Teams that have kept colors/names upon relocation

[TheLavisShow]

Seattle Pilots ---> Milwaukee Brewers kept a similar color scheme.

Pilots lasted only one season, hardly enough time for a city to grow an emotional attachment to the team especially in the late 60s-early 70s.

[bosrs1]

I'm just saying in the Raiders case the Bay Area had the 49ers before they came to town and LA had the Rams before they came to town. Besides the Raider Nation represents more than just a football team playing for a city, it's about a team playing for an urban and rebellious culture. Only way you can remove that is if you change the logo or colors; not city.

Ok, that makes more sense, but that's not what you said above. But nice save

[TalktoChuck]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

3 blocks from the stadium to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music.

Do people not understand that there are a lot of people in every single state that like/play Jazz music? Jazz is not strictly confined to the city limits of New Orleans.

New Orleans was/is a significant city when it comes to the birth and evolution of Jazz music, but it is hardly the only city that is significant in those respects. Chicago and New York (and you could argue for a couple more cities) both had huge impacts on how Jazz music evolved over the years. Music is universal and transparent, it doesn't belong to a specific city nor should it.

This is a little bit of a weak argument... YES of course there are Jazz clubs in Utah... that was some assumptive hyperbole by TheLavisShow. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to name the team after something that, while it EXISTS, doesn't have the historical significance to merit branding a team around.

I'm not on the "re-name the Jazz" bandwagon.. If you didn't do it 30 years ago you're not doing it now. But i still think the name makes no sense.

Having said that, I don't know how many Tigers there are in Detroit. So, sometimes it doens't have to make sense.

Tigers is a classic sports team nickname that goes way back, much like Wildcats and Bulldogs. Nicknaming a team "Jazz" on a professional level was invented in New Orleans. All I'm saying is if Utah was given an NBA franchise initially instead of New Orleans, how far down the list of nicknames would've Jazz appeared? Probably wouldn't have made the top 100 easily.

There's just zero logic in Utah Jazz. If they're basing their nickname off of Utah's jazz scene then every single NBA team would have the same base. Memphis, Portland, Sacramento, even Minneapolis probably have larger jazz scenes then the Salt Lake City metro area.

Hell why we're talking about a utopian-like world of franchises actually having relevant team nicknames why is LA still called the Lakers. Why don't Utah, LA, and Minnesota do a three-way swap of nicknames.

All-in-all I think we can agree professional franchises are a lot more lazy and stubborn when changing nickname then minor league franchises (Yakima had their baseball team move to Hillsboro, OR and now they have a completely different color scheme and nickname).

I wouldn't say lazy and stubborn. They keep the names upon relocation because the have built up a brand to go along with those names/logos/colors and a solid brand is extremely hard to cultivate. Why throw away an already established brand just because you moved 400 miles down the road?

[rams80]

All-in-all I think we can agree professional franchises are a lot more lazy and stubborn when changing nickname then minor league franchises (Yakima had their baseball team move to Hillsboro, OR and now they have a completely different color scheme and nickname).

Or they have far more national brand awareness than "random short-season low-A ballclub".

[jhans203]

I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake).

There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.

3 blocks from the stadium to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music.

Do people not understand that there are a lot of people in every single state that like/play Jazz music? Jazz is not strictly confined to the city limits of New Orleans.

New Orleans was/is a significant city when it comes to the birth and evolution of Jazz music, but it is hardly the only city that is significant in those respects. Chicago and New York (and you could argue for a couple more cities) both had huge impacts on how Jazz music evolved over the years. Music is universal and transparent, it doesn't belong to a specific city nor should it.

This is a little bit of a weak argument... YES of course there are Jazz clubs in Utah... that was some assumptive hyperbole by TheLavisShow. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to name the team after something that, while it EXISTS, doesn't have the historical significance to merit branding a team around.

I'm not on the "re-name the Jazz" bandwagon.. If you didn't do it 30 years ago you're not doing it now. But i still think the name makes no sense.

Having said that, I don't know how many Tigers there are in Detroit. So, sometimes it doens't have to make sense.

Tigers is a classic sports team nickname that goes way back, much like Wildcats and Bulldogs. Nicknaming a team "Jazz" on a professional level was invented in New Orleans. All I'm saying is if Utah was given an NBA franchise initially instead of New Orleans, how far down the list of nicknames would've Jazz appeared? Probably wouldn't have made the top 100 easily.

