clippers6

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Prospect
  1. Not sure this is the right section of the forum, but since their marketing department obviously cooked these up to tie into March Madness I figured they might of interest. http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2014/03/vote-for-the-best-disney-attraction-during-our-march-magic-challenge/ There are a couple that aren't that bad.
  2. You have 15 hours. http://cgi.ebay.com/Hockey-jersey-Anaheim-...1QQcmdZViewItem
  3. Most of the logo misfires since 2000 seem to be hockey related. 3rd- Washington Nationals 2nd- Buffalo Sabres 1st- Columbus Blue Jackets The Nats make the list not for being bad as much as just being boring, like their name. Why the Sabres is bad has been discussed ad nauseam. I like the name Blue Jackets, but the logo tells you nothing about the team. It looks like it just says CB. Even if you figure out that the hockey stick is the J it still reads CJB. They are supposed to change to their alternate this year I think. Honorable mention to the Anaheim Ducks. It is probably worse than the Nationals, but I'm not sure it really counts as a logo. I like the D duck foot/batarang a lot, but using the work Ducks as a logo sucks. Its a Logo In Name Only.
  4. I think it was due to this team: http://www.labreakers.net/ Is it D-Fenders because they're trying to emphasis that it is a D(evlopmental) league or is there another reason for that spelling?
  5. FWIW, the song only mentions "California baseball". It doesn't say anything about the Dodgers specifically. It's about the changes in society in the speaker's lifetime, which includes MLB teams on the West Coast. It's as much about the Giants or, for that matter, the Angels. Also FWIW, I know a bunch of Angels fans from my days in LA, and none of them have ever lived in Orange County. I don't know of any evidence showing that the club's fanbase is in any way limited to the county in which they play at the expense of the rest of the metro area. The only ones "fooled" are those in Anaheim who want to pretend they're somehow separate from Los Angeles, and are scared of admitting that they live in a suburb. That's what this is all about - bruised egos. And as usually happens when people lash out from wounded pride, the city of Anaheim only looks sillier now after having their ineptitude repeatedly exposed. The events mentioned in We Didn't Start the Fire are semi-chronological. They aren't in perfect chronological order, for example Bay of Pigs Invasion should come before Eichmann since Bay of Pigs occured in April and Eichmann was captured in May. But nothing is mentioned out of chronological order in terms of years. In other words, nothing that happened in 1980 was mentioned in the middle of the events of 1970. Hence early in the song "Brooklyn's Got a Winning Team" is mentioned. "California baseball" comes before "Starkweather homicide" which puts it in 1958. The reference is to the Dodgers and Giants both moving west, bringing the rivalry with them which is pretty unique if you think about it, two huge rivals moving into the same state and into cities that are cultural rivals. Given the place this is mentioned in the song he would not be making a general reference to all California baseball teams (Angels, As, Padres). The Angels and Dodgers have very different fan bases. A Dodger game is a huge mix of humanity. An Angel game will probably be mostly suburban middle class. Which crowd reminds you of LA and which sounds like OC? I'm sure there's plenty of Angels fans in LA, but I would bet there's more Red Sox fans in LA than Angels fans. The LA Red Sox of Boston anyone? I would say the Angels probably have more Riverside fans than they have from LA. Myself and most Angels fans have nothing against the name change. I can see the logic in it and as I said, the owner should get to name his team whatever he wants. I wish the city would stop suing him and spend that money elsewhere. But I don't agree that this is the greatest thing ever done because Anaheim is part of the Greater LA area. Like Milton said, there needs to be room for all teams. We don't need the SF Athletics or the SF Raiders.
  6. The Clippers used to play part of their season in Anaheim and were considering either a permanent move or playing a larger chunk of the season in Anaheim as a way to lure Kobe Bryant to the team a while since Kobe lives in Orange County. After that fell apart they signed a new contract with Staples that should keep them there awhile. There are constant rumors of NBA teams wanting to relocate to Anaheim. The Grizzlies had some talks with people in Anaheim before deciding on Memphis. There was a rumor the Maloofs wanted the Kings closer to Las Vegas and Hollywood. I think the current new is that the owner of the Ducks wants to buy the Trailblazers. I don't imagine anything coming of it though. The NBA probably wouldn't want 3 teams so geographically close.
  7. According to one of this years giveaways, you dodge this guy... I think LA has had some weird fate when it comes to sports teams. Lakers and Dodgers are both references to their original homes. The Kings share the same name and recently the same colors as one of the Lakers main rivals. The Clippers are OK, but made more sense in San Diego. Galaxy, Sparks, and Avengers I can live with. Riptide hasn't grown on me yet. And of course the Angels with their ridiculous LA of Anaheim name, plus the redundency of Los Angeles Angels in Spanish. I would nominate Utah as having the second most non-fitting team names with Utah Jazz and Real Salt Lake.
  8. Anyone else find that statement mildly amusing? I meant the LA Dodgers. I'm aware they moved to LA in '57. The Dodgers and Giants moving to California was the song reference and, some would argue, a big cultural shift in the United States. There are probably people today who don't know the Nationals used to be the Expos, but back then everyone knew the Dodgers and Giants moved to California. Then you had the World Series wins, the Hall of Fame pitchers, Fernandomania, and Hideo Nomo. The Dodgers are one of a handful of teams that people who don't follow sports closely probably know about and they know they are the LA baseball team. (Like how I don't follow the English Premier League, but I know what Manchester United is.) That isn't to say they didn't do some very significant things in Brooklyn, they were part of one of the most important events in American history back in Brooklyn, but the perception that they are a LA team is out there now. While not a perfect analogy, one could be made between the Dodgers/Angels and the Lakers/Clippers. Unless the Lakers (formerly of Minneapolis) start tanking for a few years and the Clippers start a dynasty, the perception for the majority of the public will be that the Lakers are "LA's team" while the Clippers are just along for the ride. As good as the Clippers played last season and as bad as the Lakers started, the Lakers charge $100 to get on the waiting list for season tickets and the Clippers didn't sell out their playoff games. But yeah, I totally understand why Moreno would do it and I hold nothing against him for doing so. If I was in his position I wouldn't do it because I'm selfish and wouldn't want to share LA with anyone, but maybe that's why he's the millionaire with the baseball club and not me.
