McCall

3 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

That's exactly why Salt Lake is so willing to be a temporary host. The MLB may not want them now, but a year or two of performing as strong hosts of a vagabond MLB team would do a lot to change the minds of big-league brass. 

Yeah, which makes sense as a host for the A's, but not the "expansion team with the A's on hiatus" team. Otherwise, it's an expansion team that may be gone in a few years, rather than an established team where it's already known that they'll be in another city after that time.

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

There's also the New Orleans Superdome, which has been renovated recently.  Of a similar size is the Alamodome; both stadiums seat more than 50,000 for baseball — not that that sort of crowd is going to be a concern of the A's.  

 

More to the A's level, we've seen Major League teams in temporary homes in San Juan and Buffalo that seat around 18,000. 

 

I think that this idea of the team going dark for a few years is very unlikely to happen.

First off, no way in hell the Blue Jays would ever let another team use Buffalo, even on a temporary basis. It's their Triple-A team in a city they consider part of their market. Secondly, you can't fit a near-regulation baseball field in the Superdome or Alamodome. The Rangers played an exhibition game in the Alamodome about 10 years ago. The dimensions were fine for that, but not for a full-time team for a minimum of 3 years.

1 hour ago, Walk-Off said:

When John Fisher and other A's officials visited the Salt Lake City area recently, what they were at least rumored to explore was the A's playing temporarily not at Smith's Ballpark, the Bees' current home, but rather at the presently-under-constuction future home of the Bees in one of SLC's southern suburbs.

 

What I was thinking, then, was that this expedited expansion MLB team would be awarded to Big League Utah -- which seems to be the best-capitalized of the groups vying publicly for an MLB team in a currently MLB-free area (in other words, more flush with cash than the Portland Diamond Project or the Music City Baseball group in Nashville) -- and would play its first few seasons at that suburban facility intended originally for the Bees while a permanent home for the team in SLC's Power District undergoes an expedited construction.

This would only work if MLB wanted Salt Lake in the league in 2025. So far, there's no inkling that they view Salt Lake as anything other than a potential temporary home, much less a market they're ready to commit a team to as soon as next year. And if they only want to give them a trial run, then there's no need to make them any other team than the A's.

33 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

For several months now, I have been thinking that the A's might very well suspend operations between their final season in Oakland and whenever a new ballpark for them in the Las Vegas area is open.  Playing a few more seasons in Oakland is likely to come with too many strings attached for the A's and/or MLB to accept.  Crashing at Oracle Park for a few years might constrain the Giants too much.  Going straight to the Aviators' ballpark for the interim seasons risks giving off the worst possible first impression of the A's to people in the Las Vegas market.  Finally, playing temporarily at a minor-league venue that is in neither the Bay Area nor Southern Nevada (such as in Sacramento or Salt Lake City) comes with a high possibility of the locals being reluctant to support what would be a fly-by-night enterprise in their area.

 

As for how the MLBPA could be sold on letting the A's go on hiatus for a few years, I think that the answer lies in MLB staying at 30 teams by granting a single expansion franchise that would launch right when the A's start their hiatus.  MLB could put the A's players through a dispersal draft open to all existing MLB clubs in addition to holding an expansion draft to stock the new team.  With regard to the minor-league affiliates of the A's, either the expansion team could inherit the A's farm system outright or MLB could order or at least allow a reshuffling of minor-league team affiliations.  Finally, once the A's are ready to start life anew as a Las Vegas team, then MLB can grow to 32 clubs by having another expansion franchise debut alongside the revival and relocation of the A's.

Where would said expansion team play? The only MLB-"level" stadiums that exist outside of MLB is Olympic Stadium in Montreal and soon the Oakland Coliseum. Any other market would require new stadium construction similar to the time frame of the LV ballpark, which renders the proposed solution moot.

Also via UniWatch, it appears the Nationals road mark red fill may have been corrected, as modeled by Dave Martinez... unless THIS jersey is the quirk.

Still looks bad either way.

9 hours ago, BBTV said:

It's done.  I guess Moore has abandoned being a HC?  They were supposedly targeting guys that wouldn't be poached for a HC job if they were good (unless they're planning to can Sirianni half way into next year, and want Moore on stand by.)

