Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[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.

[The_Admiral]

The old Progressive Boink had a fantastic write-up of Tropicana Field's weirdness (your mention of the Joe DiMaggio comic book hero jogged my memory), but I think you need to scrape through the Wayback Machine to find it now.

EDIT: so I did

[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.

[Survival79]

17 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

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

 

It'll be interesting to see what Sternberg has to say today. Hopefully, someone will remind him of his promise.

 

May 2007: Principal owner Stuart Sternberg clarified comments in a The New York Times story, saying there is no deadline for a new ballpark and he will stick to his promise to never demand one. When Sternberg took over the team in October 2005 he pledged he would never demand a new stadium, and Tuesday he reiterated that promise. "Absolutely,'' he said. "I was extra clear a year and a half ago, and nothing has changed.''

 

never adverb

nev·er | \ ˈne-vər \

Definition of never

1: not ever : at no time

2: not in any degree : not under any condition

[TBGKon]

13 hours ago, marlinfan said:

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.

If I give Stu Sternberg credit for something, he invests money into the Trop to upgrade the amenities.  Since your visit theyve done the folllwoing:

 

- Replaced the turf at least 3 times (twice in the past 2-3 years) and the new surface for 2019 really seems like a good match.

- Added LED stadium lighting in 2019, with colored uplighting and better standard lights.

- Created a full almost-360 concourse within view of the field, the only blocked section is immediately behind the plate.

- Got rid of the batters eye restaurant, and opened up the walls to make it a social space in CF.

- New for 2019, the Left Field ledge with 4-top table seating.

[Cosmic]

16 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

 

It'll be interesting to see what Sternberg has to say today. Hopefully, someone will remind him of his promise.

 

May 2007: Principal owner Stuart Sternberg clarified comments in a The New York Times story, saying there is no deadline for a new ballpark and he will stick to his promise to never demand one. When Sternberg took over the team in October 2005 he pledged he would never demand a new stadium, and Tuesday he reiterated that promise. "Absolutely,'' he said. "I was extra clear a year and a half ago, and nothing has changed.''

 

never adverb

nev·er | \ ˈne-vər \

Definition of never

1: not ever : at no time

2: not in any degree : not under any condition

You're focusing on the wrong parts. "never demand ONE" "never demand A new stadium"... If he demands two, and he maybe gets one, well now that's a horse of a different color.

[Sport]

I can't remember where I saw this so it could be way off and take this as you will, but I read somewhere about a study they did that I think was about Chicago Fire and I think they said that for every mile you're outside the central point of a city you cost yourself 500 would-be attenders per game. If true, and that rings sound to me, imagine the stadium is on the other side of a huge bridge, surrounded by water, has no public transportation access, and also it sucks. 

 

I spontaneously go to Reds games all the time. So do lots of other people. Such an outing is basically impossible for a lot of folks in the Tampa Bay metro. Imagine you're a parent who works downtown and gets some free tickets to that night's Rays game. You're going to leave your office at 5, you drove to work because it's Tampa and you have to drive so you drive your car to your home in some northern burb, sit in rush hour traffic, pick up your kids, drive to the stadium because there's no public transportation so you have to drive. Now you're going back through rush hour the other way, through the city, across a bridge, etc. You're looking at 90 minutes from your desk to your house and to the front gate, if you're lucky. Good luck even seeing the first pitch. Most people would just politely decline the tickets and watch the game from the comfort of their couch. 

 

Their problem is bad location made worse by the stadium not being a desirable place to visit. End of story. 

 

[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

[rmc523]

17 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

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.

 

Eh, they've been pretty consistently good for the last 11 years.

 

Hmm.  Now that I look up the numbers I guess before last year, they did have a 4 year run of roughly .500 baseball.  But of the remaining 7 years, 6 of them were 90 wins or more, and the one that wasn't was 84 wins.

[JayMac]

19 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

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

"We're not doing the Montreal thing." End of press conference.

[dfwabel]

Live feed

https://www.abcactionnews.com/live3

[Gothamite]

This is absolutely amazing.

 

 

[Gothamite]

As is this.