B-Rich

Warriors to Keep Golden State Name Despite 2019 Move to San Francisco

Recommended Posts

Just now, the admiral said:

The Warriors had the bad timing of going into an extended lull during the sports-media/internet boom of the late '90s. Sometimes someone would say they have "surprisingly good fans" but mostly they were just that one team that lost 45 games every year.

 

Warriors' games were the epicenter of the NBA's cocaine period in the '80s. Whoops.

 

16 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Dare I say, branding themselves as an explicitly San Francisco team might help them in terms of building a national presence. The two "San Francisco" teams - the Giants and the Niners - both have a much more enduring 'national' brand than the Warriors, A's, or Sharks (the Raiders are in some weird exception-that-prove-the-rule thing with their brand, of course). No, the Giants and the Niners don't quite have the brand value of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cowboys, etc., but they're definitely seen as 'prominent' and 'historic' teams in their respective leagues, and I think much of that is derived from being explicitly from 'San Francisco.'

 

Good points, but there are complications to them. The Niners had arguably the most significant pre-Brady Patriots dynasty in the NFL through the 1980s-mid 1990s, while the Giants had the good fortune of being successful when they moved to SF and having the best outfielder of the 1990s-early '00s play for them.

 

Let's not forget that the Giants nearly moved to Toronto, San Jose (A's fans will never not bring that up), and Tampa Bay while playing at Candlestick. Bonds, the Magowan and post-Magowan ownership, and Willie Mays Park saved the team from obscurity and restored them to a national presence in the "sports media boom."

 

Quote

The Warriors are a charter NBA franchise with 5 championships and Wilt Chamberlain to their name, and yet they're not at all in that upper echelon of 'prestigious' NBA franchises. (And while they did relocate west, the Dodgers and Giants are both in that upper echelon of baseball franchises, as are the Lakers in the NBA, so that's not a great impediment.) Would the "San Francisco Warriors" carry the same kind of prestige that the "San Francisco Giants" and "San Francisco 49ers" do? I tend to think so. They'll never be the Lakers or the Yankees, but they could sure as hell be on the next rung down, so to speak.

 

The big reason why they're not in the "upper echelon" is that they spent about forty years being mediocre to terrible. Even in a "good" market, on-field failure will lower your prestige. Look at Red Wings during the "Dead Wings" period or the Phillies through most of their existence. Wilt barely played in the Bay Area, and Warriors fans are more likely to remember Rick Barry, Al Attles, or Run-TMC. While I'm one of the most pro-NY baseball Giants fans in the SF Giants community (i.e., I believe the Giants should have built a John McGraw statue long before a Gaylord Perry one), I can understand the relocation divide. Heck, how many Laker fans have any idea who George Mikan was?

 

Quote

You know, being the 'second fiddle' franchise in a major market doesn't really carry much prestige - I don't think anyone thinks of the Mets, Jets, White Sox, Clippers, Nets, etc., as being 'prestige franchises' (and I say that as a Jets fan) - but it sure as hell carries a lot of financial value to their owners. Those 'second-fiddle' major market franchises are usually ranked in the top 10 most valuable franchises in their respective leagues (well, at least the New York and LA ones do). And when those teams are good, they attract a ton of attention and money - more than a good team in a small city would attract. So while being the second-fiddle LA team isn't going to build up a ton of prestige, it's a hell of lot more valuable than being Orange County's quasi-team/Disneyland's side attraction.

 

"Second Fiddle" teams may have prestige, but let's remember that it was the "Anaheim" Angels that did this (shudder):

 

021-645x356.jpg pitcher-scott-schoeneweis-of-the-anaheim-angels-celebrates-with-picture-id1582315

 

You can't take that away from them and that city name. Likewise, "Los Angeles Ducks" wouldn't fly. Local fans prefer the "Anaheim" name (from what I've gathered), as do Dodger fans. The "Orange Curtain" is far stronger power than many give it credit for, one that almost necessitates the "Anaheim" name for teams in the region. The ideological difference between LA and "the OC" is comparable to the Manhattan/Brooklyn divide. Read Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right to see it action. I was once pro-"Los Angeles Angels," but time and experience with their fans has shown me the errors of my ways. I know I'll get a lot of flak for this paragraph, but I'm glad I put it out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right

