Angels to "stay" in Los Angeles

[ttsather]

An appeals court in California again dismissed a lawsuit brought by the City of Anaheim in regards to the Angels name change to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3831813

 

While this battle has in no way affected my daily life, I did find it interesting to watch from afar. I can tell I don't have much personal interest or connection to the franchise, because I feel like I would have done the same thing Moreno did. Seemed like a shrewd business decision.

[Invader3K]

I just think it's silly since, you know, they actually play in Anaheim.

[PrimeTime955]

I don't think it's that simple. The Detroit Lions used to play in Pontiac, MI. Did they call them the Pontiac Lions? No. It's all about marketing.

[hawing]

I'd still kind of like to see them re-re-renamed the Disney Angels. It's so much faster to say.

[ttsather]

I don't think it's that simple. The Detroit Lions used to play in Pontiac, MI. Did they call them the Pontiac Lions? No. It's all about marketing.

 

 

Yes, there are lots and lots of examples. The Jets and Giants don't even play in the state of New York!

Money, availability of land, need for parking and many other things play into stadium locations. For business purposes, I would think the name should refer to the main financially supportive market of the franchise. There are some exceptions, often having to do with tradition-backed identity - the Green Bay Packers are a good example. If the Packers franchise was started today and for some reason the stadium was built in Green Bay, they'd probably be the "Wisconsin Packers".

 

Sometimes, the collective identity of a city is more valuable than, say, a state. Moreno could've changed the team back to the "California Angels", but must have seen it as more financially responsible to be associated with Los Angeles specifically.

[Invader3K]

Anaheim isn't exactly a little burg, though.

[ttsather]

Anaheim isn't exactly a little burg, though.

 

True, I'm thinking the inclusion of "of Anaheim" was at least in part to mitigate the potential alienation of the Anaheim market.

And you can argue that the Anaheim market is strong enough to support a franchise without the "help" of the Los Angeles identifier - the Ducks in the NHL haven't been around all that long and do just fine.

 

[RightFieldCoder]

According to the contract that was written up when Anaheim paid for the new stadium, the team has to keep the city's name. That is why they haven't changed to simply LA Angels. That deal was signed before Moreno bought the team. I think Moreno wants to market them as an LA team to tap into the Hispanic population, but was legally bound to keep Anaheim.

[Invader3K]

Yeah...I just wonder if the Angels will ever be seen as a true LA team, since the Dodgers are pretty well ingrained there. I would think most LA baseball fans would see the Dodgers as their team, far and away above the Angels.

[JoeHova]

Yeah...I just wonder if the Angels will ever be seen as a true LA team, since the Dodgers are pretty well ingrained there. I would think most LA baseball fans would see the Dodgers as their team, far and away above the Angels.

 

 

That does seem plausible, judging from attendance:

Angels, 100 wins, 3,336,747 attendance

Dodgers, 84 wins, 3,730,553 attendance (5,000 more per game)

 

OTOH, both finished 2nd in attendance in their league to the NY teams. Also, the Angels have been over 3 million all 4 years since they changed their name to LA after only being over 3 million 2 times in the previous 44 years of their existence. However, those 2 years were the 2 seasons immediately preceding the name change and following a WS win.

[SeriesFinale]

Yeah...I just wonder if the Angels will ever be seen as a true LA team, since the Dodgers are pretty well ingrained there. I would think most LA baseball fans would see the Dodgers as their team, far and away above the Angels.

Yeah, to me, this would be like someone born and raised in New York City becoming a fan of the New Jersey Nets

 

I guess he's not really alienating too many people based on attendance, but it just strikes me as strange since OC seems like a completely separate, valid market to me.

[ttsather]

That does seem plausible, judging from attendance:

Angels, 100 wins, 3,336,747 attendance

Dodgers, 84 wins, 3,730,553 attendance (5,000 more per game)

In fairness to the Angels, Angel Stadium's capacity is a little over 45,000, while Dodger Stadium holds about 56,000.

 

Angels: 91.5% of capacity/game

Dodgers: 82.2% of capacity/game

[JoeHova]

That does seem plausible, judging from attendance:

Angels, 100 wins, 3,336,747 attendance

Dodgers, 84 wins, 3,730,553 attendance (5,000 more per game)

In fairness to the Angels, Angel Stadium's capacity is a little over 45,000, while Dodger Stadium holds about 56,000.

 

Angels: 91.5% of capacity/game

Dodgers: 82.2% of capacity/game

 

 

That's a good point.