Give Up Before It’s Too Late, Anaheim

Arte Moreno passes the yams to Curt Pringle, but just before Pringle grabs the handle, Moreno drops the bowl in his lap. Pringle then pours turkey gravy over Moreno’s head and mashes a pumpkin pie in his face.

That is precisely why the Angels of Wherever owner and the Anaheim mayor will not be having Thanksgiving dinner together. Things could get out of hand.

Moreno and Pringle have a lot to be thankful for this turkey season, but apparently not each other. Pringle presides over a city percolating with ideas to reshape itself in a hipper, more upscale direction. Moreno presides over a baseball team that fills its ballpark and that has a solid core of talent.

They should be carving each other’s turkey. Instead, they’re suing each other.

Not literally, of course, but they probably would if they could.

Moreno bought the club for $180 million in 2003 and had the temerity to think that entitled him to rename it the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The city sued the team to force it to return to its previous identity as the Anaheim Angels, which the city says was agreed on in its 1996 lease agreement with the previous owner.

And like a game now in the 23rd inning, the matter drags on. The Times’ Bill Shaikin reported this week that Moreno expected to spend between $4 million and $5 million on legal bills. The city reported last month that it had spent more than $1 million and that the meter was still running.

I’m displeased to report to you that I was writing about this at Thanksgiving last year, too.

Then, I suggested that Moreno should have the right to rename the team. After all, it was his $180 million on the line. I’ve also written that I think the city has the better legal argument, although that is strictly a layman’s opinion and one not yet shared by a court.

If my two positions seem contradictory, I’d agree but quickly note that the conflict falls within the dictates of the time-honored baseball aphorism that “good pitching beats good hitting and vice versa.”

So, let me say emphatically: Moreno is right and the city is wrong and vice versa.

The next stop on our journey is the start of the trial Jan. 9. A frustrated Moreno told Shaikin that the ongoing legal fight, which theoretically could stretch over another couple of years, might weigh on his mind when deciding whether to keep his team in Anaheim.

That decision is several years down the road, and there’s no reason to hold Moreno to anything said now. But it reignites an issue that your intrepid columnist raised last year: Is it worth it to Anaheim to upset Moreno to the point that he’d leave town and take the team with him?

Pringle may think for now he’s acting in his constituents’ best interests, but no one thinks it’d be worth losing Moreno, who has been a crackerjack owner. And certainly not losing the team.

As premature as lease renewal talk is, it does get us to a key question. If Anaheim loses another round in court (it has lost two preliminary ones), should the city appeal?

How many ways can we say no?

I confess to great curiosity as to how this case will play out in court. But that will end with the decision in the January trial. We don’t need an instant replay in baseball.

Can we talk turkey? There hasn’t been a massive public uproar over Moreno’s decision. That’s partly because no one around here ever mentions “Los Angeles Angels” and partly because everybody in Orange County is thrilled to have a team like the Angels in their backyard.

Nettlesome as the name change is to Anaheim, the city will survive. It has the cachet of being home to a big-league team, and the large crowds at Angel Stadium this past season suggest the name change didn’t turn the fans against Moreno in any meaningful way.

So, hear my plea: Let’s not be talking about this next Thanksgiving.

*

Dana Parsons can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com.