Gothamite

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I finally took to tweeting the team's announcer Peter Schwartz, to see if he could help facilitate this transaction. Schwartz eventually tweeted me back to tell me that the team's online store was now up and running.

The same Peter Schwartz who announces Cosmos games? Does he work for every shaky, fly-by-night suburban New York team?

Quote

Trujillo said if things continue like they are now, there may not be an Orlando Predators team to cheer for.

Wait, is there still a possibility they could come back?  That article is the story of how a team folds.

If the AFL allows them to come back, with McIntyre as owner, then the whole league is an illegitimate scam. 

On 7/29/2019 at 8:50 AM, JQK said:

It wasn't a lighting bolt. Was meant to be a abstract representation of the state. 
Here's another take...

I like the dusty blue, but the buff looks a little dark on my screen.  I think one of the colors needs to be brighter for contrast, and that’s the one I’d lighten.  

Yeah, that was the first thing that jumped out to me as well. 

What’s the rationale behind the lightning bolt anyway?

On 7/17/2019 at 6:49 PM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

When I was in the Milwaukee area last year, I went shopping at a Pick 'N Save and came upon this...

 

 

The brewing company is using the city flag for one of their beers. Thought it was a cool find.

Worth pointing out that's not the official city flag.  It's an unofficial one, albeit very popular.

You can find it everywhere around Milwaukee.

It's even in the suburbs.

19 hours ago, Quillz said:

But given how much emphasis was on the XFL only employing "clean" football players and having "simple" rules, it seems this is exactly what the team names should reflect. Something like "Outlaws" and other names that are "fresh and kewl" would seem to be against the whole purpose of this league.

I dunno - there are a lot of Americans who manage to thump their chests proclaiming their patriotism while at the same time lionizing armed insurrection against the United States and the killing of American soldiers.  Go figure. 

19 hours ago, Quillz said:

Or it could be Vince was just riding a trend and doesn't actually intend to follow through on any of his promises.

Which would be totally on-brand for both McMahon and the whole ‘Murica! industry.  

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

They are. Rarely at the level of an expansion fee, but they are “a thing.”

The relocation fees for the Rams and Chargers were each $645 million.

26 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Just sowing the seeds for a full time move to Montreal...

 

note that none of them objected to the team moving but they just objected to a split season...

Indeed.  Nobody’s been more critical about the miserable Tampa Bay attendance than Rays players themselves.  Going back years. 

On 6/27/2019 at 11:54 PM, Cujo said:

The Grand Junction Rockies go on the record regarding Humpback Chubs petition:

 

And for anyone else wanting to sign ➡ http://chng.it/4vHyvLXvBW

Who on earth would want to sign something that stupid?  Bad enough the team felt compelled to respond.

That GJ logo, though.  So much better than the parent club’s. 

They started out as a minor league, then leveraged their strength into eventually competing on the NFL’s level.

But yeah, the 1960 AFL was definitely a minor league. 

11 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The NFL also gives a kind of recognition to AFL championships: it considers them equivalent to AFC conference championships.

Which is appropriate, since the AFL was not the equivalent of the NFL.  It was a minor league that was able to leverage its growth and strength into joining the major leagues. 

11 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Likewise, it recognises its own pre-1966 league championships as equivalent to NFC conference championships.

Which is offensive to anyone who actually cares about history.

13 hours ago, Quillz said:

To me, the biggest offender is the NFL. The NFL has seemingly erased all existence of the pre-Super Bowl era, to the point they only really measure their franchises now by the number of Super Bowls they've won. This makes people think of the Browns as hapless and horrible, because so few people realize they were very good pre-Super Bowl. Both San Diego and Buffalo won championships during their AFL years, but the NFL again seems to pretend a merger never happened.

I agree that the NFL is completely myopic when it comes to the pre-Super Bowl era.  They should give the 1960 championship every bit the weight they give the 1970 championship, even if the title game itself changed names in between. 

But San Diego and Buffalo both won championships of a minor league.  Which is impressive, to be sure, but not quite on the same level.  The AFL championship alone was never equivalent to a world championship.  

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

Why is the Bay Area market different from the other markets? What about something like Dallas-Fort Worth? Could MLB add a National League team to that area?

The Bay Area is different because the Giants asked for exclusive rights to San Jose, as part of a contemplated move.  Those rights carried over to new ownership, even though they built in San Francisco. To my knowledge, every other team has exclusive market rights. 

8 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Maybe 8 years time... unless that buyout shrinks a bit every year.  In the video that you posted it was said that part of breaking the lease early would be that they'd have to fund the demo, in addition to any financial buyouts.  What is not known, is if it's a compulsory lease (I forget the legal term) that requires them to operate there, regardless of if they just pay the lease off and attempt to operate elsewhere, like most leases are.

My understanding is that the buyout does go down every year.  Not to downplay even that amount, but at some point it’s better to spend a big chunk of cash to get out of an unsustainable market.  And the Rays are now admitting that Tampa Bay is an unsustainable market, after many years of publicly insisting otherwise.

As for the compulsory lease, that’s just one more hurdle.  There are reports that the Chicago Fire have secured a release from their suburban stadium, which was the most airtight I’ve ever heard of.  Not only were the Fire contractually obligated to play there, but if MLS ever announced a second Chicago club that team would also be contractually obligated to play there.

