Jump to content

Marlins to change name to Miami


simpsontide

Recommended Posts

According to "Back To The Future II" there is a Miami team, who the Cubs beat in the 2015 World Series. So re-alignment can't be too far off..

I was thinking about the same thing. Miami's mascot in 2015 looked like a Marlin too.

Actually the mascot for Miami in Back to the Future II was a gator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This means the NHL's Panthers are the only major-league club left in that market that are still called "Florida".

I'm guessing that within a few years they too will change their name from Florida... not to Miami, but to Kansas City, Houston, Seattle or Las Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Texas Rangers? That fits rather well with the law enforcement agency.

That's the one that works best to my mind.

But the Rocky Mountains exist in more than just Denver, though.

Heck, they exist in more than just Colorado, for that matter. Only a relatively small stretch of the Rockies lie within the square borders of the Centennial State.

Count the Dbacks in on this state debate...Arizona Diamondbacks sounds a thousand times better than the Phoenix Diamondbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the rocky mountains actually lie west of denver, as denver itself lies on a plain. :D

I can certainly vouch for that, since I JUST walked back from my back deck from lookin' at 'em.

:P

Yeah, there's a great view from all over here.

(Hi from downtown Denver. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "rule" should be that the team has to take the name of its city unless it's in a state where it's obvious there would only be the one team in that league. Take the Twins. Duluth isn't getting a team, so Minnesota Twins works. Take the Rangers. Houston has a team that predates the Rangers moving to the Metroplex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Texas Rangers? That fits rather well with the law enforcement agency.

That's the one that works best to my mind.

But the Rocky Mountains exist in more than just Denver, though.

Heck, they exist in more than just Colorado, for that matter. Only a relatively small stretch of the Rockies lie within the square borders of the Centennial State.

Count the Dbacks in on this state debate...Arizona Diamondbacks sounds a thousand times better than the Phoenix Diamondbacks.

Only because you're used to it. IMO Phoenix Diamondbacks sounds much better (despite the fact that "Diamondbacks" is a pretty terrible name for a big-league team in my opinion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes you have to take the meaning of the name into consideration. The Florida Panthers for example, are named after the endangered species "florida panther". They're not "Miami panthers".

And in regards to Phoenix-area teams, one thing I've noticed is that there is a LOT of rivalry between the various communities down there. People who live in Chandler, Tempe, Glendale, Mesa, etc. don't like to be called "Phoenix" residents. This is the main driving force behind the Cardinals changing their name from "Phoenix Cardinals" to "Arizona Cardinals" in 1994. They felt that they were alienating fans in other Arizona cities (especially in Tucson). I'm just surprised that the Coyotes never followed suit after moving to Glendale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you doing here in Denver, Mockba?

I'm here for a bowling tournament. Well, ok, it's a party with some bowling involved. :) But, I've got a good chance of winning money, after putting up matching 617 series in singles and doubles yesterday.

I'm here through Monday night. Planning to go to the Rapids game Saturday night and the Rockies game (vs the Cards) on Monday afternoon.

</threadjack>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A name change (which I assume would have to occur after the 2008 season) would be a great time for the Marlins to make some uniform tweaks. This is probably the best Marlins set I've seen. I don't remember whose concept it was, so please come take credit for it.

miamimarlinsuh1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A name change (which I assume would have to occur after the 2008 season) would be a great time for the Marlins to make some uniform tweaks. This is probably the best Marlins set I've seen. I don't remember whose concept it was, so please come take credit for it.

miamimarlinsuh1.png

Those are sweet, but I don't think they'd revert back to all that teal from before the update in 2003. It's the same as it was originally, except with the M and Miami. Plus, there's been the talk of adding in more orange to kinda phase out the teal, so who knows what's in store for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know....the big fish looks like it is wedged between the two points of the M, rather than leaping through it--which, I assume, is the image they're trying to create.

I don't think the marlin looks good on the F either. Alone, it would be okay, though too detailed for a cap logo, in my opinion. The M alone would look okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Marlins, I've now heard three things, all three of which it seems to me cannot be true:

1. The Marlins will be dropping teal in favor of orange in 2008.

2. MLB disallows major team identity changes more frequently than once every three years.

3. The Marlins will change their name to Miami in 2009.

Probably the dates of these predictions are off, but they cannot all be true exactly as I've heard them.

I wonder to what extent the Marlins' changes are being done in even casual coordination (or competition!) with Tampa Bay.

I like the name change, though. I always prefer new big-league teams to stick as closely to the identities of long-established minor league teams they're succeeding.

