Ferdinand Cesarano

Members
  • Content count

    1,674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Ferdinand Cesarano last won the day on November 29 2015

Ferdinand Cesarano had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,737 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ferdinand Cesarano

  • Rank
    prolix proletarian
  • Birthday 10/10/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York
  • Interests
    Esperanto, communism, bicycling

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

7,744 profile views
  1. Introducing the Las Vegas Aces

    A good name for a Vegas team would be the Las Vegas Rat Pack. Primary logo: Alt logo:
  2. But "some letter changes" is pretty significant when the logo itself is just a letter. I can understand not wanting to have the exact same logo as the the parent club; the ideal case is when the logo is a different letter from the parent club's logo but is identifiably based on it. The classic Pawtucket hat with just the P is a perfect example of this, as is the cap of the San Jose Giants. Another good one is from the Jacksonville Expos, in which the logo is a combination of E and J in the style of the Expos' E and M; and the Bend Rockies / Portland Rockies, whose BR / PR logos were in the style of the parent club's CR logo. But even if a team has a separate nickname, its visual identity can still be tied to its parent club. Here are some excellent examples of that: There is no doubt what organisations those teams belong to. And when a team's affilliation changes, so should its uniform style. When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, their uniforms looked like the White Sox. When they were affilliated with the Indians, their uniforms looked like the Indians. Now that they are affilliated with the Blue Jays, they have done specialty days in which they wore Jays-themed uniforms, which should be their regular look. I think that it's highly doubtful that someone could become a fan of a minor league team without being fully aware of that team's affiliation. Teams tout the whole "see tomorrow's stars today" thing, often calling attention to any of its former players who made the big leagues. Anyone rooting for the Nashville Sounds is rooting for the A's prospects and hence for the A's; and I strongly suspect that every fan knows this. It's just a matter of presenting a product honestly. Something should "do what it says on the tin", as the English say. An affilliated minor league team is there for one purpose: to identify prospects and to prepare them for the use of the Major League club, either as players or as assets in trades. While I get that there is some potential money to be made by obscuring this fact, that is hardly a thing to be embraced or celebrated. Luring customers on false pretenses is not a legitimate business model. If "the money's not there if you're not unique", then perhaps Major League clubs should end the practice of offloading the responsibilities of running minor league teams to local "owners", and should begin owning and subsidising these teams themselves. And, from the standpoint of aesthetics, it is clear that tying a minor league team's identity to its Major League parent club in no way limits the creativity that can go into the team's logo and uniforms. One cannot look at the pictures above and seriously assert that a landscape with uniforms and caps such as those is "sterile". While it's true that the trend in baseball is going away from the idea described here, I am pleased to see that the trend in basketball is towards this direction.
  3. USFL Alternative History: 1985 to...

    You really don't need to refer to the CitiField entry as "Long Island/Queens, NY". CitiField is located in New York City. I know that the idea is that this team would be on the other end of the New York metropolitan area from the New Jersey Generals; but it won't be out on Long Island. It would be a New York City team. (Preemptive response to expected nit-pick: yes, Queens lies on the geographical entity known as Long Island. So does Brooklyn. However, the term "Long Island" refers mainly to Nassau and Suffolk Counties, not to New York City's boroughs. The New York Islanders' crest shows only those counties -- even despite the fact that they currently play in Brooklyn.)
  4. Except that most NBA G-League teams don't, in fact, share the nicknames of their parent NBA clubs. The majority of NBA G-League franchises - 15 of the circuit's 26 teams... 16 of 27, counting next year's Capital City Go-Go - have unique monikers. You are correct; I was mistaken in asserting that most D-League teams share the parent club's nickname. However, I mentioned in my previous message that the desireable thing is that the minor league team's identity be based on that of the parent club. So those teams D-League with the same nicknames, combined with those teams with derivative nicknames, do indeed constitute a majority of the league (17 out of 26, or 17 out of 27 when the Go-Go begin). If the Tampa Yankees had become the Tampa Pinstripes or the Tampa Bambinos (Bambini?), that would've been fine, as that would not break the link in the team's identification with its parent club. (This is why I liked when the Yankees' top farm club was the Columbus Clippers. This team was not founded with the Yankee Clipper in mind, as it was affilliated with the Pirates at its founding. But its name took on a strong association with the Yankees, and probably should have been dropped when the team's affilliation changed.)
  5. This never would have happened if Steinbrenner were alive. I know that many people will applaud this change; but I don't like it. I prefer the direction that the D-League is taking, with most of their teams sharing the nicknames of the parent club. I also don't mind a minor-league nickname that is different, but is clearly derived from the parent club's, such as the Memphis Redbirds and the Greensboro Swarm; either way, the identity of the minor league team is linked to the parent club. In most cases, the only identity that a minor-league club needs is that of the parent club. The exceptions are few and far between: Durham Bulls, Indianapolis Indians, Rochester Red Wings, Syracuse Chiefs, and maybe a handful more. But those are long-established names. For a team to make a change today from the parent club's name to a new name feels wrong. To the Tampa Tarpons and the Gwinnett Stripers I say "bah!"; and regarding really bad ones such as the Binghamton Rumble Ponies (formerly Mets) and the Omaha Storm Chasers (formerly Royals), I go further and let out a hearty cry of "feh!"
  6. Players in the "wrong" uniforms

