10,000 Wins Club

I was watching ESPN this morning and the Cubs got their 10,000th win
last night vs Colorado. What is the total for Cincinnati? I figured
that they would have already hit this mark in win, but the Cubs and
Giants are the only 2 that have so far. I find it hard to believe
that Cincy, The Yankees, the Red Sox, and St. Louis haven't won 10,000
games yet.

On Apr 24, 9:34 am, "shark...@bright.net" <shark...@bright.net> wrote:
> I was watching ESPN this morning and the Cubs got their 10,000th win
> last night vs Colorado. What is the total for Cincinnati? I figured
> that they would have already hit this mark in win, but the Cubs and
> Giants are the only 2 that have so far. I find it hard to believe
> that Cincy, The Yankees, the Red Sox, and St. Louis haven't won 10,000
> games yet.

Baseball Reference has these numbers. The Reds' franchise record is
9681-9389. The Cubs are the oldest franchise in baseball (actually
tied with the Braves,) so they had a fifteen year head start on the
Yankees. The Dodgers and Cards should both join the 10,000 win club
next year.

"tom dunne" <dunnetg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba634038-a323-45e0-916c-3b72161e0a2b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 9:34 am, "shark...@bright.net" <shark...@bright.net> wrote:

> Baseball Reference has these numbers. The Reds' franchise record is
> 9681-9389. The Cubs are the oldest franchise in baseball (actually
> tied with the Braves,) so they had a fifteen year head start on the
> Yankees. The Dodgers and Cards should both join the 10,000 win club
> next year.

Whoa!!! What about the Reds being the "first" team in baseball? How are
the Cubs older? I've ALWAYS heard the Reds were the oldest team.

On Apr 24, 10:28*am, tom dunne <dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:34 am, "shark...@bright.net" <shark...@bright.net> wrote:
>
> > I was watching ESPN this morning and the Cubs got their 10,000th win
> > last night vs Colorado. *What is the total for Cincinnati? *I figured
> > that they would have already hit this mark in win, but the Cubs and
> > Giants are the only 2 that have so far. *I find it hard to believe
> > that Cincy, The Yankees, the Red Sox, and St. Louis haven't won 10,000
> > games yet.
>
> Baseball Reference has these numbers. *The Reds' franchise record is
> 9681-9389. *The Cubs are the oldest franchise in baseball (actually
> tied with the Braves,) so they had a fifteen year head start on the
> Yankees. *The Dodgers and Cards should both join the 10,000 win club
> next year.

I just read that after you game me the place to look. Informative web-
site, thanks. What about the 1869 thru 1880's #'s?? I was always
told that they were the oldest franchise in baseball.

Why Do they still pitch to Lance Berkman??

"Mike" <no-spam@no-way.net> wrote in message
news:ge6dnct5hZYkK43VnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@qx.net...
>
> "tom dunne" <dunnetg@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ba634038-a323-45e0-916c-3b72161e0a2b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 24, 9:34 am, "shark...@bright.net" <shark...@bright.net> wrote:
>
>> Baseball Reference has these numbers. The Reds' franchise record is
>> 9681-9389. The Cubs are the oldest franchise in baseball (actually
>> tied with the Braves,) so they had a fifteen year head start on the
>> Yankees. The Dodgers and Cards should both join the 10,000 win club
>> next year.
>
> Whoa!!! What about the Reds being the "first" team in baseball? How are
> the Cubs older? I've ALWAYS heard the Reds were the oldest team.
>
Actually the Cubbies are. As far as the Reds go, they had the first
professional team (amateur from 1863 to 1868) in 1869. This team eventually
moved on to Boston in 1870 (later evolving into the Braves and years later
moving to Milwaukee, then onto the ATL). A new Reds team was formed in
1876, joining the National League. The team was banned from the league for
violating league rules in 1880 for selling beer at the stadium (WTF?!). They
resurfaced in a new league called the American Association, in 1882, but
returned once again to compete in the National League in 1890 - to stay. In
other words, they are an old team, but not the same continous organization
as the Cubs who have been a continous franchise from 1870 to present...hope
this helps!