 

I was trying to recommend this book to someone but I couldn't remember the name. I stalled at "the one about the Sun Belt suburbs and Goldwater." Thanks for jogging my memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Anaheim is a good comparison for this discussion -- Orange County is similar to the Bay Area with both being a lot more diffuse than we're used to in our sports team markets. I guess I would perceive it as the Bay has two centers (SF and SJ), while Orange County has no center at all (or if it does it's LA, and has a really weird relationship to its center as was just discussed). Anaheim always struck me as a weird, small-time place identifier for those two teams -- and I assumed both were called that strictly as Disneyland synergy -- but I don't know what would be the better option. Regardless of their name I don't think the Angels have convincingly made a connection to Los Angeles, but maybe that will change if Ohtanimania takes off.

Share this post


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

Well Anaheim is a good comparison for this discussion -- Orange County is similar to the Bay Area with both being a lot more diffuse than we're used to in our sports team markets. I guess I would perceive it as the Bay has two centers (SF and SJ), while Orange County has no center at all (or if it does it's LA, and has a really weird relationship to its center as was just discussed). Anaheim always struck me as a weird, small-time place identifier for those two teams -- and I assumed both were called that strictly as Disneyland synergy -- but I don't know what would be the better option. Regardless of their name I don't think the Angels have convincingly made a connection to Los Angeles, but maybe that will change if Ohtanimania takes off.

 

I think the Ducks and Angels were saddled with the "Anaheim" moniker because of a clause in their leases with the City of Anaheim that required them to use the Anaheim name. I'm fairly sure that's why the Angels switched to Anaheim when Angel Stadium was renovated, and why the "of Anaheim" persists to this day.

 

I don't think the Angels have made a connection with LA at all, though I wonder if that's even possible in light of the LA/OC divide. Would Angelinos ever root for a team in OC, if there's another LA team already in existence? I think it might be like NYC with the Islanders - even when they played in Brooklyn, NYC never identified with the Islanders. I think NYC always saw them as Long Islanders who moved out of home and rented a tiny place in hip Brooklyn for a few years, and who would inevitably settle down and buy a bigger house back in the burbs. (And looked what happened...) Nobody in NYC, perhaps except for the easternmost parts of Queens, was going to root for the Islanders over the Rangers.

 

The "Los Angeles" branding should help the Angels nationally, but locally? I wonder if those teams would be better off being the "Orange Angels" and "Orange Ducks." Neither sounds particularly good, but "Orange County Angels" sounds uber-minor league, and "Orange County" is the one geographical identifier that their fanbase could identify with. Not sure how it'd play with Inland Empire fans, granted, but it can't be worse than "Anaheim."

Share this post


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

Well Anaheim is a good comparison for this discussion -- Orange County is similar to the Bay Area with both being a lot more diffuse than we're used to in our sports team markets. I guess I would perceive it as the Bay has two centers (SF and SJ), while Orange County has no center at all (or if it does it's LA, and has a really weird relationship to its center as was just discussed). Anaheim always struck me as a weird, small-time place identifier for those two teams -- and I assumed both were called that strictly as Disneyland synergy -- but I don't know what would be the better option. Regardless of their name I don't think the Angels have convincingly made a connection to Los Angeles, but maybe that will change if Ohtanimania takes off.

 

Orange County Angels/Ducks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I think the Ducks and Angels were saddled with the "Anaheim" moniker because of a clause in their leases with the City of Anaheim that required them to use the Anaheim name. I'm fairly sure that's why the Angels switched to Anaheim when Angel Stadium was renovated, and why the "of Anaheim" persists to this day.

 

I don't think the Angels have made a connection with LA at all, though I wonder if that's even possible in light of the LA/OC divide. Would Angelinos ever root for a team in OC, if there's another LA team already in existence? I think it might be like NYC with the Islanders - even when they played in Brooklyn, NYC never identified with the Islanders. I think NYC always saw them as Long Islanders who moved out of home and rented a tiny place in hip Brooklyn for a few years, and who would inevitably settle down and buy a bigger house back in the burbs. (And looked what happened...) Nobody in NYC, perhaps except for the easternmost parts of Queens, was going to root for the Islanders over the Rangers.

