Ferdinand Cesarano

You're right, of course. And that shows the problem with this thread. It is more than 300 pages long, when really it should be about five to ten posts long. That's how many fit into the category. There's Namath, Killebrew, Boog Powell, and a handful more. That's it. This thread degenerated into a list of any player who ever changed teams, which means nothing, because almost every player not named "Joe DiMaggio" or "George Brett" has changed teams. What's worse, there were several pictures that do not belong at all, an example of which is this Aaron picture. Anyone who thinks that Aaron with the Brewers, Willie Mays with the Mets, or Pele with the Cosmos belongs on this just does not know history. Those teams are certainly secondary to those players' main teams; but each one of those secondary teams makes up an essential part of the player's legacy, in that one cannot possibly tell that player's story without mentioning his time with those secondary teams. By contrast, Namath and Killebrew did nothing of note with the Rams or Royals, respectively, and so their time with those teams can reasonably be ignored when telling those players' stories. I thought of this recently when I was listening to an episode of The Hall of Very Good podcast with Todd Radom and Uni Watch's Phil Hecken as guests, and they got onto the topic of guys in uniforms you don't think of them in. The conversation begins at the 41:30 mark. The guests and the host mention some instances that qualify for me, and others that do not: Dwight Gooden, Devil Rays and Astros - I recuse myself because it's from after my retirement Joe Namath, Rams - obviously yes Steve Carlton, Indians and Giants - borderline, because it was big news at the time Pete Rose, Expos - no Tom Seaver, Red Sox - yes Tom Seaver, White Sox - definitely not Tom Seaver, 1983 Mets - definitely not (the uniform is ugly due to the racing stripe; but Seaver's return was huge news) Jerry Koosman, White Sox - yes Carlton Fisk, White Sox - COME ON, MAN! Radom even acknowledges that Fisk played more for Chisox than Bosox Mike Piazza, Marlins - yes Rollie Fingers, Red Sox - yes (photographed before the trade was anulled by the Commissioner) Boog Powell, Indians - obviously yes Then they got into some more instances from well after my time following baseball, so I am not qualified to evaluate. Trevor Hoffman, Brewers Johnny Damon, Yankees (dubious; if Clemens and Boggs can become Yankees, then so can Damon) Nomar Garciaparra, Cubs, Dodgers, A's Mike Piazza, A's, Padres Frank Thomas, A's, Blue Jays Finally, they followed it up by mentioning a couple of players from my era who are known for playing for several teams: Rickey Henderson and Gaylord Perry, specifically mentioning Rickey's stints with the Dodgers and the Red Sox. I strongly disagree that any stop of Perry's can qualify. His role in the Pine Tar Game gives importance even to his most obscure stop, that with the Royals. But, even given Rickey's peripatetic reputation, I will reluctantly grant that his time with the Dodgers and Red Sox is not very memorable. Even his stints with the Newark Bears are better known than those Major League stops.

That second logo is not showing up. I have always wondered why the UFC chose a logo that looks so much like ESPN's. When I first saw the UFC logo, I thought it was somehow connected to ESPN, the way Canada's TSN/RDS is.

In a perfect world, a identifiable letter should be the cap logo, or at least be an alternate, but you have to keep in mind that minor league primary caps with generic logos are becoming the norm. This is because little league teams can adopt these monikers and buy the licensed merchandise which makes money for the individual teams. I know a bunch of local leagues in Florida do this and personally I think its a great idea. If [your] team is the Cardinals, Yankees, or Braves and your little league is in Nebraska for example, having to wear a cap with an STL, NY, or A doesnt really represent your team name. But if you have a league made of AquaSox, Storm, Grasshoppers, or Seawolves you can wear a cap representing your team name as it has a representing logo. Ah. I can see that. But I have to say that I don't get why this reasoning applies to logos of a single letter. What I mean is that a cap with the graphic logo of the Tarpons can be used only by a youth team whose name is "Tarpons". Whereas, a cool T logo could be used by little-league teams called Tarpons, Tigers, Tomcats, Timberwolves, Thunderbolts, etc., could it not?

I don't see the problem here. I like the way the P nestles in the extended arm of the R. But that T from the two wordmarks needs to be the cap logo. Just the T, no fishtail; and there's no point at all in an additional T logo, the one made of a hook. Most important, wearing that busy blotch of a logo on the cap is a mistake; I think it clashes aesthetically with the rest of the uniform.

Even though I am usually in favour of a minor league team having the nickname of its parent club, this is one of the few historic minor league names that I would like to see retained. There aren't many such names: Durham Bulls, Rochester Red Wings, and Buffalo Bisons come to mind. Syracuse Chiefs was another. These teams can identify with their parent clubs by means of uniform style alone; they don't really need to match the nickname. While I am disappointed to see a longstanding historic nickname disappear, I can only hope that this just the price of a nacent trend that will be generally good, as we have seen in the D-League.

Of course, the only correct uniform for Warner is this one:

What’s a “Blueat”?

