Jump to content

TheOldRoman

Members
  • Posts

    12,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by TheOldRoman

  1. Well, yes. That would be fine by me, but it defeats the point from New Era's perspective. It's less exposure. Even with HDTV, it's something most fans wouldn't notice in 90% of the close-up shots. NE definitely gave MLB a bunch of extra millions to include that logo on the hats, so they're going to get their money's worth.
  2. I've tried taking the NE logo off two different hats. The logo is too small with too many turns. It doesn't work out well. Even if you don't end up poking a hole in it, there's a distinctive fraying of the material and ghosting behind the logo.
  3. That's a trash uniform honoring a franchise nobody watching today cares about and most weren't alive to see. It would be adding yet another color scheme to the Padres' history, and once again promising the fans what they want and delivering something that will displease both people who like current stuff and classic stuff. So, that's gotta be it. Switching to that uniform would be the most Padres thing ever.
  4. I don't agree with that. Basketball tanktops were developed out of functionality and had been worn for, like, a hundred years by teams above junior high level. A shoe company trotted out sleeved jerseys a few years back to drum up sales. Just their presence is an affront to the sport. Of course, baseball vests have been around for probably 100 years, so they don't seem out of the ordinary to me. I agree that sleeved jerseys are ideal for most teams, but certain teams, like the Pirates and Reds, looked good to me wearing traditional vests. Nobody looks good in modern Majestic sleeveless jerseys, however.
  5. Personally, I'd love to see you shut your mouth. Seriously, I'd hate to see them go navy and yellow. That's the worst possible outcome. At least with the current drab crap, it could be justified with the fact that they've worn it for 16 years. Royal blue and yellow look much better together than navy and yellow, and the Rams obviously have an extensive history in those colors. Navy and yellow might look better than their current stuff, but it would look worse than they *could* look. And what's more, it would elicit a Sabres-esque masturbatory "we're going back to our roots by wearing something we've never worn before and keeping a current color which is considerably less popular than the classic one it's replacing."
  6. "Well, I've always been a huge fan of Memorial Day, and my favorite player is Juan Nicasio..."
  7. Because the Yankees are the only team that deeply cares about how it looks. They previously resisted the template dugout jackets and the crappy S&S caps as long as baseball allowed. The Yankees are surely paying extra to have the side panels removed (as well as the manufacturer logo), but it's worth it. The rest of the teams in sports say, "Eh, close enough" when given designs which are altered due to either manufacturer laziness (Jets, Colts) or specifically to highlight a manufacturer's template (Saints' collars, Grizzlies' numbers).
  8. Yep. That looks awful and cheap.
  9. It's a new Pac Man logo, though, and it's in a different color scheme. The throwback merchandise for the original Hornets is still a top seller, and the team ended up going back to basically the same colors, so the league wasn't going to let them limit sales by reproducing gear that's already for sale. A better example would be the Sixers. They went back to the old logo, then tweaked it. But I don't think the Sixers had huge throwback sales to begin with, and also the jerseys are "honoring their past" by wearing uniforms they've never worn before. Plus, the Sixers are the actual franchise that used the logo previously, while the Hornets aren't.
  10. Really? The whole payoff for this joke dupe account was for a purple headed warriors line five posts in?
  11. Looks like Teal and Vintage White had another child.
  12. The opt-outs can help both sides, sure. Like with Heyward and the Cubs. It was reported that Heyward "took less money" to come to the Cubs, but after the collective media wiped Theo's ejaculate from its mouth, it was reported that the Cubs actually paid Heyward more in the first three years than any other team. So the Cubs got a good deal - getting a player in his prime for a decent price. Both sides know he'll opt out and hit the market again at age 29, probably signing elsewhere, and that team is going to be the one paying insane prices for a player on the decline after the first few years. The players have no risk because they will opt out if they are going to get more money, which they should year-over year. The least Heyward makes is all $184 million of his Cubs contract. The teams have risk, though. The dollars after the opt-out year as seen as hypothetical, but they aren't always. If Heward is oft-injured and batting .212 in 2018, he's not opting out, leaving