Angels Name Change Gets More Interesting

[LMU]

Judge: Just 'L.A.' Is OK

By Bill Shaikin, Times Staff Writer

May 13, 2006

In a decision that could persuade the city of Anaheim to revive its litigation against the Angels, a judge ruled Friday the team can market itself as the Los Angeles Angels, with no mention of Anaheim.

"If they want to put Los Angeles Angels on a T-shirt, they can," Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos said.

The team does not plan to do so and intends to continue to promote itself as the Angels, with no city attached, spokesman Tim Mead said. In January, owner Arte Moreno said he would not sell "Los Angeles" merchandise at the ballpark and would not produce any such items but said goods produced by Major League Baseball could call the team by any name.

In February, a jury found the team had not broken its stadium lease by changing its name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. On Friday, Polos denied Anaheim's request for specific language accompanying the verdict that would forbid the team from selling itself as the Los Angeles Angels. The jury decided the Angels "can market the team any way they want," Polos said.

Anaheim co-counsel Mike Rubin said he believes the City Council is more likely to appeal the verdict, given what he called this "judicial sanction" for the Angels to drop the Anaheim name everywhere but formal documents. The deadline for the city to appeal has been delayed to June 11.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-angelr...ack=1&cset=true

[NJTank]

Los Angeles Angels is fine by me

[Hat Boy]

Between this and that knucklehead who is suing over the "Mothers Day" promotion, the Angels legal staff is going to be working overtime.

[Mac the Knife]

Just return to calling 'em the California Angels, representing the entire state, and maybe then everybody would just STFU about this.

[SEMOSTLfan]

Just return to calling 'em the California Angels, representing the entire state, and maybe then everybody would just STFU about this.

I agree whole heartedly, not to mention the most recent "California" Angles uniforms were pretty sweet looking IMO.

[winghaz]

They never should have called themselves the California Angels in the first place.

Two reasons: 1. The Angels are named for the City of Angels, which is Los Angeles. 2. As I've said before, no teams should be named for their state if there are other teams in that state. (In other words, the Florida Marlins should become the Miami Marlins unless they move somewhere else.)

[Brendan]

Just be called the Anahiem Angles there not in L.A. so why do they need to be called the Los Angeles Angles there in Anahiem so they should be called the Anahiem Angles. Someone should tell the owner the team city should be the one they play in.

[HedleyLamarr]

Just settle on a name so all that "L.A. Angels of Anaheim in O.C." nonsense can be put to bed....

[LMU]

Just be called the Anahiem Angles there not in L.A. so why do they need to be called the Los Angeles Angles there in Anahiem so they should be called the Anahiem Angles. Someone should tell the owner the team city should be the one they play in.

Since you weren't around when the news broke, here's a refresher course. Saying that the team shouldn't call themselves Los Angeles because they play in Anaheim is the same as saying that the Bills should be Orchard Park instead of Buffalo, the Pistons should be Auburn Hills instead of Detroit, the Jets and Giants should be East Rutherford instead of New York, etc. Anaheim is in the LA metropolitan area, Angel games are televised on Los Angeles television stations, and to anyone in the LA area, with the exception of those in Anaheim proper with inflated egos, Anaheim is most certainly LA. The rule of thumb is that anywhere that can be reached by freeway in about a half hour is LA, and Anaheim certainly applies.

Good for the judge. About time someone realizes the meaning of contracts.

[The_Admiral]

Just be called the Anahiem Angles there not in L.A. so why do they need to be called the Los Angeles Angles there in Anahiem so they should be called the Anahiem Angles.

1) sup Tank

2) Anaheim

3) Anaheim is a suburb of Los Angeles. There's no way around it. Orange County residents can get themselves worked up about it as much as they want, but Anaheim is just a suburb, bigger than most, but a suburb nonetheless. The Angels are covered by Los Angeles television stations, Los Angeles radio stations, Los Angeles newspapers, and so on. It's not uncommon for a team in the 'burbs to market themselves with the name of the main city. We've all seen the list.

