View Full Version : Morgan Compares Giants' History to Yankees' Legacy
MulderHudsonZito
05-23-05, 11:19 AM
I'll grant you that I'm not exactly fair and unbaised when it comes to Joe Morgan -- I think he's a [insert 4-letter word here] Giants fanboy and a plague upon baseball. Whenever he talks about Barry Bonds and the Big Red Machine, all I can hear is "BOB BOB BOB BOB ...SLURP!!" Wash, rinse, repeat.
However, I can't be the only one who finds the following remarks beyond even Morgan's usual level of dilusion:
He's got poor Juan Marichal trapped in the booth and is regaling him with stories of the Reds in the 70's. WTF? For once can it not be about you, Joe?? You've got one of baseball's classiest Hall of Famers as your guest, but as usual you're talking about yourself. But I'm getting sidetracked...
At some point during his self-aggrandizing posturing he unloades the statement that "aside from the Yankees, the Giants have the best tradition and history in all of baseball".
Now I ask you, how is this possible when the team in question has yet to win a World Series for the town which they've called home since 1958. A couple of monuments does not a formidable legacy make!
What is everyone else's take on this? Is my judgement impossibly clouded by my hate of the Giants? If not them, then who does have the next best legacy in the game?
I don't know what criteria Joe's using (I'm sure that he doesn't either). To go on World Series victories alone, you'd have to put the Cardinals next (and they've won them much more recently than the Giants). What the Giants do have going for them is hall-of-fame inductees - they have over 23, the next closest being a tie between the Yanks and the Cards. The Giants have also won the most games by a NL team - but of course the franchise dates back to 1883. That could be testament to its longevity.
rkh5donkey
05-23-05, 11:28 AM
Wow, I've never seen such hatred for the Giants. And I have a friend who's a Dodgers fan.
It's a good question, though: aside from the Yankees, who has the best tradition and history.
I'm guessing what your vote would be "MulderHudsonZito" and the A's have had a lot of good years, but nothing really before the 1970's. They're kinda the reverse of the Giants, who had a lot of good years before the SF move, not so much after.
My guess would be the Dodgers. They had success both in LA and in BKLYN. Even though they only had 1 WS in BK, they were in it just about every year, so they get points for that. And they've got a pitching legacy that's unmatched.
GraniteYankee
05-23-05, 11:29 AM
I'll grant you that I'm not exactly fair and unbaised when it comes to Joe Morgan -- I think he's a [insert 4-letter word here] Giants fanboy and a plague upon baseball. Whenever he talks about Barry Bonds and the Big Red Machine, all I can hear is "BOB BOB BOB BOB ...SLURP!!" Wash, rinse, repeat.
However, I can't be the only one who finds the following remarks beyond even Morgan's usual level of dilusion:
He's got poor Juan Marichal trapped in the booth and is regaling him with stories of the Reds in the 70's. WTF? For once can it not be about you, Joe?? You've got one of baseball's classiest Hall of Famers as your guest, but as usual you're talking about yourself. But I'm getting sidetracked...
At some point during his self-aggrandizing posturing he unloades the statement that "aside from the Yankees, the Giants have the best tradition and history in all of baseball".
Now I ask you, how is this possible when the team in question has yet to win a World Series for the town which they've called home since 1958. A couple of monuments does not a formidable legacy make!
What is everyone else's take on this? Is my judgement impossibly clouded by my hate of the Giants? If not them, then who does have the next best legacy in the game?
I can think of a couple........the Dodgers and Cardinals would make a better argument. It pains me to say this, but even the Red Sox fit the argument better then the Giants.
joe morgan has segmented eyes.
catfish hunter?
no.
catfish morgan.
yanksphan
05-23-05, 11:53 AM
Wow, I've never seen such hatred for the Giants. And I have a friend who's a Dodgers fan.
Here in San Diego, they are referred to as just "The Hated Ones"
MulderHudsonZito
05-23-05, 12:07 PM
Wow, I've never seen such hatred for the Giants. And I have a friend who's a Dodgers fan.
