10 Best & Worst Sports Team Relocations in History

Déjà Bru · 10-01-2012, 02:13 PM

I thought this might be worthy of discussion here. There might be some disagreement and/or additions to this list to consider. Don't ask how the author came up with his "Relo Rating" system, however. He doesn't say.

10 Best & Worst Sports Team Relocations in History
By Gary Belsky, Time Magazine

Best: Lakers (NBA)
Minneapolis to Los Angeles, 1960 / Relo Rating: 10

Best: Devils (NHL)
Denver to East Rutherford, N.J., 1982 / Relo Rating: 9.5

Best: Braves (MLB)
Milwaukee to Atlanta, 1966 / Relo Rating: 9

Best: Ravens (NFL)
Cleveland to Baltimore, 1996 / Relo Rating: 8

Best: Orioles (MLB)
St. Louis to Baltimore, 1953 / Relo Rating: 7

Worst: Kings (NBA)
Cincinnati to Kansas City (and sometimes Omaha), 1972/ Relo Rating: 4

Worst: Cardinals (NFL)
St. Louis to Phoenix, 1988 / Relo Rating: 3

Worst: Coyotes (NHL)
Winnipeg to Phoenix, 1996 / Relo Rating: 2

Worst: Clippers (NBA)
San Diego to Los Angeles, 1984 / Relo Rating: 2

Worst: Barons (NHL)
Oakland to Cleveland, 1976 / Relo Rating: 1

Trading Places | 10 Best & Worst Sports-Team Relocations in History | Business | TIME.com

magnet · 10-01-2012, 02:32 PM

Lakers to L.A.: 0/10, there are no ****ing lakes in L.A. You'd think if any town could be creative...

CD1083 · 10-01-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

Lakers to L.A.: 0/10, there are no ****ing lakes in L.A. You'd think if any town could be creative...

There's no athletes in Oakland and they're not even on the list.

Déjà Bru · 10-01-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

Lakers to L.A.: 0/10, there are no ****ing lakes in L.A. You'd think if any town could be creative...

You're right about the team name in terms of logic. But in terms of marketing, you're more wrong every year. The value of the name "Los Angeles Lakers" is now probably indescribable, actual lakes notwithstanding. The time to have paid attention to that team name logic was back in 1960.

No, the gist of this article was whether the relocations themselves were good ideas or not. Basically, the Lakers hit a home-run (er, sorry, uh, swished a desperation shot from half-court) when they moved to L.A., according to this guy. I'd say there's no doubt about that one.

Déjà Bru · 10-01-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chase Davis

There's no athletes in Oakland and they're not even on the list.

Heh. Mind if I link to your post in THEIR thread?

CD1083 · 10-01-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Heh. Mind if I link to your post in THEIR thread?

Sure

Déjà Bru · 10-01-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chase Davis

Sure

Done! And I hope G&GH beats you up, Mr. Wise Guy. Virtually, that is! (

)

CD1083 · 10-01-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Done! And I hope G&GH beats you up, Mr. Wise Guy. Virtually, that is! (

)

Green & Gold Heart · 10-01-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chase Davis

There's no athletes in Oakland and they're not even on the list.

CD1083 · 10-01-2012, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green & Gold Heart

.

Adam Dunn can do that too. I wouldn't call him an athlete though.

jaxmagicman · 10-01-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chase Davis

Adam Dunn can do that too. I wouldn't call him an athlete though.

Adam Dunn cannot do what that picture was. For 2 reasons.

1. It was a Right-Handed Homerun
2. It was against the White Sox. Pretty hard for Dunn to do that.

Green & Gold Heart · 10-01-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chase Davis

Adam Dunn can do that too. I wouldn't call him an athlete though.

I couldn't find any gifs of Cespedes scoring from first on a single. Dunn can't do that.

mirrf · 10-01-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magnet

Lakers to L.A.: 0/10, there are no ****ing lakes in L.A. You'd think if any town could be creative...

When I think of good Jazz, I think of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Michael Hopcroft · 10-01-2012, 04:44 PM

The Clips going to LA was all kinds of bonehead. The LA market will always be owned by the Lakers, with the Clips always in second (or possibly, if the Kings go to Anaheim, third) place. As it is they don't even have their own arena.

How much money is Donald Sterling making off this team that he doesn't correct the franchise's obvious problems?

mirrf · 10-01-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chase Davis

There's no athletes in Oakland and they're not even on the list.

Joey Chestnut is originally from Vallejo (although he now lives in San Jose). -He's a world class athlete. Best. in. the. world.

Aren't you glad I didn't post a pic of him eating? Yes, yes you are.

Déjà Bru · 10-01-2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirrf

When I think of good Jazz, I think of Salt Lake City, Utah.

