I recognize he's not among the elite of the elite of MLB elite, but he is a HOF'er and the only player to earn an MVP on a last place team. And that happened to be the summer that I was 7 and watched almost every single inning of every Cubs game. And he's my favorite player of all time.

God bless you, Andre Dawson. May your jheri curl ever wave.

You can't leave out teams just because they moved.

So Walter Johnson and his 417 wins - all with the Washington Senators - shouldn't be considered because the Senators are now the Minnesota Twins? George Sisler shouldn't be considered because the St. Louis Browns are now the Baltimore Orioles?

Why is that any different from the Dodgers, Giants and A's moving west? Because they kept their original names? Ditto the Braves who have moved twice? "Sorry, Eddie Mathews, you can't be one of the Braves. You only played one year in Atlanta."

Unless they put the records in a vault like they did for the Cleveland Browns when they skipped town to Baltimore, those are just teams that moved. They're still the same teams.

No offense intended, but I think you need at the bare minimum a full generation (25+ years) as an operational MLB entity to come up with even a short list that doesn't look a bit silly or forced. For that reason, I'd similarly exclude the Marlins, Rockies, Rays, etc, and spare them the embarrassment of their sundry Conines and Bichettes.

the Cleveland Indians.

Should be on two (As and White Sox).

Agree with your lists.

Grove should be on the A's over Eck or Jackson, at least in terms of ability, but there's some recency bias there.

Mathewson should be on the Giants over Posey (or even McCovey). Ott was better than both of them too.

--
2013 Survivor Pool Champion
2014 Survivor Pool Failure

- No text -

He won more than 10 games 1 time with the Mets and was 17-25 his last 2 seasons. He won 53 games there. He won 51 games with the Rangers. Granted, W/L doesn't tell you everything, but he simply wasn't with either team long enough to be one of their all-time greats. I have always thought Ryan was the most overrated pitcher of his generation, simply because he was so inconsistent.

But I would've put Luke Appling and half of Eddie Collins' career over Paul Konerko and Harold Baines.

If it's just about "who are the best players in the history of the franchise," then Luis is probably No. 1 or maybe No. 2 behind Frank (who wasn't as good of an all-around player but is one of the best hitters there's ever been). But if the criteria go to who are the most recognizeable players associated with that particular franchise or who were the key members of the best teams in the history of that franchise (both in addition to being really, really good at baseball), then that's another thing. If it's the latter, then I don't know if Luis makes the list and there's more of an argument for Baines and Konerko/Buehrle.

Also, if Rose is eligible for the Reds, then isn't Shoeless Joe a lock for the Sox?

He's probably my favorite player, but I don't know if he counts as all-time. Leading a world series winner is probably enough. I think Baines is in there to represent the '83 team, though that's similar without the championships.

There should be more respect for the team's earlier history and the Go-Go Sox.

Probably something like

Ed Walsh
Nellie Fox
Minnie Minoso
Frank Thomas

Luis Aparicio could probably replace anyone but Frank.
I like Minnie's inclusion because he has always been there.

The guy was simply not a good SS. His original position, 2B, was where he was best, but he still was far from a top defender there.

He was incredibly consistent with the bat which is why the Rangers wanted to do the whole position switching dance (2B to SS to 3B to 1B/DH). His bat was considered that important.

He could have easily refused and the Rangers would have sent him elsewhere (which is what more or less happened with Philly), but the guy wanted to stay here so both found a way to make it work. There's a reason why he was offered and now has a job in the front office.

--
Extra Life | Twitch | Twitter |

- No text -

Harold was a hitter first last and always.

Aparicio was a good hitter, a great fielder, and a great base stealer. Love Harold, but there's a reason Aparicio is in the Hall and Baines isn't.

played in the same era, but somehow wasn't on the 1959 Go-Go team. Luis probably has stronger statistical credentials. On the other hand, Minnie was also a really really good player who probably has stronger name recognition with the Sox.

Gotta have someone from the "Winnin Ugly" team, and that would have to be either Baines or maybe Kittle.

Konerko was the leader of the only Chicago World Series champs in just about a century.

Thomas is probably the team's most recognized player of the modern era.

Hell, I saw him hit his 3000th. I nearly caught a foul ball hit by Lou Brock on Lou Brock Day (it hit the tray of food and drinks my dad was carrying up the aisle for all of us, spraying soda and ketchup and mustard everywhere -- one of those childhood memories seared into memory). But his career doesn't really stack up to other Cardinals' greats. And if he's in there as a "fan favorite" I think you have to go to Ozzie. And even on raw baseball numbers, I think Ozzie was more valuable (especially if you roll in defensive minded stats like WAR).

Tom Herr
Danny Cox
Whichever Iorg played for St. Louis (Barf?)
Tito Landrum

I saw that he was given Brandon Phillips' locker for the ASG. Got a chuckle out of that.

The beauty of the 84 team was how much of a true team it was, not dominated by 1-2 superstars.
It's always hard for me to pick between 68 and 84, but man was 84 a magical year. Wire to wire, lapped the field, no one could even touch them.

Best RH pitcher of his generation not named Clemens.

- No text -

Maddux was a fine choice.

Pujols.

Sandy is an all-time great, but he really only had a handful of seasons where he was truly dominant before hanging it up. A sure-fire hall of famer, yes, but I have trouble saying that he's one of the three or four greatest living players when his peak was so brief.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml

(Probably #2, behind Berra but ahead of Pudge, Fisk, and Piazza.)

Arguably Berra is the best catcher ever and Rivera is the best relief pitcher ever. I would put them ahead of Jeter on that basis.

Jeter was a great in the post season. That is an important part of his legacy and would give him an edge over players who had similar regular season numbers. But Berra had some great World Series; he's the all time leader or 2nd to Mantle in several World Series career records (including hits, walks and total bases) and Rivera was one of the best post season performers in history (0.70 ERA in 140 Innings).

- No text -

--
"F--- everyone who isn't us."
#Team128

Probably, but Jeter's career WAR is significantly higher than Berra's (something like 71 to Berra's 60). That's the only reason it's debatable. Berra's titles, I think, should carry a ton of weight.

Rodriguez was spectacular in his time in Seattle, but it only amounted to ~ 5 years. Johnson established himself with the Mariners and pitched in their uniform for a decade. Close call.

The Cincinnati group is as it should be. Ortiz looks a little goofy on the Sox list, but everything considered, I guess I can see it.