You must not know any real A's fans. We're not a warm and fuzzy lot.
SoCal Pinstriper
05-23-05, 12:43 PM
The Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, and even the Reds (the first professional team) all have histories to be proud of.
Morgan bothers me too, but he made some great comments about Marichal, saying that while Koufax had the best stuff, that, in his opinion, Marichal was the better pitcher.
I was happy to see that ESPN chose to do a game at SBC on the weekend that Marichal's statue was unveiled. I was lucky enough to see him pitch live against , and I'll never forget the leg kick. I'm looking forward to making it up north soon to see the statue (and a game or two).
Mr. Mxylsplk
05-23-05, 01:07 PM
I'm guessing what your vote would be "MulderHudsonZito" and the A's have had a lot of good years, but nothing really before the 1970's. They're kinda the reverse of the Giants, who had a lot of good years before the SF move, not so much after.
Connie Mack and Jimmie Foxx say hi.
UncleSam
05-23-05, 02:30 PM
I think the Dodgers get the edge over the Cardinals and the deciding factor is the signing of Jackie Robinson. It seems like the Cardinals have always been good, from decade to decade, but the Dodgers still have an aura that supercedes them, even though it has waned recently. It's actually a pretty interesting discussion as to how to group the top 10 franchises. I'd go:
1. Yankees
2. Dodgers
3. Cardinals
4. A's
5. Giants
6. Red Sox
7. Reds
8. Pirates
9. Braves
10. Orioles
Tigers, Cubs and Indians are next, IMO.
I think the Dodgers get the edge over the Cardinals and the deciding factor is the signing of Jackie Robinson. It seems like the Cardinals have always been good, from decade to decade, but the Dodgers still have an aura that supercedes them, even though it has waned recently. It's actually a pretty interesting discussion as to how to group the top 10 franchises. I'd go:
1. Yankees
2. Dodgers
3. Cardinals
4. A's
5. Giants
6. Red Sox
7. Reds
8. Pirates
9. Braves
10. Orioles
Tigers, Cubs and Indians are next, IMO.
No way the Dodgers are second, IMHO. Cards and A's have the most WS rings after the Yanks. That has to count for something. :)
UncleSam
05-23-05, 02:40 PM
No way the Dodgers are second, IMHO. Cards and A's have the most WS rings after the Yanks. That has to count for something. :)
It does count for something, but it's not the end all and be all.
1. The Dodgers played in the 2nd most number of World Series, but had the misfortune of playing the Yanks in many of them.
2. The Dodgers and Branch Rickey broke the color barrier with Jackie Robinson.
3. The Dodgers took baseball west and started a new era for the game.
4. They moved from Brooklyn almost 50 years ago and their presence still seems to echo in the community.
5. Vin Skully
It's close, but I'll give the edge to the Dodgers.
rkh5donkey
05-23-05, 03:02 PM
Connie Mack and Jimmie Foxx say hi.
Touche.
But the old Philly A's had a looootttt of 8th place finishes. And the Kansas City years were No Man's Land. I'd still put the Dodgers ahead of them. They've got at least a pennant in just about every decade except the 1990s, IIRC.
It does count for something, but it's not the end all and be all.
1. The Dodgers played in the 2nd most number of World Series, but had the misfortune of playing the Yanks in many of them.
2. The Dodgers and Branch Rickey broke the color barrier with Jackie Robinson.
3. The Dodgers took baseball west and started a new era for the game.
4. They moved from Brooklyn almost 50 years ago and their presence still seems to echo in the community.
5. Vin Skully
It's close, but I'll give the edge to the Dodgers.
Absolutely agree with your points (esp #2), but they've been so bad for so long.....
Mattpat11
05-23-05, 03:07 PM
Connie Mack and Jimmie Foxx say hi.Some of those Philly teams were downright miserable. Hell, Mack didn't even finish with a .500 record as a manager. Those A's were a very feast or famine team.
connie mack managed through the advent of electricity, motor cars, flight, a world war, prohibition, the great depression, another world war, etc etc....that's gotta count for something.
no idea why i typed that other than to say....WOW. what'd he manage for? 55 years or something?!?!?!
