704 replies to this topic

[RyanMcD29]

altosax29b, on April 9, 2012 - 14:39, said:

Sneed, on April 9, 2012 - 14:35, said:

altosax29b, on April 9, 2012 - 14:17, said:

Same thing with the Mets. It's not just one team that does it.

With their newest uniform update, did the Mets remove the drop shawdow from the retired numbers on the wall?

Couldn't find a clear picture, but this photo suggests no. I haven't really noticed while watching the games. Maybe someone else can confirm.

While on the topic of Citi, I've been looking for the championship banners all weekend. Where did they move them to?

EDIT: Never mind, saw they have them up on the 3rd base line between levels now

[Frylock]

So, I'm confused... Did the Mets retire then unretire #31? Was it for a John Franco or Mike Piazza event, that they just wanted the number on the wall, but it wasn't official?

[CubsFanBudMan]

BringBackTheVet, on April 6, 2012 - 21:27, said:

When a significant player leaves, just hold his number out of circulation for a while until clear heads can decide if it should be retired or not.  Just saying HOF is kind of dumb because there are players who play a significant role in their franchise's history for reasons other than HOF caliber play that should be considered...

This always bothered me about the Cubs, who used HOF as a requirement, until they finally put Santo's 10 on the pole at the last game of 2003 when they thought he was near death. All while pitching him for HOF. Seems backward. If he's one of your franchise's greatest players of all-time, honor him that way. Don't let the HOF decide.

Then there's the out of circulation issue. The Cubs were smart and kept Sandberg's 23 out from the day he retired. But then there's the 31 mess created by the dual issues of not holding out Jenkins and then deciding to honor a Brave to make up for their own stupidity. Mark Grace might have been a guy worthy of Cubs consideration but not HOF, but they issue 17 to call-ups as if there aren't enough numbers to go around (Bobby Hill, Pie, Fontenot, Garza). They were quick with 21 as well, considering Sosa was the all-time team HR leader and part of two playoff teams. Low standards, but they can't keep retiring 1969 Cubs and part-timers. And they are the Cubs.

Flying a numberless flag or commissioning a statue for an actual World Series champion and not someone who finished 8 games out of 1st might be a good idea at some point, too. But I just know they're itching to retire 34... ugh.

[altosax29b]

Frylock, on April 9, 2012 - 23:09, said:

So, I'm confused... Did the Mets retire then unretire #31? Was it for a John Franco or Mike Piazza event, that they just wanted the number on the wall, but it wasn't official?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[cmm]

The Mets never retired #31 but haven't issued it since Piazza left.  They will probably retire it eventually, unless something comes up with him and steroids.

[FooMasterX5]

Sneed, on April 9, 2012 - 14:35, said:

altosax29b, on April 9, 2012 - 14:17, said:

Same thing with the Mets. It's not just one team that does it.

With their newest uniform update, did the Mets remove the drop shawdow from the retired numbers on the wall?

looks like the shadow is still there for some reason

[pmoehrin]

The 31 retired number at Citi Field is a photoshop job.

I would imagine they will retire it if and when Piazza gets elected to the Hall.

The Mets have it is the way I think most teams should have it.  A Hall of Fame/ring of honor type of situation and then retired numbers.  To me the only one that should be retired is Seaver.  Piazza I would consider borderline for that type of honor.  I would say no but I get the arguments in favor of it and wouldn't have an issue with it if they did.

[SLAM]

via http://www.flickr.co...eodydeguzmanjr/

[altosax29b]

pmoehrin, on April 10, 2012 - 00:44, said:

The 31 retired number at Citi Field is a photoshop job.

I would imagine they will retire it if and when Piazza gets elected to the Hall.

The Mets have it is the way I think most teams should have it.  A Hall of Fame/ring of honor type of situation and then retired numbers.  To me the only one that should be retired is Seaver.  Piazza I would consider borderline for that type of honor.  I would say no but I get the arguments in favor of it and wouldn't have an issue with it if they did.

Yeah, the Mets are very stubborn with retiring numbers, which is a good thing. They probably have the one of the highest standards for retired numbers in MLB.

[pmoehrin]

altosax29b, on April 10, 2012 - 12:25, said:

pmoehrin, on April 10, 2012 - 00:44, said:

The 31 retired number at Citi Field is a photoshop job.

