Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[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

[dfwabel]

3 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I'm curious...has anyone here been to MLB games both at the Metrodome and the Trop?  If so, is one appreciably worse than the other?

 

I, of course, have been to many games at the Metrodome.  But I've never had the "pleasure" of going to the Trop.  The Metrodome was just so sterile...I've been to 30 MLB parks (counting defunct; the Metrodome is the only full-time dome I've been to) and it's the worst one by far.  Not sure whether the Trop is as bad, but it cannot be that much better.

 

That all said, the Twins did draw well at the Dome when the team was doing well.  The Rays don't even seem to draw during good times.  As far as I can tell, there are two key possibilities: 1) The interest in baseball / the local club is just not there or 2) the location is really that difference-making.  The Metrodome had one thing going for it; its downtown location.  But I question whether it's a good idea to bank on location / dumpy park are the problem, to the tune of, say $1 billion (and at least half public).

I have.  Originally, The Trop was designed as Kaufman Stadium (before its1997 renovation) but with a dome.  I don't think it was really completed until the mid-2000'.  Metrodome seemed more cramped on the concourse to me and lots of bare concrete

[TBGKon]

Press conference Tuesday the 25th at 1pm eastern about the Rays.  Assumingly to clear the air about this Montreal stuff.

[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.

[PrimalCookie]

5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I'm curious...has anyone here been to MLB games both at the Metrodome and the Trop?  If so, is one appreciably worse than the other?

 

I, of course, have been to many games at the Metrodome.  But I've never had the "pleasure" of going to the Trop.  The Metrodome was just so sterile...I've been to 30 MLB parks (counting defunct; the Metrodome is the only full-time dome I've been to) and it's the worst one by far.  Not sure whether the Trop is as bad, but it cannot be that much better.

 

That all said, the Twins did draw well at the Dome when the team was doing well.  The Rays don't even seem to draw during good times.  As far as I can tell, there are two key possibilities: 1) The interest in baseball / the local club is just not there or 2) the location is really that difference-making.  The Metrodome had one thing going for it; its downtown location.  But I question whether it's a good idea to bank on location / dumpy park are the problem, to the tune of, say $1 billion (and at least half public).

The interest is definitely there. The Rays consistently get high TV ratings, and I always see a bunch of people with Rays shirts or hats on.

 

I'd say it's a mix of terrible location, terrible stadium in general, and (for most of their history) terrible team. Many still think of the Rays as a bottom of the table team, one not worth paying as much as they charge to see - even in seasons like this, where they aren't bad.

[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. 

[marlinfan]

I last went to Tropicana Field in 2010ish. It looks like the bastard child of a stadium, warehouse, and an early 90s cut-rate office building if it were possible for them to procreate. The main rotunda meant to evoke Ebbets Field looks more like something you see in a dying mall. Different areas of the concourse had their own “character” which ranged from sterile concrete to drop ceilings to Joe DiMaggio in comic book form. The trimmings on the scoreboard reminded me of a cheap baseball-theme carnival funhouse. The lights inside are low so you have a constant glare. The turf looked poorly maintained and had a weird shine. I think they still had the orange leaf gradient on the walls/catwalks which evoked Rainforest Cafe.

 

The banners in the rafters and the museum were cool though. We set in right field a few rows in front of former Marlins GM Larry Beinfest and his kids. The Marlins infield dropped an infield pop-up and when we turned around he did that thing where he knew you were looking at him but didn’t want to make eye contact.

[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.