Baseball team locations idea

[FiddySicks]

I was sitting in a Vietnamese restaruant with my parents the other day and we were talking about the A's possible move to fremont. It got me thinking about city locations for the A's and the Angels. I was wondering if the A's would keep the Oakland moniker if in Fremont, and it also got me thinking about the Angels and their naming fiasco. Then it hit me, why do the Angels and A's have to represent one specific city? Why not let them represent an entire area? Why not do something like this?

The Angels of Southern California

The Athletics of Northern California

Ok sure, probably will never happen, but look at all the problems it would solve. No city taking you to court over your name, no confusion of having one city name and being in another city, and an extended fanbase beyond the Oakland/Fremont and Anaheim/Los Angeles areas. And i dont think teams such as the Giants or Dodgers or Padres wouldf have a real issue, because they dont have any real identity issues and already represent great, well known citys. And not to mention that a road jersey with something like Nor Cal or So Cal would be massively sweet. What do you guys think?

[IronChefShark]

I think youve been celebrating April 20th a little too dilligently.

[The_Admiral]

The Dodgers probably have more fans in southern California than the Angels do.

[FiddySicks]

The Dodgers probably have more fans in southern California than the Angels do.

Well yeah, but thats kind of a given. When you compare the history of the two teams that would make sense. The Angels have only really come into contention in the last 4 years. The Dodgers have a huge history of success and a long line of history in Southern California. But with the way things are going now, i feel that the way Artie Moreno has turned the Angels around you may see the fan base flip flop more in the favor of the Angels. And plus, it wouldnt really matter, Los Angeles is still one helluva city to represent, Anaheim, not so much.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, Anaheim is nothing, really. It's a case of the city wanting to be a major-league town, but it really just makes the Angels sound like a minor-league team. So just let them both be LA teams. Also, we're forgetting the Padres in this whole mess. I'm sure they'd object to Southern California as well.

[LMU]

Here's part of a Wikipedia article on the reasoning for the use of Anaheim in the first place:

Another condition of the stadium renovation agreement was that the team name itself be one "containing Anaheim therein." The emerging Disney ownership was itself in the process of renovating and upgrading its aging Disneyland park. Disney hoped to market Anaheim as a "destination city," much the same way it had done with Orlando, Florida, where Walt Disney World was located. Accordingly, the team changed its name again, to the Anaheim Angels. Many fans of the team protested the name change, believing the Anaheim name was small-time, though in time the protests fizzled out.

So, although the city sought to benefit from the publicity, Disney sought to benefit from the hope of increased theme park admissions as Disneyland transformed itself with the addition of California Adventure and several new hotels.

However, with the acquisition of the club by Arte Moreno, there was no longer a need to being attention to Anaheim, as Moreno had no vested interest in the city's prestige, only the proximity and inclusion in the nation's second largest media market. However, thr city had placed the "containing Anaheim within" clause in the contract, which Moreno satisfied by making Anaheim a secondary part of the name, instead adopting "Los Angeles" as the primary geographic locator, which has already paid dividends through the team's new $100 million television contract with Fox Sports Net.

Do I agree that the full name is silly? Yes, I do. However, at the same time, this is the only way that the contract could be honored while allowing Moreno to tap into the fanbase mother load that is the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Thankfully the "of Anaheim" is only tacked on in an official capacity, and is not in mainstream use, allowing the Angels to fulfill the MLB classification of being Los Angeles' representative in the American League.

Now, regarding this thread's topic, NorCal/SoCal identifiers would not work, mainly due to the fact that teams already exist in both portion of the state, and due to the fact that it just sounds silly, as at least down here, Los Angeles is far more recognizable than Southern California. The A's are better adopting the identifier "San Jose," which is the plan when the move to Fremont, because at least then they can identify with the third most populous city in the state.

[The_Admiral]

Maybe they can just buy Anaheim out and stop being a bad punchline. We can dream.

Also, I hope the Athetics don't go with Golden State as their location like the Warriors do.

[Gothamite]

Then it hit me, why do the Angels and A's have to represent one specific city?

As noted above, the Angels have to include the name "Anaheim" per the contract with the city. Once that runs out, they'll be the LA Angels, and only the LA Angels, again.

Anaheim tried to spend their way out of being an LA suburb. Problem for them is that the only thing larger than the city's inferiority complex was the incompetence of the city's lawyers.

[wman]

Anaheim is about as seperate from LA as Brooklyn is from New York. Having driven smack down I-5 two months ago, right past the stadium, they are ABSOLUTELY the same place in my mind. Only the annoying traffic patterns make them the least bit unique.

Dislike the NOCAL/SOCAL idea maybe only because it's never been done before. If the A's do go to Fremont, they should just be the Bay Area A's or San Francisco Bay A's, like how Tampa Bay is used for their sports teams. Or make them the San Jose A's, which probably more accurately defines their location. San Jose is a larger city than Oakland anyway.

Angels should be the Los Angeles Angels--they were when formed in 1961, so I see no issue with that name at all.

[bterreson]

Angels should be the Los Angeles Angels--they were when formed in 1961, so I see no issue with that name at all.

im still a fan of the California Angels..