That's another example of a team needing to change their nickname WHEN THEY MOVED, but not now. I mean, the New Orleans Jazz was a natural. Name that is, not basketball for that town, apparently. But now, "Utah Jazz" seems so reasonable and ordinary. After all, the Mormons invented Jazz music, no?

But, what about that move in this list? Is/are the Jazz better off in Utah?

BaseballMan · 10-01-2012, 07:51 PM

I think it would fit more if the Jazz and Hornets switched nicknames but i agree sometimes the nickname becomes a part of the team.
We dont think of bears in Chicago or lions in Detroit.
Do teams have to identify with the mascot they pick?
Or should they pick what they like and learn to embrace it on their team culuture.

kq76 · 10-01-2012, 08:16 PM

I'd say the Yankees moving from Baltimore to New York worked out alright.

Ragnar · 10-01-2012, 08:39 PM

I will always think of the Colts as the Baltimore Colts. I always thought Los Angeles was good for the Rams as well. I think they were two bad moves.

stevebydac · 10-01-2012, 09:37 PM

The Lakers move might have been great in terms of increasing the silicone boob quotient of their fanbase, but it didn't really turn the Lakers into winners -- they were already winners in Minneapolis. the "LA Lakers" haven't won the # of titles they claim. Many of those titles belong to the fans in Minnesota -- who now root for the Timberwolves.

NBA TITLES

Boston Celtics 17
LA Lakers 11
Chicago Bulls 6
Minneapolis Lakers 5
San Antonio Spurs 4

10-01-2012, 02:13 PM	#1
Déjà Bru Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Long Island Posts: 11,741	10 Best & Worst Sports Team Relocations in History I thought this might be worthy of discussion here. There might be some disagreement and/or additions to this list to consider. Don't ask how the author came up with his "Relo Rating" system, however. He doesn't say. 10 Best & Worst Sports Team Relocations in History By Gary Belsky, Time Magazine Best: Lakers (NBA) Minneapolis to Los Angeles, 1960 / Relo Rating: 10 Best: Devils (NHL) Denver to East Rutherford, N.J., 1982 / Relo Rating: 9.5 Best: Braves (MLB) Milwaukee to Atlanta, 1966 / Relo Rating: 9 Best: Ravens (NFL) Cleveland to Baltimore, 1996 / Relo Rating: 8 Best: Orioles (MLB) St. Louis to Baltimore, 1953 / Relo Rating: 7 Worst: Kings (NBA) Cincinnati to Kansas City (and sometimes Omaha), 1972/ Relo Rating: 4 Worst: Cardinals (NFL) St. Louis to Phoenix, 1988 / Relo Rating: 3 Worst: Coyotes (NHL) Winnipeg to Phoenix, 1996 / Relo Rating: 2 Worst: Clippers (NBA) San Diego to Los Angeles, 1984 / Relo Rating: 2 Worst: Barons (NHL) Oakland to Cleveland, 1976 / Relo Rating: 1 Trading Places \| 10 Best & Worst Sports-Team Relocations in History \| Business \| TIME.com __________________ - Bru

10-01-2012, 08:16 PM	#18
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,035	I'd say the Yankees moving from Baltimore to New York worked out alright. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080)

10-01-2012, 09:37 PM	#20
stevebydac All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: In a fictional baseball world Posts: 843	The Lakers move might have been great in terms of increasing the silicone boob quotient of their fanbase, but it didn't really turn the Lakers into winners -- they were already winners in Minneapolis. the "LA Lakers" haven't won the # of titles they claim. Many of those titles belong to the fans in Minnesota -- who now root for the Timberwolves. NBA TITLES Boston Celtics 17 LA Lakers 11 Chicago Bulls 6 Minneapolis Lakers 5 San Antonio Spurs 4 __________________

10-01-2012, 02:32 PM	#2
magnet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,029	Lakers to L.A.: 0/10, there are no ****ing lakes in L.A. You'd think if any town could be creative...

10-01-2012, 04:44 PM	#14
Michael Hopcroft Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Portland, OR USA Posts: 487	The Clips going to LA was all kinds of bonehead. The LA market will always be owned by the Lakers, with the Clips always in second (or possibly, if the Kings go to Anaheim, third) place. As it is they don't even have their own arena. How much money is Donald Sterling making off this team that he doesn't correct the franchise's obvious problems?

10-01-2012, 07:51 PM	#17
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,647	I think it would fit more if the Jazz and Hornets switched nicknames but i agree sometimes the nickname becomes a part of the team. We dont think of bears in Chicago or lions in Detroit. Do teams have to identify with the mascot they pick? Or should they pick what they like and learn to embrace it on their team culuture.

10-01-2012, 08:39 PM	#19
Ragnar Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 3,583	I will always think of the Colts as the Baltimore Colts. I always thought Los Angeles was good for the Rams as well. I think they were two bad moves.