10 Best & Worst Sports Team Relocations in History - Page 2

stevebydac · 10-01-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

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

Methinks a few in Cleveland might disagree with this one.

Michael Hopcroft · 10-01-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebydac

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

To be fair, all those titles were in the pre-24-second-clock era when the NBA was struggling and the Lakers had the league's only semi-marketable star in the big, relatively immobile George Mikan. Once the pace of the game picked up and more talent came into the league the Minneapolis market was no longer viable. And the league would not have been as successful as it became had it not "gone national", so somebody had to go to California.

BaseballMan · 10-01-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

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

Not if the Baltimore wins this year. for some strange reason i dont think yankee fans are satisfied with only 27 world championships

Le Grande Orange · 10-01-2012, 11:29 PM

I always thought the Oakland/Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders wasn't exactly a high point for the NFL.

Déjà Bru · 10-02-2012, 08:07 AM

Ah, me, I felt like gabbing this morning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

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

You're darned tootin'! I cannot even imagine what it would have been like, being left with the New York Mets as the only professional baseball team in town for all these years. *shudders*

(

= just kidding)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragnar

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.

You know, I think you are doing like I do sometimes. I'm guessing, but I think you might be of an age that followed football in those years and still remembers, perhaps nostagically, the Baltimore Colts and the L.A. Rams. Indianapolis Colts and St. Louis Rams is still a bit jarring. However, the subject of this thread is whether those moves made sense, well, economically rather than emotionally. I'd like to hear from any fans who know how well it's going in those two cities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebydac

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebydac

Methinks a few in Cleveland might disagree with this one.

Yeah, but again, Steve, it's about how well the relocation went. I don't think anybody can argue with the L.A. Lakers being a super-franchise whereas I can only wish the Minnesota Timberwolves well in this regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Hopcroft

To be fair, all those titles were in the pre-24-second-clock era when the NBA was struggling and the Lakers had the league's only semi-marketable star in the big, relatively immobile George Mikan. Once the pace of the game picked up and more talent came into the league the Minneapolis market was no longer viable. And the league would not have been as successful as it became had it not "gone national", so somebody had to go to California.

You bet! Gosh-darned vacuum out there for decades, sucking up sports teams from all over the country! Hopefully they're "full up" now!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Not if the Baltimore wins this year. for some strange reason i dont think yankee fans are satisfied with only 27 world championships

Well, uh, now that you mentioned it . . . would you mind another?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I always thought the Oakland/Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders wasn't exactly a high point for the NFL.

Yeah, it's like, "Make up your mind, already! You know what this is costing me in team jerseys?"

PotatoPeeler · 10-03-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mirrf

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

I'd love to visit Memphis sometime but the number of grizzly bears in the area makes me reconsider.

MorseMoose · 10-03-2012, 06:17 PM

For who is it best/worst?

I'll say that the Minnesota North Stars relocating to Dallas is one of the worst (obviously for Minnesota). But for over ten years, one of the biggest hockey states didn't have hockey in the NHL.

The Lakers leaving MN was pretty bad too. Both of these were killer for MN even though they got teams later.

kenyan_cheena · 10-03-2012, 07:22 PM

No mention of the Dodgers yet???

ukhotstove · 10-04-2012, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

No mention of the Dodgers yet???

Dodgers have never moved from Brooklyn their just on vacation.

Boom Boom · 10-04-2012, 01:46 AM

The SuperSonics move still very sour in my mouth.

Déjà Bru · 10-04-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

For who is it best/worst?

I'll say that the Minnesota North Stars relocating to Dallas is one of the worst (obviously for Minnesota). But for over ten years, one of the biggest hockey states didn't have hockey in the NHL.

The Lakers leaving MN was pretty bad too. Both of these were killer for MN even though they got teams later.

Yeah, you lured the Minnesota Twins away from Washington D.C. which managed to lose two (2) major league baseball franchises in the span of 12 years! *

* Edit: Successive franchises, that is. New York City also lost two (2) separate major league baseball franchises, in one year (1957)!

bailey · 10-05-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Yeah, you lured the Minnesota Twins away from Washington D.C. which managed to lose two (2) major league baseball franchises in the span of 12 years! *

* Edit: Successive franchises, that is. New York City also lost two (2) separate major league baseball franchises, in one year (1957)!

As did LA (Rams and Raiders) in the same year.

Michael Hopcroft · 10-06-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bailey

As did LA (Rams and Raiders) in the same year.

How eager is the rank-and-file LA sports fan to get the NFL back at this point? And how many of them have been Charger fans, and how many choose other teams to support.

Déjà Bru · 10-06-2012, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Hopcroft

How eager is the rank-and-file LA sports fan to get the NFL back at this point? And how many of them have been Charger fans, and how many choose other teams to support.

I have an opinion, albeit from 3,000 miles away. I have to believe that there would be a great market for football in L.A. and I cannot imagine why that would not be so. This is from a Wikipedia article:

Quote:

Professional American football, especially its established top level, the National Football League, has had a long history in Los Angeles, which is the center of the second-largest media market in the United States. Since 1995, Los Angeles has been by far the largest U.S. market without an NFL team. It is currently more than double the size of any other North American market to get serious consideration for a team. The NFL and other professional leagues have had multiple teams in Los Angeles between 1946 and 1994, all of which originally played home games in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. The nearest team for the area is the San Diego Chargers.