On the state/city thing, it just depends. I prefer city names, too. But in some cases it just can't work. Minneapolis-St. Paul Twins? Is that a joke? Nobody would use that name. Just ask the StarTribune ("newspaper of the Twin Cities"!) whether people are willing to put up with that kind of hyphenated local name nonsense. Minnesota has a much stronger sense of local identity than most states, and it's a state identity. Ask someone from most states where he lives, and he'll usually say, "I'm from Ohio." Ask a Minnesotan, and you'll be much more likely to hear, "I'm a Minnesotan." That's an important distinction (it's also true of Texans).

With Arizona and Colorado, I'm happy to defer to those who know local attitudes. Arizona in particular seems to make sense; is Tempe or Flagstaff in line to get a big-league team? For Colorado, I could actually see Denver being a more popular regional name, at least across the northern Plains, from the Black Hills through the ranching country into Idaho. Out on the Plains, a lot of folks are proud of the states they live in but look to Denver as a sort of cultural and economic capital. But maybe the Denver Rockies would alienate important fan bases in, say, southern Colorado.

I'm willing to make an exception for the Texas Rangers, because it's such a cool name, but generally I don't like when a team that doesn't have a state to itself uses the state name. And this goes for "soft" state names like the Golden State Warriors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of state names either. And, especially dislike names that aren't from the city the team plays in (ie. New York Jets, Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Detriot Pistons, etc.)

If teams are really wanting to be all inclulsive, I'd rather they just drop the city/state name altogether. The Marlins (sans city/state) could represent those all over the Southeast who don't have a team including Alabama, Louisiana, etc. As well the Twins (sans city/state) could represent not only Minnesota but the Dakotas, Nebraska, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of state names either. And, especially dislike names that aren't from the city the team plays in (ie. New York Jets, Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Detriot Pistons, etc.)

If teams are really wanting to be all inclulsive, I'd rather they just drop the city/state name altogether. The Marlins (sans city/state) could represent those all over the Southeast who don't have a team including Alabama, Louisiana, etc. As well the Twins (sans city/state) could represent not only Minnesota but the Dakotas, Nebraska, etc.

But teams, for the most part, aren't trying to be all-inclusive. Especially in this day of free agent movement, most teams try to build some kind of local/regional pride in their brand so they can have some kind of consistent identity. Having a team just be "The Marlins" would be lame.

(and yes, I'm aware that Al Davis likes to call his team "The Raiders", but that's a case of an extremely strong, nationally-recognized brand, so he can get away with it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying about the whole city name thing, but it is a product of the times. More and more people moved out to the suburbs and away from the city in the last couple of decades. It was also natural to place stadiums in rural areas because of the traffic issues, cost of land, and space. Its tougher and much more expensive to clear out a block in the center of Detroit for example as opposed to Auburn Hills in the early 90's. Not to mention, there were people who didn't feel as safe spending the night out at a ballgame in a crime riden city. Thank God thats changing with the constuction of Ford Field and Comerica. Hopefully the next Piston's arena will be somewhere inside the city limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of state names either. And, especially dislike names that aren't from the city the team plays in (ie. New York Jets, Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Detriot Pistons, etc.)

If teams are really wanting to be all inclulsive, I'd rather they just drop the city/state name altogether. The Marlins (sans city/state) could represent those all over the Southeast who don't have a team including Alabama, Louisiana, etc. As well the Twins (sans city/state) could represent not only Minnesota but the Dakotas, Nebraska, etc.

Just "Marlins" represents a fish... you need to have a location nickname or else it's like a Little League, wheree everybody plays on one field, they just have one generic uniform with the names interchanged.

Also, if you only have a nickname, it has no representation of any city/state anywhere because it has no city/state in the name. And it would especially make no sense with a team who has a regionalized nickname, such as the Twins, Astros, or Yankees, who I'm fairly certain wouldn't be very representative of a city in the south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of state names either. And, especially dislike names that aren't from the city the team plays in (ie. New York Jets, Giants, Dallas Cowboys, Detriot Pistons, etc.)

Well lets be honest here. Do you really think the Pistons would go by the Auburn Hills Pistons? If it weren't for Detroit existing, these suburbs where teams play in wouldn't exist either. You go with the big city name, so what if you're not technically within the city limits. Irving (or soon Arlington) Cowboys? Please. East Rutherford Giants/Jets? I don't think so. (And when the Jets/Giants began play, they both actually played in NYC--at the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium respectively). You go with the big city that anchors the market or the state name, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.