Talk:Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Logo / team colors change

While the team has been using an all-blue version of the SWB logo on certain promotional materials and web pages since the Yankees announcement, note that there has still been no formal announcement regarding this change, and no mention whatsoever of the team colors changing. In particular, GM　Jeremy Ruby has recently stated, well after the all-blue logo first appeared, that the team name and colors were still under consideration. He also said that they haven't counted out keeping "Red Barons", which, if chosen, would imply that red would remain in the team colors. In light of this, I think that we should at least avoid jumping the gun on team colors until a formal announcement about the matter is made, which should probably be fairly soon, anyway. Srecd 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article split

I propose that the SWB Red Barons have an article of their own in line with most team name changes. ccwaters 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE based on the facts of Michael G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.1.36 (talk • contribs)
  • I sttongly agree. There needs to be different articles. Beno1983 20:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I Oppose, this for a minor league team that is less than 20 years old. If the team had some major history or other notable thing, maybe, but it doesn't. The Great Lakes Loons have had 4 name changes and have no separate articles. It seems, from my research, that name changes are re-directs, moves to a different are re-directs and sometimes a separate article (for minor league teams). I would like to see examples of the changes CCwaters if referring to (for minor league teams). If a new article is created it will probably be orphaned. Michael Greiner 21:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just up 81 in the AHL: Binghamton Dusters, Binghamton Whalers, Binghamton Rangers. Maybe those that steward baseball articles do things differently. I'm not denying it the same team, I'm just actually that this is a major shift in the team's history and identity. ccwaters 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • NOTE: Above poster trying for spilt created all three examples given. Michael Greiner 18:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for numerous reasons. First, this team remains under the same ownership, playing in the same league and the same stadium. This is more on par with Washington Bullets becoming Washington Wizards, rather than the Washington Senators becomming the Minnesota Twins. Second, the article is fairly short, where there isn't overflowing content to potentially mandate a new article. The article is for the history of the franchise, which remains in existence despite the changes in name and affiliation. Milchama 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. As someone who has more interest in this subject than most Wikipedians (I can see the stadium out my window right now!), even I don't believe this warrants a separate article. Minor League baseball teams change names and affiliations frequently. The reason the change was big news in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area was because this was a rare instance of a team keeping its identity for more than a decade. The old identity should definitely be mentioned in the article, but it's still the same team! A redirect from Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons is all that is needed. — Michael J 14:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Michael J. --rogerd 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the split tag per consensus (Oppose 5, Agree 2) here. Michael Greiner 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team ownership?

