I'm too young to remember this being a problem in baseball, but it seemed pretty ridiculous when it came up regarding the Browns/Ravens.

IMO, Soriano is setting the Nats record, he's chasing no one ever since he shattered Jose Guillen's club record of 24. Leave something for Montreal fans, don't bastardize their history now.

Speaking as a Twins fan, the Washington Senators records don't belong in Minnesota and they certainly don't belong in Texas. The Nats should own the "Washington records." But when they want, they can also own the "franchise" records, which would be the Expos-Nats. It ain't right that the Expos records would disappear, somebody should own them and keep them alive. So the Nats can own them both as far as I'm concerned.

If the Nats are not going to respect the Expos' retired numbers, they should not use the Expos' franchise records.

And frankly, there's no linkage whatsoever with the Senators.

If I were the Nats, I would treat records as if I were an expansion team, and let them grow organically.

I don't know the answer to this, but does anybody know what the Orioles (one time St. Louis Browns) did when the moved to Baltimore? Because that's a bit of a precedent in the greater D.C./Baltimore area....

And frankly, there's no linkage whatsoever with the Senators.

Tell that to the thousands of fans who suspended their adolescences over three decades waiting for their team to come back. Personally, I think two lists is fine, but I've never really figured out what I think about the Expos' history; I'd like to see them remembered as they should be, but I don't want that tradition to be shown (any additional) disrespect.

The Browns-Orioles situation is not really analogous, as Baltimore didn't have well over a half-century of MLB history prior to that franchise coming to town.

I say Minnesota gets the Senators records. The Nats get the Expos records. The Rangers use the records they've made since they were established. This is not terribly complicated.

This year is the 73rd year with major league baseball in Washington since 1901. It's okay for teams to use the records of their antecedents, but in the end I think the team records that should be highlighted are the ones involving players in Washington at the time. In my mind, Soriano is therefore threatening Frank Howard's record. As an old Nats' fan, I'm pulling for Frank. And as a Canadian, I will point out that no one has to "own" the Expos' records. They exist in and of themselves.

I agree with CFiJ - this is not complicated. I think we just need to be clear what "record" we are talking about. Franchise record or location record?

Franchises have continuity:
Washington Senators I ==> Minnesota Twins
Washington Senators II ==> Texas Rangers
Montreal Expos ==> Washington Nationals
Seattle Pilots ==> Milwaukee Brewers
etc.

Locations may not:
Washington Senators I ==> Washington Senators II ==> Washington Nationals
Seattle Pilots ==> Seattle Mariners

I think this only becomes an issue when a franchise changes its nickname, thus giving the illusion of a lack of continuity. I don't think there is much controversy that the Braves "own" their records from Milwaukee and Boston. Or that the A's "own" their records from Philadelphia and Kansas City. Same goes for the Giants, Dodgers, and any other team that has relocated.

By this logic, the Brewers can "own" the location record for Milwaukee, and the Royals can "own" the location record for Kansas City. For whatever they're worth.

Howie is all over this. Good work, I'm going to check up on the Liberarians vs SSA brawl in the Scab thread.

If Gnat fans want to claim the Expos accomplishments as their own, then they can have the negative stuff as well. They should complain how their team has been screwed over by MLB for 13 years and counting (they still have Bowden and FRobby in the front office and dugout so their suffering continues). Also they should accept the fact that they have the longest active drought for post-season appearances of all MLB franchises.

By this logic, the Brewers can "own" the location record for Milwaukee, and the Royals can "own" the location record for Kansas City. For whatever they're worth.

The Royals, maybe, since there hadn't been a major league team in KC since the 1880's, but not the Brewers, since the Browns/Orioles played in Milwaukee in 1901. By the same token, the Orioles don't own the Baltimore "location records" since the Yankees/Highlanders played there in 1901-02.

Some thoughts:

How do the Expos records disappear if the Nationals don't use them? The Expos existed for 38 years, and all of their players accumulated statistics, and those statistics will eternally be in the record. Baseball-reference shows them, STATS has them, MLB.com has them, etc., etc. No one is denying that.

The problem that I have with this whole issue is the lack of consistency. Either Washington teams get records accumulated in Washington, Minnesota teams get records accumulated in Minnesota, etc., or else franchises maintain stable records, in which case Senators I records are Twins records, Senators II records are Rangers records, and Expos records are Nationals records. That's the situation that I find most tenable. If it had been done by location from the beginning, I'd probably accept that, too, but letting the Twins use Senators I while not letting the Rangers use Senators II seems ridiculous.

Of course, franchise records and city records could both be kept. Why not?
Johnson's 417 can be the Senators-Twins franchise record and the record for MLB teams playing in Washington, D.C. at the same time. Guerrero's 44 can be the Expos-Nationals record and the MLB-in-Montreal record, in case the Royals move there in ten years or something.

The Royals, maybe, since there hadn't been a major league team in KC since the 1880's, but not the Brewers, since the Browns/Orioles played in Milwaukee in 1901.

I realize they didn't play like a major league team, but the Kansas City A's were technically in the major leagues.

I'm not really down with "location" records. If a franchise moves, the records move with it. I've never felt that George Brett, Willie Wilson and Frank White are playing against the records of Vic Power, Gus Zernial and Elmer Valo.

The A's are a great example of franchise continuity from my personal experience. My father grew up as a KC A's fan, and even after they moved to Oakland, he's still always been an A's fan. He roots for them, and doesn't care about the Royals. That's probably a little unusual, though.

The moment will be dutifully noted by the media: Last night, Soriano set a club record with his 45th home run, eclipsing the mark set by Vladimir Guerrero in 2000. Yet Guerrero, a slugging outfielder, never played a game in the District.

Actually that isn't technically true. The Expos played a series of exibition games the spring of 1999 against the St. Louis Cardinals in RFK stadium. Guerrero most definitely played in those games.

I lived in DC at the time and went to a one of the games. It served a dual-purpose. Drawing crowds to see McGwire the spring after he hit 70 and to give a preview of DC fans of a franchise that had long been rumored to moving to DC (perhaps even in time for the 2000 season.) The biggest downside was that the powers-that-be decided to charge full-rate prices for the games, so instead of having sold-out stadiums to show MLB that DC was interested in having a franchise the park was half empty for the series.

The highlight was batting practice with McGwire hitting two balls that hit the facade of the roof of RFK! Only a few feet away from leaving the stadium, an unbelievable feat in an enclosed park like that. A little less unbelievable now given his likely use of PEDs.

There were also NL teams in DC from 1886 through 1889 and another one from 1891 through 1899.

I hate this Cleveland Browns inspired Horse ####. Why not make Christy Mathewson the Mets career wins leader?

The Expos existed for 38 years

I feel old.

I don't know the answer to this, but does anybody know what the Orioles (one time St. Louis Browns) did when the moved to Baltimore? Because that's a bit of a precedent in the greater D.C./Baltimore area....

I have commented on this in other places. The Orioles did not count the St. Louis Browns records at all, but did count the 1901 and 1902 (and possibly earlier) Baltimore Orioles. Thus, for 2 years Gus Triandos was the franchise's all-time homerun leader with 12!I don't think that they still recognize George Sisler. For some reason, both in baseball and football Baltimore fans are very proprietary about the team's name.