San Jose A's history vs. A's history: Are you a 'team' person, or a 'franchise' person?
by UncleLeo on Oct 30, 2010 11:10 PM PDT
Email
PrintSan Jose A's. Bet on it. It will be done.
Ok, then what?
Do we start over with brand new records and history? Do we suddenly treat Reggie Jackson's home runs and Rickey Henderson's stolen bases and the team's 20 game winning streak as if they only existed in some long distant... and irrelevant... past as we now treat Philadelphia and Kansas City records and history?
Even more important... Do the A's start over with ZERO World Series titles as some of us are prone to do with certain other teams? Will 1989 cease to be relevant? We just might find ourselves down 1-0 in World Series titles in the area... after so many years of having World Series titles as our biggest "In your face!" comeback. Do we really want to go there?
Or, do we make an exception because the move wasn't far away, and most of the fans are still the same and within driving distance? It's easy to ignore Philadelphia and Kansas City as if they didn't exist, because the geographic separation is so extreme. "Team" records being differentiated from "franchise" records, and all that jazz. Thing is, if we make the exception, why only a partial exception? Why not then include Philadelphia and Kansas City.
If we try to keep combined Oakland/San Jose stat histories, and when we appear on network television... only when we play the Yankees, of course... will the announcers and networks cooperate? Or, will Tim McCarver tell us that Dallas Braden has the team record with 14 wins by a San Jose A's pitcher?
Personally, it has always bothered me that the team gives such scant attention to the whole past. I don't expect going back to blue and white uniforms on a daily basis, but there should be a better happy medium. I'd like to see Lefty Grove's and Jimmy Foxx' numbers retired, as just one example. More visible promotion of the past. We have NINE World Series titles, not four. With the exeption of the Yankees, we have probably the most storied and historically interesting franchise history of any team in baseball. It deserves more attention.
Are you a "team" person, or a "franchise" person? I really don't think that trying to straddle parts of the two is workable. Pick one.
Footnote: In spite of this, I still support a move to San Jose. Not in my heart, but in my head. It's simply the best option for the A's in order to compete. But then, I'm a "franchise" person, so I treat all records and histories as relevant and equal (only differences being in eras and style of overall play)... all the way back to 1901.
206 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Moving half an hour away is nothing like moving hundreds of miles away
They need to honor their entire past, however, and that will only have a real chance of happening with a new ballpark.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
It is charting new territory, in a sense.
On the one hand, it’s close enough that it is almost like merely changing stadiums. No big deal.
On the other hand, it’s far and/or significant enough that it warrants a city name change… which historically has been the defining criteria for people to break out team records from franchise records.
I cannot recall another similar circumstance (since 1900).
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
After playing in Cobo Arena for nearly two decades, the Detroit Pistons then spent another decade in the Pontiac Silverdome
That’s about 30 miles away. Then they’ve been playing in Auburn Hills since 1988, which is just a few miles more.
However, they’ve kept the Detroit name and history, presumably. That’s the only other case I can immediately think of where the team is in the general region yet not in the actual city they’re named for.
It’d be different in the case of the A’s since it seems they want to be San Jose in some form or another.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Baseball takes it's history more seriously than other sports.
That’s why I qualified it to baseball-only. (Oh, wait, I didn’t, but I meant to. It was in my mind when I wrote it, it just never made it to the keyboard, apparently.)
But, to your point, neither of those moves were to a city as “big” as Detroit itself. Detroit was and is the center around which all those cities revolve. That would be like the A’s moving to Walnut Creek, they’d still most likely be the Oakland A’s.
The only example I could think of would be the Patriots when they moved to Foxboro, but even then they didn’t take on the name of a city, but rather the entire New England region.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Good points on that
Nobody can say Oakland is the center around which other cities in the area revolve.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
The Angels have gone from LA to California to Anaheim to LA
We’re in the bay area, we’re staying in the bay area. City name change or not, it’s all the same history since we’re not leaving the region.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
Many teams are not technically located within their "cities"
The Jets and Giants aren’t in New York. The Rangers are in Arlington, though I suppose they’ve covered their ass with the “Texas” designation; meanwhile, the “Dallas” Cowboys are in Irving. Then there are the Tampa Bay teams, where the name is obviously not literally accurate (and there’s no city named Tampa Bay). Soon the 49ers will be in Santa Clara.
Probably others, too, I just can’t think of them offhand.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
The Lions played in Pontiac, Michigan until Ford Field was built.
Oh, and the slegnA. They’re not in LA.
Official Athletics Nation Rotating Tagline Editor
Pam liked my old sig better.
Los Angeles Angels moving 30 miles south from Dodger Stadium to Anaheim?
by athletics68 on Oct 31, 2010 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
That example slipped my mind, I knew there was something, but...
…even with this they changed their name to the California Angels, not a specific city. Anaheim was viewed more as a suburb of Los Angeles, IMO, similar to my Walnut Creek example above would be. Anaheim as a name change until 32-ish years later, and even then only because Disney bought them, IIRC.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Well here's another one, more extreme but same result
Well we’ll have another example after next season when the Florida Marlins move 15 miles south and are renamed the Miami Marlins. I seriously doubt they’ll be dumping any of their existing history, etc…
I don't think it's really an issue
If the A’s move to San Jose and change they’re name they’re still the same team and franchise they are today. Just as the Oakland A’s are the same team and franchise that played in KC and Philly. Just as we still honor our 5 world titles from Philly and recognize former A’s personalities like Connie Mack and Chief Bender so too would a San Jose A’s team. It could be a move to SJ or a move to Portland or some other city and it wouldn’t change anything other than the fact that they’d still be in proximity to their current fanbase.
We do acknowledge the Philly & KC days... to a point.
