Jump to content

gosioux76

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,917

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 Content Type 

Everything posted by gosioux76

  1. gosioux76
    I'm confused by this discussion. It's not like it's unusual for a MLB team to share the same market with their AAA affiliate. This is happening right now in the Twin Cities with the St. Paul Saints and has been the case since at least 1995 with the Mariners and the Tacoma Rainiers. Sugar Land, home to the AAA Skeeters, is in the Houston MSA, which is similar to Atlanta and Gwinnett. What exactly is the issue?
  2. gosioux76
    I don't disagree, but I also think it's helpful to point out here that the A's aren't seeking a straight cash handout from Nevada. The deal is for the state to sell $500M in government bonds, which the team would repay over time from taxes and other revenue tied to the stadium project. So essentially, it's the government using its bonding power to issue the team a loan. It's risky, considering this is the government putting its credit on the line, but it's far less politically complicated than a direct investment of taxpayer funds
  3. gosioux76
    I'd think it's also important in establishing a league's identity to showcase its best teams in games when it matters. I understand the point about fostering divisional rivalries, but I think it actually looks worse when an eight-team league's playoff structure ends up featuring a team that's two games under .500. If you're a St. Louis fan, that circumstance doesn't foster a rivalry with Seattle. It fosters disappointment in the league itself.
  4. gosioux76
    Yet it's likely that the reason why so many teams do have an all-black jersey is because they know consumers, like you, would prefer them. And I'm sure they have the data to support the fact those sell even better if consumers know they're representative of an actual on-court look for the team. You force them into their team colors only, they run the risk of losing sales. I don't know that for sure, of course. But you can follow the logic to imagine how team marketing executives likely think. This isn't me disagreeing with you. I'm of the purist class that thinks teams should have two uniforms and a throwback and leave it at that.
  5. gosioux76
    I mentioned this about 20 pages ago on this thread, but this is almost certainly done to make the jerseys more viable for sale as streetwear. Paired with the helmet on an NFL broadcast, there's no need for team identifiers on the jersey. But worn just as a shirt, and absent any identifiable markings, it's just a plain, red jersey. Undoubtedly, someone somewhere has market research that shows consumers are more likely to buy a jersey that's easily identifiable as belonging to a specific team than they would a jersey without clear markings. It's the same reason we have wordmarks on the sleeves for the Lions and a Jaguar patch on the shoulder of the Jaguars jerseys. I can't imagine the Cardinals sold a lot of the plain red home jerseys during the pre-Reebok redesign era.
  6. gosioux76
    In @TruColor's defense, he said multiple times that the information could be bad. In reality, he had one legitimate piece of information -- having seen the helmet shells -- and the rest, just like us, was speculation based upon rumors. He was up front about that. But (the collective) we get so invested in sniffing out details that it was easy to gloss over those acknowledgements and turn what he said into pure hype. That's not on him. He shouldn't feel bad for having a good reputation.
  7. gosioux76
    I wouldn't chalk this up as being representative of a new trend. The original Cardinals uniforms were mismatched in this exact same way. They were clearly trying to update that look.
  8. gosioux76
    I'm on the record here as being a big fan of the classic '70s-80s Jim Hart/Neal Lomax era uniforms of the Cardinals. My hope was that they would stay true to that, especially the white jerseys, which I think are an under-appreciated classic. Reflecting on this redesign, it's clear they did exactly what I was hoping for. But there were a few wrinkles I hadn't considered. One was this league-wide acceptance of monochrome as a standard. It's gross. Also, those old uniforms -- especially the home reds -- had no identifiable marks on them, which makes it less appealing as streetwear. To account for that, they added the wordmark to the chest, but sized obnoxiously large. The original white uniforms repeated the cardinal logo on the sleeve. So removing it avoids repetition, and it likely wouldn't fit there anyway with the smaller sleeve caps. So instead, they just inserted the Cardinals wordmark into the stripes to give it an identity mark. As a piece of streetwear, it's enough to distinguish it from, at first glance anyway, an Ohio State uniform, but it also feels really forced. It adds up to a pretty unimaginative modernization of a classic.
  9. gosioux76
    Yes, except they managed to take that classic look and suck all the character out of it.
  10. gosioux76
    Huh. Not sure why. My apologies.
  11. gosioux76
    Maybe, but baseball — especially, as @BBTVnoted, with shorter run times — can be more like an impulse purchase as opposed to the reason for being there. Compared with the NHL of NFL, the tickets are cheap and accessible, so someone could just decide to take a flier and take in a game, knowing it'll only take 2 1/2 hours out of their day.
  12. gosioux76
