RoughRiders99

Minor League Baseball team names

Recommended Posts

The Brooklyn Cyclones were named for the famous Coney Island Cyclone roller coaster. IMO, they have one of the best team names in Minor League Baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JH42XCC said:

The Brooklyn Cyclones were named for the famous Coney Island Cyclone roller coaster. IMO, they have one of the best team names in Minor League Baseball.

 

Mans one of the best logos in baseball, period. 

 

cyclones_logo.gif

 

They’re a cap logo away from a MLB-level identity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always enjoyed when teams have a name relating to, but not being the major league's name. The Memphis Redbirds are an excellent example, but if we look at the G-League, you can find a bunch like this, like the Greensboro Swarm, Wisconsin Herd, the (former) Delaware 87ers, Grand Rapids Drive, etc. I love this so much. It ties into the original team's identity and clearly communicates who the minor league team is affiliated with without saying "we're too lazy to come up with a local name so we just took the affiliate's name. Enjoy!" However, I really do like the ridiculous names, with an important caveat. I think this should stick to double-A or below. At the triple-A level these players are almost in the majors, so names like the Baby Cakes and IronPigs don't fly for me. They're waaaay too "minor league" for triple-A. I love teams like the Knights, Clippers, Sounds, and Aces, since they have big league identities, something these players can be proud of. I would hate to be drafted by the Marlins: from the Batavia Muckdogs, to the Greensboro Grasshoppers, to the Jupiter Hammerheads (not bad), to the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp, to the New Orleans Baby Cakes. I'd think it would be slightly embarrassing for the players! Here's my rule for triple-A: if it wouldn't work in the big leagues, it doesn't work here (unless it's a one-off promotion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nash61 said:

I know it's not baseball, but the structure of the Los Angeles Kings' former farm system was always one of my favourites.

 

Los Angeles KINGS

Manchester MONARCHS

Reading ROYALS

 

Themed, professional names, with the last two even being alliterated. Solid effort across the board.

I'd like Ontario if the name was better.  "Reign" sounds a bit weak to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Mans one of the best logos in baseball, period. 

 

cyclones_logo.gif

 

They’re a cap logo away from a MLB-level identity. 

 

The color combo is really great too, though on the field they lean too heavily into just being navy and red like so many others. Otherwise it's kind of an ideal brand across the board.

Share this post


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

Mans one of the best logos in baseball, period. 

 

cyclones_logo.gif

 

They’re a cap logo away from a MLB-level identity. 

 

But their cap logo is a disaster.

 

Image result for brooklyn cyclones cap

 

 

The modern sans serif font of the C clashes badly with the classical serif-laden B.  A better combination would have been the kind of C that was used on the Kansas City A's caps.

 

Image result for kc a's cap

 

It is worth noting that the Cyclones once did a 1913-themed throwback, during which they wore a cap logo in which the B and the C actually matched. 

 

 

Image result for brooklyn cyclones 1913 throwback cap

 

 

To get the two letters in the monogram to match each other should be simple; but this team somehow screws up this basic feature.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap logo was always going to be a disaster once they made the unfortunate decision to create a two-letter monogram including a "C" for "Cyclones",  That was never going to be good.

 

Still, I reiterate my original statement - they are a cap logo away from a MLB-level identity.  Because while the cap logo is dreadful, so much of their identity is wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The cap logo was always going to be a disaster once they made the unfortunate decision to create a two-letter monogram including a "C" for "Cyclones",  That was never going to be good.

 

The Colorado Rockies and California Angels have had two-letter monograms that look just fine.

 

 

Image result for rockies cap     Image result for 1993 angles cap

 

 

Of course, for both of those teams, using a second letter for the nickname was not necessary.  But the Cyclones could not have used the Dodger-style B by itself; they had to add a second letter if they wanted to use that B.  To pick a letterform that is stylisitically consistent with the B (such as the C on the Kansas City A's cap) is not too much to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if using the modern C (at least for the permanent monogram) was part of the deal with using the old Dodger-style B, like when the preservation board says you can build a garage next to your historic house but it can't try to look historic itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is....

 

- Minor league teams should not have their parent name (even if owned by the parents).  So no Oklahoma City Dodgers, Mississippi Braves, etc.

- Teams owned by the parent club can resemble the parent name without being the parent name (like the LA Kings reference above)

- No one night only names (whether food themed or WHAT IF nights)

- Wacky names are fine, but we're starting to get really bad.  The recent batch of MiLB names (mainly North Alabama, but others as well) are TOO over the top.  Theres a line you dont want to jump...

 

Montgomery Biscuits, Gwinnett Stripers, Daytona Tortugas, and Lansing Lugnuts are great. 

 

Florida Fire Frogs, Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp, Binghamton Rumble Ponies and New Orleans Babycakes are over the top.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Digby said:

I wonder if using the modern C (at least for the permanent monogram) was part of the deal with using the old Dodger-style B, like when the preservation board says you can build a garage next to your historic house but it can't try to look historic itself.

 

They were specifically not allowed to use the old Brooklyn B alone.  Which is kind of ironic, since at the time neither the Dodgers nor MLB were using that version at the time; on all the available merchandise they were using an inaccurate Brooklyn logo.

