-case basis, and thinking like an historian, and not trying to fit things into simple slots with simple rules. Rules of thumb by definition don’t work all the time.
Did Jets fans follow the Coyotes? Did they abandon the Coyotes when the new Jets arrived?
There’s no doubt that this applies to the Expos/Nationals:
Surely, a team that has to move is a black eye for the League, but a team that simply ceased to exist would be two black eyes, a broken nose, and a kick in the nuts. Because of this Doctrine, the NHL can say that it has not ‘lost’ a franchise since WWII killed off the New York Americans. Every other failed team has been bought or merged elsewhere, and every time that happens, the NHL manages to avoid taking direct responsibility for an unjustified or unstable overexpansion.
I don’t know how the Dodgers and Giants moving cross-country should be handled. What we need is an understanding of their fan bases, and what happened after the Mets showed up.
When the Cleveland Browns moved to become the Baltimore Ravens, didn’t they leave behind the history books?
That is, even though the new Browns are an expansion team, and the Ravens are the old Browns, the Ravens were treated as expansion and the new Browns got the history and records.
That’s the right way to do it.