Rank relocations by how much they offended your sensibilities

[burgundy]

57 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

And it’s privately funded! I see no big reason to complain about a stadium that cost taxpayers nothing.

At least we don’t have the Escalator of Hell from publicly-funded Paul Brown stadium.

 

 

Are they ever gonna remove that death trap?

 

 

I say they should remove that section of the upper level.

 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

59 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

And it’s privately funded! I see no big reason to complain about a stadium that cost taxpayers nothing.

At least we don’t have the Escalator of Hell from publicly-funded Paul Brown stadium.

 

 

Are they ever gonna remove that death trap?

 

What the hell is that? Is it next to a giant magnifying glass?

 

Not sure about this theory that the league never wanted Vancouver. I think the league had the right idea all along with Canadian expansion but didn't get the timing right. Once Canucks ownership lost interest, a small two-team market where the teams play at the same time under separate ownership groups was going to be a problem.

 

[WestCoastBias]

15 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

I genuinely don’t get the hate, either. It’s a fine stadium. Very nice, in fact. Is it in SF proper? No. But where the hell were they actually gonna put that thing? There isn’t any room up there! Candlestick point was about it, and for a variety of reasons, it was an AWFUL location. Santa Clara is just fine. 
 

I also don’t see the complaints about it being “too hot” to be anything other than Bay Area people doing what they do best. Bitching about trivial things. I spent the three years before Levi’s stadium opened watching Sun Devils games in Tempe to help prime me for the “heat”. It’s never been a problem for me. I’ve been to Stanford games that were just as “hot” and “uncomfortable”, and nobody ever bitches about that. 

 

I think it just opened at the wrong time and had some bad luck. The team went from being great to awful, the lack of shade, the grass had issues there for a while too, the empty Pac-12 championships, the CFP championship between two southern teams that caught a lot of flack, and then the super stadiums started being built turned the publics opinion pretty quickly event though its a great stadium.

[The_Admiral]

It's not just that it's not in San Francisco proper, it's not even in Daly City or Oakland or something near the city. It's like 40 miles away. I know the Bay Area isn't a perfect hub-and-spoke where everything converges upon San Francisco, but being that far from the action never sat right with me. 

 

I wish they'd been able to make it work at Candlestick Point and figured out some patchwork of PacBell/Berkeley/Oakland in the interim.

[FiddySicks]

I mean, the Cowboys play in Arlington, and before that they played for years in Irving. It’s not quite the stretch SF is to Santa Clara, but it’s really not all that different. If access wasn’t so easy, I would have more of a problem with it. It’s really hard to explain just how much of a disaster trying to get to and especially from Candlestick was. I had games where it took me six hours to get out of the Bay Area. The 40 extra miles is worth the benefits, IMO. 
 

 

But I do agree with you that the very best spot for them would’ve been somewhere out in the east bay. I think if they would’ve had the foresight about the Raiders moving to Vegas earlier than they did, I have to assume that’s what would’ve ended up happening. Hell, they could’ve put them out in Tracy and I would’ve been fine with it, even (that’s my personal bias coming east from the Sac/Tahoe area) as long as it avoided the calamity it would’ve been to just stuff a new park in Candlestick point. 
 

SF proper is like 45 square miles of actual land, and every inch of the surrounding metro is stuffed to the gills and has been for like half a century. I just don’t see how it would’ve ever worked. Candlestick barely worked and that was like 60 years ago. 

[WestCoastBias]

52 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

I mean, the Cowboys play in Arlington, and before that they played for years in Irving. It’s not quite the stretch SF is to Santa Clara, but it’s really not all that different. If access wasn’t so easy, I would have more of a problem with it. It’s really hard to explain just how much of a disaster trying to get to and especially from Candlestick was. I had games where it took me six hours to get out of the Bay Area. The 40 extra miles is worth the benefits, IMO. 
 

 

But I do agree with you that the very best spot for them would’ve been somewhere out in the east bay. I think if they would’ve had the foresight about the Raiders moving to Vegas earlier than they did, I have to assume that’s what would’ve ended up happening. Hell, they could’ve put them out in Tracy and I would’ve been fine with it, even (that’s my personal bias coming east from the Sac/Tahoe area) as long as it avoided the calamity it would’ve been to just stuff a new park in Candlestick point. 
 

