• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

909 profile views
  1. Race relations are not at an all-time low, just for the record. An all-time low would be for instance the 1960s when riots were commonplace and America was literally being torn apart. What you mean to say is that things have gotten worse (in your eyes) instead of better over the last few years. I can agree with that to a degree. But from most of the people I speak to, the average person doesn't care about all of this stuff, frankly. They want to see good basketball. What truly happened to evoke this change is that many of the players (along with influencial people among the ranks) decided this term was offensive. The NBA has been majority black for longer than a decade, but suddenly this became an issue this season. They have the right to have their own opinions and express this, but the league doesn't have to agree to change it. In their eyes, they wanted to change something and they did, but even if you completely remove the term, it will never disappear. [MOD EDIT] I can understand them being offended by the term, but at the same time, I think every fan would agree that this is not the conversation to be having right now. Words in themselves become offensive when someone decides they are offensive. Year from now we could see the term "national" be offensive because it seemingly "excludes" nations who don't have teams. Any word or term can become "offensive" with enough pressure. [MOD EDIT] You decide what you are offended by. There is no black or white on this issue. Everything in itself is offense and non-offensive in the same instance. It's just if people agree that it is offensive. The fans who I know do not see any issue with the "owner" term remaining. They just have an issue with Golden State constantly being in the Finals. The entire AD affair was laughable and an embarassment to the league, but instead of stepping in and working to correct this issue. The players don't seem to want collusion to be dealt with, perhaps because those with the most power in the league are the ones benefiting. I find it intresting that one of the most outspoken players on this issue (Draymond Green) is a player on a team that is often cited as an example of everything wrong with the modern NBA. Despite all of this, I would still label it pure pandering to change the name because of a select group of players and activists who voiced their opinions. There is no poll that's been taken among players or fans to decide if the term is offensive to the "majority". You're simply taking it on their word. That doesn't mean very much in the large picture. This is because in both of these situations the "owners" are not individuals, they are large holding companies. There is a large difference between a huge company like the two you mentioned (who in turn is owned by a larger holding) and an owner of a professional sports team. Business structures are completely different (i.e. a sports team is nearly always privately owned by individuals, while companies are owned by a larger amount of individuals who usually don't have controlling interest) and often you do hear about the owners of companies making decisons. I'm based in the financial sector so I have different exposure and a different understanding, but there is a huge difference between companies and teams. The amount of ownership held by a majority shareholder in a sports team is usually higher than the amount of ownership in a company. Owners of sports teams are more prevelant because they are the face of their franchise. Illicth was known as not only the Tigers/Wings owner but also as the owner of Little Caesers, and he was quite prevelant in both fields. In casual chat people often say "Oh yeah, my dad owns a store down the block" or "His uncle owns a pharmacy". They're majority owned by them
  2. Absolute pandering and an insult. Owners and Silver are doing this as a knee-jerk reaction to player complaints. The NBA has serious economic issues, player agencies colluding to influence and stack teams with their players (AD and the Lakers), middling Finals viewership, and a whole host of issues they should be tackling. The fact that the term owner is being used is bottom of that list. An owner owns the teams. A player signs an agreement that legally binds him to a team. The player is not owned by the team. His rights are owned for a set period in order to maintain fairness and control inflation, but the player at no point whatsoever is "owned". Player egos have been stroked in basketball like no other sport, to the degee that every player wants special and prefencial treatment, acts like a mercenary, and undermines the authority of the team leadership. It's the same story in soccer/football, and it's slowly eating away at the core of both sports. Paul Pogba got his manager fired and replaced, and after a year of him threatening to leave and the team essentially cowering to his (and other selfish players) demands, he's trying to force a move to another club. There is no loyalty whatsoever. MLB got rid of the term "disabled list" for this season because it was "offensive", and now after decades of having that term in baseball, everybody within baseball is essentially mandated to be politically correct and use the term injured list. The NWHL is in the midst of a politically driven boycott that will kill a league that remained as the only professional league for women in hockey after the collapse of the previous league. Frankly, of all the issues the NBA could chosen to deal with, this is the most meaningless issue anyone could have picked.
  3. In what can only be described as the culmination of over a decade of poor management, utter moronic ideas, and a lack of planning, we find ourselves on the cusp of history. The first ever two country team in history. Montreal and Tampa Bay sharing the Rays. Sound like a terrible idea? Well, it is. A French speaking Canadian city and a English speaking city sharing a mediocre team that the vast majority of fans have long forgetten about. Nevermind the Expos having 35 years of history. I'm actually quite impressed with myself on this one. It's almost as if I've put more effort and thought in the last hour of designing than Stu Sternberg has put in the last several weeks. No idea what their name will be. No idea what the logo will be. No idea what they'll do for the playoffs. Haven't spoken to the city of Montreal or Tampa Bay. All of this being taken into consideration, I did exactly what you could do with this joke of a situation. Turned the terrible faux-back jersey for the Rays into an Expos jersey. I do look forward in the future to design a few more concepts, once the team decides San Juan should share in the fun, and then decides Sao Paulo deserves to share as well. The first ever Portugese/English/French/Spanish team ever. As in the words of the absolute mad man himself: "If you get two dollars there and one dollar here, you have three dollars"
  4. I would agree that it would look better visually, but the Marlins won two world series in their all black caps. I based the concept on the original Marlins logo, which used no white except for on the fish. Considering that Jeter and company are looking to rebuild, and essentially forget the miserable years under Loria, I figured a throwback to the old days would be nice. Now, I did imagine that cap actually having a lighter outline of either white or grey around the logo, to break between the black of the cap and the black of the M. However, I didn't go back and put that in as I didn't notice until later. I can certainly add in an outline and re-do it. I took a crack at a concept with the M logo, however I'm not really impressed with it myself. I did two versions as well.