There's just zero logic in Utah Jazz. If they're basing their nickname off of Utah's jazz scene then every single NBA team would have the same base. Memphis, Portland, Sacramento, even Minneapolis probably have larger jazz scenes then the Salt Lake City metro area.

Hell why we're talking about a utopian-like world of franchises actually having relevant team nicknames why is LA still called the Lakers. Why don't Utah, LA, and Minnesota do a three-way swap of nicknames.

All-in-all I think we can agree professional franchises are a lot more lazy and stubborn when changing nickname then minor league franchises (Yakima had their baseball team move to Hillsboro, OR and now they have a completely different color scheme and nickname).

I wouldn't say lazy and stubborn. They keep the names upon relocation because the have built up a brand to go along with those names/logos/colors and a solid brand is extremely hard to cultivate. Why throw away an already established brand just because you moved 400 miles down the road?

Actually, in the case of the Jazz it was kind of lazy/stubborn. Some people say it was Sam Battistone's way to stick to New Orleans while others say that the Jazz just didn't have the money to get new uniforms, rebrand, etc. I could see both being true or possibly Battistone using the New Orleans excuse to mask the lack of money, etc.

Either way there was a 'Name the Team' contest ran in the Summer of '79 for the Jazz. I'm trying to find an article supporting it, but names like Thunderin' Herd, Scouts and even Stars were thrown around. I think Scouts was the top vote getter?

[OnWis97]

All-in-all I think we can agree professional franchises are a lot more lazy and stubborn when changing nickname then minor league franchises (Yakima had their baseball team move to Hillsboro, OR and now they have a completely different color scheme and nickname).

I don't think we can all agree. If you want to see some who do not agree, read the previous pages. The motivation is not laziness or stubbornness. Big League franchise have all the resources they need to do a rebrand. They keep it to keep the continuity of their franchise; perhaps they are not thinking of the populace they are leaving behind as much as they are think of themselves, but the reasons make sense.

And I am BEYOND thankful that the Cleveland Deal is not the norm. Cleveland takes a three year break when the "expansion" Ravens come in. Let's do more:

• NFL
  
  • Chicago Cardinals history is still in limbo, hoping for that second team to come in.
    
  • St. Louis Stallions (for example), expansion from 1960 to 1987, take several years off and start up again.
    
  • Currently in LA, we are waiting for the stadium to be built so the Rams can start playing again.
    
  • Baltimore Colts take more than a decade off and then start playing, primarily with players from the previous year's Browns Team!
    
  • Etc
    

  [*]MLB

  • Baltimore Orioles take a 5-decade break from the AL before starting up again in the 1950s (The Yankees started the AL for a year or two as the Baltimore Orioles)
    
  • St. Louis Browns history still in limbo waiting for that return to the AL
    
  • The Milwaukee Brewers play in the AL in 1901, then started again in 1970. (The current Orioles franchise started in Milwaukee)
    
  • Seattle Pilots played in 1969 for one year, then re-started in 1977
    
  • Etc
    

  [*]NHL

  • Minnesota North Stars halt play in 1993, sending their players to play for the Dallas Armadillos. The Franchise resumes play in 2000.
    
  • Etc
    

  [*]NBA

  • Minneapolis Lakers halt play in 1960. They resume play in 1989 (likely as the "Minnesota Lakers")
    
  • The Charlotte Hornets and NO Jazz both halt play temporarily and many other franchises (Buffalo, San Diego, Kansas City, St. Louis) are still on hiatus and will hopefully play some day, their history in limbo
    
  • etc
    

I know my above rant was more about "Cleveland Deals" than "name/logo swapping". I can live with a certain amount of name swapping (like the Brewers and Orioles examples from the deadball era). But by now, we have franchises with long histories and I'd hate to see some of them disappear forever so we can have more teams named after weather phenomena.

Actually, I prefer the above NBA scenario to the idea of doing a multi-team name swap among LA, Minnesota, Memphis, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc. now. Even if that means championship banners from the 1950s can be hung in the Target Center.

Historic lineage > revisionist history

[OnWis97]

Either way there was a 'Name the Team' contest ran in the Summer of '79 for the Jazz. I'm trying to find an article supporting it, but names like Thunderin' Herd, Scouts and even Stars were thrown around. I think Scouts was the top vote getter?

