SFGiants58

Members
  • Content Count

    4,197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by SFGiants58

  1. Except for the Calvin “I moved the team because I didn’t want black people at my stadium” Griffith statue. That’s not fine, unless you put that quote on the statue.
  2. He hasn't done anything like that yet, so I doubt it'll happen. Also, when its a storied franchise that's one of the most marketable in the majors, the desire to give it good ownership is much greater. I've seen it all over Reddit threads and Twitter. I get that it's part of the natural toxicity of those formats, but they certainly do it! Go into any discussion of the Rays and at least a few Rays fans will happily call Stu a "carpetbagger" or point out how he's from Brooklyn and never saw the desire to move to the Tampa Bay Area. It's understandable why they use that term, but I just wish that they didn't entertain the thought of comparing him to Northerners who profited off of the post-Civil War chaos in the South (Florida was very much a part of the Confederacy).
  3. I know that Stu is adamant against selling the team, but I'm sure somebody would be interested in overpaying for the club. Maybe even somebody local (e.g., lives in the area and was maybe even born there), which is paramount to the Rays' continued existence. A Frank McCourt situation might be the only way to keep the Rays in the Tampa Bay Area. At the very least, it'll mean that Rays fans can stop using the word "carpetbagger."
  4. Jeff "Snakemaster Abudadein" Gardner is the name you're looking for here. Also, Woman/Nancy Toffoloni was going by the name "Fallen Angel" at the time.
  5. I’m still peeved that Pilots vs Pilots didn’t happen this year.
  6. I’m in the same boat. I used to be far more hardcore about this before I realized, it’s just sports. It’s just the stories of the games we play, and as long as independent accounts say what really happened, teams and leagues can do whatever the heck they want. The stakes are fairly low and localized. Still, dumping the A’s identity with a Portland move is stupid, even if the A’s have spent nearly as much time in Oakland as they have in Philadelphia.
  7. I’m game for Stanley Cups, conference championships, and retired numbers only. No division titles or playoff appearance/series winning banners. Also, only put up a President’s Trophy banner if a finals appearance follows.
  8. More people are nostalgic for “We Believe” than they are for “Latrell Sprewell attempts to assault PJ Carlesimo.” That and the 1997-2002 set is nowhere near as good-looking as the 2002-10 uniform package. > The original Basketball Sentai Warrioranger set took things a little too far and they have little success to justify the adoption. Compare that to the Run-TMC set that was around in the ‘90s and remains very popular.
  9. Yeah, Stu is a scumbag who doesn’t want to use any amount of his money for a stadium. Don’t let some press conference fool you. He’s adopted the Bob Lurie approach, not wishing to spend any significant percentage of his own money to complete a stadium deal. Heck, I’d argue that he’s worse than Lurie, since Lurie at least tried to work more extensively with city officials throughout the Bay Area to get a deal done (him not knowing that Bay Area voters don’t like paying directly for stadiums is his own fault). Pulling a Frank McCourt on Donald Sterling with Stu would be in baseball’s best interests.
  10. I blame Abudadein’s machinations. He used a Bostonian carpetbagger (that term gets thrown around A LOT with Stu) to bring his devilish machinations to Florida! Florida Championship Wrestling was a fairly overlooked-yet-influential territory, BTW.
  11. Speaking from experience, the Bucks' purple period is well-represented in Milwaukee with plenty of retro gear. It's probably the second most popular set behind the current look and just in front of the later Irish Rainbow. It helps that the last period of relevance for the Bucks prior to the current one was the purple/green/silver/black squad led by Ray Allen.
  12. Tampa Bay definitely shouldn’t be counted out for crazy. Remember how the Yakuza owned the Lightning for some time? How about the various infamous moments in the Bucs’ history? Stadium for Rent certainly didn’t shy away from the OITGDNHL-level shenanigans involved the baseball pursuit.
  13. Well, the A’s are the more successful AL franchise in California and they were the ones to screw up the “California Angels” name by moving there. Would now be a good time to remind you guys that we could be dealing with this same location name kerfuffle, but with the A’s instead of the Angels? I apologize if I got rant-y in this thread. I’ve been dealing with some stress lately in moving apartments and I got a bit too incensed, dealing with it by taking it out over the internet instead of calmly handling it offline. I should also remind myself that posting in the early morning only leads to trouble. Now back to our scheduled programming!
