MLB Logo&Uniform changes

[Gothamite]

Anaheim feels, as you say, that they're better than the rest of LA. Fair enough. But LA gets all the attention, and that's where the inferiority complex comes in.

I've lived in LA, I've lived in OC, and the inferiority complex is massive. That's one of the reasons for the Orange Curtain, after all, the "we're not Los Angeles" mantra. The other is racism, we're whiter than them, which in fairness seems to have greatly diminished in the twenty-odd years since I started spending time in La-La-Land.

But whatever the motivation, the inferiority complex remains. It's why they're so insistent on the branding.

[The_Admiral]

Anaheim is little more than a synecdoche for Disneyland to the rest of the country, who couldn't give the slightest damn about insecure middle-class white people who need to stress that they're not from South Central or whatever their hangup is. I'm sure this plays a big part in the Disney-owned Anaheim teams being from Anaheim while the Rams were fine being the Los Angeles Rams in the suburbs.

[poser]

I'm sure that doesn't preclude their interest in the Giants and 49ers. What's your point. Nobody cares about San Jose. It's Schaumburg with palm trees.

Those teams play in San Francisco. I was born and raised in San Jose and I agree it sucks but why would the Sharks just randomly start calling themselves San Francisco Sharks? They never played a game in San Francisco, the San Francisco /Oakland /California never played a game in San Francisco. The San Francisco Spiders never played a game in San Francisco. San Francisco has no hockey history, it would not make any sense.

[The_Admiral]

It might not be so random. Maybe they'll move to or closer to San Francisco when the Warriors need to get out of their dumpy arena. The Shark Tank's not exactly a top-notch facility itself. It's like Joe Louis Junior.

[IceCap]

Anaheim is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Committing to the Los Angeles moniker would be expressing pride in where they play. There's pride to be had in representing the second largest city in the United States. Not so much in representing a suburb of that city though.

The greater Metropolitan area of LA is way bigger than that. Basically LA stretches from Ventura county, LA County, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County. But all of those areas are nothing alike and have their own unique identities. Not to mention the fact there are as far apart as 125 miles from each other. So what you said is actually way, way off.

No, I'm not. When your "unique identity" is based around the mantra "we're not _________" you don't have a unique identity. Anaheim is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Teams playing in Anaheim using the Los Anegeles name is more then acceptable and should be encouraged. No one seemed to mind the Rams using the Los Angeles name when they played in Anaheim. If the Ducks and Angels fully embraced the Los Angeles identity the Orange County zealots would complain for a while, but would get over it in due time.

Fact is that you should use a major metropolitan area's name if your team plays in the suburbs of that city. No one outside of Orange County cares about Anaheim's "unique identity." To everyone else it's just part of Los Angeles.

[Still MIGHTY]

This argument seems to stem up in every MLB thread each year.

Those who have been here a long enough time know my opinion on it. But of course living behind the "Orange Curtain," my opinion tends to be nullified, and even when others that live in SoCal/LA/OC go ahead and back it up, it doesn't matter. Because apparently, the rest of the country and continent knows SoCal better than the actual residents do.

I'll tangentially relate this to something that the admiral and others have proposed about cities outside of the Northeastern/Great Lakes corridor. SoCal's layout is based on car travel. It isn't unified by a train system, or subway system, or bus system, or what have you. People drive everywhere in a large sprawling population. The lack of a physical connection outside of the freeways spreads everyone that much further and creates the divisions that the people living here see and will back up.

Really, at this point, I'm over the name. It's just something I'm numb to as an Angels fan. Like I said earlier, the only time this is ever brought up is by people trying to start something over it, and really, it's not our fault. We didn't get to choose the name. Arte Moreno wanted the name. And even when people bring it up, yeah it's a stupid naming convention. I get it. And when Arte saw what it said in the contract, he could have left it as Anaheim Angels, but he was determined, so now we have this nonsense.

And really, if the Angels had kept themselves as the LA Angels for the entirety of their existence, then there probably wouldn't be a problem with it. (But also, who's to say that Disney still doesn't pull out the Anaheim name for their own marketing purposes anyways.) Had the Sharks been created as the San Francisco Sharks, maybe we just wouldn't care, or maybe the people in the Bay Area would care.

But then again, there is also the aspect that the people that brought the teams into these places knew the people and understood that aligning with the closest metro hub wasn't the best idea and went with the California Angels and San Jose Sharks.

