Cleveland MLB team reportedly considering name change

[Nine of twelve]

This is an AP article I lifted from the StarTribune web site.

 

https://www.startribune.com/cleveland-indians-look-into-changing-name-amid-pressure/571623572/

[biggentleben]

Dale Murphy suggested that the Braves change to the Hammers in honor of Hank Aaron. I'd be all in favor of that.

[Squirrel]

Cleveland should go back to being the Spiders!

[Nine of twelve]

 

Dale Murphy suggested that the Braves change to the Hammers in honor of Hank Aaron. I'd be all in favor of that.

I think that would be excellent.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Cleveland should go back to being the Spiders!

I like the nickname as well, but you should read about the 1899 Cleveland Spiders team. I don't know if I'd want my modern day team to be linked to that.

[woolywoolhouse]

 

I like the nickname as well, but you should read about the 1899 Cleveland Spiders team. I don't know if I'd want my modern day team to be linked to that.

 

As a Twins' fan, I'm OK with it.

[a-wan]

 

Cleveland should go back to being the Spiders!

To help modernize it, it should be Spyders. 

[Squirrel]

To help modernize it, it should be Spyders.

 

Lol ... personally, I wouldn’t want a team named the Spiders, or Spyders. I mean, ewww. I just brought that up because of the team’s history.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ignoring this rather pointless debate, what was so bad about the 1899 Spiders season? I expected controversy but see only that ownership gutted them to make another team they owned better (gee, wonder why MLB later outlawed that practice).

 

What’s so embarrassing about that? Baseball ownership was awful to a city and fan base, film at eleven.

[MABB1959]

Native American here and the names do not bother me.  History is history and a name change isn't going to change anything.  

[Squirrel]

IMHO such a post is appropriate. I think taking up paragraphs of space on the thread is undesirable clutter when a very simple google search will suffice. No link needed. And by the way, the only one trying to take "the higher ground" on this thread is someone other than me.

As a fan, I could see not wanting my team to take on the name of the team that was the worst team ever in baseball. Shrug. But as someone pointed out above, as a Twins fan, I’d be okay if Cleveland did that.

 

I think Spiders is too generic and not really ... eh, not an elegant (?) enough name, although it would lend itself to some cool merchandise.

 

How about the Rockers? Or something native to them? The Bobcats? Or Cleveland is called ‘the Forest City’, maybe a play on that?

 

I think a name change is coming, or why publicly announce you are thinking about it, so now is the opportunity to really identify yourself, and Spiders just seems too ... generic.

[Shaitan]

It's about time. Wait...way past that.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Ignoring this rather pointless debate, what was so bad about the 1899 Spiders season? I expected controversy but see only that ownership gutted them to make another team they owned better (gee, wonder why MLB later outlawed that practice).

What’s so embarrassing about that? Baseball ownership was awful to a city and fan base, film at eleven.

It's not embarrassing, it's just that the name is associated with scurrilous behavior. But then again, the NFL team located in the very same city re-used the Browns name in spite of (in the opinion of some) scurrilous behavior by the owners of the previous team with that name.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's not embarrassing, it's just that the name is associated with scurrilous behavior. But then again, the NFL team located in the very same city re-used the Browns name in spite of (in the opinion of some) scurrilous behavior by the owners of the previous team with that name.

If we judged teams based on ownership practices of over a century ago, every franchise looks pretty bad because owners were awful in the early days of baseball. Many are still awful today.

 

I doubt anyone really cares what happened 120 years ago but the name itself has historical value to the city.

[darin617]

These teams should be all for a name change, whether they may be deemed racist or not. Think of all the marketing and merchandise they would sell. They could also change team colors and then the diehard fans would rush out and buy the new gear.

 

New nickname equals more money.

[ashbury]

Ignoring this rather pointless debate, what was so bad about the 1899 Spiders season?

The Ford Motor Company built a model named Edsel. It didn't go over well, and became a laughingstock name - sort of a "name brand" for the worst product of its kind (even if it really wasn't).

 

Well, the 1899 Cleveland Spiders were kind of the name brand Bad Baseball Team. Or, should be. When people in 1962 made jokes about how historically bad the brand-new Mets were, at 40-120, knowledgeable old-timers could smile and say, "that's because you're ignoring the '99 Spiders".