Go Reds - 2008

On Apr 24, 1:06 pm, "CounterTrey" <Hail2...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Mike" <no-s...@no-way.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ge6dnct5hZYkK43VnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@qx.net...
>
> > "tom dunne" <dunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ba634038-a323-45e0-916c-3b72161e0a2b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 24, 9:34 am, "shark...@bright.net" <shark...@bright.net> wrote:
>
> >> Baseball Reference has these numbers. The Reds' franchise record is
> >> 9681-9389. The Cubs are the oldest franchise in baseball (actually
> >> tied with the Braves,) so they had a fifteen year head start on the
> >> Yankees. The Dodgers and Cards should both join the 10,000 win club
> >> next year.
>
> > Whoa!!! What about the Reds being the "first" team in baseball? How are
> > the Cubs older? I've ALWAYS heard the Reds were the oldest team.
>
> Actually the Cubbies are. As far as the Reds go, they had the first
> professional team (amateur from 1863 to 1868) in 1869. This team eventually
> moved on to Boston in 1870 (later evolving into the Braves and years later
> moving to Milwaukee, then onto the ATL). A new Reds team was formed in
> 1876, joining the National League. The team was banned from the league for
> violating league rules in 1880 for selling beer at the stadium (WTF?!). They
> resurfaced in a new league called the American Association, in 1882, but
> returned once again to compete in the National League in 1890 - to stay. In
> other words, they are an old team, but not the same continous organization
> as the Cubs who have been a continous franchise from 1870 to present...hope
> this helps!

Yep, what he said. Cincinnati was the first city to field an all
professional team and is considered the birthplace of professional
baseball, which is what MLB officially recognizes. Before the Reds,
all other baseball teams included a mix of professional and unpaid
amateur players.

On Apr 24, 1:34*pm, tom dunne <dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 1:06 pm, "CounterTrey" <Hail2...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike" <no-s...@no-way.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:ge6dnct5hZYkK43VnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@qx.net...
>
> > > "tom dunne" <dunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ba634038-a323-45e0-916c-3b72161e0a2b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
> > >> On Apr 24, 9:34 am, "shark...@bright.net" <shark...@bright.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Baseball Reference has these numbers. *The Reds' franchise record is
> > >> 9681-9389. *The Cubs are the oldest franchise in baseball (actually
> > >> tied with the Braves,) so they had a fifteen year head start on the
> > >> Yankees. *The Dodgers and Cards should both join the 10,000 win club
> > >> next year.
>
> > > Whoa!!! *What about the Reds being the "first" team in baseball? *How are
> > > the Cubs older? *I've ALWAYS heard the Reds were the oldest team.
>
> > Actually the Cubbies are. *As far as the Reds go, they had the first
> > professional team (amateur from 1863 to 1868) in 1869. *This team eventually
> > moved on to Boston in 1870 (later evolving into the Braves and years later
> > moving to Milwaukee, then onto the ATL). *A new Reds team was formed in
> > 1876, *joining the National League. *The team was banned from the league for
> > violating league rules in 1880 for selling beer at the stadium (WTF?!). They
> > resurfaced in a new league called the American Association, in 1882, but
> > returned once again to compete in the National League in 1890 - to stay.In
> > other words, they are an old team, but not the same continous organization
> > as the Cubs who have been a continous franchise from 1870 to present...hope
> > this helps!
>
> Yep, what he said. *Cincinnati was the first city to field an all
> professional team and is considered the birthplace of professional
> baseball, which is what MLB officially recognizes. *Before the Reds,
> all other baseball teams included a mix of professional and unpaid
> amateur players.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I found that out a couple of years ago. There had to be lots of teams
that were around, just not considered professional.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Chaos_Not@Home wrote:

> On Apr 24, 1:34*pm, tom dunne <dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 1:06 pm, "CounterTrey" <Hail2...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Mike" <no-s...@no-way.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:ge6dnct5hZYkK43VnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@qx.net...
>>
>>>> "tom dunne" <dunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ba634038-a323-45e0-916c-3b72161e0a2b@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> I found that out a couple of years ago. There had to be lots of teams
> that were around, just not considered professional.

Hey, same as today!

Zuke wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Chaos_Not@Home wrote:
>> I found that out a couple of years ago. There had to be lots of teams
>> that were around, just not considered professional.
>
> Hey, same as today!

Man. The punchlines keep coming and coming.
Imagine how great this group would be if we had a baseball team to root
for.

dfs

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, David Short wrote:

> Zuke wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Chaos_Not@Home wrote:
>>> I found that out a couple of years ago. There had to be lots of teams
>>> that were around, just not considered professional.
>>
>> Hey, same as today!
>
> Man. The punchlines keep coming and coming.
> Imagine how great this group would be if we had a baseball team to root for.
>

It is seriously depressing. At least last year we had a couple of guys
to root for, Phillips, Hopper, Keppinger and Hamilton. This crew though,
what is going to change? Dunn and Griffey are like girlfriends which
you have dated way too long and the relationship is going nowhere.
The pitching staff? Even when they have a good outing you feel it's
going to be wasted. God we paid 40million for a ninth inning reliever
and we are 25 games into the season and I think we've used him
as intended once!

I would say we have been playing the top teams but the two series
against the nobodys we were 0-5.

What worries me is that this team is playing no different for Baker
than for Narron. In addition that's a strange move tonight, sitting
Phillips against a left hander. Maybe Phillips was injured or
something since I didn't listen to the broadcast much. It seems
to me there are several candidates to sit against lefthanders
before Phillips.