Jump to content

Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series


Recommended Posts

I think California Angels made sense during the brief window in time when they were the only American League team in California. But soon after the A's came from Kansas City and the name (if it ever made sense to begin with) stopped making sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anaheim Angels sounds nice to me, and I think it makes sense to commit the brand to Anaheim. I will note that my trivial peeve is that Angels is clearly a reference to Los Angeles, so why would they be from anywhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole name change to LA felt so forced at the time and was met with such push back, yeah, no wonder most people don't see the Angels as the 2nd LA baseball team. Has the team itself ever even had a shirt or logo that said LOS ANGELES? It's been 16 years and everyone I know still refer to them as California and/or Anaheim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, insert name said:

The whole name change to LA felt so forced at the time and was met with such push back, yeah, no wonder most people don't see the Angels as the 2nd LA baseball team. Has the team itself ever even had a shirt or logo that said LOS ANGELES? It's been 16 years and everyone I know still refer to them as California and/or Anaheim. 

They had it on their jerseys for like...the first four years of the 60 years they've been around? Basically only had it during their first short stint as the LA Angels. The only other time they had a city name on the jersey was during the Anaheim Angels days; they never had "California" on a jersey, just the "CA" logo for hats.

 

Which is funny, because you'd think they'd have put the city name on a jersey by now if they're so concerned about marketability. Instead pretty much everything Angels related in terms of graphics uses the A logo or just says Angels. They've literally never even bothered to make a new LA cap logo and it's been, what, 15 years since they moved back to the Los Angeles Angels moniker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, insert name said:

It's been 16 years and everyone I know still refer to them as California and/or Anaheim. 

For me and most people I know, it's just "Angels." No city or regional identifier at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take what I say next with a big ol' bag of salt, but...

 

I think the Angels could probably stand to take a chapter from the Brooklyn Nets' playbook--no, not by signing every overage superstar veteran left in the league (though they kinda already did that once, didn't they?), but by branding and marketing themselves specifically as Anaheim's (and, by extension, OC's) team. The Nets, from where I sit (which obviously ain't in Brooklyn), don't even try to market themselves as "NYC's Team"; they're just hyper-focused on being Brooklyn's squad and let the rest do what it do on its own.  Now I don't know that Anaheim carries the same kind of panache in greater LA as Brooklyn does in NYC (somehow I doubt it, being as it ain't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison), but it seems to me that the smart money would be on plugging as much into the local culture as possible, owning it, being as unapologetically Anaheim as possible--shoot, making it it's own standalone brand--and throwing that on like a triple-fat mink and rolling with it, rally money silliness and all.

 

(But then, what sports owner is gonna listen to what some random trucker guy out past the back of nowhere USA has to say about how to market his team?? 😄)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the Ducks don't have an issue pushing themselves hard as "the OC team" to the Kings' "LA team"; if anything, it's gone pretty darn well for them considering they've been Anaheim for 30-odd years now. Arte is just fruitlessly chasing an LA association when he hasn't even bothered with giving the team he's so desperate to make an LA staple even reference the city on their jerseys.

 

The Dodgers proudly wear Los Angeles on their road jerseys, they have LA monograms on their hats. The Angels just have "Angels" twice and an A. You're gonna have a hard time mooching off the LA cred if you're half-assing it that badly to where the only reference to LA is off the field. You wanna be LA, fine, but you kinda need to have some kind of reference to it in your on-field identity if you really wanna connect with that market.

 

You can't just say "we're LA now" and think that'll make people there immediately love you. That's exactly what happened to the Chargers and (for a long while) the Clippers. The halo-A was designed when the team was the Anaheim Angels, so it didn't need to incorporate the LA aspect into the design at all; but if Arte wants to be LA so badly, he should probably like...have the team make an LA monogram to sell on merch or a "Los Angeles" script to put on jerseys, y'know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tBBP said:

Now I don't know that Anaheim carries the same kind of panache in greater LA as Brooklyn does in NYC

It doesn't. It's just another city within greater LA. If it didn't have Disneyland, it'd be about as notable as Downey or Glendale or the thousand other smaller cities within the greater region. It's not a borough, it doesn't have a distinct flavor or culture you can't really find anywhere else (you've been to Anaheim, you've been to most Orange County cities). I think this is actually why "LA Angels" makes more sense, but yes, they've not really done a good job of trying to be LA's second team. At least the Clippers have (tried) to tap into the market with their recent advertising push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tBBP said:

Take what I say next with a big ol' bag of salt, but...

 

I think the Angels could probably stand to take a chapter from the Brooklyn Nets' playbook--no, not by signing every overage superstar veteran left in the league (though they kinda already did that once, didn't they?), but by branding and marketing themselves specifically as Anaheim's (and, by extension, OC's) team. The Nets, from where I sit (which obviously ain't in Brooklyn), don't even try to market themselves as "NYC's Team"; they're just hyper-focused on being Brooklyn's squad and let the rest do what it do on its own.  Now I don't know that Anaheim carries the same kind of panache in greater LA as Brooklyn does in NYC (somehow I doubt it, being as it ain't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison), but it seems to me that the smart money would be on plugging as much into the local culture as possible, owning it, being as unapologetically Anaheim as possible--shoot, making it it's own standalone brand--and throwing that on like a triple-fat mink and rolling with it, rally money silliness and all.