 

The "Los Angeles" branding should help the Angels nationally, but locally? I wonder if those teams would be better off being the "Orange Angels" and "Orange Ducks." Neither sounds particularly good, but "Orange County Angels" sounds uber-minor league, and "Orange County" is the one geographical identifier that their fanbase could identify with. Not sure how it'd play with Inland Empire fans, granted, but it can't be worse than "Anaheim."

 

Eh...downtown LA is less than 30 miles from the Angels stadium. The Angels/Ducks have nothing to lose and everything to gain from using Los Angeles.

Share this post


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

I wonder if those teams would be better off being the "Orange Angels" and "Orange Ducks." Neither sounds particularly good

Then stop right there.

 

Los Angeles Angels/Anaheim Ducks is fine by me. The Angels were established to be the American League's team for greater Los Angeles. The Ducks were established to...well, extort Disney into paying off Bruce McNall's debt. They play across the street from each other but I think the Angels have always aspired to cast a wider net.

 

Incidentally, to settle the "of Anaheim" dispute, wouldn't it have been a better compromise if they had renamed the stadium Anaheim Stadium as it was for years but just called the team the Los Angeles Angels? That way, Anaheim would have gotten more exposure as the featured part of one name than it did as the vestigial tail on both the team name and stadium name. Anaheim Stadium sounds better anyway.

Share this post


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

Then stop right there.

 

In fairness, I don't think the problem is endemic to the identifier "Orange." It's just how the two nicknames interact with the word "Orange." I don't like the two "g" sounds next to each other in "Orange Angels" (though maybe that's just from it sounding unusual to me), while "Orange Ducks" just sounds like a flock of deformed ducks with strangely colored feathers.

 

Quote

 

Los Angeles Angels/Anaheim Ducks is fine by me. The Angels were established to be the American League's team for greater Los Angeles. The Ducks were established to...well, extort Disney into paying off Bruce McNall's debt. They play across the street from each other but I think the Angels have always aspired to cast a wider net.

 

Incidentally, to settle the "of Anaheim" dispute, wouldn't it have been a better compromise if they had renamed the stadium Anaheim Stadium as it was for years but just called the team the Los Angeles Angels? That way, Anaheim would have gotten more exposure as the featured part of one name than it did as the vestigial tail on both the team name and stadium name. Anaheim Stadium sounds better anyway.

 

I'd agree here. The Angels were explicitly intended to be an LA team (as evidenced by their nickname), and I wish they'd outright identify as such (rather than being in the geographically-ambiguous no man's land). I doubt it'd hurt much with their core OC fans, who seem more than willing to support LA teams in basketball and football (both pro and college). 

 

"Anaheim Stadium" is way better than "Angel Stadium," and the City of Anaheim has to know how much of a joke "of Anaheim" is at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another argument against the current name: the centered Haloed A on the stadium marquee makes it look like "Angela Stadium."

 

anaheim.JPG

 

I love looking at how different Orange County looked in 1966:

Image result for "anaheim stadium" 1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

 

 

 

I love looking at how different Orange County looked in 1966:

Image result for "anaheim stadium" 1966

I absolutely love the 60’s-ness of this pic! That entrance too, very 60’s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golden State is a unique name at this point and it does help with brand differentiation, especially if things got lean for some reason. Plus, it's a nice way not to ditch Oakland even though they're ditching Oakland. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 2:22 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

Warriors' games were the epicenter of the NBA's cocaine period in the '80s. Whoops.

 

 

Good points, but there are complications to them. The Niners had arguably the most significant pre-Brady Patriots dynasty in the NFL through the 1980s-mid 1990s, while the Giants had the good fortune of being successful when they moved to SF and having the best outfielder of the 1990s-early '00s play for them.

 

Let's not forget that the Giants nearly moved to Toronto, San Jose (A's fans will never not bring that up), and Tampa Bay while playing at Candlestick. Bonds, the Magowan and post-Magowan ownership, and Willie Mays Park saved the team from obscurity and restored them to a national presence in the "sports media boom."

