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

[63Bulldogs63]

I'm more torn than I thought I was in regards to this. I'm actually ok with the Cleveland situation. I think it has to do with how long and storied a history they had. I like to think of the Ravens as an expansion fanchise who's roster was made from the Contraction/Hiatus of the Cleveland Browns. None of the stink of Belicheck and those terrible teams of the early 90s. 

 

I'm also ok with the Giants and A's and Dodgers being continuous from their beginning to now. As a Giants fan I like being able to share history with someone from New York who was around during their time there and is still a fan even after the move. The Giants and dodgers have spent almost equal time on both coasts and both teams have done a great job of presenting their history.

 

On the flipside had the Kings moved to Seattle or VA Beach the history should have ended here in Sac as to that's where their success and fandom really flourished. ( Yes the lone championship came in Rochester, although 02*) I don't think Rochester or Cincy or KC are clammoring for  or missing the Royals/Kings. 

 

Ultimately I think its a case by case basis.

 

 

[BBTV]

So would all of you "SPORTS is real and a cultural institution that must be preserved at all costs damn the fans that we're preserving it for" be OK with the Montreal Athletics?  Or the Pittsburgh Pelicans?  I'll give you that the A's have been around forever, but have they really?  As far as I'm concerned, they're not the same team as the Philadelphia A's, they're not the KC A's, they're the Reggie Jackson, Dave Stewart, Dennis Eckersley, Tony Larussa, Bash Bros A's.  

 

I don't really care what your record book says.  I know that they're the same team and share the lineage, but IMHO except under the most extreme circumstances, a team should rebrand when they move - and I'll even go one further - the league should issue a new "franchise" paper, officially starting a new lineage (with the option to reactivate the old one in the future.)

 

I've done a 180 on this one.  I used to hate the Cleveland deal, but then I've put myself in the Dawg Pound's shoes, and would I root for the Cleveland Jaguars?  It's just a reminder that it's not my team.  Would "Baltimore Browns" make any sense to a reasonable person that's just getting into the sport?  No - it's absurd.

 

The Raiders?  Sure - that's a brand that other cities want, and one that kinda goes hand in hand with moving around and bucking the system.  Should Mark Davis be obligated to keep it?  If the fans in LV don't want it, then no.  But in this case it makes sense.

 

So shove this "bad take" up your ass - there's no reason to be obligated to hold on to a team name when it doesn't make sense.

[The_Admiral]

Philadelphia, you can argue, but the Charlie Finley green-and-gold Swingin' A's got their start in Kansas City, and that cements the continuity between those two stops. But I don't think the A's are ever leaving the Bay Area, so this is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing to me.

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Philadelphia, you can argue, but the Charlie Finley green-and-gold Swingin' A's got their start in Kansas City, and that cements the continuity between those two stops. 

 

The Kansas City exile is a strange period in the franchise’s history. They were basically the Kansas City Blues while Arnold Johnson (who deserves significant demonization from baseball fans) owned the team, while Charlie O. started the Swingin’ period there. Of course, Charlie O. was trying to GTFO of what he called a “horses—t town” during the entire time he owned the A’s in Kansas City. I don’t think the connection is that strong when the owner actively wants to escape.

[Red Wolf]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I've done a 180 on this one.  I used to hate the Cleveland deal, but then I've put myself in the Dawg Pound's shoes, and would I root for the Cleveland Jaguars?  It's just a reminder that it's not my team.  Would "Baltimore Browns" make any sense to a reasonable person that's just getting into the sport?  No - it's absurd.

 

If the Cleveland Jaguars is all you can get, it's what you'll root for. Baltimore loved the Colts so much they named their CFL team after them and pretended to care about CFL, yet they still love the Ravens.

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

 

If the Cleveland Jaguars is all you can get, it's what you'll root for. Baltimore loved the Colts so much they named their CFL team after them and pretended to care about CFL, yet they still love the Ravens.

