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

[SFGiants58]

It should have been changed when the A’s moved from Kansas City.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

I think it’s useful to go back to why the name has changed to start with; as far as I know “California Angels” was just fine and they only changed to “Anaheim” because Disney was trying to synergize. That’s not a good enough reason!

And because Anaheim paid them to.  Don’t forget that part of it. 

[sky1324]

Anaheim Angels > California Angels > Los Angeles Angels > Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

 

The team doesn't play in Los Angeles. Anaheim is its own distinct city, even if it's within the LA metro. Oakland is part of the San Francisco metro, but it's still its own city. The Angels play in Anaheim, and should represent that fact. 

[Digby]

8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And because Anaheim paid them to.  Don’t forget that part of it. 

 

I actually don’t mind that if Anaheim taxpayers were on the hook for the stadium renovation. Other than the fact that the team should’ve paid for all of it anyway.

[pmoehrin]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Look at the area on Google Maps today: 

 

 

There’s almost no evidence of it, aside from being a large field in a forested area.

If you build it they will come they said.

[crashcarson15]

17 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Holy hell - those Richfield photos are shocking (to me.)  What was the idea behind putting it there?  Make it as inconvenient as possible for anyone to go?  Make it impossible to take mass transit?  It blows my mind that a 20k-seat venue can be that isolated.

The Coliseum at Richfield was born of the era of urban sprawl — the idea was that Northeast Ohio would continue to grow, and that the metro areas of Akron, Cleveland and even Youngstown would grow into each other and become one (here, Richfield would be like Arlington is to DFW). Of course, it only took three years after the Coliseum opened for the Youngstown economy to start to tank, and similar trends developed in Akron and Cleveland to keep that from ever happening.

[infrared41]

22 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Holy hell - those Richfield photos are shocking (to me.)  What was the idea behind putting it there?  Make it as inconvenient as possible for anyone to go?  Make it impossible to take mass transit?  It blows my mind that a 20k-seat venue can be that isolated.

 

Former Cavs and Cleveland Crusaders owner, Nick Mileti, came up with the idea for the Coliseum. The idea behind putting it in a field in Richfield Township was to draw people from both Akron and Cleveland as well all the towns in the surrounding area. It was reasonably close to Interstate 77 and the Ohio Turnpike. It was located near an exit on the Interstate 271 bypass at the junction of Ohio Route 303. The problem was that the main access road to the place was Ohio Route 303 which is a great little road two lane road for site seeing and motorcycle riding (as well as occasionally seeing the aforementioned Amish in their horse and buggies) but not so great at getting 18,000-20,000 people to an event. Traffic was a at best and a disaster at worst. From where I lived at the time, we'd take Ohio 303 all the way to Richfield which was about a 45 minute drive under normal conditions. If you were headed that way for an event, you had to add at least an extra hour and a half to have any chance of getting there on time.   

 

This is Ohio 303...

 

 

 

[infrared41]

22 hours ago, NicDB said:

The interstate system led to a lot of terrible ideas with infrastructure in low density areas, and the Richfield Coliiseum is one of my go-tos when making this point.  The idea was that if they put a venue equidistant from Cleveland and Akron, it could draw crowds from two cities rather than one.  So, naturally, the exact opposite happened.  Because no one considered that people don't want to commute such a distance to see a game on a weeknight.

 

Yeah, that's not entirely accurate. Just like any other team, attendance at Cavs games was good when they were competitive. Concerts and WWE events at the Coliseum did very well. Hell, 20,000+ showed up for an indoor soccer league game at the place. The Coliseum was in a weird location and the traffic sucked, but it was hardly the failure you're making it out to be. 

 

 

[gosioux76]

On 12/21/2019 at 8:22 PM, Hat Boy said:

Is there any metric or statistical evidence that demonstrates one way or the other the impact of the Angels using "Los Angeles" in their name? 

I think this debate stands to illustrate one thing: that whichever regional identity the Angels use doesn't really make a difference. 

 

Using the name "Anaheim" means more for the city than it does the team. Using "Los Angeles" likely means more for the team than it does Los Angeles, at least when it comes to global brand recognition. 

