Grace period for expansion franchises?

Why would it be distatsteful to me as a fan if a team were to win a championship in its second season? I'd find it a very interesting story of how they put it together that quickly.
And I also disagree with Bob Cook's idea that it means more to a fan base if they had to wait 20 years and grew up with the team.
The Mets won the World Series in their 8th season and it was seen as an amazin' achievement.

 

With free agency, it's different today when it comes to expansion team. I think Colangelo in Arizona had the idea of going big early to establish the franchise. In the 60s and 70s and in the NFL, the only way to build was through young players since contracts were tied up.

 

Fans and owners: F**k the grace period. Win for me now.

 

Careful AQB. Don't want to tempt fate should the Rays be there waiting for the Cubs.

 

It never really feels like an expansion team has an identity until they've been there for about 10 years. A playoff appearance and/or championship can help speed that up -- it was easy to latch onto the Blake Street Bombers in Denver and Showalter gave his club a clear-cut identity from day one in Phoenix.

I do like the idea of a waiting period, because quickie championships are generally bought through free agency and those teams cease to exist soon afterward. Was anybody on Arizona's team on the '01 club, too? How can a fan identify with that -- it's more evident than ever that you're just cheering for laundry. That's not nearly as much fun as having something to latch onto, no matter how many names go in and out the revolving door.

 

On the clock? They won 70 games and finished in fourth place in 2004. What more do you want?

 

KC Royals, born in 1969, in ALCS by 1976.
LA Angels, born in 1961, in ALCS by 1979.
Montreal Expos, born in 1969, in NL playoffs by 1981.
Blue Jays, born in 1977, in ALCS by 1985.
Mariners, born in 1977, in ALCS by 1995.

Rockies are right on time.

 

Well, of course ... can't give the new guys too much of a chance. :

Jacksonville had a decent defense and some developing weapons on offense. The Panthers had great leadership defensively, strong and effective defensive schemes and became effective enough on offense to make noise.

Not only did the success of those two teams prompt changes to basically guarantee that the Browns and Texans would be bad, but during the '96-'97 offseason, a lot of teams looked at themselves and made a lot of changes.

 

There's no such thing as an "appropriate" time.

If an expansion team can win in a year or two, why not go all in?

 

The interesting thing about Arizona winning so soon out of the gate is I wonder if it contributed to the city's lack of interest in this year's team/playoffs? Sort of like a too much, too soon deal.

 

True, but I remember the white-towel-waivers being out in full-force for the 2001 Series.

 

With all these expansion teams making waves and playing in title games, how can anyone explain or excuse the Detroit Lions for the past 50 years?