UncleSam
05-23-05, 04:09 PM
Absolutely agree with your points (esp #2), but they've been so bad for so long.....
That's far from the case. They've struggled to make the playoffs consistently, but they've still only finished below .500 3 times in the last 18 years and 10 of those years they either won the division or finished within 6 games of the top.
That's far from the case. They've struggled to make the playoffs consistently, but they've still only finished below .500 3 times in the last 18 years and 10 of those years they either won the division or finished within 6 games of the top.
Sorry :(
I wasn't clear: I mean, they haven't gone deep into the postseason much....
I'll add my voice to the chorus that picks the Dodgers as #2. I'm basing that on success, tradition, cultural impact, noteworthy players, and a great uniform.
I'll also agree on the Cardinals as #3, and I'm not even convinced the Giants should be in the Top 5. Candlestick was a miserable park, and they had a lot of dry years there.
I'll add my voice to the chorus that picks the Dodgers as #2. I'm basing that on success, tradition, cultural impact, noteworthy players, and a great uniform.
And fans that leave in the 7th inning ;)
Mattpat11
05-23-05, 04:45 PM
And fans that leave in the 7th inning ;)And arrive in the third
And arrive in the third
There ya go....and talk on cells the whole game...
hellonewman
05-23-05, 05:03 PM
Some of those Philly teams were downright miserable. Hell, Mack didn't even finish with a .500 record as a manager. Those A's were a very feast or famine team.Not the point. The original poster said the A's never did anything before the 1970s. When in fact, the 1910-14 and 1929-31 A's were 2 of the greatest teams of all time.
Back on topic, I vote for the Cardinals as No. 2. The point about the Dodgers and Jackie Robinson is a good one, but 1) as mentioned, the Cards exceed them in championships, and 2) they originated the modern farm system. That Branch Rickey was one impactful guy.
I'd still put the Dodgers ahead of them. They've got at least a pennant in just about every decade except the 1990s, IIRC.No pennants in the 1930s.
Dooley Womack
05-23-05, 05:06 PM
The Giants did have a rich history and did own N.Y. up until the Yanks got going in the early 20's and built their own stadium. Up until then the Yanks played at Hilltop Park, and yes, the Polo Grounds, where they were second class citizens, much like the Jets are to the Giants.
However, since then, I believe that the Brooklyn Dodgers and perhaps the Sox, overtook the Giants as far as rich history and tradition in the modern era of baseball goes. The Cubs and Cards are up there as well.
So while Morgan is an a@@hat and has a skewed view on things, he's not that far off.
The Giants did have a rich history and did own N.Y. up until the Yanks got going in the early 20's and built their own stadium. Up until then the Yanks played at Hilltop Park, and yes, the Polo Grounds, where they were second class citizens
But drew more fans than the Giants (which is why they got kicked out)
Dooley Womack
05-23-05, 05:11 PM
I think the Dodgers get the edge over the Cardinals and the deciding factor is the signing of Jackie Robinson. It seems like the Cardinals have always been good, from decade to decade, but the Dodgers still have an aura that supercedes them, even though it has waned recently. It's actually a pretty interesting discussion as to how to group the top 10 franchises. I'd go:
1. Yankees
2. Dodgers
3. Cardinals
4. A's
5. Giants
6. Red Sox
7. Reds
8. Pirates
9. Braves
10. Orioles
Tigers, Cubs and Indians are next, IMO.
I agree with most of your top 10, but maybe I'd put one or two teams in a different order. But the A's?????? Other than the 70's Oakland A's and some of Connie Mack's Philly A's teams, we have the KC A's. I'm not so sure I'd put them at 4 or ahead of the Sox, Giants and Reds. I'd also put the Cubs in the top ten, somewhere behind the Yanks, Cards, and Dodgers.
