SportsLogos.Net News

Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

The Baseball Angels of Los Angeles of Anaheim ūüėú

Holy Winged Servants of God Located in Southern California Who Play an American Pastime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe nobody has picked up on the irony of the name "Los Angeles". Its literally the spanish translation of "The Angels". So in effect, "Los Angeles Angels" means "The Angels Angels".  If there were a hispanic promotion day their jersey wordmark would be both city name and the team name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ltravisjr said:

I can't believe nobody has picked up on the irony of the name "Los Angeles". Its literally the spanish translation of "The Angels". 

 

I'm 99.999999999999999% sure everyone knows this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Fair enough. Now define "fine." 

"Anaheim" is a distinct locale that has had top flight representation since the mid 90s thanks to the Ducks. So if the Angeles wanna rep "Anaheim" that's perfectly fine. 

Bonus- it's the name they won their only World Series with. 

 

"Los Angeles" encompasses the entire metro area, which Anaheim is undeniably a part of. The Rams played in Anaheim for fourteen years under the "Los Angeles" moniker and no one raised a fuss over it. And the Minnesota North Stars almost moved to Anaheim with the intent to play as the "Los Angeles Stars." A team playing in Anaheim but using the "Los Angeles" name is perfectly fine and not the tragedy some make it out to be. 

Bonus- Los Angeles is the second largest media market in the US and one of the world's preeminent cities. Association with that is only a good thing as far as branding goes. 

 

"California" doesn't work because the Dodgers, Giants, A's, and Padres exist. "California" worked at first because the AL and NL were still mostly distinct entities at the time and they were the only AL club in Cali. Since then though? The AL and NL have both amalgamated under the MLB banner, making the "only AL team in state" not as important as it used to be. And they're not even that anymore with the A's in Oakland. 

Sure, you could point to the Golden State Warriors, but that name's dumb too. They should have staked a claim to being San Fransisco's team- another great American city- when they moved westward across the Bay. 

 

So either LA or Anaheim work for the Angeles, as both represent aspects of their locale. I don't blame them for going with LA, but "Anaheim" would work too if they insisted. It's a place, it's distinct. Whateves.

 

"California" though? The state is too big and too diverse to be wholly represented by one team in one location. And they have too many teams for one to try anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt want it to become the rule, but I wouldnt mind the Angels legally becoming how they behave in practice.

 

No city name, just Angels Baseball. Wouldnt want it to become a trend, but I want reality to match the legality.

Share this post


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

 

What rule number is that?

For me state names work in select circumstances. 

 

Minnesota- Minneapolis and St. Paul have the "twin cities" vibe going, so I get the state-based nickname to avoid alienating one over the other. 

 

Only team in the state- If you're the only team in the state I guess it's fine, but I'd still prefer more civic-based teams. Cities have cultures and identities, states are often a series of square lines drawn up for the purposes of administration and often lack distinct cultures. 

 

If the full name means something- "Texas Rangers" and "Florida Panthers" are actual things, a law enforcement agency and a wild cat. Using the state name instead of the city name lets the full name mirror the namesake. In this case it's more about a clever name using North American sports name conventions and less about trying to represent an entire state, so it works for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IceCap said:

For me state names work in select circumstances. 

 

Minnesota- Minneapolis and St. Paul have the "twin cities" vibe going, so I get the state-based nickname to avoid alienating one over the other. 

 

Only team in the state- If you're the only team in the state I guess it's fine, but I'd still prefer more civic-based teams. Cities have cultures and identities, states are often a series of square lines drawn up for the purposes of administration and often lack distinct cultures. 

 

If the full name means something- "Texas Rangers" and "Florida Panthers" are actual things, a law enforcement agency and a wild cat. Using the state name instead of the city name lets the full name mirror the namesake. In this case it's more about a clever name using North American sports name conventions and less about trying to represent an entire state, so it works for me. 

 

I'm with you on all that. 

 

I'm just trying to figure out what MLB rule they think forced the Marlins and Angels to change their names.

Share this post


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

I'm just trying to figure out what MLB rule they think forced the Marlins and Angels to change their names.

 

There's a rule in place now, but it's not why the Angels and Marlins changed.

 

Neither can change back now to the state name, but it's not why they changed in the first place.

Share this post


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

 

I'm with you on all that. 

 

I'm just trying to figure out what MLB rule they think forced the Marlins and Angels to change their names.

