Rays seem ready to dump Devil

[powersurge]

They kept aspects from the previous identity to maintain some consistency, such as the devil ray on the sleeve and of course the name Rays. Then, in a shift towards the new direction, they added a small reference to rays of sunshine and removed the team location off of the roads.

This of course has left them with two separate identities, which the organization can now test in order to gauge fan support. They were probably terrified of making a full shift to Rays (of sunshine). I mean, this is an organization that didn't pick Stingrays because they were worried about people calling them the Stinkrays.

As it stands, once the Marlins drop Florida the Rays can wait a season and become the Florida Rays (of sunshine). All they would have to do is drop the devil ray off the sleeve and put an F on the cap. Transition complete.

If they want to become the Florida Rays (animal) all they have to do is get rid of the tiny sunburst and put an F on the cap. This would give them the opportunity to say "we've always been rays of the water, etc., etc."

You actually make a pretty good point that might explain the inclusion of the two 'rays' elements. My intitial reaction to the new identity was that it was neither one thing nor the other. IOW, it seemed like it didn't completely commit to one identity and was kind of a weak compromise between the two. Time will tell with which way they plan on going. If I had to bet, I would say that they'll eventually go the solar route on this one...but I'm not a betting man so don't take me up on that bet.

[Survival79]

I'll grant you that one.

But even for the Devil Rays, this doesn't make sense. How are they supposed to test which of their two overlapping identities the fans prefer?

I have no idea. Marketing campaigns? Promotional giveaways? Introduce a secondary sun mascot named "Rayson B. Rand" and have him battle Raymond during games?

And what leads you to believe that "the organization (has a) desire for a gradual change"? Specifically the gradual part?

I think this gets at the gradual part.

They probably didn't want to have any overlap with the Florida Marlins and I would imagine they'd wait at least one season after the Florida Marlins became the Miami Marlins to become the Florida Rays.

They kept aspects from the previous identity to maintain some consistency, such as the devil ray on the sleeve and of course the name Rays. Then, in a shift towards the new direction, they added a small reference to rays of sunshine and removed the team location off of the roads.

To me this appears gradual. They didn't make a wholesale identity change, but they introduced an unneeded element for no apparent reason. Why muddy everything up? It would have made more sense to just remain Tampa Bay Rays (the animal) or make the complete switch to Tampa Bay Rays (of sunshine).

Had they made a decision and gone either way I wouldn't be speculating on them making the change to Florida Rays. But as it stands right now it just feels like unfinished business. Does it really make sense for them to have two identities if they don't plan at some point to pick one and move forward?

Then again, this is the (Devil) Rays...

[Gothamite]

I think this gets at the gradual part.

They probably didn't want to have any overlap with the Florida Marlins and I would imagine they'd wait at least one season after the Florida Marlins became the Miami Marlins to become the Florida Rays.

They kept aspects from the previous identity to maintain some consistency, such as the devil ray on the sleeve and of course the name Rays. Then, in a shift towards the new direction, they added a small reference to rays of sunshine and removed the team location off of the roads.

To me this appears gradual. They didn't make a wholesale identity change, but they introduced an unneeded element for no apparent reason. Why muddy everything up? It would have made more sense to just remain Tampa Bay Rays (the animal) or make the complete switch to Tampa Bay Rays (of sunshine).

Had they made a decision and gone either way I wouldn't be speculating on them making the change to Florida Rays. But as it stands right now it just feels like unfinished business. Does it really make sense for them to have two identities if they don't plan at some point to pick one and move forward?

Then again, this is the (Devil) Rays...

I agree that it feels like unfinished business, but I don't see any reason to believe that this is an intermediate step.

It is much easier to believe, and more logical, that they just made a bad choice, trying to straddle the fence between two identities without the courage to choose either one. Occam's razor shaves pretty close, after all.

[Survival79]

I agree that it feels like unfinished business, but I don't see any reason to believe that this is an intermediate step.

It is much easier to believe, and more logical, that they just made a bad choice, trying to straddle the fence between two identities without the courage to choose either one. Occam's razor shaves pretty close, after all.

Do I really think what I've outlined in the previous posts will occur? No, but it's fun to speculate and I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen.

Why couldn't they have just become the Tampa Bay Stingrays and made at least ONE fan happy?

[hawk36]

Rays works GREAT for me as a site I designed for a local restaurant is getting a ton of traffic now. You guess it... rays.com

[Mac the Knife]

Is there any reason they both couldn't use "Florida"? MLB doesn't have a problem with two teams using "New York" and "Los Angeles".

If they really want the name, they need only take it.

It'd be a violation of the Major League Constitution, which stipulates only one team in any given state can use a 'regional' name (e.g., California Angels, Texas Rangers, Arizona Diamondbacks, etc.)

[CC97]

Is there any reason they both couldn't use "Florida"? MLB doesn't have a problem with two teams using "New York" and "Los Angeles".

If they really want the name, they need only take it.