 

That’s because the Ravens’ identity was so well-crafted and they had so much success within the first few years. It was locally-flavored, handled period design conventions well, and the team was winning not long into their run. Let’s not kid ourselves by suggesting that a lack of success on both the Charlotte and New Orleans ends played at least a partial role in the Hornicans/Horncats’ branding fiasco. 

 

Also, Indy didn’t rebrand upon moving. If Indy had done that (as they probably should have), we wouldn’t have this discussion. We’d have the Baltimore Colts back (but probably no records continuation) and Indianapolis would have their own locally-relevant identity. Honestly, I don’t want that in this scenario, as the Ravens’ identity runs laps around that of the Colts for a Baltimore team. But I digress.

 

It’s making the best of a bad situation. I’d rather obviate the bad situation by adopting local names upon moving. San Francisco Seals, NL Los Angeles Angels, Oakland Oaks, Atlanta Firebirds/Phoenixes, and Kansas City Blues/Milwaukee Brewers MK I all sound good to me. 

 

How many people in Oakland genuinely give a damn about Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove? Do Giants fans, aside from a few (like me), really care about pre-1951 players and titles (especially now that the Giants have championships in San Francisco)? Are Atlanta Braves fans clamoring for statues of the 1914 team? Outside of Jackie Robinson and players that made the move from Brooklyn to LA, do Dodgers fans emphasize the importance of legendary Brooklyn players (e.g., Wilbert Robinson and Rube Marquand)?

 

This even applies to other sports. Do Lakers fans really give a crap about George Mikan? Are Atlanta Hawks fans ecstatic about St. Louis throwbacks? Should Arizona Cardinals fans pretend to care about the pre-Super Bowl titles won in Chicago? Do the majority of Dallas Stars followers genuinely care about pre-Barons merger North Stars? Are Colts fans really going to care about Baltimore players outside of maybe Unitas (who wouldn’t reciprocate the attention)? 

 

If you stuck by my rhetorical rambling, you’d get the sense that pre-relocation history is often only relevant when the team needs it to be for marketing purposes. The Giants chose to emphasize their New York history because there was extensive roster carryover between NY and SF, but also because the team had won zero titles since 1954 and wanted to assert a “championship legacy.” The O’Malleys were reticent to acknowledge Brooklyn outside of retired numbers, only really emphasizing it after companies like Mitchell & Ness and artists like Spike Lee made it commercially viable to do so. The Braves had a fairly similar look and extensive roster sharing between all three locations (as well as a successful Milwaukee stint) that enabled them to market their past while still being “on brand.” The A’s turned to their history as part of the Haas family’s branding efforts, to re-establish the team as a legacy club after Finley’s brand rejected the team’s pre-Finley history (outside of the name and basic uniform template) and after the A’s were in non-contention. Note how the only times they’ve thrown back to the terrible Kansas City stint have been in green/gold uniforms that might as well be 1969-71 kits.

 

It isn’t so much a noble commitment to history as it is a desire to optimally brand the team for merchandising and free agency purposes. A championship legacy sells tickets and gets free agents to sign.

[mjrbaseball]

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

It’s making the best of a bad situation. I’d rather obviate the bad situation by adopting local names upon moving. San Francisco Seals, NL Los Angeles Angels, Oakland Oaks, Atlanta Firebirds/Phoenixes, and Kansas City Blues/Milwaukee Brewers MK I all sound good to me. 

 

But in doing so, do we not have to take cultural considerations into account? Obviously we would not have perpetuated the Atlanta Crackers.

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, mjrbaseball said:

 

But in doing so, do we not have to take cultural considerations into account? Obviously we would not have perpetuated the Atlanta Crackers.

 

Yes, obviously. We can adjust to fit the times. That’s why adopting a name like Crackers wouldn’t have happened upon relocation. It wouldn’t move units or tickets, as the history of the Atlanta Crackers isn’t as marketable.

