• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by daveindc

  1. 4 hours ago, McCall said:

    No for the Astros (had one with the H-Star when they new set came in 2013 and changed it to "Astros" a few seasons ago) and this was the second year for the "Nationals" navy alt.



    First year for the ST jersey is what I was saying.

  2. 1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

    Colts never did anything for me.  Maybe I'm just not a fan of one color + white, or maybe it's just because most of their games are indoors on turf which creates poor lighting and is an environment that clashes with traditional uniforms.  They just seem too plain to me, though that makes me a little hypocritical because I like the Raiders.  One of those cases where you like what you like and you don't what you don't.


    Also can't rank the Bills that high, mostly due to their unnecessary outlines and forced inclusion of navy.  Not going to sit here and do any kind of ranking, and maybe they'd still end up in my top 10, but at least in my eyes, they're not worthy of being considered in that top tier.


    If you're going with one color + white, why not have the helmet in your one color? Should've been done long ago.



  3. 1 hour ago, shstpt1 said:

    I wonder if the success the Nats has this year with the script means a change in the home whites to the Spring Training Jersey as primary, with current home moved to an alternate? 


    I can see the white script ST jersey starting off as an alternate. Maybe replacing the white stars and stripes Curly W alt. Funny that this is the first year for those and they share their ST facility with the Astros. Wasn't the Astros' navy sunrise jersey originally just a ST jersey too?

  4. 1 hour ago, LaJolla Archon said:

    As a Padres fan, I love it. IMO, the brown needs to be dark or else it looks too much like real poop. I never liked the brown they use on the Friday jerseys...to light and had a greenish tint. This looks darker and more red which I think will hold up over time better. Plus once on the field, it will clearly register as brown.




    Yep. And as long as it's not any darker than the throwbacks they wore in 2014, it'll be perfect. 



    Colorado Rockies v San Diego Padres : News Photo

    Chicago Cubs v San Diego Padres : News Photo





  5. 17 hours ago, ZapRowsdower8 said:

    Drove from St. Pete to Orlando 100+ times in the seven years I lived there. Outside of the normal slowdowns between Disney and Universal, I never experienced this famously terrible I-4 traffic. 1.5 hours sounds pretty normal to me. 



    The distance calculator has it at 1H 47M:





  6. 19 hours ago, Wade Heidt said:


    As I posted back in February:


    "Filtered through this thread.  Montreal is a top candidate.  Portland looks promising if there is a group of investors behind the cause.

    However, after seeing the list of other cities being brought up as potential spots, I am feeling Vancouver is not getting serious respect.  Lets look at some basis to back that up:




    The short season Single-A club outdraws many Triple-A clubs in attendance:




    There is still a downtown waterfront spot for a stadium (with mountain view and near a public transit hub), as there was a proposal for that site to be a new soccer stadium before BC Place was renovated in 2011.  Build it in the 40,000 seat range and throw on a retractable roof:




    Vancouver is a growing, cosmopolitan city.  There can be money found in the city if the right investors step up.  If Seattle can get an NHL team and Vancouver has one, why can that not be the same in MLB?  Vancouver got an NBA team when Seattle had the Sonics."




    Thing about this - think it could work but just not likely to happen.



    Manfred himself brought Vancouver up as a possibility, so I'm sure it's getting respect as a candidate from the people who counts. I don't know if it'll get a team before Portland though, unless it falls through for some reason. It has about the same metro area pop as Portland, and is about the same distance from Seattle.


  7. Here's my predictions for division realignment after expansion and relocation is done:


    NL East- DC, Philly, Mets, Montreal

    NL North- Pitt, Cubs, StL, Mil

    NL South- Cinc, Atl, Mia, Charlotte (or Nashville)

    NL West- SF, Dodgers, SD, Ariz

    AL East- Bos, Yanks, Tor, Bal

    AL North- Det, Chisox, Minn, Cle

    AL South- Col, KC, Tex, Hou

    AL West- Sea, Portland, Oak (or Vegas), Angels

  8. 17 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


    But is their whining all that noticeable?



    I think Naimoli’s $3.5 billion lawsuit and the constant blue-balling of the Tampa Bay Area (especially after the Giants nearly moved there) had a lot more to do with it than Angelos. Also, Arizona could get a modern stadium built while the DC groups were struggling to come up with a stadium plan (e.g., a couple of Northern Virginia and Dulles-adjacent designs - ever heard of the Virginia Fury?).


    A DC expansion group had a far better chance in 1993, but their group imploded as Huizenga’s South Florida group blossomed. 


    Like we’ve said before, the Rays scenario is far more likely than the O’s. 



    It's very noticeable, especially to us. There's people on social media who are seriously suggesting the Nats wear Expos throwbacks during the WS. Huh? It's especially irritating considering the Nats are obviously sticking with the navy jerseys the rest of the way. It just shows that they're not as much fans of the franchise as the Washington Nationals, but just want their Montreal Expos back. Of course I feel their pain, but at the same time a lot of their rhetoric is just disrespectful to DC and baseball fans here. Relocation is never pretty.


