Preference on Minor League team names

[winghaz]

Could you imagine a Toledo minor league team being called anything but the Mud Hens?

[seattlefan68]

I like that all of the Mariners' minor league teams have a unique identity that fits their city. The Tacoma Rainiers make sense both because of the history behind the name (Seattle Rainiers) and the mountain nearby. The San Antonio Missions use the Alamo in their logo. The Inland Empire 66ers has to do with Route 66 going through San Bernardino (and I think it uses the fonts of the era well on its jerseys). I'm not familiar with what a TimberRattler is or if they really exist and I don't think I've heard of an AquaSock, but at least it's not Mariners.

[DrBear]

The Timber Rattlers name was chosen when the team moved out of Goodland Field and into Fox Cities Stadium. In a way it's close to what happened recently with the Milwaukee Admirals - a move to gain a younger audience, who might be more interested in snakes than Foxes. I guess it's worked. At least unlike the Admirals, the team did a good job with its logo and mascot; you've got a rattlesnake curled around a W, the team store is the Snake Pit, and so on.

The team's old name, the Appleton Foxes, was a bit of an off-fit; the team had been named the Fox Cities Foxes (including the cities around Appleton) but changed after a few years for reasons unknown. The team even had its own logo done by a local ad man who was on the team's board of directors. Here's a 1983 version showing it on a cap and jersey (looks like an old White Sox BP jersey)

[buzzcut]

To clarify, I don't think an across-the-system nickname is always the solution. For example, the Phillies name doesn't make sense in other cities. The Dodgers name doesn't even make sense in its own. But for the Braves and Cardinals, who have huge portions of the nation as their respective dominions, it works. The Braves are THE team for an entire region. Why not capitalize on that by having Braves at every level? It'd be pretty dismal to just have the same thirty names repeated over and over again, but I'll take some brand recognition here and there over the Memphis BluesDawgz or the Mississippi Meltdown.

Well at least the reason you see the Braves nickname all over is because the Braves own most of their minor league teams(Myrtle Beach is the exception). The Cards only own Palm Beach in the FSL and Johnson City in the Appalachian League.

Oh BTW, I prefer that all teams have their own unique identities.

[Gothamite]

my favorites are when they have their own identities completely but hint at affiliations through team colors or similarity in name.

I do too, although as noted it's not always very practical, as affiliations keep shifting.

[Gothamite]

I'm not familiar with what a TimberRattler is or if they really exist

It sounds like a phony "kewl" name, but it isn't.

Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)

They're even found in Wisconsin.

[JayMack23]

I'm all for originality. I'm a big fan of my cities local AAA ball club the Louisville Bats (in reference to both the animal and the Louisville Slugger bats). It's a hella popular club around here and to be honest shows a lot of individuality.

We're the Cincinnati Reds affiliate and if we were the Louisville Reds it would just make us look like a watered down Reds club instead of being it's own team that developes superstars of tomorrow for the Reds.

Thats just my take.

[Herk]

In general I perfer an independant name over the parent clubs name but I think their are a few exceptions. The Omaha Royals is a great name and in the late 1990s they changed names to the Golden Spikes for a few years which I understand Omaha has a railroad history, but thats just a bad name.

[SabreGuy]

I honestly have no problem with the way it is done now.

Some teams have their own identities, for their own reasons, and choose to use those. The Brooklyn Cyclones, Buffalo Bisons, Nashville Sounds and Altoona Curve, for example, all make sense in their own ways, be it because of some local feature, a tradition of a team with that name playing in that town for decades, or whatever. They make sense.

For some other teams, it makes more sense to closely align yourself with the big club. The Chicago Cubs have a huge following and long storied tradition, and so for the Iowa Cubs, for example, to take on that nickname makes sense, because they benefit with being associated on a daily basis with the big club. Same for the Pawtucket Red Sox, Binghampton Mets, Kinston Indians and the various and sundry Braves.

And then I also enjoy the teams that take a more round-about method of connecting with the parent club. For example the Columbus Clippers (i.e. the "Yankee Clipper"), and the Memphis Redbirds (A cardinal IS a red bird, after all).

Also, while I'm in here and talking...

what is UP with all the hatred for the Montgomery Biscuits? I freaking LOVE everything associated with that branding! The mascot is hysterical and memorable, and what in the world is more southern than freaking biscuits? I've been trying to track down a Biscuits cap all season!

Speaking of the Biscuits, it does show the major danger inherent in naming your team after the parent club, seeing as they have been the Orlando Twins, Orlando Cubs, and Orlando Rays in their past, before deciding to move the franchise, and go with a branding of their own.

[Seadragon76]

SabreGuy is dead on with the I-Cubs. Being close to Chicago makes sense with the nickname, even though it hasn't always been the Cubs. They were once the Iowa Oaks... Original nickname, complete 80's White Sox logo ripoff.

Omaha works the same way considering it's very close to Kansas City and it's parent franchise, the Royals. There were a few years were the name changed to the Golden Spikes (To honor the Transcontinetal Railroad and one of it's creators, Union Pacific, which has it's main headquarters in Omaha).

Needless to say, the fans hated the name, so they went back to being the Royals. To me, the Golden Spikes are proof that sometimes the most imaginative nickname doesn't always work out.