Jump to content

If you could prevent ANY relocation in sports history from happening, which one would you prevent?


FlyEaglesFly76
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, DnBronc said:

 

Or maybe Pearl Harbor doesn't happen, and the St. Louis Browns are approved by the AL to move to LA for the 1942 season. I think that the move was supposed to be voted on the same day that the attacks happened. 

Indeed it was. Not sure if it was expected to pass or not, but it would've dramatically changed how baseball history would proceed. I wish it had happened, if for no other reason than LA wouldn't have been able to draw the Dodgers away from Brooklyn 17 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's another good point.  So many variables.

 

I don't know if it would have passed before the US entered the war, but once we did transportation instantly got much harder.  Los Angeles would have seemed so remote to a league that didn't go any farther West than St, Louis.  

 

Heck, it was still a stumbling block fifteen years later; the only way O'Malley could get the votes was to get another team to move with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, kroywen said:

Indeed it was. Not sure if it was expected to pass or not, but it would've dramatically changed how baseball history would proceed. I wish it had happened, if for no other reason than LA wouldn't have been able to draw the Dodgers away from Brooklyn 17 years later.

 

A side note to the Pearl Harbor and the Browns situation: I think that was the day that the Cubs were supposed to put new lights up at Wrigley Field, but that got scrapped after Pearl Harbor because the supplies that would have been used were needed for the war effort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DnBronc said:

 

I don't know if that happens. Al had a market in St. Louis to move to that was wide open (it may be bigger than Phoenix), and he didn't do it. He probably still goes to Oakland by 95.

 

 

If Indy is still open, you have to figure that they are a strong candidate for expansion with the Hoosier Dome available. I actually think that they would have been chosen over Jacksonville because of the dome. What would that team have been called? Well, Racers and 500's are the prime candidates. Mohicans may also have been considered (that tribe used to be in the State of Indiana), but at the time, political correctness was gaining more and more of a foothold, so it may have been an unlikely choice. 

 

I forgot I wrote this so thanks for bringing it back. In my scenario I have the Cardinals moving to Indianapolis in the late 80's so Indy wouldn't have been open at the time for the 95 expansion. And Al Davis wanted to move out of LA as early as 1990 when it became obvious a stadium wasn't getting done. I figured he wouldn't want to go as far east as St. Louis to what was a scorched earth football city to share a facility with the baseball Cardinals when he could have Phoenix all to himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I forgot I wrote this so thanks for bringing it back. In my scenario I have the Cardinals moving to Indianapolis in the late 80's so Indy wouldn't have been open at the time for the 95 expansion. And Al Davis wanted to move out of LA as early as 1990 when it became obvious a stadium wasn't getting done. I figured he wouldn't want to go as far east as St. Louis to what was a scorched earth football city to share a facility with the baseball Cardinals when he could have Phoenix all to himself. 

 

Sorry. I must have missed the part about the Cards and Indy. 

 

As for the Raiders, I know that Al wanted to leave LA (shouldn't have moved there in the first place), but I just don't know about the Phoenix thing. He seemed to be looking for alternatives in California only (Sacramento was one of them), and he probably still ends up back in Oakland. 

 

As for Phoenix (it is open in this world), maybe the Phoenix Firebirds group stays together. 

 

In 1984, a group formed that was trying to bring the NFL to Phoenix. Bart Starr (fresh after getting fired in Green Bay) was going to be HC, and Thomas Stoen was the owner. They had land acquired on the Gila Indian Reservation for a new stadium. That ended when Bidwill moved to Phoenix.

 

However, maybe they stay together (although I don't know if Starr would still be HC at this point) in this world, and Phoenix is awarded an expansion team in the Fall of 93 over Jacksonville. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2016 at 10:33 AM, DnBronc said:

 

A side note to the Pearl Harbor and the Browns situation: I think that was the day that the Cubs were supposed to put new lights up at Wrigley Field, but that got scrapped after Pearl Harbor because the supplies that would have been used were needed for the war effort. 

Another Side note: There was supposed to be a brand new state named Jefferson, (In between Oregon and California) and the attack on Pearl Harbor stopped the whole process, and it was eventually forgotten and dropped...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

Another Side note: There was supposed to be a brand new state named Jefferson, (In between Oregon and California) and the attack on Pearl Harbor stopped the whole process, and it was eventually forgotten and dropped...