  14. I agree too! Ideally teams change names upon moving, but since that didn't happen and the A's didn't change names, they shouldn't change now. Their brand, via sticking around, associations with titles, and a unique color scheme in baseball, has far more cache than any potential rebrand. Then again, that's assuming Portland Diamond Project gets beyond the planning stage and gets far enough along without any guarantee of a team. I hope Portland learns from St. Petersburg in that regard.
  15. Yes, obviously. We can adjust to fit the times. That’s why adopting a name like Crackers wouldn’t have happened upon relocation. It wouldn’t move units or tickets, as the history of the Atlanta Crackers isn’t as marketable. While my post may be long-winded, the point I was trying to get to was that a team’s pre-relocation history has to be marketable to some degree for it to be honored. Local fans will often be indifferent to the histories of teams pre-relocation, unless it benefits their team’s standing. Would you rather say your team has won eight titles or three titles?
  16. That’s because the Ravens’ identity was so well-crafted and they had so much success within the first few years. It was locally-flavored, handled period design conventions well, and the team was winning not long into their run. Let’s not kid ourselves by suggesting that a lack of success on both the Charlotte and New Orleans ends played at least a partial role in the Hornicans/Horncats’ branding fiasco. Also, Indy didn’t rebrand upon moving. If Indy had done that (as they probably should have), we wouldn’t have this discussion. We’d have the Baltimore Colts back (but probably no records continuation) and Indianapolis would have their own locally-relevant identity. Honestly, I don’t want that in this scenario, as the Ravens’ identity runs laps around that of the Colts for a Baltimore team. But I digress. It’s making the best of a bad situation. I’d rather obviate the bad situation by adopting local names upon moving. San Francisco Seals, NL Los Angeles Angels, Oakland Oaks, Atlanta Firebirds/Phoenixes, and Kansas City Blues/Milwaukee Brewers MK I all sound good to me. How many people in Oakland genuinely give a damn about Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove? Do Giants fans, aside from a few (like me), really care about pre-1951 players and titles (especially now that the Giants have championships in San Francisco)? Are Atlanta Braves fans clamoring for statues of the 1914 team? Outside of Jackie Robinson and players that made the move from Brooklyn to LA, do Dodgers fans emphasize the importance of legendary Brooklyn players (e.g., Wilbert Robinson and Rube Marquand)? This even applies to other sports. Do Lakers fans really give a crap about George Mikan? Are Atlanta Hawks fans ecstatic about St. Louis throwbacks? Should Arizona Cardinals fans pretend to care about the pre-Super Bowl titles won in Chicago? Do the majority of Dallas Stars followers genuinely care about pre-Barons merger North Stars? Are Colts fans really going to care about Baltimore players outside of maybe Unitas (who wouldn’t reciprocate the attention)? If you stuck by my rhetorical rambling, you’d get the sense that pre-relocation history is often only relevant when the team needs it to be for marketing purposes. The Giants chose to emphasize their New York history because there was extensive roster carryover between NY and SF, but also because the team had won zero titles since 1954 and wanted to assert a “championship legacy.” The O’Malleys were reticent to acknowledge Brooklyn outside of retired numbers, only really emphasizing it after companies like Mitchell & Ness and artists like Spike Lee made it commercially viable to do so. The Braves had a fairly similar look and extensive roster sharing between all three locations (as well as a successful Milwaukee stint) that enabled them to market their past while still being “on brand.” The A’s turned to their history as part of the Haas family’s branding efforts, to re-establish the team as a legacy club after Finley’s brand rejected the team’s pre-Finley history (outside of the name and basic uniform template) and after the A’s were in non-contention. Note how the only times they’ve thrown back to the terrible Kansas City stint have been in green/gold uniforms that might as well be 1969-71 kits. It isn’t so much a noble commitment to history as it is a desire to optimally brand the team for merchandising and free agency purposes. A championship legacy sells tickets and gets free agents to sign.
