SFGiants58

Members
  • Content Count

    3,700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

SFGiants58 last won the day on March 9

SFGiants58 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,785 MVP

About SFGiants58

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

27,408 profile views
  1. My biggest gripe with the Shadow Flames are the numbers. City Bold or City Bold Italic doesn’t lend itself well to three layers (especially when compared with the crest’s stylings).
  2. True. Back on topic, the Giants' one is delightfully dull. #SFGiants is better than #forevergiant or #evenyear. #SFGiants is less prone to picking apart.
  3. Don’t you mean Boston Stranglers? Albert DeSalvo was killed trying to take back his confession, the DNA test was both conclusive and inconclusive, and most FBI profilers agree that there were multiple assailants. I’m sorry, but it’s a pet peeve of mine.
  4. Judging by the "G" hat (worn by Toronto Chairman Paul Godfrey), I don't think the color change proposal would have stuck or was the only option: The blue/green "TG" was either a later addition or rejected for a black/orange redesign. One has to remember that the Giants' brand had lost much of its cache by the mid-late 1970s, with the team struggling competitively in one of the worst stadiums in Big Four history. The 1976 (when the Toronto move was supposed to happen) team was a hapless bunch, like most Giants teams from the early-1970s to the late-1980s. Changing things up to match their new setting, while a bad idea from a historical POV, might have worked. This is especially the case for the Giants of the time, who would have lost many historical ties with relocation (e.g., rivalry with the Dodgers, being one of the first teams to move out west, etc.). I can definitely see your point about wanting a new Toronto team to "fit in" with the other teams in the city, especially with the later possibility of throwback gear. I could also imagine the inverse, with nostalgia around the blue/green look and the modern team deciding to opt for the historically-significant black/orange (e.g., like what the White Sox have done with the "Winning Ugly " set). I even mocked up a potential uniform, with cues from the inaugural Blue Jays: I'm not keen on it, for personal, historical, and aesthetic reasons.
  5. The Twins kept it for 22 years. Granted, they lost all of their World Series games while wearing their road uniforms, but it was still a “signature” of theirs (one I don’t like).
  6. Not really, no. I’m kind of under the impression that the people who want to bring the Expos back would like the old identity restored without any modification. I’m fine with the colors (French flag colors, which I believe is important for a French Canadian team - the target audience after the Francophones alienated the Anglophones), but I really don’t want one of the ugliest logos in Big Four history brought back.
  7. CAROLINA TWINS - Triad Troubles We’ve reached the mid-1990s. The Tampa Bay Sweepstakes have played out, with both St. Petersburg and Phoenix getting expansion teams. However, relocation remained an option for many of the cities left out (as we’ve seen with the Virginia Fury and Sacramento). One of these regions was North Carolina. From 1996-1998, businessmen and politicians in the Piedmont Triad area of NC (Winston-Salem, Greensboro, and High Point) made a big gamble: instead of building new minor-league stadiums, why not try to lure a major-league club with a new stadium? They came up with a plan for a $210 million stadium, one situated at the Interstate 40-Interstate 40 Business interchange in between Guilford and Forsyth County. This site was under dispute leading up to the referendum, but the general area of the site would have been in the area highlight below. 1 Don Beaver, a North Carolina businessman (and then-owner of the Charlotte Knights), would have paid for a third of the stadium, with the other two-thirds coming from taxpayers in Guilford and Forsyth County through a $0.50 tax on baseball tickets and a 1% tax on prepared foods. Of course, this tax proved unpopular, with restaurateurs and citizens organizing Citizens Against Unfair Taxes (spending $33,000 on their campaign, compared to the $899,000 spent by the “Say Yes Baseball” campaign).2 Beaver also entered into negotiations to buy the Twins from Carl Pohlad, who was having financial problems with the Twins. He reported that he’d lost roughly $26 million since 1994 (over half of his reported losses since 1984), while team revenue was 40% below league average ($70 million) at $42 million. He had been trying for some time to extort the Minnesota Legislature to buy him a new venue to replace the barely 15-year-old Metrodome (I get that it was a crummy stadium, but still!), to no avail. However, he saw an opportunity with Don Beaver to put pressure on the state government. Pohlad signed a letter of intent on October 3, 1997, to sell the team to Beaver for $150 million, contingent on the Twins failing to get a stadium deal in Minnesota and the stadium tax measure passing.3 Unfortunately for Beaver, the Guilford and Forsyth County voters had different ideas. The May 5, 1998 referendum for the taxes failed hard. The two-county election ended with “no” defeating “yes” by 96,433 to 55,262 votes. The votes were 59% to 41% in Forsyth and 67% to 33% in Guilford. While Beaver investigated a stadium opportunity in Charlotte, talks stalled out. The North Carolina effort was so defeated, Beaver admitted that Charlotte had