 

While my post may be long-winded, the point I was trying to get to was that a team’s pre-relocation history has to be marketable to some degree for it to be honored. Local fans will often be indifferent to the histories of teams pre-relocation, unless it benefits their team’s standing. Would you rather say your team has won eight titles or three titles? 

[FiddySicks]

11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

So shove this "bad take" up your ass - there's no reason to be obligated to hold on to a team name when it doesn't make sense.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly! 

 

Problem is, ditching a brand as valuable as the A's brand (Which has survived several cities already) is, very much so, a bad take. No matter where you wanna put it. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly! 

 

Problem is, ditching a brand as valuable as the A's brand (Which has survived several cities already) is, very much so, a bad take. No matter where you wanna put it. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I agree too! Ideally teams change names upon moving, but since that didn't happen and the A's didn't change names, they shouldn't change now. Their brand, via sticking around, associations with titles, and a unique color scheme in baseball, has far more cache than any potential rebrand.

 

Then again, that's assuming Portland Diamond Project gets beyond the planning stage and gets far enough along without any guarantee of a team. I hope Portland learns from St. Petersburg in that regard.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

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.

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

The Athletics name and overall branding can fit with any city so changing it makes no sense to me

[BBTV]

6 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly! 

 

Problem is, ditching a brand as valuable as the A's brand (Which has survived several cities already) is, very much so, a bad take. No matter where you wanna put it. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Right in your colon... or maybe even an intestine - whichever is the lower one. Maybe if we have a dr in the forum, he/she can advise. I’m not saying 100% to eliminate the brand, but it should be an option, and it shouldn’t be considered too sacred to retire it. 

 

5 hours ago, Maroon&Gold said:

The Athletics name and overall branding can fit with any city so changing it makes no sense to me

 

Is that true though? Do green and gold really mean anything to some city that’s known for some other distinct color scheme? Some other city might genuinely value the history of the franchise, and that’s great, but some other one may feel it’s easier to market a more local identity to their fans   

[FiddySicks]

14 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Right in your colon... or maybe even an intestine - whichever is the lower one. Maybe if we have a dr in the forum, he/she can advise. I’m not saying 100% to eliminate the brand, but it should be an option, and it shouldn’t be considered too sacred to retire it. 

 

This is how we're going to end up with the Portland Rosebuds and it'll be all your fault. 

[IceCap]

A’s jacked. 

 

Gotta admit, I admire the civic pride Vet’s showing, still salty about the A’s leaving Philly. That’s dedication. 

[SFGiants58]

13 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

A’s jacked. 

 

Gotta admit, I admire the civic pride Vet’s showing, still salty about the A’s leaving Philly. That’s dedication. 

 

Well, the A’s are the more successful AL franchise in California and they were the ones to screw up the “California Angels” name by moving there. Would now be a good time to remind you guys that we could be dealing with this same location name kerfuffle, but with the A’s instead of the Angels?

 

I apologize if I got rant-y in this thread. I’ve been dealing with some stress lately in moving apartments and I got a bit too incensed, dealing with it by taking it out over the internet instead of calmly handling it offline. I should also remind myself that posting in the early morning only leads to trouble. Now back to our scheduled programming!

[Wings]

Portland Athletics or A's would be fine plus the green & gold scheme fits perfectly in the Pacific Northwest. 

[63Bulldogs63]

21 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That’s because the Ravens’ identity was so well-crafted and they had so much success within the first few years. It was locally-flavored, handled period design conventions well, and the team was winning not long into their run. Let’s not kid ourselves by suggesting that a lack of success on both the Charlotte and New Orleans ends played at least a partial role in the Hornicans/Horncats’ branding fiasco. 

 

Also, Indy didn’t rebrand upon moving. If Indy had done that (as they probably should have), we wouldn’t have this discussion. We’d have the Baltimore Colts back (but probably no records continuation) and Indianapolis would have their own locally-relevant identity. Honestly, I don’t want that in this scenario, as the Ravens’ identity runs laps around that of the Colts for a Baltimore team. But I digress.

