Angels will not put L.A. on their uniforms next season

[CaliforniaCajun]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-angrep2jun02,1,30219.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-mlb-angels

The Angels won't be wearing "Los Angeles" on their road uniforms next season. Major league teams had a May 31 deadline to submit changes in uniforms, colors and logos for next season, and Angels President Dennis Kuhl said Thursday that the team had not submitted any changes. Kuhl also said team executives have not discussed putting "Los Angeles" on the road uniforms in the future.

[Jake83]

Still only team without their city on road uniforms

[mojorisin71]

The Cards don't have St. Louis on their road uniforms, either.

[Elvis]

Nor the Phillies and Orioles.

This is a non-issue. Moreno has never said he wanted to put LA on the uniforms in any way shape or form, yet everyone including the Times keeps bringing it up like it might happen? :noidea

[Jake83]

The Phillies and Orioles have had uniforms in the past with city

[Jake83]

Nor the Phillies and Orioles.

This is a non-issue. Moreno has never said he wanted to put LA on the uniforms in any way shape or form, yet everyone including the Times keeps bringing it up like it might happen? :noidea


You never know with the franchise representing Orange County. The Angels are known for change

[Elvis]

The Phillies and Orioles have had uniforms in the past with city

So did the Angels...ANAHEIM. :laugh

If the Angels DID put "Los Angeles" on their jerseys, I think they'd be the first team ever to have a false city name on their uniforms.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

The Phillies and Orioles have had uniforms in the past with city

The Angels had Anaheim on their road jersey in 2002 and 2003. And they had Los Angeles on their road jerseys back in 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964.

[Jake83]

So did the Angels...ANAHEIM. :laugh

If the Angels DID put "Los Angeles" on their jerseys, I think they'd be the first team ever to have a false city name on their uniforms.


How about Los Angeles of Anaheim across their road uniforms. I would buy one just for a collectors item

[Jake83]

The Angels had Anaheim on their road jersey in 2002 and 2003. And they had Los Angeles on their road jerseys back in 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964.


Even if they put LA they still wouldn't have their city on their road uniform:D

[CaliforniaCajun]

The Cards don't have St. Louis on their road uniforms, either.

A road uniform bearing St. Louis wouldn't look bad. Look at what they wore 1930-32: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?lowYear=1910&highYear=1960&city=St.%20Louis&league=NL&sort=year&increment=9&pos=19

[Brownie31]

Even if they put LA they still wouldn't have their city on their road uniform:D

At least the Angels originated in Los Angeles.

Brownie31

[Jake83]

At least the Angels originated in Los Angeles.

Brownie31


I see the Brooklyn group has corrupted you

[Brownie31]

I see the Brooklyn group has corrupted you

They have enlightened me.

Brownie31

[Jake83]

They have enlightened me.

Brownie31

On that the majority of Dodger history was during the days in LA correct.

[Elvis]

At least the Angels originated in Los Angeles.

Brownie31

Uh, so what? The Yankees originated in Baltimore.

[mojorisin71]

A road uniform bearing St. Louis wouldn't look bad. Look at what they wore 1930-32: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?lowYear=1910&highYear=1960&city=St.%20Louis&league=NL&sort=year&increment=9&pos=19
What I like about the Cards' uniforms is that they simplified it over the years.

As for not having the city on the road uniforms, the Dodgers had "Los Angeles" on them from 1959-1969 and then from 1999 to the present.

[Jake83]

At least the Angels originated in Los Angeles.

Brownie31


You seem bitter or maybe it is just the Scottish avater.

[Jake83]

What I like about the Cards' uniforms is that they simplified it over the years.

As for not having the city on the road uniforms, the Dodgers had "Los Angeles" on them from 1959-1969 and then from 1999 to the present.


One of the few decent moves by FOX in my opinion.

[Brownie31]

You seem bitter or maybe it is just the Scottish avater.

No bitterness. Just a traditionalist or reactionary if you prefer!

Brownie31

[Chisox73]

As for not having the city on the road uniforms, the Dodgers had "Los Angeles" on them from 1959-1969 and then from 1999 to the present.

I've always liked that particular style.

[Jake83]

No bitterness. Just a traditionalist or reactionary if you prefer!

Brownie31


But life is never fair and for that I feel for the borough of Brooklyn but no reason to disrespect the LA Dodgers who have carrying on the traditon.

