SFGiants58

Compare that to mentioning the Expos on a Nationals fan community, where you’re met with calls of “I don’t care about the Expos,” “Why should I care about players who didn’t play for Washington?,” or “If Montréal gets another team, I’d love for the Nationals to give them back the history, as it’s not ours.” While we ultimately follow the franchise model (with these few exceptions), sports ultimately reflect a regional kind of tribalism that is very location-specific. A lot of that originates from the popular cultural fallout of the Giants and Dodgers moving out west, where Walter O’Malley gets elevated to the level of Satan himself (even though Robert Moses was far more to blame). Even to the modern day, people will still wax romantic about that time and wrongfully curse O’Malley for ending it. No relocation really inspired this much ire until the moves of both the Colts and the Browns, which built upon this precedent for tying a team so thoroughly into the city. It was Cleveland that ultimately took it to court and set up this cockamamie scheme with the franchise certificates. Quite frankly, all the people of Cleveland needed to do was to convince the NFL to get an expansion team and tell Modell to rebrand his team upon moving. The market had enough clout and a potential legal battle to force it. I doubt many fans would have cared about a franchise certificate or beating some AAFC records. If they were concerned about the records of the previous team, they could just refer to the “city history” (separate from franchise records), a la the Nationals or the Winnipeg Jets. They didn’t have to go as far as they did, and even when they did, it didn’t really hurt anybody. It was just sports. It’s OK to not take it as some great attack on anything. It was just a way of manifesting some location-based tribalism and “striking back” at the man who took their prestigious team away. Little did they know that the Ravens would have immensely more success than the expansion franchise that honestly doesn’t deserve to carry the name or records of Paul and Jim Brown’s club. Often times, you only care about what happened to your team in another city because: a. Overlap in rosters of all-time greats (e.g., Mays, Aaron, Matthews, Koufax, etc.) b. It makes your team’s championship count seem more impressive (I’d rather say that my team won eight titles, not three) c. The team achieved something truly historical (e.g., Robinson breaking the color barrier, the careers of one of the greatest deadball-era pitchers - Mathewson, and two impressive dynasties) d. The relocation had a replacement team (e.g., the Mets, Brewers, Mariners, Nationals, Royals, etc.). When these conditions are absent, you can default to a location-based sense of identity. They’re not “this team from another place that came in and brought their great history with them,” but are rather a blank slate upon which fans and marketers can project a sense of local tribalism. The St. Louis Browns, both the Sens/Nats and second Sens, the Pilots, and the Expos were such blank slates. That last point ties back into my pro-Anaheim argument, but since this thread clearly isn’t about that anymore (does somebody want to split it off), I’m sure we’ll keep going in this discourse.

Only the league and their press/licensees are pretending. The rest of the world (outside of some deluded fans, who are probably just happy to be rooting for a team with the same name and not caring about obscure records or the minutia of franchise transfers) and historical sources know damn well that they’re two different entities. The non-league sources/real historical cataloguing (academia, periodicals, encyclopedias, etc.) are why I call the current San José Earthquakes the “Fake Quakes,” because the real team plays in Houston now and even a cursory glance into team history will tell you this. The minute somebody looks into the history of the New Orleans Pelicans, they’ll see a Hornets design and be instantly aware of their team’s true origins. They’ll be similarly alerted to the true history by seeing the logos and uniforms of the Charlotte Bobcats, especially when they hear the history of that name. Ultimately, if the leagues and fans want to pretend that the two teams are the same entity due to some suspended franchise certificate or IP transfer, let them. It’ll just make us historians that much more vigilant in describing what really happened. The real history is never forgotten, despite what some people in Cleveland or Charlotte (read: localized interests) want. Let them play pretend, as the rest of the world can correct them. The stakes are fairly trivial. Sharing names is cool and all (see my name here), but adopting new identities (while preserving the record books, despite localized interests) should have been the standard. I’d have enjoyed seeing the Giants-Dodgers rivalry transcend New York by becoming the Seals-Angels conflict. The Braves becoming the Brewers (a name the former Pilots would subsequently adopt) and then a bird-themed name (to tie in with the Falcons/Hawks and to avoid the unmarketable “Crackers” name) would have also been cool. But that’s not what happened. Keeping transient identity around, one’s that don’t conflict with the location, is fine. If the name has been around for generations and offers no significant conflicts with the new spot, let it stick around.

