MLB 2016 Changes

[Quillz]

I've been to Anaheim. It's a suburb. I've also been to Los Angeles, and I'm not convinced Los Angeles isn't a suburb of itself.

"Los Angeles Angels" is the best possible name for the team, but it makes more sense for them to stay in Orange County and accommodate their fanbase, which may well be all over southern California but at this point would certainly have to be concentrated in Orange County. I just smile at "the The Angels Angels."

Despite rumors, I don't think the Angels are going anywhere. They represent SoCal as much as the Dodgers do, as far as I'm concerned. They have no real reason to move. They have a nice stadium that is reasonably priced, and it's not much of a drive even for Valley people like me to get there.

[AnPheitseog]

I honestly wish that they would become California again more than anything else.

I know it would mess with tradition, and shouldnt be done, but I wish the Mets would adopt Queens or Flushing(this might not be a good idea, Flushing Mets) just for varietys sake.

that said, if the mets read this dont do it

[Quillz]

I honestly wish that they would become California again more than anything else.

I know it would mess with tradition, and shouldnt be done, but I wish the Mets would adopt Queens or Flushing(this might not be a good idea, Flushing Mets) just for varietys sake.

that said, if the mets read this dont do it

Doubt it would happen for similar reasons to the Angels. The "larger" your name, the more you can (theoretically) appeal to a wider audience. Something like the Queens Mets would pigeon-hole them. Of course, didn't stop the Dodgers or the Nets.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, but Queens is just a borough, Brooklyn is a magical fantasyland that represents the cauldron of America, people who move from China to have kids named Steve and people who move from Michigan to have kids named Caydenne.

[IceCap]

Los Angeles Angels works for the reasons Gothmite outlined.

Anaheim Angeles works because, suburb or not, Anaheim has its own distinct identity.

Both work, but "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" was just stupid. I'm just happy they've finally decided to pick one.

[Sec19Row53]

Wait...your name is Adam? I thought it was Gothamite. Kidding aside, I had no idea that was you. Anyway, I like the logo.

Sorry, I'm not Adam.

not a Chance in hell :-)

[LMU]

Sigh, here's a list of people who steadfastly believe that Anaheim is a "suburb" of LA.

1.) East coasters who don't really understand west coast cities

2.) People who have never actually been there

3.) Gothamite

You might as well call Reno is a "suburb" of the Bay Area, then.

4.) People who actually are born and raised in suburban LA, have frequently been to Anaheim, and see that other than a theme park and a couple sports venues that it's part of the same blob as Brea, Fullerton, Orange, La Habra, Buena Park, Cerritos, Whittier, Costa Mesa, Yorba Linda, Lakewood, etc. It's a 25 mile drive on one freeway for me to get there. A tad shorter than driving from Alameda to Reno.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I honestly wish that they would become California again more than anything else.

I know it would mess with tradition, and shouldnt be done, but I wish the Mets would adopt Queens or Flushing(this might not be a good idea, Flushing Mets) just for varietys sake.

that said, if the mets read this dont do it

Doubt it would happen for similar reasons to the Angels. The "larger" your name, the more you can (theoretically) appeal to a wider audience. Something like the Queens Mets would pigeon-hole them. Of course, didn't stop the Dodgers or the Nets.

When the Brooklyn National League team was founded, Brooklyn was a separate city. Now it is a section of New York City.

Something like "Flushing Mets" would be terrible. Neither Brooklyn nor any other section of any city (such as Hollywood, for example) should be the locality name of a major-league team.

I never thought that a major-league team would take a name of a section of a city nowadays; but the Nets proved me wrong. I believe that this was a mistake, as it limits their appeal in their home market. And that name really annoys me as a New Yorker. Even though I was born in Brooklyn and have lived for nearly 30 years a few blocks from the Brooklyn/Queens border, my attachment is to New York City, not to any borough. So, in order to root for that team, I have to overlook the name -- and also the bland uniforms, of course. Ironically, I was less uncomfortable with the name "New Jersey Nets" than I am with the current name. (Though the old name is not without problems, as mentioned below.) I also like the Nets' New Jersey uniforms a lot more than the current uni. So that team's move into my city has actually reduced my emotional connection with it.

State names as locality names are a different issue.

When the state has only one major metropolitan area, the use of a state name is tolerable, as the teams really do represent the whole state. This accounts for Minnesota, Arizona, and Colorado. Still, the city names Minneapolis (sorry, St. Paul, but Minneapolis is the recognisable one), Phoenix, and Denver would be preferable in those cases. Note that the Thunder choose not the state name but the city name, despite the fact that they play in the state's only really large city, and that they are the state's only NBA team.

All other uses of a state name are problematic.

