Relocation and Branding

[Morgan33]

Dallas should add yellow and embrace the true roots of their franchise...  At least have a throwback alternate.

[VancouverFan69]

4 hours ago, grillbrosdesign said:

 

 

It worked well for the Dallas Stars too. Texas being the 'star' state. 

 

If it works, then keep it (your example, Dallas Stars), but I think that's the exception. 

 

Dallas should have gone with "Texans" or something else. The Minnesota North Stars were around for 26 years, compared to the 8-year existence of the Atlanta Flames and the Green and Gold had far more support than the Flames and a stronger history. 

[grillbrosdesign]

13 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Dallas should have gone with "Texans" or something else. The Minnesota North Stars were around for 26 years, compared to the 8-year existence of the Atlanta Flames and the Green and Gold had far more support than the Flames and a stronger history. 

 

 

I agree, I would have completely rebranded, I'm not a fan of keeping names... My point was it still "worked" on some level, even though a rebrand would have been better. Basically, it wasn't a Utah Jazz/ NO Hornets/ Memphis Grizzlies mistake, keeping 'Stars' in Dallas still makes sense, even though a rebrand should have been done. 

[neo_prankster]

19 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

If an established team were moving to my home city, I would much prefer a new brand from scratch than stealing another city's long-time brand that was beloved in that former city.

 

The Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames is my one exception. Red is a Calgary colour and "Flames" relates to Alberta's oil industry. As a bonus, with Calgary being awarded the '88 Winter Olympics, there's a connection to the Olympic Flame.

 

So by that criteria, what names would you change the Boston Braves, Philadelphia A's, Minneapolis Lakers, Brooklyn Dodgers, NY Giants and New Orleans Jazz to?

[AnPheitseog]

What it comes down to: do you want to be a continuation of the former club, or be a brand new club. 

There's almost no questioning that the Dodgers are the same club in LA as they were in Brooklyn. 

 

My Orioles on the other hand? No question at all(in my mind) that they are a completely different club than the Brewers or the St. Louis browns, even though they are the same franchise. 

 

I'm starting to really hate the franchise model, preferring the European club model instead. 

[ColeJ]

i'll make the same comments i've made a million times on this topic, since this topic keeps coming up...

 

maybe the san francisco giants should change their name to the san francisco californians or golden gators or bears, and let the mets be the giants... no? that's dumb? okay. change the colts to the indianans or drivers, so the ravens can be the colts? still no?

 

and if the north stars were as beloved in minnesota from 1967-1993 as people claim, they'd probably still be there....

 

it's arguable that the stars are more a part of texas sports history than minnesota sports history at this point, too. 67-93 is 26 years. 93-16 is 23 years. factor in a stanley cup championship, the golden era of the franchise, and the synonymity of the franchise with the sport in this market, and that 3 year difference seems a little negligible.

 

in texas, the stars brand IS hockey. the only game in town, and the only game there's even been. and its been that way for 23 years. for 26 years in minnesota, the stars played second or third fiddle to the gophers, high school, and people's personal rec-leagues...

 

there's no doubt hockey itself is bigger in minnesota. always has been, and always will be. but the stars mean more to dallas than they ever did to minnesota, and people need to just accept that and live in the present.

 

if minnesota cared so much about the stars identity, they should have put a fight in 1993 and tried to talk the league into forcing an identity change... but that didn't happen. the stars identity remained, and become a beloved part of the dallas sports scene. anyone thinking that should be stripped away for manufactured nostalgia's sake, or that it'd be okay for two kelly green teams to play in the same division with star-themed identities is delusional.

 

[takes blood pressure pill and prepares to make the exact same rant in about 3 months.]

 

go stars.

 

 

 

 

but back on topic, i generally prefer teams to maintain their identity. as a titans fan, i'd rather be cheering for the tennessee oilers. obviously some names just don't work at all, like the dallas texans moving to kansas city... but i think it's disingenuous to pretend relocated teams don't have histories in other towns. no one is saying teams like baltimore no longer have any history with the colts, or that minnesota isn't allowed to celebrate the north stars any more... it's just that multiple cities now have ties to that franchise, and that's okay.