Except you can. You can give it a few lines, but you’ll find that it’s easy enough to downplay. Going into the historiography demonstrates that the sport doesn’t necessarily need mentioning outside of a few key figures. I certainly wouldn’t deny that, I would support that assertion. Yes, but an negligible one. You can do an entire Cold War history book without it (as I’ve encountered many). Yes, there are books that argue that baseball was a crucial part of American imperialism, but what does that have to do with relocated franchises? That’s certainly true, even if it was part of larger efforts that tackled cultural issues and adjusting existing stereotypes/ideologies on both sides of the conflict. War Without Mercy explains it in great detail. But official (as in, league-sourced) histories of individual franchises matters very little in this regard. Again, that’s all true. I agree with you here, with the caveat that I’m ok with league sources saying one thing and the non-league historical records (e.g., academia, third-party reference materials, the internet, city and national history books/articles, and non-league affiliated researchers). Just because the leagues says one thing doesn’t mean that the rest of the world will follow their lead. In fact, they’ll see fit to contradict them and correct them. How many times to people use the phrase “Cleveland deal” to describe a process for an expansion team. That act alone acknowledges the move and expansion. That’s obvious, but franchise lineages according to league sources, are absolutely trivial compared to many other disciplines within the field. That’s the thing: nobody is rewriting that the two Charlotte Hornets are the same team outside of the league and their licensees. Any history besides the league’s official documentation (e.g., record books and press kits) acknowledges this. Just because one organization says this one thing doesn’t mean that the rest of the world (outside of a few licensees) has to listen to it. Anybody with enough interest can find this stuff out in a matter of seconds. This isn’t chiseling the faces off of hieroglyphs or denying war crimes. When you study history, even microhistories, you find that some material is fairly trivial in the larger scope. If one source wants to connect one franchise to another, let them. It’s just one additional source in a wide array of sources to interpret and craft a thesis about any certain topic. Heck, the “Cleveland deal” can speak to the connection any certain municipality had to their team (either due to their storied nature or impactful branding/placement in the city’s history). It may also reveal league processes unbeknownst to insiders, like how the NBA ties franchise lineages to intellectual property (i.e., vintage logos and uniforms) and the NHL doesn’t (i.e., the Jets have the trademarks to the previous club’s designs but not the records - as it should be). Even if it’s disingenuous for the league to do it, describing the process is incredibly useful in talking about the shifting understandings of branding and civic importance of sports franchises. This is my long winded way of saying, it’s just sports. As long as the real history outweighs the league’s history in widespread acknowledgement, we’re cool and no harm has been done. Besides, I like seeing teams adopt new identities upon moving and I wish that it was always the standard. But since it wasn’t for so long and many important brands traveled across the country, we just have to live with it and embrace it. Should the A’s move to Portland, they shouldn’t rebrand. Should the Rays abandon Montréal and focus on Portland or another market, they should rebrand. The difference between a storied heritage club and an expansion team created from litigation is a vast one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

Yes. This isn’t the St. Louis Browns or the Boston Braves, where you had serious concerns about making payroll.