They’re often treated as an afterthought, IMO. Will the same happen again?
Another aspect… Lew Wolff. He’s an unashamed south bay guy. I can almost envision him saying, “We need a fresh start.”, and treating Oakland in the same vein.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Seems to me the only ways the A's currently acknowledge the past of where they used to play is in...
…showing the World Series years and the extremely rare throwback day. Oh, I think I also remember sometimes seeing or hearing a mention during the pregame video intro, but I can’t recall that well.
Either way, that’s how much attention they pay to it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I think the A's have treated them as more than an afterthought
We’ve had hall of fame names up on the Mt. Davis facade this decade that included the Philly guys, we list the Philly series in the stadium on the tarps, the team often acknowledges people like Bender, Mack, Waddell, and Plank on the Diamond Vision (they had that intro video a few seasons back that featured the entire history of the franchise including Philly and KC. Do they acknowledge the past as much as some teams, no, but they do so as much as many other franchises (and as much as they probably can in a shitty publicly owned multipurpose stadium that they have little control over (hence no museum or the like).
As for Wolff, he might try to de-emphasize Oakland for a while, but remember he’s not going to own the A’s forever…
That's nine world series titles per century
My loyalties to the team go back way before when it was in Philadelphia. Over the long haul, the A’s have been one of the greats, and remarkably consistent, about nine titles per century on average. Going back forty centuries to the Akkadian Empire, that’s about 360 titles. I’m sure there were even more before then, but it was prehistory, and they didn’t have records. It is only when the Lagash Aleph’s showed up that there is a recognizable A’s team.
"One time Rickey Henderson ran so fast that Rickey Henderson went into the future."
by TomB on Oct 31, 2010 12:51 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Oh God.
This is hardly anything to me.
I am a part of this, the A’s are and will always be my team. Like FF said, this is 30 miles. I honestly could care less. This is seriously the most minuscule of moves possible.
How many Expos fans stayed true to the Nationals?
How many people who are “Giants fans” know, give a shit, or were around when they moved from NY?
I don’t mean this in any way as a knock on the OP, but seriously, this is what we need to consider.
We are Oakland A’s fans. Some of us may have been around for the move to Oakland, many of us weren’t. Doesn’t mean we don’t know what that’s like, but it is vital for us to embrace this seemingly inevitable move as we know the rest of the AL West will ridicule us for the move. This is our team, our franchise, our players.
Please stick with me ladies and gentlemen.
There is only team worth the adjective that all players must be…
AN: Where you will be an A's fan or Dallas Braden will show you the repercussions of your actions.
Can depend on which end of the move you're on.
Most LA and SF fans don’t much give a shit about their respective Brooklyn & NY days, this is true. However, there are people in Brooklyn who are still pissed about the Dodgers moving. There is an organization in Philly called the Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society. (I’m not sure the Expos had much left by the end.)
I notice that near the top you say, “…the A’s are and will always be my team.”, yet further down you say, “We are Oakland A’s fans.”.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
The dodgers do a much better job of
incorporating the brooklyn era in there mythos. A lot of it has to do with Vin Scully, but the NY days are celebrated by all dodger fans.
The giants don’t do as much, aside from wheeling out willie mays everyonce in a while.
It occurs to me that, its a failing of the A’s ownership in the 70s, 80s and 90s not to tout the Philadelphia days when there were players still around to celebrate. Granted, the two main dynasties probably didn’t have anybody still alive in the 70s and 80s
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
On the outfield wall we have a numberless jersey for Walter Haas...
…we should have a suit for Connie Mack.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
by UncleLeo on Oct 31, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Eh, didn't mean to say Oakland A's fans
AN: Where you will be an A's fan or Dallas Braden will show you the repercussions of your actions.
by stranahanahan on Oct 31, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I know a few Montreal natives who live in DC now
and wear Expos gear to Nats games.
It's the fans that make the game fun. -- Rickey Henderson, July 26, 2009.
by Englishmajor on Oct 31, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
There are some who feel...
…that the ‘29 A’s were the best team ever… even better than the ‘27 Yankees. The A’s should play that up.
Whether it’s true or not… and it’s not a wholly irrational argument… the debate alone would bring positive attention to the A’s.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
by UncleLeo on Oct 31, 2010 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Really?
I’m not sure the case could be made for them being better than the ‘27 Yankees. Let’s compare:
Catcher – advantage A’s
C Mickey Cochrane vs. Pat Collins. Winner=A’s, hands down.
Infield – advantage Yankees
1B Jimmie Foxx vs. Lou Gehrig.
2B Max Bishop vs. Tony Lazzeri.
SS Joe Boley vs. Mark Koenig.
3B Sammy Hale vs. Joe Dugan.
The A’s also had a utility infielder named Jimmy Dykes, who played in 101 games (mostly around second and short) and had the third-best WAR among the team’s position players. The A’s infield, with Dykes included, was good for 14.3 WAR. The Yankees’ infield was good for 20.0.
Outfield – advantage Yankees
OF Al Simmons, Bing Miller, Mule Haas vs. Earle Combs, Bob Meusel, Babe Ruth
The Yankees’ outfield combined for 23.5 WAR. The A’s outfield combined for 13.8.
Pitching – advantage A’s
The A’s primary rotation was Lefty Grove, Rube Walberg, and George Earnshaw. Together with a solid relief pitching corps, they put together 23.6 WAR. The Yankees’ primary rotation was Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, and Urban Shocker. The ’27 Yankees also had solid pitching, but they compiled 5.3 fewer WAR.
On the whole, the Yankees put together 64.9 WAR in 1927, for a record of 110-44. The A’s put together 53.5 WAR in 1929, for a record of 104-46. I don’t think there can really be any doubt that the 1927 Yankees were a superior team to the 1929 A’s.
