Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
 

LINK

Kind of ridiculous, but then again that's Southern California, home of the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (NOT the Anaheim Mighty Ducks).

And people wonder why there's an East Coast bias and why California sports franchises aren't taken seriously.

-Mikey

Wow, just wow. What a stupid effing name.

Let's change everyone:

The New York Yankees of the Bronx
The Arizona Diamondbacks of Maricopa County
The Seattle Mariners of Japan

Hehe...

The Detroit Pistons of Auburn Hills.
The Palace (where the Pistons play) is actually 30 miles away from the city of Detroit.

Leave it to the business execs to come up with nonsense like "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". That's just embarassing. :lol:

What a fricking joke and this is pretty embarrassing for the whole Angels organization.

But, I think I am in the minority of huge Angels fans when I say that it really doesn't matter what the name is, as long as it's not something like "Cock-masters". The team is still the Angels, the games will still be on the same TV channels, I don't think the uni's are changing, they still play at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, and guys like the MVP Vlad Guerrero are on their team.

As for the mindset of Arte Moreno and his staff, I think they realize that no one really considers Anaheim a major American city with world-wide recognition. They want to reach out to fans all over the world and Los Angeles is the name that they know. When I am traveling outside of the West Coast, and especially internationally, I say I'm from LA or California, not Anaheim (which is my official birthplace) or Orange County.

I'll say I don't like the name change, but I am probably going to tolerate it.

I have been a dodger's fan for 46 years. I have watched the parking lot attendant and his lackey, depodesta, single handedly destroy this organisation. Lo duca, green, lima, beltre, finley all for hee sop choi. what a fucking joke.

Anaheim is looking for a small market team. Why dont we rename the teams the Anaheim dodgers and los angeles angels? at least moreno is making good moves and seems to care about putting a good product on the field.

besides, when the angels first began as an organisation, they were called the los angeles angels. so what the f.

Well, when the organization began, the Angels did play in Los Angeles. It wasn't until they moved to Anaheim that the name changed to the California Angels.

As a resident of Orange County, I'm very much disappointed by this decision, but I guess there's really nothing we can do about it. Hopefully the city of Anaheim will win their lawsuit, but that's probably a longshot.

yep, the angels first played in the Los angeles colesseum, if i recall correctly.

Moreno is just one smart businessman. He sees the dodgers self-destructing and is just seeking to take support away from dodger fans. Moreno didnt make a billion dollars in freeway signs by being dumb.

What a fucking joke, as a southern Californian and native of ORANGE county I am pissed. I don't get where this fruitcakes logic is. Let's make 2 LA baseball teams, hey it works for the NBA right? Clippers who????? Does this fucknut really think that by naming the Angels LA they're gonna draw more of a crowd? I know I won't be attending anymore games, cause I don't associate myself with Los Angeles.

Pros of Arte Moreno:
1. Allows Bill Stoneman to sign high profile/high price tag free agents (Vlad, Colon, Finley, etc.)
2. Lowered Beer prices (albeit minimally)
3. Angels in top 5 in attendance each of the two years of his ownership
4. Is VERY visible during Angels home games, talking to the fans and stuff.

Cons of Arte Moreno:
1. Changed the name to "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"

Again, I don't like the name change, it is definitely embarrassing. But the PROS of having Arte Moreno as owner will allow me to tolerate it.

I was born and raised in LA. I've been to i dont know how many dodger games.
I've been a die hard dodger fan all my life. But i hate what those assholes are doing to the team. Personally, i dont really care about the name. It will pass. Angelenos are too laid back to really care.

Ok, before all you nuts start harping on the naming scheme.. especially when you bring east/west politics into it, take a look at the Chicago Bears presented by Bank One and shut up. The team was only referred to as 'The Angels" last year, and nobody seemed to miss the "Anaheim" so what's the deal? Arte has had this plan in action for a while.

Any and all attempts that Arte makes at cashing in on his team, as long as he keeps stocking it with amazing players and treating the fans like gold, is FINE BY ME!

I think this is just ridiculous! What did the Angels draw last year? 3.2 Million fans or something like that? Why are they trying to cater to another cities fans. It ridiculous! But as long as they put a good product on the field I don't think anyone will care after a week or so into this season. Just like always, what happens on the playing field is all that ultimately matters.

It's not about attendance, it's about merchandising.

Can I use a comparison?

First and foremost, I don't live in LA but I have a feeling the Dodgers are "THE TEAM" and the Angels are more like the White Sox, Athletics and Mets, the poorer brother team, that only gets recognized when winning. Therefore they are more mid-market.