But why, then did the Rams move out? From that article:

Quote:

[The Rams] had long been dissatisfied with the L.A. Coliseum, due to its size (the cavernous venue sold out very infrequently, causing blackouts of Rams games on local TV), its location (in South Central Los Angeles, perceived to be one of the city's more dangerous neighborhoods), and its lack of nearby parking . . . [and they were] unable to persuade the city to build a new stadium in Los Angeles, so they decided to move out of the Coliseum to Anaheim (28 miles southeast of downtown L.A.) in Orange County, which was then experiencing an enormous boom in population and construction.

The Raiders were like carpetbaggers, never really settling down and sprouting roots in L.A.:

Quote:

Due in no small part to the decision by the Los Angeles Sports Commission to halt further planned renovations to the Coliseum due to repair costs generated by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Al Davis gave up on Los Angeles, and decided to accept a new stadium renovation offer from Oakland, California and to return to his team's former home.

So that explains things. Need a new stadium in L.A. The fans would come in droves.

And, as far as San Diego, I just looked at a map. The distance from Los Angeles to San Diego is about the same as from New York City to Philadelphia. If the Giants (and Jets) did not exist, I really would have no interest in any team playing in Philly and would have very little motivation to drive all the way there for a game.

flanyboy5 · 10-08-2012, 06:47 AM

Braves to Atlanta a great move? Maybe but it crushed the city of Milwaukee. It was not done based on ticket sales or team success (The Braves in Milwaukee were the only team to ever be in a city for so long without a losing season, 12 years in Milwaukee, 0 Losing seasons, 2 World Series Appearances with 1 Title) I think it would be fair to say the only reason this is rated as high is it is is because of the 90s success and TBS. I don't like a deal that was done solely for TV markets though.

Michael Hopcroft · 10-08-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

The SuperSonics move still very sour in my mouth.

Mine too. I'm a Portlander, but I miss the I-5 Rivalry. Those of you outside the Northwest probably wouldn't get that.

I'm actually concerned that Portland might lose the Blazers when Paul Allen finally dies. Would his heirs be as enthusiastic as he is about sports? I doubt it.

Le Grande Orange · 10-08-2012, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flanyboy5

Braves to Atlanta a great move? Maybe but it crushed the city of Milwaukee. It was not done based on ticket sales or team success ...

Here is the year-by-year attendance for the Braves in Milwaukee. In parentheses is the National League club average attendance for that year.

1953: 1,872,635 (927,465)
1954: 2,242,109 (1,001,690)
1955: 2,110,035 (959,302)
1956: 2,152,634 (1,081,196)
1957: 2,300,612 (1,102,450)
1958: 2,073,496 (1,270,575)
1959: 1,793,393 (1,249,316)
1960: 1,575,607 (1,335,620)
1961: 1,158,659 (1,091,438)
1962: 766,921 (1,136,016)
1963: 763,591 (1,138,223)
1964: 910,911 (1,204,519)
1965: 555,584 (1,358,114)

Leo_The_Lip · 10-10-2012, 12:56 PM

Since Braves attendance in their final year in Boston was a mere 281,278, shouldn't the move to Milwaukee in 1953 be ranked higher than the move in 1966?

rpriske · 10-19-2012, 11:27 AM

I prefer it when teams keep their names when they change cities. Calling the Lakers the Lakers or the Jazz the Jazz keeps the depth of history for the teams.

One that I think could be on the 'best' list is the Flames' move from Atlanta to Calgary.

Now THERE is a nickname that works with both the original city and the new one.

10-01-2012, 11:29 PM	#24
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	I always thought the Oakland/Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders wasn't exactly a high point for the NFL.

10-03-2012, 06:17 PM	#27
MorseMoose Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,023 Infractions: 1/1 (1)	For who is it best/worst? I'll say that the Minnesota North Stars relocating to Dallas is one of the worst (obviously for Minnesota). But for over ten years, one of the biggest hockey states didn't have hockey in the NHL. The Lakers leaving MN was pretty bad too. Both of these were killer for MN even though they got teams later.

10-03-2012, 07:22 PM	#28
kenyan_cheena Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia Posts: 9,037	No mention of the Dodgers yet???

10-04-2012, 01:46 AM	#30
Boom Boom Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Issaquah, WA Posts: 400	The SuperSonics move still very sour in my mouth.

10-08-2012, 06:47 AM	#35
flanyboy5 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 110	Braves to Atlanta a great move? Maybe but it crushed the city of Milwaukee. It was not done based on ticket sales or team success (The Braves in Milwaukee were the only team to ever be in a city for so long without a losing season, 12 years in Milwaukee, 0 Losing seasons, 2 World Series Appearances with 1 Title) I think it would be fair to say the only reason this is rated as high is it is is because of the 90s success and TBS. I don't like a deal that was done solely for TV markets though.

10-10-2012, 12:56 PM	#38
Leo_The_Lip All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,813	Since Braves attendance in their final year in Boston was a mere 281,278, shouldn't the move to Milwaukee in 1953 be ranked higher than the move in 1966?

10-19-2012, 11:27 AM	#39
rpriske Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Spencerville, ON, Canada Posts: 27,704	I prefer it when teams keep their names when they change cities. Calling the Lakers the Lakers or the Jazz the Jazz keeps the depth of history for the teams. One that I think could be on the 'best' list is the Flames' move from Atlanta to Calgary. Now THERE is a nickname that works with both the original city and the new one.