FiddySicks

A big part of the fault for that lands on the A’s shoulders too, though. The problem is the owner of the A’s gave up those rights free of charge for the “betterment of the league”, which, in hindsight was a really bad idea to begin with. But they also had a full decade to claim those rights back without issue, and just never bothered filing the paperwork. In the meantime, the A’s owner died and the team was sold, and then sold again. The Giants were also sold (I think) twice in that time span, and the current owners bought the club with those rights built into the valuation. It’s a crummy situation for the A’s, but the Giants reasons for keeping that territory are, I think, justified. And had the A’s not gotten themselves into this whole mess in the first place, I would probably feel a lot more sympathetic. 

3 hours ago, Bmac said:

One thing I've never really gotten a good sense of - is Oakland even a good MLB market to begin with?

 

I don't doubt that the Bay Area in general is capable of hosting two teams, but I get the vibe that Oakland is kind of just an extension of San Francisco in a way. I didn't pay too much attention when I was there, but going from SF to Oakland seemed like going to a suburb of SF. That's not to say Oakland isn't it's own city, but it felt more like how the Rays play in St Pete as opposed to Tampa proper because that's where the stadium is.

 

There seems to be a good deal of civic pride in Oakland (or at least territorial pride of some sort), but is the city of Oakland itself a worthy MLB market? Is it distinct from the rest of the Bay Area? If the Athletics had been in San Jose all this time would that satisfy the Bay Area market? And if the team leaves the Bay Area completely, will the market feel the need for another team? I don't ask these questions so much out of reality (I know they're not moving to SJ), but more out of curiosity about the market. Like, has it been worth trying to keep the team there this long in the first place?

Oakland has its issues currently, but there was a point when it absolutely could hold its own. There was a time there where the Oakland port was one of, if not the very busiest shipping hubs in the entire country (I think it’s still like 5th) There are several factors and a good handful of missteps that led to its somewhat recent decline, but there was a point not that long ago where Oakland may have been the most important city in the Bay Area. 
 

A’s for the A’s, there were many years where they outdrew the Giants so significantly that the Giants were ready to abandon the market entirely (that’s kind of the other side of these stadium issues). The A’s drew so well at one point that they were the first team in the market to host 2,000,000 fans in a season. Oakland has definitely seen better days and those days where quite a long time ago, but comparing it to cities like, say, Buffalo (which I saw above) doesn’t quite feel right. Oakland has ALWAYS had a much larger profile than any of those rust belt cities. 

4 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

 

The top answer can be shortened to three words: Portland is richer.

 

Specifically, Portland enjoys a lower unemployment rate and a higher rate of projected future job growth than does Sacramento.  More importantly, Portland's per capita, median household, and median family incomes are all above the US average.  Meanwhile, Sacramento is below the US average in all three of those income categories.  Finally, as best as I can tell, Portland has more businesses that can afford to pay for premium seats at and season tickets to a MLB team's games than does Sacramento.

 

Also, in a way, Portland may be helped by being geographically more isolated than Sacramento.  If nothing else, part of the desire for a Portland team in MLB and particularly in the American League is to create a geographically close rival to the Seattle Mariners, who are decidedly the most remote MLB club at the moment.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I’ve traveled and lived all over the west coast, but Portland has always been somewhat of a blind spot for me. I’ve only been there twice and it was only a total of maybe three days. I figured that corporate support probably had something to do with it (It’s absolutely abysmal here), and so the overall increase in wealth would make sense as well. 

I’m not really sure why people are giving a strong yes to Portland if they’re going to give a no to hard no to Sacramento. The metro population is almost neck and neck, yet Portland is even more isolated. At least Sacramento is close to the Bay Area and the central valley to draw from. 

And that’s not to say that Sacramento is a worthy MLB market (It isn’t. No later how much I’ve hoped for it in the past). But neither is Portland, really

3 hours ago, DukeofChutney said:

Just a curveball question - what location would be the biggest surprise for the move?

 

Doesn't have to be one of the locations already mentioned. I'm thinking Seattle Pilots level of unexpected here.

 

 

 

 

Sacramento. It would be even more of a :censored:show than the whole Pilots saga. 
 

EDIT: Also, lol at the person above who suggested Reno. My God what a disaster that would be. 

26 minutes ago, Joke Insurance said:

Could any of these cities be in contention?

 

San Antonio

Austin

El Paso

Tucson

Fresno

Inland Empire (San Bernadino/Riverside)

Salt Lake City

 

I'll also throw some Mexican cities into the mix:

 

Mexico City

Guadalajara

Monterrey

Oh, come on. 

32 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Does Las Vegas need all four Major League teams?

Vegas doesn’t need one pro team. 

It’s going to be hilarious if they move to Vegas and end up just having the exact same problems they have now (attendance, stadium issues, just an overall lack of interest from the local population). Only now it’ll all be exasperated because the market is smaller and the climate is so much worse. 
 

Remember the contraction talks in the early 2000s? Yeah, they probably should’ve just done that with the A’s. 

21 minutes ago, insert name said:

How do you lose 3 franchises in such a short amount of time?

Ooh boy, how much time do you have? 

Their last, like, three ownership groups were either completely broke, completely inept, or some combination of the two. They’ve had PLENTY of time to figure something out. At least the length of my entire lifetime, and I’m in my mid 30s. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance. Go be Vegas’ problem from now on.
 

The only thing I wish is that they would just shut up with the relocation/stadium talk and just do it already. Quit blabbing about what you’re gonna do and actually do something. They can :censored: off to the moon for all I care at this point. 

My biggest thing is that logo. That Elvis Patriot guy has NEVER been a good look, and reminds me of something that would’ve eventually been replaced if not for the success they had using it. I remember thinking it was really strange looking when it first came out, and it hasn’t really gotten any better over time. 

