Angels tell Anaheim they're opting out of their lease on Angel Stadium

[kolob]

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I've been torn to shreds here for suggesting this (It was a long time ago, though), but I've always thought the California AL teams should be as follows:

 

Southern California Angels

Northern California Athletics

 

 

You somewhat solve several problems by going this route.

 

Why not California Angels and California Athletics? Who says both can't represent the state? I mean, we have the New York Mets/Yankees and Chicago Cubs/White Sox right now? Why not a state identifier? 

 

Just a thought.

[FiddySicks]

3 minutes ago, kimball said:

 

Why not California Angels and California Athletics? Who says both can't represent the state? I mean, we have the New York Mets/Yankees and Chicago Cubs/White Sox right now? Why not a state identifier? 

 

Just a thought.

 

That's an interesting idea. I personally don't like that as much, because I think there is a certain dichotomy between Northern and Southern California that should be represented and celebrated. It's a bit different from the New York and Chicago teams because the both represent the same market.

[63Bulldogs63]

On 5/4/2019 at 3:38 PM, Quillz said:

I remember watching "Sonicsgate" and thinking Seattle was silly for letting the Sonics leave, and that I was upset their decision was largely influenced by a local group that was against using public funds for building stadiums. But more than a decade later, I realize now they made the right decision. People are realizing that billionaires can build their stadiums without public funds, and their promises of x and y almost never pan out. I wonder if the Rams would have gotten public funding for their stadium had Seattle done so to keep the Sonics there. I think a major precedent was set when that happened.

 

Not entirely so. Take for instance the most recent almost sonicsgate / Anaheim Royals / Virginia Beach whatever.

 

Sacramento did the right thing and worked with the new kings ownership in footing the bill for the Golden 1 Center. Kept the Kings in town, which is huge for a small market team. Not only has it kept the 43 nba games it gets, it's also spiked the amount of concerts and shows that now no longer avoid Sacramento (arco was terrible logistically for loading in shows, always hated those load ins.)

 

On top of that it has completely revitalized downtown Sacramento with a new hotel, shops and restaurants, all which didnt exist when the downtown plaza pretty much went under.

 

While it might not work in all cases, a partnership between city and team on a facility can greatly benefit both parties.

[63Bulldogs63]

On 6/14/2019 at 7:00 PM, Gothamite said:

 

For at least the last ten years, Oakland has been using just the name “Raiders” on most merchandise. 

In fairness that's because they were trying to get a stadium deal with someone. Oakland wasnt budging so to piss them off just like Davis' are known to do they go with just straight Raiders.

 

Sell merch to LA fans that think they had hope of returning. And now to potential Vegas fans prior to the move.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

3 hours ago, kimball said:

 

Why not California Angels and California Athletics? Who says both can't represent the state? I mean, we have the New York Mets/Yankees and Chicago Cubs/White Sox right now? Why not a state identifier?  

 

Just a thought.

 

Golden State Angels. Golden State A's. Now's the time!

[BBTV]

If they move out of the Bay Area, would it be time to retire the "Athletics" name?  IMO it should have been retired in the '50s when they left Philadelphia, but keeping it as they move around and around doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it doesn't have any local meaning to any city that they'd be starting new in, and it's value as a brand has eroded over time... despite their relative recent successes.

[The_Admiral]

I've argued that you can't retire "Indians" because it's lasted over a century. The Athletics have lasted even longer and haven't even offended anyone. It's there to stay.

[GDAWG]

So what are the odds that Oakland gets their stadium finalized?

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

So what are the odds that Oakland gets their stadium finalized?

 

There are probably better odds that I’m playing center field for the A’s next season. 

[Wings]

Wether it's Oakland, Portland or Saskatchewan, they'll always be the A's. 

[daveindc]

5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If they move out of the Bay Area, would it be time to retire the "Athletics" name?  IMO it should have been retired in the '50s when they left Philadelphia, but keeping it as they move around and around doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it doesn't have any local meaning to any city that they'd be starting new in, and it's value as a brand has eroded over time... despite their relative recent successes.

 

 

 

"DB" is Darwin Barney, one of the investors for the potential team. My initial reaction is why not just keep the name going?

But thinking about it a little more, would anybody be upset if they leave the Athletics brand with Oakland for a potential team in the future? How many cities does the name need to bounce around to? If any of the A's cities deserve to keep the identity, it's Oakland. 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

There won't be a future Oakland team -- in the absence of the A's, the entire Bay Area would just be expected to get its American League baseball from interleague visits to the Giants. But I don't think that's very likely, either.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

22 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If they move out of the Bay Area, would it be time to retire the "Athletics" name?  IMO it should have been retired in the '50s when they left Philadelphia, but keeping it as they move around and around doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it doesn't have any local meaning to any city that they'd be starting new in, and it's value as a brand has eroded over time... despite their relative recent successes.