(By the way, does anyone know what the record for highest team WAR is?)
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 31, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Considering the vastly easier and less competitive majors of the 1920s,
calling any team from that era “the best team ever” is ludicrous. I mean, a quarter of the population wasn’t even allowed to play.
The 2001 Mariners posted 66.6 WAR, outplayed their Pythagorean record on top of that, and won 116 games. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that that team was the best ever.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
If there was ever a team I've felt bad for, it was the 2001 Mariners.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
Greatest team of all time.
No need to feel bad for them. Most fans don’t even remember who won the 2001 WS. I sure don’t. But people remember the team than went 116-46.
Lots of teams wins the WS — by definition, someone has to do it every year, and a few of them aren’t even that good — but going 116-46 is freak-tacular.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I think it's sad they were ridiculous on the field,
but in the eyes of many, complete failures. The playoffs don’t tell you who the best is, but to many, probably including many of the players, they do.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
Wooo making money!
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
Yeah, well, those people are just wrong.
But then, I think the Buffalo Bills were a great team in the early 1990s and pretty much everyone here laughed at me for that.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Really?
It was more like one or two people, if that. It seems obvious to me that the World Series loser (or the Super Bowl, or whatever) is preferable to a first-round playoff exit.
Regular Season Team
I’m sorry, but you can’t be the Best Team Ever if you didn’t win the series
"I was right and you were wrong." - Ray Fosse
The playoffs don't really show who the best team is.
All it takes is a stretch of 2-3 and you’re donzo.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
Agreed... kinda.
Long before the “post-season is a crapshoot” term was even coined I always said that the winner of the WS was not always the “best” team. Neither, however, is regular season W-L record. I’ve always believed that there is a 3-5 win ‘window’ that affects all teams throughout the course of a season. A late-inning booted ball here, a bad umpire call there, some other unusual unforeseen event over there, and a 100-win team could just as easily be a 97-win team or a 103-win team, but for luck or chance or whatever you want to call it. The 2nd place team that won 98 games could be a 101-win team for the same reasons.
Calling the ’01 Mariners the best team ever because they won 166 games may or may not be true. Were they better than the ’98 Yankees who won 114? Maybe, maybe not.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
That's a really good point.
I think it’s pretty clear that the 110+ game winners are elite, but ya, hard to say for certain who is best.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
This is a great point.
If the season was 1000 games long, you could probably reasonably sort out smaller differences like that. 162 is enough for most, but you’re right, all things considered, the ’01 Mariners and the ’98 Yankees should probably be considered equal in talent.
Nor should it.
We like to pay homage to the ideal of “may the best team win”, but honestly, if it really were true that the best team always wins, baseball would be ruined as a spectator sport. In maybe 50% of all games played everyone knows who the better team is. If we also knew that that team was sure to win, there wouldn’t be much interest in watching the games.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Plans for a museum
A museum concept was in the original Oakland (Coliseum North) and Fremont concepts. Not sure about San Jose, though I don’t see any reason to change other than for budget reasons.
The museums at Yankee Stadium and Citi Field are pretty sweet
I hope the A’s follow suit.
Cardinals have a cool museum, but it's not in the stadium.
It’s a block or two away, IIRC. It was across the street from the previous Busch Stadium.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
There is a big difference between 30 minutes
and across the country,im an Athletics fan,and they will still be in the bay area that would still be 4champioships in the bayarea,the retired numbers will still be 9,24,34,43,27 the championship years will still be 72,73,74,89.
And remember canddle stick wasent even in sanfarncisco.
Though i agree the A’s need to celebrate the past more weather they stay in oak or move to sj.they gotta be proud of the phillie years and even the kc years.The giants find any excuse to celebrate the theirs.I mean really Monte Irvin?gimme a break how many sf giant fans knew who the hell he was before this season.The A’s have such a rich history the need to Honor it as much as possible.
How do you spell CUST?.....with a K.
by bigmac25 on Oct 31, 2010 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
They do a bad job of recognizing the past
But I don’t think it has to with a move to SJ. A museum of all 3 locations would be great, along with a few more numbers retired. I honestly think the fanbase does a better job of it then the org does. When you go to games you see reggie n eck n fingers throwbacks, not to mention others. I havent seen many Giants fans rocking the NY jersey. Also, gold alts will help n should be worn next year and forward. As far as the move, I live in Tracy n used to live in SJ, driving to oak or sj makes no real difference to me and im sure many NARFs feel exactly the same. The A’s are the A’s regardless of where they go, and still being in the same region only helps to hold onto the history of the Oakland A’s. The fans and the players and the ownerships/personell isnt changing with the move so i don’t see why the history should either. I am pro SJ for one reason, its a thriving area in the bay and the org has a high chance of success without doing a whole revamp of everything.
by Po' Boy on Oct 31, 2010 12:53 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Havent seen any philly or kc throwbacks though
But you get my drift
by Po' Boy on Oct 31, 2010 12:57 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I think there was a white with blue lettering throwback hat and jerseys give aways on two different days. Philly A's if I'm not mistaken.
the give away was last year.
CT ..."he’s not just an asshat with a mic" - cuppingmaster
Yeah, I got the jersey
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
Moving from Oakland to San Jose
is night and day different than moving from New York to San Francisco … or Kansas City to Oakland for that matter. The A’s are staying in the Bay Area … this means the records, etc. stay put. Like several have already mentioned, there have been plenty of other professional franchises that moved as far away as Oak/SJ and kept their “old” city affiliation. No one ever talks as if they’re a “new” team. The same ought to hold true for the A’s.
