Ferdinand Cesarano

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ferdinand Cesarano last won the day on November 29 2015

Ferdinand Cesarano had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,154 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ferdinand Cesarano

  • Rank
    prolix proletarian

Profile Information

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

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

8,172 profile views
  1. Yes, indeed. I thought that the existence of that logo (which I have seen on a hat offered for sale at the NBA Store) guaranteed the reversion to the "San Francisco Warriors" name. (Though I am profoundly irked by that "Est. 1962" business. The Warriors go back to the beginning of the league, having been a charter member of the BAA in 1946-47.)
  2. MLB changes 2018?

    After that, I believe MLB mandated home white and road gray uniforms for the All-Star Game. If only such a rule had been in place in 1979, when Pete Rose wore his warmup during the All-Star Game. If not for that act, we might not be saddled with the scourge of coloured tops today.
  3. I read that book twice, twenty years apart. Actually, I read it the first time, and then I listened to the audio book the second time, which was only a couple of years ago. Reading or listening to the book takes a lot of effort, as it is well in excess of 1000 pages long. But doing so is worthwhile. You learn so much not only about Robert Moses but also about so many other characters in New York history, such as Al Smith, Fiorello LaGuardia, and John Lindsay, to name just a few. And there are plenty of stories of people whose names are not famous, but who have important connections to the various decisions relating to parks and highways.
  4. I would strongly disagree with the speculation, advanced by both stories, that the Dodgers would drop the "Brooklyn" name. Being outside of Brooklyn would not stop them from using the name any more than being outside of the named locality has stopped teams such as the Dallas Cowboys or Detroit Pistons -- or the New York Giants and New York Jets. If the team dropped the name "Brooklyn", there'd be no point in their remaining in New York City and moving to Queens, because they'd lose all their fans anyway. But let's take a few steps back and remember that the Flushing Meadow offer was a last-ditch effort which the City made in desperation, only after agreements had been reached between the Dodgers and the Los Angeles authorities following Moses's rebuff, and only after O'Malley's original idea of buying up the various plots that made up the footprint of his proposed Flatbush Avenue stadium (the matter on which O'Malley had sought Moses's help) had become impossible because of publicity. Flushing Meadow Park was a place where the City knew that it could build quickly. If we start not with the question "What if O'Malley had never been born?" but with the question "What if Robert Moses's bungling of the Dodger question had been caught in time?", then we'd have to go through very many steps before we ever get to something like Flushing Meadows. The Dodgers couldn't make money at Ebbets Field; so staying there was out of the question. And, as long as Moses had an obscene amount of power and no oversight by any elected official, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which any Dodger owner could have made headway about a new ballpark. Furthermore, if we assume that the Braves' move to Milwaukee would have taken place in our fictional universe (a move which saw the team's attendance quadruple and go from last in the N.L. to first in all of baseball), then the possibility of moving could not have been ignored by any Dodger owner. But, if the question of a new Dodger ballpark had come to parties in the New York City government other than Moses, things could have gone very differently. One obvious possibility would have been the successful building of a stadium at the Flatbush Avenue location that O'Malley wanted; any observer would have deemed that location ideal, as the Nets later did. But, if that somehow fell through after honest efforts, then we can start imagining a few other Brooklyn locations. In the real universe, the Brooklyn Navy Yard and the Brooklyn Army Terminal weren't decommissioned until the mid-1960s, and Floyd Bennett Field not until the early 1970s. Perhaps, with the impetus of placing a stadium at one of these locations, some kind of deal with the Federal government could have been worked out sooner for one of these swathes of land to return to City control. The pessimist in me makes me think that, if the first choice of building a ballpark at the LIRR terminal were not possible, then the priorities would have swung entirely the other way, toward accommodating the greatest number of automobiles, in keeping with the car-mania of the day that wound up harming so many cities. (The images of the Braves' new park in Milwaukee showed it surrounded by a sea of parking lots.) This makes me think that Floyd Bennett Field would have been the favoured location, because only at that spot would there be enough room for massive amounts of parking, and because that location is right off the Belt Parkway, a highway that links to the rest of Brooklyn, as well as to Queens and Long Island. Whereas a Dodger Stadium at the LIRR terminal in Downtown Brooklyn might have contributed positively to the City by helping to boost the overall interests of mass transit, a Dodger Stadium at Floyd Bennett Field would have had the opposite effect. A likely consequence of a stadium on Brooklyn's southern coast would have been the extension of the Prospect Expressway down the entire length of Ocean Parkway to an interchange with the Belt Parkway, such that New York would have lost that iconic street and would have had in its place another highway scarring its urban fabric.
  5. MLB changes 2018?

