• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SFGiants58

  1. With relocated teams, I'm a little more lenient with "Est." logos. It could just mean year of relocation, in this case the Warriors' move to the Bay Area. Apparel companies do this all the time, even when the only thing that changes is a team nickname. It seems to go off of a "whatever year the specific city name + team name combination first appeared" basis: Of course, some relocated teams incorporate their old cities in a more official fashion (superseding apparel): Usually it only comes up in anniversary patches, but it's good to show a greater sense of lineage in logo form.
  2. Our good friend @Silent Wind of Doom did that already: As to the LA and Bay Area markets, I've hypothesized that the 1961 AL expansion would have gone down like this: 1. Senators move to SF, adopt "Seals" name. 2. Add expansion Los Angeles Angels. 3. Add expansion Washington Senators, who may or may not move to Arlington in about a decade. Given that there'd be an AL team in San Francisco, the A's could have made several moves. These include: 1. Stay in Kansas City, wait on construction of Truman Sports Complex. This complicates the 1969 and 1977 expansion rounds, as there's no Kansas City expansion team and the Pilots don't get rushed into a poor financial position. 2. Move to Milwaukee, preventing the Pilots from moving there in 1970. 3. Wait a few years and move to Arlington, Seattle, or even Toronto (given the Giants' interest in moving there during the mid-1970s). Also, the National League would have wanted in on the West Coast markets during this period. This has several possible implications, such as the Braves moving to Oakland, LA, or Seattle, with 1962 or 1969 expansion adding more teams in the region. Baseball's franchise map would look markedly different with these few changes.
  3. Yeah, the latter part is me falling victim to the other problem of alternate histories. Said problem is going into the counterfactual wanting a certain outcome, no matter how unrealistic. The only way the Giants would have stayed in New York would have been through Stoneham selling the team, which is doubtful (he only let go of the team in the 1970s after financial duress, as the team and the Polo Grounds were his only assets). Still, if a William Shea-like figure did buy the team and go along with the Robert Moses/city fathers' Shea Stadium plan, a West Side stadium, or a move to the Meadowlands, it would have been an interesting twist to the rivalry's history. The Minneapolis outcome, while it would have made sense at the time (the Giants big minor-league club, the Millers, played there), would have been disastrous for baseball. One of the sport's best rivalries would have died, and I doubt a Giants/Milwaukee Braves or Dodgers/Phillies rivalry would have been an adequate replacement. Having the Dodgers and Giants move to California was arguably one of the best relocations in all of Big Four sports, because of how much it increased baseball's geographic reach and preserved such a storied rivalry. The Minneapolis/Minnesota Giants are still a fun thought to consider, especially because it opens up opportunities for the Washington Sen(ationals)ors to move elsewhere. No counterfactual history can convince me that Calvin Griffith wouldn't white flight his way out of DC.
  4. NFL 2018 changes

    I'm in the same boat as you. Sure, the logo was nice, but the uniforms were fairly bland. The addition of black did not help nearly as much as some people say it did. The outlines were too thin to make much of an impact. It just looked bland, despite the kelly green. For whatever problems the Jets have with their look at the moment, a color change and a UCLA-style stripe restoration would do them wonders. Think this, but kelly/white and with contrast-colored sleeves.
  5. I’ll let Liebe show why some insignia fonts make terrible wordmarks. Imagine trying to write whole words with those letters, getting them to fit within a set space (possibly with outlines) without condensing or adjusting the font in any way.
  6. NHL 2018-19

    They are a couple of non-roundel choices that might have worked. I'm partial to the cowboy hat and the "flaming C + F" myself.
  7. MLB changes 2018?

    I hold the unpopular opinion that the old Phillies "P" looked better as the jersey variant, i.e., straight and without the ball seam. It's cleaner and doesn't give into the whole late 1960s-late 1970s logo design philosophy of "insert equipment at every opportunity." Pair it with an appropriate primary logo and you'd have the basis of a good identity for the 1970s-early 1990s. Note the emphasis.
  8. MLB changes 2018?

    I’m convinced that powder blue became an “team color” for retro merchandise because: a. Teams like to have a two-color format (plus white) for “vintage” series lines (e.g., Cooperstown Collection), especially if they’re currently rocking a color scheme with two or more shades. When marketing their retro identity, the Phillies made an aesthetically-pleasing (if slightly inaccurate) choice. b. The Phillies had powder blue road uniforms for the 1980 World Series, one of the brightest moments in team history. Powder blue also accompanied the primes of Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt. It wasn’t a team color, but it was worn for about half of the games of some of the best Phillies teams in franchise history (as well as some of the worst). c. Maroon and powder blue look amazing together. Sure, neck-to-calf powder blue might be a bit much, but just having those two colors in the vicinity of each other never fails to look good, with the Avs being a slight exception. Heck, if the Phillies were to redesign their set, maroon with small powder accents (like the royal in their current uniforms) would be ideal. It might not have been a “team color,” but that doesn’t mean it can’t be made one.
  9. Las Vegas 51s to Get New Name, New Everything in 2019