That being my belief, my comparison should be pretty accurate.

In the 90's, the CLE Indians were the hottest team in baseball. Their merchadise sales were consistantly #1 or 2. Attendence was in the top 3.

At first revenue was great, because Cleveland wasn't used to that revenue. This allowed them to be able to work on getting players and bettering themselves.

However, shortsightedness, killed them. They kept all the unis and hats pretty much the same. So what happened was merchandise sales tapered, off because if you had a 1995 Omar Jersey it was exactly the same as a 1998 Omar jersey so why buy a new one?

Dick Jacobs even stated, he made no money on regular season ticket sales. The only way the Indians made money was to go deep into the playoffs, and that his true Golden Goose was having the merchandise sales.

Once the merchandise sales taper off and there are no new changes that's it the revenue by nature will fall.

Now, perhaps the Angels seeing this mistake, realized if they can keep changing the logo, keep changing the unis and whatever for the merchandise they buy time with the revenue Gods and can keep a better team longer.

But eventually the Angels will run out of marketing ideas and start to taper off.

This is just a way to be able to keep the merch. sales moving and allow that change that will drive them.

Look at the Yankees. They haven't made a major change to their uniforms since Babe Ruth was on the team, and their "NY" logo is the most widely recognized sports franchise logo in the world. My grandfather wore the same Yankee cap my grandkids will wear. Actually, that's not true. He was a New York Giants fan. But if he HAD been a Yankee fan, he would have worn that same cap. Teams like the Brewers have to change their logo and uniforms up every 3-4 years to keep their hundred or so fans in the latest cap and jersey. The Yankees don't need to. They have one cap, a home uniform, a road uniform, and a batting practice jersey. That's it. Not like the Mets and many other teams, who have 2 jerseys for home and 2 for away, 2 BP jerseys, a GREEN trimmed jersey for St. Patrick's Day, and 2 different caps. In fact, if the Yankees were to make a major logo/uniform change, the backlash would be unbelievable. Remember a few years ago, those futuristic uniforms some teams wore for a few games? Or the "throwback" jerseys teams sometimes wear nowadays to remind their fans why they changed away from those horrific uniforms in the first place? None in the Bronx. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em.

You can look at it both ways. Yes, merchandising is key, but I guess I'm of the mindset that you can either dupe your fans into buying all new shit every few years because you added a black stripe or a new cap; or you can come up with something classic that fans will buy when they need to replace their old, worn out shit. I was actually somewhat pissed when the Bills changed uniforms a few years ago, because not only did I like the Kelly-era uni better, but I just didn't feel like going out and buying another set of jerseys. I did it anyway, but I didn't like having to do it, being MADE to do it, and had Ralph Wilson and Tom Donahoe been at the Sports Maniac I'd have let them know that.

And yes, Chicago Bears Football Presented by Bank One is extremely stupid, but then again Chicago Bears Football Presented by Bank One deserves the ridicule after desecrating Soldier Field. It looks like a giant fucking UFO landed in it. I wouldn't call Chicago "East" though.

By the way, the New York Yankees of the Bronx would be redundant because the Bronx is one of the 5 boroughs of New York City. The New York Islanders of Uniondale or the New York Giants (or Jets) of East Rutherford, New Jersey would be a better local example of this lunacy.

Although, if you Angels fans are cool with this name change then who am I to criticize? You're right that at least at the same time as dicking with the franchise's name (are they trying to set a record for most franchise name changes?) your team's owner is doing what he can to strengthen the team, instead of "waah waah small market waah Yankees waah" and then pocketing the team profit. Which is the important thing. Besides, if teams never changed their names while remaining in the same city, I'd be a fan of the 26-time World Champion New York Highlanders.

-Mikey

With salaries getting out of hand and teams reaching the max they can charge for tickets..... it's only a matter of time before teams become city-less and are called by the corporation owning them.

Not like the "Chicago Bears presented by...." but such as..... the Cablevision Indians, Proctor&Gamble Reds, or it could go the other way and be.... the Cleveland Quicken Loaners (cavaliers). It's almost inevitable, based on the economics of pro sports.. And in the early days that was how clubs were named. The original name for the Indians were the Cleveland Forest City's because the Owners of the corporation "Forest City" owned the team.

Plus it allows teams to move from city to city if they can't get the attendences needed.

Ever see Rollerball? The ORIGINAL Rollerball, with James Caan?

-Mikey