Talk:New Orleans Baby Cakes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Clarification of Affiliations[edit]

I think it would be a good project for someone who is familiar with the Zephyrs to reorganize the first paragraph dealing with the current situation of the Zephyrs' affiliations. "most recently affiliated with the Nationals" but now affiliated with the Mets. A little confusing and poor choice of wording. Mikelj 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In the 4th paragraph, it states "To date, the Zephyrs are the only professional sports franchise in Louisiana to win a championship" -- this is UNTRUE. Shreveport won seven Texas League championships; Alexandria won two Texas-Louisiana League championships & the 2006 United League championship; Baton Rouge won the 2001 All-American Association championship... Tyler wildcatters 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

I'm putting the citation request back on the statement "The team was well-known in part for being the only baseball team with a "Z" on their caps"

"unneccessary request. It's easy to research that the NO Zephyrs are the only the team with a "Z" on their caps." is not a valid reason to remove the tag, in my opinion. First of all, that isn't the question - the question is how do we know that they were well-known in part for the Z on their caps. Second of all, the statement seems to require original research. Rather than require a search to acculutlate date to substantiate a fact, that fact must already have been published. --Chancemichaels 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Inaccurate Information[edit]

The article states, "To date, the Zephyrs are the only professional sports franchise in Louisiana to win a championship." However, the Shreveport Mudbugs, a professional hockey team, won three championships between 1999-2001.

Kevin Mulvey[edit]

He is no longer part of the Zephyrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


The Infobox had three problem areas which I have attempted to clear up.

  • In the Name section, it listed "Kansas City Cowboys (1900–1903)" and "Kansas City Blues (1904–1954)." It appears that the "Cowboys" designation was an error, and that there never was such a team. (It should be noted that both League and Team names tend to be reused, and it is necessary to distinguish among the various incarnations of them.)
The articles
Kansas City Cowboys (baseball)
Kansas City Blues (American Association)
American Association (20th century)
Western League (defunct minor league)
American League
all tell a consistant story. The Zephyr franchise was a founding member of the 1902-1962 version of the American Association, and began competition as the "Kansas City Blues," having played the 1901 season in the reconstituted Western League under the same name. Although there were various 19th century "Kansas City Cowboys" teams that formed and folded, none of them had any relationship to the Zephyrs. In fact, the Infobox's 1900-1903 team appears to be totally mythical.
Now while it is barely possible that all the other articles are wrong and the Infobox is correct, it should further be remembered that any such 1900 Cowboys team would have to have been fielded in direct competition with the previous iteration of the Blues, the team that would transfer to Washington, DC to play as the Washington Senators when the American League declared itself to be a Major League in 1901. This is such a far-fetched claim that I believe that it settles the matter.
I have eliminated the "Kansas City Cowboys" from the Infobox, and extended the Kansas City Blues name back to 1901.
  • The Minor League Affiliations section only began with the 1949 team. I added the previous affiliations back to 1901.
  • The Infobox shows the Zephyrs to have been founded in 1900. Although the organization first fielded a team in 1901, I do not know the date of its incorporation. Clearly the impetus for the formation of the Zephyrs organization was Ban Johnson's transfer of the Kansas City team to Washington, DC for the 1901 season. The new franchise would have been formed either in late 1900 or early 1901. As I have no information on which is correct, I have left the Infobox as is. (FWIW and IMO, from a business POV, the earlier date actually makes more sense.)

B00P (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference in opinion[edit]

Under Kansas City, article states: The most notable player for the franchise was future Baseball Hall of Fame member Phil Rizzuto, the League MVP and Sporting News Minor League Player of the Year in 1940.

I personally was under the impression that Mickey Mantle was a more notable player than Phil Rizzuto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Orleans Zephyrs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal Opinion[edit]

This section of this entry:

A large portion of the fanbase is apparently disgusted with the new name, as evidenced by the almost universal rejection of it on social media. Fans seem to be disappointed ...

