Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

  1. #1
    [redacted]
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    303

    Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    This article:

    http://blogredmachine.com/2013/03/07...in-cincinnati/

    was posted over on r/reds, and a conversation was started over the fact that the Red Stockings that were expelled from the NL in 1880, and the Red Stockings that formed as a charter member of the American Association (today's Reds, who eventually re-joined the NL) are not technically the same franchise, and thus the Braves and Cubs are older clubs. Basically, Wikipedia breaks it down like this:

    - 1869, the Cincinnati Red Stockings become baseball's first professional team
    - 1870, Red Stockings dissolve and many players go to Boston to form a team, though the franchise itself is not officially carried over
    -1876, a new Cincinnati Red Stockings team becomes an original member of the National League
    - 1880, the Red Stockings are expelled from the NL for serving beer and playing on Sundays
    -1881, a third team of the same name becomes a charter member of the American Association
    - 1890, the Red Stockings are welcomed back the National League. This is today's team.

    This may all seem like semantics, but when I mentioned that it technically made the Reds not the oldest baseball franchise, some were upset. I was told the Reds essentially adopted the history of the past Red Stockings clubs, similar to how the old Browns records transferred to the Ravens, but... did they?

    I see that the Reds claim the accomplishments of those clubs on their website, and I do indeed own an MLB-licensed t-shirt that reads "EST. 1869," but does anyone know if the wins/losses accrued by those original Stockings are counted in Reds franchise records? I would certainly imagine that the time the team(s) spent outside of the NL or in the AA would not 'count,' but are the seasons from 1876-1880 part of official Reds history? The Reds wiki page does state an 1881 establishment date.

    I'm sure this discussion has been had on this board before, but I've been curious and I'm not sure of a quick way to check.

  2. Likes:

    marcshoe (03-09-2013)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #2
    nothing more than a fan Always Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincy West
    Posts
    4,745

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    One could make a case that the original 1869 Red Stockings are the forefathers of today's Atlanta Braves.

    The Red Stockings lost many players and their namesake in 1870, when the team decided to dissolve. The name went to Boston where, in 1871, a new team featuring some of Cincinnati's former stars began play as the Boston Red Stockings. This franchise would eventually become the Boston Braves, the Milwaukee Braves and then the Atlanta Braves.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...incinnati_Reds

  5. #3
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    41,649

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Code:
    Chicago Cubs                    1876 (NL) 
    Atlanta Braves		        1876 (NL) 
    St. Louis Cardinals		1882 (AA)  (NL) 1892
    Pittsburgh Pirates		1882 (AA)  (NL) 1887
    Cincinnati Reds		        1882 (AA)  (NL) 1890
    San Francisco Giants		1883 (NL)
    Philadelphia Phillies		1883 (NL)
    Los Angeles Dodgers		1884 (AA)  (NL) 1890
    Braves are the oldest playing every year since 1870

  6. #4
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    41,649

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Quote Originally Posted by [deleted] View Post
    This article:

    http://blogredmachine.com/2013/03/07...in-cincinnati/

    was posted over on r/reds, and a conversation was started over the fact that the Red Stockings that were expelled from the NL in 1880, and the Red Stockings that formed as a charter member of the American Association (today's Reds, who eventually re-joined the NL) are not technically the same franchise, and thus the Braves and Cubs are older clubs. Basically, Wikipedia breaks it down like this:

    - 1869, the Cincinnati Red Stockings become baseball's first professional team
    - 1870, Red Stockings dissolve and many players go to Boston to form a team, though the franchise itself is not officially carried over
    -1876, a new Cincinnati Red Stockings team becomes an original member of the National League
    - 1880, the Red Stockings are expelled from the NL for serving beer and playing on Sundays
    -1881, a third team of the same name becomes a charter member of the American Association
    - 1890, the Red Stockings are welcomed back the National League. This is today's team.

    This may all seem like semantics, but when I mentioned that it technically made the Reds not the oldest baseball franchise, some were upset. I was told the Reds essentially adopted the history of the past Red Stockings clubs, similar to how the old Browns records transferred to the Ravens, but... did they?

    I see that the Reds claim the accomplishments of those clubs on their website, and I do indeed own an MLB-licensed t-shirt that reads "EST. 1869," but does anyone know if the wins/losses accrued by those original Stockings are counted in Reds franchise records? I would certainly imagine that the time the team(s) spent outside of the NL or in the AA would not 'count,' but are the seasons from 1876-1880 part of official Reds history? The Reds wiki page does state an 1881 establishment date.

    I'm sure this discussion has been had on this board before, but I've been curious and I'm not sure of a quick way to check.

    The 1869 team was NOT in a league so those wins don't count in any major bucket, the National Association (NA) was in effect from 1871-1875 with no Cincinnati team, the Reds of the NL were kicked out of the league

  7. #5
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,511

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    The Reds are not the oldest team, it's silly the Est.1869 stuff keeps going, being in the top 5 oldest teams is not so bad.
    Go Gators!

