Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

Nah. They aren't gonna be changing their uniforms drastically. Probably not all, save for some Las Vegas sleeve patch. Maybe replace "A's" with an "LV" on the elephant logo, but not color change or hat logo change.

 

unpopular opinion, but I hope the Athletics brand is retired when they move to LV, and that they start over.

 

They're so far removed - both time wise and geographically - from the Connie Mack / Jimie Foxx team, and even time wise from the '70s era, that it no longer has any brand equity.  Had they remained in Phila, then even the name could be explained as being historic, but 3 cities later?  Not so much.  And especially in Las Vegas - it just doesn't fit.

 

I'm not saying to retire the whole franchise and treat LV like an expansion team... though I wouldn't be opposed to it.  I don't think the Phila A's have retired numbers (since numbers weren't a thing for a while) but I don't see why a team in LV needs premium numbers like Dave Stewart's and Ricky Henderson's out of circulation.

 

[SailorOfSilence102]

19 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

unpopular opinion, but I hope the Athletics brand is retired when they move to LV, and that they start over.

 

They're so far removed - both time wise and geographically - from the Connie Mack / Jimie Foxx team, and even time wise from the '70s era, that it no longer has any brand equity.  Had they remained in Phila, then even the name could be explained as being historic, but 3 cities later?  Not so much.  And especially in Las Vegas - it just doesn't fit.

 

I'm not saying to retire the whole franchise and treat LV like an expansion team... though I wouldn't be opposed to it.  I don't think the Phila A's have retired numbers (since numbers weren't a thing for a while) but I don't see why a team in LV needs premium numbers like Dave Stewart's and Ricky Henderson's out of circulation.

 

I don't know, yeah the A's have moved around a lot, like a fair bit, but it's not like their the (NFL) Cardinals or anything, their a really historic franchise with a lot of history.  I know they've been a bit of a punching bag this year and the last, and the ownership for so long has been awful, but I would hate if the A's branding went away, their one of the classic baseball teams, it would be a huge loss if a team that has always had a large footprint in baseball history kinda became a thing of the past. I don't think they should consider changing any part of the branding outside of a LV here and there.

[BBTV]

9 minutes ago, SailorOfSilence102 said:

I don't know, yeah the A's have moved around a lot, like a fair bit, but it's not like their the (NFL) Cardinals or anything, their a really historic franchise with a lot of history.  I know they've been a bit of a punching bag this year and the last, and the ownership for so long has been awful, but I would hate if the A's branding went away, their one of the classic baseball teams, it would be a huge loss if a team that has always had a large footprint in baseball history kinda became a thing of the past. I don't think they should consider changing any part of the branding outside of a LV here and there.

 

 

I've never experienced a team relocating to my city so I could be wrong here, but if I'm a born-and-raised Las Vegan (lol), I wouldn't feel any connection to the A's other than they're someone's sloppy fourths.  I might have a connection the the Las Vegas Somethings, with either a modern or western motif.  

 

Baseball isn't like football, which can rely on visiting fans making road trips.  Baseball requires the local connection, and to me, keeping the A's brand would be more of a hinderance. 

 

[TrueYankee26]

And there it is.

 

Oakland also lost the Golden Seals to Cleveland in 1976, so the City of Oakland lost their NHL, NBA, NFL and soon to be MLB teams in a span of 47 years. Less than a HALF CENTURY.

[Lights Out]

This feels like the Chargers' relocation all over again, with horrible cheapskate owners deliberately running off fans and blaming everyone but themselves.  I don't suppose the A's will start actually paying to keep talent on their roster once they get their precious Vegas ballpark.

 

Sad day for baseball.

[raysox]

Incredible what years of neglect for a stadium and on field roster can do.

I am very unsure Vegas is a 3 team market. 81 games is a hell of a lot to sell tickets for, and there's only so many midwesterners willing to fly in to see 3 games

Anyway, just modify this and call it a day

[Sodboy13]

20 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

This feels like the Chargers' relocation all over again, with horrible cheapskate owners deliberately running off fans and blaming everyone but themselves. 

Also, Montréal says "Allo."

 

I read the Review-Journal rah-rah "story" on this and it makes so little sense. You're building a 30,000 seat ballpark, minuscule by MLB standards, with a "partially retractable roof" in the middle of the desert. So you're building small and cheap. And not only are you building small, you're doing it as the "who needs to draw fans, we get free money from broadcast rights fees" business model is completely evaporating in front of your eyes. Like, teams are literally not getting paid what they are owed right now by Sinclair/Diamond/Bally and MLB may have to take over the responsibility for production of their telecasts. And the ownership of the regional sports network covering Vegas is very loudly announcing its desire to sell off its RSNs to somebody, anybody, please.