[Where is Chone Figgins]

Dodger fans hijacking our fourms

[CaliforniaCajun]

So did the Angels...ANAHEIM. :laugh

If the Angels DID put "Los Angeles" on their jerseys, I think they'd be the first team ever to have a false city name on their uniforms.

Major league teams represent a market, not a specific city. The Angels never left the Los Angeles market, even though you and others would like to believe that. My wife never lived in California and she can't remember that my birthplace was Burbank, and that I spent most of my formative years in Anaheim and Garden Grove. And I have taken her to those places on vacation. The only way she and the majority of people can pinpoint where I'm from, where Disneyland is, and where the Angels play is to be told these things are in the Los Angeles area.

Gene Autry paid Walter O'Malley $350,000 so that he could have the same territorial rights and in that deal he also acquired the name "Angels."

This territorial right was not forfeited when the Angels moved to Anaheim. The previous ownerships did not market the entire area they were entitled to represent, and that plus the "California" and "Anaheim" names gave people the false impression that this was an Orange County team. As a result, the Angels could not afford to compete and it showed. They had losing seasons two out of three years on average, never won two consecutive championships at any level (until last year), and still have never had more than two seasons in a row over .500. They even tried to enlist the help of successful ex-Dodger executives, which might point out better than anything else that the Angels did not operate on a level playing field.

Then they get a new owner who takes a fresh look at the situation and has an open mind. First of all, he's puzzled why a team in the #2 media market hasn't been any more successful. He sees all the ways the club has been mismanaged for 40+ years and sets out to correct it. He reclaims the marketplace so the Angels will have the potential to afford and sustain excellence, puts up billboards everywhere, and gives the team the only true geographical designation that represents the entire area.

There's hell to pay when you're doing the right things to succeed because others perceive you to be a threat. You can tell how good an idea is by who is against it. The Dodgers and Dodger fans are clearly nervous about the idea of actually having to earn their territorial dominance instead of just have it handed to them. The City of Anaheim politicians want to compete against Los Angeles and are willing to cripple the Angels in order to perpetuate the perception that they own them.

You are just another small-minded Dodger fan, in the image of the equally small-minded Frank McCourt, that thinks Dodger success depends in part on Angel failure. You guys really piss me off.

I have been a lifetime Dodger fan, and remember lying in bed at night in my room in Garden Grove listening to Vin Scully and Jerry Doggett bring me the games. The Dodgers were my primary team. But when you guys start up with this crap that the Angels aren't entitled to be called the Los Angeles Angels and the owner spends money behind the scenes to try and stop the name change, you really alienate yourselves from me. I've listened to very few Dodgers games since this name change thing started because I get so aggravated by the bush league way they have handled it.

The Dodgers won 18 pennants (1916, 1920, 1941, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1988) and 6 World Series (1955, 1953, 1963, 1965, 1981, 1988) by concentrating on being the Dodgers. They really need to go back to what made them great.

[cubmanjay]

A road uniform bearing St. Louis wouldn't look bad. Look at what they wore 1930-32: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?lowYear=1910&highYear=1960&city=St.%20Louis&league=NL&sort=year&increment=9&pos=19

Cool website Cajun!

[Jake83]

People in Orange County are the ones who believe they have create a seperate metropolitian area not connected with LA. The Angels represent Orange County to the upmost and not LA.

[Elvis]

People in Orange County are the ones who believe they have create a seperate metropolitian area not connected with LA. The Angels represent Orange County to the upmost and not LA.

Jake, you have hit the nail on the head.

There are basically TWO kinds of Angels fans:

1. Those that are from Los Angeles and are happy about the name change (BlueSteve)

2. And those that live in Orange County and are NOT happy about the name change because they don't buy into the lie that L.A. and Orange county are just one big happy family. They KNOW that they are two distinctly different cultures that basically don't like each other, although Angelinos are really indifferent, while Anaheimonians are more hatefull.

[UnderPressure]

Angels will not put L.A. on their uniforms next season

Good. And I hope they never will the year after. And the year after that, and the year after that, and so on...

[Jake83]

Jake, you have hit the nail on the head.

There are basically TWO kinds of Angels fans:

1. Those that are from Los Angeles and are happy about the name change (BlueSteve)

2. And those that live in Orange County and are NOT happy about the name change because they don't buy into the lie that L.A. and Orange county are just one big happy family. They KNOW that they are two distinctly different cultures that basically don't like each other, although Angelinos are really indifferent, while Anaheimonians are more hatefull.