    I just want to see an anthropomorphized version of bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Brandiose, don’t let me down! Go-Go Las Vegas Clappers! Hey, promoting safe sex is always a good idea.
  10. I like a good counter-factual history, provided that it’s done within the bounds of the real world and takes into account the different biases and personalities of the historical actors. Alternate history fiction goes into zany-land far too often. The whole discussion of the “Brooklyn” label got me wondering about what would have happened if the Dodgers had not run into the Robert Moses problem when building a stadium on the future Barclays Center site (unlikely, given his power) and if Horace Stoneham had built on the west side of Manhattan (private-funded, of course) or left for Minnesota.
  11. It’s an all around improvement. The new shade of orange looks fantastic with the aqua and I don’t think any of us will miss the navy outlines. Also, having two-color numbers makes the numeral font’s problems less obvious, which is good.
  12. Jacksonville Jaguars rumored for new uniforms in 2018

    The Jaguars’ new uniforms are the sports fashion equivalent of an early-2000s Kia Spectra. Safe, boring, and easily ignorable. The number font is OK, as is the lack of “obscene” details, but it’s still an overcorrection. Maybe expanding into Jacksonville in a vain attempt to recreate Green Bay was a mistake. Would the St. Louis Stallions have made better aesthetic decisions? Edit: I still like them a bit, if only because their austerity is appealing after the wildness of their previous set. I’m not thrilled by them, but they’re still good. Hey, an early-2000s Kia Spectra is an attractive prospect when your used BMW craps out after the warranty is up.
  13. Yeah, I’d agree there. At most, all that’d change would be a new road uniform wordmark. The A’s have the most transportable identity in the majors. The cap logo reflects the team name, they rarely use local iconography, etc. This could all have been avoided if Connie Mack swallowed his pride in the 1930s and sold the team, instead of running it into the ground with his senility and family squabbles. Selling to local investors instead of the Yankee toadie would have also been preferable. Obligatory article link to SABR piece on the A’s final years in Philly.
  14. Jacksonville Jaguars rumored for new uniforms in 2018

    I’m curious, what team do you mean by “our?” What are your favorite teams, and what factors drove you to those alleigences? I'm not trying to be rude, but rather I’m inquiring about your motivations.
  15. A rant about the Seattle SuperSonics

    If they come back, could they please not resurrect this boring AF logo: I'd much prefer an update of this (as it ties in with the nickname):
  16. Jacksonville Jaguars rumored for new uniforms in 2018

    Yeah, it’s a bit of an overcorrection. Still, it’s a good uniform set, just not amazing. It’s also fantastic evidence for clients having more power in uniform decisions.
  17. UA - MLB Deal Delayed Until 2020

    The original deal was for 2020, with a rush for 2019. This is just restoring the old plan.
  18. Into the flood again, same old trip it was back then. I'm pretty sure the Sharks are closing this one out, but I can never be too sure.
  19. MLB changes 2018?

    It's a decent enough special events cap (the Orioles seem to like doing non-standard event caps and uniforms), but this image is a bit of a revelation for me. Does anybody else think that black/kelly green would be an excellent color scheme for a Rays redesign? I can see that, in a "ray of sunlight reflecting on the Bay" kind of way. I've always thought it was a stylized "front tail," like the Coca-Cola script.
  20. MLB in 2020 - 30/30 + Requests

    That’s one good Giants concept! I like that you’ve used the ‘94-‘99 wordmark for the mains. My only issue with it is the cream/white outline on the black jersey when it should be only one-color. I really like the second version of the vintage alternate, as it ties in well with the team’s font. All in all, this was a fantastic series. You’ve got a nice mix of vintage and modern here, and I’m glad to see that you’ve grown as a concept artist. I look forward to seeing more of your work!
  21. Warriors' games were the epicenter of the NBA's cocaine period in the '80s. Whoops. Good points, but there are complications to them. The Niners had arguably the most significant pre-Brady Patriots dynasty in the NFL through the 1980s-mid 1990s, while the Giants had the good fortune of being successful when they moved to SF and having the best outfielder of the 1990s-early '00s play for them. Let's not forget that the Giants nearly moved to Toronto, San Jose (A's fans will never not bring that up), and Tampa Bay while playing at Candlestick. Bonds, the Magowan and post-Magowan ownership, and Willie Mays Park saved the team from obscurity and restored them to a national presence in the "sports media boom." The big reason why they're not in the "upper echelon" is that they spent about forty years being mediocre to terrible. Even in a "good" market, on-field failure will lower your prestige. Look at Red Wings during the "Dead Wings" period or the Phillies through most of their existence. Wilt barely played in the Bay Area, and Warriors fans are more likely to remember Rick Barry, Al Attles, or Run-TMC. While I'm one of the most pro-NY baseball Giants fans in the SF Giants community (i.e., I believe the Giants should have built a John McGraw statue long before a Gaylord Perry one), I can understand the relocation divide. Heck, how many Laker fans have any idea who George Mikan was? "Second Fiddle" teams may have prestige, but let's remember that it was the "Anaheim" Angels that did this (shudder): You can't take that away from them and that city name. Likewise, "Los Angeles Ducks" wouldn't fly. Local fans prefer the "Anaheim" name (from what I've gathered), as do Dodger fans. The "Orange Curtain" is far stronger power than many give it credit for, one that almost necessitates the "Anaheim" name for teams in the region. The ideological difference between LA and "the OC" is comparable to the Manhattan/Brooklyn divide. Read Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right to see it action. I was once pro-"Los Angeles Angels," but time and experience with their fans has shown me the errors of my ways. I know I'll get a lot of flak for this paragraph, but I'm glad I put it out there.
  22. Unpopular Opinions

