SFGiants58

While both may be true, you're still ignoring the extenuating circumstances behind each of those calls. Better ownership would have made the difference for Miami at least. Also, saying to a fan of a team that their team shouldn't exist is just insensitive. Would you say that to their face? You would be surprised at how similar the situations are between the current Rays and the pre-1993 Giants. "Candlescat" Park was the open-air equivalent of The Trop, as it was an inhospitable place to play baseball and arguably to blame for much of the team's financial woes during the 1960s-'90s. The team only cracked the two million mark for attendance once (1989) and drew under one million in eleven seasons. It was officially declared "unsuitable for baseball" at one point, prompting several failed referendums for a mostly taxpayer-funded stadium that predictably failed. Media of the time tried to argue that these referendums were a sign that the city didn't want the team. I saw that a lot in my research, including one of the most asinine quotes I've ever encountered. The truth was, of course, that Bay Area taxpayers don't like paying the majority of the stadium bill. I fail to see how events in 1995 are germane to the Mariners almost moving to Tampa Bay in 1992. Similarly to the Rays, they were born out of a lawsuit. They had an even worse time of it than the Rays, not achieving a winning season until 14 years into their existence. The Mariners also had a depressing dome for a venue, with piss-poor attendance and calls to move them. I'd argue that the situation is fairly similar to the Rays. The victory certainly helped get a stadium done, but the purchase of the team by Nintendo of America pretty much made their commitment to Seattle a done deal. So, are we just going to ignore the long history of minor league baseball in the area? The Tampa Smokers, Tampa Tarpons, and St. Petersburg Saints (and Cardinals) would beg to differ. Just because the minor league didn't rise to the status of the old PCL doesn't disqualify them from mattering. I'm not sure, but there's enough of a market for them. Given better ownership and marketing, they could be number one. However, Huizenga and Loria intervened to stop that. But are they? The argument about transplants still following their old teams applies here as well. Somehow the Orlando Magic and Miami Heat are thriving teams, even if the locals are from New York or Boston. Actually, I didn't know that Spring Training homes were that close to Miami. Also, see @marlinfan's post for a correction. You're underselling how devastating those fire sales were for fan engagement. When over three-quarters of the championship roster doesn't return and it's clear that the team won't commit to its successful lineup, you've got problems.

Challenge accepted! It'll be a bit more tongue-in-cheek, if you catch my drift.

Wow, telling somebody “You should lose your team!” isn’t a good look. It makes you look like a dick. Did you say that to Giants and Mariners fans in the early-1990s? It changed in that direction once a few generations of “native” Floridians occurred. It might not have in Tampa, but I’m sure it has in Miami (people from Miami, let me know). Would you use that as a defense for why Florida shouldn’t have basketball teams? I didn’t know that. Thanks for the history!

...then followed it up with a fire sale a few years later. Then came the stadium debacle, a second fire sale, several transformative players leaving via trades and one region-perfect playing making a fatal mistake. It’s a little easier to feel sorry for the fans that stuck by them. Again, it could have worked. Huizenga and Loria made sure it wouldn’t work.

You’re not alone on the first point. I would have wanted a Colorado-Washington expansion for 1993, with an Arizona-Portland/Charlotte move in 1998. But “Florida is for spring training” is just narrow-minded. It hasn’t worked, but it could have worked in Miami (which is fairly far away from Spring Training land in Florida) given better ownership and no fire sales after winning championships.

Would you be saying that if the Marlins had competent ownership and didn’t perform the first fire sale? Baseball in Florida could absolutely work, it’s just that it was handled in the worst way possible.

Yeah, that’s the point that gets me. Even Arizona, Miami/Florida, and other teams with long periods of failure have had attendance go up with successful runs. None of them had to give away World Series tickets, AFAIK. The Trop’s location doesn’t help matters, but even that isn’t an adequate explanation. This also applies to the TV ratings numbers, since that doesn’t necessarily translate to the long-term viability of the team. We can blame the process of getting a team for the disinterest all we want (and I assign some percentage of it for liking the passion and establishing doubt in MLB’s Tampa Bay efforts), but the interest has never really been there.

The team only exists because of Vince Naimoli’s lawsuit. Either face a $3.5 billion anti-trust lawsuit or give some cheap doofus an expansion team. Also, after blue-balling the market for so long, an expansion team was a half-decent way to save face. Now, we see that the people who doubted the market during the 1980s/90s were right. As I’ve said before, MLB teams, St. Pete politicians/civil servants, and Tampa Bay Area owners killed regular season MLB baseball in the market even before a team could take the field. That’s the impression I got, anyway.

It sounds like a fast path to a contraction draft and players walking out on the team. It’s an insult to both the Tampa Bay Area and Montréal. Anybody who who thinks this is a good idea needs a few punches from Viachezlav Datsik. Heck, even Datsik would say it’s a terrible idea, and I’m pretty sure he has like two brain cells left after his MMA career and time in Russian prison.

Morsani and Dodge didn’t foresee MLB teams blue-balling the market and the failure of sales. Dodge had no backup for when Reinsdorf kept the White Sox in Chicago, forcing the construction of The Trop in a terrible location. Nobody outside of the expansion committees and groups could predict the thorough implosion of the Tampa Bay bids for the 1993 expansion. MLB’s TV contract issues and local politics prevented the Mariners and Giants from moving in 1992. Nobody knew that Vince Naimoli would ruin the team’s initial run, leading to the continued failure of the Rays to gain ground. This market seemed like a sure-fire thing back in the day. Of course, MLB teams, Tampa Bay Area owners, and St. Pete politicians screwed it hard.

