Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[Marlins93]

I can think of at least a dozen reasons why Spiders isn't the best name for Cleveland to adopt and the embarrassing 1899 record of the former incarnation of the Spiders isn't one of them. It's silly to think that a 20-134 record from over 120 years ago would disqualify the Spiders from a successful branding. 

[IceCap]

32 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

It can be applied to any race or ethnicity because it’s logically consistent. Races and ethnicities aren’t interchangeable. They’re all unique and specific. It’s neither meaningless nor a bad faith argument.

I wonder how you square this rather segregated view of humanity with mixed race families? Like mine? 

 

32 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

my assessment of ethnic mascots is in relation to the fact that it’s become increasingly taboo to do it and it’s not worth the trouble. Nuance is has been proven to be almost unattainable in that conversation. The argument is presented as a binary; good vs bad. 

You want nuance? Here's nuance...

 

"Vikings" refer to explorers/warriors from medieval Scandinavia. They were white. White people naming a team after a white historical group to represented a state's population largely derived from that group's place of origin is pretty damn benign.

 

White people naming a team after another group of people their ancestors dispossessed, displaced, and marginalized is far more sinister. 

 

So if you want nuance? There you go. 

 

17 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Yes...   That's the point.   A dachsund is a specific breed of dog.   It doesn't mean every other breed of dog is "normal" and dachsund is special or less than.   Native American, Chinese, Irish, Aboriginal Australian are all more specific than "human".   That's it.   No ill will.   It was a response to the question "Isn't 'Indians' as non-speficific as 'spiders'?"   It was a simple comparison.   Innocent and devoid of bias.

This ignores the above context and nuance @O.C.D has been crying for. 

You can't separate the usage of Native American iconography in sports from the deplorable way Natives have been treated historically (and in many ways presently) on this continent. 

 

I will grant you that "Indians" itself is rather benign when compared to the slur the Washington NFL team used.

The name "Indians" would probably be a non-issue had the team dropped Wahoo decades ago. Instead they clung to a racist cartoon of a logo defiantly for so long that it poisoned the whole identity. 

There was a compromise possible with this specific team- and the "no change no matter what" crowd kept that from happening. 

 

Edit- People aren't dogs 

[Cujo]

38 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

The Spiders' problem isn't "bad", it's that they're known as the worst team ever to grace an MLB field

 

* the Colorado Rockies entire existence has entered the chat *

[IceCap]

"Spiders" is the obvious choice. They don't need to keep the red and navy, but I'd like them to. 

That being said, I'd be fine with a different colour scheme. They should avoid stuff like purple or black though. "Spiders" works as a name for historical reasons, but pairing it with a teenage boy's idea of a "" colour scheme will make the whole thing seem second rate.

"Spiders" is a name that needs a traditional colour scheme to keep it all grounded. 

[SFGiants58]

 

MOD EDIT: Let's not go any further down that rabbit hole here. Feel free to take it to PM or elsewhere.

 

 

1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

But then it's not an argument against the identity. 
 

Except it is. They were so terrible for such a sustained period, while also being utterly irrelevant for 90% of that time. Combine those two factors and you have the argument. I know it’s not much better, but it’s where I’m stuck. 
 

Heck, Washington R——— were more relevant at their nadir than Cleveland AL was during the “good days.” 

[IceCap]

The high points of the Cleveland Indians' modern existence are losing a WS to a Marlins team most famous for how it was dismantled by ownership and blowing a lead in the WS to the G-ddamn Chicago Cubs. 

 

Let's not pretend we're getting rid of a Yankees-caliber legacy here. We're not even getting rid of a Tigers-caliber legacy. 

[O.C.D]

6 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I wonder how you square this rather segregated view of humanity with mixed race families? Like mine? 

 

You want nuance? Here's nuance...

 

"Vikings" refer to explorers/warriors from medieval Scandinavia. They were white. White people naming a team after a white historical group to represented a state's population largely derived from that group's place of origin is pretty damn benign.

 

White people naming a team after another group of people their ancestors dispossessed, displaced, and marginalized is far more sinister. 

 

So if you want nuance? There you go. 

 

 

This ignores the above context and nuance @O.C.D has been crying for. 

You can't separate the usage of Native American iconography in sports from the deplorable way Natives have been treated historically (and in many ways presently) on this continent. 

 

I will grant you that "Indians" itself is rather benign when compared to the slur the Washington NFL team used.

The name "Indians" would probably be a non-issue had the team dropped Wahoo decades ago. Instead they clung to a racist cartoon of a logo defiantly for so long that it poisoned the whole identity. 

There was a compromise possible with this specific team- and the "no change no matter what" crowd kept that from happening. 

I see the nuance in the Vikings scenario.

 

I completely agree with your take on Native iconography in correlation with mistreatment

 

I also agree with your last point.

 

There are relatively few ethnically based names in pro and college sports, I'd just rather throw the baby out with the bath water and be done with it

 

 

 

[infrared41]

28 minutes ago, IceCap said:

The high points of the Cleveland Indians' modern existence are losing a WS to a Marlins team most famous for how it was dismantled by ownership and blowing a lead in the WS to the G-ddamn Chicago Cubs. 

 

I'll have you know that the Clevelands also lost a World Series to the Braves in 1995.

[SFGiants58]

The closest they came to an MVP was Albert Belle in 1995, who ruined his candidacy by being a “difficult” person.

 

That being said, he should’ve won MVP that year over Mo Vaughn.

[-Akronite-]

4 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

I'll have you know that the Clevelands also lost a World Series to the Braves in 1995.