Not to dig too deep into the socioeconomic situtation of Southern California but people who live in Orange County are the new rich and have Orange County Money which means they get big paychecks, In the high end parts of LA most of the rich have family money and is called LA money. The rich of Orange County wished they could afford to live in high end parts of LA.

[CaliforniaCajun]

Jake, you have hit the nail on the head.

There are basically TWO kinds of Angels fans:

1. Those that are from Los Angeles and are happy about the name change (BlueSteve)

2. And those that live in Orange County and are NOT happy about the name change because they don't buy into the lie that L.A. and Orange county are just one big happy family. They KNOW that they are two distinctly different cultures that basically don't like each other, although Angelinos are really indifferent, while Anaheimonians are more hatefull.

3. Those who grew up primarily in Orange County, and found out after leaving the state what a relative unknown the Angels are. And those who attended a university and saw where a name change would benefit.

[Iron Jaw]

The Phillies and Orioles have had uniforms in the past with city

So have the Angels during their first years as the LA Angels, early-mid 60's - then they had their state name. after that.

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

Major league teams represent a market, not a specific city. The Angels never left the Los Angeles market, even though you and others would like to believe that. My wife never lived in California and she can't remember that my birthplace was Burbank, and that I spent most of my formative years in Anaheim and Garden Grove. And I have taken her to those places on vacation. The only way she and the majority of people can pinpoint where I'm from, where Disneyland is, and where the Angels play is to be told these things are in the Los Angeles area.

Gene Autry paid Walter O'Malley $350,000 so that he could have the same territorial rights and in that deal he also acquired the name "Angels."

This territorial right was not forfeited when the Angels moved to Anaheim. The previous ownerships did not market the entire area they were entitled to represent, and that plus the "California" and "Anaheim" names gave people the false impression that this was an Orange County team. As a result, the Angels could not afford to compete and it showed. They had losing seasons two out of three years on average, never won two consecutive championships at any level (until last year), and still have never had more than two seasons in a row over .500. They even tried to enlist the help of successful ex-Dodger executives, which might point out better than anything else that the Angels did not operate on a level playing field.

Then they get a new owner who takes a fresh look at the situation and has an open mind. First of all, he's puzzled why a team in the #2 media market hasn't been any more successful. He sees all the ways the club has been mismanaged for 40+ years and sets out to correct it. He reclaims the marketplace so the Angels will have the potential to afford and sustain excellence, puts up billboards everywhere, and gives the team the only true geographical designation that represents the entire area.

There's hell to pay when you're doing the right things to succeed because others perceive you to be a threat. You can tell how good an idea is by who is against it. The Dodgers and Dodger fans are clearly nervous about the idea of actually having to earn their territorial dominance instead of just have it handed to them. The City of Anaheim politicians want to compete against Los Angeles and are willing to cripple the Angels in order to perpetuate the perception that they own them.

You are just another small-minded Dodger fan, in the image of the equally small-minded Frank McCourt, that thinks Dodger success depends in part on Angel failure. You guys really piss me off.

I have been a lifetime Dodger fan, and remember lying in bed at night in my room in Garden Grove listening to Vin Scully and Jerry Doggett bring me the games. The Dodgers were my primary team. But when you guys start up with this crap that the Angels aren't entitled to be called the Los Angeles Angels and the owner spends money behind the scenes to try and stop the name change, you really alienate yourselves from me. I've listened to very few Dodgers games since this name change thing started because I get so aggravated by the bush league way they have handled it.

The Dodgers won 18 pennants (1916, 1920, 1941, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1988) and 6 World Series (1955, 1953, 1963, 1965, 1981, 1988) by concentrating on being the Dodgers. They really need to go back to what made them great.
Well said.

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

Good. And I hope they never will the year after. And the year after that, and the year after that, and so on...
You tell 'em, Vic.

lol :D

[Elvis]

So have the Angels during their first years as the LA Angels, early-mid 60's - then they had their state name. after that.

But they never had "California" on their uniforms other than the C as part of the "CA" hat logo in the 60s and 90s.

[Jake83]

Orange County has tried for the past what 40 years to be view not as LA and what the ANgels did most likely slapped the Orange County Angel fans in the face.

Do not forget Angel fans were chanting BEAT LA in 2004