OnWis97

Worst Team Names (Big League)

Recommended Posts

Diamondbacks has always sounded very minor league to me. The fact that it can't fit on a uniform and has to be abbreviated as D'Bags...er...Backs... that makes it even worse.

 

Rays is corny and weird, but Devil Rays was just as bad in a different way (also very minor league sounding).

 

LAA of A is just inexcusable.  Literally any of the other 3 past options is a 100% improvement. Los Angeles is the original name and has the literal translation of "angels".  Anaheim is where they actually play and was their name when they won the WS.  California has the longest history and is probably the best compromise.

Share this post


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

Diamondbacks has always sounded very minor league to me. The fact that it can't fit on a uniform and has to be abbreviated as D'Bags...er...Backs... that makes it even worse.

 

Rays is corny and weird, but Devil Rays was just as bad in a different way (also very minor league sounding).

 

LAA of A is just inexcusable.  Literally any of the other 3 past options is a 100% improvement. Los Angeles is the original name and has the literal translation of "angels".  Anaheim is where they actually play and was their name when they won the WS.  California has the longest history and is probably the best compromise.

I don't like a team name Inc themselves as a state that 4 other teams play in, and I might be missing a few.

Share this post


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

I don't like a team name Inc themselves as a state that 4 other teams play in, and I might be missing a few.

It's not ideal, but are you saying it's better than having two city names in a team name (plus an "of")?  I would disagree strongly.  As I said, "California" is a compromise.  I would personally favor "Anaheim" but anything is better than the cluster**** that is Los Angeles of Anaheim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utah Jazz is a unique name, does it fit with what Salt Lake City stands for? No. I always thought Utah should give back the Jazz name to  New Orleans, much like New Orleans did with the Hornets name to Charlotte. Maybe Utah could've been called the Bobcats or something else et all...

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kevinmets said:

It's not ideal, but are you saying it's better than having two city names in a team name (plus an "of")?  I would disagree strongly.  As I said, "California" is a compromise.  I would personally favor "Anaheim" but anything is better than the cluster**** that is Los Angeles of Anaheim.

 But, as has been mentioned already, the "of Anaheim" bit is just a technicality, just a matter for contracts.  In ordinary day-to-day usage, it's just "L.A. Angels".

 

And don't give me "Anaheim" as a locality name.  Los Angeles is one of the biggest cities in the world; its magnitude dwarfs Anaheim and every other small city in the area.  Compared to L.A., Anaheim is nowheresville; a Major League Baseball team should not be identifying with such a relatively insignificant place. 

Share this post


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

It's not ideal, but are you saying it's better than having two city names in a team name (plus an "of")?  I would disagree strongly.  As I said, "California" is a compromise.  I would personally favor "Anaheim" but anything is better than the cluster**** that is Los Angeles of Anaheim.

I'm not saying that at all, I was just saying if the ones suggested that's the one I like least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer Los Angeles Angels because the name ''Angels'' really only has any value for Los Angeles, which is the City of Angels. Does Angels have any significance for Anaheim?

 

They could be the :censored:ing Golden State Angels, So-Cal Angels, Western North America Angels or whatever bull :censored:, it's still better than Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kevinmets said:

Diamondbacks has always sounded very minor league to me. The fact that it can't fit on a uniform and has to be abbreviated as D'Bags...er...Backs... that makes it even worse.

 

 

totally agree. maybe the diamondback is just too aggressive for MLB, ive just i've never liked that name. i would guess they liked having "diamond" in the name for a baseball team but it also adds to the minor league feel. like its trying a bit too hard.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kevinmets said:

Diamondbacks has always sounded very minor league to me. The fact that it can't fit on a uniform and has to be abbreviated as D'Bags...er...Backs... that makes it even worse.

 

 

 

It can fit on a uniform if they want it to. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it looked just fine on their original uniforms.33_4070A_lg.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then if Diamondbacks is such a bad name, what are some of your suggestions for what the team should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mjd77 said:

 

It can fit on a uniform if they want it to. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but it looked just fine on their original uniforms.33_4070A_lg.jpeg

 

 

only thing i dislike about this jersey are the sleeves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CFL's Ottawa REDBLACKS will make a lot of people ask "What is a red black?". Well, it definately can be one of the worst names suggested for a football team. But there is an explanation of how the name came to be.

