Cleveland Indians To Change Name Soon

[KevFu]

Well, I'm not sure it's quite that clear cut. Phillips explained it quite well. Dennis Gilbert was big on deferring salaries as you mention. The problem was when they evaluated it, Madoff's people said they could make $60 million based on their return projections, so the deal as it is now made "sense" and the Mets could more than double their money.

The Mets fell for the idea they could take the deferment, and make themselves a boatload of money on that deferment. They've paid $20 million (minus time value of money) over what they needed to, because it is quite unlikely they actually profited on any investment they made with the original salary. Do they defer, or handle it differently if Madoff isn't involved? I think at least some of the ridicule is justified.

I'm not sure what to make of Cabrera's contract. (I'm a Tigers fan.) You have a guy who was an historic hitter, and the skills usually age well. But you take the risk of injury, and his knees went, which has killed his lower body power. Add in the current economics and the contract does look like an albatross. But if tickets are ever able to be sold, he may be the only reason to watch the team the next season or two as he goes for 500 home runs/3000 hits, so there is some value there. It also came from Mike Illitch wanting a World Series win before he shuffled off this mortal coil, and was willing to spend to do it.

I used the Miggy contract merely as a reference point about how including the Bonilla deferred payments into Wright's contract show you that Wright was a great value All-Star player before injuries set him back; I picked Miggy because of the similar ages and contracts in the same $250-$350 range over 13-15 years, and EVERYONE knows what a freaking monster Miggy was at the plate.

But I feel you're "I'm not sure how clear cut it is" is actually backing my "clear cut" post: They fell for Bernie Madoff. That's it. That's how clear cut it is. It was a great deal when they made it because they thought they were getting 20% on the interest because Madoff was a scam artist.

The sole reason the Mets got mocked for Bonilla is because after the Madoff scandal, they cut their payroll drastically because they had budgeted for a lot more money than they actually had coming in and when it was revealed to be smoke and mirrors and not cash, they were hosed. So lazy journalists ran with the Bonilla Day story; again TOTALLY IGNORING that Bret Saberhagen, Carlos Beltran and dozens of Mets players and dozens of players from every other team is getting deferments.

The 2001 Diamondbacks had a $85 million payroll.... NO ONE NOTICED OR CARED that they actually had $250 million in deferred payments to 18 guys on the roster. They just now finished paying off their 2001 championship. The Nationals did the same thing the last five years. Max Scherzer STARTS getting $10 million in deferred money in 2024 for 7 years.

It's that way all around baseball. The Cardinals are paying Matt Holliday $2 million a year thru 2029. Ichiro gets $5 million a year through 2032, Ryan Braun $3 million through 2031, Ken Griffey Jr $3.5 mil through 2024.

The only reason to mock the Mets for a practice everyone does is because the Mets outfield was four guys making $2 million combined after Madoff, while Bonilla got $1.12 million on July 1.

 

[BJNT]

If they go with Spiders, it would be cool if they got permission from Marvel to use Spiderman as their mascot. Maybe even create an all black alternate uniform and call it the Venoms.

 

[golfortennis]

If they go with Spiders, it would be cool if they got permission from Marvel to use Spiderman as their mascot. Maybe even create an all black alternate uniform and call it the Venoms.

No way Marvel agrees to that in any way that makes sense for the ball club. The royalties would be so high it wouldn't be worth selling merchandise.

 

[Albatros]

No way Marvel agrees to that in any way that makes sense for the ball club. The royalties would be so high it wouldn't be worth selling merchandise.

They've done some collaboration in the past too though:

 

[BJNT]

No way Marvel agrees to that in any way that makes sense for the ball club. The royalties would be so high it wouldn't be worth selling merchandise.

As much money as MLB makes they can afford it. Plus it would be a great way to draw in more younger fans.

 

[oknazevad]

I could see them doing it for an annual promotional theme game. It would be a fun tie-in that would definitely take off the edge of most people's aversion to spiders as creepy.

But I do feel the need to remind people that Peter Parker is a die-hard Mets fan. He's not only from Queens, his luck over the years is much like the Mets. Also, the team and the character are about the same age, with Spider-Man's first appearance being released in June 1962 (cover-dated August, two months later as is typical for American comics), only two months after the Mets first began play. Heck, one of my favorite Spidey comics is an issue where he reminisces about going to Shea with Uncle Ben as a kid.

 

[CanadianCoyote]

Yeah, it makes pretty little sense to use a character so strongly associated with New York City and canonically known to be a Mets fan and have him be the mascot of a team in Ohio.

Besides, "Spiders" has become a trivia point for "worst team in MLB history". They'd be wise to skip that association altogether in favor of a name without as much historical baggage.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

I've already said that Spiders shouldn't be used only because it would be too triggering for people with arachnophobia.

 

[golfortennis]

As much money as MLB makes they can afford it. Plus it would be a great way to draw in more younger fans.

It's not about about how much money MLB makes. It's about how much the Indians need to pay, and how much in additional sales it will generate.

 

[golfortennis]

They've done some collaboration in the past too though:

Oh sure, a one-off limited promo is manageable. The suggestion was for them to make Spiderman their mascot. On a permanent basis. The price Marvel would ask for that would be astronomical. No way that would ever pay off.

