gosioux76

Do they have to be reasonable? They've got a superstar under contract who is causing this disruption purely out of petulance, a trait he's exhibited for most of his career. I say ask for what you think he's worth in a trade and if you don't get it, let him sit the year out. It would suck if you're a Nets fan, but this wasn't management's doing. I'd respect them a lot more if they just stood up to this nonsense. And if anything, the Gobert trade, and it's resulting effect on the market, gives them the perfect opportunity to undercut any leverage Durant thinks he has in this scenario.

Lou Malnati's Gravy House Jeppson's Malört Field

I'm surprised by how much I like these. I think it's because it sort-of makes me think about the caps the original Senators wore before relocating to Minnesota. (The curly W came into being with the expansion Senators in 1961.)

For one, this jersey has the C because it's a throwback and the Warriors of the early '90s used it. So there's that. But you're thinking of the term "captain" rather rigidly. A captain doesn't have to serve a specific function in the game the way they do in soccer or hockey. Sometimes it's just an honorific to denote the team's leader. It's as much an internal thing as it is external -- this is the person who has been given the responsibility of setting the tone in the locker room, in practice, etc. It's more about denoting leadership within a squad than anything else. It's not, and really never was, a common practice in the NBA. But it's far from meaningless.

I'm a lifelong Twins fan living in the St. Louis area, so I'm one of those few who can justify paying for MLB.TV to watch my team of choice. I'm also a streaming TV customer and shut out from Bally, which leaves me incredibly uninformed on the status of the team that exists just 30 miles from where I live. It's a weird world.

What's the deal with the long gloves that look like they're part of a superhero costume?

I'm sure this is old news to you all, but watching Arenal in Amazon's "All or Nothing" docuseries, I only just noticed how the club strips down their crest to only the cannon on their away jerseys. The new season's black kit has it, too. I absolutely love that. I'd prefer that as the crest on all kits and leave the regular bad for other uses.

I also love those road uniforms. The typeface they used on those initial uniforms was brilliant. It's one of the rare cases where beveling works. To me, it. evoked imagery of Washington architecture and monuments. It was fitting for the city. That said, while I can appreciate how well the DC hat matched the rest of the look, I wasn't nearly as enamored with it. To me, it felt kind of lifeless and insignificant compared with the rest of the uniform. The wordmarks on the jersey use the same type, but slightly elongated, which gives it a more commanding presence on the jersey. I'd be curious to see whether giving the DC a similar treatment on the hat would change my mind about it. Personally, I favor the the curly W, but only because I'm a sucker for nostalgia and always liked that hat. It was the wrong mark to pair with those early uniforms. It's clear they'd rather build their brand around the W, which is fine. But I'd prefer they simplify things and go full retro by simplifying the uniforms in a way that evokes the earlier era. (Yes, I know the Senators weren't a good team, but I don't care about that.)

Did I miss some big news about the Dakotas? Did we lose them?

I get what you're saying, but at the same time I ask: why does it matter? The fact that we all gather here at all to discuss sports uniforms in granular detail is already a personal quirk we all choose to live with. That the discourse ranges from casual to passionate to quasi-rage should just be par for the course in this universe we live in. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. But before you called out message boarders for message boarding, you made a point that I agree with: It's possible that a team like the Dolphins wears white at home just because they want to, regardless of the temperature. Sometimes these decisions are as simple as that.

I'll always defer to the native Floridians when it comes to whether wearing white vs. wearing a color makes a difference when it comes to the heat. But for the Dolphins, I could very much see heat as being the origins of what is now a tradition of wearing white at home, especially considering how football jerseys in the early '70s were constructed. By comparisons to today's fabric technology, those jerseys were like wearing a weighted blanket.

What's interesting about these Golden State uniforms is that they're not ugly, they're just odd, particularly in the context of the team's prior branding. I can see a Cal Bears influence, though I'd find that an odd choice for a theme to a Statement or even a City Edition jersey considering there's likely zero actual graduates of Cal on the team, and how pro athletes often remain loyal to their own alma maters. There also appears to be a continuation of this super-simplification trend we'd seen prior from Utah and Cleveland. Like both of those, it's not something I find immediately off-putting. I just find it strange and slightly confusing.

Those remain among my favorite uniforms of all time.

Here's my question: Why would you want them to look like a team from 2000? In fact, why should any team be held to some period-driven visual standard tied to their origin? Their name might be of a certain vintage, but the Wild would be getting skewered on this board if they skated out on the ice in 2003 vintage chic hockey couture, and for good reason. Teams build their brand around the aesthetic they want now. The Wild want to resemble the "old time hockey" brand they've attempted to build and befits the culture of the sport in their state. Good for them. There's logic to it, despite the relative youth of the franchise.

On top of that, they paired that color (let's call it off-gray) with white, highlighter yellow and the brightest shade of royal blue possible, making it look dingy by contrast. As you said, apply something like this to the Browns road uniforms and you could be onto something nice. But drab and bright aren't meant to mix.

My issue with the Royals isn't out of a yearning borne from Sansabelt-era nostalgia. I don't particularly care if the Royals wear all gray on the road or all powder blue. I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with those Royals uniforms is my personal dislike for pairing a lighter color (powder blue) over white pants. It's the same thing I feel when I see someone wearing, say, a tan-colored shirt over lighter-colored pants. There's a color imbalance that I find off-putting. It's more to do with the top color not having enough visual weight. It's doubly annoying knowing that they have a history of pairing that color with matching blue pants. I don't see the logic in only going halfway with it.

I don't disagree that the one example looks like pajamas. But it would look like pajamas whether it was all white, all gray, or all color.

Is that Minnesota leak being considered legit? I thought it was a joke.

Yeah, there's no putting the genie back in that bottle, I'm afraid.

As a Twins fan, I'm biased, because I think this is one of the best uniforms in baseball.

Reminds me of the Memphis Tams of the old ABA.

I'll hop on this train, particularly for certain cases, like when an alternate is a lighter color. I can't stand it when a light-colored jersey is paired with white pants. The most egregious example is the Royals powder blue alternate. This was a fully royal blue road team for two decades. Yet they wear their current powder blues with white pants? I don't know how to describe that look other than awkward. I feel less strongly about it when it comes to teams with navy or red alternates. Using the same team, the Royals City Connect -- navy jersey, white pants -- strike me as the correct balance. In fact, maybe I really only want to see this become a thing with teams wearing powder blue, just because it used to be such a standard look. (This has been a real journey. haha)

This is the point. Nailed it. Decisions like this have nothing to do with the design of jerseys or the logos on the chest. It also has nothing to do with jersey sales. It's all about the value of the manufacturers logo, and it's unquestionable that adding the Nike swoosh to a jersey would add value to the NHL brand. You don't have to like the designs personally, or even like Nike, but on the whole, consumers have proven that the Nike logo means something to them and will gravitate toward it. Nike has spent decades investing billions to associate its brand with the best athletes and influencers, precisely for circumstances like this. If the NHL affiliates itself with Nike, it will be entirely about associating itself with a more powerful premium brand.

This is 100% accurate. The one big difference, though, is that the Jets logo is a roundel without words. The trend-chasing version of a roundel that Columbus uses follows the MLS badge model of wrapping the team's name around a symbol that could just as easily stand on its own. I rather like the use of cream, and I'm with a lot of you that suggest the "O6 dress up" criticism is perhaps unfounded. I do, however, have a general dislike the use of roundels that feel the need to force words into a logo that doesn't need them. Save those for shoulder patches, if they're that necessary.

They seem to previewing another bad idea, most likely.