Pulling back to California makes sense of sales aren’t strong enough, but also killing off a beloved brand seems that it could hurt in the long run.
Sadly this never came to fruition due to the big beer bust a few years later. Lagunitas sold out to Heineken, Anchor to Sapporo etc - there was a big drop off in sales due to all the endless 6 month lifespan craft IPAs that split the market (many of these went bust too).
Lagunitas and Anchor are now a shadow of their former selves after cost cutting etc. Keith Greggor's innovations when he was running Anchor are now a distant memory. The recent mediocre rebranding of Anchor is an indicator of how out of touch Sapporo are with the market.
A similar thing I saw: Asahi was in charge of Budweiser distribution in Japan. Absolutely miserable sales (not that I like Budweiser, or would drink it by choice), almost no presence. AB got the rights back to sell it, and now Budweiser is a reliable presence in many places and I see it out there in ways I never did.
My head canon is that Asahi got the distribution rights purely to slow roll it and make it so that AB would have no reason to build up a local presence. That way Asahi protects its local brands and simply needs to send some executive once a year to be like "hey I dunno nobody seems interested in this drink"
Killing what doesn't make money? If this was profitable what exactly are the 'corporate overlords' achieving here?