[oddball]

As someone who goes to school right across the street from the Pond and the Big A... Anaheim is not LA. It never has been and never will be. I don't know how to explain it except are the Angels the Dodgers, the Cubs the White Sox, the Isles the Rangers, or the Jets the Giants? No. The problem is, that there's a pride issue here. To see the name of Anaheim across the chest of Anaheim made the people around here proud. I just don't want to be someone like New Jersey and lose the uniqueness that is Anaheim, even though there is no uniqueness besides that little Mouse Park. I do know and understand that the Rams kept the LA moniker and probably the new football franchise that might be in Anaheim next to the Big A will be LA, and originally the Angels were LA; but really can Arte just put Anaheim across the chest of the Angels on the road and make everyone happy? He can call them the LA Angels, but let Anaheim have the chest! *LOL* We all take pride where we live, and it's cool to show off to the world where you live by a major league franchise. Oh and Anaheim is not a minor league town, that's like saying Green Bay is minor league. Actually it'd be like someone walking in and saying Green Bay will now be Wisconsin since everyone knows where Wisconsin is, or the Buffalo Sabres or Bills being called the New York Sabres or New York Bills. Just my two cents.

[slapshot]

I think it means you should stop eating Vietnamese, it obviously alters your mind.

[DEAD!]

I think it means you should stop eating Vietnamese, it obviously alters your mind.

... yeah, that pho does some strange things to you mind....

[Telemundo219]

Oddball is correct. If we or the NFL was now to recoin the Green Bay Packers into the Milwaukee Packers, there would be a huge outcry. What is a Green Bay anyway? But if that team could represent that small city as the bills can do for Buffalo, the Angels should be able to do it for Anaheim. I prefer LA Angels but I'm not from that area. But I can talk about one team, THE NETS! When then they finally move to the NEW YORK area, the NBA should name them the BROOKLYN Nets. Brooklyn isnt in NYC and is only incorporated with the other four boroughs probably for some odd reason. If Brooklyn were a city, it would be the fourth largest city in the US of A .

[Gothamite]

Anaheim is a suburb of LA. It's part of the LA metroplex. They don't like it, and try to pretend otherwise, but one can only deny reality so long.

If you'll pardon a hometown boy saying so, the comparison to Milwaukee and Green Bay is absurd. Milwaukee and Green Bay are not contiguous, share no population, are not commutable and are separated by miles of farmland and assorted nothingness. One cannot say the same about Anaheim and LA.

[Gothamite]

Brooklyn isnt in NYC and is only incorporated with the other four boroughs probably for some odd reason. If Brooklyn were a city, it would be the fourth largest city in the US of A  .

Yes, that's true. Brooklyn by itself would be the 4th largest city in the United States.

But Brooklyn is most certainly part of NYC. It merged with New York City, Richmond, The Bronx and a few dozen cities in Queens to become the New York City we know today.

Prior to 1898, they were separate municipal entities with their own identities. Much like Minneapolis and St. Paul today, except that it was rare for people to live in one city and work in another. The two cities were separated by a river, passable only by boat.

When the Brooklyn Bridge was first proposed, there was great opposition to it in Brooklyn. They predicted that once travel between the two cities was easier, New York and Brooklyn would become one city. They were right, of course, because that's exactly what happened.

End of historical interlude. I'm out of hometowns now, so you guys are on your own.

[hawk36]

I've said it 1,000 times but I'll say it again... if a team plays in a city, it can take that name. If it doesn't like the city's name that it plays in, it should either take the name of the county, region, or state but not a different city.

Anaheim is NOT Los Angeles, ask anyone who lives in the city of Anaheim.

[LMU]

I've said it 1,000 times but I'll say it again... if a team plays in a city, it can take that name. If it doesn't like the city's name that it plays in, it should either take the name of the county, region, or state but not a different city.

Anaheim is NOT Los Angeles, ask anyone who lives in the city of Anaheim.

Region=Los Angeles metropolitan area

[FiddySicks]

Anaheim is a suburb of LA.  It's part of the LA metroplex.  They don't like it, and try to pretend otherwise, but one can only deny reality so long.

But the reality of it is that your incredibly wrong. Anaheim is not a "Suburb" of Los Angeles. Anaheim, unlike the 5 boroughs, it is its own city, with its own ordinances and laws, its own government, and its own mayor. It has about as much real association to Los Angeles as Beverly Hills has to inter city Bagdad. And unlike places like Orchard Park, New York, and Irving, Texas, it is a very large metropolitan city thast does in fact have the ability to support TWO major league sports franchises on its own with little or no help from little or no association help from the near by cities. And for you to say that Anaheim should stop denying reality, but Green Bay Shouldnt is probably one of the most rediculous things ive ever heard.

[Shroinke]

it is a very large metropolitan city thast does in fact have the ability to support TWO major league sports franchises on its own with little or no help from little or no association help

As stated above, the only reason the Angels were re-named was because Disney wanted to trump up Disneyland sales. The same reason that the other franchise, the Mighty Ducks, were brought into existance.

If not for Disney's decision to place a theme park in their back yard, they wouldn't have any major-league interest. It's just easier to build large structures (theme parks, sports arenas, airports) in outer areas or suburbs of cities than in them.

Take New York for example. The Jets AND Giants both play in New Jersey, but they're obviously both representing the New York City area. Hence they're not known as the East Rutherford Giants and Jets, or New Jersey Giants and Jets.