 

brooklyn_dodgers_1932-1936.png

 

The Cyclones got to use a more-historically accurate "B" but had to pair it with the modern "c" so nobody would actually confuse it with the Dodgers.

2017Cyclones.png

 

 

Share this post


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

The Colorado Rockies and California Angels have had two-letter monograms that look just fine.

 

Agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a dark period for monikers in MiLB right now.  In an attempt to garner attention (and merchandise sales), too many teams are opting for ridiculous, asinine names and logos.  Teams should be looking to the culture and surroundings of where they play for inspiration.  Instead, they let outsiders force cartoony, moronic names and logos on the fanbase.

 

Case in point, New Orleans.  If you polled the locals here in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish (where the team actually plays), you will find the overwhelming majority of the fans despise that idiotic "Baby Cakes" name.  There were several other names (honestly, none so good), but the out of town general manager and ownership, along with a certain San Diego based graphic design company, decided this was a fantastic name for the rebranded Zephyrs.  But, no one in New Orleans knew what a baby cake was, other than a name for a mobster's mol/girlfriend.  The GM explained that he couldn't call the team the King Cakes, because, when Googled, it wouldn't be on the top of the page.  Plus, he always hears locals calling each other "baby".  So, he mashed the two.  Unfortunately for the locals, the merchandise seems to be selling, just not locally.  People aren't going to the games, but some one in Des Moines is buying the cap, and that means money for the team.  Hell, even the sports casters don't call them the "baby cakes", but just Cakes.  They don;t even have a jersey with the "Baby Cakes" wordmark.  But, I digress; after two years it still irritates me to no end.

 

As for parent club names, I do mind those.  But I like it more when a minor league teams makes it their own: different script, different logo.  Think St. Louis and Memphis; Chicago and South Bend; Cleveland and Kinston.

Share this post


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

As for parent club names, I do mind those.  But I like it more when a minor league teams makes it their own: different script, different logo.  Think St. Louis and Memphis; Chicago and South Bend; Cleveland and Kinston.


I prefer for a minor league affiliate to adopt an identity that is unique from that of its parent club. That said, there are a few MiLB teams that successfully pay homage to their big league partners' branding, while simultaneously putting their own, market-specific spin on things. My personal favorite in the latter category? The Lakeland Flying Tigers.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point do zany compound/food names ever stand out anymore? It all feels like something out of a name generator. Just empty trend chasing.

 

Done right, minor league names have local flavor and are stable. The Chattanooga Lookouts are perfect, and their hats are really fun and the platonic ideal of minor league caps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I’d prefer neither, at the end of the day, I still think zany beats generic. It’s hard to build a unique identity when you’re one of a million teams called the panthers, hawks, warriors, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 2:23 PM, hjwii said:

This is a dark period for monikers in MiLB right now.  In an attempt to garner attention (and merchandise sales), too many teams are opting for ridiculous, asinine names and logos.  Teams should be looking to the culture and surroundings of where they play for inspiration.  Instead, they let outsiders force cartoony, moronic names and logos on the fanbase.

 

Case in point, New Orleans.  If you polled the locals here in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish (where the team actually plays), you will find the overwhelming majority of the fans despise that idiotic "Baby Cakes" name.  There were several other names (honestly, none so good), but the out of town general manager and ownership, along with a certain San Diego based graphic design company, decided this was a fantastic name for the rebranded Zephyrs.  But, no one in New Orleans knew what a baby cake was, other than a name for a mobster's mol/girlfriend.  The GM explained that he couldn't call the team the King Cakes, because, when Googled, it wouldn't be on the top of the page.  Plus, he always hears locals calling each other "baby".  So, he mashed the two.  Unfortunately for the locals, the merchandise seems to be selling, just not locally.  People aren't going to the games, but some one in Des Moines is buying the cap, and that means money for the team.  Hell, even the sports casters don't call them the "baby cakes", but just Cakes.  They don;t even have a jersey with the "Baby Cakes" wordmark.  But, I digress; after two years it still irritates me to no end.

 

As for parent club names, I do mind those.  But I like it more when a minor league teams makes it their own: different script, different logo.  Think St. Louis and Memphis; Chicago and South Bend; Cleveland and Kinston.

 

zephyrs was an absolutely beautiful name. I did like a few of the options y'all had for the name change. "BC" definitely the worst.

 

I'm from amarillo and while I'm excited for our new team arriving next year I cringe and at the possibility (and all likelihood) of them being called the "sod poodles". I, for one, have vowed to not ever refer to them as that if that's the name chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:06 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Colorado Rockies and California Angels have had two-letter monograms that look just fine.

 

 

Image result for rockies cap     Image result for 1993 angles cap

 

 I disagree as well.

 

That "CR" cap for the Rockies has bugged me since it was introduced.  It just looks and feels WRONG.  No other MLB team did or does that.

 

The California Angels cap did not, as "CA" is a well-defined and common abbreviation for California (even designated by the postal service) and I always saw it as such, rather than standing for California Angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.