The reason I claim the San Francisco Giants have never won a title (other than the fact that they haven’t) is because the fan base is completely different (for the most part). I’m sure there are a few NY natives that still root for SF, but they’d be very few and far between. They all switched their allegiances to the Yankees or Mets. Therefore, the Giants started completely over in a new state and new city. The New York Giants won a championship, the San Francisco Giants haven’t. The Oakland A’s have won 4 world championships. That’s that.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
good point
the local fanbase is likely to have a significant portion of “Oakland” fans when/if in SJ. From Philly to KC, KC to Oakland, I don’t imagine many KC people regularly went to Oakland or Philly people to KC.
I have NO rooting interest. It simply become[s] a process of elimination of who I dislike less. - 67MARQUEZ
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Oct 31, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
lol - ok, UncleLeo, you can claim 9.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
It's not just him
The A’s claim 9, MLB claims 9… they have 9. Just because a few fans think that championships should stay with the city, they don’t unless the league makes an exception to the standard rules of North American sports like in the cases of the Cleveland Browns and San Jose Earthquakes. Otherwise, all the hardware goes with the team.
FWIW, I disagree with the NFL's stance on the Browns.
The owner moved. The players moved. The front office personnel moved. They can spin it however they want to try and head off what even they know is a slap in the face to Browns fans, but the team/franchise still moved… lock, stock, and barrel. As far as I’m concerned, the Ravens have the Brown’s legacy, and the current Browns are an expansion team.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Don't tell Cleveland
The city will sue your ass and the fans will come kick your ass. And frankly I like their example. The team and it’s history should belong to the city from a records perspective like in the rest of the World. Baltimore agreed, after Modell and his people after the agreement with Cleveland that was it. The Ravens became effectively an expansion franchise and no one has challenged it since, particularly in Baltimore. I’m sure the fans there wish the concept had been thought of sooner to save the Colts legacy from being shipped to Indy. And it’s an example that’s gaining steam too. Both Seattle Sonics and the San Jose Earthquakes have followed suit in recent years.
To me that's just an example of how the human specias can rationalize anything to make themselves feel better.
It still doesn’t change the facts.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Facts is
The teams isn’t the owners or the players, they’re transitory. The team is its fans and the records/colors/history. Fact is the rest of the world uses the Cleveland model, not the franchise model we do. In fact most of the world see our sports as backward because we use the “history with the team” franchise model.
So disagree.
The teams isn’t the owners or the players, they’re transitory. The team is its fans and the records/colors/history.
Like I said… rationalizing.
Fact is the rest of the world uses the Cleveland model, not the franchise model we do. In fact most of the world see our sports as backward because we use the "history with the team" franchise model.
The rest of the world does lots of things we don’t do. Doesn’t automatically make it better.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
There is a difference, though.
Perhaps it was a cynical thing to do, but the key point you’re missing is that they really did preserve the continuity of the franchise. They literally had Modell relinquish the Browns franchise and suspended its operations. Modell was given a new expansion franchise and allowed to transfer player contracts to it.
Was it a fakey kludgey thing to do? Sure it was. But the point is they really did actually do it legally, and in that sense it is genuinely different from all the cases where a team moved to another city. It’s not like it really was a move but everyone conspires to talk about it differently. It was a move that the league conspired to have undone and turned into a non-move.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Same thing happened right down the road in San Jose
MLS made a choice in 05 to put the San Jose Earthquakes franchise on hiatus for 2 seasons while they looked for new ownership (that ended up being Lew Wolff and Co + the Sharks), and created an expansion franchise in Houston that the previous Quakes ownership took control of along with their players and staff. The Quakes franchise was then reactivated in 08.
That's all well and fine, but...
…to me it just glosses over the fact that the team moved. Legal wranglings and other special proclamations that go out of their way to try and convince others of this fact actually reinforces my point. If it were otherwise, then special provisions and legal wranglings would not be necessary. No matter what they try to do or say to the contrary… the team moved.
Then again, I don’t really make a distinction between ‘team’ and ‘franchise’. To me they are one and the same. Continuity of the team is the franchise. If everybody picks up and moves, the team/franchise moved.
Yes, I’m being stubborn, but on this issue… while I see the differences you and others are making… I disagree with the differences. To me it’s just spin and rationalization on the part of the league and local politicians.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Fair enough.
I just wanted to make sure people understood that there really is a legal difference between Browns-Ravens and, say, Oilers-Titans.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Because it is 9
The franchise has been around for over a century and all championships count no matter where they won them. Same thing for the Giants and theirs in New York.
When historians talk about various A’s-related stats, they often specify whether it’s an Oakland A’s record or an A’s franchise record.
When we want to talk about what they’ve done in California only, which is what really matters for most of us, it’s 4 for the Oakland A’s.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Some of us are proud of history.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 31, 2010 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
As devasting as it would sound...
If the A’s had to move to San Jose some time in the future, I guess I could be okay with it. I would prefer if some how they could stay in Oakland, but that might not be possible. But, if the Athletics were to keep the name " Oakland Athletics", it might not be as bad.
I'm in your boat.
Oakland if at all possible, otherwise San Jose. (Hey, a trip down the Capitol Corridor for a Saturday afternoon game doesn’t sound all that bad!)
I have to wonder how things would’ve turned out if the Raiders stayed in LA, or if the Raiders return at least worked out financially. If the Raiders stayed in LA, would the Coliseum be considered a mid-centruy “gem” like Dodger Stadium or Kauffman Stadium? If the Raiders return worked out financially, would the A’s have a new park in Oakland by now?
Not that any of it makes any difference now, but still I wonder…
I think the A's would still be 'needing' a new stadium.
Partly because MLB’s stance is to secure new venues for almost every team. A few notable exceptions, Wrigley, Fenway, etc. Plus, and let’s be brutally honest here, the Coliseum never was all that great. Not necessarily bad, per se, but not great by any stretch of the imagination. To call it a ‘gem’ in the same brteath as Dodger or Kaufman Stadiums is really stretching it.