 

Please do not advocate the creation of any extra obstacles to the recognition of franchise continuity at a time when the very concept is in crisis, and when respect for history is at an all-time low.

 

Some nicknames are so tied to their localities that they cannot be transported to a new city; this is why we have twice seen teams called Washington Senators change their name upon relocation. (Though the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Utah Jazz have stretched this point.) But a nickname that has no conceptual link to its location should by all means be retained — all the moreso if that name dates back to the founding of the American League.

 

Of course I hope that the A's never leave Oakland. But, if the worst happens, then players in the new city should be shooting for Athletics team records held by Rickey Henderson and Reggie Jackson and Al Simmons and Jimmie Foxx and Lefty Grove and Dennis Eckersley.

 

Before game 4 of the 1972 World Series, the first ball was thrown out by Grove, who was introduced to the crowd as the team's ace the last time it had gone to the World Series. This is a beautiful moment. Our culture needs to encourage more of this type of moment, rather than encourage making such a moment impossible.

[Wings]

As we harken back to an ancient age (1970's), a little hamlet called Oakland dominated the sports world for a bit.

 

1972 A's win World Series

1973 A's win World Series

1974 A's win World Series

1975 Warriors win NBA Championship 

1976 Raiders win Super Bowl 

 

 

 

 

 

[BBTV]

If I lived in Oklahoma City and the A’s moved there, I wouldn’t give a damn about Jimmy’s foxx or Reggie Jackson or Mark McGwire. That wasn’t my team, despite what the record books say. 

 

Sports isnt real. It’s for fun and enjoyment. The marketers would have a better chance selling the OKC Baseball Thunder than the “Athletics”. 

[Red Wolf]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If I lived in Oklahoma City and the A’s moved there, I wouldn’t give a damn about Jimmy’s foxx or Reggie Jackson or Mark McGwire. That wasn’t my team, despite what the record books say. 

 

Sports isnt real. It’s for fun and enjoyment. The marketers would have a better chance selling the OKC Baseball Thunder than the “Athletics”. 

 

We already lost the Houston Oilers' uniforms. I will riot all by myself on the streets of Little Rock, Arkansas if we lose the Athletics' uniforms.

[BBTV]

So... you’ll be a One Man Gang?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

10 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If I lived in Oklahoma City and the A’s moved there, I wouldn’t give a damn about Jimmy’s foxx or Reggie Jackson or Mark McGwire. That wasn’t my team, despite what the record books say. 

 

Sports isnt real. It’s for fun and enjoyment. The marketers would have a better chance selling the OKC Baseball Thunder than the “Athletics”. 

 

A sports team is no less real than any other institution. It is an entity in the culture; and its history merits acknowledgement.

 

This is understood by the Dodgers

 

 

...by the Giants

 

 

...by the Braves

 

 

(When John Smoltz struck out 15 in a 1992 game, he tied a team record held by Warren Spahn.)

 

 

...and, of course, by the A's.

 

 

 

   

 

The A's history is as continuous as that of the Cubs or the Cardinals or the Yankees.  A disregard for this is absolutely indefensible, as bad as any other intentional misrepresentation of history.
 

[Waffles]

12 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If I lived in Oklahoma City and the A’s moved there, I wouldn’t give a damn about Jimmy’s foxx or Reggie Jackson or Mark McGwire. That wasn’t my team, despite what the record books say. 

 

Sports isnt real. It’s for fun and enjoyment. The marketers would have a better chance selling the OKC Baseball Thunder than the “Athletics”. 

 

This is where I come down on it too. Each team has its own history and can decide what parts of it are relevant to its current iteration and to its fanbase. Some teams have maintained a connection to former cities and some have prefered to emphasize their current home. Some have even embraced the history of other franchises that preceded them in that city. All of these things are fine. Nobody's taking a sharpie to the history books.

[SFGiants58]

20 minutes ago, Waffles said:

 

This is where I come down on it too. Each team has its own history and can decide what parts of it are relevant to its current iteration and to its fanbase. Some teams have maintained a connection to former cities and some have prefered to emphasize their current home. Some have even embraced the history of other franchises that preceded them in that city. All of these things are fine. Nobody's taking a sharpie to the history books.

 

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.