 

 

The big reason why they're not in the "upper echelon" is that they spent about forty years being mediocre to terrible. Even in a "good" market, on-field failure will lower your prestige. Look at Red Wings during the "Dead Wings" period or the Phillies through most of their existence. Wilt barely played in the Bay Area, and Warriors fans are more likely to remember Rick Barry, Al Attles, or Run-TMC. While I'm one of the most pro-NY baseball Giants fans in the SF Giants community (i.e., I believe the Giants should have built a John McGraw statue long before a Gaylord Perry one), I can understand the relocation divide. Heck, how many Laker fans have any idea who George Mikan was?

 

 

"Second Fiddle" teams may have prestige, but let's remember that it was the "Anaheim" Angels that did this (shudder):

 

021-645x356.jpg pitcher-scott-schoeneweis-of-the-anaheim-angels-celebrates-with-picture-id1582315

 

You can't take that away from them and that city name. Likewise, "Los Angeles Ducks" wouldn't fly. Local fans prefer the "Anaheim" name (from what I've gathered), as do Dodger fans. The "Orange Curtain" is far stronger power than many give it credit for, one that almost necessitates the "Anaheim" name for teams in the region. The ideological difference between LA and "the OC" is comparable to the Manhattan/Brooklyn divide. Read Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right to see it action. I was once pro-"Los Angeles Angels," but time and experience with their fans has shown me the errors of my ways. I know I'll get a lot of flak for this paragraph, but I'm glad I put it out there.

3

 

It's less about prestige and more about money. It's more lucrative for the Islanders to the the 3rd team in NYC metro area than to move anywhere else and be the #1 team (because of media rights)

 

For the city of Anaheim, it's huge to have your name splayed across the screen like that. Nobody would have any idea where it is were it not for those sports teams (outside of living in SoCal). It's nothing like the NYC boroughs though, it's more akin to NYC/Jersey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the admiral said:

Another argument against the current name: the centered Haloed A on the stadium marquee makes it look like "Angela Stadium."

 

anaheim.JPG

 

 

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who reads it as Angela Stadium either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, omnivore said:

It's less about prestige and more about money. It's more lucrative for the Islanders to the the 3rd team in NYC metro area than to move anywhere else and be the #1 team (because of media rights)

 

A third NYC team would be quite a bit more valuable than your average small market franchise in any of the four sports. If it weren't for the Yankees and Mets' unbreakable territorial rights, I'm sure the Rays would relocate up to North Jersey in a heartbeat. The NHL is the one sport exploiting the market to that degree (and ironically, probably the sport least able to have three thriving teams in NYC - I have no doubt that a third MLB, NBA, or even NFL team would probably thrive in this market after ~10-15 years to build a fanbase).

 

35 minutes ago, omnivore said:

 

For the city of Anaheim, it's huge to have your name splayed across the screen like that. Nobody would have any idea where it is were it not for those sports teams (outside of living in SoCal). It's nothing like the NYC boroughs though, it's more akin to NYC/Jersey. 

 

Yeah, this is unquestionably true. Brooklyn isn't a good analog to Anaheim - one would be the nation's fourth largest city and has in recent years become a codeword for 'hip', while the other's a small edge city that hosts a theme park and a tangled web of freeways. Everyone in America knows what Brooklyn is (and did long before it was hip), whereas Anaheim sans the sports venues would just be a western Kissimmee.

 

Perhaps the closest analogs to Anaheim are Newark and Arlington, TX. Newark is larger and definitely more prominent than Anaheim, though. Arlington is probably the closest parallel - how many people would know Arlington if it weren't for the Rangers' ballpark (formerly) carrying its name? That said, there's a really good reason the Devils don't carry Newark's name, and the Cowboys and Rangers aren't named for Arlington. The brand values of Newark and Arlington pale in comparison to New Jersey and Dallas/Texas, respectively. The Ducks and Angels should take a hint from those teams.

 

(And FWIW, Arlington is known by most sports fans at this juncture, largely because their name was on the Rangers' ballpark, as opposed to Glendale, Landover, Miami Gardens, etc. So a venue name can enhance a city's national prominence quite a bit, I think.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Arlington is a major suburb of Dallas-Ft. Worth. I don't know anything about it. I assume it sucks.