Having said that, it is not inconceivable that the A’s would have gained a new stadium if the Raiders had not come back. Not that I would have approved of public funding, but it might have happened anyway.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
With no Raiders/Mount Davis
I think the A’s would have done an Anaheim like renovation to the Coliseum
Wouldn't have been possible
Anaheim’s renovation was possible because it was built as a good baseball stadium to begin with for it’s era and was only converted into a multipurpose later (ala Candlestick, though it was a better baseball stadium than Candlestick). The Coliseum on the other hand was always a circular multipurpose stadium not unlike Shea Stadium and was inherently flawed as a result. No amount of renovation could have fixed many of the major structural and design deficiencies of the Coliseum such as the circular shape, extreme distance of the stands from the field, being built entirely of concrete, etc…
I love Oakland and I don't want to
say goodbye to the “Oakland Athletics” name. But realistically, if the team does move to San Jose, why on earth would they keep the Oakland name? That just wouldn’t make any sense at all for anyone.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Just for fun, if anyone has some ideas for logo designs or...
colors. Let’s see what the team would look like. Do they keep green and gold? Does the appearance change?
I would expect them to remain the same.
Both actually are from previous cities. The elephant is from Philly… an exception to the general rule of ignoring the past… and the green and gold originated in KC. 1962 or 1963-ish, IIRC.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Teal and Purple!
we’ll catch that ironic-early-90’s-throwback hipster crowd!
If Pennington manages 17 HRs, I’ll vow to consume an article of clothing to achieve a humorous effect --Joey C.
I made one for my Out of the Park game...
I realize it recycles the SJ Giants cap logo but my design skills are pretty much limited to cut and paste.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria takes over as Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 1, 2010 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions
it's from the old Modesto A's logos which were pretty cool
sorry if that’s already commonly-known.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria takes over as Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 1, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
speaking of franchises
I turned on the radio and Marty Lurie just said that “the Bay Area is starved for a world championship in baseball. It’s been 53 (57?) years….”
I shit you not, he just said this.
No kidding.
I can understand being bitter, but not outright lying. Besides, he’s still technically wrong… if you ignore the A’s, the bay area has NEVER had a WS winner.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
I just had to respond to him on Twitter
Double-checking, when’s the last time the Bay Area celebrated a World Series?
I understand you may be bitter with the A’s but please stop pretending they no longer exist.
(And that’s me being polite)
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Good for you, Flashfire
Earlier this season, there was someone on AN who got really offended that some of us were bashing Lurie — talked about what a nice guy he was and how his dad played softball with him, etc. etc. Also wrote that Lurie had a reason to be bitter because of “how the A’s treated him.” So I kinda laid off him for awhile …
But like Po’Boy says below, he’s gone out of his way to bash the A’s at every turn — there’s no mistaking that he has a personal vendetta against the team and takes every opportunity to make it clear. I can’t wait until I see him again at the yard, because I will let him know exactly how I feel about it. No profanity, no physicality of any kind … but I will have a conversation with him, and he will hear exactly what I have to say, whether he likes it or not. The guy’s a bitter, old prick.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Got a response
His: I like the A’s just feel they have short changed their fans by emphasizing the new stadium issue over the loyal fan base
Mine: That is a position I wouldn’t dispute one bit. I wish we had a concrete direction on it by now. I’ve appreciated your work.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Ironic cause his comments also just seems to hurt the fan base and his former listeners.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Oct 31, 2010 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
That doesn't explain how he can be so factually incorrect
The A’s brought 4 titles to the bay area. Calling 50+ years and strictly speaking of the gnats and there’s never been a title. So his BS is wrong on multiple levels and makes him come across as a bitter, self-absorbed idiot.
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
This.
And to his comment about the loyal fan base… they’re only move 40-ish miles, give or take. Not to mention that business concerns do have to play a part, for good or for bad, and that loyal fan base isn’t big enough.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
And
Me: Just seems with the Giants in the World Series, all of a sudden it’s “take shots at the A’s” time in the Bay Area.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Thank you for speaking up
I dont tweet or know how it works else i woulda. To me, it doesnt seem like hes bitter with how the A’s have treated their fanbase, hes bitter with how they treated him. He can be bitter, but theres no need to be a prick about it and thats what this season has been. Nice guy or not nice guy, either way i dont appreciate the sh*t that comes out of his mouth and I will let him know if I ever see him at the coli again. Last time it was a caller sayin somethin bout rotting in oakland and how we have no fans, but now this, nah its gone far enough.
by Po' Boy on Oct 31, 2010 4:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
F*ck Marty Lurie
Seriously he’s been bashing the A’s throughout the postseason both underhandedly and occosionally directly. Didn’t like that guy much when he was w us, now i really dislike him. I cant take much more, ima find out where he lives so i can paint his house green n gold. Nah forget it, he isn’t worth the cost of the paint.
by Po' Boy on Oct 31, 2010 3:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I know seriously
I really wasn’t that upset when he left.
by uci anteater on Oct 31, 2010 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions
fuck that guy
1989, bitch.
I have NO rooting interest. It simply become[s] a process of elimination of who I dislike less. - 67MARQUEZ
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Oct 31, 2010 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Email Marty Lurie
Email Lurie to tell him what you think of him. His email is marty@knbr.com
by uci anteater on Oct 31, 2010 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I have a bad feeling
The majority of casual fans in the Bay Area may become that forgetful after next week…
A's to San Jose
…is the rough equivalent of the New York Jets and Giants (football) moving to the Meadowlands, or the Los Angeles Rams playing in Anaheim, so as far as team records are concerned it shouldn’t make much of a difference.