4) They have the right to call themselves the Los Angeles Angels because Major League Baseball says that the Angels are the AL representative for greater Los Angeles. That's where they are, so that's what they're called. "California Angels" is a presumptuous nickname when you have not one, not two, not three, but four other teams in the state with you. They don't represent the entire state. They don't represent the Bay Area, they don't represent San Diego County, they don't represent Sacramento. They represent greater Los Angeles and San Bernadino-Riverside, just like the Dodgers do.

The only thing they're doing wrong here is not marketing themselves as being from anywhere, and just doing this whole "The Angels" mess. Every other damn team in the league can say which city it's from; they should be no exception. Then again, like I said elsewhere, if you look at an aerial picture of Angel Stadium, it's in the middle of a parking lot the size of St. Louis, so maybe they're right in not being from a city.

[The_Admiral]

I suppose LMU beat me to it. High five, LMU.

[See Red]

Just be called the Anahiem Angles there not in L.A. so why do they need to be called the Los Angeles Angles there in Anahiem so they should be called the Anahiem Angles.  Someone should tell the owner the team city should be the one they play in.

Since you weren't around when the news broke, here's a refresher course. Saying that the team shouldn't call themselves Los Angeles because they play in Anaheim is the same as saying that the Bills should be Orchard Park instead of Buffalo, the Pistons should be Auburn Hills instead of Detroit, the Jets and Giants should be East Rutherford instead of New York, etc. Anaheim is in the LA metropolitan area, Angel games are televised on Los Angeles television stations, and to anyone in the LA area, with the exception of those in Anaheim proper with inflated egos, Anaheim is most certainly LA. The rule of thumb is that anywhere that can be reached by freeway in about a half hour is LA, and Anaheim certainly applies.

Good for the judge. About time someone realizes the meaning of contracts.

But the difference is that the city of Anaheim alone could support it's own baseball team. The same can't be said about Orchard Park or, I imagine, Auburn Hills.

[The_Admiral]

No it couldn't. Maaaaaybe Orange County, but that's a reach. Orange County is almost totally residential, isn't it?

[LMU]

No it couldn't. Maaaaaybe Orange County, but that's a reach. Orange County is almost totally residential, isn't it?

A good chunk is. All the commercial headquarters are located in Irvine (south OC). Anaheim, with the exception of the theme parks and arenas, looks identical to every other suburb in the greater LA area.

[Brian in Boston]

Saying that the team shouldn't call themselves Los Angeles because they play in Anaheim is the same as saying that the Bills should be Orchard Park instead of Buffalo, the Pistons should be Auburn Hills instead of Detroit, the Jets and Giants should be East Rutherford instead of New York, etc.

Mmmmmm... not quite.

Orchard Park, New York... 27,637 residents (2000 US Census).

Auburn Hills, Michigan... 19,837 residents.

East Rutherford, New Jersey... 8,716 residents.

Anaheim, California... 328,014 residents.

[JBPerry]

hey that's how it is here in the dfw area. The cowboys are called the Dallas Cowboys although they play in Irving. Soon, they're gonna be moving to Arlington which isn't even in Dallas County. Arlington's in Tarrant County, the Rangers play in Arlington, FC Dallas actually plays in Frisco, a suburb of Dallas. You don't hear any complaints about this.

[RickV]

I find it hard to believe that the city of Anaheim would still throw money after a cause that is obviously lost. For better or worse, it's the Los Angeles Angels.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Saying that the team shouldn't call themselves Los Angeles because they play in Anaheim is the same as saying that the Bills should be Orchard Park instead of Buffalo, the Pistons should be Auburn Hills instead of Detroit, the Jets and Giants should be East Rutherford instead of New York, etc.

Mmmmmm... not quite.

Orchard Park, New York... 27,637 residents (2000 US Census).

Auburn Hills, Michigan... 19,837 residents.

East Rutherford, New Jersey... 8,716 residents.

