Portland and other MLB expansion name possibilities

[Tygers09]

19 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

They're probably just bringing it up since Manfred was asked about it again during the series in Mexico, but there's nothing really new here. 

 

I would like to think Oakland and Tampa can thrive once they leave those dumps they play in. There's just too many people in the Bay area +Sacramento for the A's not to be able to attract fans with a decent stadium and winning team. Tampa maybe as well, but who knows.

 

For San Antonio I see a cowboy theme. Maybe something gold, silver, tan, or black? Charlotte with similar colors to the Panthers would be nice. Maybe the Carolina Cougars? Just spit balling. 

 

I still think they're playing lip service with Mexico. I can't see that happening. 

 

 

Have you actually been to Tropicana Field and the Coliseum in Oakland in order to call them dumps?

[DrJack]

In response to Evan Longoria's comments that the Rays may be better off moving . . . 

 

What would people think about them going to Portland and becoming the Grays? 

 

The Portland Grays. 

 

Spawns from Rays, relates to the weather in the PNW the same way Rays related to the weather in Florida.

 

There is obvious problem with the whitest major city in the country adopting the team name of perhaps the most famous Negro League team.  I don't know if that could ever be overcome.

 

It's a cool name though, regionally appropriate, and an homage to the Rays' history.

[Gothamite]

I so wanted the Expos to become the Grays when they moved to Washington.  We have a ton of MLB teams named after old minor league clubs, it’s only right that a Negro League team gets the same honor. 

 

You're right, though, that Oregon’s history as a literal white suprenacist paradise strikes something of a sour note.  But they could take it head-on and still make it work. 

[SFGiants58]

18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I so wanted the Expos to become the Grays when they moved to Washington.  We have a ton of MLB teams named after old minor league clubs, it’s only right that a Negro League team gets the same honor. 

 

You're right, though, that Oregon’s history as a literal white suprenacist paradise strikes something of a sour note.  But they could take it head-on and still make it work. 

 

The one that gets me the most peeved is the Royals not using the name “Monarchs.” Then again, I’ve really soured on the Royals’ identity over the years.

 

Washington Grays is a little complicated, given that Pittsburgh can also claim the lineage of that team. Still, it would’ve been interesting to see.

 

On 5/8/2018 at 3:17 PM, PDSMLO said:

Portland Rustics:

-  during it's early days, Portland and Oregon were nothing if not rustic

-  incorporates the essence of the region's movement toward a lifestyle that resembles the area's early pioneers such as sustainable living

 

 

That kind of pidgeonholes the identity, making it far too dependent on “old west” imagery. While the “vintage PNW” look is in right now (and would offer a good contrast to the Mariners), it just makes the city look like some backwater location. It’s much easier to have “vintage PNW” aesthetics with a more traditional name (animals, landscape, etc.).

 

Quote

-  Speaking of pioneers, no other nickname is more suited for a Portland MLB team than the Pioneers (previously suggested). Sure, Lewis & Clark College has that nickname -- but they do not own it. We should not eliminate the nickname as a possibility simply because another school uses it. Lewis & Clark College is a very small, private, Division III school where, in reality, sports play an insignificant role and is of little interest to most of it's 2,134 undergraduate students.  In addition, high school, college and professional sports teams throughout the US share hundreds if not thousands of nicknames. In fact, the Beavers, a heavily advocated nickname on this thread would be shared with one of Oregon's major universities.

- Besides, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark were explorers not pioneers -- those that came later and stayed were the pioneers.

- barring the use of Pioneers, the Rustics is most synonymous with the context in which the Pioneers nickname would be used

- the Settlers, a nickname also suggested earlier in this thread, would be another that follows in this vein

 

As an alumnus of Lewis & Clark College, I would have to agree with the relative lack of interest in sports. Heck, the sports teams have no real “Pioneer” iconography, instead opting for a Newfoundland dog mascot:

 

 

Still, having two teams with the same name in the same market is a terrible idea in modern sports branding, regardless of level. “Beavers” only gets a pass because it’s a historically-significant name.

 

There’s also the issue of having a team named after people who displaced the Native American population of the area, especially since many of them were the white supremacists that @Gothamite mentioned. L&C has had a bunch of students raise their issues with the “Pioneers” name, with many of them wanting to go all-in on the Newfie branding (source: I went there and the student-run newspaper where I wrote).

 

”Rustics,” “Pioneers,” and “Settlers” all have significant problems.

[B-Rich]

On 5/10/2018 at 11:47 AM, Tygers09 said:

Have you actually been to Tropicana Field and the Coliseum in Oakland in order to call them dumps?

 

I have, and compared to almost every other MLB stadium, they are dumps.

[MilSox]

If "calling up" their old PCL nickname is good enough for LA and San Diego, it ought to be good enough for Portland.  Beavers is fine, unless they get the A's.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 hours ago, NicDB said:

If "calling up" their old PCL nickname is good enough for LA and San Diego, it ought to be good enough for Portland.  Beavers is fine, unless they get the A's.