For New Jersey, its biggest cities are suburbs of New York; and the names of the teams located there should reflect that. Likewise, the name of any major-league team that might play Camden should reflect the fact that that city is a Philadelphia suburb.

For the states with multiple big cities, the use of the state name is very unfortunate, and really should be avoided. The change from "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" is to be applauded for this reason. I get that "Texas Rangers" was already a phrase long before the baseball team existed. But this does not make it an appropriate name for a team located in one city in a huge state. And alliteration doesn't justify "Tennesse Titans"; they should be the "Nashville somethings".

Similarly, while "California Angels" is the name that we grew up with, and which therefore sounds "right", that name is untenable in such a big state with many diverse cities. So it seems clear to me that "Los Angeles Angels" is the only appropriate name.

[Gothamite]

I'm with you. State names really bug me. I understand "Minnesota" rather than choosing one or the other, but I don't particularly like it. I remember that "St. Paul" was being floated when the Wild were coming about, and I loved that idea.

"Brooklyn" is a special case, largely because of the Dodgers, which as you note dated back to it's time as an independent city. I don't know of any other sub-division of a city that could really support a team name, with the exception of a revived "Hollywood Stars". And still, I'm glad the Islanders are keeping "New York", and if the Cosmos move here I'm glad they're keeping their name as well. Let the Nets be the outlier.

Wait...your name is Adam? I thought it was Gothamite. Kidding aside, I had no idea that was you. Anyway, I like the logo.

Sorry, I'm not Adam.

not a Chance in hell :-)

[The_Admiral]

Note that the Thunder choose not the state name but the city name, despite the fact that they play in the state's only really large city, and that they are the state's only NBA team.

I think part of their rationale was that being "Oklahoma City" would separate them from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State sports.

[Jungle Jim]

Wait...your name is Adam? I thought it was Gothamite. Kidding aside, I had no idea that was you. Anyway, I like the logo.

Sorry, I'm not Adam.

But when you posted his cap concept, it reminded me of the concepts I drew up a decade ago and thought I'd share them. Not that my design (or his) was terribly revolutionary, just thought they were fun.

But you can see how I would assume it was your concept I was posting when you said "Bumping my concepts from ten years ago..." rather than "Bumping a concept very similar to one I posted ten years ago...", and that the next logical assumption would be that it was you that posted it on the New Era forum. I realize this trivial, but just trying to clarify that I'm not nuts.

[-kj]

So is Minneapolis a suburb of St. Paul and vice versa?

Nah, St. Paul is the suburb.

But, seriously: no, they're both anchor cities, though Minneapolis is the larger, more recognizable city.

[Quillz]

Los Angeles Angels works for the reasons Gothmite outlined.

Anaheim Angeles works because, suburb or not, Anaheim has its own distinct identity.

Both work, but "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" was just stupid. I'm just happy they've finally decided to pick one.

My understanding is ownership always wanted the former but legally had to have the latter until winning some court case, which just occurred now. Which, again, never even seemed worth the effort. No matter what they're called, as long as they're in Anaheim, the city will still make money off property taxes and other things.

[Quillz]

For the states with multiple big cities, the use of the state name is very unfortunate, and really should be avoided. The change from "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" is to be applauded for this reason. I get that "Texas Rangers" was already a phrase long before the baseball team existed. But this does not make it an appropriate name for a team located in one city in a huge state. And alliteration doesn't justify "Tennesse Titans"; they should be the "Nashville somethings".

Similarly, while "California Angels" is the name that we grew up with, and which therefore sounds "right", that name is untenable in such a big state with many diverse cities. So it seems clear to me that "Los Angeles Angels" is the only appropriate name.

I totally agree with this part on principal. But in both the Angels' and Rangers' defense, they were the only MLB club in their respective leagues of their respective states. The Texas Rangers obviously existed before the Houston Astros moved to the AL (even though the Astros are older), and the California Angels were around a few years before the A's moved in. Both are still kind of dumb given, as mentioned, the Astros already existed, as did the Giants and Dodgers, but I was more forgiving of the names because they kind of made sense on a league level. And, as you pointed out, the Texas Rangers were a real thing.

What I can't excuse is something as presumptuous as "New England Patriots." Not only are they already 30 miles outside of Boston, they think they represent six or so other states? I realize we're getting off-topic, but I pointed out in another topic my disdain for region-named teams, especially when the regions are large and usually have various sub-cultures within.

[Noir]

I honestly wish that they would become California again more than anything else.

