Sign in to follow this  
stormngt

Thoughts?

69 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

With climate change, droughts and such, how long is Las Vegas going to be a viable city? 20 years? 30? I'd rather see the Portland Angels.

Southern California is more vulnerable to drought and Climate change than Vegas 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

With climate change, droughts and such, how long is Las Vegas going to be a viable city? 20 years? 30? I'd rather see the Portland Angels.

How long have people been living in Palm Springs?  Arizona?  Climate change isnt going to swallow up large metropolitan areas any time in our lifetimes.  
Also there is this funny thing called indoor stadiums, just sayin. 
Besides how long would Portland be viable?  as is they have sun less than half of the year, whats makes you think they would be more viable and now be overcome with thunderstorms?  
Hell we were supposed to fall into the sea 30 years ago as i recall? 
I dont want to see them move anywhere, but climate change isnt going to be a factor in that decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevada, not Las Vegas, I mean the whole state, has 3.0 million people. Orange County alone has 3.2 million people. If Arte wants to move there then bless his heart. 

I will also point out that from a baseball standpoint - Arizona has the second highest elevation of any MLB team's stadium at 1,000 feet. They are using a humidor to keep the ball from flying out there. Las Vegas is 2,000 feet above sea level. It's certainly not impossible to play there but it's going to be very different than pretty much anywhere except Coors Field.

Some more information - median income is about $20,000 higher in Orange County than in Las Vegas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Angels have too sweet of a deal in Anaheim to move I think. The way politics are, no on will find a stadium in So-Cal for them, they already have a dedicated fan base in a large metropolitan area, get their easy access stadium for free with more parking than they'll ever need. The only thing that's going to happen here is there will be a bunch of huffing and puffing from both the Angels and the city of Anaheim and in ththe end, they'll come to some sort of agreement where Arte funds 80% of the major restoration to the ball park while the city covers 20% in return for Arte getting access to some of the surrounding lands t develop. It'll be a ton of out of pocket costs at first for Arte, but over the long run it will be incredibly lucrative for he and his family and very beneficial for Anaheim in generally, to have more of a destination stadium in place and developed land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

F the Angels if they move anywhere outside of Orange County.

 

 

 

I'm not too worried. Teams don't move to smaller markets very often. You aren't going to find a bigger market than OC without a team already. I'd say LA is the only place I could see Arte moving outside of OC. The only reason he would have to move is if they were to kick in a bunch of money for a stadium. I don't see any chance in hell LA would use public money to help the Angels build a stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Second Base said:

The Angels have too sweet of a deal in Anaheim to move I think. The way politics are, no on will find a stadium in So-Cal for them, they already have a dedicated fan base in a large metropolitan area, get their easy access stadium for free with more parking than they'll ever need. The only thing that's going to happen here is there will be a bunch of huffing and puffing from both the Angels and the city of Anaheim and in ththe end, they'll come to some sort of agreement where Arte funds 80% of the major restoration to the ball park while the city covers 20% in return for Arte getting access to some of the surrounding lands t develop. It'll be a ton of out of pocket costs at first for Arte, but over the long run it will be incredibly lucrative for he and his family and very beneficial for Anaheim in generally, to have more of a destination stadium in place and developed land. 

That deal died when the surrounding area was sold to a Chinese developer. Arte will not be getting any land development deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only place the Angels would move is to the Inglewood or South Bay Area, by Carson.

They're not leaving the LA/OC Metro area.

Portland and Las Vegas (where the winter meetings are) are viable markets, but so are Nashville, Montreal, San Antonio, and Virginia.

I can see the league expanding to 32 and adding two of those teams, and then moving Oakland and TB, although ultimately I think Oakland stays there.

The benefit of adding Portland is to get the PST to have 8 teams (incl AZ). Right now they have 7, but if you added Portland or Las Vegas without moving Oakland, you'd get two 4 team divisions. I'd initially push for Portland to be an NL team and Arizona (and Colorado) to switch to the AL. That would make Travel fairer. Right now, the longest flight in division for the NL West is the two hours from LA to Colorado. The longest for the AL West is 4+ hours from Seattle to Texas. But even if the new AL West was Portland/Seattle/Angels/Oakland.... that would still be ok.

You'd have a Texas/South division, consisting of the Royals, Rockies (from the NL), and 2 Texas teams. AL Central drops KC, AL East drops TB (to the NL).

The NL South to me would be Nashville(from TB), Miami, Atlanta and Washington.

NL Central moves the Pirates to the East (or the Cardinals to the South, but then you break up Cubs/Cardinals rivalry)

NL East is the remainder.