 

"But 30,000 a night in Vegas is still better than 4,000 a night in Oakland" yeah well maybe if ownership spent its time and money on fielding AN ACTUAL BASEBALL TEAM instead of blowing it all on lobbyists the next state over, the people of Oakland might be more inclined to show up.

[Walk-Off]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Baseball isn't like football, which can rely on visiting fans making road trips.  Baseball requires the local connection, and to me, keeping the A's brand would be more of a hinderance.

 

Even if baseball requires more of a local connection than does football, it seems quite clear to me that baseball requires also more of a historical connection than does football or any other team sport with a traditionally large following in North America.  For many decades, baseball has tended to attract lots of North American fans who have cared more deeply about the history and traditions of that sport than the average North American fan of football, basketball, or hockey has cared about that particular sport's history and traditions.

 

Thus, I think that keeping the championship-filled, Hall of Famer-laden, geographically very portable Athletics / A's brand upon relocating to the Las Vegas area would be much safer and much wiser than conjuring a new, patently Las Vegas-centric identity.  As I see it, that latter alternative would make decidedly more sense for a team that has a geographically far more specific nickname and/or plays a sport with a clearly less history-conscious fandom.

[Sport]

This is a major bummer. 

[The_Admiral]

Screw these garbage billionaires

[heavybass]

Oakland becomes a wasteland because it's too cheap to do :censored: and they wanted 10 billion dollars of refurbishment

[BBTV]

8 minutes ago, heavybass said:

Oakland becomes a wasteland because it's too cheap to do and they wanted 10 billion dollars of refurbishment

who are you saying is too cheap - the team? Or the taxpayers?

[heavybass]

1 minute ago, BBTV said:

who are you saying is too cheap - the team? Or the taxpayers?

The City mostly, they tried to get the A's to fund the refurbishment of the stadium... team was like that wasn't part of the deal and basically both sides aren't heroes in this.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, Walk-Off said:

 

Even if baseball requires more of a local connection than does football, it seems quite clear to me that baseball requires also more of a historical connection than does football or any other team sport with a traditionally large following in North America.  For many decades, baseball has tended to attract lots of North American fans who have cared more deeply about the history and traditions of that sport than the average North American fan of football, basketball, or hockey has cared about that particular sport's history and traditions.

 

Thus, I think that keeping the championship-filled, Hall of Famer-laden, geographically very portable Athletics / A's brand upon relocating to the Las Vegas area would be much safer and much wiser than conjuring a new, patently Las Vegas-centric identity.  As I see it, that latter alternative would make decidedly more sense for a team that has a geographically far more specific nickname and/or plays a sport with a clearly less history-conscious fandom.

I agree. However, I think the main factor here could be that times are simply changing. The Raiders are a bit of an exception because, well, "the Raiders." What's the last relocation before that where a name was kept? It feels like it's been a really long time.

This will be a very interesting test. The A's make total sense for keeping the name because they're an original AL franchise, have at least some history of success, a distinctive color scheme,  and a name that pretty much fits everywhere (unlike, say, Senators).

I feel like this might be the unpopular opinion (in contrast to BBVT thinking his was the unpopular opinion); I really hope they keep it. Of course, that's in large part because I tend to favor that approach in general but this means more to me than if it was the Rays or someone.

[OnWis97]

Recent teams that have kept names:

• Nets (but does that count?)
• Raiders
• Chargers

 

But what's the last team to move to a far away city with no connection and keep the name aside from the Radier?. The Oilers changed after a few years. The Hornets, but they ultimately changed. The Stars (if you count that).

Could it be argued that aside from the Raiders (who I maintain are a bit of a different case) the last team to 100% keep the name on a relocation of more than a two-hour drive is the Colts?

[The_Admiral]

New Orleans Hornets, Memphis Grizzlies

[OnWis97]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

New Orleans Hornets, Memphis Grizzlies

Ah, the Grizzlies.

 

I missed that one. If ever there was a case to make a change, that might be one. Minimal history/success (far less important to the league than the Sonics). But I'm still glad they kept it.

I really hope the A's do. MLB doesn't need the Las Vegas Rolling Bones or the Sin City Night Owls

[FiddySicks]

Good riddance. the A’s. 

[ManillaToad]

9 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Recent teams that have kept names:

• Nets (but does that count?)
• Raiders
• Chargers

 

But what's the last team to move to a far away city with no connection and keep the name aside from the Radier?. The Oilers changed after a few years. The Hornets, but they ultimately changed. The Stars (if you count that).

Could it be argued that aside from the Raiders (who I maintain are a bit of a different case) the last team to 100% keep the name on a relocation of more than a two-hour drive is the Colts?

 

Rams

[BadSeed84]

But they have been the Athletics every city they have been in since 1901.