That's a fairly accurate assessment. Following the disastrous San José referendum, Lurie was desperate to unload the team onto anybody and the Tampa Bay group of Dodge/Naimoli/Critchfield were desperate enough to entertain this offer. The sale of the Mariners to the Seattle consortium (including Nintendo of America) and the Porter/Schur group flat-lining at the 1993 expansion finish line gave Dodge & company enough motivation to pursue it all-in. Poor communication is definitely a big theme in this relocation attempt. MLB/the NL assumed that it would just be talks, not signing an agreement in principle. Naimoli's group assumed that said agreement was a done deal, while MLB/the NL (specifically NL President/de facto commissioner Bill White after Fay Vincent got bleepcanned for being anti-collusion) knew that the TV contract negotiations would be sunk if the move went through. The lack of communication also allowed for the "SF can't negotiate with Bob Lurie, but SF can negotiate with the league" loophole. Cleaner rules about the negotiations and voting process would have made this attempt far less stressful for all sides. I'd also argue that the "agreement in principle" news is what the San Francisco business community/investors needed to hear to get their act together. Before this, they were content to have Lurie own the team and try to get a totally public-financed stadium done in the Bay Area, which was and is a near-impossibility. After the news, the city officials and business people went into high gear to form an ownership group and buy the team from Lurie and present an offer to the NL/MLB (as they couldn't go to Lurie directly, per the nature of the agreement in principle with the St. Petersburg group). Despite some setbacks (e.g., pushing and removing Hornets owner George Shinn as the group leader/primary investor, reorganizing to have Peter Magowan as the figurehead, and getting a $10 million loan from Lurie), the group managed to present a credible offer. Although the Tampa Bay bid was larger, the strength of the San Francisco group and the knowledge of the TV contract negotiations convinced enough owners to reject Naimoli and company. In the long run, the NL owners (aside from the Cubs, Cardinals, Marlins, and Phillies) made the right call. The new owners landing the best free agent that year, Barry Lamar M-fin' Bonds, helped to galvanize the Giants in San Francisco and pave the way for one of the best stadiums in the majors and the 3-in-5. It took an "agreement in principle" to get things moving in a positive direction, with a mostly private-financed stadium (there were some backdoor subsidies, but nothing like what Lurie wanted) and a return to national prominence.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but Stadium for Rent and Home Team (a Giants book with an extensive periodical bibliography) paint a more complex picture. To quote from myself (with bolded emphases): TL;DR: Had MLB's teams not feared being penalized by CBS in their contract negotiations, as well as pressure from influential owners and the strength of the local ownership group (in spite of a smaller bid and a loan from Lurie), then the move might have gone through. Naimoli thought it was close enough to commission prototypes. Here's a transcript of a segment that 60 Minutes aired on the aftermath of the whole affair. It's an interesting look at how that initial optimism that @Ferdinand Cesarano mentioned in the Florida White Sox discussion transitioned into a bitterness for the approaching legal battle.

This roving team idea has not been out of the question in the history of Tampa Bay baseball. One of my favorite parts in Stadium for Rent (again, READ THIS BOOK if you're a baseball fan and want an explanation as to why the Rays exist and are currently in this mess) was Andelmann going over the various expansion groups. Here's one of them, from future Tampa Bay Buccaneers executive Joel Glazer. This was laughed out of the room, most likely. I guess Stu got the idea from him, but Stu didn't realize that this plan required no new construction.

When you have to get creative with your extortion attempts, it seems that it's time to fess up to either the failure of the market or the organization's true intentions to either leave or demand a taxpayer-funded white elephant. That's another thing about any talk of a new stadium in the Tampa Bay Area. It isn't a sure-fire guarantee that the team will see any long-term attendance boost, especially if fans are peeved about being scammed for a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money.

Same here! I'll always cherish them and I hope that every fanbase gets to experience that feeling at least a few times, no matter how many times people try to dismiss the titles as "flukes" or "undeserving." Bleep that. Of course, the Giants didn't immediately sell off all of their best players following the titles (twice!) or try to claim losses despite being in the black. It's easier to maintain interest when the championship roster keeps returning, for better or for worse.

Then they had another fire sale, followed by a stadium debacle, followed by two fire sales. The franchise's most relevant players wound up being traded for little in return and the best Cuban-American player (a guy Miami really could/should have marketed around) died in a cocaine-related boating accident. That second championship is a tiny bit obscure when the team has only posted only four winning seasons since, with the most recent one in 2009. Also, when most of those players wound up succeeding away from the confines of Marlins Park or Joe Robbie Stadium, it hurts even more. I get that it's more championships than several other teams, but the crap following it has made those two titles far less relevant. But now we're in Marlins talk, which distracts us from the Tampa Bay Litigation Preventers.