 

They went 20-134 for a .130 winning percentage. The only teams before them who did worse than that were in abbreviated seasons where they would fold and simply not show up for scheduled games after 20 games or so. No team since them has come within .100 points of that "winning" percentage.

 

These poor guys (or a parade of them) slogged through a full season. They finished in 12th place out of 12 teams, 35 games behind.... the 11th place team. 84 games out of first. They drew 6,088 fans... for the season. (Pennant winner Brooklyn drew 269K.) They finished their season as basically a road team, since other teams in the league would no longer travel to League Park and find their expenses not covered.

 

There were scoundrels in league ownership back then, point well taken, but as with our discussion about Landis, you would still find wide variations within any given era. Stanley and Frank Robison were outliers - they didn't bother to hide their intentions when they bought a second team and termed their Cleveland franchise a sideshow.

 

After that season, the Cleveland franchise was folded - the National League itself contracted to 8 teams, and the Spiders had no continuation. Cleveland started fresh with the American League instead. So the Spiders' reasonably lengthy run ended in ignominy, with no opportunity for quick redemption.

 

That's what's so bad.

 

You wouldn't introduce a new line of cars called "The New and Improved Edsel." You wouldn't name a baseball team you cared about the Spiders. It would feel like you had doomed it.

 

[Squirrel]

The Ford Motor Company built a model named Edsel. It didn't go over well, and became a laughingstock name - sort of a "name brand" for the worst product of its kind (even if it really wasn't).

 

Well, the 1899 Cleveland Spiders were kind of the name brand Bad Baseball Team. Or, should be. When people in 1962 made jokes about how historically bad the brand-new Mets were, at 40-120, knowledgeable old-timers could smile and say, "that's because you're ignoring the Spiders".

 

They went 20-134 for a .130 winning percentage. The only teams before them who did worse than that were in abbreviated seasons where they would fold and simply not show up for scheduled games after 20 games or so. No team since them has come within .100 points of that "winning" percentage.

 

These poor guys (or a parade of them) slogged through a full season. They finished in 12th place out of 12 teams, 35 games behind.... the 11th place team. 84 games out of first. They drew 6,088 fans... for the season. (Pennant winner Brooklyn drew 269K.) They finished their season as basically a road team, since other teams in the league would no longer travel to League Park and not cover their expenses.

 

There were scoundrels in ownership back then, point well taken, but as with our discussion about Landis, you would still find wide variations. Stanley and Frank Robison were outliers - they didn't bother to hide their intentions when they bought a second team and termed their Cleveland franchise a sideshow.

 

That's what's so bad.

 

You wouldn't introduce a new line of cars called "The New and Improved Edsel." You wouldn't name a shelter rescue dog Old Yeller. You wouldn't name a baseball team you cared about the Spiders. It would feel like you had doomed it.

 

So in other words, you think the Rockers would be a much better name?

[bighat]

I agree, the Cleveland Spiders would be simply awesome.

[ashbury]

So in other words, you think the Rockers would be a much better name?

John Rocker kind of ruined that one. But yes, anything but Indians or Spiders.

 

[Thegrin]

Call them the Cleveland Mistakes...so they could really be the Mistakes by the Lake.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Ford Motor Company built a model named Edsel. It didn't go over well, and became a laughingstock name - sort of a "name brand" for the worst product of its kind (even if it really wasn't).

 

Well, the 1899 Cleveland Spiders were kind of the name brand Bad Baseball Team. Or, should be. When people in 1962 made jokes about how historically bad the brand-new Mets were, at 40-120, knowledgeable old-timers could smile and say, "that's because you're ignoring the '99 Spiders".

 

They went 20-134 for a .130 winning percentage. The only teams before them who did worse than that were in abbreviated seasons where they would fold and simply not show up for scheduled games after 20 games or so. No team since them has come within .100 points of that "winning" percentage.

 

These poor guys (or a parade of them) slogged through a full season. They finished in 12th place out of 12 teams, 35 games behind.... the 11th place team. 84 games out of first. They drew 6,088 fans... for the season. (Pennant winner Brooklyn drew 269K.) They finished their season as basically a road team, since other teams in the league would no longer travel to League Park and find their expenses not covered.