[Ben in LA]

On August 12, 2016 at 9:39 AM, cajunaggie08 said:

The NBA rarely has had teams change identities when they move. The Sonics to Thunder might be the only recent case where a team changed its identity solely from relocating. The older examples would be the Buffalo Braves becoming the San Diego Clippers and the the Rochester Royals becoming the Kansas City Kings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Royals moved to Cincinnati before becoming the Kansas City/Omaha Kings

[Burmy]

4 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

The Royals moved to Cincinnati before becoming the Kansas City/Omaha Kings

Why they had to change it still confuses me...they could just be the Kansas City "basketball" Royals (St. Louis had the "football" Cardinals at the time, after all)

[chcarlson23]

8 hours ago, ColeJ said:

i'll make the same comments i've made a million times on this topic, since this topic keeps coming up...

 

maybe the san francisco giants should change their name to the san francisco californians or golden gators or bears, and let the mets be the giants... no? that's dumb? okay. change the colts to the indianans or drivers, so the ravens can be the colts? still no?

 

and if the north stars were as beloved in minnesota from 1967-1993 as people claim, they'd probably still be there....

 

it's arguable that the stars are more a part of texas sports history than minnesota sports history at this point, too. 67-93 is 26 years. 93-16 is 23 years. factor in a stanley cup championship, the golden era of the franchise, and the synonymity of the franchise with the sport in this market, and that 3 year difference seems a little negligible.

 

in texas, the stars brand IS hockey. the only game in town, and the only game there's even been. and its been that way for 23 years. for 26 years in minnesota, the stars played second or third fiddle to the gophers, high school, and people's personal rec-leagues...

 

there's no doubt hockey itself is bigger in minnesota. always has been, and always will be. but the stars mean more to dallas than they ever did to minnesota, and people need to just accept that and live in the present.

 

if minnesota cared so much about the stars identity, they should have put a fight in 1993 and tried to talk the league into forcing an identity change... but that didn't happen. the stars identity remained, and become a beloved part of the dallas sports scene. anyone thinking that should be stripped away for manufactured nostalgia's sake, or that it'd be okay for two kelly green teams to play in the same division with star-themed identities is delusional.

 

[takes blood pressure pill and prepares to make the exact same rant in about 3 months.]

 

go stars.

 

 

 

 

but back on topic, i generally prefer teams to maintain their identity. as a titans fan, i'd rather be cheering for the tennessee oilers. obviously some names just don't work at all, like the dallas texans moving to kansas city... but i think it's disingenuous to pretend relocated teams don't have histories in other towns. no one is saying teams like baltimore no longer have any history with the colts, or that minnesota isn't allowed to celebrate the north stars any more... it's just that multiple cities now have ties to that franchise, and that's okay.

I agree with this... The North Stars identity was great and worked with Minnesota, but it also works for Dallas. The Stars now are loved more in Dallas than they were in Minnesota. And I think the whole Nostalgia route that the Wild have used really brought back some passion for the North Stars, but the Wild are definitely more loved than the North Stars ever were... 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 hours ago, DiePerske said:

What it comes down to: do you want to be a continuation of the former club, or be a brand new club. 

There's almost no questioning that the Dodgers are the same club in LA as they were in Brooklyn. 

 

My Orioles on the other hand? No question at all(in my mind) that they are a completely different club than the Brewers or the St. Louis browns, even though they are the same franchise. 

 

I'm starting to really hate the franchise model, preferring the European club model instead. 

 

Regardless of whether a team changed nicknames or not, the franchise is a continuous entity.

In American soccer it gets a little fuzzy, as teams have outlasted leagues.  So the current New York Cosmos, Tampa Bay Rowdies, Ft. Lauderdale Strikers, and Seattle Sounders all claim connections to former teams by those names in the old NASL.  Likewise, the San Diego Sockers, Baltimore Blast, and Kansas City / Missouri Comets all have been in mulitple indoor leagues. 

 

But in Major League baseball, the leagues have continuous existences; so it is perfectly clear to which franchise lineage belong the Orioles, as well as the Twins and the Rangers.  

Let's note here that there were two other teams in Major League history called "Baltimore Orioles": the National League team that dominated in the 1890s before folding in 1899, and the American League team that played in 1901 and 1902 (that league's first two years) before moving to New York to become the Highlanders. The name "Baltimore Orioles" then was used by the American Association team for most of the period before the St. Louis Browns moved there and took it up. But the current Orioles team properly makes no claim to connection with either of the two previous Orioles teams in the Majors, and acknowledges its status as being part of the Browns' franchise.

