News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

BASE-BALL

Started by corco, October 28, 2011, 12:45:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stephane Dumas

#25
Guggenheim Partners led by Magic Johnson just bought the LA Dodgers. http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=391570


Henry

Guess the big question around Chicago is, will Theo Epstein bring the same magic to the Cubs that he brought to Boston?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kendancy66

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 26, 2012, 09:01:04 AM
I spotted a thread about the possibility then the Oakland A's might be relocated
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198423

If they did, that would be some kind of record.  Philadelphia -> Kansas City -> Oakland -> ??

Henry

Quote from: kendancy66 on April 15, 2012, 12:41:35 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 26, 2012, 09:01:04 AM
I spotted a thread about the possibility then the Oakland A's might be relocated
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198423

If they did, that would be some kind of record.  Philadelphia -> Kansas City -> Oakland -> ??
One more than the Braves (Boston -> Milwaukee -> Atlanta)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

74/171FAN

Does San Jose truly count as a relocation though given that it's still in the bay area?  It's the same thought as the New Jersey Nets moving to Brooklyn.
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Roadgeek Adam

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Does San Jose truly count as a relocation though given that it's still in the bay area?  It's the same thought as the New Jersey Nets moving to Brooklyn.

There is a difference for the Nets, you are crossing the state line. If you cross the state line, you're technically not that team anymore. It is a relocation in my book.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

kendancy66

#31
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Does San Jose truly count as a relocation though given that it's still in the bay area?  It's the same thought as the New Jersey Nets moving to Brooklyn.

I didn't look at this close enough.  I assumed that they were relocating away from California.  Also a better non relocation example would be NY Football Giants and NY Jets moving to New Jersey.  I didn't consider that a relocation. But NJ Nets to Brooklyn is a relocation because the location name of the team is changing.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: kendancy66 on April 15, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Does San Jose truly count as a relocation though given that it's still in the bay area?  It's the same thought as the New Jersey Nets moving to Brooklyn.
I didn't look at this close enough.  I assumed that they were relocating away from California.  Also a better non relocation example would be NY Football Giants and NY Jets moving to New Jersey.  I didn't consider that a relocation. But NJ Nets to Brooklyn is a relocation because the location name of the team is changing.

The Nets started out at the Naussau Colaseum as the New York Nets back in the ABA days of the 1970s.
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

Alps

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Does San Jose truly count as a relocation though given that it's still in the bay area?  It's the same thought as the New Jersey Nets moving to Brooklyn.
Considering that San Jose is in the SF Giants marketing area I wouldn't count it as a relocation.

realjd

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 15, 2012, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 15, 2012, 08:42:30 AM
Does San Jose truly count as a relocation though given that it's still in the bay area?  It's the same thought as the New Jersey Nets moving to Brooklyn.
There is a difference for the Nets, you are crossing the state line. If you cross the state line, you're technically not that team anymore. It is a relocation in my book.

I disagree in cases of multi-state metro areas. If the Royals moved to KC, Kansas, you'd still count it as a relocation?

triplemultiplex

Not all metro areas are created equal.  Renaming guidelines need to take into account that while most metro areas are dominated by one large city, others are not. The name of the lone major city can be attached to a team no matter where they play in the metro area.  But when you have twin cities, or even a triplet of cities in the case of the Bay Area, it gets tricky.

If the Athletics moved to San Jose, for example, it is my opinion, that would necessitate a name change to the San Jose Athletics.
But the fact that the New York football teams play in New Jersey is acceptable.
Minnesota can get around the problem by sticking the state name on their teams, since there is no other large media market in that state.
The Marlins switching from Florida to Miami was the right move now that the state has two franchises.
But then there's those damn Cowboys.  I have no idea when they last played in the actual city of Dallas, but it's been decades for sure.  And because Dallas is twinned with Fort Worth, we should be taking a lead from their baseball team and calling them the Texas Cowboys.  That certainly rolls off the tongue perfectly fine.