 

(But then, what sports owner is gonna listen to what some random trucker guy out past the back of nowhere USA has to say about how to market his team?? 😄)

 

 

I see your point.  I even agree with it in part.  However, there's a bit of a difference between Brooklyn and Anaheim, and it's not just the quality of the pizza.  Brooklyn on it's own has always been a very strong brand be it from the Dodgers, the movies, being gritty, etc.  Ever ask people from NYC where they're from?  Most of the time people from the other boroughs say they're from New York City but people from Brooklyn darn near always say they're from Brooklyn (and don't you forget it!)

 

Anaheim on the other hand...not so much.  In my mind they're similar to the Islanders as the team in the suburbs.  In all honesty I don't have a strong opinion whether the Angels brand themselves as Anaheim or Los Angeles, I just wish they'd take the cap logos off their sleeves.

 

Either way, Moreno's done a horrible job marketing his team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anaheim Angels is more akin to Arlington Rangers than Brooklyn Nets if you are thinking about panache. I don't think that California Angels establishes them as the state's team or anything. Nobody really seemed to mind it when the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays co-existed. California Angels works well enough as a geographic descriptor when there's a lack of better options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Quillz said:

It doesn't. It's just another city within greater LA. If it didn't have Disneyland, it'd be about as notable as Downey or Glendale or the thousand other smaller cities within the greater region. It's not a borough, it doesn't have a distinct flavor or culture you can't really find anywhere else (you've been to Anaheim, you've been to most Orange County cities). I think this is actually why "LA Angels" makes more sense, but yes, they've not really done a good job of trying to be LA's second team. At least the Clippers have (tried) to tap into the market with their recent advertising push.

 

I don't have a great official name but they are the de facto orange county angels and they should leverage that messaging into their identity. Option 2 is to go all in on competing with LA and move to the LBC like it was proposed 50 years ago and duke it out with the dodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

I don't think that California Angels establishes them as the state's team or anything. Nobody really seemed to mind it when the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays co-existed. California Angels works well enough as a geographic descriptor when there's a lack of better options.

Except for the fact MLB literally won't allow it to be used? That's a pretty heavy roadblock.

 

Quote

Anaheim Angels is more akin to Arlington Rangers than Brooklyn Nets if you are thinking about panache.

Anaheim has had a major league sports franchise bearing it's name for pretty much 30 years without any real issue. Arlington doesn't, all of the major teams in that market are named either Dallas or Texas. I think Anaheim has a fair bit more panache than Arlington just from that aspect alone, even removing Disney from the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Except for the fact MLB literally won't allow it to be used? That's a pretty heavy roadblock.

 

I know they've changed the rules, but that doesn't mean that it can't be negotiated. They've grandfathered in the other "state" teams and it doesn't seem like they're being pressured to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

I know they've changed the rules, but that doesn't mean that it can't be negotiated. They've grandfathered in the other "state" teams and it doesn't seem like they're being pressured to change.

Those teams weren't named differently when that came into effect. Minnesota has always been Minnesota, never the Minneapolis Twins. Same with the Rockies and Rangers. They've always been state named, so that's why they get grandfathered in.

 

The Angels weren't the California Angels at the time of the rule change and thus are affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

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


It’s because Anaheim itself is a city that’s completely devoid of its own culture other than being the home for the giant corporate cartoon company. The Angels can’t market themselves as the anti corporate LA because that’s what Anaheim is itself, only cheaper and more tame. If they were in another city in that area, say Long Beach, they could probably pull off this anti Dodgers anti corporate vibe. Long Beach has the right mixture of blue collar port history and surf culture, all tied up with a bit of a rougher bow as it’s had it’s own history of being anti establishment. But it’s never going to work in conservative Disney/office park/convention center land. Not a chance. The park they’re currently playing in is older than the majority of the surrounding area and used to be nothing but orange groves. You can’t push the brand of being counter culture when the city itself has been catering to establishment culture as a bedroom community from its very founding.
 

And while it was objectively a bad time for the Angels, you could probably argue that the Angels were their most authentic selves when they were owned by Disney. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

If they were in another city in that area, say Long Beach, they could probably pull off this anti Dodgers anti corporate vibe. Long Beach has the right mixture of blue collar port history and surf culture, all tied up with a bit of a rougher bow as it’s had it’s own history of being anti establishment.

 

Original team owner Gene Autry was set to move the Angels to Long Beach back in the 1960s. He and team brass scouted locations in the city in 1963 and became particularly taken with a potential stadium site on land that is now part of El Dorado East Regional Park. The reason the Angels landed in Anaheim is because, once negotiations heated up in 1964, Long Beach City Manager John Mansell had the audacity - and self-respect - to insist that team owner Gene Autry brand his ball club as the Long Beach Angels. When Autry pushed back and stated that he thought Southern California Angels would be better, Mansell told "The Singing Cowboy" that said moniker would be unacceptable. The rest, as they say, is history.   

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.