Also those using the LA Rams in the suburbs thing, that's not a comparable argument to the Angels. The Rams had been in LA for 36 years. The Rams were LA. Moving them anywhere in SoCal except San Diego wasn't really going to change that. Then sure, there was the original PCL Angels that had been around since 1903. But they were basically bought, eliminated, and absorbed into the LA Dodgers in 1957. Hell, the Dodgers even took their interlocking "LA" and made it their own. Those Angels had almost no connection to the 1961 AL incarnation of the team except for the name and a few players. This new AL Angels were only in LA at Wrigley Field/Chavez Ravine for 4 years. Not really something to get attached to. Then Gene Autry renamed the team for the move OUT of LA and IN to Anaheim.

[Still MIGHTY]

Anaheim is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Committing to the Los Angeles moniker would be expressing pride in where they play. There's pride to be had in representing the second largest city in the United States. Not so much in representing a suburb of that city though.

The greater Metropolitan area of LA is way bigger than that. Basically LA stretches from Ventura county, LA County, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County. But all of those areas are nothing alike and have their own unique identities. Not to mention the fact there are as far apart as 125 miles from each other. So what you said is actually way, way off.

No, I'm not. When your "unique identity" is based around the mantra "we're not _________" you don't have a unique identity. Anaheim is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Teams playing in Anaheim using the Los Anegeles name is more then acceptable and should be encouraged. No one seemed to mind the Rams using the Los Angeles name when they played in Anaheim. If the Ducks and Angels fully embraced the Los Angeles identity the Orange County zealots would complain for a while, but would get over it in due time.

Fact is that you should use a major metropolitan area's name if your team plays in the suburbs of that city. No one outside of Orange County cares about Anaheim's "unique identity." To everyone else it's just part of Los Angeles.

Then what the hell is the point of the local team and fans?

The Angels should be catering to their own fans, not to the general baseball public. That's what got us this stupid naming convention in the first place.

[IceCap]

This argument seems to stem up in every MLB thread each year.

Those who have been here a long enough time know my opinion on it. But of course living behind the "Orange Curtain," my opinion tends to be nullified, and even when others that live in SoCal/LA/OC go ahead and back it up, it doesn't matter. Because apparently, the rest of the country and continent knows SoCal better than the actual residents do.

I'll tangentially relate this to something that the admiral and others have proposed about cities outside of the Northeastern/Great Lakes corridor. SoCal's layout is based on car travel. It isn't unified by a train system, or subway system, or bus system, or what have you. People drive everywhere in a large sprawling population. The lack of a physical connection outside of the freeways spreads everyone that much further and creates the divisions that the people living here see and will back up.

Really, at this point, I'm over the name. It's just something I'm numb to as an Angels fan. Like I said earlier, the only time this is ever brought up is by people trying to start something over it, and really, it's not our fault. We didn't get to choose the name. Arte Moreno wanted the name. And even when people bring it up, yeah it's a stupid naming convention. I get it. And when Arte saw what it said in the contract, he could have left it as Anaheim Angels, but he was determined, so now we have this nonsense.

And really, if the Angels had kept themselves as the LA Angels for the entirety of their existence, then there probably wouldn't be a problem with it. (But also, who's to say that Disney still doesn't pull out the Anaheim name for their own marketing purposes anyways.) Had the Sharks been created as the San Francisco Sharks, maybe we just wouldn't care, or maybe the people in the Bay Area would care.

But then again, there is also the aspect that the people that brought the teams into these places knew the people and understood that aligning with the closest metro hub wasn't the best idea and went with the California Angels and San Jose Sharks.

Also those using the LA Rams in the suburbs thing, that's not a comparable argument to the Angels. The Rams had been in LA for 36 years. The Rams were LA. Moving them anywhere in SoCal except San Diego wasn't really going to change that. Then sure, there was the original PCL Angels that had been around since 1903. But they were basically bought, eliminated, and absorbed into the LA Dodgers in 1957. Hell, the Dodgers even took their interlocking "LA" and made it their own. Those Angels had almost no connection to the 1961 AL incarnation of the team except for the name and a few players. This new AL Angels were only in LA at Wrigley Field/Chavez Ravine for 4 years. Not really something to get attached to. Then Gene Autry renamed the team for the move OUT of LA and IN to Anaheim.

Hypothetically speaking, no one would consider "Anaheim" a viable naming convention if the Mighty Ducks hadn't gone with it in 1993. Had they been born as the Los Angeles Mighty Ducks or the Mighty Ducks of Los Angeles no one would think twice about teams in Anaheim using the Los Angeles name. Fact is the Rams managed to do it a decade before the Ducks came into existence without anyone thinking twice about it.