Anaheim, California... 328,014 residents.

Actually, lmupep's point is valid. Here's why:

Buffalo 292,648

Orchard Park 27,637

L.A. 3,690,000

Anaheim 328,014

Naming the Angels "Anaheim" is equivalent to naming the Bills "Orchard Park" or any other suburb that consists of roughly 10 percent of the population of the main city in a metro area.

No baseball team would move to a city Anaheim's size without the surrounding metro area that L.A. provides. People are saying Las Vegas is too small for MLB, so Anaheim at 328,014 is, too. Without the L.A. area, they wouldn't get it done.

[jkrdevil]

They never should have called themselves the California Angels in the first place.

Two reasons: 1. The Angels are named for the City of Angels, which is Los Angeles. 2. As I've said before, no teams should be named for their state if there are other teams in that state. (In other words, the Florida Marlins should become the Miami Marlins unless they move somewhere else.)

Well, when the Angels changed their name to California to begin with the were the only American League team in the state. That was back when the 2 leagues acted as seperate leagues with a common championship unlike today. I don't think they should have changed their name just because the A's decided to move to Oakland. I don't think they should go back becasue the have sinced changed their name. However if they would have kept California I would be alright with it.

As far as Anaheim ebing able to support a team on it's own I disagree. Like Cubsfan said there would not be a team there without Los Angeles.

[Brian in Boston]

No baseball team would move to a city Anaheim's size without the surrounding metro area that L.A. provides. People are saying Las Vegas is too small for MLB, so Anaheim at 328,014 is, too. Without the L.A. area, they wouldn't get it done.

The last time I checked, Anaheim was located in Orange County, California.

Orange County is home to 3,056,865. Those aren't people that the City or County of Los Angeles provides to the Angels' target audience... they're residents of Orange County. Therefore, the argument can be made that Orange County is providing Anaheim with a "metro area" capable of supporting a Major League Baseball team.

Incidentally, the City of Las Vegas may be larger than the City of Anaheim, but Orange County dwarfs the Las Vegas metro area by nearly a million-and-a-half people (1,305,837 to be precise). That's the reason that Anaheim/Orange County is a legitimate market for Major League Baseball and why Las Vegas, to date, is not. Hell, Orange County alone is larger than nine metro areas that currently support baseball, including Cleveland, St. Louis and Cincinnati.

Arte Moreno's desire to brand his baseball team as the "Los Angeles Angels" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Angels can survive as an Orange County-supported entity. The vast majority of asses in the seats on any given night at Angel Stadium belong to Orange County residents. That's not about to change. Arte simply thinks that by slapping the "Los Angeles" geographic indentifier on his squad he's going to be able to convince broadcast and marketing partners that his squad is a Los Angeles entity that is on equal footing with the Dodgers in the Los Angeles-proper marketplace. The reality is, that isn't going to happen... ever. We all know that the team is located in Orange County. We all know that the vast majority of the team's fan base is located in Orange County. By contrast, we all know that the vast majority of baseball fans in Los Angeles City and County proper are Dodgers fans.

Further, the whole notion that Anaheim is a suburb/"bedroom community" of Los Angeles is assenine. The number of Anaheim residents who are commuting to Los Angeles for business purposes is dwarfed by the number of Anaheim residents who are either commuting to other communities in Orange County or working in Anaheim itself. It isn't as if Anaheim or Orange County residents simply live in their city/county and are dependent upon Los Angeles for jobs, transportation, cultural attractions, etc. Orange County is self-sufficient in all of those areas.

Bottom line? Is Anaheim a smaller city than Los Angeles in population? Yes. Is Orange County a smaller county than Los Angeles County in population? Yes. Does that make Anaheim a "suburb" of Los Angeles? No. Does it mean that Anaheim isn't a self-sufficient municipality? No. It's a smaller city. Period. That doesn't mean that said smaller city - and the county in which it is located - are either beholden to a larger neighboring city/county or incapable of supporting a major professional sports franchise.