Another reason I like that the names stay. Think about some of the silly names we may have now. Magic, Wild, Thunder, and Heat are bad enough, but it would really be over-saturated if we kept needing to do this. Kudos to the Baltimore Ravens for picking a great name, but I don't know that it would go that well very often.

[kw11333]

Either way there was a 'Name the Team' contest ran in the Summer of '79 for the Jazz. I'm trying to find an article supporting it, but names like Thunderin' Herd, Scouts and even Stars were thrown around. I think Scouts was the top vote getter?

Another reason I like that the names stay. Think about some of the silly names we may have now. Magic, Wild, Thunder, and Heat are bad enough, but it would really be over-saturated if we kept needing to do this. Kudos to the Baltimore Ravens for picking a great name, but I don't know that it would go that well very often.

The art of naming a team died in the 90's/00's

[The_Admiral]

And I am BEYOND thankful that the Cleveland Deal is not the norm. Cleveland takes a three year break when the "expansion" Ravens come in. Let's do more:

No, let's not, because the suspension of the Browns' lineage was contingent on the confirmation of a forthcoming expansion team, so none of these waiting-indefinitely scenarios would happen.

[chakfu]

And I am BEYOND thankful that the Cleveland Deal is not the norm. Cleveland takes a three year break when the "expansion" Ravens come in. Let's do more:

No, let's not, because the suspension of the Browns' lineage was contingent on the confirmation of a forthcoming expansion team, so none of these waiting-indefinitely scenarios would happen.

And 3 years is barely longer than war-era hiatuses...to me the Browns deal doesn't go a whole lot further than the Steagles or the Celtics-Clippers franchise swap.

IN FACT.............the Browns deal is a lot like the Celtics-Braves/Clippers swap. Owners swap. Half the players swap. Yet no one is crying about how the current Celtics are really the Buffalo Braves and the real Celtics are now the Clippers.

Too bad the Browns couldn't keep the rights to Ray Lewis like the Celtics kept the rights to Larry Bird.

[chakfu]

Here's a nice article on the Celtics/Clippers swap.

http://assets.espn.go.com/nba/columns/hughes/1164180.html

The parallels continue. The owner of a storied, historic franchise wants to move - so he swaps for different franchise, moves to the coast, and takes a bunch of his players with him, and creates a new team identity. Sound familiar?

[Cosmic]

my little analogy that most will probably tear to shreds:

i've always said that team relocation is a bit like divorce. it's dirty and messy and leaves hurt feelings all around, but there's always a bond that connects both sides for better or worse.

the jazz franchise, for example, used to be married to the fans of new orleans. new orleans was their surname. jazz was their given name. when they divorced the city of new orleans and married the state of utah, they became the Utah Jazz. that just seems natural to me. it's still the jazz. same history. same logo. same players. same team. new life with their new hubby, if you will.

for certain sports fans to pine away for the new orleans jazz to return strikes me as a bit creepy. new orleans has a new woman now, that is its own entity. it's totally unfair to pretend that this new woman is the jazz when it's not. that chapter is over, and unless the jazz "break up" with utah and hook back up with their ex-husband in louisiana (like the raiders did), memories are all that you'll have.

This is a fun analogy. To me, it's not like a divorce. Your wife had her own history before she met you and this is just another chapter in her life. I think it's more like another family adopting your 30 year-old daughter and then you never see her again. It's still your child, still looks like you. Take the Jazz: with the colors and the name, that franchise was created with New Orleans DNA in it. Sports Franchises rise up from the city around them; they're not fully-formed and wandering around looking for a home. Before you even have a team name or colors, you hear teams referred to as (insert city name here)'s franchise. It's not "NFL Team No. 32, currently househunting in Houston." It belongs to the city. Not really, of course, but the teams certainly want fans to think that up until moving day. How many advertisements have you heard along the lines of "It's your team! Support it!"? Oh really? Is that a legally binding oral contract? I guess I would go with the girlfriend analogy if you just got the team from someone else. If the Titans moved in the next few years, it would feel more like a girlfriend getting a new boyfriend.

[TheLavisShow]

Either way there was a 'Name the Team' contest ran in the Summer of '79 for the Jazz. I'm trying to find an article supporting it, but names like Thunderin' Herd, Scouts and even Stars were thrown around. I think Scouts was the top vote getter?

Another reason I like that the names stay. Think about some of the silly names we may have now. Magic, Wild, Thunder, and Heat are bad enough, but it would really be over-saturated if we kept needing to do this. Kudos to the Baltimore Ravens for picking a great name, but I don't know that it would go that well very often.

