Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Lakers Are a Broken Model

Should The Houston Astros Change Their Name?

If you think your team's nickname has been that way forever, for many MLB teams, that's not the case. Will the Astros become the next club with a new name?

Jan 24, 2012 - On Monday, Rob Neyer wrote about new Astros' owner Jim Crane's statement that they would "evaluate" the team nickname before the club's planned move to the American League in 2013.

This sent many Astros fans into a tizzy. Change the name? Why, they'd stop being fans!

Well.

If the Astros do wind up changing their nickname, it wouldn't be the first time they've done so. When the franchise began in 1962, they were known as the Colt .45s -- try to imagine a team nicknamed after a gun in present-day professional sports. The NBA's Washington Bullets were re-nicknamed the Wizards in 1997; our SB Nation Wizards site, "Bullets Forever", pays homage to the previous name.

You might think team nicknames are immutable and forever. You've always been a Yankees fan, right? Or cheered for the Phillies, or the Dodgers or the Braves? All those teams have been around for a century or more ... but they haven't always been known by those names.

In the early days of baseball, while teams did have nicknames, they weren't considered trademarks as they are today. Two franchises -- the Cubs and Braves -- have been in continuous operation since 1876. The team now known as the Cubs was originally known as the "White Stockings". But as often as not, they were simply called "the Chicagos". Over time, they were also called "Orphans" (when many of their longtime players departed) or "Colts" (when they got younger replacements), before a newspaper headline writer, looking for a shorter name for a young team, came up with "Cubs". It stuck, and became the team's official nickname in 1907.

Other teams have similar stories. The Dodgers, during their time in Brooklyn, were known at various times as Atlantics, Grays, Grooms, Bridegrooms, Superbas and Robins; they didn't settle for "Dodgers" officially until 1932. The team now known as the Atlanta Braves was, while in Boston, called Red Stockings, Beaneaters, Doves and Rustlers; they became "Braves" permanently in 1912 -- but then, after a low period in their history, renamed themselves "Bees" from 1936-1940. It didn't help; after five mediocre-to-bad years they went back to Braves.

The Phillies, for some of the same reasons, renamed themselves "Blue Jays", though somewhat unofficially, in 1943 and 1944 after an ownership change before returning to their original moniker.

During the Red Scare of the 1950s, the Cincinnati Reds decided that having a name that headline writers were using to describe Communists wouldn't do, and from 1954-1959 were known as the "Redlegs".

And just four years ago, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed their color scheme and logo; instead of an aquatic creature, they were now a "Ray" of sunshine, as noted on their uniforms. This happened to coincide with the franchise's sudden leap into playoff contention, so most of their fans are likely happy with it.

All of this is to say that Astros fans shouldn't be so sure that their nickname will remain in perpetuity. The franchise has changed logos and uniform colors at least six times since they moved into the then-futuristic Astrodome and adopted the name "Astros" in 1965. With the move to the American League in 2013, why not make a break with the past and rename the club?

In the comments to Rob's feature, several people made suggestions for new nicknames, some more tongue-in-cheek than others. I've incorporated some of those ideas in the poll below, and added one suggestion of my own: Buffaloes. That was the nickname of a minor-league club that played in Houston in various incarnations from 1888 until Houston was granted a major league franchise in 1962. Often abbreviated to "Buffs", the name has historic significance. If Jim Crane wants to change the team name while giving a nod to the city's baseball history and yet looking forward, this could be a very good choice.

Poll
What nickname should the Houston Astros take when they move to the AL in 2013?
Astros! Keep the Astros!
224 votes
Buffaloes
38 votes
Colts (not Colt .45s, just Colts)
68 votes
Cranes
9 votes
Crawfish
32 votes
Eagles
7 votes
Generals
22 votes
Oilers
93 votes
Texans
14 votes
Wolfpack
17 votes
Something else (leave in comments)
25 votes

549 votes | Poll has closed

Do you like this post?