I know it would mess with tradition, and shouldnt be done, but I wish the Mets would adopt Queens or Flushing(this might not be a good idea, Flushing Mets) just for varietys sake.

that said, if the mets read this dont do it

Doubt it would happen for similar reasons to the Angels. The "larger" your name, the more you can (theoretically) appeal to a wider audience. Something like the Queens Mets would pigeon-hole them. Of course, didn't stop the Dodgers or the Nets.

When the Brooklyn National League team was founded, Brooklyn was a separate city. Now it is a section of New York City.

Something like "Flushing Mets" would be terrible. Neither Brooklyn nor any other section of any city (such as Hollywood, for example) should be the locality name of a major-league team.

I never thought that a major-league team would take a name of a section of a city nowadays; but the Nets proved me wrong. I believe that this was a mistake, as it limits their appeal in their home market. And that name really annoys me as a New Yorker. Even though I was born in Brooklyn and have lived for nearly 30 years a few blocks from the Brooklyn/Queens border, my attachment is to New York City, not to any borough. So, in order to root for that team, I have to overlook the name -- and also the bland uniforms, of course. Ironically, I was less uncomfortable with the name "New Jersey Nets" than I am with the current name. (Though the old name is not without problems, as mentioned below.) I also like the Nets' New Jersey uniforms a lot more than the current uni. So that team's move into my city has actually reduced my emotional connection with it.

State names as locality names are a different issue.

When the state has only one major metropolitan area, the use of a state name is tolerable, as the teams really do represent the whole state. This accounts for Minnesota, Arizona, and Colorado. Still, the city names Minneapolis (sorry, St. Paul, but Minneapolis is the recognisable one), Phoenix, and Denver would be preferable in those cases. Note that the Thunder choose not the state name but the city name, despite the fact that they play in the state's only really large city, and that they are the state's only NBA team.

All other uses of a state name are problematic.

For New Jersey, its biggest cities are suburbs of New York; and the names of the teams located there should reflect that. Likewise, the name of any major-league team that might play Camden should reflect the fact that that city is a Philadelphia suburb.

For the states with multiple big cities, the use of the state name is very unfortunate, and really should be avoided. The change from "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" is to be applauded for this reason. I get that "Texas Rangers" was already a phrase long before the baseball team existed. But this does not make it an appropriate name for a team located in one city in a huge state. And alliteration doesn't justify "Tennesse Titans"; they should be the "Nashville somethings".

Similarly, while "California Angels" is the name that we grew up with, and which therefore sounds "right", that name is untenable in such a big state with many diverse cities. So it seems clear to me that "Los Angeles Angels" is the only appropriate name.

Great take. I agree about most of this, except for the Titans. They had to do so because of the stadium deal they made with the state of TN for additional funding. The two conditions that were made were that they would use the name "Tennessee" and they would allow Tennessee State Univ. to play their home games there.

[FiddySicks]

That would've also been a bit problematic considering they were slated to play their first two seasons in Memphis. Interest was so low in supporting a Nashville based team that they actually had to leave Memphis a year earlier than they expected to. It would've been an even bigger debacle to call them the Nashville "whatever"s at that time, and I'm not sure it would've been worth it to rebrand from Memphis/Tennessee to Nashville in only two seasons simply to cater to Memphis.

[Gothamite]

So instead they're stuck pandering to Memphis in perpetuity, which as I understand continues to be a colossal failure.

Wait...your name is Adam? I thought it was Gothamite. Kidding aside, I had no idea that was you. Anyway, I like the logo.

Sorry, I'm not Adam.

But when you posted his cap concept, it reminded me of the concepts I drew up a decade ago and thought I'd share them. Not that my design (or his) was terribly revolutionary, just thought they were fun.

But you can see how I would assume it was your concept I was posting when you said "Bumping my concepts from ten years ago..." rather than "Bumping a concept very similar to one I posted ten years ago...", and that the next logical assumption would be that it was you that posted it on the New Era forum. I realize this trivial, but just trying to clarify that I'm not nuts.

I don't think you're nuts. I might have prevented the confusion had I said "bumping my own concepts..." That's what I meant, even if it didn't come through.

[The_Admiral]

That would've also been a bit problematic considering they were slated to play their first two seasons in Memphis. Interest was so low in supporting a Nashville based team that they actually had to leave Memphis a year earlier than they expected to. It would've been an even bigger debacle to call them the Nashville "whatever"s at that time, and I'm not sure it would've been worth it to rebrand from Memphis/Tennessee to Nashville in only two seasons simply to cater to Memphis.

They could have rebranded as a Nashville team when they dropped "Tennessee Oilers," but "Nashville Titans" doesn't sound great either, and for that matter, I'm not sure "Tennessee Titans" is much better, and ugh if only the Houston Oilers had stayed because none of this is ideal and no one cares about the Titans.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Everybody can now scrap the "... Of Anaheim" joke now.