no interest in the Expos’ relocation.4 Pohlad and his successors, who reportedly had little interest in North Carolina, continued in their pursuit of a Minnesota stadium (which included failed public ventures and a threat to contract the team that fell flat), eventually getting Target Field in 2010.5 Of course, this plan was a horrible idea. Quotes from the period showed concern from residents about traffic near the exurban complex. I’d say that @sc49erfan15 summed up the problem here: Even if the vote went the other way, the results would still be terrible. You can best sum up what happened with this over-referenced moment from Fred Ottman’s wrestling career: The voters should be commended for refusing to pay for two-thirds of Beaver’s stadium. However, what if the Guilford and Forsyth County voters went the other way and Pohlad wasn’t bluffing? I figured that the name should stay, with the identifier of “Carolina.” The titual Twins would be each of the Carolinas. Navy and red would also remain with the addition of flesh/tan for outlines and the twin men (taken from the Twins’ 1972 roundel alternate). Part One - Dome-style Design The first approach is an attempt to merge the Metrodome era look with the new setting, while incorporating pieces of the 2010 typeface cleanup. The primary is a direct riff on the ‘87-’09 design, while the secondary incorporates both twins representing their respective states (modified versions of Wikipedia's North/South Carolina state outlines), a three-pointed star for the Triad, and the cap logo. The insignias include a “C-underline” and an “NCSC” design (a localized version of the “TC”). Rockwell Bold is the lettering font. The uniforms feature a new “Carolina” wordmark, with the secondary on the home uniform and the primary on the road. The big change from the Twins’ 1987-2009 uniforms is that the NoB’s are direct-sewn and red with navy outlines. The “NCSC” is on the socks. The alternates include a navy top and a red-billed “NCSC” cap, along with a fauxback. This one uses the janky 1960s “Twins” script with an all-navy “NCSC” cap and the secondary as a patch. The jacket features the home wordmark, the “C-underline” on the back, and white and red stripes on the trim. Part Two - A 1960s Revival, with contrast! The second approach modernizes the 1960s Twins set (what the 2010 Twins should have done) with a contrasting color style (inspired by the first secondary logo). The primary places the other secondary in a roundel, along with the team script (which I debuted in the current MLB thread on the Sports Logos section - using the 1959-60 Washington Senators’ tail design). The secondary/insignia features the “C” from my custom “TC.” A roundel with the “C” and a red border form the tertiary. The uniforms follow my Project 32 Twins concept, except for a few key tweaks. The most notable among these is that the front numbers, cap logos, and sock stripes are dominantly red with navy or white outlines. I figured that it gave the uniforms a bit more “punch.” The primary is a sleeve patch for both sets. The alternates also develop the co-dominance approach by alternating each Friday. The red jersey includes a matching cap, while the navy jersey features white front numbers (for contrast as a lighter element). The jacket now has red sleeves and the “Carolina” script. This move would have been an utter boondoggle had the voters and team gone through with it. While the Twins could have had some fantastic looks there, it’s for the best that it didn’t happen. C+C is appreciated, as always! Up next, we start another long project - Expos Agnoistes! 1 Justin Catanoso, “Architects Present Ballpark Options,” News & Record, April 2, 1998, sec. Triad/State; Meghann Mollerus, “MLB in NC? It Struck Out 19 Years Ago | Wfmynews2.Com,” WFMY News 2, July 17, 2017, https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/mlb-in-nc-it-struck-out-19-years-ago/455758206; John A. Nagy, “The Baseball Question,” News & Record, May 5, 1998, sec. General News; Eric Okurowski, “StadiumPage.Com - North Carolina 1999,” accessed March 16, 2019, http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/NC1999_R.html. 2 Mollerus, “MLB in NC?;" Nagy, “The Baseball Question;" Jim Schlosser, “One Year Later, Opinions Remain Firm on Stadium - Land Set aside for a Triad Big-League Baseball Park Remains Vacant, and - Proponents of Big-League Ball for the Area Remain Convinced an Opportunity Was - Missed.,” News & Record, May 4, 1999, sec. General News. 3 Compiled from reports by staff writers Stan Olson and Michael Whitmer, Associated Press and Knight Ridder/Tribune., “Twins Sale Was Never Intended, Book Says,” Charlotte Observer, April 3, 2000, sec. Business Monday; Justin Catanoso, “Was Baseball Deal Charade? `Well, Sort of’ - Triad Business Journal,” Triad Business Journal, May 3, 1999, https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/1999/05/03/tidbits.html; Nagy, “The Baseball Question.” 4 Dana Damico, “Stadium Site, Not Tax, Was Key in Kernersville,” Winston-Salem Journal, May 6, 1998, sec. A; Scott Dodd, “Charlotte and Baseball: Nothing Major League yet - City’s Sports Promoters Quite Happy with the Minor-League Knights,” Charlotte Observer, September 22, 2002, sec. Metro; David Rice, “Triad Says No to Baseball Decisive: Voters in Forsyth, Guilford Reject Food Tax,” Winston-Salem Journal, May 6, 1998, sec. A; Schlosser, “One Year Later, Opinions Remain Firm on Stadium;” Patrick Sweeney, “N. Carolina Voters Vote down Stadium Tax//as Triad Area Says No, Charlotte Group Makes Move to Lure Twins,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 6, 1998, sec. Main; Jay Weiner, “N.C. Voters Reject Taxes to Help Build Twins Ballpark - Now the Attention Falls to Charlotte,” Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities, May 6, 1998, sec. News. 5 Catanoso, “Was Baseball Deal Charade? `Well, Sort of’ - Triad Business Journal;” Compiled from reports by staff writers Stan Olson and Michael Whitmer, Associated Press and Knight Ridder/Tribune., “Twins Sale Was Never Intended, Book Says;” Foon Rhee, “Twins Tentatively Agree to Deal Keeping Them in Minnesota,” Charlotte Observer, July 23, 1998, sec. Metro.
