Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series

[MilSox]

1 minute ago, Ridleylash said:

I mean, to be fair, which name has more significance to the MLB franchise; the one of an unrelated minor-league team from the 1900's-1950's (even if one of the best of all time) or the one that was used when the franchise won its only World Series title?

 

The main reason the name isn't changing isn't because it's a "legacy" name, unless the "legacy" is being out of the playoffs for much of your team's history. It's because Arte Moreno doesn't want to lose the prestige of owning an LA-branded team.

I'm not denying that cashing in on the LA brand is the true reason the Angels represent Los Angeles.

The other is just debate fodder for us logo nerds.

[sky1324]

31 minutes ago, NicDB said:

In the case of the Brewers and Orioles, they were used by teams in the American League even before that.

Ironically, those Brewers are the current Baltimore Orioles.

And both of those teams were named for minor league teams from beforehand. Baseball is a very tradition-driven sport, since the beginning.

[oldschoolvikings]

44 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I'd like to rest my heavy head tonight on a bed of

  

 

 

[MilSox]

18 minutes ago, QCS said:

And both of those teams were named for minor league teams from beforehand. Baseball is a very tradition-driven sport, since the beginning.

I'm splitting hairs here, perhaps.  But IIRC, the first Milwaukee club to be known as the Brewers is actually the one that currently exists as the Orioles.  They were in the Western League when it mutated into the American League.  Before then, Milwaukee teams were known as the Cream Citys, Creams, Grays, and Unions at various points.

But yea, the history of baseball nicknames has always fascinated me.  It's why the current trend in MiLB names really frustrates me.  A lot of those cities probably already had a team with a unique and out there name from the 19th or early 20th century if they would bother to do a little bit of research.

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Going with "California Angels" also strikes me as swinging above your weight class when the A's, Giants and Dodgers are all more relevant right now than your franchise has been in years and also literally can't happen under MLB rules so long as the other three exist in Cali.

 

Personally, I think the team should have never ceased being the California Angels. I liked the idea that it was the only franchise to give itself the state's name. It was unique. I also don't see it as "swinging above your weight class." In this case, much like with the Golden State Warriors, it's a brand rather than a declaration. The Warriors aren't claiming to be California's team, especially not in a state that also includes the Lakers. I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Angels ever claiming to be the team for all Californians prior to narrowing the scope of its name. 

 

It's funny, though, the way franchise owners seem to see the name "Anaheim" as a negative. Even when the Ducks debuted, they were the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim -- with the city name being secondary. I guess it's the Long Island of Los Angeles. 

[spartacat_12]

On 4/10/2021 at 8:58 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

The old english D is baked into this town's fabric so far that most people no longer even think of it as a baseball logo. If you're a rapper from Detroit, I think you're legally required to have it tattooed on your body.

 

If the other Detroit teams tried to do a "city alternative" uniform, their best bet would be to just steal that old english D and put it huge and up front. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Redwings once pretty much did just that.

 

To be fair, when the Red Wings were known as the Cougars they used the old English D as their logo:

 

 

It still wouldn't surprise me to see an orange Tigers jersey with a Motown/Motor City script across the chest.

 

 

[Gothamite]

15 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Unfortunately, LA proper is firmly Dodgers country, and it'd take a miracle and a half to make any kind of dent in their stranglehold.

 

In any big city, there's always room for a scrappy, blue-collar, anti-establishment competitor to a Tiffany club.  No matter how glamorous the big club, no matter how successful, you can carve out a good living as the anti-them.

 

Signed, the New York Mets.

[gosioux76]

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

In any big city, there's always room for a scrappy, blue-collar, anti-establishment competitor to a Tiffany club.  No matter how glamorous the big club, no matter how successful, you can carve out a good living as the anti-them.

 

Signed, the New York Mets.

 

You're 100% right. Yet I've never viewed the Angels as a Mets equivalent in the L.A. market. 

[GriffinM6]

30 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

You're 100% right. Yet I've never viewed the Angels as a Mets equivalent in the L.A. market. 

I think it's because they've never really been lovable losers (like the Cubs were) or had a meme attached to them (like the Mets). They've always just kind of...existed. They're like the NFL Cardinals, except they have a title in the last 85 years. 

[Gothamite]

It's a missed opportunity.  They should be carving out a great identity for themselves as the anti-Dodgers, the lovable alternative to corporate baseball.  

 

Works when they're successful, and also when they aren't.

[gosioux76]

14 minutes ago, GriffinM6 said:

I think it's because they've never really been lovable losers (like the Cubs were) or had a meme attached to them (like the Mets). They've always just kind of...existed. They're like the NFL Cardinals, except they have a title in the last 85 years. 

 

More than that, I think over the years they've been — and continue to be — the team that spent big on big names with little to show for it. It's remarkable to me that a team that signed, over various years, Nolan Ryan, Rod Carew, Fred Lynn, Reggie Jackson, Albert Pujols and Vladimir Guerrero through free agency ends up winning a World Series with a team with almost no household names. 

 

Hard to be a lovable underdog when you continuously fall short of expectations. 

[IceCap]

33 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

 

Hard to be a lovable underdog when you continuously fall short of expectations. 

That's basically the modern Clippers though. 

[guest23]

29 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

More than that, I think over the years they've been — and continue to be — the team that spent big on big names with little to show for it. It's remarkable to me that a team that signed, over various years, Nolan Ryan, Rod Carew, Fred Lynn, Reggie Jackson, Albert Pujols and Vladimir Guerrero through free agency ends up winning a World Series with a team with almost no household names. 