I would imagine they will retire it if and when Piazza gets elected to the Hall.

The Mets have it is the way I think most teams should have it.  A Hall of Fame/ring of honor type of situation and then retired numbers.  To me the only one that should be retired is Seaver.  Piazza I would consider borderline for that type of honor.  I would say no but I get the arguments in favor of it and wouldn't have an issue with it if they did.

Yeah, the Mets are very stubborn with retiring numbers, which is a good thing. They probably have the one of the highest standards for retired numbers in MLB.

I just like the two standard system the Mets have going for them and I would wish every team would do it.

My view of somebody having their number retired for a team is that they should be a slam dunk Hall of Famer if you only take into account the years they had with that team.  Right now I'd say you could do it for Jeter, Mariano, Chipper, Ichiro, Ivan Rodriguez with the Rangers, Pujols with the Cardinals and maybe Todd Helton.  Those are the only guys I see out there that are still active.

[nuordr]

2012


2011


1998

[BigBubba]

It appears the Blue Jays have replaced their banners over the years. Compare the original early 90s ones:




To the longer, thinner, ones from a few-ish years ago:




To the new, lighter ones in my sig. It's not just the lighting, many older pics have the WC banners as navy; now they're a lighter shade.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Perhaps they have faded?

[SFGiants58]

RedSox44, on April 6, 2012 - 15:29, said:

JQK, on April 6, 2012 - 15:00, said:

Better example than the Giants. The more I look at the Giants' retired numbers, the more I think they put Robinson's retired number in their font.

As someone who has been to AT&T countless times, it's in the Giants' font. But, on the bright side, it's quite a bit removed from the other retired numbers.

[njmeadowlanders]

FooMasterX5, on April 10, 2012 - 00:32, said:

Sneed, on April 9, 2012 - 14:35, said:

altosax29b, on April 9, 2012 - 14:17, said:

Same thing with the Mets. It's not just one team that does it.

With their newest uniform update, did the Mets remove the drop shawdow from the retired numbers on the wall?

looks like the shadow is still there for some reason

This photo is also from one of the first 3 years at Citi and not 2012, so this would've been before they dropped the black dropshadow.

[cmm]

metspolice.com has a close-up of the retired numbers at "new" Citi.  The black dropshadow lives.

http://metspolice.co...e-pesky-humans/

[SLAM]

BigBubba, on April 12, 2012 - 20:17, said:

It appears the Blue Jays have replaced their banners over the years. Compare the original early 90s ones:




To the longer, thinner, ones from a few-ish years ago:




To the new, lighter ones in my sig. It's not just the lighting, many older pics have the WC banners as navy; now they're a lighter shade.

The Banners did not get replaced at all. They have always been that thin and long. And has been the same colour.

The first couple photos you posted are from a video. It's distorted and fat looking.
The other pic definitely looks different because of lighting! High contrast! Could be caused by many factors. (Camera settings, post production, etc..)

[altosax29b]

njmeadowlanders, on April 13, 2012 - 00:15, said:

FooMasterX5, on April 10, 2012 - 00:32, said:

Sneed, on April 9, 2012 - 14:35, said:

altosax29b, on April 9, 2012 - 14:17, said:

Same thing with the Mets. It's not just one team that does it.

With their newest uniform update, did the Mets remove the drop shawdow from the retired numbers on the wall?

looks like the shadow is still there for some reason

This photo is also from one of the first 3 years at Citi and not 2012, so this would've been before they dropped the black dropshadow.

I think he was referring to the other picture I posted, in which there still seems to be a drop shadow even with the new fence.

[BigBubba]

SLAM, on April 13, 2012 - 14:28, said:

BigBubba, on April 12, 2012 - 20:17, said:

It appears the Blue Jays have replaced their banners over the years. Compare the original early 90s ones:






To the new, lighter ones in my sig. It's not just the lighting, many older pics have the WC banners as navy; now they're a lighter shade.

The first couple photos you posted are from a video. It's distorted and fat looking.

The colour point is is debatable, but I am certain that those dimensions are different. The video can't distort the dimensions like that.

[Raymie]

The typeface is certainly different, so they have been replaced. (Why, Times New Roman!?)