22359_1256997499464_1065394778_30839957_2068120_n_medium

Al Yellon

Editor

Al Yellon is a Cubs fan. For that, he hopes you will indulge him. He's seen Cubs failures since 1969, including the agonizingly close playoff misses in 1984 and 2003. For that, at least a bit of... Read full bio


Comments

Display:

Heh.

try to imagine a team nicknamed after a gun in present-day professional sports. The NBA’s Washington Bullets were re-nicknamed the Wizards in 1997
-
I can’t remember who gets credit for the line, maybe it was Leno, but he said approximately, “The Washington Bullets are changing their name because of its association with violence and crime. So from now on they’re going to be known as the Bullets.”

by bucdaddy on Jan 24, 2012 11:04 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

I remember that joke

One of the funniest things I had heard all year. Leno seems like a good guess, I cannot recall exactly who said it either.

by PentePro on Jan 24, 2012 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

How about keep the Astros as a shortened version, but extend it out to

Astronauts for certain branding? Like Athletics/A’s, New York Football Giants/Giants, Cubicles/Cubs, stuff like that. That could be fun.

by Justin Bopp on Jan 24, 2012 11:10 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

Now Astronauts is a name I could get behind. It’s not really a change.

by Phrozen on Jan 24, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Astronomicals?

I guess I thought that was their name.

by Eastwindquinn on Jan 24, 2012 1:48 PM EST up reply actions  

The Bushes, naturally.

It’s high time the family was better represented in MLB. And Texas.

by Curley Bender on Jan 24, 2012 11:17 AM EST reply actions  

You joke

But I’m a little scared of what a professional sports team in Texas would get named these days.

I have Croix de Candlesticks older than you.
Golden Gate Beer Bars | Tweetybox

by troymccluresf on Jan 24, 2012 12:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Changing the name is a terrible, terrible idea

They are about to go into direct competition with the Rangers for fans (which was a bad idea to begin with). Up until now, people could be fans of both teams. Even in Houston, people generally liked the Rangers in the American League. Now they have to compete in the secondary markets for fans. San Antonio has historically been an Astros town. My guess is that is changing fast, and it won’t help to cut off the remaining fans in San Antonio, visually and in name, from all their memories as Astros fans. I couldn’t help but root for the Oilers even after they moved to Tennessee, because they were the “Oilers,” but the moment they became the “Titans,” I instantly lost all connection with them.

It’s not the Houston fans they need to worry about (although that’s going to be a problem, too, I imagine). It’s Austin and San Antonio and New Orleans and other areas that have been Astros areas, but that they could lose very quickly if they make themselves into an expansion team.

This is not a newbie franchise or team with decades of crap behind it (like all of the teams that you mentioned who changed their names). This is a team who was coming off a World Series and two straight NLCS appearances just six years ago. They have had a couple of bad seasons now, and it very well could be a few years before things really start turning around. They have already completely turned over the roster, they will completely change their context and rivalries, to completely change the name and look will cut off everyone but the biggest fans from what they are used to following and rooting for.

It’s just a horrible idea and I hope it doesn’t get off the ground.

by Stephen Suffron on Jan 24, 2012 11:36 AM EST reply actions   2 recs

It’s fun to joke about, but I think they ought to leave ‘Astros’ in place. There’s nothing to be gained that I can see, and a pretty significant cost to the fans.

And the Phillies have always been the Phillies, at least, since 1883. “Blue Jays” was never the official moniker.

by Phrozen on Jan 24, 2012 12:07 PM EST reply actions  

I'll bet if the Phillies had gotten good ...

… when unoffically the Blue Jays, they’d have stuck with it.

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Jan 24, 2012 12:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Perhaps.

Luckily, they were god-awful.

by Phrozen on Jan 24, 2012 3:40 PM EST up reply actions  

The team really isn’t moving so I don’t think they’d have a major risk of losing fans. Now if they were moving to say Las Vegas to become the Gamblers then yes I could see fans of the Houston Astros being disconnected from the team.

Outside of playing in a new division and league they are going to be the same organization and play in the same park. This sort of move didn’t hurt the Brewers years ago, and I doubt it would have if they had changed their name to the Beers.