Nobody who referred to them as that were doing it as a joke. The team actually going through with one of the stupidest names in sports.

I would've preferred "Anaheim Angels" personally

Amen.

I loved the "Anaheim Angels" name ... it feels less commercial and less money driven than "Los Angeles Angels."

That's pretty ironic, considering that the city of Anaheim paid the team to use it.

Which is understandable in wanting to build a brand and what not, but not worth it in the end. Last time I checked the Anaheim Angels won the 2002 World Series.

The Brooklyn Dodgers won the 1955 World Series. Didn't stop them from changing their name, either.

"Anaheim" represents the Disney-era ownership which, beyond 2002, wasn't all that remarkable. I'm not saying "Los Angeles" is a much better name, but it harkens back to the original name of the club, and gives the team some kind of fringe attachment to the rest of the media market (i.e. in the same vein as the "New England" Patriots.)

Perhaps the best solution is to go back to the "California" Angels name, even though it doesn't really make much sense anymore with the A's. But that's still the moniker they've had the longest, and seemingly avoided any identify fights between LA and Anaheim.

The Brooklyn Dodgers did change their name... because they moved out of Brooklyn. We couldn't very well go on calling the A's the Philadelphia Athletics nowadays either.

So, the Disney era was unremarkable... save for a lengthy return to relevance, a beautiful remodeling of the stadium, their current look, their unofficial mascot, their only pennant, and their only championship. Truly, it was a quiet time.

I think it's understood Anaheim is part of the Greater LA media market, which is obviously what the Angels are going for. As are the Foxboro Patriots, East Rutherford Giants and the Auburn Hills Pistons.

The Foxborough teams are actually an example I find laudable. They are not the Foxborough Patriots, but they're also not the Boston Patriots. They are the New England Patriots, and the New England Revolution keeps this tradition up.

The Giants and Jets are right over the Hudson River, less than two miles away.

The Pistons are farther away, but not by much, being four miles outside of the Detroit city limits.

I honestly wish that they would become California again more than anything else.

I know it would mess with tradition, and shouldnt be done, but I wish the Mets would adopt Queens or Flushing(this might not be a good idea, Flushing Mets) just for varietys sake.

that said, if the mets read this dont do it

This doesn't apply, being as we're talking about parts of a city as opposed to being a nearby city. However, the teams do go by "The Kings of Queens" and "The Bronx Bombers", so at least it's something you can hang your hat on.

4.) People who actually are born and raised in suburban LA, have frequently been to Anaheim, and see that other than a theme park and a couple sports venues that it's part of the same blob as Brea, Fullerton, Orange, La Habra, Buena Park, Cerritos, Whittier, Costa Mesa, Yorba Linda, Lakewood, etc. It's a 25 mile drive on one freeway for me to get there. A tad shorter than driving from Alameda to Reno.

I'm going to point to my earlier comments about distances between teams and "their" city. 25 miles is a little more than just outside the city.

As for the whole discussion on regional names as opposed to city names, I think the practice is acceptable under two circumstances...

1. You have two markets and you don't want to alienate one or the other.

2. The regional name in combination with the team name match a reference to something.

The first one is why the Twin Cities almost entirely have teams with "Minnesota" in the name. The Rangers are in Arlington, between Dallas and Fort Worth. The Carolina Hurricanes are in Raleigh with Durham not far away.

The second is why the Colorado Rockies, Texas Rangers (yes, they fit both criteria), and New Jersey Devils work well.

Heck, on the topic of the Devils, I think that's the best comparison here. I see Anaheim and Los Angeles as New York and Newark.

[LMU]

4.) People who actually are born and raised in suburban LA, have frequently been to Anaheim, and see that other than a theme park and a couple sports venues that it's part of the same blob as Brea, Fullerton, Orange, La Habra, Buena Park, Cerritos, Whittier, Costa Mesa, Yorba Linda, Lakewood, etc. It's a 25 mile drive on one freeway for me to get there. A tad shorter than driving from Alameda to Reno.

I'm going to point to my earlier comments about distances between teams and "their" city. 25 miles is a little more than just outside the city.

Things are different in California. The city limits of LA proper at their furthest extend for 40 miles. LA County extends 80 miles from north to south and 50 miles from east to west at its longest point. Hell, the north end of the San Fernando Valley, in LA proper, is just as close to downtown LA as Anaheim is as the crow flies. Plus if you actually drive in the area you don't even see any real definitive change from the same looking suburban sprawl until you drive for more than an hour.

Plus, if you drive four hours here you're lucky to even be close to the Nevada border whereas you might cross several state lines back east. Out west has a completely different sense of distance.

As an example of the size of LA: