gosioux76

1 hour ago, McCall said:

Hmm. I actually like this. My only nitpick would be the inverted logo. Feels like it would've been more visible and more balanced with the Adidas and Purina logos if it stayed predominantly red.

It also would've been the perfect opportunity to lean into the simplified, text-less secondary crest. 

Dumb, pedantic question: Do people in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area commonly refer to it as Tidewater? I know there was a Tidewater Tides affiliate of the Mets years ago that is now the Norfolk Tides. But that's really the only wide reference to that term i can recall. 

The failed bid at an NHL team in the '90s went by Hampton Roads Rhinos. The ABA team in the region went by Virginia Squires. 

Call it what you want, of course. Just throwing that labeling out there for discussion. (Not that it looks like it matters. Still way behind in the voting.)

3 hours ago, Digby said:

 

I don't know that it's nefarious illuminati stuff or anything, but it does generally reflect the overall cultural moment of monoculture and everything having to be all-or-nothing. Which, if you're not a superfan, I can relate to that being tiring and fatiguing. Also they're both too good and too famous so that the endless content about them is pretty dull, it really brings out the most vapid space-filling tendencies of the TV guys. Like anything else, there's more fun in rooting for an underdog.

We might be saying the same thing here, but the reason this pairing has become such a big deal is because it converges two highly sought-after demographics onto one platform. 

Some marketing to the NFL can expect to get an audience of devoted sports fans willing to spend money on their team. Add Taylor Swift to the mix, and now you've increased the chance that you're also marketing to a young, fanatical audience of pop star fans. The value of that marketing opportunity goes up considerably. 

So suddenly we now see people wearing Chiefs-colored sweatshirts that say "Go Taylor's Boyfriend." And we see diehard football fans who don't understand the hoopla and annoyed by the incursion. 

On 2/11/2024 at 11:52 PM, FiddySicks said:

I’ve mentioned it before but I grew up in Niners territory and the first Super Bowl I saw was the one after their last win. I cannot tell you how many times I heard this as a talking point. 
 

I still can’t wrap my head around the Bucs having two Super Bowl wins while sucking most of the time I’ve been a fan, yet the Niners have dominated that same stretch and have none. Football is weird. 

I've heard this similar sentiment from fans of the Cowboys or Steelers or, well, any team that has won multiples of Super Bowl titles, except none recently.

As a Vikings fan whose team lost their fourth Super Bowl three months after I was born and haven't been back since, despite having some incredible teams, I cannot relate with fans of any franchise that has an expectation of winning Super Bowls. 

On an unrelated note, Ken Anderson should be in his own Ken Anderson Tier and have his own Ken Anderson wing in Canton.  /ducks

23 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

 

If Philadelphia were to have a symbol, what do you think it should be?

A drunken tailgater giving the finger with one hand and whipping batteries at opposing fans with the other. 

Condors. 

The entire Juice set is phenomenal. Well done! 

2 minutes ago, rwaters1221 said:

I had that one from a few years ago but it got worn way too often and didn't have a back up. I went to a couple games last year and saw the '47 Brand option but didn't get it because it was only in a snap back. I really want it in a fitted version.  One of these days hopefully!

As I've gotten older, I've come to prefer the '47 Brand "cleanup" style, which is a snapback. I only buy fitted if it's an on-field authentic. 

18 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

They did that in the 2010s during the Diamond Era material phase…wouldn’t be surprised if they bring it back

I have that hat and wear it often. The '47 Brand also made a version of the batting helmet design using the updated logo last year, but they only sold it in the team store. (I was already buying too much at the Target Field team store and later regretted not getting it while I was there.)

Juice, by a mile. 

I think the Snowbirds concept is inventive, but a snowbird to me isn't a bird. It's a retiree from a cold-weather city. Maybe give the bird a walker and have them playing canasta?

2 hours ago, McCall said:

I have seen nothing from MLB that indicates Salt Lake is getting any team, other than the A's, potentially, on a temporary basis. Seems like everybody thinks that because they're being looked at as possible home until the Vegas ballpark is done, and I guess couple with Ryan Smith's intended desires to get an NHL expansion team, it means they've jumped the expansion list. Even IF the A's stayed in Oakland (it's not happening), Nashville would be much more desirable, along with Las Vegas, than Salt Lake.

What is this “expansion list” and who keeps it?

3 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Like, who in Utah is going to give a about a team that views them as nothing more than a stopgap because they don't have anywhere to play where they actually want to be?

 I don't understand this sentiment at all. 

If I'm a baseball fan in a market without its own team and suddenly I learn that one's going to play there, albeit temporarily, I'd be beyond excited. I'd go to as many games as possible because it's a helluva lot easier than taking a flight or planning a road trip to Denver, Phoenix, Seattle or San Francisco, which would be the closest MLB cities from SLC. 

That's just accounting for the convenience of it all. Now say you're a city, like SLC, that thinks it's big enough and deserves to be a big-league city. In addition to being a baseball fan who is excited to see some games played locally,  you've added a component of civic pride to the equation. It's even more powerful if you think going to those games, and showcasing that civic pride, increases the chances of getting your own team full-time. 

If you're SLC, there's absolutely ZERO risk in this and all upside. 

30 minutes ago, McCall said:

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. 

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. 

Sacramento. Call them the NorCal Condors. 

Wolves

22 hours ago, SCL said:

How the Nationals went from the middle to the right is unfathomable. What in the name of fake made for TV movie teams is that?

 

 

If you try really hard, you could take a leap and guess that the new road uniforms were inspired by the early 1950s road uniforms of the Washington Senators before that franchise relocated to Minnesota. I'm not saying that's the case, because the differences are vast, but it wouldn't surprise me.  

If anything, I'd prefer the Nats do what the Yankees and Dodgers have done and go with a simple, single-layer "WASHINGTON" road uniform as if the franchise dates back to the early 1900s. 

1 hour ago, B-Rich said:

 

 

 

Let's not forget that AT THAT TIME, the intent of those in OKC-- elected officials, 'business leaders' like Bennett and McClendon, and the locals/citizens, was to obtain an NBA franchise BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. 

 

And they used an opportunity to not simply and graciously TEMPORARILY "host" an NBA team that was affected by probably the worst natural/man-made disaster to ever hit a major league metro area, but to try and KEEP that team for their own and make the temporary move PERMANENT.   The history of that is here on this board, as well as on their own fan boards, and can easily be found on the internet for anyone who wants to look for it.   

And when the (then) Hornets moved back to New Orleans full-time, they successfully used WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY to acquire another team. 

Nobody's denying that Bennett, McClendon, et. al, had an agenda in attempting to procure a team of their own. Speaking only for myself, I was responding to a comment that a market playing the role of stopgap host for a nomadic franchise isn't a good indicator of their capability of hosting a full-time franchise. 

In the case of OKC, no matter the intent of the business leaders, you can't claim the fans came out to support the franchise out of some subsersive plot to steal another market's franchise. They came because they wanted to, thereby aiding the notion that they can be a good pro sports market. 

No doubt, the OKC owners deserve all of the hatred directed their way by Seattle fans. But you can't deny that OKC showed up even when the team wasn't theirs. 

I'm elated for Joe Mauer. I love seeing a homegrown prospect reach the Hall. 

1 minute ago, The_Admiral said:

The Mariners have taken their '90s design about as far as it'll go. Time for neon green and some modern flair.

I agree. It's hard to deny that the design, particularly during the Griffey era, was and remains attractive. It's just become too muted and drab. 

In general, I've always liked the Mariners look, save for the weird blue-and-yellow transitionary period between the Trident M and the Compass S (Let's call it the Harold Reynolds era), and the more recent past, when they leaved heavily on the Navy jerseys. 

Part of me wishes the current S logo wasn't so good so we could wish back the Trident M logo. I loved that logo. 

19 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Two people with opposing viewpoints each think the other is wrong.  That's natural — and healthy. 

 

 

 

I greatly appreciate the attempt at Esperanto, the world's most beautiful language!  I'd rather be denounced in Esperanto than praised in any other language.

 

Please let me point out the distinction between the suffixes -ig and -iĝ.  The suffix -ig carries the meaning "to make", and so creates a transitive verb; whereas the suffix -iĝ carries the meaning "to become", and so creates an intransitive verb.  Both can be placed on an adjective, as you did with the adjective "malpeza", meaning "light".  Clearly you were going for "lighten up"; the correct form for that would be "malpeziĝu" (where -u is the imperative mood ending, for a command).  By contrast, "malpezigu" would be a command to make some other thing lighter.

 

Finally, the Esperanto version of Ferdinand is just Ferdinando.  Also, just as English has a convention for shortened nicknames in -y  or -ie (Jimmy, Billy, Tommy, Ronnie; I myself often go by Freddie), in Esperanto we add -ĉjo to the first few letters of a masculine name. Hence "Feĉjo" for me, spelt as "Fechjo" when the Esperanto letters such as Ĉ are not available.  (This also obliquely invokes the similar-sounding word "feĉo", which means "muck" or "dregs", like a Muddy Waters sort of thing.  Esperanto humour.)

 

Aaanyway . . . where were we?  Ah, yes; the Yankees' new road uniform.  Tre malbonaspekta, laŭ mi.

Now I see the fancy language. 

25 minutes ago, McCall said:

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?

I'll use this opportunity to point out that I still don't see any fancy language. 

The crawdads concept is by far the best.

I appreciate the sentiment around "plunder," but I find the name awkward, as if it should be "plunderers." It makes me think, "what's a plunder" in the same way I once asked of Minnesota's hockey team, "what's a wild?"

4 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

It's not really accurate anymore to say the Namath-era because the Jets wore those uniforms for longer in the 90's and 21st Century than they did in the 60's and 70's.

True but Namath-era Jets sounds a lot better than the Mark Sanchez-era Jets or the Rex Ryan-era Jets. Maybe split the difference and call it the Butt Fumble-era Jets. 

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The previous road uniform was always terrible.  The white outline and the sleeve trim in the 1973 upgrade made the lettering stronger and more vibrant, and turned the road uniform from featureless and drab to dignified and simple.

 

It is impossible to understand what's going on in the minds of people who deny that this represented a huge improvement.

 

 

 

 

The way you describe it, I think I'll try putting a white outline around myself. Seems as if it would make me look younger and more vibrant. 

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Note that the improvement to the Yankees' road uniforms with the beautiful white outlines (along with the conversion to the strong varsity numbers) took place in 1973, before the renovation of the Stadium.

 

It's sad to see this unsightly downgrade of uniforms with a proud 50-year history.

... only to replace them with a road uniform design they wore for all but 7 of their 27 World Series titles.