Could the long Orange County nightmare be coming to an end?

[sportzbro]

Why not just, "California Angels" ?

[The_Admiral]

Because California is really big and has four other teams.

[wildwing64]

I can kinda get the reasoning behind shortening it to Los Angeles Angels. That was the franchise's original name. Although not located in LA proper, the team is technically in the Greater LA Metro Area/TV Market. The team Moreno wants to take advantage of that to draw more fans in from LA.

But it's also stupid. While they're in the Greater LA market, the Angels draw primarily from Orange County. And as if the excessively long name with Los Angeles being shoehorned in wasn't bad enough, they're now going to alienate the vocal local fans even more by completely chopping Anaheim off.

Frankly, I think Anaheim Angels is the better name. Los Angeles Angels is kinda redundant. It'd be like a team calling itself the Montreal Royals or the West Ham Hammers. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is redundant, and a mouthful. Anaheim Angels has the alliteration, and it rolls off the tongue in that perfect "Needle in a haystack" sort of way. Also it doesn't piss off the local fans who you're trying to sell tickets to. It's the best option by far. And they're likely not going with it, but there we go.

[ThorSkaagi]

Why not just, "California Angels" ?

I've always thought "California" sounded awkward when used in a sports team name. Same with "Florida". I'm so glad the Marlins renamed themselves.

[smzimbabwe]

I have to think before speaking, otherwise, I'll instinctively say "California Angels". It's what I grew up with, and it was burned in my mind...

At least it's not "Golden State Angels"...

[Perfect Zero]

Y'all are way over-thinking this. Both Los Angeles and California are perfect place names for the Angels. Although a big city in its own right, Anaheim just doesn't have the right sound for a Major League team.

[Quillz]

Y'all are way over-thinking this. Both Los Angeles and California are perfect place names for the Angels. Although a big city in its own right, Anaheim just doesn't have the right sound for a Major League team.

What makes Anaheim sound any more or less "correct" than Chicago, Detroit, New York, Seattle, etc?

Anaheim may not be a top ten city in terms of population, but it's very well known within California itself and there is no reason a professional sports team couldn't use the name.

[IceCap]

Los Angeles Angels is kinda redundant. It'd be like a team calling itself the Montreal Royals...

There was a team called the Montreal Royals, for whatever it's worth.

[dbadefense1990]

The whole "let's put Los Angeles on the Angels name to make more money" plan was a stupid one to begin with. You're not going to have an easy time drawing Southland fans south of Long Beach/Norwalk/Cerritos and turn them into Angel fans. The primary market of the Angels has always been Orange County and parts of the Inland Empire (Rubidoux, Moreno Valley, Perris).

Trying to throw in "Los Angeles" on the name does a disservice to the resident fans of Anaheim and that county, as well as insinuating a flawed marketing strategy, of the people of LA County drawing to any team with "Los Angeles" on the name (especially a classic and storied team as the Dodgers are).

If Moreno is surprised his plan was a failure of laughable proportions, he shouldn't be. Remember, the change was made after the 2004 season, when both teams made the postseason together for the 1st time. Dodger fans had just come up on one of the more exciting seasons in recent memory, with the thrilling ending to the NL West race (Finley's grand slam), and their 1st postseason win since 1988 (NLDS Game 3 against St. Louis). They had also begun major renovations to Dodger Stadium, in the form of baseline seats (by dismantling the area of foul territory within the infield), and setting the current "light pastel" seat color configurations (removing dark red and orange from the stadium seats). Maybe Moreno's plan would have worked in the darkness of the McCourt (bankruptcy) era circa-2011, but not here.

[dbadefense1990]

Although a big city in its own right, Anaheim just doesn't have the right sound for a Major League team.

So does "New York," because, if we're analyzing this trivially, does that represent New York City, or the state of New York?

How about the Rangers; they're often thought of as a Dallas team, yet they play at a park in a suburb (Arlington).

[The_Admiral]

If Major League Baseball says that the Angels are the designated American League team for greater Los Angeles, which they do, then I don't see what the problem is. They're allowed to cast a wide net. Sure seems like the Angels have had a lot of money to spend since the name change.

[WSU151]

Although a big city in its own right, Anaheim just doesn't have the right sound for a Major League team.

Completely disagree. If the "Anaheim Angels" had been around since 1885 (early MLB) or more realistically 1960 (early West Coast baseball) , you wouldn't think anything of it.

[McCall]

Although a big city in its own right, Anaheim just doesn't have the right sound for a Major League team.

How about the Rangers; they're often thought of as a Dallas team, yet they play at a park in a suburb (Arlington).

You realize that argument supports making the name "Los Angeles Angels", right?

[chakfu]

I

Frankly, I think Anaheim Angels is the better name. Los Angeles Angels is kinda redundant. It'd be like a team calling itself the Montreal Royals or the West Ham Hammers.

Or Philadelphia Phillies!

[chakfu]

It is a lot different, though. Orange County's neighborhoods, on average, are much more wealthy and less diverse. Its political leanings are strongly in the opposite direction from those of LA's (which I hate). Its jobs don't come from LA, which gives it sort of a strange identity as a giant, yet economically self-sufficient piece of suburbia.