Finally, with the Nets moving to Brooklyn, that name change makes perfect sense since they went out of their way to call themselves the New Jersey Nets years ago.  In my opinion, a return to the "New York Nets" would also be acceptable.  But in a super-big metro area with 2 franchises, I understand the desire for them to create their own identities.  Just look at the crap the Angels went through.  LA used to have the Los Angeles Dodgers and the California Angels and everything seemed fine.  Then suddenly they tried to be the Anaheim Angels.  Now we have that ridiculousness of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and some people use "Los Angeles" and others use "Anaheim".  It reeks of a suburb's inferiority complex.  In my mind, they get to be the LA Angels or the California Angels. Pick one.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

realjd

Orange County Angels would have made more sense IMO. They have enough of a distinct identity from Los Angeles to make it work, but at a county level, not a city level.

Beltway

Surprise, surprise!  Washington Nationals are 10-4.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

74/171FAN

I'm not surprised at all.  With adding Gio Gonzalez and Edwin Jackson(at least for this year) to Stephen Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann I expect them to contend for one of the Wild Cards.  To me the bigger question is whether they will truly honor Strasburg's innings limit if they are still in contention.
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Hot Rod Hootenanny

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2012, 10:13:53 PM
I'm not surprised at all.  With adding Gio Gonzalez and Edwin Jackson(at least for this year) to Stephen Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann I expect them to contend for one of the Wild Cards.  To me the bigger question is whether they will truly honor Strasburg's innings limit if they are still in contention.
Going with Davy's track record with the Mets and Orioles, I'd imagine the innings limit will be discarded for team glory.
Please, don't sue Alex & Andy over what I wrote above

DTComposer

Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2012, 07:17:06 PM
Just look at the crap the Angels went through.  LA used to have the Los Angeles Dodgers and the California Angels and everything seemed fine.  Then suddenly they tried to be the Anaheim Angels.  Now we have that ridiculousness of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and some people use "Los Angeles" and others use "Anaheim".  It reeks of a suburb's inferiority complex.  In my mind, they get to be the LA Angels or the California Angels. Pick one.

They were contractually required to use Anaheim since the city funded the majority of the stadium renovation in the '90s, and Disney (who owned the team at the time, along with the (Mighty) Ducks) was fine with it, as they were trying to market Anaheim as a resort destination. After they sold the team, the new owners chose the convoluted name for marketing purposes (identifying with L.A.) while still fulfilling the terms of their agreement with the city of Anaheim.

I'd be curious to see if the name change actually had a positive effect on ticket sales, merchandising, etc. It should be noted that the Angels' one World Series title came when they were the Anaheim Angels.

I never liked "California Angels." State names work when there's one dominant metropolitan area in the state containing all the pro teams (i.e. Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona), or if they're the only team from that league in the state (i.e. Tennessee, Carolina), but growing up in Northern California with the Giants and A's, I had no identification with the Angels.

However, "Golden State Warriors" is even sillier...

agentsteel53

I've always thought "Anaheim Angels" was elegant and euphonic.

does anyone, outside of Arte Moreno's inner circle of yes-men, actually like the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

1995hoo

Quote from: DTComposer on April 24, 2012, 10:57:56 AM
....

I never liked "California Angels." State names work when there's one dominant metropolitan area in the state containing all the pro teams (i.e. Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona), or if they're the only team from that league in the state (i.e. Tennessee, Carolina), but growing up in Northern California with the Giants and A's, I had no identification with the Angels.

....

I can think of one other situation and that's where the state name goes with the team name in a particularly significant way. The example that comes to mind is the NHL's Florida Panthers, who are not the only NHL team in the state (Tampa Bay Lightning) nor the original NHL team in the state (the Lightning came first). But the animal after which the team is named is the "Florida panther," an endangered species native to the Everglades, rather than just a generic "panther" as a type of cat. So in that situation the using state's name, rather than "Miami Panthers," makes some sense.

I read somewhere that the owner of the NBA's Miami Heat originally wanted to call them the Florida Heat but the league ordered him to change it once they decided the 1987 expansion would include a second Florida team, the Orlando Magic.