    Of all of the potential new names for the Cleveland Indians that get thrown around on social media and on these boards, "Naps"/"Napoleons" is my least favorite. While "Spiders" has the stigma of "worst team ever" (counterbalanced by "Cy Young played for them, and the 'worst team ever' was because their owners owned another NL team) and "Blues" sounds too much like Blue Jays, "Naps" is just a bad name all around. Allow me to explain: 1. The name was an homage to Nap Lajoie, one of the best deadball-era players and a player-manager. However, he has descended into relative obscurity compared to similarly-abled deadball players (e.g., Ty Cobb) and Cleveland baseball players (correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no dedications to him at Progressive Field or in the city at large). I guess the name could be an educational opportunity for some fans, but his overall significance to the franchise has lessened over time. Names like the "Cleveland Fellers" or the "Cleveland Dobys" would be more appropriate. 2. They could always shift the name to a certain French general/monarch. However, that produces problems. There is a standard anglophonic antipathy towards Napoleon Bonaparte, hence the historically-inaccurate idea of the "Napoleon Complex" for short guys and unsympathetic depiction in historical media. Just look at Goya's "The Third of May, 1808" and see why it's a bad idea to name a team after the guy. 3. "Naps" sounds too much like a certain WWII-era slur for the Japanese. When getting away from a "racial" name, don't switch to something that's one vowel away from a racial slur. Names like "Spiders," "Blues (guitar-themed, to not infringe on the St. Louis NHL team)," "Guardians (for those cool statues right by Progressive Field)," and even "Fellers/Dobys" are all better choices than "Naps"/"Napoleons." I'd rather they keep the "Indians" name over bringing back "Naps" or some "Cleveland Baseball Club" moniker.
  23. Unpopular Opinions

    That’s only unpopular here, where a bunch of people ignore that the team won three Stanley Cups in red/black and that fans prefer it. Heck, you’ve got people saying that red/green are their “true colors” despite all of their success coming in red/black. These people also do the same for the royal/yellow Mariners, which I find silly (but slightly more understandable, given the M’s problems).
  24. Unpopular Opinions

    I get where you’re coming from on that, but it’s just weird to me. Had the team changed their naming from Paul Brown to Jim Brown (inarguably the best player in team history), that might have resolved the issue. Of course, Jim Brown has had some hefty legal accusations thrown his way over the years, so I doubt that’d fly. To me, that’s like having the Washington Landrys or the Green Bay Hallases. Naming a team after their founder/long-time leader just comes off poorly as time goes on. The key example of this would be the Charlotte Bobcats. While I’m a fan of several teams that did just that and generally support that idea, I still think the Browns should have left their old identity behind when moving. The relocation process was so wrought with pain and was such a PR disaster that the name should have changed. While the Giants/Dodgers relocations may have been just as painful, this was before a modern focus on branding. My best guess is that it took the Colts and North Stars moving for the “change the name” approach to really take off in Big Four sports. It’s not that much more of a chore. All it’d take in today’s world is a quick google search or a glance in a records book. It’s no different from Sen(ational)ors to Twins or Expos to Nationals. That’s the ideal course for any “pained” relocation of a historically-significant team. I’m pretty sure no hockey fans in Atlanta want the Trashers’ franchise history, and I believe I speak for many Sharks fan when I say that we don’t want the Seals’ crummy records/history (“unmerger” notwithstanding).
  25. Unpopular Opinions

    Here’s a “garbage” post that’ll get me a lot of flak: I’d love it if the Browns changed their name to something like “Bulldogs.” They aren’t the same team as the old Browns (no matter how much the NFL tries to pretend otherwise), and they’ve sullied the legacy of their namesake team by being mediocre to horrendous for their entire existence (e.g., only one playoff appearance in their history). It’s time to acknowledge the truth about the team, give the records back to the Ravens, and build a new team identity (albeit one with the old Browns’ colors, can’t go too far). Also, the Brown family founded the Bengals and play at Paul Brown Stadium. I don’t like that they’re named after a guy who wound up founding a division rival. I know now that I’ll get heat for that opinion, but I’ve long felt this way. The “Browns” name should rest in the same grave as the Oilers’ identity. Also, Baltimore Ravens > Baltimore Browns. When a local name is that good, you can’t pass it up.