  17. The Kansas City exile is a strange period in the franchise’s history. They were basically the Kansas City Blues while Arnold Johnson (who deserves significant demonization from baseball fans) owned the team, while Charlie O. started the Swingin’ period there. Of course, Charlie O. was trying to GTFO of what he called a “horses—t town” during the entire time he owned the A’s in Kansas City. I don’t think the connection is that strong when the owner actively wants to escape.
  18. Don't forget scammer-at-large Byron Mclaughlin! It's a crazy story.
  19. It's just like one of Yakub's creations to joke like this! Back to the Angels, I do wish they'd rip up some of the Disney-era rocks and replace them with the Big A. I'm not sure how that'll play with seismic codes (which are a total PITA, but necessary in the west coast), but it'd be nice.
  20. This is ultimately why we have both "city history" and "franchise history" distinctions, which teams can flip between. While Nats players are chasing the official records of Gary Carter and Andre Dawson, they're doing so in a stadium with statues of Josh Gibson and Walter Johnson. Ultimately, it's just sports. It's not a massive "cultural crime" like anti-Stratfordianism. The works of Shakespeare have far more cultural impact all over the world than any single sports franchise. Black Athena challenges many long-held conceptions of genetic history and cultural influences within the archaeological fields, starting a much-needed cultural discussion but ultimately over-correcting for Eurocentrism (not quite Yakub territory). It also presents a bit of a danger if used as dogma, a little bit more than anything regarding a sports team (again, see Yakub). Besides, the record books aren't the only way to capture the history. There exist all sorts of reference materials outside of official publications (e.g., Wikipedia - which is far more accessible than any official records and not beholden to the sports teams, third party almanacs, newspapers/journals, actual history books, etc.) that give the correct telling of the historical fact. Again, it's just sports and there are plenty of people passionate enough to tell the real history, history that won't go anywhere. Sports are a part of culture, but they're small enough to not get so bent out of shape over. Not much of real stake, aside from taxpayer money handouts, rides on them. I'd like for records to follow franchises, but I also believe that city history should be honored equally. If the importance of the city history means ignoring franchise records (of course, also acknowledging hiatuses and not pressuring independent history recorders into fitting a revisionist view aside from describing the official stance), then it may have to happen. The average fan isn't likely to care about the records of another team or if this team is claiming to be the old team. They just want to watch the game and continue supporting their hometown team without considering a bunch of minutia. It's not like pretending that some Puritan earl/another playwright/every famous person of late-16th century England wrote the plays of the most famous English-language author.
  21. This whole Minneapolis-St. Paul dichotomy just reminds me how happy I am that Horace Stoneham didn’t follow through on his “Minneapolis Giants” (I doubt he had the intelligence to use the state name) brain fart. A team that looked just like the Millers that played on the same side of the Mississippi as the Millers would likely have alienated the St. Paul half of their metro area. Reading through the history, would it be accurate to call Stoneham a failson who needed smarter people (e.g., Carl Hubbell, O’Malley, etc.) to bail him out of terrible decisions?
  22. This is why I had no problem with the Twins wearing road uniforms for their Target Field game against the American Association Brewers. If you’re going to dress as the St. Paul Saints in a Minneapolis stadium, you better wear the road set!
  23. I agree. I'm sure that if A's-to-Portland happened, they'd probably back away from rebranding and simply just switch the city name. The Portland Diamond Project still has a lot of obstacles (maybe more than a new Oakland stadium) and they probably don't want MLB getting on their case for trying to eliminate one of the more recognizable brands in the majors. Of course, if the Rays shifted their focus from Montreal to Portland, nobody would mind losing that brand.
  24. The Browns, Hornets/Pelicans, the Quakes, and maybe the Thunder (if Seattle gets a new team) did, but they are outliers. When these folks just say "rebrand," I'd assume that the records would remain. The only difference would be that the team would de-emphasize their past in their imagery. The Devils under Lou Lamoriello didn't give a crap about the Scouts or Rockies, the Brewers have often avoided their one year as the Pilots, and good luck getting the Winnipeg Jets to honor the Thrashers (aside from taking their light blue, producing the best-looking identity in Winnipeg hockey history). This isn't Black Athena, denying war crimes, anti-Stratfordianism, or the perpetuation of the "Lost Cause of the South." It's just sports.
  25. Definitely the latter. It’s a nice happy medium, especially for the home script.