loogodude90

I agree with you that that was a great uniform, I'm not sure I'd say it was their best ever, but it was a nice uniform. The wordmark was unique and didn't cave in to the traditional cursive route. The current road uniforms, however, nicely incorporate the curly W. The thing is, even if they went primarily navy, then people would be complaining about how dull the navy is and how so many other teams use navy and how they should have used red instead. If they had embraced navy more, they'd look even more like the Braves than they do now. The Braves are a navy-first team. Embracing red was the safer route here. Because now you have all different color focuses in the NL East: A black team, a blue team, a red team, a red-navy team, and a navy-red team. I don't see the red-blue indecision you are talking about. I see a team that is red-first, navy-second. That is what they are supposed to be.

I'll disagree about Zack Greinke in black. The Royals wore black for about half of his time there, and he was there for more than half the years they wore the black. When he first came up he seemed to wear the black jersey a lot when he pitched -- that's almost the first jersey I think of when I think of him. I don't know if that was his choice, but I don't think the black jersey or road jersey with black trim is the wrong jersey for him at all. I'd go so far as to say he is the first player I think of when I think of the Royals in black.

That's gotta be a rare shot. An AL pitcher batting pre-Interleague Play? I wonder if this was an Exhibition game, or just some crazy late-game scenario where the DH got pinch-hit for or was unavailable or one of those deals.

Based on some of the POTD's I have seen, it seems that you need to have a :censored:ty sense of humor to award them.

I know no one has a "monopoly" on colors in the MLB, but I wouldn't want them to get a black jersey with orange lettering, because I think that the O's sort of have that jersey "cornered." The O's have had that jersey for a long time, and with them being orange first and the Giants being black first, I think the Giants should stick with that black on black. I don't know how SF fans felt about that jersey, but I think it looked cool. And it strengthened their "black-first" identity, which is what they are supposed to be (isn't it?).

Shows a human/fun side of them. The more people (customers) get to know these athletes the more willing they are to like them then in turn spend $$$ on the Mets. Yeah, I actually agree with that. People are that stupid.

I think most teams try to avoid wearing black for day games, because of the heat. I think this is why the O's only wear black on Fridays, because it's pretty much the only day of the week that is always a night game. Something to consider about your Saturday black jersey suggestion. I like the idea of them bringing a black jersey back again, though.

Nonsense. "San Francisco" has more characters, and everyone seems to like their road jersey. Well, at least before they added the pinstripes.

I wouldn't say best, but I would say underrated. I guess that's what makes it an unpopular opinion. The "extreme nature" of his opinion.

If I saw someone wearing this, I would compliment them on being as ass. No you wouldn't. You would get all internally angry and riled up over nothing, and then come on this site and vent about it.

Well, I wouldn't say preferring the old script, number font, and colors of the Hawks is an unpopular opinion. I agree with you on that. I would wager that most members here (and probably in the world) agree with you on that. As for the yellow jersey, I thought it was a really nice jersey, too. I think saying it's the best jersey they have ever worn might be a stretch. Granted I did not see them play much before 1995, but my favorite jersey for them was probably the red jerseys they wore during the same time era as those yellow ones. Classic, simple, and not garish, but that great font and the yellow trim gave the jersey some pop.

Hmm. I actually like the Hornets' yellow jersey. I just think it makes sense for them to have a yellow jersey, both from a "hornet" standpoint and a Mardi Gras standpoint. It's just a really festive jersey and I like it. The Pacers yellow jersey seems kind of just like "well, yellow is our other color, let's make a yellow jersey." But I still like that one too. Basically, for the most part, I like it when teams embrace underused colors. But if other teams started trying to force yellow jerseys just because yellow is in their identity (like the Grizz, Heat, Jazz, or Nugs) I wouldn't like it so much. I'd be all for GS getting a yellow jersey (for somewhat obvious reasons) and I'd actually be fine with the Thunder or Cavs getting one too. The Thunder identity is so underdeveloped that a yellow jersey that pops might actually solve their problems. They are allowed to be a little more experimental because they, well, sort of need to. The Cavs set could also use some pop. They seemed to have turned away from the navy so why not go with a yellow alternate of some type.

Really? Of all the awful counterfeits out there, you choose that one? Huh? You don't see the humor in this Nike Elite 2012 Seahawks jersey? No, I don't. I'm just saying it's a nice jersey. If I saw someone wearing that, I might even compliment them on it.

Really? Of all the awful counterfeits out there, you choose that one? If I saw that on the street, I would not be able to tell the difference. I know there are some awful counterfeits out there, but that isn't one of them. What are some things wrong with it? Because I honestly can't tell. It looks good. It seems like the worst thing in that photo is actually the lighting and/or the picture quality. I think that is throwing everything off.