 

 

I hope he stays an OC. I'd be worried that, if he became a head coach, he'd poach his brother from Mizzou to be his OC.

6 minutes ago, M59 said:

Re: your point on word length. Didn't they render "Washington" smaller than "Nationals"?

What the Orioles ought to do is revive the 1999 jersey script (slightly reducing the size of the "oles" and getting the whole thing on the same plane/angle) and put the white outlines back on the black alternate jerseys...
https://goldinauctions.com/1999_Cal_Ripken_Jr__Game_Used___Signed_Baltimore_O-LOT68315.aspx
Given that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, I'd settle for the current script being tilted enough for the "i" to line up with the placket. 
Or, if they could get pullovers without that ghastly Nike collar treatment, just do pullovers and be done with it.

Seriously, though...MLB is run by a bunch of old white guys. Crusty, traditionalist old white guys. How is the Nike tail wagging the MLB dog to this extent? Somebody convince the geezers that "the kids" will buy baseball jerseys if they look like NBA tops with sleeves? The new template game jerseys are gonna be worse than the $25 Korean knockoffs they've been bitching about for decades now. And they're cheap, ugly and increasingly boring. Who do they think is gonna buy this garbage? I used to collect game used jerseys. You couldn't pay me to buy this crap. (Well, you could of course, but I'd flip it as soon as you weren't looking! )

And there we go.

4 hours ago, 4_tattoos said:

Good color contrast tonight. Orlando in sleeveless sky blue jerseys (libero in white) vs Atlanta in long sleeve red jerseys (libero in white).

 

 

Why does it show Omaha's logo instead of Orlando?

3 minutes ago, Old School Fool said:

 

What? Calling it Washington DC is incredibly common, so much so that sometimes people refer to the other  Washington as Washington State. It would be weird and stupid if the team named Washington didn't have Washington anywhere in it's branding.

 

How many times can I say Washington in this post anyways?

Washington.

How much you washing?

A ton.

I'll see myself out.

4 hours ago, M59 said:

Re: the Nationals
1) I've never understood why a DC team would shackle itself to a variant of the Dallas Cowboys 1960s number font...and then stick with the bloody thing through all their various (mostly bad and generally mismatched) uniforms.
2) I think the Nationals script wordmark is tilted like it is because the team name is so long. The Orioles could save themselves a bit of grief with tilting their "italicized" wordmark at a similar angle. Might eliminate the four lane divided highway between the "i" and second "o".
3) Slap a giant Pepsi logo on the right breast of that alternate jersey and you have this season's SGA soccer jersey.

4) That collar treatment...that collar treatment utterly sucks. Somebody bring back the two-button Henley style...please!
 

How does that make any sense when "Washington", which is a longer word, was NOT angled like that? And no, the Orioles should not follow suit. The only they would possibly need to do is slightly de-italicize "Baltimore".

One (and probably the only one other than the DC patch) positive is the Nats switching their trim to red/white/blue instead of the just red and blue. Looks less Braves-ish.

Arkansas Razorbacks Offensive Coordinator, sponsored by Ashley Madison

Why is Atlanta playing twice opening week and San Diego and Vegas aren't playing at all?

13 hours ago, BBTV said:

What if the they got sponsors for the roles?

 

like the Ruffles Offensive Coordinator, the Tostitos DB coach, Verizon head coach, etc

Expedia Off-Field Analyst

6 minutes ago, rfraser85 said:

 

I said "possibly" because I don't know where I would want it. The only place I could think of at the time was using a two-toned border on the chest and back numbers.  The Jags could have a black/gold/black pattern on the sleeves of the teal and white jerseys, and a teal/gold/teal pattern on the black jerseys. But too much gold might inspire another jersey like the Color Rush of the last set, and the 2009-2012 jerseys were all right with no gold except for the torso stripes.

Right amount of gold.

13 minutes ago, AstroCree said:

I assume they wanna keep it Queens related so I expect "World's Borough" and the World's Fair Unisphere plastered somewhere on that CC jersey. 

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Well, of course it's an aesthetic preference. But when we're talking about the aesthetics of uniform of the Yankees, it becomes a big f-ing deal.  The Yankees' uniforms reached absolute perfection in 1973 with the change in the number font and the livening up of the road set; thus any change is by necessity a downgrade.  (This includes the running together of the two words of the road wordmark, such that that mark now reads "Newyork".)