According to MLB and the team they could move to Timbuktu
And the records wouldn’t be effected. Whether fans accept that is their problem, but it has no impact on reality. The only two exceptions to this rule I can think of off hand in the US are the Browns and SJ Earthquakes. Everyone else takes their history with them when they leave, the city is left with nothing but memories.
Seattle Supersonics as well
The Thunder are considered a new franchise and don’t inherit any of Seattle’s history.
Oh, geez, they moved mid-season.
Do the final standings for that year show two teams with incomplete W-L records? No, they don’t. It’s the same damn team/franchise.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
They didn't move mid-season
Seattle Supersonics played their last season in 2007-2008. Oklahoma City ZombieSonics began play in 2008-2009.
Ok, you're right. I stand corrected on that point.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
Except those teams had the decency to keep their names when they moved to the suburbs.
The A’s are taking the suburb’s name.
“San Jose A’s.” Sounds so crappy.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 31, 2010 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
San Jose isn't a suburb
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Oct 31, 2010 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Right. It's a legitimate 'hub' (for lack of a better word) in its own right.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs. ~Harry Caray
San Jose is just as much a suburb as Oakland is.
ie, it’s not.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
you never quit on the suburb thing, do you?
I have NO rooting interest. It simply become[s] a process of elimination of who I dislike less. - 67MARQUEZ
!#%&$#@&%&% antioxidants! - pam
by cuppingmaster on Oct 31, 2010 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions
If San Jose is a suburb...
What is it a suburb of? LA? Because it’s not a suburb of Oakland or San Francisco anymore.
Wolff/Fischer already ignore Philadelphia and Kansas City, and they don't even have an irrational hatred for those cities.
Of course they’ll ignore the Oakland history.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 31, 2010 5:13 PM PDT reply actions
They acknowledge either Philadelphia or Kansas City about once per season.
I think Oakland will probably receive even fewer moments. Why would they recognize the team’s history in Oakland when all they’ve wanted to do from the word go was get out of Oakland? They clearly do not like Oakland; that’s not a surprise, per se, because the entire Bay Area hates the East Bay, but you can’t just pretend that it isn’t what’s happening.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 31, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Having a problem with the City of Oakland does not equate to having a problem with the history of the team in Oakland
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Much of the Bay Area wishes Oakland didn't exist.
"I wasn't able to extend so I had a serious lack of extension."--Dallas Braden
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Oct 31, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Personal history is lost... and thats all that matters.
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Oct 31, 2010 7:18 PM PDT reply actions
Are you having your memory wiped after they moved?
Choosy Feebas choose Leopold Bloom nipples
Daring. Sensual. Invigorating. Squirrel.
BLOOM. For men.
If the eggs actually hatch I made more than a mistake, I made some scientifically impossible crime.
yes
What we’re asking is for people to stop pretending that ipse dixit counts as a "source." When you make a claim about baseball, you should be willing to put some reasonable amount of effort into explaining why it’s correct if someone asks you to. That’s basic respect for the other poster. - PT
by designatedforassignment on Nov 1, 2010 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Someone may have said this here
But Philadelphia and Kansas City A’s history counts currently. If you look at all-time A’s leaders, you’ll see guys from those years. And you should. It’s the same team. They just play in a different city.
There’s a gray area when a team changes everything, like the Expos did when they moved to Washington. The A’s have always been the A’s. They’ve just played in different places.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Oct 31, 2010 9:01 PM PDT reply actions
I am a team and franchise supporter.....I really do not know what I would do if this team ever moved to a distant locale.
I would not turn my allegiance to the NL, I know that for sure. I have been rooting for this team since I was in my teens – I suppose I would be interested wherever they would play. I think it is important to keep in touch with the roots of the team and having been the the Hall of Fame I can see where a museum of some kind that teaches new generations about the team’s history would be very cool. We have parts and pieces which are iconic to us now that had their birth in the teams of the past. I think it is only right to continue to honor BOTH the franchise and the team.
CT ..."he’s not just an asshat with a mic" - cuppingmaster
If the A's moved out of the bay area to, say, portland or las vegas
I’d be done with them.
If they move to San Jose, I will still be a fan. I don’t view that as ditching a loyal fanbase.
by Billy Frijoles on Nov 1, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Regardless of what should be the case,
the reality is that radio announcers and other media folk are going to selectively include or exclude the Oakland history on a case-by-case basis depending on which makes whatever “record” or “stat” they’re touting today sound more impressive.
When they want to say so-and-so has the longest hitting streak in the history of the [team], they will say “San Jose A’s”, conveniently omitting Oakland, just like they always omit KC and Philadelphia for such records now. But if something really is the most for the entire franchise, or if it’s a century-long counting stat, then they’ll say “in the history of the A’s franchise” and include everything — again, just like they do now.
In fact, I won’t be at all surprised if they come up with a new locution that conveniently includes Oakland but still omits KC and Philadelphia, so that they’ll have three options to choose from.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Well and example of what will happen...
Was anyone around when the A’s moved here in the first place? I admittedly hadn’t been born quite yet. So how did the announcers, press, fans, etc… deal with it back in the early days in Oakland?
I will never refer to the Oakland A's as anything but the Oakland A's
except of course if it’s for work, but that doesn’t count.
"You ain't got nothin to say, it was perfect" -Dallas Braden, 05/09/10
What happens when they're not in Oakland?
I don’t see anyone still referring to them as the KC A’s or the Philly A’s…
Because all my shirts say Oakland..lol
"You ain't got nothin to say, it was perfect" -Dallas Braden, 05/09/10
I only have one A's thing that says Oakland actually. And it doesn't fit very well.