Pretty much every major city has suburbs that are wealthy, white, conservative, and relatively self-sustaining.

Are they large enough to the extent that they almost form separate identities?

That really is the question. It's almost like a Brooklyn / New York thing, that way. (I realize that Brooklyn is officially a part of NYC while Anaheim is not officially a part of L.A. But they're both part of the larger metro area and have a somewhat separate identity).

[Perfect Zero]

Although a big city in its own right, Anaheim just doesn't have the right sound for a Major League team.

Completely disagree. If the "Anaheim Angels" had been around since 1885 (early MLB) or more realistically 1960 (early West Coast baseball) , you wouldn't think anything of it.

But they haven't been that way since 1885 or 1960. They've been that way since Mickey Mouse wanted to make Anaheim more than Disneyland. The name of a large city or the state as a whole has more appeal than a suburb (well, short of Brooklyn in a kinda-sorta way).

[Old School Fool]

Angels branding is garbage as it is, no representation of where they play at all. Change it back to a city, put the damn city on the jersey and logos, and be done with it. Los Angeles, Anaheim, whatever, just fix it please.

[Silver Shamrock]

I guess I can see both sides of this argument. It brings to mind a couple of questions for me.

Supposing the Oakland A's decided to change their name to "San Francisco". Would it be perfectly within reason? They do represent the S.F. bay area in the American League. Oakland is also much closer to San Francisco than Anaheim is to L.A., and it probably would make the team more "attractive" and bring in much more revenue as a San Francisco team. Sounds great, right? However, something tells me that many Oakland fans would have a BIG problem with it

To the O.C. fans, I would remind them that the name Anaheim was never good enough for Gene Autry, and how come there was no problem in all the years that the "Los Angeles" Rams called Anaheim Stadium home?

[Still MIGHTY]

The whole "let's put Los Angeles on the Angels name to make more money" plan was a stupid one to begin with. You're not going to have an easy time drawing Southland fans south of Long Beach/Norwalk/Cerritos and turn them into Angel fans. The primary market of the Angels has always been Orange County and parts of the Inland Empire (Rubidoux, Moreno Valley, Perris).

Trying to throw in "Los Angeles" on the name does a disservice to the resident fans of Anaheim and that county, as well as insinuating a flawed marketing strategy, of the people of LA County drawing to any team with "Los Angeles" on the name (especially a classic and storied team as the Dodgers are).

If Moreno is surprised his plan was a failure of laughable proportions, he shouldn't be. Remember, the change was made after the 2004 season, when both teams made the postseason together for the 1st time, etc, etc, etc.

Hey look at that, people. Someone that's a fan from Los Angeles proper that agrees with the Orange County sentiment.

And re: changing it after the 2004 season... Also just two years after they won the World Series as the ANAHEIM Angels. It had recognition.

And people also seem to forget that the City of Anaheim wasn't the only one wanting to fight the name change. The City of Los Angeles didn't want it to happen either.

Sure seems like the Angels have had a lot of money to spend since the name change.

False cause on the money part. One does not necessarily lead to another. Arte had and has plenty of money as it is. It couldn't have had anything to do with the run of success they had between 2002 and 2009.

To the O.C. fans, I would remind them that the name Anaheim was never good enough for Gene Autry, and how come there was no problem in all the years that the "Los Angeles" Rams called Anaheim Stadium home?

Gene Autry also realized that he couldn't exactly call the team Los Angeles when he left for Anaheim either. It goes both ways.

And with the Rams, here's where the crux is, I think. The Rams chose not to change the name upon the move like Autry did. Had Autry kept the Los Angeles name like the Rams did when they moved, maybe we aren't having this discussion. Hell, actually if the Rams never left Anaheim for St. Louis we might not have this discussion either, because when renovations were made to change then Anaheim Stadium back to a baseball-specific facility, this Anaheim name clause was part of the renovation agreement between Disney, the Angels, and the City of Anaheim. Who knows if Disney ends up changing the name anyways or if they had stayed California Angels through 2002 and beyond?

And all those years that the name was California, was everyone else out there pretending they played in Los Angeles or something? They weren't being called that because they tried to cast a wide net. It's because they no longer played in Los Angeles.

Fact is, the name Anaheim has been used in some capacity by the two professional teams there for 20 years in the NHL and 17 years in MLB. (And add in the RHI, AFL, NLL teams in there as well if you'd like... Although not the new AFL team exactly, but that name is dumber on more levels than just location.) Leave it.

[Gothamite]

I know this seems to be a hard concept to grasp for you east-coasters (what with dissecting poor little New Jersey like you all do and just mushing New England together), but Los Angeles and Orange County are quite different in identity and culture.

The problem with that is that I'm actually quite familiar with Los Angeles. I lived there for six years, and have spent significant amounts of time in the city every year since 1984. But thanks for playing.

Anaheim is a suburb. Like any other. Bigger, better marketed, perhaps, but nonetheless a suburb. </Goldfinger>