The fact that the Browns and the two Senators teams changed nicknames upon their moves, while the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, and A's did not, is just a side issue.  The Senators teams changed nicknames only because that name is appropriate for Washington alone. If those Washington teams had been called "Bears" or "Eagles" or anything generic instead of "Senators", then the name would almost certainly not have been dropped.

The Browns adopted the name of Baltimore's longstanding minor league team (and, as mentioned, its two former Major League teams). To claim that the nature of the Dodgers' and Giants' moves would have been different if the owners had decided to choose another nickname (let's say if those teams had decided to follow the Orioles' lead and take the names of the minor league teams the Hollywood Stars and the San Francisco Seals) is really not a sensible position.

The franchise model is simply the objective history of how things happened. 

[WavePunter]

Not to mention, EVERY fan won't jump ship upon a team leaving.. I'm a Miami Dolphins fan who lives in SC.. If they move to Charleston, I'll be thrilled, not angry.. And I certainly wouldn't want them changing the nickname.. Even if they moved elsewhere, they're not my "hometown" team, so it won't bother me if they move.. I grew up in Alabama and SC, so I've never truly had a hometown team.. I like teams retaining their name.. It's the same franchise.. If they decide to drop the name, however, I think it should be available for the original city to use (like the Browns and Hornets)

[The_Admiral]

On 8/14/2016 at 11:47 PM, ColeJ said:

maybe the san francisco giants should change their name to the san francisco californians or golden gators or bears, and let the mets be the giants... no? that's dumb? okay. change the colts to the indianans or drivers, so the ravens can be the colts? still no?
 
and if the north stars were as beloved in minnesota from 1967-1993 as people claim, they'd probably still be there....

 

The Dallas Stars should change their name to the Up Their Own Ass Stars

[OnWis97]

On 8/16/2016 at 8:36 PM, WavePunter said:

Not to mention, EVERY fan won't jump ship upon a team leaving.. I'm a Miami Dolphins fan who lives in SC.. If they move to Charleston, I'll be thrilled, not angry.. And I certainly wouldn't want them changing the nickname.. Even if they moved elsewhere, they're not my "hometown" team, so it won't bother me if they move.. I grew up in Alabama and SC, so I've never truly had a hometown team.. I like teams retaining their name.. It's the same franchise.. If they decide to drop the name, however, I think it should be available for the original city to use (like the Browns and Hornets)

I once saw Dolphins while looking at the water from Fort Sumter near Charleston, so the name would fit!

 

We've debated this a lot so I guess it makes sense to have a thread.

 

I'll miss the "franchise" model.  At my snarkiest, I feel like this charts history for the curious fan, while just treating each city as the team is for the fans who like to go to the games but don't really know anything about the sport.  The franchise model is probably dead in the NBA and the NFL.  The NHL surprised me by how it handled the Winnipeg/Atlanta/Arizona situation so there may be hope there.  MLB, the most history-minded (and history-dependent) sport, will hopefully hold to that.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that most fans probably want a new name when a team relocates to their city.  We lament Utah Jazz and Los Angeles Lakers.  I can deal with that, I guess.  Minnesota Senators would not have worked (though Baltimore Browns--in both sports--would have).  Even if there's more liklihood to forget history that way.  Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants history is better-remembered than Washington Senators and St. Louis Browns history, though that is at least partly because of the futility of those latter teams.

 

Particularly for the most historic franchises, I like to see the names stay.  I am glad the Rams, Colts, and Cardinals never changed names.  Had they all changed, we'd be a little more removed from an understanding of the league's history.  Hell, after the Cleveland Deal, we'd probably have also had a Baltimore Deal and the current Ravens (named "Colts") would be attached to the Baltimore Colts and the Indy Colts would retroactively have been considered a 1984 (?) expansion team.  So yeah, I wish we had the Baltimore Browns.  Because the long-standing franchise in Cleveland moved there and history should follow that.  At the time, I was OK with the Deal because I thought it was just name/colors/uniforms/lack of logos...it was only years later when I realized it was history.  To me that just seemed odd.

 

The NBA is probably done with the franchise model.  The current relocated franchises will carry history.  But future moves and expansion teams in departed cities (e.g., Seattle) will probably inherit old histories, retroactively create expansion teams and just make the history-minded fan throw up his hands in frustration.  You think it's bad that Kevin Durant ditched OKC for Golden State?  He left Seattle after one year!  Talk about disloyal!