I now only buy things that say “Athletics” or “A’s” too, just so the shirts are less likely to be dated in a couple years.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Nov 1, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay fine ONE of my shirts say Oakland
and “LET’S GO SAN- JOSE (clap clap clap clap clap)” doesnt sounds very appealing
"You ain't got nothin to say, it was perfect" -Dallas Braden, 05/09/10
SAN-HO-ZAY! SAN-HO-ZAY!
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Combine them and you may have a winner.....
CT ..."he’s not just an asshat with a mic" - cuppingmaster
I am so going with the "Let's go Ho's" chant
"You ain't got nothin to say, it was perfect" -Dallas Braden, 05/09/10
Pail ho's?
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
BER-RY-JO! BER-RY-JO!
You have to grant that she at least doesn’t shout her name any more.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Could always do the one the San Jose Ultras do for the Earthquakes
San-Jose-clap-clap-clap, San-Jose-clap-clap-cap, etc… It tends to sound really good.
I do the same thing.
Just trying to be prepared.
I don't have to answer to you, You aint my bitch.
by BigDaddyChacon on Nov 1, 2010 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
San Jose Oakland A's
The San Jose Oakland A’s should keep the green and gold. In fact occasionally they should use the gold championship jerseys.
That would be pretty sweet.
I don't have to answer to you, You aint my bitch.
by BigDaddyChacon on Nov 1, 2010 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I seriously doubt that the team colors are in jeopardy.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
If the colors were to change along with the name
that would probably be enough to push me over the edge and abandon the team.
I don’t think they’d do that, though, because it would be financially stupid precisely because of people like me. Changing cities is going to make the team at risk of losing a lot of former fans; that would be the worst time to mess with other continuity things … unless they’re deliberately trying to alienate the old fan base.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I could live with new colors if it was a return to Philly blue/white
You’d have to be careful not to make it look too Dodgery though.
by Glorious Mundy on Nov 2, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Dodgers had green uniforms at one time.
Only for one year… 1937…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Dodgers – “The Dodgers also wore green outlined uniforms and green caps throughout the 1937 season but reverted to a blue template the following year.”
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Brooklyn_Dodgers – The Dodgers enacted one other major innovation in 1938. The unpopular kelly green and tan uniforms adopted in 1937 were discarded in favor of a new uniform that featured the word "Dodgers" in royal blue Palmer-style script across a plain white jersey. Even today, more than seventy years later, the Los Angeles Dodgers still wear a version of the classic uniforms adopted in 1938. "
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Go A's
Oakland or San Jose, just stay in the Bay!
The RAIDER NATION is the ONLY NATION!!
by oaklandSMASH on Nov 1, 2010 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
I don't have to answer to you, You aint my bitch.
by BigDaddyChacon on Nov 2, 2010 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
So wonder how long til we hear?
The Blue Ribbon commission’s decision should be sooner rather than later I’d hope. Either to rain on the Giants parade and say the A’s are moving to San Jose and staying in the Bay Area. Or to just get it over with and let us know they’re exiled back to Oakland and the Coliseum for a short stay before leaving the Bay Area and breaking all our hearts.
amen to that
I hate how Selig has tabled this indefinitely
The RAIDER NATION is the ONLY NATION!!
by oaklandSMASH on Nov 2, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I think we'll find out soon.
I’m guessing it’s brought up in the November meetings, and then voted on in the December meetings.
Marty Lurie was on Michael Krasny's show this morning on KQED radio
Someone emailed in to ask whether the Giants’ win made it more or less likely that the A’s would be allowed to move to SJ. Lurie quickly said that he thought the Giants’ win would strengthen them politically with the other owners, and that Neukom would use it to his advantage to block the A’s. Then he quickly changed the subject. I got the sense he thought that outcome would be perfectly OK.
There's arguments on both sides about how this will influcence MLB's decision
But one thing that is inescapable. Attendance will be down in Oakland next season. Giants fever will pervade the casual fans and ruin the A’s attendance (except the Giants/A’s inter league games). I’m calling it now. We’ll be down to a 12k average by year’s end. Regardless of how we perform on field.
I doubt A's attendance can go much lower
AT&T only has so much capacity. What will be up by a lot is Giants TV ratings.
by Glorious Mundy on Nov 2, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
OK, it can go lower
But if it does, it won’t be because of the Giants current trendiness.
by Glorious Mundy on Nov 2, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure about attendance going down
After the Giants last WS appearance in 2002, the A’s still drew 2.2 million in 2003. Granted that A’s team was also coming off a great year with a lot of talent, but that year indicates that both teams can draw a combined 5-6 million if they are both in contention. The way MLB scheduling is done with the Giants and A’s never sharing home dates it is possible that the teams can feed off of one another for attendance if they are both contenders.
It is pretty easy to imagine that both teams generate more interest if baseball takes greater hold on the public conscience, but the A’s have to play well for them to capture any lingering “baseball” interest from suburban East Bay fans who became clued-in with the Giants postseason run.
It also doesn’t really help the A’s much that the Giants nucleus is a lot of pretty likable guys, but if Carter develops as a good power threat that you can’t see across the bay, Dallas keeps running his mouth at everyone, and the A’s get on a nice roll I think they can sustain interest. Plus the A’s will continue to be a much lower cost game experience and could benefit from spillover of fans who get priced out of ATT.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 2, 2010 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Forget that deserter
I just wanted to say that.
The RAIDER NATION is the ONLY NATION!!
by oaklandSMASH on Nov 2, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
A new A's stadium in Oakland
would hurt the Giants more than a new A’s stadium in San Jose would. It would also be less valuable for the A’s and for the MLB in general, but the Giants would suffer most of all.
If Neukom’s greed about San Jose backfires on him and results in a new stadium in Oakland, it would serve him right.