 

It’s making the best of a bad situation. I’d rather obviate the bad situation by adopting local names upon moving. San Francisco Seals, NL Los Angeles Angels, Oakland Oaks, Atlanta Firebirds/Phoenixes, and Kansas City Blues/Milwaukee Brewers MK I all sound good to me. 

 

How many people in Oakland genuinely give a damn about Jimmy Foxx and Lefty Grove? Do Giants fans, aside from a few (like me), really care about pre-1951 players and titles (especially now that the Giants have championships in San Francisco)? Are Atlanta Braves fans clamoring for statues of the 1914 team? Outside of Jackie Robinson and players that made the move from Brooklyn to LA, do Dodgers fans emphasize the importance of legendary Brooklyn players (e.g., Wilbert Robinson and Rube Marquand)?

 

This even applies to other sports. Do Lakers fans really give a crap about George Mikan? Are Atlanta Hawks fans ecstatic about St. Louis throwbacks? Should Arizona Cardinals fans pretend to care about the pre-Super Bowl titles won in Chicago? Do the majority of Dallas Stars followers genuinely care about pre-Barons merger North Stars? Are Colts fans really going to care about Baltimore players outside of maybe Unitas (who wouldn’t reciprocate the attention)? 

 

If you stuck by my rhetorical rambling, you’d get the sense that pre-relocation history is often only relevant when the team needs it to be for marketing purposes. The Giants chose to emphasize their New York history because there was extensive roster carryover between NY and SF, but also because the team had won zero titles since 1954 and wanted to assert a “championship legacy.” The O’Malleys were reticent to acknowledge Brooklyn outside of retired numbers, only really emphasizing it after companies like Mitchell & Ness and artists like Spike Lee made it commercially viable to do so. The Braves had a fairly similar look and extensive roster sharing between all three locations (as well as a successful Milwaukee stint) that enabled them to market their past while still being “on brand.” The A’s turned to their history as part of the Haas family’s branding efforts, to re-establish the team as a legacy club after Finley’s brand rejected the team’s pre-Finley history (outside of the name and basic uniform template) and after the A’s were in non-contention. Note how the only times they’ve thrown back to the terrible Kansas City stint have been in green/gold uniforms that might as well be 1969-71 kits.

 

It isn’t so much a noble commitment to history as it is a desire to optimally brand the team for merchandising and free agency purposes. A championship legacy sells tickets and gets free agents to sign.

 

The Giants fans I know all embrace the totality of the Giants history. But as you said, a lot of that probably has to do with the lack of titles during the SF run. Even with the 3 this decade, and honestly we should have 4 if Dusty doesnt blow it in Game 6, I still take pride in the fact that my team is one of the oldest in baseball history and has had 2 homes. NY and SF.

[63Bulldogs63]

8 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Right in your colon... or maybe even an intestine - whichever is the lower one. Maybe if we have a dr in the forum, he/she can advise. I’m not saying 100% to eliminate the brand, but it should be an option, and it shouldn’t be considered too sacred to retire it. 

 

 

Is that true though? Do green and gold really mean anything to some city that’s known for some other distinct color scheme? Some other city might genuinely value the history of the franchise, and that’s great, but some other one may feel it’s easier to market a more local identity to their fans   

 

Hell it doesn't even have to be green and gold that potentially moves. The name and logos really fit any color scheme. As long as they keep the elephant and white shoes theyre set.

[mjrbaseball]

26 minutes ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

 

Hell it doesn't even have to be green and gold that potentially moves. The name and logos really fit any color scheme. As long as they keep the elephant and white shoes theyre set.

 

The Athletics' colors were red and blue for the first 62 years of their history. It wasn't until Charlie Finley changed the colors in 1963 that green and gold appeared.