  8. #6
    The rest is drama. marcshoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    In the woods, with a shovel
    Posts
    5,002

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    It's easier to simply say that Cincinnati was home to the first professional baseball team. This may not tell the whole story, but it sounds good and is essentially true.
    No Victims, by me.

    What begins at the water shall end there, and what ends there shall once more begin. --Straka

  9. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sarasota, Fl
    Posts
    228

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    For most of the 1900's Mlb honored the Reds as the "oldest professional baseball team" by permitting the Reds to open each season first. To me that says MLB considers the Reds the "oldest professional baseball team".

  10. #8
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    41,649

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stingray View Post
    For most of the 1900's Mlb honored the Reds as the "oldest professional baseball team" by permitting the Reds to open each season first. To me that says MLB considers the Reds the "oldest professional baseball team".
    Facts are facts, that's just a myth

  11. #9
    [redacted]
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    303

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Yeah, I've met more than a few Reds fans who have been quite stubborn and defensive when presented with this information. Some of my comments in that reddit thread are getting downvoted, when all I'm providing is facts.

    As mentioned, Cincy is still the birthplace of pro ball.

  12. #10
    It's showtime! RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    7,706

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    No way, man! They have a lot of, like, really young players on this team!
    "Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  13. #11
    Plan to be spontaneous Jefferson24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Illinios
    Posts
    1,196

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    I though you were saying the Reds brought back Miguel Cairo for a moment.
    We only live in patches. - H. G. Wells

  14. Likes:

    Homer Bailey (03-09-2013), thatcoolguy_22 (03-09-2013)

  15. #12
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,214

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcshoe View Post
    It's easier to simply say that Cincinnati was home to the first professional baseball team. This may not tell the whole story, but it sounds good and is essentially true.
    Exactly.

    I could care less about who owned the franchise, what the paperwork was, la di da, la di da. It's meaningless whether or not this franchise can draw a direct line between it and the team in 1869.

    It's not like there is anything beyond ethereal belief and faith that connects this team to the Reds of 1969, let alone 1869. There is no one who is part of this team now who was part of the 1969 or 1869 teams.

    The world is in a constant state of flux. If we want to believe this is the same team as the 1969 one, or the 1869 one, nothing wrong with it. Same if we want to believe they are not the same team. It's neither true nor false, it's whatever fits the narrative we choose.
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  16. #13
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    41,649

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Exactly.

    I could care less about who owned the franchise, what the paperwork was, la di da, la di da. It's meaningless whether or not this franchise can draw a direct line between it and the team in 1869.

    It's not like there is anything beyond ethereal belief and faith that connects this team to the Reds of 1969, let alone 1869. There is no one who is part of this team now who was part of the 1969 or 1869 teams.

    The world is in a constant state of flux. If we want to believe this is the same team as the 1969 one, or the 1869 one, nothing wrong with it. Same if we want to believe they are not the same team. It's neither true nor false, it's whatever fits the narrative we choose.
    Actually there is.

    The Reds as a team have been owned by local owners within a "syndicate" ownership since John Brush sold the team in the early 20th century. One share is the most important as it is the "voting share" and has been owned by such luminaries as The Cox Political Machine (Maintained by Garry Herrmann) Powell Crosley, William DeWitt, Marge and now Bob C.

    Brush was the last out of town owner to preside over the Reds.

    This Reds team is directly connected to the 1890 Reds of the NL as the 1889 AA Reds "disbanded" to jump leagues.

  17. Likes:

    Raisor (03-08-2013)

  18. #14
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    9,214

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    Actually there is.

    The Reds as a team have been owned by local owners within a "syndicate" ownership since John Brush sold the team in the early 20th century. One share is the most important as it is the "voting share" and has been owned by such luminaries as The Cox Political Machine (Maintained by Garry Herrmann) Powell Crosley, William DeWitt, Marge and now Bob C.

    Brush was the last out of town owner to preside over the Reds.

    This Reds team is directly connected to the 1890 Reds of the NL as the 1889 AA Reds "disbanded" to jump leagues.
    That's your narrative. Glad that works for you.

    My narrative says any team playing baseball professionally in Cincinnati is the same as the current team. Works great for me

    I am sure there are Browns fans who think this current Cleveland Brown team is the same as the one from their childhood. There are probably some who don't. Neither is right. Neither is wrong.
    "I donít know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
    óBill Cosby

  19. #15
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    41,649

    Re: Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    That's your narrative. Glad that works for you.

    My narrative says any team playing baseball professionally in Cincinnati is the same as the current team. Works great for me

    I am sure there are Browns fans who think this current Cleveland Brown team is the same as the one from their childhood. There are probably some who don't. Neither is right. Neither is wrong.
    It's the same ownership structure for over 100 years, it's a business not some "club" team. Many of the original ownership rules are still intact without stoppage.

    The Browns in Cleveland are not the Browns that won the AAFC titles in the 40's, not even in anyone's imagination.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25