 

And the Giants in the 50s before that!

 

The reason people are drawn to the "Spiders" name is that it there was a team in Cleveland by that name at one time (many people aware of this have no idea about the worst season thing) and it's a unique/fun identity for pro sports. I understand not liking it but the franchise has enough baggage that worrying about perceptions of that century-plus old team doesn't even come into play really.

[-Akronite-]

Just now, SFGiants58 said:

The closest they came to an MVP was Albert Belle in 1995, who ruined his candidacy by being a “difficult” person.

 

That being said, he should’ve won MVP that year over Mo Vaughn.

 

You mean in the last few decades, right? Cause Lou Boudreau won the MVP the same year they last won a WS. Otherwise, yes, very correct.

[Raptorman415]

If I may throw my hat into the ring here, my proposal for the new Cleveland name: The Mohawks. 

I mean, what could go wrong?!!!? (Other than the obvious problem of Mohawks also being the name of an indian tribe, which could cause problems)

[Brian in Boston]

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

The Spiders' problem isn't "bad", it's that they're known as the worst team ever to grace an MLB field. Nobody talks about the good Spiders teams, only the historically terrible one. 

The reality is that the majority of people who consider themselves sports fans couldn't even tell you that the Cleveland Spiders were the worst team to ever grace an MLB diamond.

Oh, there will certainly be people, based purely upon the Indians' history of futility, who'd offer up "Cleveland" as the answer to the question, "What major league baseball team holds the mark for the worst single season win-loss record in major league baseball?" That said, the number of people who would specifically connect the Cleveland Spiders name with baseball futility is far smaller than those of us in the CCSLC might believe. This community isn't close to being representative of society as a whole when it comes to being steeped in sports trivia, let alone the minutiae of 19th century baseball.

In any event, there'd be no need to focus on the low-point of the 1899 season in Cleveland Spiders' history if said brand were adopted by the Indians. If I'm the Dolans and I opt to resurrect the Spiders identity, I lean into Cy Young's tenure with the team. 

The Spiders inked Cy Young to his first major league contract. Young spent more seasons with the Spiders (9), appeared in more games with the team (420), notched more starts for the club (369), and earned more wins in their uniform (240) than with any other team in his big league career. Young's tenure with the Spiders saw him dominate the majors in 1892 (leading all pitchers in wins, winning percentage, ERA, and shutouts), lead the league in wins (35) and put up the highest win-loss percentage of his career (.778) in 1895, lead the league in shutouts (5) and strikeouts (140) in 1896, and hurl the first of his three career no-hitters in 1897. It was on Young's watch that the Spiders brought home Cleveland's first post-season professional sports championship, besting the Baltimore Orioles 4 games to 1 to win the National League's Temple Cup in 1896.

       

[The_Admiral]

Name them after old Saint George, without whom none of this would be happening.

[sportsfan7]

29 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

This community isn't close to being representative of society as a whole when it comes to being steeped in sports trivia, let alone the minutiae of 19th century baseball. anything.

FIFY

[Digby]

If we're going to throw out our "webbed C" concepts here, can we please make sure the proportions and design doesn't suggest other, NSFW things. This is a design base that can go sideways fast. Thank you.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

The closest they came to an MVP was Albert Belle in 1995, who ruined his candidacy by being a “difficult” person.

 

That being said, he should’ve won MVP that year over Mo Vaughn.

 

Disagree. The '95 Clevelands were probably just as good without Joebert Belle. Keep in mind that Jim Thome (.314 25 HR 73 RBI) and Manny Ramirez (.308 31 HR 107 RBI) were batting 6th or 7th in that '95 lineup. No way the Red Sox are as good as they were in '95 without Mo Vaughn.

 

EDIT: And if you keep bashing my beloved Cleveland Clevelands, I'm going to make it so you can only post in concepts and the weekly NFL picks thread. Yes, I will abuse my mod status to defend the honor of my team.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, -Akronite- said:

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

I'll have you know that the Clevelands also lost a World Series to the Braves in 1995.

 

And the Giants in the 50s before that!

 

Leave it to the Clevelands to win 111 games and then get swept by the Giants in the '54 WS because a bunch of guys named Vic Wertz couldn't figure out a way to hit the ball away from Willie Mays.

[The_Admiral]

The Indians have ~25 years of being more or less pretty good, which is more than most of the majors can say: ten divisions, three pennants, and a couple of wild cards, winning records, and attendance crowns in there for good measure. If this were happening in '93 on the heels of that 33-year dark night of the soul they had going, I could buy "the Indians name only signifies futility so no one ever liked it anyway," but the post-strike Indians have had a better run of it than most, and the World Series drought is more of an unfortunate side note than all-consuming lore the way it was for the Red Sox (who themselves had some decent runs otherwise) and the Cubs (who for the most part did not). Just call it what it is, which is that the other side of the culture war won and they take no prisoners.

[selgy]

3 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

The Spiders' problem isn't just "bad", it's that they're known as the worst team ever to grace an MLB field. Nobody talks about the good Spiders teams, only the historically terrible one.

 

With how Cleveland AL's history is by itself, the last thing that fanbase needs is to have the combination of "no WS titles since 1948" and "named after the worst team to play in the MLB" for opposing fans to levy at them, especially with how their current ownership likes to operate.

This is meaningless. 

For 10 years my team the Devil Rays was the worse team in Baseball. 

Since 2008 we have made two World Series, have the fifth most wins (NYY 1149, LAD 1141, STL 1106, BOS 1086, TB 1081), etc. 

Being tied to an old name does not associate or tie you to losing.