 

[Albatros]

Maybe, but one can always have talks and find out. The Brooklyn Nets created their previous mascot together with Marvel, wasn't very successful though.

 

[golfortennis]

Maybe, but one can always have talks and find out. The Brooklyn Nets created their previous mascot together with Marvel, wasn't very successful though.

ANd the reason they likely went with the try to create was because then they would be original owners and not have to pay licensing fees. But the risk is, as you say, it wasn't very successful. There is no doubt a team named Spiders would not have the fate with Spiderman as a mascot. The cost however....let's just say I'd love to be sitting in Marvel's chair for that discussion.

 

[GindyDraws]

ANd the reason they likely went with the try to create was because then they would be original owners and not have to pay licensing fees. But the risk is, as you say, it wasn't very successful. There is no doubt a team named Spiders would not have the fate with Spiderman as a mascot. The cost however....let's just say I'd love to be sitting in Marvel's chair for that discussion.

But, Marvel doesn't have a monopoly on everything Arachnida. The University of Richmond calls its athletic program the Spiders. You don't need to feel obligated to make allusions to established properties when naming things. Like, I know comic book nights are common in minor league baseball, but do you think the Louisville Bats chose the bat (the creature) as a logo due to Batman? No, it's due to the proximity to the Louisville Slugger factory and the wordplay.

 

[golfortennis]

But, Marvel doesn't have a monopoly on everything Arachnida. The University of Richmond calls its athletic program the Spiders. You don't need to feel obligated to make allusions to established properties when naming things. Like, I know comic book nights are common in minor league baseball, but do you think the Louisville Bats chose the bat (the creature) as a logo due to Batman? No, it's due to the proximity to the Louisville Slugger factory and the wordplay.

They don't need a monopoly on everything arachnida. But if you want to use Spiderman, back up the Brinks truck. Louisville has a bat as their logo, but it's not Batman, which is fine.

This isn't about the name at all. They can use Spiders for all I care. The proposal was using Spiderman as a mascot/logo if they choose Spiders as their nickname. And to that I say they would need to pay far more than it would be worth. An eight-legged creature? By all means.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

But, Marvel doesn't have a monopoly on everything Arachnida. The University of Richmond calls its athletic program the Spiders. You don't need to feel obligated to make allusions to established properties when naming things. Like, I know comic book nights are common in minor league baseball, but do you think the Louisville Bats chose the bat (the creature) as a logo due to Batman? No, it's due to the proximity to the Louisville Slugger factory and the wordplay.

Lucy Loud has a pet bat (the only mammal capable of true flight).

But anyway, when it comes to abandoning Native American nicknames in pro sports, in most cases I will advocate recycling a nickname from another sport that was used in the same city - like wanting the Indians to become the Barons (formerly hockey), Atlanta Braves to become Thrashers (also formerly hockey), and Kansas City Chiefs to become Kings (formerly basketball) or Scouts (formerly hockey). The only deviation I have proposed is for the Washington Football Team, which I want named the Presidents in honor of Washington's status as the capital of the US, and a change of color scheme to red, white, and navy blue (like the other big 4 teams in Washington and the American flag).

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Furthermore, the Chicago Blackhawks can keep their name, but a space would be added between the first K and the H (which would now be capitalized), and the logo changed from a depiction of Chief Black Hawk to a depiction of a hawk (the bird) with black feathers.

 

[rojac]

Interesting point made by Steve Phillips today. He wasn't debating whether it is right or wrong to change the name. But he was saying that, if by your own words you are saying you insult a certain group of people(which their statement essentially said), and thus will be changing your name, how can you then say you're going to keep doing it for another year?

So, if they won’t have a new name and logo ready for the start of the 2021 season (say because of market research that is not yet complete), I wonder what Phillips thinks they should do:

• Temporarily rebrand as the Cleveland baseball club and spend a lot of money changing signing and stationery and such, only to have to do it again for 2022.
• Keep the coming name change a secret and put up with another year of criticism.
• Quickly throw together a name and graphic design that has not been properly market researched and hope for the best.

There’s also the possibility that with losses due to Covid-19, the team can simply not afford to rebrand at this time.

All in all. I think the decision to announce the name change and reduce the heat on the organization is a reasonable one.

 

[golfortennis]

So, if they won’t have a new name and logo ready for the start of the 2021 season (say because of market research that is not yet complete), I wonder what Phillips thinks they should do:

• Temporarily rebrand as the Cleveland baseball club and spend a lot of money changing signing and stationery and such, only to have to do it again for 2022.
• Keep the coming name change a secret and put up with another year of criticism.
• Quickly throw together a name and graphic design that has not been properly market researched and hope for the best.

There’s also the possibility that with losses due to Covid-19, the team can simply not afford to rebrand at this time.

‘All in all. I think the decision to announce the name change and reduce the heat on the organization is a reasonable one.

The first one would be the logical one. It's not that they need to to do it, it's just that when you say your name is insulting to a group of people, you paint yourself into a corner, and by keeping the name for the year, you are essentially saying "we're going to insult you for another year."

You remove whatever "Indians" you can quickly, say you will be removing signage etc. through the course of the season, since that can't be done in an instant, and start looking for another name. But you say you are working as of now to remove the name, if you are going to justify the name change as you did.