 

As a fan of the Twins, I don't embrace Senators history a lot.  But I know about it and I don't pretend they were an expansion team.  And as a fan of the North Stars, I am glad the Dallas team honors the history.  They went with the franchise model (with the obvious need to drop "North") and honor retired numbers from Minnesota.  The 1980s are over, but at least we're not pretending the team never existed.  And the current Wild team could be called North Stars, but Neal Broten never played for it...well unless we take White-Out to the history books.  Not worth it.  So while @ColeJ spikes the football a little too much for my taste, I totally agree with the premise that they were not an expansion team.  Could they have changed to "Dallas Armadillos" and had the new franchise be the North Stars?  Sure...but hopefully it would be a Jets and not a Hornets situation.  In any case, that ship has sailed.

 

A few problems going with the "my city, my city, my city" model:

• Right now the Washington Nationals would have three teams as part of its official franchise.  Or better yet, the 1961 move could have treated the Twins as expansion, given that Washington had an expansion team that year.  And now the Rangers would be the team connected to all that history, despite that history packing up for Minnesota.
• What history would the NY Mets have?  Would they be recognized as having two teams from 1901 to 1954 (or whenever the Cali move happened)?  Or would they have picked, say, the Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers would mothballed while the LA Surfers are considered expansion?
• We'd have all sorts of defunct teams "waiting" for expansion teams to "pick up" its history.  Montreal Expos, Cleveland Rams, Chicago Cardinals, Kansas City Kings, etc.  Tracing history would be lots of fun, I suppose.
• The current Minnesota Timberwolves, called the Lakers, would claim the six or so titles won before the LA move.  No.  Did not happen.  I live in Minnesota, where championships are elusive...I'd love my pitiful franchise to have them.  But it does not.  Those titles happened in Minnesota.  Nobody's pretending that they did not, but they happened to a team that plays elsewhere.
• Milwaukee Brewers, 1901, 1970-present.  Seattle Pilots, 1969, 1977-present.
• Cleveland Rams, Defunct.  Los Angels Movie Stars, 1946-1994, 2016-present.  St. Louis Redbirds, 1995-2015. 

I cannot speak for European sports, but in North America, we track history.  We have beloved all-time records.  We know which team has won the most titles and who leads the franchise in goals, home runs, rushing yards, and points.  We know that for the Twins, the all-time wins leader in franchise history is Walter Johnson.  And it's OK to know that the leader since the move is Bert Blyleven.  But Johnson is not the leader of the franchise that currently resides in Washington...because history happened and was caused by events that included a relocation.  Is there a statue of Walter Johnson by the ballpark in DC?  If so, that's fine.  But don't play make-believe with history because some fans find it unpleasant to deal with what actually happened.  East Germany had a crappy run...but we don't pretend it did not exist.

[Gold Pinstripes]

On 8/15/2016 at 11:17 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Regardless of whether a team changed nicknames or not, the franchise is a continuous entity.

In American soccer it gets a little fuzzy, as teams have outlasted leagues.  So the current New York Cosmos, Tampa Bay Rowdies, Ft. Lauderdale Strikers, and Seattle Sounders all claim connections to former teams by those names in the old NASL.  Likewise, the San Diego Sockers, Baltimore Blast, and Kansas City / Missouri Comets all have been in mulitple indoor leagues. 

 

But in Major League baseball, the leagues have continuous existences; so it is perfectly clear to which franchise lineage belong the Orioles, as well as the Twins and the Rangers.  

Let's note here that there were two other teams in Major League history called "Baltimore Orioles": the National League team that dominated in the 1890s before folding in 1899, and the American League team that played in 1901 and 1902 (that league's first two years) before moving to New York to become the Highlanders. The name "Baltimore Orioles" then was used by the American Association team for most of the period before the St. Louis Browns moved there and took it up. But the current Orioles team properly makes no claim to connection with either of the two previous Orioles teams in the Majors, and acknowledges its status as being part of the Browns' franchise.

The fact that the Browns and the two Senators teams changed nicknames upon their moves, while the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, and A's did not, is just a side issue.  The Senators teams changed nicknames only because that name is appropriate for Washington alone. If those Washington teams had been called "Bears" or "Eagles" or anything generic instead of "Senators", then the name would almost certainly not have been dropped.