20 hours ago, heavybass said:

Interesting names for Washington to consider...

There's the WILD HOGS which sounds good, Washington Demon Cats.. aka Washington DCs

At the risk of getting “too political”, considering our current political discourse, and the fact that this particular name sounds alarmingly close to a lame dis one side tosses at the other, I don’t think that’s gonna fly. 

Yeah, I noticed that too (while confirming that his MVP award came with the Angels). The hall of fame is stupid anyway. It’s just an over glorified museum that has little issue with practicing revisionist history. Total joke of an institution. 

On 3/16/2021 at 4:05 PM, BBTV said:

 

Wait what?  He disappeared to me when he went to the Angels so I'm not sure, but wouldn't be be better known as an Expo?  I absolutely dreaded when the Phillies played the Expos because he was so good there for (what felt like) so long.

I’d probably agree with you, but he did win the AL MVP his first year with the Angels, fwiw. 

Nah the orange panels wouldn’t work on the roads IMO. The orange isn’t dark enough and would just look kinda washed out in comparison to the navy heavy look. Denver made the right call on that one, I think. 

15 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

The Broncos should have changed whether the won 24 Super Bowls or zero. The Patriots are possibly the greatest dynast of all time, and even they changed after realizing they were stuck in the 2000s. If New England can do that, no amount of winning should dissuade the Broncos from doing the same. 

One major difference being that the Broncos modernized set actually looks really good, where the Pats previous set looked kinda terrible. 

5 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

The one helmet rule went into effect in 2013. Patriots wore throwbacks against the Jets in 2012. 

The full ban on a second helmet shell came in 2013. Prior to that the league basically restricted it to throwbacks. The CTE thing was just a reason to push the restriction, which was already in place, even further. 

3 hours ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

Let's all be clear - the "one helmet rule" was created by the NFL to avoid liability, full stop

Not quite. That’s what it’s evolved into and makes for a really good excuse (and maybe a valid one, too). But the original rule was a bit more complicated than that, and had a lot more to do with marketing than safety. I’m not saying safety wasn’t a part of it, but it wasn’t the primary reason until CTE. The one helmet rule predates the better understanding we now have of CTE by probably a decade, at least. 

I think the last part of that is part of the reason for the “one helmet rule”. It’s about safety, ok sure, but there’s more to it than that. Part of it is an attempt to make the helmets have that “sacred” quality. Thats primarily why they didn’t let the Seahawks have a silver road helmet when they moved to the NFC. 

Inside jokes aside, it’s an absolute mess at stateline right now. Hopefully they just get this over with quick and leave. I’m genuinely hoping they never do this again. 

At least Hawaii’s current look is kinda cool. I’d probably prefer the brighter colors in some fashion, but not necessarily the way they used to utilize them. I think them emphasizing the tribal patterns and darker colors was the right direction to go in, ultimately. They sort of remind me of the Bucs. They have a traditional uniform that’s a lot brighter, but also currently have a strong look that ages pretty well due to its restraint. I’m not sure marrying the two together would work, though.

On 12/18/2020 at 7:41 PM, henburg said:

 

It's really a shame that Arizona St took what was once a cool and coherent identity and just completely driven it into the dirt over the past several years. Pretty much the entire appeal is the combo of maroon and gold, so why take away your main color? It makes the cool pitchfork logo pretty impossible to see.

It’s definitely an Adidas driven thing. This particular logo package was designed for the school by Nike, and ever since they switched over suppliers they’ve done some really head scratching things. Some of it has looked better than others (The throwbacks are basically all great, and one or two of the copper looks have been good), but the rest of it can go in the dumpster as far as I’m concerned. 

No idea why the Sun Devils were in maroon tonight instead of white. The contrast was almost non existent and it was a total nightmare of a matchup. The ideal look for that game should’ve been them in white jerseys and maroon pants. But I’m never going to complain when they go simple and put Sparky on the helmets. Ignoring the matchup issue, this is the best the Sun Devils have looked in years IMO.

Why? 

On 7/21/2020 at 1:35 PM, Krz said:

I honestly hate the argument that this “won’t change anything”. No one is claiming that the black W or dropping (Washington Football Team) will solve everything. The truth of the matter is that these teams aren’t part of the government, and their actions hold no real political power. So when we argue that the actions have no value and won’t contribute to further legislation, it undercuts the real purpose of the change and leaves some mad at the team for something they can’t control.

I generally agree with this. A lot of this stuff feels performative right now, and I’m sure a good handful of it will fade away because a lot of these institutions don’t care about anything but lip service at this point. But, while that’s mostly pretty :censored:ty, I do think it does help to shift the long term collective consciousness of the nation. A lot of the excuse I hear from people not paying any attention to this is either “I had no idea how bad it really is.” or, more cynically, “I don’t care how bad it is, and want to be distracted from it with some good ol sportsball.” Now, a patch obviously isn’t gonna [Insert Admiral’s MISSION ACCOMPLISHED MEME HERE] on race relations, it’ll help to educate those who might care, and make it annoyingly difficult for those who don’t care to completely ignore. 

8 hours ago, Digby said:

 

Wait sorry to thread jack, but is this a commonly held opinion? I thought Cincy's USL look was awful, just that honkin' huge helvetica FC and the soccer ball crown missing an outline and bright vibrant color-clash everywhere.

I’m personally not a huge fan of their USL look, but it served its purpose well enough and I think was distinctive enough to at least be memorable. Their MLS look, otoh, is an absolute train wreck. That’s the biggest issue. Their old look was sort of meh and left a lot of room for improvement, yet is still head and shoulders what they went with for MLS.