  8. Thanks! That's my plan, to end with the Seattle Pilots with two different takes. Same. Thanks! I totally see where you're coming from, but I wanted to do enough to separate them from the White Sox. The line I used in the Seattle concept was way too wimpy. Thank you! Thanks. As for the Carolina Twins, look no further than the next post! Thanks! Thank you! I'm rather fond of how the "SG" turned out. I'm also surprised that the Toronto Giants' "G" never surfaced beyond this one photo. You'd think at least a few of them were made, eventually becoming a Hat Club exclusive or something like that. I found that in The Washington Post's article about the move, but wrote it off due to the interviewees maintaining that "Nationals" was the most likely name. It'd be an interesting identity to evolve, especially if there was a mid-'90s "aggressive Panda." I found zero evidence of this. Anyway, the Carolina Twins are going up now!
  9. You know what, I like it! You gotta admit that pinstriped pants don’t mesh well with solid jerseys. This: Is better than this: I don’t think it’s diluting the brand or anything like that. It’s just making the alternate uniform look better (then again, making both Rockies alternates better is a tall task). I doubt it.
  10. I think you’ve nailed the White Sox here!
  11. I’m very happy with the updates, especially the Rays! A little restraint with the sock gradient worked pretty well. Tigers: I like you approach to unifying the “D” and the Detroit Stars fauxback (I can go with either red or orange). Royals: I’m really enjoying the new Monarchs-inspired heart & sash logo, the striping pattern, and the Monarchs’ raglan sleeve/gold-heavy alternate. My one complaint is that I’d much prefer the less messy “Kansas City” script that the team currently uses. Still, amazing work!
  12. Tampa Bay - I like the return of the Tortugas' font, as well as the color choices and the striping designs. The fauxback is especially inspired! My one complaint would be with the color balance on the home uniform, as the powder accessories and cap crowns might clash with the navy-heavy lettering. However, I'd excuse it because you matched the uniform lettering to that of the caps and the sock stripes. Well done! Blue Jays - It's excellent all around! I'd add a white stripe in between the two blue stripes on the pants for the road uniform (I assume that the powder stripe in between the two royal ones on the alternate and BP was an error - EDIT: disregard, just my eyes seeing something that wasn’t there). I like the unorthodox striping design on the BP/Canada Day uniforms' shoulders. The alternate take is a fantastic interpretation of the Black Jays' color scheme, as it feels "blue" enough to still look good. I'd go with white placket stripes on the Red Sox alternate. White Sox - Thanks for the shout-out! Like @Carolingian Steamroller, I'm not so sure about pairing the blackletter "Sox" with the Tiffany/Circus-style number font. Either a modified block font or a blackletter number font would work better here. The white-crowned cap on the road uniform is a little too jarring for my taste, and I'd prefer it with the black jersey (I like using the "White Sox" cursive script) only. Both the BP and fauxback are excellent, but I second @coco1997's pinstriped cap suggestion. I'm looking forward to your next entry!
  13. You’re delightful. I can boil down your discourse to this: Orca = good and the only real option, not Orca = bad and a stupid idea That doesn’t offend me at all. I just want you to know that you really are a bit of a dick about opposing viewpoints. I was referring to you when I made my “ignorant/dismissive of market research” comment. You may want Johnny, but how many other Canuck fans want him? As far as I know, Johnny might be the minority opinion among Canucks fans. Also, how is a block font less sterile than Agency? Instead of using a font that’s used by one other team in the NHL (the Caps, I think), you’d be using a font that’s similar to one of the ones worn by most of the league. The Kelly outline is also a bad idea, seeing as how Kelly outlines look terrible on royal lettering/backgrounds. Green numbers with white outlines make more sense, if you want green in the numbers. Mods, feel free to edit my post if I went too far in my attacks. I’m taking a break from the Canucks, waiting until Sharks talk resumes soon.
  14. Dallas has a faint green outline, and Tampa Bay has one of the most criticized logos on these boards. These aren’t good comparisons. Weren’t we talking about the Flames a while ago?
  15. How many other teams have a primary logo that leaves out of the team’s primary colors? Quite frankly, the discussion is so often let down by your rudeness towards opposing viewpoints, ignorance of market research data by other posters, and the repetition of the same points without any real middle ground given.