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

[Gothamite]

Now that I've thought about it, OC was going to lose the name one way or the other. Either it was going to happen this way but they get to keep the team and get yet another update to Angel Stadium, or they were actually going to lose the team to LA proper. Either way the LA name was coming back alone.

We said this when the change was first announced. The name they use now has never been more than an unwelcome compromise to fulfill contractual obligations.

They've been the "Los Angeles Angels" since 2005. The team just had to ride out the naming agreement with Anaheim until it could drop any pretense to the contrary.

[guest23]

Actually many large companies have HQ in San Jose proper including Cisco, Sanminia, and eBay on the Fortune 500, not to mention a number on the Fortune 1000 list such as Adobe, Knight-Ridder, Atmel, and Brocade. Plus while San Jose might be a bedroom community in parts, those people typically just commute to other parts of San Jose or its neighboring suburban cities like Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Milpitas or Sunnyvale. In fact there was a study done by the San Jose Mercury News a few years back that highlighted the fact that more people commute out of SF for work than in and vice versa for San Jose.

Thanks for the clarification. I forgot about cisco and ebay but didn't k-r get acquired by mcclatchy years ago? You are also very correct on the commute patterns which are nearly as bad LA where everybody commutes in every single direction as the large employers are scattered throughout the valley.

[rams80]

My 0.02$.

The Angels play in Anaheim so they should be called Anaheim because Anaheim is a big enough city and it is a well known city. (It's not an Orchard Park-Buffalo Bills type deal)

To my knowledge Anaheim isn't an actual suburb of LA, it may be a "spiritual" suburb however.

If they played in LA (or Burbank or Pasadena or wherever in LA County) then call them Los Angeles.

Using Anaheim as a geographical identifer doesn't bother the Ducks.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

Anaheim grew by more than 600% in the 1950s. You're a flippin' suburb. Your city does not exist if not for the wave of suburbanization from Los Angeles' sprawl.

[MadmanLA]

I just love this conversation, and I had no idea about the Angels' recent lease situation until I saw it on the news last night. Personally, I feel a little indifferent to the name designation to begin with...I've always simply called them the Angels, regardless of "California", "Anaheim", or "Los Angeles of Anaheim". For all intents and purposes, they've always been Los Angeles' American League team, but just happen play in a suburban county about 30 miles from the epicenter of the metro area. They only ended up in Orange County in the first place because Gene Autry couldn't find a suitable home elsewhere in Los Angeles City/County. However, they've been in Anaheim for 47 years, and have been quite successful and popular in and around in Orange County...why rock the boat?

As Brian mentioned earlier, Long Beach was one of the locations being sought out way-back when, but I've heard about possibly on the L.A. Westside or even the San Fernando Valley at one point. There was even a year or two ago that Arte Moreno and Ed Roski were talking about building a new ballpark right where Roski wanted to build his NFL stadium in the City of Industry. Looking at Moreno's motivation, I still think by chance that the Halos will cross the county line in a matter of years if things break down with the city of Anaheim. He's got that Fox Sports TV money coming in for seventeen more years after this season (at about $150 million per, plus 20-percent equity in Fox Sports West), and he sees having a L.A. address as a goldmine--he'll never get what the Dodgers are about to get from Time Warner Cable starting next year in terms of broadcasting rights, but he wants to come pretty damn close.

[Still MIGHTY]

Arte sure does have a ing ego. That's no doubt.

[swilson160]

Calling them LA doesn't make them an LA team. Most baseball fans in LA county are Dodger fans. Most Angel fans are in OC, not LA. There isn't a ton of crossover--the fan bases are clearly distinct. Their fan base is not in LA. They don't play in in LA city. They don't play in LA county. They don't represent LA--even the LA city council was against the name change to LA of A in 2005. If they won the title, the parade wouldn't be in LA. They aren't an LA team no matter what you call them. So they should not be called LA.

Call them Anaheim. Call them Orange County. Call them Garden Grove. Just call them something that describes who the team actually represents.

[The_Admiral]

Los Angeles sure is okay when it's the Lakers. Or is that just "settling for the team closest to us"?

[ninersdd]

Arte sure does have a ing ego. That's no doubt.

He's a Wildcat, so of course you wouldn't like him.

In all seriousness it's makes no sense to really alienate Orange County, which has 3 million people, and is affulent. I could understand if Anaheim was a shrinking dump like Oakland, but its not. Obviously Anaheim and the OC has grown fairly recently, and would Anaheim even be somewhat known if it weren't for Mickey Mouse?