the Cubs to pay the rest of the hypothetical dollars for a guy who sucks. It's getting to the point where contracts are like the NFL - you see a huge number of years and total dollars, but it doesn't matter because those contract years will never come to fruition. I think teams are going with these opt-outs, committing hugely in years and dollars, thinking that the final contract won't see those last years. But some teams are going to get burned. It might not be the Cubs with Heyward and it surely won't be the Mets with Cespedes, but eventually some team is going to get royally :censored:ed because the big FA they thought they got for a decent price turns into Adam Dunn after a few years and subsequently decides not to opt out of the end of his contract.
  13. Yes. That's what the Lions should wear forever. Make the decals the correct blue instead of royal blue and that set would be perfect. Also, I'm pretty sure they cheaped out and wore royal blue socks in that era, too.
  14. Yep. I'm a Bears fan and I love the scheme, or at least how it was used in the '90s. Honolulu blue and silver and plenty different enough. Black absolutely isn't needed for visual distinction, and it makes things worse. And while they're losing the black, they should tell Nike to F itself and use pants that are *actually* silver, like the Raiders use. No more of the faint, see-through gray pants
  15. I agree with this, but I'd reverse what I tolerate. I dislike the yellow pants with the white jerseys, but I think they look particularly bad with the red jerseys. Maybe not "bad" as much as "not right." It might be partly because growing up, the Redskins' red jerseys only appeared thrice a year if you were lucky. And it was always a treat when you saw the red jerseys over white pants. I loved when they finally went red at home in the last decade. Even though we see the red jerseys 9-10 times a year now, it's not the same with the yellow. Meanwhile, I was tired of seeing the Redskins in the white jerseys anyway, so it's not like them wearing yellow pants with them ruins what would otherwise be a "rare" great look. That being said, the Redskins looked better in every way ten years ago. The yellow pants suck and the Nike switch really did a disservice to their uniforms.
  16. Yeah. I had to look that up, too. I thought I remembered him having NOB in the videos of "the shot," so I had to check.
  17. They have no reason to rebrand, but they have been chipping away at the classic uniforms for five years now. At this point I fully expect them to do something stupid like bring back the throwback crap fulltime. Also, the organization has made its fair share of bad decisions the last few years. It wouldn't be surprising to see them change in a desperate attempt to get people to care more about the on-field product after being upset that they had a gaping hole in RF, lots of money to spend, and a great market of available outfielders, but yet still went home holding their hats. Also, those pants look awful. I don't think I'll ever get used to the batterman tramp stamp.
  18. I like that Brewers set, but think the Brewers should always wear royal blue and yellow. That being said, that set would be improved by using Kelly green instead of forest green.
  19. If the Seahawks had worn the green jerseys with the normal pants and had slate blue sleeves instead of navy, the look might have worked. I think the slate blue and lime green look ugly together (with lime any more than an accent), but at least in using the blue more prominently instead of replacing it with navy, it would make it more tolerable and have it look intentional, rather than "they wouldn't let us wear navy helmets with this set."
  20. I agree with this. It's obviously a personal preference, and the saying goes, "there's no wrong opinions." However, favoring NNOB is the wrong opinion. I am right. To me, the *only* jerseys which look right without NOB are the Yankees. The Red Sox home jerseys would look better with names. It looks far more professional in almost all situations. When the Dodgers and Cubs took the names off a decade ago, they looked like really well-dressed high school teams which wore the same doubleknits for a decade. "You're a size 48? Okay, you get #19."
  21. The Steelers use yellow pants and thick yellow stripes on the jerseys. The Browns (pre clown era) had orange helmets along with orange on the stripes. Both teams' home and road sets prominently featured the secondary color. Not so with three Bills. This set could be cleaned up and greatly improved by removing the navy.
  22. Yes. The good Admiral is an acquired taste. He annoyed me at first, then his prose got stuck in my head and I kinda missed when he wasn't posting. Kinda like "Cooo-stanza!" But, like many other acquired tastes, one gets tired of him from time to time. I'm sure he'd tell you he feels the same about himself.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.