Lasner Weighs in on Stadium Negotiations

[Stradling]

Has any other city lost both a baseball and football team?

[disarcina]

well St. Louis is about to -- they 'lost' the St. Louis Browns (to Baltimore) and are about to lose the Rams (back to LA/ Irwindale?)

 

can't think of any others........unless you count New York losing the Giants and the Dodgers and then getting the NY Jets.........that's certainly a losing football team........

[disarcina]

Seattle lost the Seattle Pilots (1969) and (much) later lost the Seattle Supersonics (to Oklahoma City which has turned out to be a great NBA town for them).

 

to me the most mystifying 'loss of a franchise' in any sport (well, the LA losing the Rams was pretty bad) was Minnesota losing the North Stars to Dallas -- I never understood that. Speaking of Minnesota -- years prior to that  (losing the North Stars) they lost their team to Washington, D.C. which then lost that team to Texas.

 

But a hockey nuts place like Minnesota losing an NHL team to DALLAS??? 

 

One of the reasons given for it is that Minnesotans were too busy with youth hockey leagues/ travel teams, high school and collegiate hockey and pick up game on the lakes hockey to go to NHL games.......

[Ohtaniland]

Henry Samueli owns The Ducks. Sam Walton was the founder of Walmart.

You are correct, not sure why I said Sam Walton as I always read about billionaires and got them mixed up. Samueli still doesn't pay rent though.

[Jobu]

Has any other city lost both a baseball and football team?

Yeah, it would suck if LA lost both the Rams and Angels.

[Stradling]

Yeah, it would suck if LA lost both the Rams and Angels.

Somewhere yk is smiling at this joke.

[yk9001]

Has any other city lost both a baseball and football team?

 

Los Angeles.  In fact, they've lost a baseball team and two football teams.  Hell, three football teams.

Edited February 4, 2015 by yk9001

[Ohtaniland]

Los Angeles. In fact, they've lost a baseball team and two football teams.

They lost the Southern California Sun and the LA Express.

[Stradling]

Los Angeles. In fact, they've lost a baseball team and two football teams. Hell, three football teams.

Do you really consider LA losing the Angels? Maybe I'm not up to date on the Angels history, but I thought once the Angels were given Major League "approval" it was understood they would be going to Anaheim, am I wrong on that?

[yk9001]

Do you really consider LA losing the Angels? 

Yes.

[Stradling]

So any city that lost a minor league team has lost an MLB team.

[eaterfan]

Saint Louis list the football Cardinals already. Kansas City has lost the A's and Kings (basketball). San Diego may lose the Chargers and lost the Clippers. Oakland has lost the Raiders and may lose them again and there is a very good shot the A's leave too. L.A. has lost 2 football teams and it's doing okay.

[disarcina]

Los Angeles Angels were the 'second' LA franchise in MLB.

 

O'Malley owned the rights to the PCL LA Angels and Autry paid dearly (to O'Malley) to infringe upon LA territorial rights.

 

In 1961 the Angels played in old Wrigley Field in LA and then moved to Dodger Stadium the next year where O'Malley and the Dodgers got all the concession revenue and all the parking revenue.....the Angels only received ticket sales revenue and the media rights contracts were no where close to what they are today......in any case, Autry owned KTLA and I think KMPC 710 -- and Autry --always known to be a bit tight with a buck -- wouldn't have his stations pay much for them anyway and it would have been in one pocket and out the other for him......

 

But Autry intended to place the team in Anaheim Day One -- so I wouldn't say LA 'lost' the Angels.

 

As for the LA Express and the California Sun (they also played in Anaheim Stadium -- still remember of a photo of Anthony Davis in a California Sun uni at Anaheim Stadium) -- I wouldn't say LA necessarily 'lost' them -- the league(s) folded  (although I guess the Sun team did move to Anaheim).

[disarcina]

good catch -- St. Louis did lose the Cardinals (football team - remember QB Jim Hart?) to Arizona......so they've lost the St. Louis Browns, they lost an NBA team as well -- St. Louis Hawks(?) they moved to Atlanta -- the St Louis Cardinals (football) and now the St Louis Rams are above to leave.

 

KC lost the Kings to Sacramento and the A's to Oakland.

[disarcina]

Not sure, but I think the Angels played in Dodger Stadium from 1962 to 1964 and then Angel Stadium opened in '65. I think that's right.

[oater]

Los Angeles Angels were the 'second' LA franchise in MLB.

 

O'Malley owned the rights to the PCL LA Angels and Autry paid dearly (to O'Malley) to infringe upon LA territorial rights.

 

In 1961 the Angels played in old Wrigley Field in LA and then moved to Dodger Stadium the next year where O'Malley and the Dodgers got all the concession revenue and all the parking revenue.....the Angels only received ticket sales revenue and the media rights contracts were no where close to what they are today......in any case, Autry owned KTLA and I think KMPC 710 -- and Autry --always known to be a bit tight with a buck -- wouldn't have his stations pay much for them anyway and it would have been in one pocket and out the other for him......

 

But Autry intended to place the team in Anaheim Day One -- so I wouldn't say LA 'lost' the Angels.

You are absolutely right that Autry was anxious to get out from under the thumb of O'Malley, but the move to Anaheim was never a given.  Reportedly, Long Beach was prepared to build a stadium for the Angels, but would have insisted that the team be called the Long Beach Angels.  That was a deal -breaker for Autry.  Anaheim was willing to build a stadium without requiring any naming rights (it was Disney that agreed to include Anaheim in the name).

[Lhalo]

Let us not forget that Anaheim received the ultimate black eye when they lost their beloved Amigos of the ABA.

[Guest]

The baseball team thinks so much of them that they want to be named for a city 30 miles to the north.

 

And there is still a Stanley Cup winning hockey team in town.

Nobody complained about LA being in the name when the Rams were in town

Edited February 4, 2015 by ScottLux

[Lou]

Of course he has a poor opinion of the city of Anaheim.

 

I don't know if he "has it out" for the city, and I don't really care.  As far as having a deal in place with another city, I haven't seen a lot of generous offers.  God forbid he head up the road and put the team in the place he's renamed it.

 

what if he is referring to LA County?  

 

hmmmmm...... The Los Angeles Angels of Pomona. 

 

we're going to need more black guys

[Lou]

Baltimore lost the Bullets and the Colts

[yk9001]

Cleveland had the Spiders of the National League, and the NFL Browns, who went to Baltimore.

[yk9001]

Nobody complained about LA being in the name when the Rams were in town

 

It worked so well, they left town.

[ELEVEN]

Cleveland had the Spiders of the National League, and the NFL Browns, who went to Baltimore.

And the Rams who went to LA in 1945

St Louis-Los Angeles Rams of Cleveland

Edited February 4, 2015 by ELEVEN

[nate]

Lol, some funny comments in this thread.

 

Arte changed the name for one reason.  You can market Los Angeles a lot easier than you can market Anaheim outside of southern CA.  The people arguing otherwise know this but are just still bitter about the name change.

[Sherlock31]

Lol, some funny comments in this thread.

 

Arte changed the name for one reason.  You can market Los Angeles a lot easier than you can market Anaheim outside of southern CA.  The people arguing otherwise know this but are just still bitter about the name change.

Then why not change back to California Angels? Take them all.