They could've went with Bees since Utah is the Beehive State (just look at their minor league baseball team over the years). Or personally I think Chinook would've been a pretty cool name that doesn't end in a s if they wanted to go that direction.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I thought I would post in this older (but not very long) thread rather than start a new one.

I was at a Lids location here in New York City yesterday, and I was pleased to see at least five different kinds of caps for the New York Giants baseball team! There were more of those than caps for the Brooklyn Dodgers -- and this Lids was in Brooklyn.

One of the caps was one with the 1954 World Series patch:



Another was blue:

And there were yet others.

While the New York Giants as a cultural phenomenon in the City peaked in the 1890s through the 1920s, before Babe Ruth took the Yankees to cultural supremacy, and while the Giants didn't have nearly as much cultural cache as the Brooklyn Dodgers in the teams' last decade or two in New York or since their moves, the history of the team is still acknowledged. And the team itself admirably does its part.

It has already been noted that the Giants have brought their World Series trophy "home" to New York after each of their recent victories. Here's a New York fan named Slade Tufano enjoying the 2012 trophy:

Recently the New York City Parks Department finished renovation on an outdoor stairway located in a park at Coogan's Bluff near the Polo Grounds site. The stairway had been completed in 1913, and was built by New York Giants owner John T. Brush, who died a year before it was done. It was refurbished with the help of contributions from all the existing teams that had ever played at the Polo Grounds: the Yankees, the Mets, the football Giants, the Jets...and the baseball Giants!

The words of Giants president Larry Baer: "The San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants are very proud to join in the restoration of the John T. Brush Stairway. Our team remains deeply connected to our New York roots, and the stairway will forever serve as a reminder to all Giants fans of our rich history and the many Giants greats who played at the Polo Grounds."

"The San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants". Absolutely beautiful acknowledgement.

Here is the same guy after the 2010 World Championship, the first of the recent spate, as the team announced that the trophy would be visiting New York: "Toward the top of our list, after winning, was doing something for our fans in New York."

Here's Baer (on the left, along with another Giants executive, Bobby Evans, on the right) presenting a new 1954 World Series ring to Monte Irvin, whose original had been stolen:

I love this guy! He totally gets it. Big thanks to him and to the Giants.

Anyway, I wanted to share this happy discovery of New York baseball Giants caps, coming as it did right after some recent New York Giants-related news.

[Gold Pinstripes]

I thought I would post in this older (but not very long) thread rather than start a new one.

I was at a Lids location here in New York City yesterday, and I was pleased to see at least five different kinds of caps for the New York Giants baseball team! There were more of those than caps for the Brooklyn Dodgers -- and this Lids was in Brooklyn.

One of the caps was one with the 1954 World Series patch:

Another was blue:

And there were yet others.

While the New York Giants as a cultural phenomenon in the City peaked in the 1890s through the 1920s, before Babe Ruth took the Yankees to cultural supremecy, and while the Giants didn't have nearly as much cultural cache as the Brooklyn Dodgers in the teams' last decade or two in New York or since their moves, the history of the team is still acknowledged. And the team itself admirably does its part.

It has already been noted that the Giants have brought their World Series trophy "home" to New York after each of their recent victories. Here's a New York fan named Slade Tufano enjoying the 2012 trophy:

Recently the New York City Parks Department finished renovation on an outdoor stairway located in a park at Coogan's Bluff near the Polo Grounds site. The stairway had been completed in 1913, and was built by New York Giants owner John T. Brush, who died a year before it was done. It was refurbished with the help of contributions from all the existing teams that had ever played at the Polo Grounds: the Yankees, the Mets, the football Giants, the Jets...and the baseball Giants!

The words of Giants president Larry Baer: "The San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants are very proud to join in the restoration of the John T. Brush Stairway. Our team remains deeply connected to our New York roots, and the stairway will forever serve as a reminder to all Giants fans of our rich history and the many Giants greats who played at the Polo Grounds."

"The San Francisco, formerly New York, Giants". Absolutely beautiful acknowledgement.

Here is the same guy after the 2010 World Championship, the first of the recent spate, as the team announced that the trophy would be visiting New York: "Toward the top of our list, after winning, was doing something for our fans in New York."