 

Hard to be a lovable underdog when you continuously fall short of expectations. 

 

The 2 times that I can remember the angels being relevant were in '86 and rally monkey.That's pretty much it. They did a big media blitz that coincided with mccourt driving the dodgers into irrelevance that put them more in the sports talk discussion but it seems like moreno is willing to open the checkbook to make big signings but does little in terms of follow up marketing. I don't think they realize that building a fan base is measured in decades and not something a single world series or a few big time free agency signings can fix.

[spartacat_12]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

In any big city, there's always room for a scrappy, blue-collar, anti-establishment competitor to a Tiffany club.  No matter how glamorous the big club, no matter how successful, you can carve out a good living as the anti-them.

 

Signed, the New York Mets.

 

The Mets are a pretty unique situation. They had the benefit of starting to play just 5 years after the city had lost two beloved NL teams, so they already had a sizeable base of baseball fans who had never been interested in rooting for the Yankees. Winning a World Series just 7 years into their existence definitely helped too.

[ltravisjr]

On 4/10/2021 at 9:41 PM, Marlins93 said:

Turn Ahead the Clock was infinitely less offensive than what Nike is doing. They didn't feel like the same kind of corporate cash grab; I believe the idea emerged from someone within the Seattle front office. Teams could opt out of they wanted to. The designs were so goofy (clearly just having fun with the new millennium upon us), that they didn't pose any real threat to the brand identities of the MLB teams. They clearly weren't intended to have any real staying power.

 

The problem with the current situation is that MLB and Nike seem intent upon making game apparel seem more "street hip" in order to sell more merchandise. This explains the Marlins new identity, the disastrous player's weekend sets, and the City Connect series. As many have pointed out, they're clearly going down the path of the NBA here.

TAHC was like wearing costumes to the office on Halloween. They aren't "real" clothes and are just a make believe fun. Just for laughs - no harm, no foul. City Connect, sadly, are meant to be real.

[Ben in LA]

4 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

To be fair, when the Red Wings were known as the Cougars they used the old English D as their logo:

 

 

It still wouldn't surprise me to see an orange Tigers jersey with a Motown/Motor City script across the chest.

 

 

Honestly they need to bring this back

[WSU151]

5 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

It's funny, though, the way franchise owners seem to see the name "Anaheim" as a negative. Even when the Ducks debuted, they were the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim -- with the city name being secondary. I guess it's the Long Island of Los Angeles. 

 

I think Disney wanted the "of Anaheim" thing to be bigger...it was the "Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim", and in 1998, the renovated ballpark wasn't just Edison Field, it was "Edison International Field of Anaheim". 

 

Might've had a tiny bit of influence in Arte's decision to add "of Anaheim" to the Angels, but that's just speculation. Luckily he got rid of the silly name, but I'm still rather annoyed that while the team is "Los Angeles Angels", the real drive in marketing and merchandise is "Angels Baseball".  Wish they'd just go back to Anaheim Angels. 

 

[Marlins93]

The Angels don't feel like what the White Sox and Mets are to the Cubs and Yankees, respectively. The closest comparison would be the Athletics, although even that isn't exact. Although it will never happen, I feel like California Angels is the best name for them and corresponds with the best brand aesthetics in the franchise's history. Sure, they were originally named the Los Angeles Angels, but I don't care for the redundancy; sounds kind of silly. They rightfully dropped the LA designation when they moved to Orange County. I understand why aligning with the LA market sounds enticing from a revenue standpoint, but it has always rung hollow to me. LA and Orange County have different cultures in many respects.

 

Anaheim Angels never had a nice ring to it. I think state names are appropriate when there is a geographic gray area between different cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis, Dallas/Ft. Worth). Sure, there are four other teams in the state of California, but that doesn't seem too concerning from a branding standpoint.

[Quillz]

I think the name change back to LA was just simple recognition: people will know Los Angeles, Anaheim is well known but nowhere near on the same level. Some people I know who live in other countries know that Disneyland is in California, they don't know specifically it's Anaheim. (They'd even guess LA first). It's just anecdotal, of course, but I think that was the main decision.

 

I'd also go as far to say that I think the Warriors would have changed back to San Francisco if they didn't win their championships recently. I've never liked "Golden State." I just don't like state monikers in general unless you are the only pro team of that league in the state, or at least came first. Or there is some historical tie-in (i.e. Texas Rangers).

[Ridleylash]

1 hour ago, Marlins93 said:

Anaheim Angels never had a nice ring to it. I think state names are appropriate when there is a geographic gray area between different cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis, Dallas/Ft. Worth). Sure, there are four other teams in the state of California, but that doesn't seem too concerning from a branding standpoint.

"Ana-heim An-gels" sounds better then "Cali-for-nia An-gels", at least to me; less syllables to it, which makes it a little snappier.

 

And it's a little hard to brand yourself as "California's team" (which "California Angels" definitely tries to get across) when you haven't made the postseason since 2014 (which was when the upstate Giants won the World Series while you were smacked by the Royals in the DS) while your next-door neighbors are proudly parading their 2020 World Series title around.

 

Even the A's have been doing better as of late than the Angels, so they kinda have the least claim to the state name as their location identifier. Especially since their franchise peak wasn't even under that name, it was when they were the Anaheim Angels.