"Jefferson" was never more than a couple small town mayors and local yokels wanting to form their own state.  It was never a serious proposal, much less on the road to actually happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gothamite said:


"Jefferson" was never more than a couple small town mayors and local yokels wanting to form their own state.  It was never a serious proposal, much less on the road to actually happening.

 

It's a little more than that now (still almost 100% guaranteed to never happen), but to declare that there "was supposed to be a brand new state named Jefferson" and that "the attack on Pearl Harbor stopped the whole process" is completely false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

The relocations of any of the now-relocated classic MLB teams, the Football Cardinals moving from St. Louis, and the Scouts from Kansas City, to name just a few, if possible.  There are probably others as well I'd want to keep from moving, but those are the ones I'm thinking of at the moment more than any others, perhaps.  Turtle Pilgrim out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seattle Sonics - I really didn't like this relocation. I understand that they had their financial struggles,and that OKC was having increased attention after Katrina,but I would had moved the Hornets to OKC and the Kings to New Orleans.

 

Cleveland Rams - Very unpopular opinion. I just thought it would had been a good idea if they stayed in Cleveland. Maybe we could have had the Cincinnati Browns. Ack. My brain hurts now by that horrid thought.

 

Cleveland Browns - No explanation needed.

 

Atlanta Thrashers - Atlanta now is a thriving market with it being Hip Hop's capital,and it could do well with the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Browns move to Baltimore.  That move brought us the "Cleveland Deal", which has destroyed multiple franchise lineages since, scared cities into ponying up for new stadiums since if the Browns could leave then any team could, and in at least some little way, lead to a series of events that left LA without a team for the next ~20 years (since teams felt so empowered to buttf--- their home cities, having LA open gave them all the leverage they needed and made it more valuable without a team than with.)

 

2. Unrelated, but when Leonard Tose famously (at least locally famously) lost his fortune gambling, he essentially lost the Eagles, and was thisclose to selling them to a Phoenix investor before some carpetbagger used car salesman bought the team, moved to France, refused to pay players, and was the sole reason for Reggie White and Keith Jackson suing the league and winning free agency for players.

 

Had Leonard Tose never lost the team, we might not have a strong players union and free agency.  I would imagine there would have to be free agency at some point, because what are essentially "reserve clauses" seem illegal, but the league would certainly look differently today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to rank the moves, it would probably be in this order:

 

1. Cleveland Browns v1.0 to Baltimore. @BringBackTheVet pretty much nailed the reason as to why the Cleveland Deal set such an awful precedent for future relocations. That said, I have an unpopular caveat, but I'm OK with the Cleveland Deal up to the point where Cleveland Browns v2.0 is the Cleveland Browns v1.0; we all know they aren't--just ask Ozzie Newsome. I guess that, since many minor- (and a major-, hello Washington Senators) league teams in a given city have often used the same name as their predecessors, I kind of see team names/records/etc. (but strictly not franchise histories) as more of a title or legacy, like the term Ceasar in ancient Rome or, uh, I dunno, Donkey Kong. Simply put, I'd keep the original Browns as is with an alternate universe's Baltimore Ravens taking the Jacksonville Jaguars' place or a future 2000-ish expansion, taking the spot of Browns v2.0.

 

2. Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City. Speaking of screwy franchise histories...it's the classic Major League scheme...out-of-town owner buys (or otherwise assumes control of) a team, tanks team to destroy the fanbase, and moves the team to their hometown while claiming that every effort was made to keep them there (not really). Of course, Seattle's city council in 2007-2008 wasn't in the most giving mood, and today's council they struggle to let someone build a completely-private arena. That said, I'm not doubting Oklahoma City's legitimacy as an NBA market; in my alternate universe, the Sonics stay and the Thunder would be the re-relocated Hornets, with the Hornets' name (but not the franchise history) returning to Charlotte around 2008 (when the real-world Thunder began). Say what you will about the Cleveland Deal, it only rewrites about 3 years of history; the NBA's Charlotte and Seattle deals have and will do anything but.

