Are the Reds the oldest team in baseball?

[757690]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Major League baseball is a business defined it by its ownership and their cities teams participation in a league

That's what the Reds are a business that participates in the NL

Since 1890

Really? I thought it was a game? To each his own, I guess

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by 757690

Really? I thought it was a game? To each his own, I guess

Take it easy on this guy folks. According to his other post all his cerebral cortex neurons have died since 1990 so his brain function just isn't up to snuff.

(I'm really not invested in this debate at all, but couldn't help but comment on your "my cells are all dead" post -- spoiler alert, some are still alive )

[Crumbley]

Come on, a half-truth is pretty solid per marketing standards.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by KySteveH

So, by that logic, are the Yankees and Mets the same team? Are they also the same team as the Giants and Dodgers prior to their West Coast move?

The Browns and the Ravens are two distinct franchises. There is only one right way to look at that. It's no different than the Twins and Rangers. They are not the same, even though they were both the Senators at one time.

I think there is merit to this argument. A team is made up of the players, the ownership...and the fan base. Even if there isn't a soul left alive in the Cincinnati area who celebrated the Reds 1919 World Championship and very few who celebrated the 1940 World Championship, those titles in a sense belonged to, and still belong to, Cincinnati and the Reds fan base.
The Braves can list the 1914 and 1957 World Championships in their history, but those titles meant nothing to fans in Atlanta then or now. Similarly, while the terrific NL 1951 pennant race between the NY Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers is a part of baseball lore, that race and the title belonged to the NY area and its fanbase, not to San Francisco or Los Angeles.

[reds1869]

As a Cincinnatian (and rabid 19th Century baseball historian) I feel a strong connection to the 1869 team, even though I realize they are not the same franchise I now watch.

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

I think there is merit to this argument. A team is made up of the players, the ownership...and the fan base. Even if there isn't a soul left alive in the Cincinnati area who celebrated the Reds 1919 World Championship and very few who celebrated the 1940 World Championship, those titles in a sense belonged to, and still belong to, Cincinnati and the Reds fan base.
The Braves can list the 1914 and 1957 World Championships in their history, but those titles meant nothing to fans in Atlanta then or now. Similarly, while the terrific NL 1951 pennant race between the NY Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers is a part of baseball lore, that race and the title belonged to the NY area and its fanbase, not to San Francisco or Los Angeles.

Interesting.

I'm a former Browns fan. I loved the NFL and the Browns nearly as much as I love the Reds, which is an impossible standard to beat.

When they moved, I was done with them. I hate the Ravens now. And I'm completely indifferent to the new Browns.

Can't explain why. Just the outrage at what Modell did to that incredible fan base that packed an 80,000 seat stadium with passionate fans for every game.

I've been to Cleveland three or four times in my life, always to watch a sporting event. I have no connection to the city at all other than my love for the Browns.

And to RedBarons earlier point, I really doubt that anyone in Baltimore anguishes over Byners fumble or The Drive or any of the other clamaties we had to live through before Modell plunged a knife into the hearts of the entire Browns fanbase.

[Raisor]

If anyone would have an opinion on "old" it would be RF

[malcontent]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Interesting.

I'm a former Browns fan. I loved the NFL and the Browns nearly as much as I love the Reds, which is an impossible standard to beat.

When they moved, I was done with them. I hate the Ravens now. And I'm completely indifferent to the new Browns.

Can't explain why. Just the outrage at what Modell did to that incredible fan base that packed an 80,000 seat stadium with passionate fans for every game.

Well, you may have more reason than this guy, RFS62.

John Laroche: Look, I'll tell you a story, all right? I once fell deeply, you know, profoundly in love with tropical fish. Had 60 goddamn fish tanks in my house. I skin dived to find just the right ones. Anisotremus virginicus, Holdacanthus ciliaris, Chaetodon capistratus. You name it. Then one morning, I woke up and said, "F*** fish." I renounce fish, I will never set foot in that ocean again. That's how much "f*** fish." That was 17 years ago and I have never stuck so much as a toe in that ocean. And I love the ocean.

Susan Orlean: But why?

John Laroche: Done with fish.

[[deleted]]

Originally Posted by KySteveH

No, because the Browns moved to Baltimore before the Clowns came to be.

Right, but it was agreed upon by all sides that when a new team came to Cleveland, they would inherit all the old Browns records/stats/history, and the Ravens would not.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Dan

That might not even be accurate. I remember hearing that the Reds were just the first organization that admitted to paying their players. There were other organizations that paid their players under the table. The Reds were just the first to call it what it was.

But again, I heard this and it might not even be true.

That is true.

[redsrule2500]

The Reds are the oldest team in baseball as much as the Browns are still in Cleveland.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by RFS62

And to RedBarons earlier point, I really doubt that anyone in Baltimore anguishes over Byners fumble or The Drive or any of the other clamaties we had to live through before Modell plunged a knife into the hearts of the entire Browns fanbase.

You hit the nail on the head. It is the city that matters, not an unbroken succession of ownership.

I am a huge Bengals fan, but if they moved to LA tomorrow I would never watch a Bengals game again for the rest of my life. I hate the Steelers, but if they moved to Cincy the day after the Bengals left I would buy season tickets.

[joshua]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

You hit the nail on the head. It is the city that matters, not an unbroken succession of ownership.

I am a huge Bengals fan, but if they moved to LA tomorrow I would never watch a Bengals game again for the rest of my life. I hate the Steelers, but if they moved to Cincy the day after the Bengals left I would buy season tickets.

It would be awesome to have two competently owned sports teams in Cincinnati.

[LexRedsFan]

Originally Posted by [deleted]

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

Welcome to sports subreddits.