MLB Changes 2020

[ANGELCAT-IDA61]

As a long time Angels fan. I think the Angels should be renamed the "California Angels." That's who they were for 30 years. Yes, there are 4 other teams in the Golden state, but "California Angels" sounds better. I doubt it will ever happen again, but you never know with changes of ownership. Would like to see the Angels bring back their uniforms from the 1970's-1992 with a more updated version and have "California" across the chest on their road uniforms and an alternate cap ( red or navy) with the "California" state logo and a bright gold halo around the top. 

[_DietDrPepper_]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

No, they don’t.

 

Using the suburb’s name cost them money and made them seem parochial.  Taking the larger city’s name allows them to sell the club as regional.

 

There are very few sub-sections of a larger metropolis that could support an MLB identity.  In the Southland, I think Hollywood is really the only one.

Seems hypocritical that the Brooklyn Nets can use the suburbs name but the Angels can’t when it would undoubtedly make more sense.

[MilSox]

28 minutes ago, ANGELCAT-IDA61 said:

As a long time Angels fan. I think the Angels should be renamed the "California Angels." That's who they were for 30 years. Yes, there are 4 other teams in the Golden state, but "California Angels" sounds better. I doubt it will ever happen again, but you never know with changes of ownership. Would like to see the Angels bring back their uniforms from the 1970's-1992 with a more updated version and have "California" across the chest on their road uniforms and an alternate cap ( red or navy) with the "California" state logo and a bright gold halo around the top. 

Also, with the A's seemingly having one foot out of the door in Oakland, there's a pretty big chance we'll see an American League where the Angels are the only California team.  Though as far as uniforms, I'm partial to these.  Just switch the red and navy around.


 

16 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

Seems hypocritical that the Brooklyn Nets can use the suburbs name but the Angels can’t when it would undoubtedly make more sense.

Not really comparable.  Brooklyn was once its own city and still retained a degree of autonomy once it was annexed by NYC, which is how we got the Brooklyn Dodgers.

But I agree with your larger point.  I might not if Anaheim didn't have the notoriety of being that place where Disney is, but that's a pretty big deal that automatically makes you a place people can find on a map.  Without Disney, Orlando would be just another anonymous country town in North Florida and certainly not a place the NBA would have put a team.

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yeah, but that’s kind of “sports”, right?  Every major league has at least one team playing outside the strict boundaries of the city for which it is named. 
 

So long as they’re in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, they have as much claim to the name as anybody. 

I feel like these things are a bit more nuanced than that.  The NY Giants and NY Jets play in a whole other state because their city ran out of places to put a large stadium.  But no one can deny there are plenty of fans of each in the city they're named for.  I'm not sure the same can be said for the Angels. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

California Angels is also awful, because the A’s exist. 

Agreed.  
 

I’ll admit a nostalgia for “California Angels”, just because that’s what I grew up with, but that doesn’t make that name any better. 

[Gothamite]

33 minutes ago, NicDB said:

Not really comparable.  Brooklyn was once its own city and still retained a degree of autonomy once it was annexed by NYC, which is how we got the Brooklyn Dodgers.

 

There’s also the small matter of 2.5 people versus 300,000.

 

23 minutes ago, NicDB said:

I feel like these things are a bit more nuanced than that.  The NY Giants and NY Jets play in a whole other state because their city ran out of places to put a large stadium.  But no one can deny there are plenty of fans of each in the city they're named for.  I'm not sure the same can be said for the Angels. 

Oh, there are plenty of Angels fans throughout the Southland.   That’s one argument that not even Anaheim partisans have made. 

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

California Angels is also awful, because the A’s exist. 

 

21 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Agreed.  
 

I’ll admit a nostalgia for “California Angels”, just because that’s what I grew up with, but that doesn’t make that name any better. 

Would you still feel this way if the A's left Oakland, as many are anticipating?  Then they'd have a legitimate claim to being California's AL team and could market themselves as such.

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, NicDB said:

 

Would you still feel this way if the A's left Oakland, as many are anticipating?  Then they'd have a legitimate claim to being California's AL team and could market themselves as such.

If they went to Sacramento/San José, no. If they moved out of state, still no. State names are terrible, and I doubt anybody north of Fresno would support the Angels.

[kroywen]

For the sake of giving you all flashbacks to taking the SATs, Newark : New York :: Anaheim : Los Angeles. (Hell, this analogy works with Hempstead as well.)

 

It's not utterly outrageous that an ML team would carry the Anaheim name, but it makes far more sense for them to carry the name of the broader metropolitan area of which they are a part. It's probably fair to say they represent Orange County and much of the Inland Empire, but the "Orange County and Inland Empire Angels" might be the only name worse than "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim."

 

Makes sense just to go with the metropolitan area of which they are a part, since they really represent a portion of a metro area that doesn't have a dominant city in its own right. Much as the Islanders carry the "New York" name rather than "Long Island" (which would alienate eastern and central Queens) or "Hempstead."

[MilSox]

I'm typically against state names and I have no delusions about the Angels ever having a following in Northern California.  I just see California Angels as the best of a terrible situation.

[_DietDrPepper_]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Not really comparable.  Brooklyn was once its own city and still retained a degree of autonomy once it was annexed by NYC, which is how we got the Brooklyn Dodgers

The Nets moved to Brooklyn 115 years after Brooklyn became part of NYC. They have no reason to be named the Brooklyn Nets over the New York Nets, the Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers 14 years before Brooklyn joined NYC. 
 