    To continue on the name tangent, here are the managers who met in the 1973 NLCS:
  7. NHL 2017-18

    I agree that equating the Rams' and Senators' situations is silly, for the reasons I mentioned. I merely pointed out that, if one were going to distort the concept of "consistency" beyond all rational bounds, then that's the invalid comparison that one would get. But there's no way to get to the Browns when discussing the Rams' brief hiatus. The Rams' decision was an emergency measure announced at the time it happened. By contrast, the decisions regarding the Browns constituted a Plan B that arose purely from expediency. The Browns upon their move fully intended to operate in Baltimore as the Baltimore Browns. Modell and others (such as the Maryland governor) uttered this name many times in the days immediately after the move was announced. Only after the spectre of legal challenges arose did the NFL decide to appease the would-be litigants by playing a bizarre game of "let's pretend" with the facts of history, in the form of the supposed temporary deactivation of the Browns' franchise and the declaration that the Baltimore team would be considered an expansion team with no history. And, of course, the Rams' one-year break did not involve the ahistorical transfer of records from one team to another.
  8. Pantone Color of the Year 2018 is...

    Mmmmyeah. Not so much a "joke" as simple bad taxonomy. You gettin' any of this? (Boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball.)
  9. NHL 2017-18

    They are, and that is what he objects to. I dont agree with him on this one - I consider the modern LA Rams are the same as the original Cleveland Rams even though the franchise took a hiatus from playing, so I have to be consistent with the Browns. Hold on, there. A team taking one year off and then coming back is not the same thing as an expansion team assuming the history of another team that had previously been in that city. In other words: a strict (and grossly misapplied) consistency would have you using the Rams' example as a means of justifying the Ottawa Senators' claim, on the dubious theory that there's no difference between a forced one-year hiatus undertaken by an ownership group during World War II, and a 58-year gap between the folding of one entity and the establishment of another; it has no bearing at all on the Cleveland Browns' claim of appropriation of another existing team's history.
  10. NHL 2017-18

    Yeah, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Baseball clubs have been doing that for a hundred and thirty years Not really. New teams have taken the names of defunct previous franchises; but never have they claimed to be those franchises. When the St. Louis Browns became the Baltimore Orioles, the new team did not claim to be the same one that had been the dominant National League team of the 1890s or the one that had competed in the American League before moving to New York in 1903. Likewise, the 1970 Milwaukee Brewers, the relocated Seattle Pilots, claimed no connection to the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers. (The team that came the closest to blurring this line has been the Washington Nationals, who suggested with their early "Established 1905" logo a connection with the American League team usually called the Washington Senators.) This also did not happen in the NFL, even where it would have been very easy. The Baltimore Colts joined the NFL from the AAFC in 1950, and then folded after that season. In 1953, the NFL created a new expansion team, also called the Baltimore Colts. But this new team was always recognised as an entity separate from the 1950 Colts. So there really is no precedent in the major sports for a new team to decide that it is the reincarnation of an older one. Of course, this doesn't mean that the new team cannot wear uniforms that are in the tradition of the older team. But it's not too much to ask that the record book not be messed with. If the Ottawa Senators win a Stanley Cup, it will be their first.
  11. Players on the "RIGHT" Team, but "WRONG" Uniform

    Which leads us to this: Right team, wrong uniform, wrong number. Reggie played his final season in 1987, going back to the A's. But he inexplicably did not take his old A's number, which is no. 9; instead he wore the number that he had taken after leaving the A's, no. 44. Like Reggie, Rickey Henderson abandoned his original A's number, no. 35, upon coming to the Yankees; and, like Reggie, Rickey became better known for his Yankee number, and wore it even upon his return to the A's. But Rickey returned mid-career, whereas Reggie had returned only for his final year. So the A's wound up retiring Rickey's Yankee number, no. 24; while for Reggie they retired his original A's number, no. 9.
  12. Players in the "wrong" uniforms

    A few more for the "wrong name" file: (That's Jose Uribe, before he changed his name.)
  13. Pantone Color of the Year 2018 is...

    Whose idea was it to give this colour this name? Ultraviolet (one word) is already the name of a colour that lies outside the spectrum visible to humans, but can be seen by some other animals.
  14. Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

    I hope they avoid "Sea (anything)", especially considering the new Seawolves rugby team. @bleuet had the best suggestion, which disappeared after an edit: Seattle Emeralds.
  15. NHL in Houston

    Is Houston allowed a team now? Zounds! Hoist with my own petard! Aaaaaaanyway -- this epic snowfall does not negate the issue worth addressing, namely, the error that the NHL makes in attempting to have a national footprint in the U.S. There would be nothing wrong with the NHL being a regional entity in the U.S., with teams only in cold-weather cities, instead of in a place like Houston, where the average winter low temperature doesn't come within a dozen degrees Fahrenheit of freezing, and the mere appearance of snow or ice is considered a newsworthy event. What's more, it is very aggravating to see the NHL looking at places such as Las Vegas and Houston while it ignores Canadian locations such as Quebec City or Saskatoon or Halifax, or perhaps Hamilton or even a second team in Toronto. If American cities are going to be considered, these should be cold northern places such as Milwaukee, or maybe Seattle, which doesn't freeze much but is at least near to Canada.