Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,533 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was skimming through channels earlier and landed on the Angels game. I noticed though that their abbreviation was LAA, which I think I can safely assume stands for Los Angeles. Whatever happened to Anaheim? :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
A while back the team decided to change their official name to "The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim." I am not making that up. The problem is, the name change (in my opinion) won't really bring in any new fans from the Los Angeles area. Plenty of people from L.A. already rooted for the Angels. All the name change will do is make citizens of Anaheim feel spited. The team didn't move, they just changed their name. They should have kept it as the Anaheim Angels. Or, even better, the California Angels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
i really dislike when a city has more than one team for some reason the one that doesn't win as often seems to become the little brother that no one likes.the clippers ,white sox ,mets just to name a few
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Hey, I like the Clippers!

On top of that, they are going to finish above the Lakers this year! NEXT year will be the big year for them ;)
 

·
Avant Garde
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
Just so there isn't any confusion..

LA Dodgers-LAD
LA (Anaheim) Angels-LAA
LA Lakers=LAL
LA Clippers-LAC
LA Kings-LA
Anaheim Mighty Ducks-ANA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
The reason they changed the name was not to draw fans from the LA area, at least that is not the main reason. The Angels were third in Attendance last year, Behind the Dodgers and spankees. They changed it to LA, for money issues. As a team from LA, they would get more money from TV contracts, actually much more and it will give them instant credibility and recognization. LA is a megaopolis, while anaheim isnt. It was a smart move and will pay off for them. As a Dodger fan i am not offended at all and i think it was the right thing to do for them. I think the Anaheim will be dropped eventually, and the name will be LA Angels.

By the way, the LA metro is the only metro to draw more than 6 million fans in a season (last two years) and last year, we were very close to 7 million. This will be the year that they pass 7 million. LA Dodgers are averaging 53,000 a game right now and i expect the team to draw about 45000 - 50000 a game for the year and i expect the Angels to average around 40000 - 42000 a game. The Angels had sold 2.8 million tickets before the season had started and the Dodgers were at 2.5 milllion. LA is the hotbed for Baseball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
^ I absolutely adore your LA Pride LASF! We are always totally on the same page when it comes to that because I felt the same way about the Angel's name change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,278 Posts
LosAngelesSportsFan said:
The reason they changed the name was not to draw fans from the LA area, at least that is not the main reason. The Angels were third in Attendance last year, Behind the Dodgers and spankees. They changed it to LA, for money issues. As a team from LA, they would get more money from TV contracts, actually much more and it will give them instant credibility and recognization. LA is a megaopolis, while anaheim isnt. It was a smart move and will pay off for them. As a Dodger fan i am not offended at all and i think it was the right thing to do for them. I think the Anaheim will be dropped eventually, and the name will be LA Angels.

By the way, the LA metro is the only metro to draw more than 6 million fans in a season (last two years) and last year, we were very close to 7 million. This will be the year that they pass 7 million. LA Dodgers are averaging 53,000 a game right now and i expect the team to draw about 45000 - 50000 a game for the year and i expect the Angels to average around 40000 - 42000 a game. The Angels had sold 2.8 million tickets before the season had started and the Dodgers were at 2.5 milllion. LA is the hotbed for Baseball.
I actually like the Angels name change. It gives people the impression that L.A. truly has two baseball teams in one metro.

P.S.
The Dodgers and the Angels hit almost 7 million in attendance.

The scrubs (3.1 million) and the white sox (1.9 million) :sleepy: hit 5 million last year in attendance (in a metro of 9.5 million).

The Yankees hit 3.7 million and the Mets 2.3 million, totaling 6 million.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I wonder if pricing has anything to do with it as well? Or maybe stadium size? I know that Chicago and New York are both cities that are passionate about sports (and I believe that includes baseball). Are tickets more expensive in those cities? Are the stadiums smaller?

And, hopefully this isn't TOO off topic, but I noticed that when the Dodgers were playing the Brewers this week the games started at 11am or something like that. In the middle of the week? How are people expected to go to those games?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
The mets and spankees both have stadiums that seat about 57,000. The cubs can squeeze almost 40,000 and the Sox are at about 45000. The Dodgers are at 56000 and the Angels stadium capacity is 45,000. The dodgers draw at least 3 million every year, Win or lose, and have done it a major league record 29 times ( i think thats right) including the last 9 years in a row, while no other team has done it more than 15 times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I noticed something interesting tonight. I was at Dodgers stadium for the game tonight, and they have a board there that shows scores from around the league. Instead of saying "LAA" for the Angels, it said "ANA". Is this some sort of Dodger protest?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
squeemu said:
I noticed something interesting tonight. I was at Dodgers stadium for the game tonight, and they have a board there that shows scores from around the league. Instead of saying "LAA" for the Angels, it said "ANA". Is this some sort of Dodger protest?
They just haven't reprogrammed it.
 

·
C.B.P.
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
The Mad Hatter!! said:
i really dislike when a city has more than one team for some reason the one that doesn't win as often seems to become the little brother that no one likes.the clippers ,white sox ,mets just to name a few
Unfortunately, the little team that no one likes, the White Sux :jk: are mopping the floor with my beloved Cubbies as well as the rest of MLB. But as someone who grew up on the south side I wish them nothing but the best unless they play the Cubs.

squeemu said:
I wonder if pricing has anything to do with it as well? Or maybe stadium size? I know that Chicago and New York are both cities that are passionate about sports (and I believe that includes baseball). Are tickets more expensive in those cities? Are the stadiums smaller?
My first baseball game ever was at the old Comiskey Park. I'll never forget the look of the green of the field and the overpowering scent of urine in the air. But it was still magic, not like Wrigley, but you never forget your first. New Comiskey a.k.a. U.S. Cellular Field is a relative bargain compared to Wrigley. They have half-priced Mondays and all kinds of discount days throughout the season except for the crosstown series.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I agree. I never understood why NY for example has 2 teams in hockey, baseball and football. When one team sucks, do they go over and start cheering for the winning team or something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
It's kind of fun having two teams. For example, while everybody is just a bandwagon Lakers fan, I can be a fan of the Clippers because I'm a fan of the team, not because they're popular.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top