I am going to have to disagree here. Magic Shaq, that is to say, "young" Shaq, may have drawn attention to himself, but he did not accomplish much compared to his LA days. I think a player's "right" uniform is where he achieves the most memorable success, not necessarily what got him attention to begin with. He was big on the Magic but got even bigger on the Lakers. The first thought that comes to my mind when I think of Shaq's career is "3-peat in LA." I also think that, without a doubt, his most memorable teammate was Kobe. I can barely remember any of the Magic he played with, but he played with such memorable characters in LA that I just naturally remember him in purple and gold. Gotta also keep in mind he played 8 seasons in LA. I think it's debatable that he even achieved more personal success in ORL. His numbers MIGHT (and I say might because I don't even know if they got worse) have dipped slightly in LA, but obviously that is because he was sharing the ball more there, and he had more help. It's not that he got worse, it's that his teammates got better. I also don't think making the Finals is that big of a deal, comparatively. If Dwight Howard goes to another team and wins three championships in a row with them, he's not going to be remembered for losing in the 2009 NBA finals. He's going to be remembered for winning three championships in a row. And his "right" uniform is going to be that of the team he achieves all that success with. And I would hardly say the Magic have had a losing history ever since. I would consider them one of the more dominant teams in the East for at least the past 5 years.

I know the difference. Everyone knows the difference. It's been established. But thanks anyway. Feel free to keep repeating that though, if it helps you. Leave ridiculous comparisons out of it. The odds of two same-city teams ending up in the same league is MUCH higher than the odds of a team being placed in the Arctic Circle. You sure you want to be the one introducing the concept of "common sense" into this discussion?

That and then there was a Phiadelphia team in the AL as well as the NL. Oh, I didn't realize we were still talking about this. Again though, if it were that big of a problem, the MLB would figure out a way to get PIT and PHL in different leagues over all these years. Judging by the fact that these same-state teams are still in the same league, it's not as big of a deal as some people are making it.

Is he wearing No. 24? Yes

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with. Yes, and when you post it in here, it's up for discussion and other people's opinions. And I'm stating, as both opinion and to a degree nearly fact, that, unless you're completely splitting the league into an East-West format, having both NY teams in the same league does not make any sense. In baseball, with the two different types of play between the two leagues, when you have two teams in one market, you split them up so as to appeal to fans of both leagues. THAT'S why they brought in the Mets to replace the Dodgers and Giants in the first place, to get another NL team back in New York. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it, though. The Phillies and Pirates are in the same league, and soon, the Astros and Rangers will be in the same division. Yes, I realize that those are same-state teams and not same-city teams, but if MLB were that hellbent on keeping same-city teams in different leagues, then they'd do the same with same-state teams. Apparently they don't care as much as you think they do. Having same-city teams in the same league isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. As aci illustrated, there is a vast difference between same-state and same-market teams. You'll have to agree to disagree. There have been enough nutty things to happen in the history of pro sports realignment, and just pro sports administration in general, that you can't really count same-city teams in the same division out. It's one of those things like Interleague Play or the Astros moving to the AL West. It might seem crazy 5 years prior, and then BAM, it happens, and people just get used to it. Until I see an official MLB rule stating that two teams from the same city can't be in the same league, your argument does not hold much water. Just because you don't think it should happen, doesn't mean it can't happen.

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with. Yes, and when you post it in here, it's up for discussion and other people's opinions. And I'm stating, as both opinion and to a degree nearly fact, that, unless you're completely splitting the league into an East-West format, having both NY teams in the same league does not make any sense. In baseball, with the two different types of play between the two leagues, when you have two teams in one market, you split them up so as to appeal to fans of both leagues. THAT'S why they brought in the Mets to replace the Dodgers and Giants in the first place, to get another NL team back in New York. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it, though. The Phillies and Pirates are in the same league, and soon, the Astros and Rangers will be in the same division. Yes, I realize that those are same-state teams and not same-city teams, but if MLB were that hellbent on keeping same-city teams in different leagues, then they'd do the same with same-state teams. Apparently they don't care as much as you think they do. Having same-city teams in the same league isn't that far out of the realm of possibility.

They're not gonna put both NY teams in one league. Why wouldn't they? It's RE-alignment. This isn't something you are coming up with, it's something someone else is coming up with.

Ray Allen is a rather strange case for me, because at some point I got used to him in each uniform. If I had to choose one that was more "right" to me, though, it'd be the Bucks for purely nostalgic reasons. I know he won a title in Boston, but his time as a Buck spanned the time I paid the most attention to basketball (which I guess is why Nash in a Mavs uni isn't that weird to me, either). The most "wrong" Allen uniform to me would be the Sonics, but even that isn't too strange a sight to me. That's easy; The Boston jersey is his "right" jersey and the other two are wrong. He won a champioship wearing a C's jersey, was part of a easily recognized "Big 3," and broke at least one prominent record (that I know of) wearing a C's jersey. Compared to his time in Boston, his years in MIL and SEA are relatively forgettable. I think "wrong jerseys" have more to do with just # of years played.

It's interesting that you think that. I actually remember VC vividly as a Raptor. I'm not saying that's the first team that I think of when I think of him (that would probably be the Nets), but I don't consider it anywhere near a "wrong" uniform for him. Remember, he played nearly half his career up there. I would consider his current Mavs uni to be a "wrong" uni. I regularly forget that he is a Mav.

Sure you can. That's why it's called realignment and not same-alignment. He's got a rhyme and reason to his realignment, and I think it's fine.

Not if you've seen how horrendous NHL fashion sweaters can get.