 

It's pretty common in Quebec and eastern Canada, for football teams to name by their team colors. There are two Canadian college teams that come to mind, Laval Rouge et Or,"Red & Gold" and Sherbrooke Vert et Or,"Green & Gold". So when the owners of the Ottawa franchise were deciding on a team name, they came up with REDBLACKS, which in French translation, is ROUGENOIR. Yes, ownership did specify that the correct spelling of the team nickname is with all capital letters. And their official mascot is a lumberjack, and you will notice red and black plaid flannel clothing predominantly worn by fans at home games and aboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

And don't give me "Anaheim" as a locality name.  Los Angeles is one of the biggest cities in the world; its magnitude dwarfs Anaheim and every other small city in the area.  Compared to L.A., Anaheim is nowheresville; a Major League Baseball team should not be identifying with such a relatively insignificant place. 

But Green Bay is okay.  They're pretty much known worldwide only for their football team.  Take that away and what are they known for?  Cheese?  Anaheim is known for more than just the Angels.

17 hours ago, kevinmets said:

Diamondbacks has always sounded very minor league to me. The fact that it can't fit on a uniform and has to be abbreviated as D'Bags...er...Backs... that makes it even worse.

 

LAA of A is just inexcusable.  Literally any of the other 3 past options is a 100% improvement. Los Angeles is the original name and has the literal translation of "angels".  Anaheim is where they actually play and was their name when they won the WS.  California has the longest history and is probably the best compromise.

Funny how the Giants can fit "San Francisco" on their jerseys without any weird fonts or bi-leveling.

 

And yes, they SHOUD be the Anaheim Angels.  They haven't played in the city or county of Los Angeles for 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DiePerske said:

only thing i dislike about this jersey are the sleeves.

along with the wordmark, the number font, and the color scheme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Islanders. Even as an Islanders fan, I thought a lot of people would call it a weak name.

 

However, I never liked the Colorado Rapids. I get what they're trying to do, but it just doesn't work. I don't feel threatened by it, and I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got through this thread...

 

-In defense of the Minnesota Wild, not that it's a great name but the term Wild CAN be used as a noun and not an adjective. It's a short way of saying the wilderness. If you're out in a forest you're out in "the wild." I don't think it's as bad of a name as many make it out to be. I'm not an NHL guy though so my opinion may be off but I think people are too harsh on the name.

-Yes the specific Diamondbacks name was chosen because of the reference to the baseball "diamond." That's been acknowledged by the team since its inception in 1995. I don't mind the name. I understand it's too long and can be tricky to use but I don't mind it. I think I like it better than just calling them the Snakes, albeit I like Snakes as a short nickname.

-As an above post stated very well, Florida Marlins sounds better than Miami Marlins but Miami Marlins isn't bad. And, as a die-hard Marlins fan, I'll take the name Miami Marlins because it's a symbol of the team's staying in South Florida. Without the name change, they'd be gone sooner than later. It's a technicality, it's a legal thing, and it's just paperwork, but it's the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the future:

 

Las Vegas should have left the 'Raiders' name behind when they moved imo.

 

I do like the ring to L.A. Chargers, though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

From the future:

 

Las Vegas should have left the 'Raiders' name behind when they moved imo.

 

I do like the ring to L.A. Chargers, though

Las Vegas Raiders actually sounds great...  Vegas Raiders is even better than Vegas Golden Knights... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raiders are one of the few teams where the nickname/identity stands alone and pretty much works anywhere, especially in the Western US. 

 

Although based on the "Cleveland Browns rule" would they have to leave that identity in Oakland? I know the Rams were basically exempted from this because the name didn't originate in St. Louis and was more synonymous with L.A..  (forgive me if this was already discussed). But would the Raiders be able to keep the name? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but Florida Marlins sounds terrible and I can't comprehend why so people like it better. Miami is the infinitely better name.

 

The NFL would never allow the Raiders name to change. Its iconic to the league. It would be like if the MLB let the Yankees change their name (as if they would ever move..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.