Even a weaker players’ union would tell MLB and Stu to get bent with this idea. One of the biggest themes I noticed when researching the Expos’ San Juan games was how thoroughly the players hated it. No way that this gets approved. It’s stadium blackmail after the Ybor City failure.

Contraction would be better, or merging with the Marlins.

“Permission to explore” = blackmail for Tampa Bay stadium. They’ve finally escalated to the blackmail phase! Let’s see if the market cares.

Yeah, that’s not great. Milkmen probably did exist in Milwaukee at some point, but it’s much more suited for a regional name. I wouldn’t say it’s as insulting as Baby Cakes, Sod Poodles, or the litany of food rebrands. It’s not the Milwaukee Curd Fries or Beer Dogs. I’m sure Lakefront Brewery adopted this method back in the ‘90s.

The whole situation had a bit of the old "The Producers" vibe, with the New Orleans AAA team trying to step up business operations in Cuba during the "normalization" efforts. I'm sure @B-Rich would know better, seeing as how he's far closer to the situation than I am. Let me put it this way: the Baby Cakes brand would be comparable to an team near Milwaukee going with a Cheese Curds (but incorrectly-represented) identity full time. Or, if you want to get the proper sense of local revulsion, a team near Plainfield, WI doing an Ed Gein-themed brand. It's popular to outsiders, but in poor taste to locals.

I’d say something similar, except with Anaheim being the best name. It represented where they played, set them apart from the Dodgers’ pre-established LA hegemony (an important trait of an expansion team, Mets/Islanders excluded). Winning the World Series in 2002 should have codified it as their proper name. I get that it might not have been monetarily advantageous to keep the Anaheim moniker, but I’ll defend the Anaheim name. If the Ducks can do it, then so can the Angels. It’ll be a good day when Arte sells the team.

Brooklyn, Oakland, and the New Jersey Devils beg to differ. Again, this also applies to the Brooklyn Dodgers and Oakland Athletics. You at least have extensive amounts of freeway separating Anaheim and Los Angeles, which isn’t as much the case between Brooklyn-Manhattan and SF-Oakland. It’s OK to reject the big-name city in favor of local ones. Retaining LA probably would have been ideal, while going for California should have been impossible after Charlie O. moved the A’s to Oakland. State names are terrible, but using a state name while playing alongside another team in your state is stupid. That shouldn’t matter. That shouldn’t matter at all. Maybe that was the case when Jack Benny was on the radio, but things change. Not every city has to be world-class. It’s OK to be niche in baseball, especially when said niche sets you opposition to the hegemon (the Los Angeles Dodgers). Again, do “New York Dodgers” and “San Francisco Athletics” sound good to anybody? That’s still terrible reasoning. The NHL isn’t a minor league. It’s more niche than baseball, but it’s not that much more niche. Anaheim is a valid name for a baseball team. @Still MIGHTY and @Brian in Boston are right about it and how people misunderstand it.

A lot the whole Anaheim/Los Angeles debate focuses on people from outside the region misinterpreting the nature of these demographics and geographic separations. It's why I keep making the Brooklyn comparison, if only to get a rise out of a few of them. It's a good way to relate how ridiculous their generalizations sound. Hey, that's too cruel!

The city made the right call, then. If they want to be an LA team, don't play beyond the remnants of the Orange Curtain. Besides, I'd much rather that the team had taken the "Hollywood Stars" name. If you're going to use any local name within Greater Los Angeles, that one is probably the most marketable.

I agree, that’s a good development. I get the distinction, especially when analyzing parallel development as opposed to one developing after the other due to post-WWII social trends. The Ducks have never had this problem. Try saying “Los Angeles Ducks” to a Ducks fan and see how they react. It’s not that different for baseball. Once they made the effort to focus on Anaheim, they gained the potential to alienate a significant portion of their fanbase. @Still MIGHTY knows more about this than I do, but embracing “Los Angeles” would be incredibly alienating.

Eh, I'd say that's it's a more distinct difference. The Orange Curtain is a very real phenomenon. I would argue that it is. It's more different than Brooklyn is from Manhattan. Besides, what was the name of the team that won it all in 2002? Los Angeles outside of Orange Country doesn't want the Angels, so why should they act otherwise? They're Orange County's team, in the same way that the A's are Oakland's team or the Dodgers were Brooklyn's team.

Nope. Orange County is its own monster, from a sociopolitical perspective. Look at how many Angels fans on here dislike the "Los Angeles-ification" of the team (e.g., @Still MIGHTY). At this point, going full "Los Angeles Angels" would be comparable to the "New York Dodgers." Do you have a problem with the Anaheim Ducks, or will we get the dreadful argument that hockey and baseball are "too different" to justify the comparison?

Well, it was the Anaheim Angels who won it all in 2002. The LA Angels have either been a young expansion team or an occasional playoff contender.

For the Houston Railmen or Locomotives, maybe.

Meh, the Dodgers and Yankees both look better without white outlines. In a similar vein to @Gothamite's observation about the Mets, the Rangers' "T" logo (minus drop shadow) is asymmetrical. Look at the lower right half of the "T" compared to the left top bar. The drop shadow does distract from it.