This section seems to be a personal and biased opinion rather than information regarding the team. I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. This portion of text has since been edited to present a neutral point of view. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Southern League team[edit]

"The city of New Orleans hopes to bring in a Double-A Southern League team to carry on the Baby Cakes identity."

This passage doesn't make any sense and is not supported by the footnoted reference. I'm not even sure what is meant by "carry on the Baby Cakes identity." Any Southern League team would be a different franchise with new owners and playing in a different league with a new major league affiliation. The team's records and statistics would not transfer to a new double-A team. There is nothing about the Baby Cakes' "identity" that would attach to the new team aside from just being a professional team of a different league in the same city. Certainly, there's no indication that they would assume the Baby Cakes name (or it is to be hoped not...). Presumably the legal rights to the name would follow the PCL team to Wichita (even if the name isn't used). They could sell the rights to the name, but there is no reference indicating that would happen, or why a Southern League franchise would even want to buy the name or logo or anything else about the current team's identity. Unless someone can justify this, or reword it appropriately, I plan to delete the reference to the team's "identity." LeftField (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

See this article. There were talks that the Baby Cakes’ owners would acquire a Southern League team, relocate it to NOLA, and have it continue to play in the Southern League as the Baby Cakes. In this scenario, they would be treated like a continuation of the Baby Cakes, retaining their NOLA franchise history (records, titles, etc.). NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I moved the WDSU reference so it just applies to "The city of New Orleans hopes to bring in a Double-A Southern League team" and added the Ballpark Digest reference to cover "to carry on the Baby Cakes identity."
For an example of a baseball team carrying on the identity of a prior team, consider the Carolina Mudcats and the Carolina Mudcats (1991–2011).
-- Pemilligan (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Ballpark Digest article doesn't say that the potential Southern League team would assume the current PCL team's history and records. If Schwechheimer is going to own both the Wichita team and the potential SL New Orleans team as the article suggests, then the rights to the hideous name could well go to the Southern League team. But it still is a different franchise with its separate records. There's more to "identity" than just the name. The two Mudcats franchises are clearly considered to be distinct franchises in different leagues and different classifications, and with separate records. Lots of names are repeated in unrelated franchises. There's the 19th century Baltimore Orioles of the National League, the 1901-1902 Baltimore Orioles of the American League (now the yankee franchise), the International League Baltimore Orioles prior to 1954, and the current AL team. All maintain different records, played in different leagues, and despite sharing a name, they do certainly not have the same identity. I don't see how you could even transfer team records from one classification to another. Would all the AAA records of the New Orleans team now be wiped from the AAA and PCL record books, and become AA and Southern League records? If the records were made against AAA competition, they should remain AAA records. The AAA records of the PCL Padres didn't become major league records just because the team was replaced with a different franchise in the major league classification, even though the replacement NL team shared the same name.

I guess my objection is mainly to the term "identity." If Schwechheimer buys a SL team and moves it to New Orleans, he has the legal right to transfer the Baby Cakes name and branding as the Ballpark Digest suggests. But I don't see any indication that it would be considered a continuation of the same franchise with the same records. The Cleveland Browns worked out a deal to retain their original identity and records, and a similar thing happened with the NBA Hornets. But they both stayed in the same league and the same level of play. It's not like the Browns moved into the Big Ten and took all their NFL records with them.

Can't we just cite the Ballpark Digest and say the new team is expected to assume the Baby Cakes name and branding? That's what the article says. LeftField (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Then, if another team comes in to assume the Baby Cakes name AND the team treats itself as a continuation of the PCL team, that info can be added then. To clarify: such a continuation would recognize previous championships, league award winners, all-stars, TEAM records, past players, etc. Of course the PCL would not wipe NOLA records from their books, nor the Southern Leage add NOLA records to theirs. For example, in 1985 the owners of the AA Nashville Sounds moved that team to Huntsville, becoming a new team with no prior history. Concurrently, they moved a AAA team from Evansville to Nashville which carried on the previous AA Nashville heritage. We won’t really know how or if any new team will recognize its history until (if) it happens. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)