Am I claiming to know Orange County better then people from it? No. As an outside observer who has no dog in whatever culture war is going on, however, I feel that my opinion carries some weight as it's not tied in with any emotions that people from the area happen to have. As an outsider looking in I see a smaller city that exists on the outskirts of a larger city. The smaller city owes its development to the larger city and the media outlets from the larger city have coverage in the smaller city. All of this indicates that the smaller city is part of the larger city's market. I'm sure Anaheim is a great place to live, and I'm not trying to demean it as a community. I'm just saying that from where I stand it seems pretty clear that it's part of the greater Los Angeles metro area.

Anaheim is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Committing to the Los Angeles moniker would be expressing pride in where they play. There's pride to be had in representing the second largest city in the United States. Not so much in representing a suburb of that city though.

The greater Metropolitan area of LA is way bigger than that. Basically LA stretches from Ventura county, LA County, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County. But all of those areas are nothing alike and have their own unique identities. Not to mention the fact there are as far apart as 125 miles from each other. So what you said is actually way, way off.

No, I'm not. When your "unique identity" is based around the mantra "we're not _________" you don't have a unique identity. Anaheim is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Teams playing in Anaheim using the Los Anegeles name is more then acceptable and should be encouraged. No one seemed to mind the Rams using the Los Angeles name when they played in Anaheim. If the Ducks and Angels fully embraced the Los Angeles identity the Orange County zealots would complain for a while, but would get over it in due time.

Fact is that you should use a major metropolitan area's name if your team plays in the suburbs of that city. No one outside of Orange County cares about Anaheim's "unique identity." To everyone else it's just part of Los Angeles.

Then what the hell is the point of the local team and fans?

The team's locale is part of the Los Angeles metro area. Using the Los Angeles name is appealing to the local fans from where I'm sitting.

The Angels should be catering to their own fans, not to the general baseball public. That's what got us this stupid naming convention in the first place.

This would make sense if fan support for the Angels had dipped after they embraced the Los Angeles moniker. In fact the opposite has happened. Hasn't attendance increased since the name change? Angels coverage has increased within Los Angeles since the name change as well. All in all embracing the Los Angeles name doesn't seem to have hurt them. They've increased their relevance within Los Angeles and the majority of Orange County fans don't seem to mind. So outside of a small yet loud group of Orange County zealots, who's losing out?

Once the contract with the city of Anaheim expires they'll quietly become the Los Angeles Angels, the stupid naming convention will be gone, and everyone, save for the aforementioned Orange County zealots, will move on.

[Still MIGHTY]

I'm not even getting into the actual LA/OC divide argument on these boards or with you again. That path has been tread one too many times, really. No one is going to budge or get on the other side of it.

This would make sense if fan support for the Angels had dipped after they embraced the Los Angeles moniker. In fact the opposite has happened. Hasn't attendance increased since the name change? Angels coverage has increased within Los Angeles since the name change as well. All in all embracing the Los Angeles name doesn't seem to have hurt them. They've increased their relevance within Los Angeles and the majority of Orange County fans don't seem to mind. So outside of a small yet loud group of Orange County zealots, who's losing out?

Once the contract with the city of Anaheim expires they'll quietly become the Los Angeles Angels, the stupid naming convention will be gone, and everyone, save for the aforementioned Orange County zealots, will move on.

Strangely enough, that also coincides with some of the best on-field years the Angels have ever had.

Attendance increased because the team got better. Coverage increased because the team got better.

In the entire time that they were the Anaheim Angels, they sucked for all but one year. 2002 was the one good year they had and it gave them a World Series title. Aren't you the one that advocates a team sticking with what gave them a championship?

Anyways, I don't think the name change had anything to do with the team getting better. Sure, it gave Arte Moreno some more money, but Arte was spending money to make the team better either way. And really, I think the indifference to the name change comes from there being a good on field product. Had the Angels been bad right after the change, then I think there would have been more fire (irrational or not) directed at Arte and the LAoA thing.

[poser]

It might not be so random. Maybe they'll move to or closer to San Francisco when the Warriors need to get out of their dumpy arena. The Shark Tank's not exactly a top-notch facility itself. It's like Joe Louis Junior.

Arena originally planned as a multipurpose arena before being modified mostly for hockey. It suffers the same problems as US Cellular Field as it was 2-3 years too early but its not that bad. The Sharks wont leave San Jose, way too much corporate money.

[FiddySicks]

It might not be so random. Maybe they'll move to or closer to San Francisco when the Warriors need to get out of their dumpy arena. The Shark Tank's not exactly a top-notch facility itself. It's like Joe Louis Junior.