If the Astros want to change their name I think they need to stick with something that at least references a baseball team from the Houston area.

Buffaloes or Colts. Though once you’ve had a name for 40 odd years it should be one that the team embraces unless it has serious PR problems, or doesn’t really make sense for the area. The later is more a NBA issue though.

If they were to become the Colts though and make their emblem look close enough to the Denver Broncos they could get some misplaced Tebow love.

by schellis on Jan 24, 2012 12:52 PM EST reply actions  

Not in Houston, so much

`But they would lose fans in their secondary markets, and they have some pretty substantial secondary markets.

by Stephen Suffron on Jan 24, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

The Lonestars!

Kind of seems like an oxymoron when you pluralize it.

"That baseball is the smartest thing out on that field." —Hawk Harrelson

by mikecws91 on Jan 24, 2012 1:53 PM EST reply actions  

The Lonestar

… I’ve never liked singular team names. (Heat? Ugh)

Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation

by Al Yellon on Jan 24, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh come on!

My Cowpokes didn’t make the list!?! ;)

isitspringtrainingyet.com

by imstillhungry95 on Jan 24, 2012 3:04 PM EST reply actions  

Dadgummit! What about the Tornadoes?

Buffaloes may be a good option. The Houston Buffaloes were a AA team in the Texas League. The Colts—another option which harkens back to the original name.

Other names: The Tornadoes, the Mustangs, the Boots in your Ass.

Galveston had a team at the turn of the 20th century called the Sand Crabs. Perhaps a better option would be the Scorpions for Houston.

by G H Wolf on Jan 24, 2012 4:09 PM EST reply actions  

Just though of what would go really well for this team keep the name and uniforms the same and get this team winning, stop screwing around on this name and uniform change. If the name changes we lose the heritage of what made the Astros like bagwell. biggio & ryan to name a few, the uniforms are one of the best in the majors. so lowering the prices on all these things and changing the name and uniform is where the money will be made back. Just start winning.

by Stephen Kirkland on Jan 24, 2012 8:36 PM EST reply actions  

The Houston Gulf Hawks

They should totaly Gulf Hawk themselves.

by tenaciousdeucer on Jan 24, 2012 9:59 PM EST reply actions  

Maids!

I think the idea of naming the team after the ballpark is a tradition they should continue, and Minutemen makes no sense in a place like Texas, but Maids is kind of cool. I guess I also like Pulps, to riff on product.

by goyo70 on Jan 25, 2012 10:22 AM EST reply actions  

About time.

“Astro-” is a prefix. It is the Jetsons’ dog. What it is emphatically NOT—and never has been—is a noun, or an acceptable name for a sports team. “Colts” is my favorite option—it gets the edge for echoing the team’s history. But if you want to keep honoring the space program, name them the Stars, or Comets, or Pilots … as long as it’s something that’s a NAME.

by Jhimmibhob on Jan 25, 2012 11:08 AM EST reply actions  

I think it's a great idea.

I think that renaming the team will help mark a new directions for the team. The Colt .45s/Astros were a NL team for ~50 years, the Houston _________s were an AL team from 2013-????.

Besides, with the Astrodome gone and NASA’s fate being sealed, the moniker is a bit anachronistic.

by Jigokusabre on Jan 25, 2012 12:03 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Yahoo_full_count Yahoo_fantasy_baseball

Photo

Baseball On Par With Other Professional Sports In Dealing With Bad Umpires

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 20:  Stephen Strasburg #37 of the Washington Nationals celebrates with teammates after hitting his first career home run in the fourth inning against the Baltimore Orioles during interleague play at Nationals Park on May 20, 2012 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Greg Fiume/Getty Images)

Stephen Strasburg Pulled Early With 'Arm Fatigue', Downplays Significance

Los Angeles, CA, USA; St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Lance Berkman is looked at by manager Mike Matheny and the team trainer after suffering an apperant injury against the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium.  Mandatory Credit: Gary A. Vasquez-US PRESSWIRE

Lance Berkman Placed On 15-Day DL With Right Knee Injury