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

[Waffles]

1 minute ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Browns, Hornets/Pelicans, the Quakes, and maybe the Thunder (if Seattle gets a new team) did, but they are outliers.

 

I mean, they didn't burn all evidence of their previous iterations moving. They didn't fanfic alternate histories for the missing seasons. They just adopted historical identities for their teams, ones that fans in these cities felt an attachment to. Which, to me, is better than having Muggsy Bouges Bobblehead Night in New Orleans.

[FiddySicks]

Man, I've seen some BAD takes on here over the years, but the "They should ditch the A's moniker if they move" take is probably the worst one yet. 

 

I mean, that's an impressively bad idea. 

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Man, I've seen some BAD takes on here over the years, but the "They should ditch the A's moniker if they move" take is probably the worst one yet. 

 

I mean, that's an impressively bad idea. 

 

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.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by SFGiants58

[leopard88]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

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.

 

This is more or less the model the Orioles have followed.  There isn't a lot of St. Louis Browns imagery in Camden Yards or on their website (with the "Franchise Timeline" and "Logos & Mascots" sections of the site beginning in 1954).  However, the year-by-year records part of the site goes back to the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers and the top 19 players on the season batting average list are all St. Louis Browns.

 

https://www.mlb.com/orioles/history/timeline

 

https://www.mlb.com/orioles/history/logos-and-mascots

 

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp?c_id=bal#sortColumn=avg&sectionType=sp&playerType=ALL&statType=hitting&season=&season_type=SINGLE&game_type='R'&elem=[object+Object]&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&league_code='MLB'&page=1&ts=1561395802664&split=&timeframe=

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

2 hours 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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Waffles said:

I mean, they didn't burn all evidence of their previous iterations moving. They didn't fanfic alternate histories for the missing seasons.

 

That is, in a sense, exactly what they did.  The Browns situation created the fantasy that the Browns went on hiatus for a few years, and that the Ravens were a new expansion team.  And the San Jose Earthquakes copied that exact pattern when they moved to Houston, but somehow metaphysically "left their history" (which is emphatically not a thing) in San Jose.  And we all know about the fiasco involving the 1988 Hornets/Pelicans franchise and the 2004 Bobcats/Hornets franchise, whereby the history books now show a continuous Hornets franchise dating back to 1988 (with a few years under the nickname Bobcats), and date the origin of the Hornets/Pelicans franchise to 2002 (when the original Hornets moved to New Orleans). 

 

In all of these cases, the history books literally contain fiction.  This practice amounts to a cultural crime. 

 

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

This isn't Black Athena, denying war crimes, anti-Stratfordianism, or the perpetuation of the "Lost Cause of the South." It's just sports.

 

The examples from the world of sports are certainly not as serious as the denial of war crimes or the perpetuation of Confederate myths,  However, the sports examples compare quite directly to anti-Stratfordianism, in that they both involve cultural touchstones, and the way these gigantic cultural entities are to be understood.

 

And I would say that this practice of rewriting sports history is even more destructive than a theory such as the Black Athena theory.   The Black Athena theory is similar to the claim that Native Americans originated in the Americas, a non-scientific theory that contrasts with the proven fact that their anscestors migrated from Asia.  The non-historic theories are not to be taken literally; but they can do some good in broadening the perspective of historians and in countering some Eurocentric biases. The Black Athena theory and the Native origin theory are fringe ideas; they are, in the end, harmless, because they do not derail serious historical study, as anyone studying either matter in the future will be able to learn the scientifically valid version of events. By contrast, the altered histories of the Browns, Earthquakes, and Hornets have now become the mainstream histories. Once these events pass from living memory, people who study the matter by looking back at the official records will have no way of knowing that the records are fake.

 

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Devils under Lou Lamoriello didn't give a crap about the Scouts or Rockies,

 

Well, the team did wear a patch in honour of John McMullen that acknowledged its time in Colorado.  (This happened after Lamoriello left; though I am not sure why that is significant.)

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

the Brewers have often avoided their one year as the Pilots

 

Often, but not always.  Twenty years ago, the Brewers became the first team to wear Pilots throwbacks.

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

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.

Maybe.  Baseball has generally been far better than the other sports as far as preserving the integrity of its record books.  The only example of a bad act in baseball's history is the practice of ignoring the 1903 franchise relocation of the Baltimore Orioles to New York. 

This is a fascinating history, in which the American League tried to capitalise on the National League's contraction of the Baltimore Orioles (among other teams) after the 1899 season by bringing in John McGraw and his rowdy Orioles players for a new Baltimore Orioles team starting in 1901. But AL founder/president Ban Johnson underestimated just how wild McGraw's bunch were, and in 1902 attempted to suspend McGraw for fighting and for arguing with umpires,  In response, McGraw and several other players just quit the club, which had been in financial trouble and was now owned by the owners the National League's New York Giants; and the McGraw rowdies moved to that team. Before the 1902 season was out, the American League nullified the ownership by the Giants people, and took over the club, eventually finding buyers who would move it to New York for 1903. (Side note: McGraw's hatred for Ban Johnson and the American League accounts for the Giants' unwillingness to meet the AL champions in what would have been the second World Series in 1904.)

