The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Deeply. It sounds redundant and clunky. While many teams ‘officially’ play in cities other than the ones their stadium is located in - and of course two New York football teams aren’t exactly in New York - what this team is doing is making “Los Angeles,” a city it doesn’t play in, part of the club name. That’s unique. It’s more comparable to “the New York Yankees of Newark” than the Detroit Pistons or Dallas Cowboys.

Both Anaheim and Los Angeles went to court to stop it and they both failed, so it looks like it’ll stand up.

No, or at least I hope not.

No, it wasn’t Disney, it was the city of Anaheim that insisted they change the name to Anaheim Angels. In return, the city paid for a chunk of the stadium renovations and revamped the lease terms to make them more favorable for the team (gave up most of their share of the parking revenue, most of their share of the gate, all of their share of the concession revenues, all of their share of the advertising revenue, etc.).

In return, Disney was supposed to include Anaheim in the team name so as to help promote Anaheim as a city in its own right, rather than as a suburb of Los Angeles. Moreno found a loophole in the contract that allows him to associate the team with LA, while not violating the terms of his lease. Basically, he can eat his cake and have it, too - he gets all of the benefits from the old contract, without having to live up to the spirit of the team’s end of the deal. The city of Anaheim is justifiable pissed off at him, IMO.

Painfully stupid name. My prediction: it’ll last a year and then get dropped after everyone mocks it mercilessly.

Anaheim and Orange County have enough people and money to support a baseball team without Los Angeles. Why, exactly, so many people want to live in that shithole, you got me, but they’re there. <— Contractually obligated insult.

Having been an Angels fan since … well forever, when I heard this news, I thought it was the dumbest idea ever. I might have been able to tolerate it if the Dodgers didn’t exist. Kinda like when the L.A. Rams moved there (thank god they left), but at that time the Rams were identified with L.A.

Anaheim is (excuse the expression) a whole different ballgame from Los Angeles. The first thing I thought of though is, how’s this new name going to translate on the spanish stations? The Angel Angels of Anaheim???

They still are, and always will be the Angels regardless of what else gets tacked onto the name. My personal preference, go back to being the California Angels. Sitck the A back in centerfield and light it up when a homerun is hit.

So yes, I think it’s a stupid name. Selig wouldn’t know a good decision if it bit him, so yes, it will stand up. And Yes, I actually think the courts will favor the City.

The Big A can’t be moved anymore, else it’ll collapse.

There’s a lifelong Angels fan who lives in Atlanta?

Why? How?

As for the whole idea of being the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, I think it’s much ado about nothing. The team is still just going to have “Angels” on the uniforms.

:smiley: Yes there is. I jumped on the Braves bandwagon when I moved here, but will ALWAYS be an Angels fan. I’m looking forward to June when the two go head to head. I’ll be at the Ted, and I won’t be wearing my fi-dolla-brazes-cap. :smiley:

Yes. But the one thing I do like about it is that every time I draft an Angel in my fantasy draft, I can add the following completely absurd tag to it: LAAoA.

Sure, why not?

Absolutely. ESPN and the SportsCenter guys will use it every single chance that they can, solely because it sounds so stupid. And that’s all the owners wanted, increased exposure. They’ve already achieved that, in spades (and it’s still before they’ve spent the bulk of the transition costs!). Plus, it’s another excuse to change the uniform design, which in turn will sell more merchandise.

It’s so stupid it’s brilliant.