mjrbaseball Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 If we are to go completely corporate then let's get rid of the use of the city in their names. In the corporate world there is no Redmond Microsoft, Seattle Amazon.com, or Detroit Ford. If teams want to be truly "free" and not belong to a city, then quit using the names of the cities in the name/brand. In my mind, when you tie your name to the city, benefit from that city name, you are going into a partnership with that city/region. We all can agree that the Brooklyn Nets are going to move tons of merchandise because of the Brooklyn name, not the Nets name. Hey maybe cities should start charging teams for the use of the city name. Now that would be something.Or follow the Japanese model and actually name the teams after their corporate owners. The names of the NPB teams give no indication where they play, but they do tell you who owns them. (Hanshin Tigers = Hanshin Electric Railway Co., Chunichi Dragons = Chunichi Shimbun newspaper, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrbaseball Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 oops. double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatsFan2004 Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 If we are to go completely corporate then let's get rid of the use of the city in their names. In the corporate world there is no Redmond Microsoft, Seattle Amazon.com, or Detroit Ford. If teams want to be truly "free" and not belong to a city, then quit using the names of the cities in the name/brand. In my mind, when you tie your name to the city, benefit from that city name, you are going into a partnership with that city/region. We all can agree that the Brooklyn Nets are going to move tons of merchandise because of the Brooklyn name, not the Nets name. Hey maybe cities should start charging teams for the use of the city name. Now that would be something.Or follow the Japanese model and actually name the teams after their corporate owners. The names of the NPB teams give no indication where they play, but they do tell you who owns them. (Hanshin Tigers = Hanshin Electric Railway Co., Chunichi Dragons = Chunichi Shimbun newspaper, etc.)Partially true, but even some NPB teams have their locality in their official name. For example, the Tokyo Yakult Swallows, the Hokkaido Nippon Ham Fighters, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, etc. In fact, of the 12 NPB teams, only the Dragons, Tigers, Giants and Buffaloes do not have their locality as part of their official team name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrbaseball Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 If we are to go completely corporate then let's get rid of the use of the city in their names. In the corporate world there is no Redmond Microsoft, Seattle Amazon.com, or Detroit Ford. If teams want to be truly "free" and not belong to a city, then quit using the names of the cities in the name/brand. In my mind, when you tie your name to the city, benefit from that city name, you are going into a partnership with that city/region. We all can agree that the Brooklyn Nets are going to move tons of merchandise because of the Brooklyn name, not the Nets name. Hey maybe cities should start charging teams for the use of the city name. Now that would be something.Or follow the Japanese model and actually name the teams after their corporate owners. The names of the NPB teams give no indication where they play, but they do tell you who owns them. (Hanshin Tigers = Hanshin Electric Railway Co., Chunichi Dragons = Chunichi Shimbun newspaper, etc.)Partially true, but even some NPB teams have their locality in their official name. For example, the Tokyo Yakult Swallows, the Hokkaido Nippon Ham Fighters, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, etc. In fact, of the 12 NPB teams, only the Dragons, Tigers, Giants and Buffaloes do not have their locality as part of their official team name.True. .. That is a relatively recent trend, however, perhaps influenced by the American model. I have older publications that referred to simply the Nippon Ham Fighters, Yomiyuri Giants, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 When did sponsorship naming rights start? The league didn't begin that way. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 The use of the "Established 1905" patch in 2005 is a reference to a beginning of the use of the name "Nationals". It wasn't the first of use of Nationals, so I agree that it was a ridiculous place to start.There are flags for 1924, 1925 and 1933 flying above the Nationals Park scoreboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalieboy82 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 who owns the rights to the National Association team's (pre NL league before 1876). would it be in the public domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Professional_Base_Ball_Players so long and thanks for all the fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 You mean the name and records? Depends. The Cubs still exist; they obviously own theirs. For defunct clubs, I suppose anyone could try to make a claim. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uuh70 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Sorry for being a couple posts late but I want to give my opinion on the whole Expos/Nationals debate. I have always had a mixed reception about this whole franchise moving but leaving history behind. I hate to go off the Expos topic but for example, I think of the Cleveland Browns as a second Browns , which is how I think about the two Washington Senators. They might have both been Senators but they didnt share history. (yes I know the twins didnt leave the history in washington but still you get my point) As much as they want to say its the same team, its not Josh Cribbs doesn't play for the team Jim Brown did. Thats a fact. In my opinion the team Jim Brown played for is now playing in Baltimore and wears purple and black. The Nationals are the same franchise as the Expos. They started in play in 1969 not 1905 or what ever date besides 1969 there trying to push. Its just like how it irritates me to no end when the Brewers wear Braves throwbacks or the Mariners wear Pilots throwbacks, there not the same team. Its nice how they want to honor the history of Baseball in Seattle or Washington or Milwaukee but leave the throwbacks to the teams who claim lineage to those teams. If there was ever to be a new MLB franchise in Montreal (and you never know what can happen in 15-30 years) and had somehow had been able to aquire the logos from the Nationals, they would still be the Montreal Expos and they people of Montreal would have the Expos back but it wouldn't be the same team that Vlad played for. it would just be a second version of them. And in my opinion the Nationals would still be able to honor Dawson and Carter they only difference would be a new Expos would be able to play in montreal that doesnt claim they history of the Washington Nationals but shares colors and logosSo summing up my post. I think teams should leave the logos and colors behind in the city they leave but keep the history of the franchise to the team it rightfully belongs to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.