[Still MIGHTY]

Los Angeles sure is okay when it's the Lakers. Or is that just "settling for the team closest to us"?

That's exactly what that is. If the Clippers had moved to Anaheim in the 90s, I'd probably have been a Clipper fan.

(Although, since the Lakers were demonstratively better than the Clippers until the last two seasons, maybe not. My formative years of basketball watching were the Lakers winning 3 straight titles, so who knows.)

He's a Wildcat, so of course you wouldn't like him.

Sure doesn't help his cause

[dbadefense1990]

And to think, Arte Moreno thought his whole "lowering the beer prices" act would evade us from his attitude towards the Angels over these years.

[dbadefense1990]

My 0.02$.

The Angels play in Anaheim so they should be called Anaheim because Anaheim is a big enough city and it is a well known city. (It's not an Orchard Park-Buffalo Bills type deal)

To my knowledge Anaheim isn't an actual suburb of LA, it may be a "spiritual" suburb however.

If they played in LA (or Burbank or Pasadena or wherever in LA County) then call them Los Angeles.

Using Anaheim as a geographical identifer doesn't bother the Ducks.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

Anaheim grew by more than 600% in the 1950s. You're a flippin' suburb. Your city does not exist if not for the wave of suburbanization from Los Angeles' sprawl.

No city outside the limits of Los Angeles would have existed if it weren't for that sprawl. Going off-tangent here, if anyone wants a case-in-point of a nightmarish blend of overpopulation, poor planning and environmental consequences, head to Los Angeles.

Or Las Vegas.

Or Phoenix.

Or Mexico City.

[ohryan]

So does this mean the Ducks will soon become the Los Angeles Ducks?

[FiddySicks]

No

[wildwing64]

So does this mean the Ducks will soon become the Los Angeles Ducks?

They're in the middle of a 30-something year lease agreement which requires them to be named Anaheim, so no.

The owners don't seem like they want to anyway.

[guest23]

Calling them LA doesn't make them an LA team. Most baseball fans in LA county are Dodger fans. Most Angel fans are in OC, not LA. There isn't a ton of crossover--the fan bases are clearly distinct. Their fan base is not in LA. They don't play in in LA city. They don't play in LA county. They don't represent LA--even the LA city council was against the name change to LA of A in 2005. If they won the title, the parade wouldn't be in LA. They aren't an LA team no matter what you call them. So they should not be called LA.

Call them Anaheim. Call them Orange County. Call them Garden Grove. Just call them something that describes who the team actually represents.

I understand where you are coming from but Moreno doesn't even have any ties to the region from the get go. He's from AZ and made his money in outdoor advertising hence he's looking to constantly expand the reach of his team. By using the LA monicker, he thinks he can appeal to a broader base of fans, viewers, and advertisers.

Geographical boundaries don't mean much anymore. It's all about media markets now and the those names still utilize the traditional big city names like LA/SF/NY etc. despite the population shifts and sprawl.

[illwauk]

Now this seems kind of snooty, don't you think? As if there's some sort of pre-requisite for who can and cannot identify with a city. Who says what qualifies as "being part of the community" to the point where you can claim to be "from" a city? Is there some Grand Council of Civic Pride to ensure those elitist suburbanites don't get to identify with the city without first being "part of the community" for so long? Are we all going to have to start grilling each person we meet when they say "I'm from wherever"? It reeks of reverse elitism in a way, if we're going to assume that "elitism" in the realm of this discussion refers to the attitudes associated with suburbanites re: their anchor city. Like "you don't get to be part of our glorious metropolis if you wanna live out in the suburbs!"

As I said, I find the whole thing ridiculous. If you live in a city's suburb you fall within that city's media umbrella. Which means you read their newspapers, and you watch their tv stations. Your livelihood is either directly or indirectly tied to the anchor city, and you more then likely root for that city's sports teams. Yeah, there's a bit of a cultural disconnect, but let's not pretend that major cities are culturally homogeneous entities. Each neighbourhood has its own distinct character, its own distinct twist on the local culture. The differences you see in the suburbs can often just be seen as an extension of this. Just more variety added to the already varied nature of the anchor city itself. So if you live in the suburbs, sure. Say you're from the city, and clarify if asked. It's that simple, and it doesn't need to be any more contentious then that. Yeah, trying to claim a suburb is separate, and above, an anchor city is snooty and elitist, but so is the claim that unless you "pay your dues" you don't "get" to identify with a city. It's all equally ridiculous and needlessly divisive.

