Angel Stadium deal is dead

[Revad]

1 hour ago, cals said:

Arte has shown he’s about as litigious as INO so if he thought he could save money and not bust himself, he’s be suing.  It’s that simple.

I think we can assume he’s acting in his own interest.  The option to sell is important so he likely doesn’t want anything interfering with his ability to do so or lowering the franchise value. 

[beatlesrule]

I haven't followed this train-wreck but I certainly hope he sells.

[Inside Pitch]

16 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I haven't followed this train-wreck but I certainly hope he sells.

Yes, because as we have seen after moving on from Stoneman, GA, HK, MS, the grass is always greener on the other side.

[beatlesrule]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Yes, because as we have seen after moving on from Stoneman, GA, HK, MS, the grass is always greener on the other side.

Well first off, not all of those are owners and second, I am done with Arte. He hasn't gotten us a championship and clearly doesn't know what he is doing in terms of putting a winning ballclub on the field or hiring the right personnel. Add the drug investigation and now this crap with the stadium and whatever else the Angels ORG has been involved in means another owner would be welcomed and is frankly needed IMO.

[Stradling]

8 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Well first off, not all of those are owners and second, I am done with Arte. He hasn't gotten us a championship and clearly doesn't know what he is doing in terms of putting a winning ballclub on the field or hiring the right personnel. Add the drug investigation and now this crap with the stadium and whatever else the Angels ORG has been involved in means another owner would be welcomed and is frankly needed IMO.

Yep and then we will have an owner with debt.  That owner will want to figure out a way to recoup that debt. 

[Reveille1984]

4 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Well first off, not all of those are owners and second, I am done with Arte. He hasn't gotten us a championship and clearly doesn't know what he is doing in terms of putting a winning ballclub on the field or hiring the right personnel. Add the drug investigation and now this crap with the stadium and whatever else the Angels ORG has been involved in means another owner would be welcomed and is frankly needed IMO.

Yeah, not sure what GMs/Managers have to do with ownership changes.  We've all heard the stories of Artes ego and big brain meddling, on top of the other distractions and controversies you mentioned.

Moving to an actual ownership group with deeper pockets and more of a strategy for the growth and development of the franchise and it's players would only be a plus IMO.  I won't hold my breath, but I'm sure the vast majority of Angels fans would welcome moving on from Moreno.

[Angels 1961]

I think this year Minasian went and got players especially in bullpen this winter. The bullpen has not done it's job. Angels still 5 games over 500 and this road trip will tell a lot about this team. Young players Marsh, Walsh and Rengifo have performed very well. Do not give up on this team

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, cals said:

Arte has shown he’s about as litigious as INO so if he thought he could save money and not bust himself, he’s be suing.  It’s that simple.

@cals always goes straight to cannons.  

[Inside Pitch]

58 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

Well first off, not all of those are owners 

None of them were owners.  But all of them are examples of players, managers, and GMs that Angels fans in their infinite wisdom bitched about and were sure they would be easily replaced.

[Inside Pitch]

51 minutes ago, Reveille1984 said:

I won't hold my breath, but I'm sure the vast majority of Angels fans would welcome moving on from Moreno.

If comments on the internet are any example (not meaning you or anyone here), the vast majority of Angels fans are morons.  But I'd bet you'd be right and most would.  

[Slegnaac]

Are Artie's kids or grandkids interested in being land owners / landlords?

[beatlesrule]

19 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

None of them were owners.  But all of them are examples of players, managers, and GMs that Angels fans in their infinite wisdom bitched about and were sure they would be easily replaced.

I thought GA meant Gene Autry.

[Inside Pitch]

12 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I thought GA meant Gene Autry.

Nah, I meant Anderson -- that's on me though for not considering Autry.  But Gene is another guy that spent through his nose, made change after change and got absolutely nowhere. Compared to Autry, Moreno has seen a ton of success.  Also while you want to talk up the shit with Skaggs as being on Moreno, there is no question the douchebaggery that Autry allowed to happen with guns in the clubhouse was on him and how it played a part in the Alex Johnson BS.  Dude was giving players guns as gifts which resulted in some players carrying guns and knives in case shit broke out in the clubhouse.

There are very few great owners.  Most are in it to line their pockets.

[HanfordGuy]

As part of his future club services, starting in 2030, all Angels home games will be played at Albert Pujols’ house. Per terms of the divorce, management of the concession stand will alternate between Albert and his ex every other home stand.

[Angels 1961]

56 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

If comments on the internet are any example (not meaning you or anyone here), the vast majority of Angels fans are morons.  But I'd bet you'd be right and most would.  

I'm not a moron I have a 5 year HS diploma

[Inside Pitch]

7 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

I'm not a moron I have a 5 year HS diploma

We have few kooks here but compared to most of the internet, everyone here is a Rhodes Scholar.

[Blarg]

Except for that one guy. 

