Franchise

[YankeesGM - (Dustin)]

Kansas City Royals - Claimed

[DiamondbacksGM - (Neal)]

Arizona Diamondbacks - Claimed

[BrewersGM - (Matt)]

Milwaukee Brewers - Claimed

[dan]

Cleveland Indians - Claimed

[dan]

Just wondering if it is possible that I relocate the Cleveland Indians to one of the non-claimed MLB teams (once we have a full league) and assume that team's identity (Team name, logo, city) with the Indians players?

I ask this because:
1. I hate the Indians...but I chose them because I felt they had the best chance for me to be successful.
2. I would enjoy more having an identity of another team.
3. Some find the Cleveland Indians name and logo offensive. I am not greatly-offended by it personally but know others who are.

Just wondering. If no, that's fine but I wanted to ask.

[O's GM - (Clay)]

Nov 22, 2009 21:55:50 GMT -5 @dan said:

Just wondering if it is possible that I relocate the Cleveland Indians to one of the non-claimed MLB teams (once we have a full league) and assume that team's identity (Team name, logo, city) with the Indians players?

I ask this because:
1. I hate the Indians...but I chose them because I felt they had the best chance for me to be successful.
2. I would enjoy more having an identity of another team.
3. Some find the Cleveland Indians name and logo offensive. I am not greatly-offended by it personally but know others who are.

Just wondering. If no, that's fine but I wanted to ask.

Wouldn't seem right to me, Dan, as know one else had that opportunity.

[JaysGM - (Mat)]

Nov 22, 2009 21:55:50 GMT -5 @dan said:

Just wondering if it is possible that I relocate the Cleveland Indians to one of the non-claimed MLB teams (once we have a full league) and assume that team's identity (Team name, logo, city) with the Indians players?

I ask this because:
1. I hate the Indians...but I chose them because I felt they had the best chance for me to be successful.
2. I would enjoy more having an identity of another team.
3. Some find the Cleveland Indians name and logo offensive. I am not greatly-offended by it personally but know others who are.

Just wondering. If no, that's fine but I wanted to ask.

(shaking my head) some will try anything, lol, if it wasn't coming from Dan I wouldn't know what to think of it!

[dan]

This is totally up to the league founder and/or leadership to decide. Ultimately, if it is decided best that you can not change your namesake connection to another UNCLAIMED franchise city and team then I of course would respect that.

Basically, what I am suggesting is that for the entire offseason on all relevant stuff I remain the Indians and then prior to the season (maybe in Spring Training) at some point I switch over to have a connection with another team that is at that point UNCLAIMED.

Basically, I would gain zero advantage this way and have a connection to a different franchise going forward and sever any future connection to the Indians franchise going forward.

Personally, I think everyone has that opportunity still as it isn't something that is possible until the league is full anyways.

I didn't mean to cause a headache and I didn't mean to try to gain any sort of unfair advantage. I was just trying to make the league more entertaining and fun for me going forward, that is all.

[dan]

Ok, I see an argument against this. Had someone known this was possible they might have taken a different franchise and hoped that they could do the same thing and relocate to one of the unclaimed cities.

I get it. If it is an issue with any other owner I will retract my request and be the Indians.

[O's GM - (Clay)]

Nov 23, 2009 18:16:17 GMT -5 @dan said:

Personally, I think everyone has that opportunity still as it isn't something that is possible until the league is full anyways.

Problem is, how would I, now, claim players from the Rangers or Rays or any taken team? If this had been allowed from the start, then it would have been fair - probably confusing - but, fair. As it is now, there are 20 of us, but only 10 available teams. Sure, teams will open up if the league allows switching, but you'd have to think the best minors would be claimed and it would probably be pretty chaotic.

I think, if you hate the Indians, you might just be better grabbing one of the other available teams with talent. Just my 2 cents.

[dan]

Fine. I will stay the Indians. Last thing I wish to do is upset others or cause chaos or headaches. I'll stick with the Indians tho because they give me the best shot of the teams available to do well in a league against many minds that are greater than mine at this. I'll just embrace the Indian way and all that comes with the franchise.

[O's GM - (Clay)]

Nov 23, 2009 18:34:56 GMT -5 @dan said:

Fine. I'll just embrace the Indian way and all that comes with the franchise.

I certainly won't mind if you spare us that racist caricature

[dan]

Nov 23, 2009 18:40:38 GMT -5 O's GM - (Clay) said:

Nov 23, 2009 18:34:56 GMT -5 @dan said:

Fine. I'll just embrace the Indian way and all that comes with the franchise.

I certainly won't mind if you spare us that racist caricature

To be completely honest, that was part of the reasoning for me requesting relocation. You know I am a graphic designer and I also love the history behind things. That is a real issue when you are the Indians. Almost all the Indians logos have a caricature in them of sorts and I have known people that are offended that sport teams are allowed to be called the Indians, Redskins, etc in the first place. Some Native Americans feel there is nothing wrong with it and it is a positive and not a negative. I side with, overall, the belief that a team should just move onto a different identity that is non-human-connected in nature.

But you have the same issue with the Braves. I remember when the Twins were playing them in the World Series there were many offended by the chants when they were doing the Tomahock Chop in the stands.

I suppose I could just create a new nickname instead of the Indians. Not sure if that would be something people are against or not. Be the Cleveland Tax Auditors or something. LOL. ;D

[JaysGM - (Mat)]

Nov 23, 2009 18:34:56 GMT -5 @dan said:

Fine. I will stay the Indians. Last thing I wish to do is upset others or cause chaos or headaches. I'll stick with the Indians tho because they give me the best shot of the teams available to do well in a league against many minds that are greater than mine at this. I'll just embrace the Indian way and all that comes with the franchise.

Think of it as honouring the Native heritage of the Americas, regardless of the political / social implications. This is a baseball league after all.

BTW, the most offensive name in pro sports has to be the Red Skins. Would Black Skins have passed by so easily? I'm guessing no. Strange how so many teams glorify what was an attempted extermination of an entire race. Let's see, we have the Cleveland Indians, Washington Red Skins, Atlanta Braves, and a ton of College sport team names.

Here's a link about the plight of using Indian mascots:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy

And here's one about the Red Skins being able to keep using their name, even though it would be the same as a German soccer team being called the Jews.
www.csmonitor.com/2009/1116/p02s07-usju.html

So I totally get where you're coming from Dan. Having said that, in this league, I'm sure your using indian logos and emblems will not influence our thoughts on the issue,but it's nice of you to be that considerate.

BTW, the Yankees logo and everything about the team is offensive to me, so could we blank out that team and its players?

lol.

[O's GM - (Clay)]

BTW, the most offensive name in pro sports has to be the Red Skins. Would Black Skins have passed by so easily? I'm guessing no.

I love my Washington, D.C. football team, suckitude and all. I just wished something catchy rhymed with it...Leadpins, Bedtins, FredLynns?

BTW, the Yankees logo and everything about the team is offensive to me, so could we blank out that team and its players?

lol.

LMAO. 27! ;D ;D ;D