 

There were scoundrels in league ownership back then, point well taken, but as with our discussion about Landis, you would still find wide variations within any given era. Stanley and Frank Robison were outliers - they didn't bother to hide their intentions when they bought a second team and termed their Cleveland franchise a sideshow.

 

After that season, the Cleveland franchise was folded - the National League itself contracted to 8 teams, and the Spiders had no continuation. Cleveland started fresh with the American League instead. So the Spiders' reasonably lengthy run ended in ignominy, with no opportunity for quick redemption.

 

That's what's so bad.

 

You wouldn't introduce a new line of cars called "The New and Improved Edsel." You wouldn't name a baseball team you cared about the Spiders. It would feel like you had doomed it.

 

Yet Washington, the laughingstock of baseball for literally 5-6 decades, turned around and named another team the Senators the NEXT SEASON after the original Senators left. The Cleveland Browns, a team with a legacy of sucking and/or heartbreak left after some really sleazy owner behavior and yet the city named the next team the Browns, too.

 

I think you’re putting way too much stock into events that happened 121 years ago. Does anyone honestly care about what the 1899 Spiders did? The only connection would be the city, name, and logo. I think it’s a little silly to think too hard about ownership legacy on a franchise that dissolved in the 19th century before the American League even formed.

[Nine of twelve]

Considering that this is a "rather pointless debate" I have enjoyed reading the extended posts.

I thought Rockers would be a good name but I had forgotten about John Rocker. It may still be a good name but Ash ruined it for me by reminding me about him. I think Rock And Rollers would be more accurate but that's pretty clumsy.

If the team's management does indeed decide to discontinue the current name they'll probably want a name that is as new and unique as possible. I expect they'll follow a process in the manner of modern corporate culture. They'll call on their advertising department and probably hire a consulting firm. They'll use many sources to come up with suggestions. They'll do trademark research. They'll do marketing research. I hope for their sake they get a better result than the Minnesota Wild got.

And by the way for as long as I can remember I have wanted to own an Edsel. I think they look cool.

[Craig Arko]

Given the tight relationship with Progressive, I’ll go for Cleveland Underwriters. 
 

Terry Francona can be called the Risk Manager. 

[ashbury]

 

Yet Washington, the laughingstock of baseball for literally 5-6 decades, turned around and named another team the Senators the NEXT SEASON after the original Senators left. The Cleveland Browns, a team with a legacy of sucking and/or heartbreak left after some really sleazy owner behavior and yet the city named the next team the Browns, too.

I think you’re putting way too much stock into events that happened 121 years ago. Does anyone honestly care about what the 1899 Spiders did? The only connection would be the city, name, and logo. I think it’s a little silly to think too hard about ownership legacy on a franchise that dissolved in the 19th century before the American League even formed.

It's not a hill I would die on. Call them the Spiders if that's what the city wants. I was explaining someone else's joke, using some hopefully interesting historical points. The team that year really was one of a kind. WAR doesn't reveal one single pitcher with more than a handful of innings who was even replacement level for the day. That's hard to accomplish unless you actually try; apparently that's what the owners did.
 

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's not a hill I would die on. Call them the Spiders if that's what the city wants. I was explaining someone else's joke, using some hopefully interesting historical points. The team that year really was one of a kind. WAR doesn't reveal one single pitcher with more than a handful of innings who was even replacement level for the day. That's hard to accomplish unless you actually try; apparently that's what the owners did.

 

It’s an interesting footnote because, like you said, it’s basically impossible to be that bad without actively trying.

 

And it’d be hard to do without the specific environment where someone owns two teams and intentionally shuffles all good players to one team. I don’t even know if a team could be that bad solely through trades.

[adjacent]

The Cleveland Native Americans... sarc/

 

[Dantes929]

 

Native American here and the names do not bother me.  History is history and a name change isn't going to change anything.  

Its not going to hurt anything either.    Just curious.   How do you feel about the name Redskins?   When this whole name change movement started years ago I kind of pushed back but then took a step back and asked myself why.    Why would I care?   The push to change the name came from somewhere.   You are not offended and you are not alone but there apparently are lots that are offended so changing the name seems like a small thing to do.

[DocBauer]

Native American here and the names do not bother me.  History is history and a name change isn't going to change anything.

 

THANK YOU BBAM for your contribution! And that is heartfelt from me!

 

I really hate to get serious here, but I am finding myself in a personal conundrum in regard to Cleveland and other mascots scattered across professional baseball and college athletics. To be 100% clear to everyone here and any future discussion involved the onky prejudice I have is against...ummm...lets's say anal holes to keep my perfect record in place.

 

I am no history scholar, I have no PHD in anything. But I am a highly intelligent, Christian, loving, sensitive middle class white man who has grown up and lived in the Midwest my entire life. I grew up right and raised my children as good or even better than I was raised. But my perspective will always be tainted. It only takes an open minded and intelligent person to look at the history of this country to understand the place of Native Americans in historical perspective. And if anyone knkws anything about history, and the Native American culture, you would also know and understand that just as there were many differences between the European cultures, and others, that "settled" this continent, there were also many differences between the tribes native to this land.

 

I have a TREMENDOUS respect for the culture of Native Americans at large and their place in history, as well as many of their philosophies regarding life And the world. And we all know the term "Indian" was established over 500yrs ago when explorers reached this continent thinking they had somehow circumferenced the world.

 

Let us be 100% honest here. Until a few years ago, as sports fans, none of us really considered the Washington Redskins as being offensive. It was just the name of a pro football team. In fact, professionally speaking, they had a proud heritage and a pretty majestic looking mascot. I doubt any insult was originally intended. Reflection now tells us innocuous intent does not equal reality with a renewed consciousness and perspective.

 

500 yrs after the fact is "Indian" now considered offensive? I don't know. I'm white, Caucasian, European, I guess. I just figured I fit in to a certain category, even if it meant nothing at the end of the day. I'm also 3/4 German and 1/4 Norwegian. My kids are a larger mix. So are my friends and co-workers. My best friend and brother of 42yrs is 1/4 Cherokee.

 

After 500yrs is the term "Indian" offensive or descriptive? I'm just asking. If offensive, I agree with changing the name.

 

Do names like "Braves" or "Seminoles" really bring out negativity or racism? Again, I don't know. I'm asking. There may be some in history that don't like the "patriots" of early America or despise the history and culture of the "vikings" of Europe who have the name of a certain NFL franchise. Do we despise the USC "Trojan" name because history has taught us they were the greatest empire the world has ever know but also are guilty of perhaps some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever known? I never understood ND changing their name from the Fighting Sioux because I always thought they were paying homage to the proud Sioux Nation who roamed the plains as their home. Maybe my perspective was wrong, but I'm asking here.

 

Am I rambling a bit the way I'm known to? Absolutely! But if you aren't paying attention then shame on you. Change for the sake of change means NOTHING. If "indians" is offensive, change it. I get it. I like the Rock angle. But before we re-write everything and knee jerk, can we at least converse and learn and gain perspective?

[Nine of twelve]

 

I never understood ND changing their name from the Fighting Sioux because I always thought they were paying homage to the proud Sioux Nation who roamed the plains as their home.
 

 That may be what you thought. And that may be what the people who chose the name thought. But that is of little to no importance.

I'm reminded of something that the character Borat (as portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen) once said. I'm not going to use quotation marks because I don't remember the exact quote but this is close. (Disclaimer: keep in mind this is not real. It's a line said by a fictional character.)

 

I don't understand people saying I don't respect women. I love and respect women! In fact, just the other day I complimented a friend of mine on the size of his wife's breasts!

 

Even though a tribute may be well intended it may not be well taken.

 

 

[DocBauer]

That may be what you thought. And that may be what the people who chose the name thought. But that is of little to no importance.

I'm reminded of something that the character Borat (as portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen) once said. I'm not going to use quotation marks because I don't remember the exact quote but this is close. (Disclaimer: keep in mind this is not real. It's a line said by a fictional character.)

 

I don't understand people saying I don't respect women. I love and respect women! In fact, just the other day I complimented a friend of mine on the size of his wife's breasts!

 

Even though a tribute may be well intended it may not be well taken.

The quote is funny and appreciated. But it's also why I made the post I did. I'm asking questions for honest dialogue.