Trying to keep everybody happy with the naming of the team's mascot reminds me of the naming of the New England Blizzard, the name of Hartford's women's basketball team in the short lived ABL (they had a dunk contest and were better than the WNBA but didn't have the bankroll!)
Hartford got a team (thanks to the success of UConn women) and of course they gladly engaged the community by soliciting team names from the public, eventually settling on "Blizzard."
Any who, I remember reading an op-ed in the Hartford Courant about how terrible of a name that was, something along the lines of "why should fans constantly be reminded of the harsh winters that can cause destruction and take lives and instead the team should have been named after a positive trait!"
I still roll my eyes thinking about that 25 years later, but a reminder of how you're never going to keep everybody happy.
Personally, when the New Orleans Pelicans changed their name, I thought it was stupid and sounded terrible (Pelicans just doesn't flow off the tongue), but now that I'm used to it seems normal. I'm sure whatever Cleveland goes with will sound weird at first and have detractors, but will eventually sound normal.
And although I understand why you move away from something seen as a racist caricature, I'll definitely miss the cartoony look I grew up with. Not just Cleveland, but Reds, Orioles, Padres, White Sox all had more of a cartoon style, even the non-character logos of Brewers, Expos, and Mets all seemed like they had more of a cartoony style to me. Definitely miss that style.