    I wonder, though, if broadcasting this ongoing discussion in-stadium wouldn't just become a muffled distraction. The USFL (and most of the XFL), at the moment, doesn't have a full stadium, so I'm sure this projects just fine, but would you even hear this dialogue in a noisier situation like in St. Louis? It's hard enough to hear an official explain the results of a video review. I'd think the ongoing back-and-forth would get lost.
  13. gosioux76
    If anything, the A's are the perfect team for Las Vegas. Professional sports' most transient team representing a city built to serve the transient consumer. More reason to keep the name.
  14. gosioux76
    What do they know about the current whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa? Any idea whether there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll?
  15. gosioux76
    So, do you have any Rolexes or what?
  16. gosioux76
    You just open the lid on the garbage can and let go.
  17. gosioux76
    I'm not much for reading into social media clues, and pardon if this has been asked, but I can't help but think that the color of the suitcase in those videos is pretty distinctive. It's not quite metallic or matte, almost pearl-ish. Could that be the sheen of the helmet @TruColor saw?
  18. gosioux76
    But how do they fit those skates onto the bottom of their cowboy boots? Don't the spurs get in the way? (EDIT: spurs = reverse toepick)
  19. gosioux76
    I've been a fan of the team since they launched in 1989. I've never referred to them as the T-Wolves. It's Timberwolves or Wolves. I've always preferred the shortened name on the jerseys. The thing I hated most about the KG-era uniforms was how small the wordmark was because of the insistence on using the full "Timberwolves" name. I know this is an unpopular opinion, and rooted entirely in my childhood nostalgia and the excitement I felt to have the NBA in my home state, but I've always loved the simplicity of the franchise's inaugural uniforms. You can call them plain, and I wouldn't argue it. But I see no reason why this couldn't be used as a foundation for modernization. Doing so would likely land us somewhere in between the original unis and the beautiful royal and kelly retro remix uniforms they wore last year. Similarly, I'd love to see them take cues from the Twins with the modern-and-simplify route using the original set as the foundation.
  20. gosioux76
    Or just make every jersey all season long out of this ocean-plastic fabric. I agree that it's an important and worthy cause, but doing it as a one-off is more about feel-good marketing than actually embracing change. It's like someone saying, "I recycle, but only on Earth Day."
  21. gosioux76
    I look at these Twins sets not solely as retro-inspired, but retro and simplified. I can't quibble with those of you who dislike that patch for the reasons you state. It's all fair criticism. But looking at the set as a whole -- simple wordmark without outlines, a softened and cleaned-up TC logo — it feels as if the design objective, in addition to drawing from the past, was to rid this set of any excess noise. Recognizing that, they created an exceedingly simple patch -- one color state shape, with a different color star. It helps that the star is the same used on the new road cap, linking it closer to the road set. So I get why some people might not like the execution here -- the "big blue blob" as it were -- but, in my mind, it adheres to the total aesthetic of the uniform in keeping it exceedingly similar. Throwing a Minnie & Paul on there, even in simplified form, wouldn't have matched that objective.
  22. gosioux76
    That could be a nice secondary mark for the Lions, or an accent mark. I could see it used in small treatments, like on the back of a neckline or atop the striping pattern on the pants.
  23. gosioux76
    They did not leave. They were sold. That's a big difference in this circumstance. The Beavers' exit from Portland wasn't because the city didn't want our couldn't support baseball. They left because the owner, Merritt Paulson, also owned the Portland Timbers soccer club and was investing a significant amount of capital to move that franchise into Major League Soccer. One of the league's requirements in that pursuit was that the Timbers play in a soccer-specific stadium. That meant that PGE Park (now Providence Park), which was the home of both the Beavers and the USL-era Timbers, would have to be renovated into a soccer-specific venue, which rendered it unusable for baseball. Paulson made several attempts to relocate the Beavers within the metro area, but was unable to find a suitable location nor a local government that was willing to help him finance a new stadium. He eventually sold it to an ownership group that eventually put the club in El Paso, Texas. Much like @Gothamite was suggesting, there is no reason to suggest that Portland would fail as a baseball market based on this example.
  24. gosioux76
    Does this mean they're not wearing pants?????
  25. gosioux76
    And the Hops, meanwhile, are investing $120 million to build a new baseball stadium in the Portland suburbs. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical about Portland as a MLB market, but having a long history of departed minor league franchises isn't one of the big ones. That city, as a fanbase, could ably support a MLB team, but it's bigger issue is whether there's an ownership group that could secure an adequate stadium location and finance it themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept