Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Cleveland MLB team reportedly considering name change

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
99 replies to this topic

#1 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,018 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 03 July 2020 - 07:11 PM

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

 

https://www.startrib...sure/571623572/

  • DannySD likes this

#2 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 4,597 posts

Posted 03 July 2020 - 07:14 PM

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

  • birdwatcher, gunnarthor, Craig Arko and 13 others like this

Purveyor of videobaseballscout.com to cover all kinds of baseball!!

 


#3 SQUIRREL

SQUIRREL

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,354 posts

Posted 03 July 2020 - 07:21 PM

Cleveland should go back to being the Spiders!

  • birdwatcher, nicksaviking, PseudoSABR and 6 others like this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#4 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,018 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 03 July 2020 - 07:21 PM

 

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.

  • birdwatcher, DocBauer and tarheeltwinsfan like this

#5 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,018 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 03 July 2020 - 07:22 PM

 

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.


#6 woolywoolhouse

woolywoolhouse

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 356 posts

Posted 03 July 2020 - 08:08 PM

 

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.

  • ashbury, VOMG and wabene like this

 

SblamiVvl-SFSfi_8yN5GGvjJk0=.gif


#7 a-wan

a-wan

    Member

  • Member
  • 208 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 01:02 AM

 

Cleveland should go back to being the Spiders!

To help modernize it, it should be Spyders. 

  • SQUIRREL and DocBauer like this

#8 SQUIRREL

SQUIRREL

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,354 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 01:16 AM

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.
  • DocBauer and wabene like this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#9 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 23,690 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 08:06 AM

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.
  • PseudoSABR likes this

#10 BBAM

BBAM

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 186 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 08:16 AM

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

  • SQUIRREL, Cap'n Piranha, notoriousgod71 and 7 others like this

#11 SQUIRREL

SQUIRREL

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,354 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 08:44 AM

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.
  • DocBauer likes this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#12 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,432 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 08:52 AM

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

  • Sconnie likes this

#13 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 3,018 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 04 July 2020 - 09:33 AM

 

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.


#14 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 23,690 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 09:39 AM

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.
  • adjacent, PseudoSABR and HitInAPinch like this

#15 darin617

darin617

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,556 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 09:46 AM

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.


#16 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan for life!

  • Member
  • 25,564 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 04 July 2020 - 10:18 AM

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.
 

  • Nine of twelve likes this

Junk is stuff we throw away.Stuff is junk we keep.-- George Carlin


#17 SQUIRREL

SQUIRREL

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,354 posts

Posted 04 July 2020 - 10:23 AM

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?
  • ashbury, DocBauer and Nine of twelve like this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#18 bighat

bighat

    Sombrero Grande

  • Member
  • 3,498 posts
  • LocationGuatemala

Posted 04 July 2020 - 10:31 AM

I agree, the Cleveland Spiders would be simply awesome.

  • wabene likes this

#19 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan for life!

  • Member
  • 25,564 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 04 July 2020 - 10:44 AM

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.
 

  • HitInAPinch and Nine of twelve like this

Junk is stuff we throw away.Stuff is junk we keep.-- George Carlin


#20 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,107 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 04 July 2020 - 11:26 AM

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

  • wabene likes this