Ice_cap, you know I got nothing but love for you, man… but damned if you can't be a long-winded contrarian sometimes.

Not only did I state explicitly that my preference is for people from suburbs identify as from "the ________ area," but I also said (again, explicitly) that my problem with people like those my mom encountered in my original example is that they hypocritically want it both ways.

I grew up in Milwaukee… not Waukesha, not Brookfield, not Mequon… and had different formative experiences than people from those areas because of it. Many of those experiences may as well have happened on another planet from the people from those places; and many of them had a profound impact on who I became as an adult. I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel justified in being a little protective of my city and its reputation (including who claims to be from here) because of this.

Maybe there are some suburbanites who actually enjoy the city; but when the politicians who enjoy the most popularity in suburbs (especially here in the Midwest.. which I was also specified) are those who run explicitly anti-urban (and anti-people-who-tend-to-live-in-urban-cities) platforms, it's probably a pretty safe bet to say a majority of suburbanites have attitudes similar to those being discussed in this thread.

As I said, I find the whole thing ridiculous. If you live in a city's suburb you fall within that city's media umbrella. Which means you read their newspapers, and you watch their tv stations.

I've actually been saying for awhile that pretty much all mainstream media in Milwaukee should rather identify itself as "Southeast Wisconsin," as they overwhelmingly serve middle-aged suburbanites at the expense of everyone else because that's what their advertisers want. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has endorsed Scott Walker for every election hes ever ran in, and without injecting my personal opinions of him into the conversation, I would hope I don't have to tell you how unpopular he is in the city.

Yeah, there's a bit of a cultural disconnect, but let's not pretend that major cities are culturally homogeneous entities. Each neighbourhood has its own distinct character, its own distinct twist on the local culture. The differences you see in the suburbs can often just be seen as an extension of this. Just more variety added to the already varied nature of the anchor city itself.

You might be able to make that argument about a few inner-ring suburbs, but the only relationship outer-ring suburbs and exurbs usually have with any city are the people who commute there to make a living, while doing their actual living and spending money elsewhere. They don't contribute to the quality of life in the cities, and for the most part, are only concerned with what they can take from the city.

Besides, let's not pretend that, typically, any two city neighborhoods are still going to have a whole lot more in common with each other than they will with any suburb... especially outer suburbs.

[BBTV]

My 0.02$.

The Angels play in Anaheim so they should be called Anaheim because Anaheim is a big enough city and it is a well known city. (It's not an Orchard Park-Buffalo Bills type deal)

To my knowledge Anaheim isn't an actual suburb of LA, it may be a "spiritual" suburb however.

If they played in LA (or Burbank or Pasadena or wherever in LA County) then call them Los Angeles.

Using Anaheim as a geographical identifer doesn't bother the Ducks.

But would it be well known if the Angels didn't name themselves the "Anaheim" Angels? Would it be well known without the Ducks (the Ducks are more/less irrelevant though since it's hockey).

Like other cities, without pro sports teams, not many people would have heard of them. When I was a kid, if people ever said they were going to disney land, that always meant LA or just California. The average person in average-town USA could live their entire life without ever hearing the word Anaheim ever mentioned. The same can't be said for LA.

[dbadefense1990]

Moreno doesn't even have any ties to the region...he's from AZ.

Figures. The whole "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" debacle comes from a man whose home state defended a hemorrhaging hockey team and an outdoor shopping mall, using the "University of Phoenix" defense.

[chakfu]

My 0.02$.

The Angels play in Anaheim so they should be called Anaheim because Anaheim is a big enough city and it is a well known city. (It's not an Orchard Park-Buffalo Bills type deal)

To my knowledge Anaheim isn't an actual suburb of LA, it may be a "spiritual" suburb however.

If they played in LA (or Burbank or Pasadena or wherever in LA County) then call them Los Angeles.

Using Anaheim as a geographical identifer doesn't bother the Ducks.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

Anaheim grew by more than 600% in the 1950s. You're a flippin' suburb. Your city does not exist if not for the wave of suburbanization from Los Angeles' sprawl.

No city outside the limits of Los Angeles would have existed if it weren't for that sprawl.

Even Cleveland?

[DaytonBlue]

This debate reminds me of this article from The Onion:

NFL To Move All 32 Teams To Los Angeles

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nfl-to-move-all-32-teams-to-los-angeles,1845/