You mean all the big, fancy language you use, yet you don't know what the words "fact" and "opinion" mean and the difference between them?

4 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

Isn’t it just a different aesthetic preference?
 

I can understand liking one over the other, but this statement is just hilarious  

You see enough of his posts and ridiculous statements like this are just the norm. Each one has a more heightened sense of pretentious snobbery than the last.

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Absolutely terrible.  These look like wet paper bags.  The Yankees' road look would go from near the top to near the bottom.

Literally in opposite world. The white trim and sleeve cuffs were straight out of the 70s and should've been retired a long time ago. This is traditional, pre-horribly renovated Yankee Stadium era Yankees road uniforms.

57 minutes ago, (probably)notabandwagonfan said:

Via Uni Watch, the Yankees road uniforms are changing.

 

https://uni-watch.com/2024/01/23/exclusive-yankees-planning-changes-to-road-uniform/

 

If this is true, I will still hate the Yankees, but their uniform set will be elevated to one of the best in the league, rather than the 70s striped-road uniforms bringing down the #1B home uniform of the league.

40 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

So... Great Value Patriots, then??

Equatriots.

25 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

That tweet sounds more like a hostage situation than a hiring.

9 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

You think SLC fans would flock to an AAA venue to support a team destined for Las Vegas? I know the Memphis argument about 'little brother refusing to support big brother' but this was basically the first/only time this type of 'moving markets' and having a layover in another market was really even tried. Carolina played a year in Clemson. Bears played at U of Illinois for a season but never were 'moving', it was just Bears fans making the drive. Even Packers playing in Milwaukee was still an established team just playing a few games closer to a good portion of their already existing fan base.

 

But the NFL's attempt in Memphis failed for a lot of reasons. The 'little brother' argument was the easiest to not admit their mistake and instead just blamed Memphis for their problems.

 

If you survey everyone in the Memphis area and asked them 5 questions of why they didn't support Tennessee, certainly that would be a reason listed. But would it be THE reason it failed? No other reason?  I don't buy it. I think a market just didn't want to support a team that wasn't theirs. Regardless the name slapped on the team to make it palatable.

And yes.

SLC is not getting the A's full-time and they know that. But they're also looking at making an impression for the future.  Memphis knew that with the Oilers/Titans in Nashville, they were never going to get an NFL team of they're own. Tennessee is just not a two-market state in any sport. But Salt Lake can get an MLB team even with the A's in Vegas (not saying they will, but it's a possibility that doesn't exist in the Memphis-NFL scenario), so yes, it is a very strong possibility that they have a big turnout for the A's, even if only for a temporary basis.

9 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

You think SLC fans would flock to an AAA venue to support a team destined for Las Vegas? I know the Memphis argument about 'little brother refusing to support big brother' but this was basically the first/only time this type of 'moving markets' and having a layover in another market was really even tried. Carolina played a year in Clemson. Bears played at U of Illinois for a season but never were 'moving', it was just Bears fans making the drive. Even Packers playing in Milwaukee was still an established team just playing a few games closer to a good portion of their already existing fan base.

 

But the NFL's attempt in Memphis failed for a lot of reasons. The 'little brother' argument was the easiest to not admit their mistake and instead just blamed Memphis for their problems.

 

If you survey everyone in the Memphis area and asked them 5 questions of why they didn't support Tennessee, certainly that would be a reason listed. But would it be THE reason it failed? No other reason?  I don't buy it. I think a market just didn't want to support a team that wasn't theirs. Regardless the name slapped on the team to make it palatable.

Yes.

2 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

But they can't possibly make that much money in a back-up city. NFL tried it with Memphis and gave up. At least the Raiders staying in Oakland was because it was Oakland. While the Chargers sat in LA (roughly) at StubHub for a while before Sofi was built.

 

Plus, this idea that a new team to a city must storm out of the gates is rough. If you can't draw fans without winning year 1, you don't have fans at all.

The A's playing in Salt Lake is not the equivalent of Nashville playing in Memphis. Those two cities have a bitter rivalry and Memphis rejected the "little brother" sentiment of being only a temporary NFL city instead of a full-time one.