Here's Baer (on the left, along with another Giants executive, Bobby Evans, on the right) presenting a new 1954 World Series ring to Monte Irvin, whose original had been stolen:

I love this guy! He totally gets it. Big thanks to him and to the Giants.

Anyway, I wanted to share this happy discovery of New York baseball Giants caps, coming as it did right after some recent New York Giants-related news.

What the SF Giants are doing is purely ceremonial, they ended a 50 plus year WS drought, and have a great run here in the 2010s. It's fine to acknowledge something, but keep in mind almost no one in a huge city like New York cares about the Giants anymore. The facebook page for the NY Giants preservation society has less likes than dog videos. And a microscopic number of SF fans care about the NY days. It's just the way it is. We won't be seeing a Mel Ott or Christy Matthewsen statue in San Francisco anytime soon.

[hawk36]

San Franciscan's claiming any part of the New York championships is like a second husband claiming to be part of the successes of his wife's first marriage.

[chcarlson23]

When a team moves, and keeps the name, sometimes the name doesn't matter. When it's a generic name like the A's or Cardinals. The Colts even. But other times the name greatly reflects the city and means more to one city than an other. The North Stars meant everything to Minnesota. Most people think of New Orleans when they think of Jazz... Even NYC, or CHI, but defiantly not Utah. But the team that moves takes the emotional history, stats, and stars with them. Being from Minnesota, I hate The Dallas Stars, because they ripped the History and Tradition of Minnesota Hockey, and threw it into Texas. They left the state of hockey for the state of Football. That's the feel when a team gets ripped away from a city. Yes, it's just a franchise, but the team meant so much more to the city. Not to mention the fact that the teams that moved in the NHL, went from great hockey cities and states (Minnesota-Dallas, Winnipeg-Pheonix/Arizona, Hartford-Carolina, Quebec-Colorado) to places where two decades later, some still struggle with attendance. (Pheonix/Arizona, Carolina)

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

What the SF Giants are doing is purely ceremonial, they ended a 50 plus year WS drought, and have a great run here in the 2010s. It's fine to acknowledge something, but keep in mind almost no one in a huge city like New York cares about the Giants anymore. The facebook page for the NY Giants preservation society has less likes than dog videos. And a microscopic number of SF fans care about the NY days. It's just the way it is. We won't be seeing a Mel Ott or Christy Matthewsen statue in San Francisco anytime soon.

It's not exactly ceremonial, because the team is under no obligation to do it. These acts -- the three visits with the trophy; the contribution to the Brush Stairway -- reveal that the team understands its history. That is meaningful.

And the presence of those hats in the store reveals that Lids thinks that they can sell them. That warms the heart.

As I said above, the baseball Giants stopped being a big deal in New York when Babe Ruth started hitting home runs in the Polo Grounds for the Yankees, helping them to outdraw the Giants in the Giants' own ballpark. This cheesed off the Giants so much that they kicked the Yankees out.

But in New York, which is a haven for intellectuals, the most sophisticated place on Earth, and the world's cultural capital, there are quite a few people who care about our City's history. And the Giants are an important part of that.

And clearly the Giants themselves (who do in fact recognise Mel Ott and Christy Mathewson) know this, as does at least one major sporting apparel retailer.

San Franciscan's [sic] claiming any part of the New York championships is like a second husband claiming to be part of the successes of his wife's first marriage.

Today's Giant fans have every bit as much right to revel in the team's 1954 World Championship as Yankee fans have to revel in the many titles from the Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle eras.

Note also that the Dodgers have been great in this regard, never failing to remind their fans of their 1955 World Championship in Brooklyn. Indeed, at this year's Old-Timers Day, they made special mention of the members of the 1955 team in attendance, including Don Newcombe and Roger Craig.

The point of all this (and, indeed, of this thread) is that franchises are continuous entities. And real fans of a team grasp this fact.

[IceCap]

San Franciscan's claiming any part of the New York championships is like a second husband claiming to be part of the successes of his wife's first marriage.

Please. It's the same organization! The move from New York to San Fransisco doesn't change the fact that the team still won those earlier titles.

Historical revisionists man. It's always a wild ride.

[FiddySicks]

Giants management as a whole does a fantastic job with their history (Candlestick Park and Seals Stadium days included) as well as with current day affairs. It's a pleasure rooting for a team that has it together in so many aspects management wise. Especially with how down things were before AT&T Park.

I just wish ticket prices weren't so damn expensive now. But that's to be expected, I guess.