In undue deference to the Yankees, Major League Baseball considers the Baltimore Orioles to have folded after 1902, and considers the 1903 New York team to be a new franchise.  If I ever meet official Major League historian John Thorn, I plan to chew him out about this terrible ruling (after I praise him for his excellent mustache).

 

This remains the only exception to baseball's good history of keeping franchise lineages straight. But we cannot take for granted that this will continue at a time during which the ethical values that led to this practice have come under under tremendous pressure.  If/when a new team goes to Montreal and takes the name Expos, will Major League Baseball continue the practice reflected in its consideration of the two Washington Senators teams, the three Baltimore Orioles teams, and the two Milwaukee Brewers teams as belonging to different franchises? Or will we see a Hornets-style abomination? The decision that is ultimately taken will be a result mainly of prevailing trends. This is why the vigorous defence of franchise continuity is important (even if we can always conceive of things that are more important).

[leopard88]

16 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Often, but not always.  Twenty years ago, the Brewers became the first team to wear Pilots throwbacks.

 

 

 

I had forgotten about this.

 

If they really wanted to be accurate in throwing back to 1969, the Brewers should have at least dressed as the road team.  The White Sox and Pilots played in Milwaukee in 1969 . . . but the White Sox were the home team.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/life/green-sheet/2018/05/08/when-chicago-white-sox-called-milwaukees-county-stadium-home/576362002/

 

The White Sox played one game in Milwaukee that year against each of the other American League teams.

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, leopard88 said:

 

I had forgotten about this.

 

If they really wanted to be accurate in throwing back to 1969, the Brewers should have at least dressed as the road team.  The White Sox and Pilots played in Milwaukee in 1969 . . . but the White Sox were the home team.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/life/green-sheet/2018/05/08/when-chicago-white-sox-called-milwaukees-county-stadium-home/576362002/

 

The White Sox played one game in Milwaukee that year against each of the other American League teams.

 

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!

[Gothamite]

As an aside, those uniforms were designed because they were planning a home-and-home series with the Brewers.  But Milwaukee decided not to host their game after all, leaving Minnesota the road team in their own stadium.

[SFGiants58]

Just now, Gothamite said:

As an aside, those uniforms were designed because they were planning a home-and-home series with the Brewers.  But Milwaukee decided not to host their game after all, leaving Minnesota the road team in their own stadium.

 

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?

[The_Admiral]

You'd have an easier time determining which sports team inheritors aren't failsons.

[Waffles]

46 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

That is, in a sense, exactly what they did.  The Browns situation created the fantasy that the Browns went on hiatus for a few years, and that the Ravens were a new expansion team.  And the San Jose Earthquakes copied that exact pattern when they moved to Houston, but somehow metaphysically "left their history" (which is emphatically not a thing) in San Jose.  And we all know about the fiasco involving the 1988 Hornets/Pelicans franchise and the 2004 Bobcats/Hornets franchise, whereby the history books now show a continuous Hornets franchise dating back to 1988 (with a few years under the nickname Bobcats), and date the origin of the Hornets/Pelicans franchise to 2002 (when the original Hornets moved to New Orleans). 

 

In all of these cases, the history books literally contain fiction.  This practice amounts to a cultural crime. 

 

I don't see it as ahistorical to separate the history of the team (players, culture, memories, records, identity) from the history of the franchise (the business entity). The franchise is fundamentally a license from the league to own a team. Art Modell used his license to own the Cleveland Browns team, then he used it to own the Baltimore Ravens, and someone else bought a license and used it to own the Cleveland Browns. The history and culture of the team stayed with the city and the fans who valued it instead of being grafted to a city and fanbase that had no connection to it. This isn't defacing history; it's keeping it where it's relevant.

[Red Wolf]

3 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Man, I've seen some BAD takes on here over the years, but the "They should ditch the A's moniker if they move" take is probably the worst one yet. 

 

I mean, that's an impressively bad idea. 

 

I could maybe buy into it if they hadn't played in multiple cities as the A's prior to Oakland. Even then, I prefer teams keep their nicknames when they move.

 

7 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

So... you’ll be a One Man Gang?

 

I'm reclaiming the OMG initialism for the betterment of humanity.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 hours ago, Waffles said:

 

I don't see it as ahistorical to separate the history of the team (players, culture, memories, records, identity) from the history of the franchise (the business entity). The franchise is fundamentally a license from the league to own a team. Art Modell used his license to own the Cleveland Browns team, then he used it to own the Baltimore Ravens, and someone else bought a license and used it to own the Cleveland Browns. The history and culture of the team stayed with the city and the fans who valued it instead of being grafted to a city and fanbase that had no connection to it. This isn't defacing history; it's keeping it where it's relevant.