[cals]

11 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Except for that one guy. 

Chuck asked if we could stop making fun of Jason so much.

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

Yes, because as we have seen after moving on from Stoneman, GA, HK, MS, the grass is always greener on the other side.

Garret Anderson, Howie Kendrick, and Mike Scioscia?

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, Taylor said:

Garret Anderson, Howie Kendrick, and Mike Scioscia?

Yes...   

The lazy LFer who never hustled.  The 2B who was the worst hitter in all of MLB and could always be made to K on a slider low and away and the manager that rode on Joe Maddon's coattails

[Taylor]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

Yes...   

The lazy LFer who never hustled.  The 2B who was the worst hitter in all of MLB and could always be made to K on a slider low and away and the manager that rode on Joe Maddon's coattails

I miss all those dudes. Simpler times, man.

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, Taylor said:

I miss all those dudes. Simpler times, man.

Also much better than anyone that was brought in to replace any of them.

[Slegnaac]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

Also much better than anyone that was brought in to replace any of them.

Aesop's tale of "The Dog and It's Reflection" comes to mind. 

[Hubs]

On 5/27/2022 at 3:47 PM, W.E. Baxter Author said:

Sorry to hear this, but The Angels haven't belonged in Anaheim since 2005. They really need to leave now that the deal has fallen through. I don't know why they can't play in Los Angeles. That's their city. Also, California isn't what it use to be, and people have been flocking away from there more and more. Colorado is one of the states Californians have been coming to. I'm in Colorado to stay, but we have an MLB Team here. North Carolina is another state people from California has been moving to. Charlotte could more than support an MLB Team, and it would be a good place for a team like The Angels.

 

The fleeing California thing is overblown by certain media groups. It's true we had a net negative for the first time in 2021, but in the 10 years from 2010 to 2020, we gained 2.5 Million people. We're at 39.24 million people.

Charlotte, like Vegas is a fraction of the population of Los Angeles metro area, which again, to many of the pro Anaheim crowd, forget that they are a suburb of Los Angeles. Charlotte has a similar metro population of Vegas, at 2.6 M, to Vegas's 2.2. Los Angeles Metro has 19M.

People upset over the name change in 2005, forget that they were only the Anaheim Angels for 8 seasons, then the Los Angels Angels of Anaheim (Because of the lease requiring Anaheim in the name) for 11 seasons from 2005-2015 and have just been the Los Angeles Angels since 2016, meaning this is the 7th year of just Los Angeles in the name this time around and the 12th season overall. They were the California Angels because in 1966, when they moved to Anaheim there was space between the cities. Now, when you drive south from Downtown Los Angeles, the only way you even know you're in OC is that the freeway gets nicer. 

So let's stop with the Angels belong in Los Angeles proper, ok? Or the dumb name change puns.

 

 

 

 

[Hubs]

On 5/27/2022 at 3:43 PM, Second Base said:

I like them, but the Ducks bring in a FRACTION of the attendance the Angels do, and aren't the draw the Angels are. The Ducks alone, on their own, on that side of Anaheim will not draw the masses. Hockey simply isn't baseball, at least not in sunny states. 

Even if Angel Stadium changes to an event center, your just not going to have the surrounding infrastructure to create an entertainment district. 

The deal really is in the best interest of both sides. Arte won't get so much land, so located and cheap anywhere else in So-Cal and Anaheim will not find a single developer that can offer as much as the Angels, nor offer the necessary draw to build infrastructure, particularly if the Angels skip town. 

The Angels don't need Anaheim, but it remains the absolute best spot for them, by far. Comparatively, nowhere else makes as much sense. Anaheim though, they need the Angels. 

Anaheim has legit two options. One, they can sell the property to the Angels to develop at a better price. Two, they can sell it to Disney. Three, a bunch of other developers may want to develop the land, but the Angels are here until 2029, at least, and can stay until 2038, so that's a long time to make your money back. Disney however, will be patient. I see them as the elephant in the room. They sold the Angels to Moreno at a very good price, but they lost money. They don't want to be in the sports business, they say, but they've improved so much as a brand that they may consider redeveloping the Stadium land as a third Disney park. Whether or not there is a stadium there, remains to be seen.

If the City of Anaheim decides to sell the property to Disney, then Disney can work out a new ballpark for the Angels, that's probably the best scenario. Disney would have the Angels over a barrel, as they would like a blank canvas of land, but the Angels also have a lease. I could see them building a new stadium and parking for the Angels. There's probably room for a hotel or two, and an entire third park. They've launched their plan showing their Disneyland forward plans which do not show thee Stadium land, but on this map there is a big open white spot across the 5. Guess what that is?

 

Angels probably have three options. They can buy the stadium and land for a better price. They can move slightly south to Tustin or Irvine, or slightly north to Commerce or Long Beach or Inglewood. Or they can deal with Disney as a landlord.