 

Re: Miami Gardens, didn't Joe Robbie Stadium have a Miami address when it was still in unincorporated Miami-Dade County? I never heard it referred to as being in someplace other than Miami until, like, 2004ish. My old Madden games said it was in Miami, I know that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, the admiral said:

Another argument against the current name: the centered Haloed A on the stadium marquee makes it look like "Angela Stadium."

 

anaheim.JPG

 

I love looking at how different Orange County looked in 1966:

Image result for "anaheim stadium" 1966

 

1 hour ago, BShaw20 said:

I absolutely love the 60’s-ness of this pic! That entrance too, very 60’s!

 

Actually I think that bottom picture is from the ‘70s, as evidenced by the 57 Freeway, which wasn’t built until then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of order, because it's come up here, as of last season, the Angels are now officially just the "Los Angeles Angels". No more "of Anaheim" (fortunately, and unfortunately.) It was part of Arte Moreno's negotiation on a new lease with the City of Anaheim. The stadium will retain the name "Angel Stadium of Anaheim" and the team is the "Los Angeles Angels".

 

Also, the Angels changed their name from California to Anaheim and the Ducks were the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim due to Disney ownership. Obviously, Disney with Disneyland was trying to market them all as Anaheim under their Disney corporate umbrella. (Technically speaking, Angels and Mighty Ducks players at the time were designated as "cast members" in the same way that Disneyland employees are. Sigh... Dark times, in retrospect.)

 

Also Also, it wasn't part of the lease originally, but in a relatively recent lease negotiation between the Ducks and Anaheim, it was put in the Honda Center lease that any team that plays there has to be known with "Anaheim" with the main city identifier. There was specific language to avoid any sort of "of Anaheim" situation again. They will be the Anaheim Ducks for the long foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As @the admiral pointed out up thread and hit it on the head when it comes to how those two have played the name game. The Angels aspire to cast that larger net. Arte Moreno wanted the scope of the Angels to encompass "Los Angeles" as a greater entity. The Ducks have tried to carve out their specific niche.

 

The Angels want to draw from Orange County, Long Beach, Riverside, South Bay, San Bernardino, and of course actual Los Angeles... if they could. Moreno has tried efforts to push into the heart of actual LA (the long fight over the name, rumblings of moving the team to a new stadium in LA proper, billboards in Los Angeles), but as far as I can tell, that hasn't exactly been the case, and it still and always will deal with geography. As much as Arte wants the Angels to be Los Angeles, LA proper is still true blue Dodger country. Yes, you get mixings further south into the South Bay cities and into Long Beach. I'd say the Angels have Orange and Riverside counties. But if we're talking about greater LA, the Angels aren't going to crack it. You're not going to be an baseball fan up in Thousand Oaks and deal with the two-hour trek through traffic to see an Angel game in Anaheim on any regular basis. You're going to be a Dodger fan.

 

Generally speaking, the Angels know their problem, too. Aside from the throwback caps and historical stuff, you're not going to find too many references to "Los Angeles" around the Angels. They are marketed as Angels Baseball. They are branded as Angels Baseball. They're not stupid enough to alienate the people they live with.

 

The Ducks have had smaller ambitions. They've pushed Orange County from the start, and definitely moreso since the Disney sale/identity change. Their playoff marketing campaign has been "Paint It Orange" for a reason. And none of this has seemed to push off Riverside County, either. There's a strong Ducks contingent that way. "Anaheim" hasn't hurt the Ducks locally, and "Los Angeles Ducks" would never make a dent. Honestly, it'd be an awful marketing attempt that'd make Kings fans salivate for the opportunities to harass Ducks fans. The Ducks simply aren't, haven't been and won't ever be anything "Los Angeles".

 

Final point, I know this has become long. No to "Orange County" as a name for the Angels or Ducks. Anything "county" just comes off as so damn minor leauge. Yeah, someone was right to say that's how we identify, but it sounds stupid in sports naming convention terms. And chopping it to just "Orange" would be worse, and even stupider considering there is an actual city of Orange right next door to Anaheim. Despite the county name, the city of Orange is even less in cultural relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Orange Angels” is also a stupid name since the team primarily wears RED.

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