    As far as Angelos, he would've sued as well. When there was brief discussion of adding a third expansion team for DC in that last round, he made his opposition known. He was the only owner who voted against the Expos move, and he and the Nats have been in court for years just over TV network revenue (MASN). It JUST got settled a couple month ago after years of appeals, and ruled in the Nats favor.


    "The owners already had settled on Phoenix and Tampa, but Collins says some were intrigued with the idea of locating a team in Washington. When one of the owners introduced a motion to add a third team and open up Washington as the potential site, another owner "went nuts," according to Collins. It was Peter Angelos, the new owner of the Baltimore Orioles."








  9. On 10/17/2019 at 2:05 AM, Walk-Off said:

    I hate to interrupt a ... to put it kindly ... spirited debate over whether or not a major-league-level ballpark on the Tampa side of the bay can and will save the Rays, but I am curious as to how many of the people (myself included) who want an MLB team (or a major-league professional team in any particular sport, for that matter) to exist in a particular area have a preference as to how that area earns the team.  For instance, as much as I want Nashville to have its own MLB team, I would rather see such a club be the product of an expansion, of a relocation of a franchise (e.g. the Athletics or the Angels) from a market that would still have an MLB team, or of even a move of a franchise (e.g. the Orioles) out of a market that would then no longer have an MLB club, but would still be very close to a certain community or municipality in another market that still possesses an MLB team, than of a relocation of a franchise (e.g. the Rays, the Diamondbacks, or the Blue Jays) from a market that would then be without an MLB team and be far away from any remaining area with an MLB club.  In other words, I think that my support for a Nashville-based MLB team would come with a clearer conscience if the Oakland Athletics became the Nashville Athletics* -- knowing that the San Francisco Bay Area would still have the Giants -- than if the Tampa Bay Rays turned into the Nashville Whatevers.  It would be essentially the difference between the Philadelphia Athletics moving to Kansas City and the Kansas City Athletics moving to Oakland, or how the Boston Braves' move to Milwaukee contrasted with the Milwaukee Braves' move to Atlanta.


    * In my opinion, the Athletics nickname is historic enough, innocuous enough, and geographically generic enough to deserve to be kept should Oakland's MLB team move to Nashville or almost any other mostly-English-speaking part of North America.


    I now return us to our regularly scheduled arguing.



    As a Nats fan I would've much rather received an expansion team than hearing Expos fans whine every day. Not complaining though. Ironically, MLB picked Tampa Bay in the last round of expansion over our nation's capital just to appease to Peter Angelos and his team in Baltimore. Now the Rays are looking to move to Montreal, and rumors of the O's moving to Nashville are circulating. Go figure.

  10. 10 hours ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

    The Nats had a simulated game practice at their stadium last night and a little birdie told me they were wearing the combo below.  Hopefully this is just for practice.  Wearing the blue alternates during the WS is bad enough, but I get it because of superstition.  But breaking out the red alternate hat with it on the biggest stage would be tragic.


    Image result for washington nationals 2018




    They've practiced in those caps before. They're not going to wear them in the game.




  11. Just now, Gothamite said:


    If you don’t think that league’s use “on field” as a marketing slogan, then I’m afraid that I can’t help you. 


    Again, nobody is denying the marketing of on-field gear. That's not the point here. The point here is that people who wouldn't buy certain authentic gear because it's "too flashy" just aren't the same type of folks who wouldn't buy fashion caps because it's not authentic. There's plenty of money to be made from both authentic AND fashion gear. There's no need for teams to tailor their look around what people wear outside in this day and age. Quite the opposite. 



  12. 2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

    So you say. 


    MLB, manufacturers, retailers and their whole army of consultants say different. 


    Now I agree with you that teams shouldn’t base their on-field looks around what pairs well with casual clothes.  But it’s hard to argue what they’re actually doing. 


    [citation needed] (from the last 20 years)


  13. 5 hours ago, WavePunter said:

    While rappers may generally be referring to the entire scope of 5959's when using the term "fitteds", I think it goes without saying that the official team caps are the gold standard of that line.. sure, rappers may be seen with the occasional fashion cap, or even a nice standard team logo cap from the NBA or NFL, but again, the official MLB team caps are historically the standard - if for no other reason than to "rep" their hometown.. 


    Also, that segment of consumers doesn't particularly need to exist at all, as long as we have the more universal (usually navy or black) options available.. with boring standard options like the Braves' and Indians' all-navy caps, people don't have to address the "too flashy" issue, since non-flashy authentics exist for them to choose from..


    5 hours ago, Gothamite said:


    Exactly.  I mean, does anybody seriously doubt that New Era and MLB play up the "official on field" angle in their promotions?





    Of course they do.  And there's a very good reason for that.



    Nobody is denying the value of authentic gear. That's not the point in this discussion.


    The point here is that no "White guys in their 40s" who need something less flashy are going to worry about it being authentic or not. Fashion caps have been popular for years already. There's no need for teams to tailor their whole look based on people's casual wear in 2019. Maybe that was true 20+ years ago, but not today.