Some years ago the former California Angels changed to the Anaheim Angels, to reflect where they play. This was pretty unusual, as often sports teams use the broadest geographical designation they can in order to draw the widest range of fans. Other examples in baseball are the Texas Rangers (Dallas-Ft. Worth), Minnesota Twins (Minneapolis-St. Paul), Florida Marlins (Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, etc.), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Tampa, St. Petersburg, etc.), Colorado Rockies, and Arizona Diamondbacks.
This is particularly odd since the original minor league team in the area was the Los Angeles Angels. Perhaps back in 1961 it was felt inappropriate to use the name of a city if the team didn’t play within its boundaries, but that compunction is long gone - witness the NY Giants and NY Jets, who don’t even play their home games in their home state. If the Angels didn’t want to use “California,” there presumably wouldn’t be any reason they couldn’t have used “Los Angeles” again.
Anyone know what motivated the change Anaheim in the Angels’ name? What was the point?
One word: Disney. When WDC took full control of the Angels, they changed the name to Anaheim Angels. This was in order to further promote its hockey franchize (The Mighty Ducks) and Disneyland. It also served as a reminder to all residents of Anaheim (I happened to live there at the time) just who owned that town
As SteverinoAlaReno said, Disney was behind the change from California to Anaheim.
The Angels changed their name from Los Angeles to California when they moved because they felt that they needed an identity separate from the Dodgers, whom they shared Dodger Stadium with from 1962 through 1965.
The Dodgers were and are extraordinarily popular and the Angels were (and still are) pretty much an afterthought.
When the Angels went shopping for a new city to build a stadium in, many cities demanded that the Angels use their name in the team name, Long Beach in particular. Anaheim didn’t really care at the time. They were just glad that Gene Autry decided to spend his millions on their city.
The Angels changed from Los Angeles to California in 1965, although they still played at Dodger Stadium that season (The Angels called it Chavez Ravine when they played there.)
But Bob, remember that “selfless” Anaheim stuck the Angels with the worst hometown deal in baseball- Anaheim kept all revenue from parking, food concessions, signage, etc. The Angels didn’t own the stadium, they paid an exorbitant rent.
Disney is the culprit, Colibri. I think they had envisioned a destination-type setup, like Disneyworld/EPCOT, where suckers, er, guests would stay at a Disney hotel, take in a couple of Disney sporting events, enjoy a couple of Disney theme parks, and eat a bunch of Disney food.
It breaks my heart, because I am an Angel fan from way back- hell, my parents took me to my first game when I was 3 weeks old! That was back in the sixties. Oooh, do I sound old or what?
My coolest piece of sports stuff? A baseball signed by Gene Autry. There was a guy who loved baseball so much that when he heard from the Dodgers’ owner that the ball game broadcasts didn’t reach Big Bear (local mountains), Gene went to the owners meeting to buy the TV and radio broadcast rights to the new Angels franchise. Instead, he came home with a team!
I agree on the Disney thing. I also got the impression that it was something of an attempt to create an “Orange County” local identity - even at the expense of reducing the apparent domain of the team.
Many OC residents that I run into are loathe to be too strongly associated with LA County. Perhaps Disney felt that it had more to gain by declaring the Angels/Ducks to be “OC’s teams” than it had to lose by shedding the statewide moniker from the Angels?
Anything would be better than being the “other Los Angeles team”, but that doesn’t really explain the problem with “California”, does it? Most teams named after entire states (that I can think of) are the only team in the state (in their league). The Texas Rangers are a notable counterexample, but perhaps they feel that the name is too historically cute to mess with. With four other MLB teams in the Golden State, I can see how maybe they felt that simply being named “California” blurred, rather than strengthened, their fan base.
I guess “Anaheim” was less unwieldy than “Orange County” in a team name.
Thanks all. I didn’t realize that the Angels had literally become a Mickey Mouse team (no offense, EJSgirl! ;)). It had also slipped my mind that they were in fact the Los Angeles Angels for their first few years
Speaking of the “Golden State”, who decided to designate the Warriors in that way? Seemingly it is the only major North American sports team without a real geographic place in its name.
I always thought it was the Texas Rangers as a way of giving credit to both Dallas AND Fort Worth.
Mayor Daley has repeatedly said he would fight to stop a team from using Chicago if they build a stadium outside of the city limits.
Also I recall when Florida was looking for a team the Mayor of St Petersburg said that he would fight NOT to have them called “Tampa Bay,” since the stadium was in St Pete.
While the Angels got a bad deal from Anaheim, they were getting an even worse deal from the Dodgers in L.A. If they had stayed in L.A., they would have become baseball’s equivalent of the Clippers. At least the Angels have come close to making it to the World Series (1982 and 1986).
The Golden State Warriors got that name in 1971, when the San Francsico Warriors moved across San Francisco Bay to Oakland, however the Warriors played a few home games in San Diego, so they thought they could be a regional team.
Even when the Warriors were called “San Francisco” and wore uniforms with the [L.A. Resident] pretentious “The City” [/L.A. Resident] on them, they were playing home games in the Cow Palace, which is in Daly City, not San Francisco.
Well, I was sure I recall reading that the city of Anaheim insisted the team change its name to “Anaheim Angels” so fans everywhere would know exactly where the team plays as part of the deal they made with Disney to renovate the stadium. http://www.ballparks.com says the city spent $30,000,000 and Disney spent $88,000,000 on the renovations. I mean, why wouldn’t the city want to publicize itself? (Though one could argue that using a mediocre ballclub ain’t the best way to do that!)
