zljones
05-05-2012, 03:40 PM
Whenever I look around the internet I see these founding years for our oldest teams:
Chicago Cubs: 1876
Atlanta Braves: 1871
Cincinnati Reds: 1882
St. Louis Cardinals: 1882
Chicago White Sox: 1894, or some say 1901
Cleveland Indians: 1894
Minnesota Twins: 1894, some say 1901
Baltimore Orioles: 1894
Detroit Tigers: 1894
I agree with the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers and Baltimore Orioles founding years but I disagree with the rest. My interest in 19th century cards has led me to research 19th century Baseball and learn about these team's histories. Some of these teams should deserve more historical credit in my opinion. Here's the way I think it should be
Chicago Cubs: 1870
Atlanta Braves: 1871
St. Louis Cardinals: 1875
Cincinnati Reds: 1876
Chicago White Sox: 1888
Minnesota Twins: 1888
Cleveland Indians: 1894
Baltimore Orioles: 1894
Detroit Tigers: 1894
Chicago Cubs formed professionally as the Chicago White Stockings in 1870 then entered the N.A. in 1871 until the National League formed in 1876. I don't think they should be considered founded in 1876 just because that was the year of the N.L. formation. They went inactive from 1872-1874 but the same businessmen kept the organization, it never collapsed and died.
The St. Louis Brown Stockings were first formed in 1875, after 1877 season they were falling apart financially and accused of being involved in throwing games. They were kicked out of the N.L. The franchise never disappeared completely it was just inactive professionally until it was bought by Chris Von Der ah in 1882. It's the same franchise just a new owner, so why can't the Cardinals get credit for 1875-1882? The team was there just inactive.
The Cincinnati Red Stockings formed in 1866 then went pro in 1869. The team fell apart financially after 1870 season. Pieces of it went to the Boston Red Stockings in 1871. By 1876 a brand new Cincinnati Red Stockings appeared which had no relation to the original franchise so neither the Reds or the Braves get credit for 1866. This new Cincinnati Franchise was formed in 1876 in the N.L. and lasted through 1880 when Justus Thorner was in charge. The same exact franchise was brought to the A.A. along with Justus Thorner and the other Cincinnati businessmen that controlled the 1876 Red Stockings. So if it is the same franchise with the same businessmen in charge, why not give them credit for being formed in 1876? It's the same team and it transitioned into the A.A. then eventually back to the N.L. So why no credit?
The Sioux City Cornhuskers formed in 1888 in the Western Association Minor Leagues, they had issues but stayed around until after 1891. The franshise went dorment in 1892 and 1893, but the same exact franchise was brought into the Western League in 1894 which would become the Chicago White Sox. So why can't the Sox get credit for 1888? They got it as the Cornhuskers in 1894 so why not Cornhuskers of 1888? It should not matter that the team went dorment at times and maybe had new ownership it is still the same team, same franchise that evolved.
The Kansas City Blues formed in 1888 as a minor League franchise. They were around all the way until they were taken into the Western League in 1894, which is when they started getting credit. They eventually became the Washington Senators then the Minnesota Twins. Why can't the Twins get credit for 1888? Once again it's the same franchise just shuffled around.
I can understand that teams are like businesses and get new owners but it should not matter, it is still the same franchise. When the Reds came about in 1876 they were not the same franchise as 1869 Reds, so I won't give them credit for 1869 or 1866. But these other franchises never died out, they deserve more credit.
Opinions.....?
Chicago Cubs: 1876
Atlanta Braves: 1871
Cincinnati Reds: 1882
St. Louis Cardinals: 1882
Chicago White Sox: 1894, or some say 1901
Cleveland Indians: 1894
Minnesota Twins: 1894, some say 1901
Baltimore Orioles: 1894
Detroit Tigers: 1894
I agree with the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers and Baltimore Orioles founding years but I disagree with the rest. My interest in 19th century cards has led me to research 19th century Baseball and learn about these team's histories. Some of these teams should deserve more historical credit in my opinion. Here's the way I think it should be
Chicago Cubs: 1870
Atlanta Braves: 1871
St. Louis Cardinals: 1875
Cincinnati Reds: 1876
Chicago White Sox: 1888
Minnesota Twins: 1888
Cleveland Indians: 1894
Baltimore Orioles: 1894
Detroit Tigers: 1894
Chicago Cubs formed professionally as the Chicago White Stockings in 1870 then entered the N.A. in 1871 until the National League formed in 1876. I don't think they should be considered founded in 1876 just because that was the year of the N.L. formation. They went inactive from 1872-1874 but the same businessmen kept the organization, it never collapsed and died.
The St. Louis Brown Stockings were first formed in 1875, after 1877 season they were falling apart financially and accused of being involved in throwing games. They were kicked out of the N.L. The franchise never disappeared completely it was just inactive professionally until it was bought by Chris Von Der ah in 1882. It's the same franchise just a new owner, so why can't the Cardinals get credit for 1875-1882? The team was there just inactive.
The Cincinnati Red Stockings formed in 1866 then went pro in 1869. The team fell apart financially after 1870 season. Pieces of it went to the Boston Red Stockings in 1871. By 1876 a brand new Cincinnati Red Stockings appeared which had no relation to the original franchise so neither the Reds or the Braves get credit for 1866. This new Cincinnati Franchise was formed in 1876 in the N.L. and lasted through 1880 when Justus Thorner was in charge. The same exact franchise was brought to the A.A. along with Justus Thorner and the other Cincinnati businessmen that controlled the 1876 Red Stockings. So if it is the same franchise with the same businessmen in charge, why not give them credit for being formed in 1876? It's the same team and it transitioned into the A.A. then eventually back to the N.L. So why no credit?
The Sioux City Cornhuskers formed in 1888 in the Western Association Minor Leagues, they had issues but stayed around until after 1891. The franshise went dorment in 1892 and 1893, but the same exact franchise was brought into the Western League in 1894 which would become the Chicago White Sox. So why can't the Sox get credit for 1888? They got it as the Cornhuskers in 1894 so why not Cornhuskers of 1888? It should not matter that the team went dorment at times and maybe had new ownership it is still the same team, same franchise that evolved.
The Kansas City Blues formed in 1888 as a minor League franchise. They were around all the way until they were taken into the Western League in 1894, which is when they started getting credit. They eventually became the Washington Senators then the Minnesota Twins. Why can't the Twins get credit for 1888? Once again it's the same franchise just shuffled around.
I can understand that teams are like businesses and get new owners but it should not matter, it is still the same franchise. When the Reds came about in 1876 they were not the same franchise as 1869 Reds, so I won't give them credit for 1869 or 1866. But these other franchises never died out, they deserve more credit.
Opinions.....?