It'd be a violation of the Major League Constitution, which stipulates only one team in any given state can use a 'regional' name (e.g., California Angels, Texas Rangers, Arizona Diamondbacks, etc.)

The state of Florida already uses two regional names

[Gothamite]

I think what he's saying is that only one club can use a particular regional name. The Marlins and Devil Rays each use a different regional name.

I don't remember that from the ML Constitution, but I'll look it up.

[powersurge]

This is a slightly related question:

Is the New York Islander franchise named after the CITY of New York? or the State? Technically they are in Nassau, L.I. outside of the NYC limits. Of course the New York Giants and Jets are in another state all together while still being named after the city. I was just wondering if the Islanders fall in that category too.

[CC97]

This is a slightly related question:

Is the New York Islander franchise named after the CITY of New York? or the State? Technically they are in Nassau, L.I. outside of the NYC limits. Of course the New York Giants and Jets are in another state all together while still being named after the city. I was just wondering if the Islanders fall in that category too.

I've always considered the NY Islanders to be named after the state... no reason they'd show Long Island on the logo if they wanted to be associated with the city

[Gothamite]

I'd have to agree, although they want to be associated with the city in terms of media market. It's worth noting that the Islanders' logo shows Long Island except the part that is also in New York City.

I just looked through the Major League Constitution, and don't see it (it did seem kind of trivial to be included). The closest I got was this (from Art. XI, Sec. 3):

The Commissioner shall adopt a set of Major League Regulations relating to games, ballparks, uniforms and other matters...

Seems like that's where limitations on team names would be found, if they exist....

[powersurge]

I think there was a thread that briefly mentioned that the Islander logo doesn't even include the area where they play let alone the city. I found that kind of weird, but somewhat forgivable.

As for the MLB constitution...

...I tried to look for any laws or stipulations concerning the naming of teams regarding state names and came up with nothing. I can't imagine that if there were indeed laws defining the issue that they would be that stringent or specific considering the naming mess the Angels got away with.

[Gothamite]

Just checked - don't see anything in the regulations about team names. The regulations are largely about game conditions, not the manner in which franchises are run.

Any source for your claim, Mad Mac?

[ltravisjr]

This is a slightly related question:

Is the New York Islander franchise named after the CITY of New York? or the State? Technically they are in Nassau, L.I. outside of the NYC limits. Of course the New York Giants and Jets are in another state all together while still being named after the city. I was just wondering if the Islanders fall in that category too.

Well, I guess an admittedly weak argument can be made that the location name for the Yankees and Mets refer to the state rather than the city. By the way, what is the official name of the city? Is it just "New York" or is it technically "New York City"?

LT

[Gothamite]

Neither - officially, it is "The City of New York."

You could make that argument, but you're right - it's a pretty weak one.

[powersurge]

This is a slightly related question:

Is the New York Islander franchise named after the CITY of New York? or the State? Technically they are in Nassau, L.I. outside of the NYC limits. Of course the New York Giants and Jets are in another state all together while still being named after the city. I was just wondering if the Islanders fall in that category too.

Well, I guess an admittedly weak argument can be made that the location name for the Yankees and Mets refer to the state rather than the city. By the way, what is the official name of the city? Is it just "New York" or is it technically "New York City"?

LT

I highly doubt that the Yankees or Mets will ever seriously claim that their name refers to the State as well as the city. If they've done that before than it would be pretty weak. The Mets have a city skyline (not the exact NYC skyline) so its pretty obvious to most people that they play within NYC. The Yankees nickname is the Bronx Bombers...enough said about that.

[Gothamite]

True.

Plus, state boundaries mean less around here than proximity to a major city. The Yankees and Mets each represent parts of New Jersey and Connecticut far more than they do Buffalo or Rochester.

For the record, the Mets' logo is not a literal representation of the skyline, but it incorporates many real NYC buildings.

[CC97]

The Yankees and Mets each represent parts of New Jersey and Connecticut far more than they do Buffalo or Rochester.

Try telling that to all the Yankee jumpers in those parts

[Gothamite]

Well, the Yankees have bandwagon jumpers all over the country....

I was thinking more in terms of them not marketing to parts of Upstate, games not being carried there, etc.

[powersurge]

True.

Plus, state boundaries mean less around here than proximity to a major city. The Yankees and Mets each represent parts of New Jersey and Connecticut far more than they do Buffalo or Rochester.

For the record, the Mets' logo is not a literal representation of the skyline, but it incorporates many real NYC buildings.

I was kind of referring to that. I've heard that there are something like 4-5 famous landmarks in the logo.

See if I've got them down: Empire St. Building, Chrysler Building, Brooklyn Bridge....uh.....one of the old Twin Towers? (I know thats wrong)....don't know the rest.

You know in CT the line that divides Yankee/Mets nation and Red Sox nation is very defined. The Connecticut river is a good indicator. Its funny because its really obvious when you go to a sports bar how defined the fan base is.