I guess that's what I get for coming in during the middle of a discussion ūüėÖ

 

I'm kind of flummoxed as to why this is a discussion though. I thought the reasons for both the Marlins and Angeles' changes were well-documented- they wanted to be associated with the world class metropolitan markets they played in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I'm 99.999999999999999% sure everyone knows this. 

Yep, I humby accept the prize for noticing the obvious. I should probably have said "commented on" rather than "picked up on", because obvious as it is, I think the redundancy played some role in why the Angels chose not to use "Los Angeles" as the city name. Maybe choosing a nickname name other than "Angels" would have been a better choice to deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IceCap said:

I guess that's what I get for coming in during the middle of a discussion ūüėÖ

 

I'm kind of flummoxed as to why this is a discussion though. I thought the reasons for both the Marlins and Angeles' changes were well-documented- they wanted to be associated with the world class metropolitan markets they played in. 

 

I think the Marlins' stadium deal required a name change, pushed moreso by the city than the owner. (IIRC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ltravisjr said:

Yep, I humby accept the prize for noticing the obvious. I should probably have said "commented on" rather than "picked up on", because obvious as it is, I think the redundancy played some role in why the Angels chose not to use "Los Angeles" as the city name. Maybe choosing a nickname name other than "Angels" would have been a better choice to deal with it.

 

Pointing out that "Los Angeles" means "The Angels" is a little like trying to make an "... of Anaheim" joke. 

 

Was never really funny in the first place but at this point, it's been done to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

I think the Marlins' stadium deal required a name change, pushed moreso by the city than the owner. (IIRC)

 

Yes indeed.   As did the Angels' deal with Anaheim.

 

Still waiting to hear the specific rule number that prohibits teams from being named after states.  Honestly curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ltravisjr said:

Yep, I humby accept the prize for noticing the obvious. I should probably have said "commented on" rather than "picked up on", because obvious as it is, I think the redundancy played some role in why the Angels chose not to use "Los Angeles" as the city name. Maybe choosing a nickname name other than "Angels" would have been a better choice to deal with it.

 

Ironically, the Spanish-language URL is angelsbeisbol.com, as it references the proper noun, but you'd think losangelesbeisbol.com would work too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ltravisjr said:

I think the redundancy played some role in why the Angels chose not to use "Los Angeles" as the city name.

 

No, it didn't. 

 

There had been a "Los Angeles Angels" baseball team in town since 1903.  Nobody minded it.  Autry changed the name because, let's face it, in those days Orange County wasn't exactly favorable towards the big city next door.  

 

It was changed to "Anaheim" because the city of Anaheim paid them to, as part of the stadium renovations.  But Moreno realized that he could legally go back to "Los Angeles" so long as he kept "Anaheim" somewhere in the name, leading to the ridiculous compromise name until the naming agreement expired and he could officially bring back the original name.

 

Nobody has ever worried too much about the redundancy.  It certainly has never impacted the various name changes.  

Share this post


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

 

Pointing out that "Los Angeles" means "The Angels" is a little like trying to make an "... of Anaheim" joke. 

 

Was never really funny in the first place but at this point, it's been done to death.

I didn't mean it to be funny but yeah, point taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

There's a rule in place now, but it's not why the Angels and Marlins changed.

 

Neither can change back now to the state name, but it's not why they changed in the first place.

 

What rule number is that?

Share this post


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

 

What rule number is that?

I don't know the number either but it's the one that says a team can't use the state name..... unless MLB needs them to also host the AS game.¬†ūüėú

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

I'm just trying to figure out what MLB rule they think forced the Marlins and Angels to change their names.

 

Hopefully I can help clarify. I recall reading several times over recent years that MLB instituted a policy about team naming conventions that has forbidden current franchises from reverting to "state" names. And it would prevent expansion and relocation franchises from adopting state names as well. As I recall, this rule/policy was instated within the last decade and was not at all the reason for the Marlins and Angels dropping state names. They also determined that teams like the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Rangers, and Twins would essentially be grandfathered in and not asked to change. This might have actually happened under Manfred (a guess) and the league decided that for whatever reason they wanted to move away from state branding even if a state is home to a single team.