The article states that the team is owned by Lackawanna County, but, as I remember it, both Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties have an equal stake in the team, though Luzerne County is basically just a silent partner, with no input on decisions. I didn't turn anything up in Google either way. Does anybody have a citation that spells the team's owner(s) out? Brad E. Williams 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An article I found in the Citizens' Voice states that the two counties own the team jointly; I've updated the page and added a citation. Lackawanna County acts like they're the sole owners, but Luzerne County owns it as well. Brad E. Williams 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The NY Times article today (7/26/07) [1] says ownership is split equally between (1) the 2 counties, (2) the NY Yanks and (3) Mandalay. Haven't found any reference for the transaction yet. --AndrewHowse 20:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That really flies in the face of everything that's been reported previously. I'll be very interested to learn when this happened. Things are already very contentious between Luzerne and Lackawanna Counties on this subject, and this could make it very ugly. Brad E. Williams 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, it makes no mention of Luzerne County, just Lackawanna. Maybe they sold out? --Michael Greiner 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is all OR, so it can't go into the article, but I called the team to find out what the story is. When the Red Barons were first formed, Luzerne County and Lackawanna County put up an equal share of money. After that, though, Lackawanna County has done everything associated with the franchise - paid the employees, maintained the stadium, paid the debt service, etc. The team is now officially owned by the Lackawanna County Stadium Authority; Luzerne County doesn't have an ownership stake at all, though they would get back their initial investment if the team sold. According to the team, the NYT writer got it wrong - the team is still 100% owned by the Stadium Authority, and neither Mandalay nor the Yankees have an ownership stake. The person I spoke with said that there may be some sort of agreement where a portion of the team's profits/revenues go to Mandalay and the Yankees, but there is no ownership stake involved. Luzerne County has been making a huge stink that they've been left out of decisions involving the franchise since the Yankee deal went through, but in reality they have no say in team decisions and do not have an ownership stake. Brad E. Williams 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
However, we could ignore that part of the Times article? I'll revert myself and then add the article as a source for the sentence about the quality of the clubhouse and facilities. --AndrewHowse 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's cool; the problem remains, though, that my initial citation appears to contain incorrect information as well. Before I changed it, the article said that the team was owned by Lackawanna County. That's technically correct, as the Stadium Authority is an arm of the county government, so perhaps that's the best way to go. Ideally, though, I'd like to find a citation for the Stadium Authority's ownership. Brad E. Williams 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well apparently Luzerne County has hired lawyers to look over ownership issues. [2] I also found the original Player Development Contract between the Yankees and Scranton and documents relating to Mandalay's management of the team.[3] A bunch of other articles on the Yankees' deal can be found here, seems there are a lot of controversies on this. --Michael Greiner 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The way it seems to me, Luzerne County didn't want anything to do with the management of the team (including paying anything other than their initial investment), and was more than happy for Lackawanna County to take on all the effort and all the costs. Now, though, that there's the possibility of significantly more revenue being brought in (not least from a potential sale), they're suddenly all pissy (pardon the term) about the whole situation. Basically, they don't want any of the proceeds from a sale to pay off the debt the Stadium Authority has incurred operating the team; instead, they want an equal 50/50 split of any sale. Lackawanna County, however, wants to pay off the Stadium Authority's debts, then split whatever is left. Frankly, even though I lived in Luzerne County prior to moving south to NC, I come down on Lackawanna County's side. They did all the heavy lifting, so they don't deserve to be left with huge debts so that an entity that did nothing for nearly 20 years can get millions. Just my opinion, of course. :-) Brad E. Williams 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform design

I added a section on uniform design; if anybody can describe the uniforms better, please feel free to do so. Also, I haven't seen the away uniforms yet, so there is no description of those.

Something that I can't put in the article because it's OR, but is interesting nonetheless - the primary and alternate home jerseys were supposed to be the other way around. I talked to Michael Cummings, the team's PR director, and he told me that the players liked the jersey with the "Y" and Uncle Sam hat/bat combo better than the other ones, so they made that the primary home jersey. That explains why it's so easy to buy an alternate home jersey but not the primary one. Brad E. Williams 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Swb-yanks.png

Image:Swb-yanks.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni (Yankees)

I'm a little concerned that the Yankees section of "notable alumni" is turning into more of a list of any player who's been called up to the Yankees. For example, are Chris Basak or Matt DeSalvo really notable? Guys like Hughes, Chamberlain, and Duncan are, sure, but we might want to be a little stricter about what constitutes "notable." In my opinion, Basak, Clippard, and DeSalvo should definitely be taken off, and possily Ramirez (whom I love) as well. Opinions? Brad E. Williams 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the list has gotten overgrown. Leave Hughes, Chamberlain, and Duncan, but get rid of everyone else. Also we might want to think about removing a couple of the lesser known Phillies players like Eric Valent. --Michael Greiner 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll do that, and if anybody objects/disagrees, we can discuss it here. Brad E. Williams 11:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
On the Phillies side, I eliminated Marlon Byrd, Ryan Madson, Jason Michaels, Nick Punto, Kevin Stocker, and Eric Valent. Some of those guys are good players, sure, but I don't know if I'd call them "notable." Brad E. Williams 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to come to a consensus on Tyler Clippard. Frankly, I don't see how he's notable enough to be mentioned in the alumni section. He's a decent prospect, sure, but as he's not on the Hughes/Chamberlain level, and is currently in AA, I don't think he belongs. My vote is for removal. Brad E. Williams 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Should guys who played at SWB on rehab assignments really be included in the "alumni" section? I think no, but I wouldn't object to a separate section listing guys who fall into that category. Brad E. Williams (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise history

I did a little digging and learned that the franchise has been around since at least 1937, and has been in the IL since 1955. If anybody has any info indicating that the franchise existed prior to 1937, I'd appreciate it if it could be added with the appropriate references. I have to say, Minor League franchise histories are pretty interesting. Brad E. Williams 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)