The Browns adopted the name of Baltimore's longstanding minor league team (and, as mentioned, its two former Major League teams). To claim that the nature of the Dodgers' and Giants' moves would have been different if the owners had decided to choose another nickname (let's say if those teams had decided to follow the Orioles' lead and take the names of the minor league teams the Hollywood Stars and the San Francisco Seals) is really not a sensible position.

The franchise model is simply the objective history of how things happened. 

If sports franchises were the same as other business franchises I would agree, but sports are definitely unique. Fans who follow history can easily separate the two, when a team relocates, everything does change. The St. Louis Rams aren't called the LA/St. Louis Rams for a reason. The number of LA Rams fans who still paid attention to the St. Louis Rams, certainly admired the exploits of Marshall Faulk, etc. But that connection will be weak compared to the next time a homegrown LA Rams star is developed. This isn't a legal matter, it's a fan issue. And the overwhelming majority of relocations happen because insufficient fans care in the original city.

 

In terms of your earlier point about old baseball teams not changing their nicknames, part of that was due to the lack of sophistication in marketing. When California received two NL teams for the first time, it would have been smarter to announce the move, then launch a massive rebranding campaign. It would have been a license to print money, and attendance would not have been affected one iota with the new nickname. Relocated New Yorkers in California would have loved to see some of those players they saw in person.

 

History will always a special place where it happened, that's why the SF Giants winning their first world title was such a big deal. Almost no one in SF was talking about some kind of weird continuation because it simply didn't exist. Only a tiny fraction of New Yorkers even care about the Dodgers or Giants anymore, with good reason. Good luck finding fans in Atlanta with strong memories of Eddie Matthews, and Lefty Grove will never get a statue in Oakland.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

32 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Almost no one in SF was talking about some kind of weird continuation [of the Giants from New York] because it simply didn't exist.

 

Team president Larry Baer sure was talking about it.  He has travelled with the World Series trophy to New York after each of the Giants' recent championships, always referring to New York as the Giants' "native" city.

And when the New York City Parks Department restored the John T. Brush Stairway that used to lead to the Polo Grounds, the Giants chipped in and paid for part of it. At that time Baer said, "The San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants are very proud to join in the restoration of the John T. Brush Stairway. Our team remains deeply connected to our New York roots, and the stairway will forever serve as a reminder to all Giants fans of our rich history and the many Giants greats who played at the Polo Grounds.”

Last year the Giants under Baer gave a replacement 1954 World Series ring to Monte Irvin, whose original ring had been stolen from his home in the 1960s; and they also gave Irvin a 2014 ring.

The Giants have done a great job in reaffirming in no uncertain terms their connection to their original home.

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Team president Larry Baer sure was talking about it.  He has travelled with the World Series trophy to New York after each of the Giants' recent championships, always referring to New York as the Giants' "native" city.

All this says to me is that they are smartly trying to maximize their merchandise reach.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Arizona Cardinals reach out to St. Louis fans now and say, hey, buy our stuff and cheer for us now, we were the original St. Louis NFL team.

 

[Claystation360]

12 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

All this says to me is that they are smartly trying to maximize their merchandise reach.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Arizona Cardinals reach out to St. Louis fans now and say, hey, buy our stuff and cheer for us now, we were the original St. Louis NFL team.

 

I'd imagine that's probably why they were one of the teams that voted against Georgia Frontiere moving the Rams to STL in the first place. 

[swilson160]

On 8/12/2016 at 9:04 AM, hawk36 said:

Which drives me crazy. The NFL owners ARE the league yet they continue to let the commish push them around and tell them what to do. Wish they would realize that he works for them.

 

It's not so much letting the Commish push them around as it is letting the other 31 owners push them around.

[Ben in LA]

15 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the Arizona Cardinals reach out to St. Louis fans now and say, hey, buy our stuff and cheer for us now, we were the original St. Louis NFL team.

 

Technically they're not...but I get what you're saying.

[Gothamite]

18 hours ago, hawk36 said:

All this says to me is that they are smartly trying to maximize their merchandise reach.

 

I would be shocked if the San Francisco Giants sold any significant amount of merchandise in New York.  Any more than they would have done naturally.