 

The Brewers, Orioles, and Marlins are other Major League teams that "called up" historic minor league names.

[SFGiants58]

12 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Brewers, Orioles, and Marlins are other Major League teams that "called up" historic minor league names.

 

True. However, there is a key difference. No higher education institutes in their states use those names. That’d be like having a UC school with the name “Angels” or a University of Wisconsin school with the name “Brewers.” It’s too much overlap.

 

That’s my big gripe with “Beavers.” I’m sure many people can ignore the Oregon State connection, but I can’t. It’s fine not to use historic minor league names, especially when conflicts appear. It’s the reason why nobody wants Cleveland to adopt the name “Buckeyes,” even though it’s the name of the city’s Negro League team (and better than many other options - looking at you, Napoleons).

 

Heck, Portland Platypi might be fun. Alliterative, part duck and part beaver, and “quirky” (insert eye roll here). It’d be perfect for Portland, or at least the “Portlandia” ideal that advertisers love (which I hate).

[coco1997]

9 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Heck, Portland Platypi might be fun. Alliterative, part duck and part beaver, and “quirky” (insert eye roll here). It’d be perfect for Portland, or at least the “Portlandia” ideal that advertisers love (which I hate).

 

I think you should make a concept based on this suggestion to really convince us that it's a good idea.

 

[The_Admiral]

On 5/7/2018 at 2:57 PM, Fresno St. Alum said:

MLB network said just now that they plan on getting to 32 teams, w/ Montreal, Mexico, Portland, San Antonio as the likely options. They said the Tampa & Oakland stadium situations need to be figured out first though.

It should be Portland and San Antonio to the American League, Houston kicked back to the National League. The NL shouldn't be shut out of Texas. Being shut out of the PNW isn't ideal, either, but they've managed to this point. I don't think Bell can rustle up the necessary money for Montreal. Monterrey/Mexico City is a pipe dream.

 

I am more interested in Portland Platypuses than I thought I'd be. "Portland Grays" despite the whiteness of Oregon does clang a little bit, but aren't the white supremacists out in dusty rural eastern Oregon? Portland is just bougie.

 

I'd stick with San Antonio Missions, even if it's cutting close to the Padres. Just don't italicize the Alamo anymore.

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

True. However, there is a key difference. No higher education institutes in their states use those names. That’d be like having a UC school with the name “Angels” or a University of Wisconsin school with the name “Brewers.” It’s too much overlap.

 

That’s my big gripe with “Beavers.” I’m sure many people can ignore the Oregon State connection, but I can’t. It’s fine not to use historic minor league names, especially when conflicts appear. It’s the reason why nobody wants Cleveland to adopt the name “Buckeyes,” even though it’s the name of the city’s Negro League team (and better than many other options - looking at you, Napoleons).

 

Heck, Portland Platypi might be fun. Alliterative, part duck and part beaver, and “quirky” (insert eye roll here). It’d be perfect for Portland, or at least the “Portlandia” ideal that advertisers love (which I hate).

It's been several generations since Cleveland was the Buckeyes though.  The Portland Beavers were most recently a thing in 2010.  But their original name was Webfoots.  That can reference beavers and ducks without something as goofy as Platypi.

[Luingus221]

I really feel Mexico City expansion will end well.  It'll just be the Colorado Rockies debacle from the 90's all over again, but worse.  Mexico City is elevated around 7x as much as Denver is (1,609' for Denver vs 7,382' for Mexico City,) and pitches will be a nightmare there.  But, seeing as how Denver got a team anyway, I'll just keep it in there for reasons.  Here's an idea of expansion with the four places + the A's and Rays (wow, a rhyme!) + Astros realignment.

 

Orlando (Sun)Rays, San Jose A's, Mexico City Aztecs (AL West,) Portland Roses (AL West,) San Antonio Alamos (NL Central,) Montreal Expos (NL East,) and Houston Astros (AL Central.)

 

Why I Did Certain Things:  Orlando has a rich baseball history, a potential baseball fanbase, a ballpark owned by Disney, and a former team known as the SunRays, which fits perfectly with the Rays name.  Houston is in the AL Central because Mexico City has to be in the West, along with Portland.  San Antonio is in the NL cause I don't think that the three teams can really coexist together (although they do in the NBA, each of the teams have been there for a while, not to mention the Spurs were in another league at one point) and because it could (potentially) fill the void left by the Astros.  Oakland is losing representation, as the Raiders are moving to Las Vegas and the Warriors are going back to San Francisco next year, so to maintain a fanbase, they can move to San Jose.  I chose not to do the Beavers name because of it "not being manly" and innuendos.  Plus, Roses sound like a pretty good name, so why not?

[MilSox]

26 minutes ago, Luingus221 said:

I chose not to do the Beavers name because of it "not being manly" and innuendos.  Plus, Roses sound like a pretty good name, so why not?