There is no contract that can’t be broken.  The only question is how much it’ll cost.  At some point St. Pete will accept a deal and the Rays will write a check. 

4 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Did the Expos really ever compete for good free agents?  Is it fair to ask whether they'd be at a disadvantage for recruiting any star African American players without dramatically overpaying?  I don't think Latin American players would be an issue - in fact some might prefer it, at least for the next 1-5 years, and I don't think most white American-born players would have any issue, as it's a great place despite presenting some extra challenges for their families that might move with them, but would AA players really go for it considering they'd be putting themselves in situations where they're more of a minority than they are anywhere in the states, and from things that I've read (not witnessed personally) it's not known for embracing racial diversity?  Is it fair to ask that, and is it a fair concern?

 

It might be a moot point, since the results of a google search for black MLB players shocked me when I saw how few there were, but the ability to draw FA's in a non-capped sport is usually one of the first things on my mind once the other hurdles (basic start-up) prove to be workable (which, so far, they haven't in MTL's case.)  In capped sports, it doesn't matter as much, since there's limited money to go around and any player will follow the money anywhere, but baseball is different.

Funny you should mention that, since the first Expo that comes to mind is usually Vladimir. 

I don’t think there’s a whole lot of concern about attracting African-American free agents to Montreal.  The Braves are now in the heart of White Atlanta, but I haven’t heard they’re having that problem.  Similarly, the PNW is pretty white, has a very troubled racial history, and Seattle seems to do fine.  I’m also reminded of the Green Bay Packers, who definitely had a hard time luring black players to town until Reggie White made his statement by signing.

Ultimately, I think playing for a competitor is the deciding factor.  With money being a close second.  If the nouveau-Spos can offer either or both of those, they’ll be fine in the free-agent market.  

Just now, Olmec said:

Why is this still being discussed. The Tampa Bay-Montreal Rays is never going to happen. 

Of course not.  But the odds are much better that the Rays will be playing in Montreal in five years’ time than that they will be playing in Tampa Bay. 

This popped up on my YouTube feed - interesting to see how Sternberg felt about the prospect of baseball in Montreal as far back as 2013. 

5 hours ago, RichO said:

The thing that always kills me about Rays attendance is that their local TV numbers are fine, so it's not like they're completely unsupported. 

Being in the AL East, they play an outsized number of games against the Yankees and Red Sox, the two most popular teams in Tampa Bay.  I’ve often wondered how those games skew the Rays’ TV ratings. 

No, the Dodgers don’t.  The Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles markets are evenly shared by the two home clubs. Neither can veto a move within that market.  And baseball wouldn’t dare disturb those balances by trying to intervene.

Contrast that with the Bay Area, where the market has been carved up and the A’s can’t move to San Jose without the consent of (and therefore a very generous payment to) the Giants.

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

I’m just irritated with how people act like the Browns went full Jack the Ripper on the history books.

Me, too.  Because they didn’t.  This wasn’t something that was retroactively decided on after the fact; the franchise continuity was established and well-documented at the time.  It’s silly, not to mention inapplicable, to lump that in with the Hornets.

And let me be clear - I love history.  I’ve spent a lot of my life wandering down its trails and yelling for others to pay attention.  I’ll get the Brewers to do a Milwaukee Chicks “Turn Back the Clock” game if it’s the last thing I do.

But historical records should not be confused for objective fact.  As Betty Reid Soskin puts it, “What gets remembered is determined by who is in the room doing the remembering.”  Not to mention the errors often carried forward by people who don’t care, don’t know any better, or who have an agenda of their own.  Especially in an era when Wikipedia puts facts to a vote.

So I have no problem going back and re-examining an event like the foundation of the Yankees.  And if what I’ve read is true, that the assets of the Baltimore club were liquidated and it was truly defunct, then maybe I was wrong to presume it was a simple and standard franchise relocation.

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The point is the principle that historical events should be recorded as they actually happened.

But did they happen the way you insist they did?  That’s not actually clear. 

And in the case of the Cleveland Browns that you cite, the way the NFL records it is the way it actually happened.  It was recorded as sick at the time, and those who insist on pretending there is no franchise continuity at all are the ones trying to re-write history. 

Similarly, I’m not entirely sure that those trying to maintain a direct unbroken line between the 1902 Orioles and the 1903 Highlanders aren’t the ones imposing their own narrative on events.  If the 1902 club was truly defunct in the eyes of the league, if its assets were liquidated and the new 1903 club was created largely from scratch, then perhaps the story we’ve been telling ourselves isn’t quite as accurate as we thought. 

20 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I'll pop in here to mention that, while the talk along the lines of "why should Atlanta fans care about the Boston Braves?" is very interesting, the important issue with relocated teams is not fans' perceptions but the official records. And, on the question of records: Washington Senators and Winnipeg Jets = the right way; Cleveland Browns and Charlotte Hornets = the wrong way.

But in the case of the Yankees and the 1901-02 Orioles, what exactly is the point?  How is the club, the city, or the sport benefited by incorporating those 118 wins into the over all total? 

I used to think the way you do, but the whole thing seems kind of silly to me now. Stories end. Histories can stop and new ones can start. 

This is the best take yet on yesterday’s farcical press conference. 

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

God, just involving Montreal seems to bring NHL-calibre incompetence into the fold.

Didn’t need Montreal.  The Rays bring that all on their own.