71Bear said:
Cal8285 said:
Looperbear said:
Sucks that the franchise that condones racism prevailed over the franchise that did more than any other to defeat racism.
Well, a "franchise" doesn't really get to claim its past actions as its own when the people responsible for those actions were forced out long ago in a nasty coup, and there have been so many changings of the guard that it is irrelevant.
If the Dodgers hadn't lost the claim to what "they" did to intergrate baseball when Branch Rickey was forced out, then they lost it when the took the biggest crap in the history of sports on the fans who supported them through a lot of decades of being crappy, the occasional heartbreak, and most importantly, the integration of baseball. O'Malley even suckered Stoneham into leaving lucrative New York for San Francisco, which would never be the financial windfall that LA is, but all that aside, the O'Malleys deserved no credit for helping defeat racism in baseball, and neither does the current organization.
I won't blame current ownership for some of the many racist decisions made since the franchise moved to LA, those decisions were made by previous owners, but neither should the current franchise get much credit for what they have absolutely nothing to do with.
"which would never be the financial windfall that LA is"...
Forbes most recent ranking of sports franchise values...
LA is valued at 2.75 billion
SF is valued at 2.65 billion
Both are in the Top 20 of all franchises in all sports in the world.
Both play in stadiums that were built and are owned by the franchise and both are completely paid off.
I would suggest that the franchises have both been incredibly successful from a financial point of view.
The Forbes numbers don't really reflect the difference in the kind of windfall LA was versus SF. Forbes does funny things with TV numbers. Forbes doesn't include any real estate values in their valuation. Additionally, in the last sale, McCourt didn't sell all of what O'Malley got in coming to LA, notably the parking lots, so part of the financial windfall of moving to LA has been split up and is no longer part of the Dodgers, but if we're assessing the financial windfall of moving to LA versus SF, that needs to be taken into account.
The quality of management also affects the Forbes numbers a lot, and Giants management over the last 20 years versus the quality of Dodger management over the last 20 years has affected the numbers. The number one reason why the Mets are as low as they are is incompetent management. A New York team with competent management will be more valuable than a San Francisco team. All else equal, the Giants would have been financially better off in New York. The Dodgers got such a good deal to move, they almost certainly benefited financially by abandoning their loyal fans and moving.
Local TV money still favors the Dodgers over the Giants by a lot, although the current deal screwed things up pretty good so far. In terms of how many local fans will show up for games, the Dodgers have a big advantage. Because the Giants have a better park in a better location, they get more tourist attendance, which helps offset the fact that the locals will not attend in the same numbers, and the difference in how many locals will show up is reduced because the Giants have the better park that is more easily accessed by public transit. Another advantage is the Dodgers own their land, the Giants do not. The Giants may own the stadium, they may have a long term land lease, but they don't own the land.
But flip back 60 years, and the Dodgers deal was absurdly more valuable than the Giants. There is a reason why SF came VERY close to losing the Giants twice, once coming within minutes of losing them to Toronto (not 2 seconds like Verlander almost not going to Houston, but less than half an hour). They didn't get land for a stadium, they had a much smaller area to draw from, and a much smaller TV market. Obviously the screw up of the location of the ballpark was a big deal, and hurt the Giants for their first 40 years, but even without that, the Dodgers deal was tons better.
Some factors have changed to help SF, like that 42 years after the move, the Giants got a
better stadium in a
better location than Dodgers Stadium, and the Silicon Valley boom resulted in a lot more corporate money paying for sponsorships and high end tickets.
Still, the Giants will never be able to be the top payroll team in MLB like the Dodgers can be, because SF will never be the financial windfall for the Giants that LA was for the Dodgers (and one reason why the Forbes value difference is smaller is because LA spends more of the money they get).