Beavers gets nixed for not being manly enough, but Roses is okay?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Beavers.  I don't think sports nicknames have to ooze rah rah machismo and the name predates the juvenile slang it came to be associated with (who actually refers to ladyparts as a "beaver" in 2018, anyway?). But if that's the standard, Roses would be the least masculine name in all of sports.

[Luingus221]

16 minutes ago, NicDB said:

Beavers gets nixed for not being manly enough, but Roses is okay?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Beavers.  I don't think sports nicknames have to ooze rah rah machismo and the name predates the juvenile slang it came to be associated with (who actually refers to ladyparts as a "beaver" in 2018, anyway?). But if that's the standard, Roses would be the least masculine name in all of sports.

I put the whole beavers thing in quotation marks.  That means sarcasm, right?

[mfoster]

On 5/13/2018 at 5:09 PM, Luingus221 said:

Mexico City is elevated around 7x as much as Denver is (1,609' for Denver vs 7,382' for Mexico City,)

 

San Antonio is in the NL cause I don't think that the three teams can really coexist together (although they do in the NBA, each of the teams have been there for a while, not to mention the Spurs were in another league at one point) 

 

Ummm... Denver is called the Mile High City for a reason.  That's 5,280 feet.  Nope, not as high as Mexico City, but 1,609' is less than half the LOWEST elevation in the entire state of Colorado (3,315', where the Arkansas River enters Kansas)... That measurement of 1,609 is in meters, not feet, while Mexico City's 7,382' translates to about 2,250 meters.

 

Also, not only were the Spurs in another league, they were also primarily in another city (Dallas, with minor stints in Fort Worth and Lubbock).  The Rockets also toured assorted venues across the state in their early years, once drawing a whopping 759 fans for a regular season game in Waco's Heart O' Texas Coliseum.

 

[Wings]

A's will never be in San Jose as long as the Giants exist. It's either stay in Oakland or move out of the Bay Area.

[4Mizzou]

Portland Pathfinders - goes with "Trailblazers."

[Matito]

On 5/13/2018 at 6:09 PM, Luingus221 said:

I really feel Mexico City expansion will end well.  It'll just be the Colorado Rockies debacle from the 90's all over again, but worse.  Mexico City is elevated around 7x as much as Denver is (1,609' for Denver vs 7,382' for Mexico City,) and pitches will be a nightmare there.  But, seeing as how Denver got a team anyway, I'll just keep it in there for reasons.  Here's an idea of expansion with the four places + the A's and Rays (wow, a rhyme!) + Astros realignment.

 

Orlando (Sun)Rays, San Jose A's, Mexico City Aztecs (AL West,) Portland Roses (AL West,) San Antonio Alamos (NL Central,) Montreal Expos (NL East,) and Houston Astros (AL Central.)

 

Why I Did Certain Things:  Orlando has a rich baseball history, a potential baseball fanbase, a ballpark owned by Disney, and a former team known as the SunRays, which fits perfectly with the Rays name.  Houston is in the AL Central because Mexico City has to be in the West, along with Portland.  San Antonio is in the NL cause I don't think that the three teams can really coexist together (although they do in the NBA, each of the teams have been there for a while, not to mention the Spurs were in another league at one point) and because it could (potentially) fill the void left by the Astros.  Oakland is losing representation, as the Raiders are moving to Las Vegas and the Warriors are going back to San Francisco next year, so to maintain a fanbase, they can move to San Jose.  I chose not to do the Beavers name because of it "not being manly" and innuendos.  Plus, Roses sound like a pretty good name, so why not?

Orlando doesn't work for pretty much any of the reasons you listed.

• Sure, Orlando has baseball history, but you could say that about nearly any city in Florida. Orlando is one of maybe four metropolitan areas in Florida that could support a pro sports team (the Magic do well enough), but there's nothing to say that they would do any better than the Tampa Bay area, less than an hour and a half away from Orlando.
• If you're referring to the park at Disney's Wide World of Sports, you're out of your mind if you think that it would be a viable MLB park. It's literally located on Disney property, and traffic is already beyond a nightmare on I-4 around the time most fans would be getting to or leaving the stadium for games. Trust me on this one. If people avoid Tropicana Field because of traffic getting to the park, they'll do the same for one anywhere near the Disney parks.
• SunRays is fine for a minor league team, but far too gimmicky for a Major League team to be taken seriously. Devil Rays was even pushing it, and it only got by because it was the 90s.

I don't want to see the Rays move out of Tampa Bay, but if they do, Orlando will just be more of the same.

[MilSox]

Yeah, the only reason the NBA works in Orlando is because the NBA has the least geographically attached fans of all the major sports.  Plus, Orlando City is there now.  I just don't see Orlando being a big enough market to support two spring/summer sports.

To be perfectly honest though, I never did like the idea of MLB teams in Florida or Arizona.  To me, their tradition as spring training homes for all the teams is greater than anything they've built with their "local" clubs.

[The_Admiral]

I think the Rays should play a series or two in Orlando until the Trop is replaced but I don't think a team should be there full-time.