Sorry for getting off topic, but if Anaheim can’t be the team location identifier because it’s a suburb neither should Brooklyn. It should be California Angels and New York Nets, both sound phonetically better aswell.

[ltravisjr]

5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I'd actually like the swoosh to be placed on a separate patch.  At least that way it's clear that it's an ad and not an integral part of the design

 

Part of the (genius) of the swoosh is that it doesn't require any letters/words to go along with it, and can be rendered in any color without losing anything.  My eye can look right past the StubHub logo no the Sixers uniform, since it's a different color in a separate patch and clearly something just plastered on after the fact.  The swoosh, being strictly an icon, and being woven directly into the material, looks (in some cases) like part of the design.

 

Even though it's bigger and even tackier, I"d almost prefer this:

 

This is my thinking as well. The swoosh isn't part of the team's identity. Said another way, will the swoosh be included in the illustrations in the MLB Dressed to the Nines Uniform Database? No - at least it better flippin not be! Said still another way, when my team takes the field, I am NOT cheering Nike!

[Gothamite]

15 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

if Anaheim can’t be the team location identifier because it’s a suburb neither should Brooklyn

That’s a silly comparison.
 

Anaheim is a fine city.  But it’s a small piece of a large market, not even the most populous city in its county, much less the metropolitan area.  Whereas Brooklyn is the largest piece of the largest market in the country.  Again, fine city, but Anaheim just doesn’t have the history, population, cultural relevance, or marketability that Brooklyn does.  If it did, they wouldn’t have had to pay the Angels to use it, and the Angels wouldn’t have switched back the second their naming rights agreement expired.
 

Besides, Brooklyn may be many things, but “suburb” ain’t one of ‘em.  

[McCall]

1 hour ago, BellaSpurs said:

The Nets moved to Brooklyn 115 years after Brooklyn became part of NYC. They have no reason to be named the Brooklyn Nets over the New York Nets, the Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers 14 years before Brooklyn joined NYC. 
 

Sorry for getting off topic, but if Anaheim can’t be the team location identifier because it’s a suburb neither should Brooklyn. It should be California Angels and New York Nets, both sound phonetically better aswell.

Brooklyn is a burrough, an actual part of New York City. Not to mention, if Brooklyn became it's own city (again), it would be the 3rd largest city in the U.S. after LA and Chicago and bigger than the remaining New York City.

 

Anaheim is a suburb of Los Angeles. And quite honestly, to the rest of the U.S., more well-known for Disneyland. Which, honestly, most people probably just say is in LA anyway.

 

The Dallas Cowboys are never gonna be renamed the Arlington Cowboys. (or, MLB-wise, the Arlington Rangers) Even though Arlington is actually closer to Fort Worth, Dallas carries more weight as the major city of the metroplex. This is essentially the equivalent of LA and Anaheim.

[Marlins93]

I don't see a problem with them being called the California Angels even if the state has four other teams, including another one in the AL.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

Nets fans and Knicks fans have a whole different mindset and attitude as far as I see, the Nets claimed Brooklyn to separate themselves and build their audience.  Dodgers fans and Angels fans don't have that division.  It depends what the team's target audience is.

[BBTV]

I think the "Is Anaheim a suburb?" argument needs to be lumped in with "Should the Browns wear brown?", "Chief Wahoo is only offensive to p ssies and liberals" as one of those discussions that invariably goes off the rails and will never have a conclusion.

 

edit: also the “it’s ok for the patriots to wear red” argument (mostly because the only rational opinion is that of course they should always be in blue, because the goddam ENEMY was the RED coats but still some nitwits try to debate it). 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, ltravisjr said:

This is my thinking as well. The swoosh isn't part of the team's identity. Said another way, will the swoosh be included in the illustrations in the MLB Dressed to the Nines Uniform Database? No - at least it better flippin not be! Said still another way, when my team takes the field, I am NOT cheering Nike!

 

I hadn't thought of it, but since you mentioned it, should Dtt9s include the swoosh?  IMO, yes, it should.  It's an official part of the on-field uniform now.

[tp49]

10 hours ago, kroywen said:

For the sake of giving you all flashbacks to taking the SATs, Newark : New York :: Anaheim : Los Angeles. (Hell, this analogy works with Hempstead Uniondale as well.)

 

Makes sense just to go with the metropolitan area of which they are a part, since they really represent a portion of a metro area that doesn't have a dominant city in its own right. Much as the Islanders carry the "New York" name rather than "Long Island" (which would alienate eastern and central Queens) or "Hempstead Uniondale."

Point of order, the Coliseum is in Uniondale, not (The Incorporated Village of) Hempstead.  I agree with the greater point even though I don’t remember a point in my lifetime where they made a major effort to market themselves in the city and that includes after the Brooklyn debacle.  Any Islander fan I know who’s from the city for the most part became a fan during the 80’s dynasty or moved to the city after growing up a fan on the Island.

[tp49]

10 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

The Nets moved to Brooklyn 115 years after Brooklyn became part of NYC. They have no reason to be named the Brooklyn Nets over the New York Nets, the Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers 14 years before Brooklyn joined NYC. 
 

Sorry for getting off topic, but if Anaheim can’t be the team location identifier because it’s a suburb neither should Brooklyn. It should be California Angels and New York Nets, both sound phonetically better aswell.

Brooklyn (The borough, and no Brooklyn is not a suburb by any stretch of the imagination) has something Anaheim just does not which is an exceptionally strong stand alone identity.  That’s why Brooklyn is a fine team identifier. Additionally the Nets were called the New York Nets at one time...when they played in Commack and later Uniondale on Long Island.