Sparky looked 60 for decades. Here's another guy who looked older than he was, and he is in a "wrong" uniform, to boot. Gaylord Perry was 41 when he pitched for the Yankees in 1981. Compare that to Tom Seaver, who was 42 when he tried to make the Mets in 1987. (Historical note: even though Seaver was in uniform and travelling with the team in June of 1987, he was never activated. Rather than go to AAA to prepare, he participated in some simulated games in order to evaluate whether he could still compete on the Major League level. When those tests went poorly, he called it quits. But, during his time with the team that year, Seaver did get to mill about on the field as the Mets engaged in a melee against, if I remember correctly, the Cubs.)

But "some letter changes" is pretty significant when the logo itself is just a letter. I can understand not wanting to have the exact same logo as the the parent club; the ideal case is when the logo is a different letter from the parent club's logo but is identifiably based on it. The classic Pawtucket hat with just the P is a perfect example of this, as is the cap of the San Jose Giants. Another good one is from the Jacksonville Expos, in which the logo is a combination of E and J in the style of the Expos' E and M; and the Bend Rockies / Portland Rockies, whose BR / PR logos were in the style of the parent club's CR logo. But even if a team has a separate nickname, its visual identity can still be tied to its parent club. Here are some excellent examples of that: There is no doubt what organisations those teams belong to. And when a team's affilliation changes, so should its uniform style. When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, their uniforms looked like the White Sox. When they were affilliated with the Indians, their uniforms looked like the Indians. Now that they are affilliated with the Blue Jays, they have done specialty days in which they wore Jays-themed uniforms, which should be their regular look. I think that it's highly doubtful that someone could become a fan of a minor league team without being fully aware of that team's affiliation. Teams tout the whole "see tomorrow's stars today" thing, often calling attention to any of its former players who made the big leagues. Anyone rooting for the Nashville Sounds is rooting for the A's prospects and hence for the A's; and I strongly suspect that every fan knows this. It's just a matter of presenting a product honestly. Something should "do what it says on the tin", as the English say. An affilliated minor league team is there for one purpose: to identify prospects and to prepare them for the use of the Major League club, either as players or as assets in trades. While I get that there is some potential money to be made by obscuring this fact, that is hardly a thing to be embraced or celebrated. Luring customers on false pretenses is not a legitimate business model. If "the money's not there if you're not unique", then perhaps Major League clubs should end the practice of offloading the responsibilities of running minor league teams to local "owners", and should begin owning and subsidising these teams themselves. And, from the standpoint of aesthetics, it is clear that tying a minor league team's identity to its Major League parent club in no way limits the creativity that can go into the team's logo and uniforms. One cannot look at the pictures above and seriously assert that a landscape with uniforms and caps such as those is "sterile". While it's true that the trend in baseball is going away from the idea described here, I am pleased to see that the trend in basketball is towards this direction.

Except that most NBA G-League teams don't, in fact, share the nicknames of their parent NBA clubs. The majority of NBA G-League franchises - 15 of the circuit's 26 teams... 16 of 27, counting next year's Capital City Go-Go - have unique monikers. You are correct; I was mistaken in asserting that most D-League teams share the parent club's nickname. However, I mentioned in my previous message that the desireable thing is that the minor league team's identity be based on that of the parent club. So those teams D-League with the same nicknames, combined with those teams with derivative nicknames, do indeed constitute a majority of the league (17 out of 26, or 17 out of 27 when the Go-Go begin). If the Tampa Yankees had become the Tampa Pinstripes or the Tampa Bambinos (Bambini?), that would've been fine, as that would not break the link in the team's identification with its parent club. (This is why I liked when the Yankees' top farm club was the Columbus Clippers. This team was not founded with the Yankee Clipper in mind, as it was affilliated with the Pirates at its founding. But its name took on a strong association with the Yankees, and probably should have been dropped when the team's affilliation changed.)

This never would have happened if Steinbrenner were alive. I know that many people will applaud this change; but I don't like it. I prefer the direction that the D-League is taking, with most of their teams sharing the nicknames of the parent club. I also don't mind a minor-league nickname that is different, but is clearly derived from the parent club's, such as the Memphis Redbirds and the Greensboro Swarm; either way, the identity of the minor league team is linked to the parent club. In most cases, the only identity that a minor-league club needs is that of the parent club. The exceptions are few and far between: Durham Bulls, Indianapolis Indians, Rochester Red Wings, Syracuse Chiefs, and maybe a handful more. But those are long-established names. For a team to make a change today from the parent club's name to a new name feels wrong. To the Tampa Tarpons and the Gwinnett Stripers I say "bah!"; and regarding really bad ones such as the Binghamton Rumble Ponies (formerly Mets) and the Omaha Storm Chasers (formerly Royals), I go further and let out a hearty cry of "feh!"

To continue on the name tangent, here are the managers who met in the 1973 NLCS:

Which leads us to this: Right team, wrong uniform, wrong number. Reggie played his final season in 1987, going back to the A's. But he inexplicably did not take his old A's number, which is no. 9; instead he wore the number that he had taken after leaving the A's, no. 44. Like Reggie, Rickey Henderson abandoned his original A's number, no. 35, upon coming to the Yankees; and, like Reggie, Rickey became better known for his Yankee number, and wore it even upon his return to the A's. But Rickey returned mid-career, whereas Reggie had returned only for his final year. So the A's wound up retiring Rickey's Yankee number, no. 24; while for Reggie they retired his original A's number, no. 9.

