PDA

View Full Version : Angels back to Los Angeles?


Noir
05-01-2012, 11:22 AM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0429-shaikin-baseball-20120429,0,290864.story

No surprise here.

doublem23
05-01-2012, 11:29 AM
Someone's going to have to explain to me how it makes sense that the Giants can block the A's from moving to San Jose, 50 miles away from San Francisco but the Angels could build a new ballpark 10 minutes away from Dodger Stadium and that's cool.

102605
05-01-2012, 11:47 AM
Someone's going to have to explain to me how it makes sense that the Giants can block the A's from moving to San Jose, 50 miles away from San Francisco but the Angels could build a new ballpark 10 minutes away from Dodger Stadium and that's cool.

Off the top of my head.....I think the Giants ballpark was financed in a way that stated they would have full rights to San Jose.

Noir
05-01-2012, 12:05 PM
Someone's going to have to explain to me how it makes sense that the Giants can block the A's from moving to San Jose, 50 miles away from San Francisco but the Angels could build a new ballpark 10 minutes away from Dodger Stadium and that's cool.

MLB Constitution, Article VIII, Section 8. Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange Counties are ALL fair game for the Angels and Dodgers. They could be next to each other or 40 mi. away and couldn't say **** either way. San Francisco has had the whole Bay Area starting in 1958. The A's arrived 10 years later. and were given Alameda, Contra Costa and originally Santa Clara Counties. The A's in '98 ceded Santa Clara County to the Giants, now they want it back. In the case of the L.A. teams, the Angels were an expansion team that STARTED in Los Angeles.

LITTLE NELL
05-01-2012, 12:05 PM
Ive been to Anaheim (Angel) Stadium many times and it is in as good as shape as Dodger Stadium.
Why would the Angels want to move to LA? They have Orange county all to themselves plus I'm sure draw a lot of fans from southern LA county.
My guess is that the Angels are putting themselves in a good bargaining position for a better lease when the old one expires.

Noir
05-01-2012, 12:13 PM
Ive been to Anaheim (Angel) Stadium many times and it is in as good as shape as Dodger Stadium.
Why would the Angels want to move to LA? They have Orange county all to themselves plus I'm sure draw a lot of fans from southern LA county.
My guess is that the Angels are putting themselves in a good bargaining position for a better lease when the old one expires.

The Halos have to do this now, or remain in Anaheim for another 12 years. The Angels may not even need to leave Orange County, but I can perfectly see WHY they would move back to L.A. proper.

russ99
05-01-2012, 12:13 PM
Ive been to Anaheim (Angel) Stadium many times and it is in as good as shape as Dodger Stadium.
Why would the Angels want to move to LA? They have Orange county all to themselves plus I'm sure draw a lot of fans from southern LA county.
My guess is that the Angels are putting themselves in a good bargaining position for a better lease when the old one expires.

I'm sure it's more about maximizing revenue with a new ballpark with modern premium seating considering how much Arte Moreno spent on players the last few years.

TheOldRoman
05-01-2012, 12:42 PM
After reading that article, The Big A is done in 2016. There is no way the Angels pass up the opportunity to get a new stadium and decide to stay there until 2029. Whether they move to LA or get Anaheim to build them a new park, they are moving somewhere.

TDog
05-01-2012, 03:28 PM
MLB Constitution, Article VIII, Section 8. Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange Counties are ALL fair game for the Angels and Dodgers. They could be next to each other or 40 mi. away and couldn't say **** either way. San Francisco has had the whole Bay Area starting in 1958. The A's arrived 10 years later. and were given Alameda, Contra Costa and originally Santa Clara Counties. The A's in '98 ceded Santa Clara County to the Giants, now they want it back. In the case of the L.A. teams, the Angels were an expansion team that STARTED in Los Angeles.

The Giants built their ballpark without public funds. I have been told that gaining the territorial rights to San Jose was needed to acquire private financing and that losing those rights would affect the Giants' outstanding debt. It could end up being a huge direct financial blow to the Giants if the A's were allowed to move to San Jose, to a publicly financed stadium.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the ballpark in Anaheim, though. I would be surprised if Anaheim or Los Angeles use public funds to build a new baseball stadium.

Hitmen77
05-01-2012, 04:15 PM
The Giants built their ballpark without public funds. I have been told that gaining the territorial rights to San Jose was needed to acquire private financing and that losing those rights would affect the Giants' outstanding debt. It could end up being a huge direct financial blow to the Giants if the A's were allowed to move to San Jose, to a publicly financed stadium.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the ballpark in Anaheim, though. I would be surprised if Anaheim or Los Angeles use public funds to build a new baseball stadium.

That's my reaction too. Despite the recent under 30,000 crowds, the Angels have drawn very well at Anaheim.

I didn't see in the article about whether there would be public funds for this stadium. If so, I agree. With California broke, I don't see them spending tax payers money on a team that is doing very well and not going anywhere.