Dooley Womack
05-23-05, 05:11 PM
But drew more fans than the Giants (which is why they got kicked out)
Yes, only after they got Ruth. In 1919, even with Ruth, the Yanks drew 620,000 - still 95,000 less than the Giants.
hellonewman
05-23-05, 05:12 PM
But drew more fans than the Giants (which is why they got kicked out)They didn't until Ruth and the Boston pitching staff got there, which I think is what Dooley meant by "until the Yankees got going in the early '20s."
Edit: OK, now I KNOW that's what Dooley meant. :)
They didn't until Ruth and the Boston pitching staff got there, which I think is what Dooley meant by "until the Yankees got going in the early '20s."
Thanks for the clarification :)
hellonewman
05-23-05, 05:14 PM
Yes, only after they got Ruth. In 1919, even with Ruth, the Yanks drew 620,000 - still 95,000 less than the Giants.Yanks didn't have Ruth in 1919.
Dannman103
05-23-05, 05:14 PM
I dont mind morgan, but hes wrong in this case...gotta give it to the Dodgers after the yankees
Dooley Womack
05-23-05, 05:15 PM
Yanks didn't have Ruth in 1919.
Sorry. 1920
Dooley Womack
05-23-05, 05:16 PM
They didn't until Ruth and the Boston pitching staff got there, which I think is what Dooley meant by "until the Yankees got going in the early '20s."
Edit: OK, now I KNOW that's what Dooley meant. :)
Exactly what I meant. :) Thanks.
Mr. Mxylsplk
05-23-05, 05:27 PM
Touche.
But the old Philly A's had a looootttt of 8th place finishes. And the Kansas City years were No Man's Land. I'd still put the Dodgers ahead of them. They've got at least a pennant in just about every decade except the 1990s, IIRC.
Yeah, the Dodgers belong ahead of them easily. I'm not saying the A's are at the top of the list, just that they weren't one big nothing before those great 70's teams.
jimmyclark
05-24-05, 05:43 PM
The Yankees didn't get kicked out of the Polo Grounds because they got Ruth. They got kicked out because New York legalized Sunday Baseball in 1919 while Massachusetts and Pennsylvania didn't for another 10 years. The Giants found they could make more in scheduling Sunday games in New York from series that would be played in Boston (Braves) and Philadelphia (Phillies).
Actually the Reds are not the direct decendant of the first professional Cincinnati team of 1869-1871. That team moved to Boston because they won too many games and there was little interest in paying to watch one-sided games. Actually the Atlanta Braves are the oldest team.
Morgan is reasonable in choosing the Giants although it is interesting they haven't won a world series in over 50 years ("Curse of Vic Wertz" anyone). I suppose I would choose the A's but the Dodgers can't be ignored. Certainly in their Oakland years they have had 4 interesting periods: "Mustache Gang" of early 70s, "Billyball" of early 80s, "Steroid Ball/Bash Brothers" of late 80s/early 90s and "Moneyball" of today. I always wonder if it was really necessary for Connie Mack to sell his stars in mid 1910s and early 1930s. You would think as the owner he knew the financial situation best but few other teams sold off so many great players. Did Mack see himself as this genius who could always rebuild/scout/teach? He did shell out big bucks in early 20s for Grove, Cochrane, Paul Strand, etc. Where did that money come from?
The Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles attendance has been phenemonal..over 2.5 million every year since 1982.
hellonewman
05-25-05, 05:15 PM
The Yankees didn't get kicked out of the Polo Grounds because they got Ruth. They got kicked out because New York legalized Sunday Baseball in 1919 while Massachusetts and Pennsylvania didn't for another 10 years. The Giants found they could make more in scheduling Sunday games in New York from series that would be played in Boston (Braves) and Philadelphia (Phillies).If that's the case, why did they wait 4 seasons to kick the Yankees out? And could the Giants not have offered the Yankees the option of continuing in the Polo Grounds on non-Sunday dates, while reserving Sundays for themselves?
CTSoxFan
05-25-05, 07:32 PM
You must not know any real A's fans. We're not a warm and fuzzy lot.
I always assumed A's fans came from the same stock as Raiders fans. Which, of course, means a high score on the "passion-for-the-game" meter, and a low corresponding score in "warm and fuzzy." :D
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.