As Team Names Go, 'Yankees' Would Never Do

We want to have something that's going to lend itself well to a logo, lend itself well to multiple mascots, be something that people are going to scratch their heads about. And something that would lend itself well to merchandise that would last the test of time for kids' merchandise. That's where the key is, selling kids' merchandise. --Chuck Domino, chief executive manager of Richmond's new AA baseball franchise

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 17, 1903

From: Petey Stuyvesant, Per

sonal Secy. To the Under

Assistant Manager

To: Joe Gordon, Frank Farrell,

William Devery, & et al.

in Mgt.

Re: Nomenclature

Gentlemen,

I hope you will not think me a presumptuous goldbricker for taking a few moments away from washing the team's practice socks -- they are drying on the line as I pen these words -- to convey to you my solemn concern about the discussions regarding the new team name.

Esteemed businessmen such as yourselves no doubt know far more about the world and its enterprises than do I. But I hope I can at least speak for the "man in the street" who is going to be buying the tickets to the games.

Now that the team has moved

from Baltimore to New York I don't think anyone wants to keep the name Orioles. For one thing, we want to make a fresh start. For another, even if we wanted to keep the name, it wouldn't make sense since that polecat McGraw stole half our players. Lastly, I don't think anybody has seen an oriole in the Bronx since at least the Garfield administration. So that name is pretty much out of the question.

We've all heard some dashed good suggestions for a new name, from the Knickerbockers to the Harum-Scarums. I'm partial to the New York Cuspidors, myself. Cuspidors are bright and shiny and they are mighty good to have around -- and they are going to be around for a long, long time. The name would certainly lend itself to some funny hats we could sell as novelties at the concession stands. Also, the fans have been known to spit on the players from time to time, so there's that angle to consider. But I know you fellows have given "Cuspidors" the bum's rush, so I won't dwell on it any longer. I just wanted to be on the record.

Now about the name Highlanders. I guess you think it is pretty swell. I know Mr. Gordon likes it especially, because of the Gordon Highlanders regiment from Scotland and all. That's jake with me. My concern is more from the marketing angle.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are a hard-working stevedore taking your boys to the ball game on your day off. Well, do you want to spend half the time explaining to the lads what a Highlander is? "You see boys, the original Highlanders unit was formed by Col. Baodan MacLaren of Clochlankillerie-upon-Scaddlefirth back in eighteen-so-and-so . . . ." What hard-working dad is going to want to waste the game spouting a bunch of rhubarb like that? What red-blooded American sport is going to cheer for the team after hearing it? No, sir! They'll be rooting for the other team before you can say "play ball!"

I'll tell you what, though -- "Highlanders" is a huckleberry above a persimmon compared with "Yankees." As team names go, that's just all wet.

First off, every hayshaker south of the Mason-Dixon Line is going to hate the team with a white-hot passion. Maybe you don't give two bits what those apple-knockers like and don't like, but plenty of jaspers from up North have kinfolk down South, too. You stick with the New York Yankees, and before you know it the favorite team of half the country will be whoever we're playing against. On top of that, we'll never get top pick of the best players from the Southern farm teams. We can't ever hope to build a winning record with a name like Yankees -- you can take that to the bank.

And speaking of banks, let's talk money. We all know the ticket booth doesn't bring in the big lettuce. That all comes from the franchising, licensing, and merchandising rights. Well, what comes to mind when you hear the word Yankee? I'll tell you what: A dour Mainiac pulling in an empty lobster pot with chillblained hands in the freezing rain, that's what. A stiff-necked Puritan in a high collar pinning a scarlet "A" on a poor harlot's frock. Jonathan Edwards preaching about sinners in the hands of an angry god, and the souls of wicked men being cast into fiery perdition, and that sort of applesauce.

Does that sound like fun? Not by a long chalk. Are the boys in the sandlots across America going to race to the box scores to see how the "Yankees" did last night? Not much, they aren't!

And what sort of merchandise do you expect to be able to market with a name like Yankees? Preacher's cassocks? Oilskin nor'easter jackets? Copies of Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance"? I suppose you have not yet even considered what a Yankees mascot might look like. Perhaps we could employ someone in the likeness of Emerson's physiognomy to read a few choice passages from "Self-Reliance" in the outfield during the seventh-inning stretch. Wouldn't that be a treat.

No, gentlemen, if you stick with the New York "Yankees," I can guarantee it will never work. I strongly suggest you reconsider, before we are all washed up.

Yours &c . . . .

Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or bhinkle@timesdispatch.com.