I've never liked the use of "Tampa Bay" even though I understand the perfectly legitimate marketing reasons for using it. I've simply seen too many media reports that erroneously use the name "Tampa Bay" as though it were an actual city (example: "The Outback Bowl is played at 11:00 AM on January 1 in Tampa Bay, Florida.") rather than a metropolitan area or a body of water. (The football game is played in Tampa, not in the water.)

The Florida example reminds me of another reason why state names don't necessarily work as well: A league may add another team in that state. Baseball is a good example because the Florida Marlins were originally the only team there and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays came along a few years later. Obviously the Marlins have now changed to "Miami," but Tennessee would be another situation where I could see an NFL team potentially landing in Memphis someday.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Takumi

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 24, 2012, 11:39:45 AM
I've always thought "Anaheim Angels" was elegant and euphonic.

does anyone, outside of Arte Moreno's inner circle of yes-men, actually like the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"?

No, but it does open the door for some jokes that make the name even more ridiculous. For example, when Torii Hunter signed there after leaving the Twins a few years ago, one writer joked that his popularity in Minnesota could cause the Angels to be renamed the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim And Also Much of the Upper Midwest".
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

huskeroadgeek

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 24, 2012, 01:48:54 PM...




I've never liked the use of "Tampa Bay" even though I understand the perfectly legitimate marketing reasons for using it. I've simply seen too many media reports that erroneously use the name "Tampa Bay" as though it were an actual city (example: "The Outback Bowl is played at 11:00 AM on January 1 in Tampa Bay, Florida.") rather than a metropolitan area or a body of water. (The football game is played in Tampa, not in the water.)

I've come across that several times. I once had somebody actually tell me I was wrong when I told them that the name of the city that the Buccaneers played in was Tampa and not Tampa Bay. Their reasoning was that since Green Bay was a city, so was Tampa Bay.

Alps


Takumi

#46
Another no-hitter last night. This time the Mariners no-hit the Dodgers, using five relievers after Kevin Millwood left with an injury after the sixth.

Somewhere, Tony La Russa nods approvingly.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

Roadmaestro95

Quote from: Takumi on June 09, 2012, 10:01:51 AM
Another no-hitter last night. This time the Mariners no-hit the Dodgers, using five relievers after Kevin Millwood left with an injury after the sixth.

Somewhere, Tony La Russa nods approvingly.
Man the Dodgers are sliding down into the dark pit...shame that Kemp can't "stay healthy". Oh and so are the Metsies...can't catch a break on the road (and a bit of a disappointment coming from this die hard fan).
Hope everyone is safe!

texaskdog

Quote from: Steve on November 22, 2011, 09:39:13 PM
Speaking of base-ball, looks like the Astros are going to the AL after all, so you'll have two 15-team leagues. To balance them out and prevent still more interleague, I propose adding a 16th team to each league. I've received some interesting comments on other potential additions but I'm sticking by these anyway.

AL East: Red Sox, Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays
AL North: Twins, Tigers, White Sox, Indians
AL South: Rays, Astros, Rangers, Flyers - adding a Carolina team to a large, untapped market. Raleigh or Charlotte, doesn't matter.
AL West: Mariners, A's, Angels, Royals (someone has to do it)

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Grays - mostly for historical sentiment, I'll admit, but I can't think of a better baseball city anyway.
NL North: Pirates, Reds, Brewers, Cubs
NL South: Braves, Marlins, Cardinals, Diamondbacks
NL West: Rockies, Giants, Dodgers, Padres

Austin....we don't have any major league teams and baseball does really well up in Round Rock, and will never be an NFL city

DBrim

#49
Quote from: Roadmaestro95 on June 11, 2012, 01:15:16 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 09, 2012, 10:01:51 AM
Another no-hitter last night. This time the Mariners no-hit the Dodgers, using five relievers after Kevin Millwood left with an injury after the sixth.

Somewhere, Tony La Russa nods approvingly.
Man the Dodgers are sliding down into the dark pit...shame that Kemp can't "stay healthy". Oh and so are the Metsies...can't catch a break on the road (and a bit of a disappointment coming from this die hard fan).
Funny how a 7-3 road trip is "sliding down a dark pit".

I wish the Angels series was on a weekend so I could watch it.  Last night's game was close, and the other games should be good as well.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.