    I hope that this doesn't happen, of course. But it's been done before. The 1984 NLCS was contested by two teams that had no grey jerseys but only coloured road jerseys. And they both wore white pants on the road!
  6. Right. The recent USFL alternate history took some rather dubious turns, such as assuming that the mere existence of the USFL would somehow lead to the non-existence of MLS. The challenge is to keep such an account realistic, and not to present a description of one's own ideal fantasyland. Excellent idea about an alternate history involving the Dodgers. There's good reason to believe that they would have done very well in a modern stadium at Atlantic and Fourth Avenues. The generation of Brooklynites who had moved to Long Island would have flocked to that stadium on the LIRR. Imagine Koufax having his great years in that ballpark, and the draw from Long Island that that would have been. This opens up some good storytelling possibilities, such as a knock-on effect of helping to arrest the decline in the quality of public transit in New York that continued into the 1970s. However, I don't think I have ever heard of any attempt on the part of the Giants to build anywhere else in New York City. Stoneham didn't think the problem was the ballpark; he was convinced that there was no more audience for his team in New York, and he wanted to get out. If not for O'Malley's intervention that pursuaded him of the value of moving together to California, the Giants were off to Minneapolis for sure.
  7. The mistake was not so much the move into that arena but the decision to lean on the name "Brooklyn" rather than to use the full city name "New York". The use of "Brooklyn" seemed cool and edgy; but it's also sub-local and exclusionary. An NBA team should be aiming for a broad base of support, not a narrow one. A typical team naturally claims its city; some teams claim a whole state (the Timberwolves and Jazz overtly; the Nuggets and Suns effectively; but not, despite their name, the Warriors). There is a team that claims a region (the Celtics), and one that claims a whole country (the Raptors). And then there are the Nets, who don't even claim their entire home city. The Nets were always going to be handicapped by the existence of the Knicks; indeed, it was the Knicks' foul play that consigned the Nets to second-class status at a critical juncture in the team's history. At the time of the NBA's merger with the ABA, the Nets were coming off of their second championship in the ABA's final season; and Dr. J had become a cultural icon. Julius Erving's performance in the playoffs, as well as in the ABA's slam-dunk contest, had elevated him to superstar status. The Nets with Erving would have been serious challengers to the Knicks for supremacy in New York. This Sports Illustrated cover shows the high regard with which Erving and the Nets were held, as representatives of the two co-equal champions pose together before the merger season. In response to this threat, the Knicks convinced the NBA to levy an unconscionable "territorial fee" against the Nets just as the merger was being finalised. This fee, designed to be well in excess of what the Nets' owner could afford, was intended to cripple the Nets by forcing them to sell off their greatest asset. It worked. The Nets sold Dr. J, limped to the NBA's worst record in the first post-merger season, and then scuttled off to the obscurity of New Jersey, abandoning the New York name. (This makes the picture above that much more painful, as Erving never dribbled an NBA ball in a Nets uniform.) Even though New Jersey is the country's most densely populated state, for pro sports it is nowheresville, as it is divided roughly in half by supporters of New York teams and supporters of Philadelphia teams. In South Jersey people thought of the New Jersey Nets as a New York team — which would certainly have come as news to New Yorkers, who didn't think of the Nets at all. (Myself not included; I was a fan.) The New Jersey Nets' tiny support came almost exclusively from a small area immediately around their Meadowlands home. So much for taking a state name. The team's purchase by a charismatic and ambitious foreign billionaire and its move into New York City created a chance for it to be rescued from obscurity. But the team bungled this opportunity by not reclaiming its former name "New York Nets", instead naming itself after a section of New York. Some will be tempted to argue that Brooklyn has an identity of its own, apart from being a borough of New York City. This is true. Nevertheless, the strategy of tying an NBA team to this entity rather than to New York City as a whole is highly questionable. The team counted on the already-fading "hipster" appeal of the Brooklyn name, as well as that name's appeal to the Russian compatriots of the team's owner, not seeming to care that the name would create a barrier to connection with the majority of the City's fans. Converting existing Knick fans was always going to be all but impossible. But, the use of a hyper-local name insured that future generations of kids in most of New York City would continue to adopt the Knicks as they had always done, and would have zero inclination to consider the Nets as their home team. The Nets could have hit their new home within the City with a marketing campaign emphasising the team's colourful history, which included two championships in the ABA and two trips to the NBA Finals. They could have plastered their new arena with images not only of the iconic Dr. J, but also of Rick Barry, coaches Louie Carnesecca and Kevin Loughery, Albert King, Buck Williams, Micheal Ray Richardson, Darryl Dawkins, Drazen Petrovic, Mike Gminski, and others. They could even have trolled the Knicks by including images of Jason Kidd and Kenyon Martin, who were playing for the Knicks in the Nets' first season in New York City. Instead, marketing positioned the team as a new entity. This created a good deal of buzz at first. The team masqueraded as a power in the East after the re-signing of Deron Williams and the big trade that brought over several veterans from the Celtics. But all of that proved illusory. Even the return of Jason Kidd as coach quickly turned sour; and this strangely-named team that is unwilling to acknowledge its own history quickly faded into the background, where it seems to be destined to languish for eternity. So we have a team which by virtue of its name pushes away people from Manhattan and the Bronx, which has blown up its meagre support from New Jersey, and which has no footprint whatsoever in the northern suburbs. This leaves Brooklyn itself, where the team's support is good (though still well below that of the Knicks), as well as Queens and Long Island, which the team is trying to shore up by virtue of its G-League squad the Long Island Nets, and by playing pre-season games at the Nassau Coliseum. Weak sauce, that. The Nets' story is littered with bad luck, bad breaks, and bad decisions. Maybe one day I will write an alternative history of the Nets, imagining a history in which the Knicks' dirty trick was not successful and the New York Nets kept Julius Erving and became a good team in the NBA.
  8. 2018 MLS Kits

