Oso

Portland and other MLB expansion name possibilities

Recommended Posts

Portland Beavers is the clear and obvious choice. However, if for some reason they can't secure that name, something lumberjack/timber related has to be involved.

 

And they can have a subtle plaid pattern on their jerseys. It's been done before...

 

nl_1916_newyork.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JaMikePA said:

Portland Loggers. The obvious "lumberjack" and baseball bat theme, but also sounds like "lager" for the local beer scene. 

 

This would be great for a minor league team that wears several hat logos, though a lot of cities have a beer scene.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, daveindc said:

Beavers just looks and sounds too Minor League-ish to me.

 

 

Hampton Roads? You must be thinking about NHL expansion. Here's an article on the last group of MLB expansion candidates:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1995/01/22/phoenix-tampa-st-pete-look-like-locks/271474e9-ae7b-4384-8645-6a6ec50283d8/?utm_term=.e36c521d47f2

 

Right. MLB was Northern VA (at the time the Nats were still in Montreal) and the NHL had a decent bid from Hampton Roads. My 1990's expansion scenarios tend to run together in my head. 

 

Arguably Northern VA could still probably support another team given the demographics, but I'd have to think MLB would prefer elsewhere like Charlotte, Portland, or San Antonio.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveindc said:

Beavers just seems too Minor League-ish to me.

 

 

Hampton Roads? You must be thinking about NHL expansion. Here's an article on the last group of MLB expansion candidates:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1995/01/22/phoenix-tampa-st-pete-look-like-locks/271474e9-ae7b-4384-8645-6a6ec50283d8/?utm_term=.e36c521d47f2

 

Interesting article. Basically, there aren't any "promised" teams this go around beside Montreal. Orlando and Northern Virginia who missed out in '98 have the Nats, O's and Rays too close.

 

I think if you're going to expand the possible cities from 2-3 to 7-8 the list could look somewhat like this ...

  1. Montreal
  2. Portland
  3. Las Vegas
  4. San Antonio
  5. Mexico City
  6. Omaha
  7. Salt Lake City
  8. Charlotte

I don't know how much I believe in Mexico City being a prime candidate though? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveindc said:

Beavers just seems too Minor League-ish to me.

If the Los Angeles Angels and San Diego Padres names could transition well to MLB, then I don't see why another PCL "glory days" team can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MBurmy said:

If the Los Angeles Angels and San Diego Padres names could transition well to MLB, then I don't see why another PCL "glory days" team can't.

 

This is just lazy thinking. Just because a couple teams did it, doesn't mean they all should. Some of the names are superior to others. Portland Beavers is a terrible name for a Major League team. Just cheesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavers is a goofy cartoon looking animal, doesn't imply any strength or grace, and then there's the obvious sexual innuendo that comes with that name. I don't care what the baseball history behind it is, the majority of the world won't care about the history of the name, it'll just be a named to be mocked and made fun of. It won't fit for a major league team. And it's definitely not the same as Angels and Padres, not even close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Beavers is a goofy cartoon looking animal, doesn't imply any strength or grace, and then there's the obvious sexual innuendo that comes with that name. I don't care what the baseball history behind it is, the majority of the world won't care about the history of the name, it'll just be a named to be mocked and made fun of. It won't fit for a major league team. And it's definitely not the same as Angels and Padres, not even close. 

Are beavers really less intimidating than angels and clergymen? 

 

A beaver'll mess you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

Are beavers really less intimidating than angels and clergymen? 

 

A beaver'll mess you up.

Angels and clergymen aren't animals so those aren't meant to be intimidating thus it's nor a fair comparison. Beavers should be compared more to Tigers, Lions, Rams, Bulls, etc. Regardless, I know there are faults with this argument but I'm more not cool with the beaver having such a cartoonish demeanor and the sexual innuendo. As someone above said, it's just "too minor league" like Biscuits and Baby Cakes and Chiuahuas.

 

It would lead to more laughs, giggles, mockery, and jokes than being a name that the fan base and community would be proud of, and that's even if we bring their baseball history into the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavers would be the go-to choice, but I've always thought that "Lookouts" would be a good choice to graduate from the minors, given all of the forest service lookouts in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveindc said:

 

This is just lazy thinking. Just because a couple teams did it, doesn't mean they all should. Some of the names are superior to others. Portland Beavers is a terrible name for a Major League team. Just cheesy.