Pretty nice divisional alignment. Keeps the two leagues. I like the DH in Arizona and Colorado, with the way the ball travels there = more offense. The Rockies should've always been in the AL West, Miami in the NL, but they moved Milwuakee for some reason, lol.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

With climate change, droughts and such, how long is Las Vegas going to be a viable city? 20 years? 30? I'd rather see the Portland Angels.

Nevada has been having issues with water for years. Hence the reason they were purchasing 40% of our supply from Sacramento from the aqueduct.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Nevada, not Las Vegas, I mean the whole state, has 3.0 million people. Orange County alone has 3.2 million people. If Arte wants to move there then bless his heart. 

I will also point out that from a baseball standpoint - Arizona has the second highest elevation of any MLB team's stadium at 1,000 feet. They are using a humidor to keep the ball from flying out there. Las Vegas is 2,000 feet above sea level. It's certainly not impossible to play there but it's going to be very different than pretty much anywhere except Coors Field.

Some more information - median income is about $20,000 higher in Orange County than in Las Vegas. 

Lol

80% of Nevadas population is in Clark County

And yes medium income is 20k higher in orange county but have you compared the cost of living?  With the high cost of housing, gas taxes, income taxes that 20k suplus turns into a negative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Angels move out of SoCal, that eliminates at least part of the incentive for Trout to hang around. Let's face it, the team changed quite a bit over the last seven years. Loyalty to teammates won't be enough reason to stick around. If they leave, you lose a couple of plusses: Nice weather; chill fans - loyal fans you've been playing in front for the last seven years. I don't think those things are remotely deal-breakers, but I think the idea of playing in front of the same fans in SoCal isn't nothing to him.

Not saying he stays or leaves in either case, just pointing out that moving would potentially give him less reason to stay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F Orange County, I'm an Angels fan first.

I first loved the Angels while living in Riverside for 17 years of my youth, then Vegas, then Seattle, then the OC for 5 years, then back to Seattle since '05 (never to return to the OC). 

My next move could be Arizona where I'm thinking of retiring or Florida where I have a house and my oldest daughter lives. That said, So. Cal was the place that turned me on to the Angels, but just like the friend who set you up on a date with your would be wife or best friend for life, it was just a person or place that made the connection. The love for the Angels, or your wife or GF, best bud lives on forever. 

Anyone who stops being a fan of a team because of location was never a fan in the first place.

Respectfully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

F Orange County, I'm an Angels fan first.

I first loved the Angels while living in Riverside for 17 years of my youth, then Vegas, then Seattle, then the OC for 5 years, then back to Seattle since '05 (never to return to the OC). 

My next move could be Arizona where I'm thinking of retiring or Florida where I have a house and my oldest daughter lives. That said, So. Cal was the place that turned me on to the Angels, but just like the friend who set you up on a date with your would be wife or best friend for life, it was just a person or place that made the connection. The love for the Angels, or your wife or GF, best bud lives on forever. 

Anyone who stops being a fan of a team because of location was never a fan in the first place.

Respectfully. 

i disagree completely. fandom is obviously based on emotion. for you, it wasn't hometown team and it's not for me either, but for most it definitely is. people attend/play sports with loved ones and that is instrumental in many childhood relationships. cheering for the local team is most frequently a call back to those times and those relationships. when a team leaves for increased profits, i think the fanbase has every reason to feel betrayed, which is another form of rejection. fans are completely entitled to feel this way, especially when they have not rejected the team. tampa bay and the marlins should move, there's little to no interest there. the angels have been drawing three million fans for how long? if they moved, just to chase another buck. F* them entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, going from free parking and good beers and food at KStrauss before the game, to expensive muggings and stabbings in Inglewood, doesn't sound that great tbh. Moving out of the state and never going to games is not ideal either.

My other team is the Broncos. Been to Colorado like 3 times and never to a game, and I'd still have to think hard if they ever moved (which they obviously wouldn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stormngt said:

Lol

80% of Nevadas population is in Clark County

And yes medium income is 20k higher in orange county but have you compared the cost of living?  With the high cost of housing, gas taxes, income taxes that 20k suplus turns into a negative

Clark County is 2.2 million people. It's a million fewer people than Orange County and it's the only population center it can reasonably draw from. Riverside County has more people than Clark County. The Angels TV broadcast reaches from Santa Barbara to San Clemente and East to Riverside County. Even assuming everyone is Dodgers fan the current market is twice as large as Las Vegas.

I'm not saying Vegas won't get a team, but I just can't forsee someone moving a team from the Angels' market to Las Vegas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options