    I'm not quite sure how the gif related, but it a fantastic gif and just made my day haha Foosball!
  9. NBA G League Changes 2018-19

    Excellent! I applaud the trend of calling most G-League teams by the same nickname as the parent club. This shows an understanding of the fact that the value of the Kings' farm club is that it is the Kings' farm club. It does not merit its own identity. There are a few exceptions in the league, such as the Capital City Go-Go and the Delaware Blue Coats (formerly 87ers). But the trend of sensible branding in minor league basketball is most welcome, especially in comparison to minor league baseball. where the names can get downright embarassing (e.g., "Baby Cakes").
  10. Other Birds as the Orioles Logo

  11. 2018 MLS Kits

  12. The verb "to be" cannot take an object. Only a transitive verb takes an object; and "to be" is not a transtitive verb. It's not even an action verb; it's a linking verb. (There are a few specialised cases in which "to be" can be interpreted as a kind of action verb, such as when it means "to behave", when you tell a child "You have to be good", or when it means "to engage consciously in one's own existence", when you say "During this vacation, I am not going to do anything; I am going to just be." But, even if we grant that "to be" in these uses is an action verb, it is still intransitive.) In a clause with the linking verb "to be" joining two noun phrases (which can consist of a noun + modifying adjective(s) or else of a pronoun), one can sometimes take one's pick about which noun phrase is the subject. For instance, if I say "New York is my home", this is not so different to the sentence "My home is New York". Anyway, once we establish (sometimes quasi-arbitrarily) which noun phrase is the subject, the rest of the clause is the complement. So, in the clause "whoever the host is", even if we call "the host" the subject, the linking verb ("is") and the other noun phrase (the pronoun "whoever") make up the complement. In other words: there's no object; so there is no call for the objective case form "whomever". Oh, it's my great pleasure!
  13. Good tip! Most grammar resources are kind of muddy on that one. Would whomever work if it said, “...for whomever is the host.” or would it need to be “...for whomever the host is.” so that “the host” is the subject of the clause? Even in that sentence "whomever" wouldn't work, because it's not the object of anything (neither a verb nor a preposition). A sentence in which "whomever" would be correct would be "...making every game a unique event for whomever they visit." Of course, this alters the meaning; but I am using this version of the sentence only to demonstrate a case where "whomever" is the object of the verb within the clause in which it sits. So, to take a step back and give a clearer comparison: "Give the book to whoever is sitting in the office." - the object of the preposition "to" is the clause "whoever is sitting in the office", in which "whoever" is the subject of the verb "is sitting" "Give the book to whomever you find in the office." - the object of the preposition "to" is the clause "whomever you find in the office", of which "whomever" is the object of the verb "find"
  14. MLB changes 2018?

    Somewhat related: When I was 9, I went to an event at the St. Pete Pier shortly before the 1999 season started. At the time, Frank Howard was the bench coach for the Devil Rays. There was a line to get autographs from some players, and I had a baseball that I wanted signed. When I got to Howard, however, he took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers cap off my head and signed the underside of the brim "Frank Howard, 1960 NL Rookie of the Year." To this day, I still don't understand why he did that. Ah! I think I have found the answer to both matters. It seems that both Greg Gross's team and Frank Howard were referring to the Sporting News's Rookie-of-the-Year award, as opposed to baseball's official award, which is voted upon by the writers.