 

Maybe it's the my nostalgia kicking in, but I'd be in favor of splitting the difference and going back to California Angels. 

[The_Admiral]

California is the worst designation of the three, you goobers! Did everyone like the Danny Glover remake of Angels in the Outfield that much?

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, the admiral said:

California is the worst designation of the three, you goobers! Did everyone like the Danny Glover remake of Angels in the Outfield that much?

They just love the “good” Albert Belle highlights, a bit of it against the California Angels:

 

 

I wish there was video of him chasing the trick-or-treaters with his truck and on foot.

[Red Comet]

3 hours ago, the admiral said:

California is the worst designation of the three, you goobers! Did everyone like the Danny Glover remake of Angels in the Outfield that much?

 

A lot of posters here (myself included) were young children in 1994. Not all or most, but a lot. So, the answer is more likely than you think.

[SFGiants58]

22 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

 

A lot of posters here (myself included) were young children in 1994. Not all or most, but a lot. So, the answer is more likely than you think.

They should’ve been watching The Fan.

[Red Comet]

24 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

They should’ve been watching The Fan.

 

Maybe, but Disney is to children what Oxycontin is to people in West Virginia

[infrared41]

51 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

They just love the “good” Albert Belle highlights, a bit of it against the California Angels:

 

 

Albert Belle, the player who got me thinking that there was a serious steroid problem in Major League Baseball. Still remember him taking Troy Percival deep to beat the Angels. In fact, the Tribe kinda owned Troy Percival. 

[MilSox]

4 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Yeah, that's not entirely accurate. Just like any other team, attendance at Cavs games was good when they were competitive. Concerts and WWE events at the Coliseum did very well. Hell, 20,000+ showed up for an indoor soccer league game at the place. The Coliseum was in a weird location and the traffic sucked, but it was hardly the failure you're making it out to be.

There is the matter of two hockey teams that played a grand total of six seasons in Richfield.  I'm not sure I've ever read anything in-depth on either one that didn't cite the Coliseum's location as a major reason for their failure. 

[MilSox]

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

California is the worst designation of the three, you goobers! Did everyone like the Danny Glover remake of Angels in the Outfield that much?

Not as much as I loved using them in RBI Baseball.

SN: Angels In The Outfield is the last time the Ball-in-Glove appeared in a major motion picture.  One of the kids is wearing their hat in the scene where Glover is playing baseball with the boys and their friends.  Unless there's an obscure scene in Mr. 3000 where it appeared that I'm forgetting.

[The_Admiral]

What a good movie.

 

"Will you be my dad again?"
"When the Angels win the pennant."
"Okay, they won the pennant."
"Yeah, I'm still not."

 

Fun for the whole family.

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

What a good movie.

 

"Will you be my dad again?"
"When the Angels win the pennant."
"Okay, they won the pennant."
"Yeah, I'm still not."

 

Fun for the whole family.

 

I chose to believe that Angels in the Outfield is a prequel to Mysterious Skin. 

 

But back to the topic: I wonder if the stadium will dump the rocks in the outfield?

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

There is the matter of two hockey teams that played a grand total of six seasons in Richfield.  I'm not sure I've ever read anything in-depth on either one that didn't cite the Coliseum's location as a major reason for their failure. 

 

Cleveland has had more hockey teams than I can remember. AHL, WHA, NHL, IHL, and back to AHL.  None of them have been particularly successful. It's not the Coliseum's fault that hockey has never worked here. That aside, I think the WHA's Crusaders, a team in a league that wasn't the NHL, averaged about 6,500 a game in their short tenure at the Coliseum because they were pretty good. At that time, in this area, 6,500 a game for hockey is like getting 35,000 a game for baseball. The Barons 2.0 New NHL Version wouldn't have worked if they had played downtown for free. Whatever the Indoor Soccer League team was supposed to be did well despite the games being played in Richfield. Indoor soccer fans set an attendance record there. I don't think you can use hockey's failure as some sort of proof that the Coliseum was a failure. But what do I know, I was only here for the entire existence of the Richfield Coliseum. Granted, living here and following those teams doesn't give me the same expertise as a Brewers fan who read some articles, but I do think I have some perspective on the matter.