 

I honestly can't remember where I read about this. It might have even been on this forum. This certainly isn't something you would expect to find in the rulebook even if it were something actually a thing, so I'd call it more of a league "policy" than anything else. I can't find anything concrete to back this up, but clearly at least one other poster here is familiar with it. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is all nonsense, of course. And I can't imagine that the league wouldn't be receptive to a team asking for a state name if they have a compelling reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

What rule number is that?

 

4 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

Hopefully I can help clarify. I recall reading several times over recent years that MLB instituted a policy about team naming conventions that has forbidden current franchises from reverting to "state" names. And it would prevent expansion and relocation franchises from adopting state names as well. As I recall, this rule/policy was instated within the last decade and was not at all the reason for the Marlins and Angels dropping state names. They also determined that teams like the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Rangers, and Twins would essentially be grandfathered in and not asked to change. This might have actually happened under Manfred (a guess) and the league decided that for whatever reason they wanted to move away from state branding even if a state is home to a single team.

 

I honestly can't remember where I read about this. It might have even been on this forum. This certainly isn't something you would expect to find in the rulebook even if it were something actually a thing, so I'd call it more of a league "policy" than anything else. I can't find anything concrete to back this up, but clearly at least one other poster here is familiar with it. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is all nonsense, of course. And I can't imagine that the league wouldn't be receptive to a team asking for a state name if they have a compelling reason.

 

The refrain that gets bandied about the internet, I've seen it in a couple places (though I guess it could be everyone repeating what they saw once and it's turned into an urban legend/game of telephone/chicken or the egg sort of thing where it's people saying they have seen other people say it's a thing which turns into other people seeing that other people see other people and so on), is that the MLB does not allow a team to use the state name as the geographical identifier if there is another team located in that state, with the Rangers being grandfathered in.

 

Googling it now doesn't seem to come up with anything and the rulebook just has things related to gameplay. The only sort of branding references in the rulebook are the rules about player uniforms and even then, some those uniform rules aren't really written "rules" per se.

 

It could be on the internal bylaws. It could be an informal rule. It could be nothing. I guess we'll just either have to get someone to ask the MLB or wait for a team to attempt to use the state name.

 

42 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

There had been a "Los Angeles Angels" baseball team in town since 1903.  Nobody minded it.

 

When you say this, what town are you referring to? The PCL Angels only ever played in LA, so I wouldn't think too many people would have taken issue with it anyways.

 

47 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Autry changed the name because, let's face it, in those days Orange County wasn't exactly favorable towards the big city next door.  

 

When Autry was looking at moving out of LA due to the living situation with the Dodgers and Autry thinking that the team establishing their own market would be more successful (time is a flat circle), Long Beach was the leading candidate, along with the west end of the San Fernando Valley, where he owned property. However, the team and Long Beach were never able to get an agreement done, in part because the city wanted the team to be called the "Long Beach Angels" (time is a flat circle). Autry balked at that because he thought "Long Beach" was too small/less marketable/didn't sound right (time is a flat circle) and he wanted the team to be either "Los Angeles or "Southern California/California" so talks fell apart.

 

Walt Disney told him to look at Disneyland and said that Anaheim was booming and would be a better place to put a baseball stadium than the San Fernando Valley. When Autry and the city of Anaheim connected and the name came up, unlike Long Beach,

 

Quote

Anaheim officials didn‚Äôt have such concerns. According to an official city history, then-Mayor Rector L. ‚ÄúRex‚ÄĚ Coons believed landing the franchise would spur other business development. And even if Anaheim wasn‚Äôt part of the team name, it would show up as the newspaper dateline on every home Angels game reported around the country.

 

(TIME IS A FLAT CIRCLE)

 

That quote is from an LA Times article from 1998 covering Gene Autry's death and which dives into detail about how he and the Angels impacted Anaheim/Orange County. There are a lot quotes in there that tie into this Anaheim v. Los Angeles thing that comes up all the time on the boards.

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

It was changed to "Anaheim" because the city of Anaheim paid them to, as part of the stadium renovations. 

 

I also don't think Disney was opposed to it either.

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

But Moreno realized that he could legally go back to "Los Angeles" so long as he kept "Anaheim" somewhere in the name, leading to the ridiculous compromise name until the naming agreement expired and he could officially bring back the original name.

 

Nobody has ever worried too much about the redundancy.  It certainly has never impacted the various name changes.  

 

Yeah, I would agree that the redundancy wouldn't have matter considering the team's name from 2005-2015.

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.