  9. I'm an Anaheim resident so take what I say with a grain of salt. Personally, I believe anyone that put up as much money as Mr. Moreno did to buy a major league baseball team has the right to call it whatever he wants. I just don't think it was a wise marketing decision. The main problem with the name change, IMHO, is that the Dodgers are so historically and culturally linked with LA (Cheech's cap in Born in East LA, reference in We Didn't Start the Fire, etc.) that the name change fooled no one and only made the team look silly. If he wanted to move the team to LA that would be one thing, but just changing the name when everyone in the area knows the team plays in Anaheim (and are reminded so by the ridiculous name) makes the team seem greedy; wanting to appeal to people outside of where they play through trickery. Had they kept their LA name from the beginning of the franchise it would work, but after 30+ years as the CA Angels and almost a decade as the Anaheim Angels it just came off as a lame marketing thing. I think for the most part the fans don't really care as Angels games have become a weird "elephant in the room" situation where the mention of either Los Angeles or Anaheim is danced around. I don't think they would lose any fans if they started pushing the LA angle, but I think merchandise sales might suffer. California Angels merchandise wasn't a huge seller, but Anaheim merchandise did well with people in Orange County and Riverside County that wanted to show some local pride by having one of those "ball through the window" things on their cars and stuff. Back when they had Anaheim on the road jersey a lot of fans owned one of each. I can't imagine the majority of the Orange/Riverside area fans getting a Los Angeles one and I don't think enough people from LA would buy one over a Dodgers jersey to make up the difference. There could have been a nice LA/OC rivalry similar to San Francisco/Oakland. The Raiders have not had a hard time getting fans nationwide despite playing in a "suburb of San Francisco" and the A's have had success as well (they desperately need that new stadium though). There already is a little rivalry. The title of the TV show "The OC" is a term no one in Orange County actually uses (we call it "OC"). For a while it was a joke around here that saying "The OC" was a good way to show you weren't from Orange County. Arrested Development had a similar running gag in its final season. Anyways, before I get too sidetracked, a LA/OC rivalry would have been fun and marketable. As a baseball fan, its still fun to watch the Freeway Series, but "Beat LA" chants don't really make sense anymore.
  10. I don't think he'd do it except maybe as an alternate.
  11. In my experience, Lids has most local teams, Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers authentics in a wide variety of sizes. The throwbacks and fashion caps are more limited in size although you can find an occasional larger size. Caps for out of market teams, less popular teams (for example the Clippers here in Southern California), and pretty much any hockey team come in very few sizes.
  12. Ahh, I see... I'd have a hard time passing that up too. If my team unveiled a new logo, or won a championship, etc., and caps were $30, I think I'd pay it just to be the first to have one... Moose Yeah. One thing I miss about Disney was that they had enough experience running theme parks and Disney stores that they knew how to do merchandise. The Angels' team store used to have a nice collection of throwbacks and even carried the bigger sizes that my big head needs (Lids often didn't even have sizes this big). Now all they carry are the regular and BP caps, with an occasional pink adjustable or something thrown in. I have no idea how the new Ducks' management came up with the prices for the new merchandise. A couple of items cost half what they used to cost (I'm not going to mention which ones in case they see this and raise the price ), but other items are way over priced. The mugs used to cost less than $10 and are now $18. OK, sorry for the tangent. Back to caps.
  13. First off, I have a hard time paying $30 for any cap, let alone my self-professed best cap, a 59fifty - so I'd have an even harder time paying that for a Twins Enterprises Franchise cap... You're doing something wrong there, as they're only $25 ($20 if you join the club) and are frequently part of the "2 for $30" promotion... Moose It was an impulse buy at the Ducks new logo unveiling. I did resist the $60 sweater, $18 coffee mug, and $30 wallclock, but it was just one of those things where I had to have something. I would have rather had this one instead, but they do not stock these at the team store.
  14. I just got my first Twin Enterprise cap and man is it comforatable. I wear a 7 3/4 - 8 in New Era Sizing and the XL Twin Enterprise fit comforatably. But as mentioned before it was pricey ($30). Also, depending on the team, they might only have the washed/faded look ones which might not appeal to everyone. I noticed some variation on how washed/faded some of the caps were so if you wanted one that looked less broken in you could probably find one. I only own one American Needle cap and I like it. The bill isn't as wide as New Era. The one I bought was a 7 3/4 but it definately felt bigger than a New Era would have felt at that size. Maybe more like a 7 7/8. I only own one American Needle so I don't know if that was just this cap or if they are all like that. They one thing I don't like about New Era caps is that they have the white sweatband that gets pretty nasty looking after awhile.
  15. I don't know why, but being a long time Anaheim resident I remember the Angels looking really pudgy wearing those uniforms. I don't know if they just had a more heavy set team back then or those were some sort of special non-slimming pin stripes. The current BP caps are blue with a red brim and are pretty popular. They don't really go with the current jerseys though.