SFGiants58

Absolutely! It actually fits with the name of the team and is far more visually engaging than any of the traces/botched vectorizations. Those very first digitizations of classic sports graphics misrepresented so many sports logos to the point of parody. Remember how the Brooklyn Dodgers' cap logo looked like this for about 20 years? ...or how the Skating Penguin never really looked correct in digital form? So many mistakes were made because of wanting to "streamline" retro merchandise and using poor-quality references to generate digital renderings.

It'd probably be best to wait until then - I just hope the anniversary jersey sticks with a more "cohesive" aesthetic than the previous one.

First Sea Lord Admiral John Fisher's obsession with speed and firepower probably went well beyond ship design.

The classic Great Western Railway shirtbutton logo would make for a strong crest.

Redacted.

Eh, I'm legally not allowed to complain about the Dubs for many years, especially after that 2022 title. It'll be hilarious to see CP3 there and produce some fun friction - I like it purely from a drama standpoint. Also, if Draymond was right about Poole, it'll be even more hilarious!

But let’s be real about what the Coyotes’ long string of owners has done here:

MOD EDIT: Not necessary. Stay on topic.

Thanks! That’s an excellent article and does contain a few very choice observations about the minutes from 1990: So yeah, while the granting of rights was intended to be conditional, at no point did the A’s insist that agreement’s conditional nature be put into the MLB Constitution or anything beyond the 1990 minutes. You can’t do much legally over that if it’s not in an overtly-official document. Also, if we bring the later revisions of the constitution into account (before the Santa Clara exploration the A’s made), the A’s could have disputed the conditions of the territory’s ownership and chose not to make any such claim. You can blame the Giants all you want, but the A’s share in the responsibility for not doing their due diligence with the constitutional revisions and with disputing the claim in between 1990 and ~2005, when they had ample opportunity to do so (and without their franchise’s venue at stake)

I did (it's document 01-main.pdf in the folder) and according to the document (filed by plaintiffs City of San Jose, the City of San Jose, as successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose; and the San Jose Diridon Development Authority), the proceedings went like this: So it was conditional, according to the plaintiffs. Sadly, according to document 20, the plaintiffs failed to submit their exhibits in PDF form: Since they were not digitized for PACER distribution, the public has no way of knowing what was in those exhibits. At no point does the conditionality of the agreement between Haas and Lurie appear in the exhibits listed in/attached to the complaint. In no other documents does MLB dispute this or explain why the Santa Clara County rights remained with the Giants, but the Giants themselves disputed it. Per a press release from 2012: So, if the Giants are right, then the A's had numerous opportunities to raise a stink and dispute territorial rights before ever considering moving to Santa Clara County. Their ownership at the time just failed to do so, even after it became clear that the conditions of the rights would not be met. Again, this is if the Giants' press release is correct. Both parties have good reasons to lie about the transfer of the rights, so it is safe to assume that the truth should lie somewhere in the middle.

I wrote roughly 4000+ words of research (with extensive citations in Turabian style) on this very matter. I'd like to think it's a good starting point for research material - worth the non-insubstantial PACER check I incurred from downloading the articles. Everybody who makes the "gave the territorial rights to the Giants in good faith and on the presumption of building a ballpark there" point fails to realize a bit of subtext to that dealing - Hass more than likely wanted the Giants out of the way, so that the A's would have more direct access to downtown San Francisco. It wouldn't have been an immediate turnover in fandom, but having a business competitor 40 miles away as opposed to ~15 is always better for business. Nothing is ever as pure as it seems. Simultaneously, the location of Willy Mays Park (I still call it that) in relation to the freeways and the CalTrains depot (a major public transit option for the West and South Bay) reflects an attempt to accommodate that South Bay fanbase - one which already favored the Giants heavily over the A's since the '60s. If the A's moved to San Jose, how much of that potential fanbase would've been A's-first fans, especially with the way Fisher runs his franchises? At best, they'd be a distant second and alienated from much of their Oakland fanbase (distance and demographic-wise). The Giants aren't blameless at all in this story, as everybody in the South Bay story sucks to different degrees. It's the A's for not doing their due diligence in trying to acquire the territory rights, the Giants for not giving it up without a fight (and setting up an astroturfing operation to waste several courts' time), and MLB for basically letting this all happen and not trying to create a New York/LA/Chicago-style split of the Bay Area market. If you want to get mad at the Giants, the whole astroturfing with the territory rights is a much more legitimate reason. Wasting the court system's time is a dick move. On another note: in my research, I never found out how the A's acquired the territory rights for the South Bay. As originally drawn up in 1958, the Giants' territory only included San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Since the A's arrived 10 years after the Giants, I guess that's when they acquired them? Since the Chicago teams both play in the same county, the LA teams arrived within three years of each other (and played in the same county at the start), and the New York market is so large; I guess this is why their territorial splits haven't been as strange and acrimonious.

"Most likely to get a Crime in Sports episode" should be an end-of-season award.

Same. The dude was always an obstinate ass (with varying degrees of charm) and age (as well as the bike accident) has only made him worse. Blowing off basic stuff like scouting reports and refusing several pitching coaches doesn't make for any kind of on-field success.

Being right for the wrong reasons feels weird.

More hits to the head would’ve turned him into this: The aim gets a lot younger.

[MOD EDIT: Way too far.]

Way too lenient. Those transcripts were brutal AF. Has a sports journalist ever experienced as much of a fall from grace as Keri? Even Marv Albert didn’t do anything this bad.

Heck, just break Paul Bernardo out of prison and he’d be a better musician.

Player salaries are ok at the moment and the players were firmly in the right in the 04-05 lockout.

The fact that it was believable as something Urban would do is not a happy thought.

Maybe “cult leader” would be a better profession for Urban. He’s what’d happen if Roch Thériault went into coaching instead of local politics and amateur surgery.

Added translation: “he also didn’t touch any white women of notable wealth, so we don’t care.”

Thanks to the low rate of convictions of those crimes, he’s considered guilty by many. He’s in a similar boat to the one R Kelly was for about 20 years.

Or they could bring the classic striping back on the uniforms, along with the old number font.

You got me there, since I love that jersey! I do wonder how viable the design would be post-VGK, but I’d give Ottawa precedence.