SF proper is like 45 square miles of actual land, and every inch of the surrounding metro is stuffed to the gills and has been for like half a century. I just don’t see how it would’ve ever worked. Candlestick barely worked and that was like 60 years ago. 

 

The East Bay 49ers would really be something. 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, FiddySicks said:

SF proper is like 45 square miles of actual land, and every inch of the surrounding metro is stuffed to the gills and has been for like half a century. I just don’t see how it would’ve ever worked. Candlestick barely worked and that was like 60 years ago. 

 

Yeah, Candlestick Point isn't really connected to any transit lines, and land in the city itself is at a premium, but as a 49ers doesn't-minder, there's still something so disappointing about that move to me. 

[FiddySicks]

I’m more a fan of cultural unification of the Bay Area, and am in favor of consolidating the fandom anyway. With the loss of both of the shared market teams, there’s really no reason to continue this “Oakland vs San Francisco” style infighting. It was cute back in the 20th century, but that fight is over, and all of us without any money lost. You live in Dublin? Guess what, you’re from San Francisco now. You tell everyone that already anyway on your weekend ski trips to Tahoe. Why not just fully embrace it already? 

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

You live in Dublin? Guess what, you’re from San Francisco now. You tell everyone that already anyway on your weekend ski trips to Tahoe. Why not just fully embrace it already? 

Exactly. I just find it’s easier to say I’m from SF than the whole complex story of being born in LA and growing up in different San Mateo County municipalities and SF proper.

 

And no, there was nowhere in San Mateo County for the Niners to build. Too many NIMBY’s, not enough open land, and the traffic already sucks.

[The_Admiral]

 

I miss this so much. The Oakland Coliseum looked so good in spite of itself on sunny fall days. Watching these Vegas games is like watching the St. Louis Rams. I'm not as sentimental about it as a ballpark but I'm still bummed about that too. Going on five years already of this garbage.

[FiddySicks]

Everyone hated that particular era of stadiums, and for completely justifiable reasons, but they all had a certain charm to them that just really isn’t repeatable in today’s world of Mall Stadiums.  Candlestick, Oakland Coliseum, Texas Stadium, :censored:, even places like the Metrodome. I’d assume Meadowlands and the Vet were similar, just more East Coasty. All miserable experiences, but looked back on so fondly. Everything now is a soulless sales pitch built for comfort, which it never actually is. Maybe it really is a generational thing. 

[The_Admiral]

I liked when the A's had an all-you-can-eat section because in an age of stadiums all having pretentious dining options called "Plāce: an American Eatery," they were just like "have all the trash stadium hot dogs you want, they're just trash stadium hot dogs, cost us pennies, who cares." And that's what you're supposed to eat at a sporting event.

[Partycrasher]

>Sonics to OKC

>Jets to Phoenix

>Whalers to Raleigh

>A's and Raiders to Vegas

>Grizzlies to Memphis

>Oilers to Nashville

>Rams to St. Louis

 

those are the ones I'd personally consider the most offensive, but it's really hard to top what happened to the Sonics. absolutely miserable harbinger of the relocation/expansion trends that would follow. I'd also be remiss not to mention the aborted Crew to Austin relocation, which would've been top-3 worst easily had it actually gone through.

[Lights Out]

On 8/30/2024 at 9:34 PM, Klondyke said:

-They (and the Raptors) were not allowed to have a top pick in the first few drafts (This prevented them from being able to pick Iverson or Duncan - no other expansion teams have ever had to deal with this rule)

 

This is why I always roll my eyes when people whine about how the Celtics were "screwed" out of Duncan. At least they had multiple chances. Vancouver had a worse team and no chance because the league handicapped them on purpose. It's a miracle that the Raptors didn't fail too with these BS rules that held both teams back from being competitive.

 

I would argue that the Grizzlies' constant relocation rumors had more to do with their ownership situation than Stern. For one thing, the league literally stepped in to block them from moving to St. Louis. When Heisley bought the team, he seriously considered moving them to Anaheim or the Chicago area. I think Stern was smart enough to not even entertain either of those as a possibility if he had been the one orchestrating it. The league actually wanted the Grizzlies to stay in Vancouver because they used to brag back then about not having any teams move since 1985.