Why in the world would they? Their arena isn't dumpy, it's actually pretty nice in comparison to a lot of arenas I've been to. Plus they've got a huge fan base in the South Bay area. Moving north would alienate a big chunk of Sharks fans, not because of a pride issue, but because public transportation in between San Francisco and San Jose isn't like it is between San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area. In fact it's kind of awful. Plus, although San Jose isn't the wonderland San Francisco is, it's still the biggest city in the Bay Area with almost 200,000 more people than San Francisco.

[The_Admiral]

I don't know, that place looks pretty awful in any photos or telecasts. Looks like an oversized AHL building. So does Nashville, by the way.

This whole arena situation should've been coordinated long ago with the Warriors and Sharks teaming up for a new arena rather than jury-rigging the Oakland Arena into extended service and flinging the Sharks out to a suburb. Should've just built over the Cow Palace.

[loogodude90]

But what's wrong with Oracle Arena? It looks pretty nice on TV to me. I honestly thought it had just opened in the late '90s (I thought "The New Arena" actually was a new arena), and I was shocked to find out that it's been around since the '60s. They've done a good job maintaining/restoring it.

[Gothamite]

Really, at this point, I'm over the name. It's just something I'm numb to as an Angels fan. Like I said earlier, the only time this is ever brought up is by people trying to start something over it, and really, it's not our fault. We didn't get to choose the name. Arte Moreno wanted the name. And even when people bring it up, yeah it's a stupid naming convention. I get it. And when Arte saw what it said in the contract, he could have left it as Anaheim Angels, but he was determined, so now we have this nonsense.

Sure, Moreno could have left it as Anaheim Angels.

But as you say, he was determined. Determined to bring in as much revenue as possible to the club, and playing the insecure "Anaheim is in no way LA" card was hurting that. Moreno being one of those owners who actually puts the money back into the club, boosting them to the top tier of spending almost as soon as he took over and keeping them there every year, increasing club revenue is a good thing.

No, the blame for the awkward name falls squarely with Anaheim's city fathers. First of all, for approving a very sloppy contract which allowed for such a compromise, and second for holding Moreno to the letter of that contract once it was clear they lost the greater battle.

[DarthBrett]

So Ice Cap, this means you should accept the notion that you are from Toronto, not London then. By your logic it's the same.

And I am not even from Orange County, but living here all of my life I also can see and appreciate that the different counties and cities here are sometimes completely different, culturally, economically and in many other social aspects.

And attendance spiked almost 10 years before they changed their name. The stadium being renovated in '98 was actually the biggest spike in attendance, as it actually went up almost a full million the year it was re-opened. Attendance spiked again by almost a million after they won the WS. They won the WS in '02 and continually won the AL West or WC as the Anaheim Angels and attendance has spiked since. The team's success on the field had everything to do with it and the name change had nothing to do with it. Their attendance has actually fluctuated between '02 - '09 and it's always within 250,000.

[IceCap]

In the entire time that they were the Anaheim Angels, they sucked for all but one year. 2002 was the one good year they had and it gave them a World Series title. Aren't you the one that advocates a team sticking with what gave them a championship?

Which is why I think they should stick with their current uniforms for the foreseeable future.

Anaheim Angels is a better name then California Angels, but I don't see how the Anaheim name is preferable to the name of the gigantic metropolitan area that Anaheim is apart of.

[ARTnSocal]

One of the better MLB jersey choices I chose to purchase over the years

[IceCap]

So Ice Cap, this means you should accept the notion that you are from Toronto, not London then. By your logic it's the same.

No, not really. London's metro area is completely separate from Toronto's, economically speaking. It's its own metro area. Anaheim is very much integrated into the Los Angeles media market and metro area. Your analogy is a poor one.

And attendance spiked almost 10 years before they changed their name. The stadium being renovated in '98 was actually the biggest spike in attendance, as it actually went up almost a full million the year it was re-opened. Attendance spiked again by almost a million after they won the WS. They won the WS in '02 and continually won the AL West or WC as the Anaheim Angels and attendance has spiked since. The team's success on the field had everything to do with it and the name change had nothing to do with it. Their attendance has actually fluctuated between '02 - '09 and it's always within 250,000.

Point being that fans would have abandoned the team if the Los Angeles name was oh so offensive to the good people of Anaheim. That is not the case, leading me to believe that the people trying to play up Anaheim as being distinct from Los Angeles are a small, vocal minority. Using the LA name doesn't seem to bother the majority of the Angels' Orange County-based patrons.

[Ryoma]

The Cubs ASG representatives are wearing the Ron Santo memorial patch above the Cubs logo tonight:

[saturn93]

The Cubs ASG representatives are wearing the Ron Santo memorial patch above the Cubs logo tonight:

Just saw this on Sportscenter, the same for the Dodgers and Pirates, so it looks like all that have memorial patches have been moved to the chest area.