 

3. San Diego Chargers to Los Angeles. If this move happened between 2005 and, oh, say 2007, I'd actually call it a good move. Not Rams-returning-to-Los Angeles good, but low-key, potentially have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too consolation prize smart. Back then, the St. Louis Rams were doing anything but being relevant and thinking of returning to Southern California (note: Georgia Frontiere was still alive). The Chargers could have at least saved some face in San Diego while becoming the regional team of southern California and would've also kept those pesky Rams (according to the Spanoses) from returning about 10 years later. Instead, they abandon the city that's been home to them for just more than half a century to become the pre-Chris Paul/Blake Griffin LA Clippers of the NFL while burning bridges in said city. It's very fitting that their abbreviation will be LAC. TL;DR Dean Spanos' "Los Angeles is too important for us to lose" narrative would have actually been backed up by some degree of logic!

 

4. Winnipeg Jets v1.0 to Phoenix. Nevermind the poor shape of the loonie or the antiquated arena. The fact that the original Winnipeg Jets--now known as the Phoenix Arizona Coyotes--have never turned a profit in Phoenix speaks for itself. Don't get me wrong--non-traditional markets can and have worked (California, Tampa Bay, and Dallas to a slightly lesser extent), and things could have worked out for the Coyotes if they found a way to get their own (or more hockey-friendly) downtown arena, but moving out to Glendale only sunk them further in red ink and made them the textbook case of why using public money to fund private teams is a bad idea. Sucking your city dry of public funds to support a team that no one besides visiting teams' fans watch is anything but "growing the game." Sure, maybe the Jets could've just gone to Minnesota where hockey was appreciated instead, but Phoenix should never have gotten (and maintained) an NHL team the way they did.

 

4½. Quebec Nordiques to Denver. I use 4½ because I wouldn't call it a flat-out relocation prevention, as Denver was (is?), at least at one time, a quality hockey market. If I could've controlled it (I can't, but it's the topic at hand), I would've let Quebec stay another year or two to at least depart their city as winners (assuming everything else falls into place). Of course, Denver could've gotten the team that became the Nashville Predators or Atlanta Thrashers (if Winnipeg stayed) instead.

 

Edited by DustDevil61
First "precedent" to "reason," *the term Ceasar, removed "name" from "legacy name," having your cake and eating it too, and according to the Spanoses, and being sunk in red ink, and replacing "sending" with "using," "had to "gotten;" sorry, it was late...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but if I had my choice... I'd keep the Buffalo Braves. Yes, the Clippers are good now, but by keeping the franchise in Buffalo, fans in San Diego wouldn't suffer and they wouldn't be second fiddle to the Lakers in L.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

I'd prevent the Portsmouth Spartans from relocating to Detroit in 1934. This way, Detroit probably gets an expansion team sometime in the 50's and aren't nearly the train wreck that they've been for the past 60 years. Who knows, maybe alternate universe Lions even win a Super Bowl....  

That would take away the NFL Championships the Lions won in the 50's and what makes you think William Clay Ford Sr. wouldn't have purchased the "expansion" Detroit team sometime in the 60's.

 

George Richards not buying and moving the Spartans to Detroit is a cool "alternative" history jumping off point. If Detroit didn't get a NFL team during the 30's they would have definitely gotten an AAFC team after the war and been part of the NFL-AAFC "merger".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the "Cleveland Deal". To me, as a Browns fan, it simply pointed out the absurdity of how franchises and clubs are both intertwined and separate.

 

The league controls the franchises, which the corporation/club owns the rights to. The league determines who gets what franchise and what market that club can play in, as well as what name the franchise goes under. For instance, most teams aren't named just what their insignias state. It's usually Something Baseball Club Inc, or what not.

 

So, the idea that a 'franchise' moves from city to city when the business moves from city to city shouldn't happen. Baseball had it right in the early years. A team moved as many times as they wanted, but the home market always had the ability to start another "Washington Senators" or "Baltimore Orioles". Partly because the way baseball was setup with antitrust exemptions making them the defacto legal monopoly on the game. But, it created continuity. It wasn't until the Dodgers and Giants moved that the old way of doing things changed. The name, the club, the franchise, the history, moved together.

 

In reality, the league should tightly control their franchises. The clubs/business can do what they like. Want to move cities? Well, your current franchise is terminated and a new one created in your new market. All contracts honored by the rights of your franchise are terminated. Essentially creating a dispersal draft and then expansion draft. The former team doesn't 'fold' or 'relocate' they simply stop playing until one day they may come back either under that name or a new name.

 

But, watching the Browns move, and then the "Cleveland Deal" bringing them back and how they're just not the same team, the system is horribly flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.