 

Fans' loyalties and the record books are two different things.  Obviously fans are going support their new home team, and see it as a continuation of the old team.  But that is a separate issue from the official records.

I don't know how much you are up on baseball history, but the event of a team moving away from a city and then being replaced by a new expansion team happened in baseball in 1961.  Calvin Griffith moved the Washington Senators to Minnesota; and the American League put a new Senators expansion team in Washington.  But Major League Baseball kept the records straight: the Senators/Twins were one franchise, and the new Senators (eventually to become the Texas Rangers) were another franchise. This is how the Cleveland Browns affair should have been handled.  And that is probably how it would have been handled if the NFL had not felt the need to invent this cocamamie scheme of "leaving the history" in an effort to stave off litigation.  (Indeed, at Modell's introductory press conference in Baltimore, the Maryland governor introduced Modell as "the owner of the Baltimore Browns".  So there was no doubt that the franchise had gone to Baltimore, not into hiatus.)

More recently, the NHL has kept its franchise lineages straight, affirming in its records that the original Jets franchise (now the Arizona Coyotes) is distinct from the current Jets franchise (the former Atlanta Thrashers).  Again, this does not prevent the Winnipeg fans from rooting for their home team and connecting both Jets teams in their hearts.

Baseball has not yet f-ed up the record books (apart from the Baltimore / New York thing from 1903).  But the prospect of a new Montreal Expos (even more than a relocation of the A's) makes me nervous.

[Waffles]

9 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Fans' loyalties and the record books are two different things.  Obviously fans are going support their new home team, and see it as a continuation of the old team.  But that is a separate issue from the official records.

 

I should clarify that I also think records should also reside with the team's lineage, and not the franchise's. I don't think George Shinn's scumbaggery should determine who the Charlotte Hornets' all-time leading scorer is - it should be the guy who scored the most points as Charlotte Hornet, regardless of which iteration of the team it was. It's part of the team culture that should belong to the fans, not the rich guy who owns the team.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Waffles

[SFGiants58]

7 minutes ago, Waffles said:

 

I should clarify that I also think records should also reside with the team's lineage, and not the franchise's. I don't think George Shinn's scumbaggery should determine who the Charlotte Hornets' all-time leading scorer is - it should be the guy who scored the most points as Charlotte Hornet, regardless of which iteration of the team it was. It's part of the team culture that should belong to the fans, not the rich guy who owns the team.

 

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.

[mjrbaseball]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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.

 Yet the Yankees ignore the first two years of their existence.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

17 minutes ago, mjrbaseball said:

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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.

 Yet the Yankees ignore the first two years of their existence.

 

 

Yes, as noted in this post.  The relevant section:
 

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Baseball has generally been far better than the other sports as far as preserving the integrity of its record books.  The only example of a bad act in baseball's history is the practice of ignoring the 1903 franchise relocation of the Baltimore Orioles to New York. 

This is a fascinating history, in which the American League tried to capitalise on the National League's contraction of the Baltimore Orioles (among other teams) after the 1899 season by bringing in John McGraw and his rowdy Orioles players for a new Baltimore Orioles team starting in 1901. But AL founder/president Ban Johnson underestimated just how wild McGraw's bunch were, and in 1902 attempted to suspend McGraw for fighting and for arguing with umpires,  In response, McGraw and several other players just quit the club, which had been in financial trouble and was now owned by the owners the National League's New York Giants; and the McGraw rowdies moved to that team. Before the 1902 season was out, the American League nullified the ownership by the Giants people, and took over the club, eventually finding buyers who would move it to New York for 1903. (Side note: McGraw's hatred for Ban Johnson and the American League accounts for the Giants' unwillingness to meet the AL champions in what would have been the second World Series in 1904.)

In undue deference to the Yankees, Major League Baseball considers the Baltimore Orioles to have folded after 1902, and considers the 1903 New York team to be a new franchise.  If I ever meet official Major League historian John Thorn, I plan to chew him out about this terrible ruling (after I praise him for his excellent mustache).

 

[The_Admiral]

To synthesize Angel Stadium and Black Athena here, I want to say that I am a hotep but only regarding the origins of Anaheim Stadium. The parking lot A originally stood for "Africa." Most people won't tell you this.

[SFGiants58]

4 minutes ago, the admiral said:

To synthesize Angel Stadium and Black Athena here, I want to say that I am a hotep but only regarding the origins of Anaheim Stadium. The parking lot A originally stood for "Africa." Most people won't tell you this.

 

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. 

[63Bulldogs63]

10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

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.
 

 

I have diagreed and generally disliked most of your posts I have read. But this right here is exactly what it should be.