[The_Admiral]

Ah yes, I remember that Grizzlies-to-Chicago rumor. You'd think they'd play in Rosemont, right? Wrong: they wanted to build a new arena in the south suburb of Dixmoor, one of Chicago's many suburbs with like 500 people and no explicit reason to exist (see also: Bedford Park, East Hazel Crest, Hometown, McCook). I think it's basically a railyard off the west leg of the Dan Ryan. Sounds great already. Even with the Bulls at their nadir (so far) in the early 2000s, putting an NBA team and arena in Dixmoor would have been such a hilarious disaster that it would have made that AEW arena in Hoffman Estates look like a masterstroke of (sub)urban planning.

[AnPheitseog]

On 2024-08-28 at 12:17 PM, leopard88 said:

 

Wikipedia saying "The Washington–Baltimore combined metropolitan statistical area, colloquially known as the DMV"  notwithstanding, the DMV and the CMSA are not even close to the same thing,

 

The CMSA includes parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and the Eastern Shore of Maryland.  Those areas are not part of the DMV as most people understand it.  On the Maryland side, it typically only includes Montgomery County, Prince George's County and maybe part of Howard County (and maybe parts of Frederick County and Charles County if you count more exurban  bedroom communities).  I live about 10 miles north of Baltimore and have never considered myself a resident of the DMV.

 

If we follow the federal government, the better breakdown is probably on the level of metropolitan statistical areas.  There are separate MSAs for both markets.  The feds separate the Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV MSA (which surprisingly does include a little of West Virginia) and the Baltimore–Columbia–Towson, Maryland MSA.  That feels right.

 

As for rooting interests, I am only a casual NHL and NBA fan, but the Caps and Wizards are my teams more or less by default.  However, going to a game for either team is a chore when accounting for traffic and parking.  It doesn't feel even remotely local.  Meanwhile, I can get to Camden Yards and M&T Bank Stadium in about 30 minutes.

For someone like me, living on the Virginia side of things but not next to a metro stop, it's closer (if not actually, but feels like it)/less time to drive to Orioles Park than it is to get to places like Nats Park/C1A

[BBTV]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:58 AM, SFGiants58 said:

I see no big reason to complain about a stadium that cost taxpayers nothing.

 

While in principle I agree, nothing costs taxpayers nothing.  Nothing.  Whether it's PIILOTs, infrastructure upgrades (which in some cases should have been paid for by taxes anyway, but probably not in most cases), or some other fine print.

 

There's also neighborhood impact, which is the battle that's going on with the Sixers, Chinatown, and a good portion of the city (though the cynic in me thinks that a non-trivial amount of the anti-arena propaganda is secretly being funded by Comcast, either directly or indirectly.)

 

So... it's complicated.  But probably good in more cases than not.

[BBTV]

On 8/31/2024 at 11:51 PM, FiddySicks said:

the Vet were similar, just more East Coasty. All miserable experiences,

 

Let's not start saying things that can't be taken back.  Mind your tongue, young man.  Never speak ill of the Vet.  They should Bring it Back.

[FiddySicks]

18 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

Let's not start saying things that can't be taken back.  Mind your tongue, young man.  Never speak ill of the Vet.  They should Bring it Back.

I’m just like Dahmer/RFK Jr. I’m find the stench to be comforting. 

[FrutigerAero]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:34 PM, The_Admiral said:

"Plāce: an American Eatery,"

lol

 

Does anyone think the Raiders should have moved to LA and the Chargers should have moved to Vegas?

I grew up in the Bay Area in the aughts, and I too am in favor of consolidating the fanbases. One football, one baseball, one basketball, one hockey. In the era of HDTV-first fandom very few (basically only NY and LA) metros can support multiple teams.

 

Now, I have to be careful with my feelings on the A's. Because, on one hand, what Fisher has put the fans there through is criminal. But on the other, the bay area has kind of been bad since the 70s. As others have pointed out, both the Giants and Atheletics had attendance struggles all throughout their history... until the Giants pulled their act together and won the market between 2000-2015.

 

As the westerns say, "this town ain't big enough for the two of us".

 

A's brand dying would be sad for baseball reasons. The "A" logo is the oldest in like all sports. The green-and-gold uniforms are really good.

 

But it just would make sense for practical reasons.