Of course, what Neukom really wants is for the A’s to either leave the Bay Area or else never get a new stadium at all.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
I don't think on-the-field events will have one iota of influence on San Jose vs Oakland.
It’s all about money.
And why, exactly, would the others owners be influenced by the Giants winning the WS? Somebody had to, and it wasn’t them.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Pretty sure...
that there is already a precedent in the division. (not sure if they actually moved because idgaf about the team)
Oakland/SJ should be treated the same. Its not really a move
I thought we weren't allowed to say the name lol.
yes. Just looked it up though. Just the name change, no stadium change.
the angels did move from LA to Anaheim
before divisions though.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Actually they've had both
LA Angels then moved to Anaheim to become “California Angels.” Then the CA to Anaheim name change w/o moving.
Name-changing without moving doesn't qualify under this question, but...
…the Angels’ move in the mid-60s is a good point. The only valid comparable example, I think. Technically, because they didn’t take the Anaheim name it could be argued it isn’t the same, but the more I think about it the more I think it qualifies nonetheless.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Kind of interesting that Autry seems to have gone through some similar issues early on...
…in terms of trying and failing to get a new ballpark in LA, prompting the move to Anaheim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim#The_1960s:_early_AL_years
Of course, they started in the Wrigley Field of the Home Run Derby TV show then spent further early years as a tenant in Dodger Stadium.
The need for a new stadium became more and more evident. It was thought the Angels would never develop a large fan base playing as tenants of the Dodgers. Also, O’Malley imposed fairly onerous lease conditions on the Angels; for example, he charged them for 50% of all stadium supplies, even though the Angels at the time drew at best half of the Dodgers’ attendance.
And then:
Stymied in his attempt to get a new stadium in Los Angeles, Autry looked elsewhere. His first choice for a stadium was the site offered by the city of Long Beach. However, the city insisted the team be renamed the Long Beach Angels, a condition Autry refused to accept. He was able to strike a deal with the suburban city of Anaheim in Orange County, and construction began on Anaheim Stadium (nicknamed The Big A by Southern Californians), where the Angels moved in 1966. On September 2, 1965, team ownership announced the Los Angeles Angels would thenceforth be known as the California Angels, in anticipation of the team’s move to Anaheim the following year.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
That is interesting.
I had never heard this before, but considering things I have read about other similar issues in MLB history, I really shouldn’t be surprised.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Also worth noting is in 1966 the Angels led the AL in attendance their first year in Anaheim Stadium (1,400,321)
The four years prior in Dodger Stadium, they drew:
566,727
760,439
821,015
1,144,063
In their only season at Wrigley Field they were last at 603,510.
During those same five years the Dodgers were drawing between 2.2 and 2.7 million fans a year, leading the NL each season. They also averaged about 2 million a year their four seasons in the LA Coliseum and were first in attendance three of those years (second in the other).
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I read that whole page you linked, and noted the attendance jump as well.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
I didn't know there was another Wrigley Field.
Even more surprising was to discover that the California one actually predated the Chicago one by a year.
Cool. I learned something today.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
Pretty cool looking stadium, IMO.
Love that clock tower.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
My Grand parents went there weekly to see the Hollywood stars
nee the Mission Reds.
Represent, yo
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Hollywood played in Gilmore Field
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria takes over as Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"Oh no, he wanted me to do that. It was intentional." - Tim Lincecum
by natteringnabob on Nov 3, 2010 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
My Grand parents went there weekly to see the Hollywood stars
they were stars supporters, and I remember my mom mentioning wrigley. But if Wikipedia can be trusted, you are correct. The must have been going to Gilmore field. I am sure they went to wrigley as well.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Actually the original Hollywood Stars played at Wrigley Field
Until 1936 and again the “new” Stars played there in 1938 after the original Stars moved to San Diego and became the PCL San Diego Padres. The Stars rented Wrigley from the Angels but left when the Angels raised the rent.
Very similar exterior design, you can see
Whether or not it was always that way or changed sometime, hard to say.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Did you know there was another Yankee stadium?
That one sucked as well.
A's Fan in Sweden
"Some of us know him as the a-hole who piled into Ray Fosse in an All-Star game (it's why Ray is the way he is folks)" - OptimistPrime
long beach
Is a port city like Oakland. It was in tight competition with the Port of LA at the time, I am thinking Anaheim gave Autry a better deal and the name change was an excuse.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Well the "OAKLAND" A's just got more unlikely long term
Don “not interested in an A’s ballpark” Perata has won the Oakland mayor’s race. No political help will be forthcoming in the next 4 years from Oakland. I suspect this will bolster San Jose’s bid, or if the BRC can’t for whatever reason select SJ, then the A’s will be leaving the region altogether.
Another reason San Jose should happen, it’s not like the Giants love the south bay enough to celebrate with their alleged territory…
"Giants executive Larry Baer was asked if a Giants’ victory parade also would be held in San Jose, where the franchise maintains "territorial rights." Baer responded with a polite "no" to the question, posed by Bay Area News Group columnist Mark Purdy."
That was a very stupid question to ask him, though
I can’t think of any team that has ever held a victory parade anywhere but their home city.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
But supposedly according to the Giants SJ is also their home city
San Jose is also their home city (and the largest city in their supposed territory). In fact it’s so much their home city they’ve been fighting tooth and nail to keep it, buying up minor league teams and lobbying intensely to block any move (both politically and in the MLB frat house).
It is a stupid question...
…but I’m still amused by it.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
I like the question
because it wasn’t about the whether or not the parade would be in SJ. Its about the stupid stance on TR.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Exactly.
It was a smart question. It was asked to make a point. One which I’m sure the mayor was happy to help make.
Sweet is the lore which Nature brings; / Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:— / We murder to dissect.
it also made the answer
reveal something in his response. Regardless of what the response was.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