 

Thing is baseball team names in particular are just different. We've got 2 teams explicitly named for the color sock they wore (to say nothing of the Reds), some names that are varying degree of nonsense (Astros, Phillies, Mets, Dodgers, RIP Expos). A couple types of birds that no one would name a team after in any other sport (Blue Jays and Orioles). You aren't naming a team the Twins in another sport either.

 

The Cubs.

 

So this tough/intimidating/macho/SportsPeopleAreInsecure whatever quality seems pretty irrelevant when it comes to naming a baseball team, You're kinda left with the ever-squishy "does it feel like a baseball name?"

 

Beavers works for baseball, and for Portland isn't some Yard Goats, Jumbo Shrimp poseur stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Angels and clergymen aren't animals so those aren't meant to be intimidating thus it's nor a fair comparison. Beavers should be compared more to Tigers, Lions, Rams, Bulls, etc. Regardless, I know there are faults with this argument but I'm more not cool with the beaver having such a cartoonish demeanor and the sexual innuendo. As someone above said, it's just "too minor league" like Biscuits and Baby Cakes and Chiuahuas.

 

It would lead to more laughs, giggles, mockery, and jokes than being a name that the fan base and community would be proud of, and that's even if we bring their baseball history into the argument.

Because Bluejays, Orioles, Cardinals, and orphaned baby bears (Cubs) make me fear the woods. :rolleyes: 

 

Beavers could work, but I don't think it'd be considered due to OSU. Why not add another bird to league and have the Portland (or Oregon) Larks? State bird if the western meadowlark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, RichO said:

 

Thing is baseball team names in particular are just different. We've got 2 teams explicitly named for the color sock they wore (to say nothing of the Reds), some names that are varying degree of nonsense (Astros, Phillies, Mets, Dodgers, RIP Expos). A couple types of birds that no one would name a team after in any other sport (Blue Jays and Orioles). You aren't naming a team the Twins in another sport either.

 

The Cubs.

 

So this tough/intimidating/macho/SportsPeopleAreInsecure whatever quality seems pretty irrelevant when it comes to naming a baseball team, You're kinda left with the ever-squishy "does it feel like a baseball name?"

 

Beavers works for baseball, and for Portland isn't some Yard Goats, Jumbo Shrimp poseur stuff.

 

Couldn't agree more. I'd go as far as to say that a baseball team's name shouldn't be too intimidating.

 

This isn't high-strategy chess played out on a gridiron with terminology ripped directly from war, or a sport that's known for its fighting and missing teeth. Baseball is a sport played at a much more leisurely pace, where kids go out to the ballpark to eat hot dogs and ice cream on a warm summer day, and go home to play catch with Dad afterward.

 

To echo George Carlin, football has the Bears, Falcons, and Seahawks. Baseball has the Cubs, Orioles, and Blue Jays. Some super macho (or super modern) name would stick out like a sore thumb in a sport populated by Red Sox, Dodgers, Yankees, and Phillies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sc49erfan15 said:

Portland Beavers is the clear and obvious choice. However, if for some reason they can't secure that name, something lumberjack/timber related has to be involved.

 

And they can have a subtle plaid pattern on their jerseys. It's been done before...

 

nl_1916_newyork.gif

 

As a fall back, maybe something like this . . . also done before.

 

6a0120a59c9016970c013487dfe940970c-pi5037839275_c706c46d7f_o.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BrianLion said:

 

Right. MLB was Northern VA (at the time the Nats were still in Montreal) and the NHL had a decent bid from Hampton Roads. My 1990's expansion scenarios tend to run together in my head. 

 

Arguably Northern VA could still probably support another team given the demographics, but I'd have to think MLB would prefer elsewhere like Charlotte, Portland, or San Antonio.  

 

 

 

 

Isn't Northern VA essentially just part of the Washington DC metro area?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Isn't Northern VA essentially just part of the Washington DC metro area?

 

 

 

 

It is, just as much as Jersey is part of the Tri-State Area (in fact, it's pretty much the exact equivalent to North Jersey). Putting a team there would put a dagger in the still-growing and still-young fanbase of the Nationals. It'd be terribly stupid. The Baltimore/DC area can't support three teams, DC itself can't support 2, and there's no sense in splitting the newest fanbase in baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire idea of needing a name to be intimidating is silly in all sports. The NFL leader in championships (including pre-Super Bowl) is named after a meat packing company. What's scary about Lakers or Celtics? I've never thought of French Canadiens as being frightening. but maybe I should. 

 

Point is, Beavers is a great name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now