A few more for the "wrong name" file: (That's Jose Uribe, before he changed his name.)

Wow! I'd really like to know more about this. I never knew that there ever were any kind of all-star teams from the English or Scottish leagues. This competition would presumably have taken place during the time that English clubs were banned from European football after the 1985 Heysel Stadium riot by Liverpool fans that resulted in the deaths of many Juventus fans. A tournament today involving teams from the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, and the Bundesliga would be so interesting. But, of course, the problem with a short tournament is that the players would have very little time to work out together, the same problem that plagues the MLS All-Star team that faces a visiting club every year. If only such a thing could completely replace the national team set-ups, so that the league teams could work together on an ongoing basis. Otherwise, the matches involving these league teams would resemble something between workouts and friendlies.

Here is one that is "wrong" only because it is unusual. Though it is very right in terms of How Things Should Be. It is Pele and Bobby Moore in the uniform of Team America, an all-star team of NASL players that competed in the Bicentennial Cup in 1976 against the national teams of England, Brazil, and Italy. I feel a strong dislike for the concept of national teams. (So please don't tell anyone that I have a couple of hats featuring England's Three Lions crest.) In a better world, international competitions such as the World Cup would be contested not between national teams but between league all-star teams made up of players of various nationalities, on the model of this Team America.

The Babe Ruth pictures with the Dodgers made me realise that it's often when guys work as coaches that we see them in unfamiliar uniforms. When they're managers, we remember them. (It's sad that people will think that Mattingly in a Dodger uniform is not wrong.) But when they're coaches, they kind of fade into obscurity. Here are a few guys in uniforms that we definitely don't associate them with:

Everyone knows that Babe Ruth played for the Red Sox. The whole "curse" thing was based on that. Here's a glimpse of him in a really wrong uniform: The Babe was the first-base coach with the Dodgers in 1938. Though he did sometimes take batting practice. The strange thing is that he wore no. 35, as no. 3 was worn by a player by the name of Pete Coscarart.

There are several other guys like that with the Red Sox: (And that leaves out Tim McCarver, because I couldn't find a picture of him.)

Since they're smartypants college boys, maybe they could be the Hannibal Lectors.

Well, I'm sure it does. Most basketball players get pretty sweaty. It looks nice to these eyes, though. Of course, I think the Pacers' current uniforms are probably their best ever, so I may not have the most orthodox tastes. Also, agree that the suit and tie look nice and wish more coaches in both football and basketball would dress that well today. I was referring to the colour of the jacket more than to the fact that it's a suit jacket. Because NBA coaches wear suits, the jacket should have a team insignia, such as on Hank Stram's suit. Baseball gets it right by outfitting the manager and coaches in uniforms. But I also like the practice in soccer, where each manager decides on a game-by-game basis whether to wear a suit or casual wear or the team's gear. And I also think that the Pacers' current uniforms are excellent.

I think those are underrated. Dr. Jack's jacket is underrated. That uniform stinks.

I do, too.

At some time over the past couple of weeks, I seem to have lost the ability to resize a picture in a post made in the mobile interface. I used to be able to tap twice on the picture in order to call up the dialogue box that allowed me to adjust the image's length and width. But no more. Now when I tap twice on a picture that I am including in a post, this has no effect apart from highlighting that picture. I can no longer adjust its size. Some photos and graphics are a lot bigger than they need to be for a post; and so the ability to shrink them down a bit was very useful.

The Giants, Braves, and A's all encourage their fans in this direction. The A's use the Philadelphia white elephant logo, and the Braves have a Warren Spahn statue. The Giants have been most vocal about this lately, having brought their three recent World Series trophies to New York for display in their "former home" (in Larry Baer's own words), and having partially paid for the refurbishment of the outdoor stairway that stands near the Polo Grounds site and was installed by the New York Giants' owner. But the Dodgers, being the biggest of all these clubs, have kept the continuity up the strongest. It started early, when they filled the Coliseum for Roy Campanella Day in 1959. In 1972 at Dodger Stadium, they retired the numbers of Campanella and Jackie Robinson, neither of whom ever played in Los Angeles, alongside that of L.A. Dodgers star Sandy Koufax. (Note the Brooklyn hat on Campy, as opposed to the L.A. hat he sported in 1959.) In thinking about Kareem, a native New Yorker, who remained a Dodger fan even after the move, I can think of two other famous people who did the same: Larry King and Don Rickles. (One might be tempted to name Frank Sinatra here also. But in fact Sinatra had been a New York Giants fan as a kid; he started supporting the Dodgers only after they went to Los Angeles, and really embraced them after Lasorda became manager.) Side note: the Dodgers should take the L.A. logo off the sleeve. It clutters up a classic jersey, and stops the jersey from being identical to the jersey from the Brooklyn days.