  5. I've never been one for making concepts, but watching baseball this week I've started to get a bit bothered by some of the hats, and felt that I could revise them and make them work better. I'm not incredibly skilled in art by any stretch of the imagination, but I took a crack at a few revisions. First up and my personal favorite of the bunch, the Miami (Florida!) Marlins. With a new ownership group taking over in Miami, and a massive fire sale of top players, I feel the Marlins need an "upgrade" of sorts. I took inspiration primarily from the old Florida Marlins uniforms and caps. The M really clicks here and works well, especially with the retro colors. And then on a cap. Next up is the San Diego Padres, who have lacked a true identity for the last several years. I strongly dislike the current all white logo, as it pretty much has zero symbolism or meaning in Padres history. When making this logo I thought back to the old days of the Padres, and I combined the yellow D logo of the 90's with a yellow S logo. I know Padres fans have strong memories of the old Taco Bell color uniforms, but I've really never liked those colors. It's all a matter of preference. I've paired it with a navy cap, but it could certainly work well with a brown hat as well. Next up, a very minor change to the Angels. I don't know where this trend of 3D logos started, but I'm not really a fan of that trend. So, I recolored the Angels cap and also brought back the long lost yellow halo, a staple of the Angels. Then on a cap. I took a crack at a Washington Nationals cap, which is pretty much a carbon copy of the Expos cap. However, I updated it with Nationals colors and of course changed the logo. I just don't know what to do with the Nationals, it's such a bizarre team and such bizarre branding. The W logo while perhaps original used by the Senators leads most people to conclude the Nationals ripped off Walgreen's. I don't even know what a National really is. I personally love the 70's and 80's vibes, but considering the Nationals are considered a "expansion" team, I doubt the ownership would have any interest in a hat like this. Lastly, I did a baby blue cap for the Tampa Bay Rays, using their original logo. Comments? Criticism? These are my first concepts but don't be too easy on them!
  6. If you have such an issue with Indians being made as a logo, why aren't the Blackhawks being given a hassle about their logo? Oh, that's because it's "dignified". If I remember correctly, the people who were protesting the home opener had signs that read, "We are not characters". I think people need to move past this issue. What's interesting is that the fans are not being listened to, it's people who have zero interest in baseball and the Cleveland Indians who are telling the organization to change. The logo is iconic among Indians fans and for good reason. It's a distinct logo. When you see it you know immediately what team it is. You can't deny that. If the Indians had not made the playoffs and had not played good ball they would be in a very different position. The fact that they have had recent success gives them more attention. You are calling the logo racist but fail to give me an explanation. It's only racist because of the fact the character is red and smiling, which is the team color and has been around far longer than the character of Wahoo. If you want to start more arguments (on a sports logo board, mind you) by making a paragraph or two of accusatory remarks than I would recommend you find a better use of your time. Also, the debate might not be about the name now, but as we have already seen the hundreds of mindless news outlets and blog's say, the name will be next. Lastly, how many actual Indians have you discussed this matter with and polled? What do they OVERALL think? or have you only seen non-indians and outspoken indians (who may be a minority) complain about this?
  7. Would certainly solve the issues with some of these players in the NHL. NHL tried the exact same thing with Japan and trying to expand the interest in hockey. Failed miserably. Also, IOC said they wouldn't allow NHL to go to China if they turned down South Korea. Also, you must not know much about China and South Korea or you would know they have some serious historical issues with each other. China will also never be a hockey country no matter what the NHL does, but the NHL is only interested in China because Chinese investors are paying the NHL. This entire new obsession with China is pretty ridiculous and pointless.
  8. I would just like to point out one thing and then I'm done talking about the Indians. The name Indians is not offensive and is used not only in a historical context, but also as a modern term. The Smithsonian museum is called the "National Museum of the American Indian", I think to force a 100+ year old team to change their name just because of some activists complaints is encouraging the politicization of baseball. Sports are ruined by politics and to keep bringing them into the discussion distracts from legitimate issues within the sports that have been ignored. There are a multitude of issues within baseball, such as the commissioner no longer being a impartial party, revenue sharing that punishes success, and the awful tragedy that is the Arizona Diamondbacks uniform. Seriously, what were they thinking?
  9. So, when only a handful people who live in the country are on the national team, this doesn't raise a white flag? I want to reiterate this is a national team sport. Essentially Team Israel is a bunch of Jewish Americans playing baseball. How do you want to expand the game in say, Korea, if Korea is eliminated at the expense of another team that doesn't represent the talent that it claims to? Is that fair?
  10. You do know Jewish people aren't a race, right? Also, most of the players before their trip had never actually been to Israel. Someone who is a generation removed from the country or has citizenship is what I would consider eligible to play for the national team What you are describing isn't national representation, it's just teams made up of distant relatives. By that logic both Taipei and China should be playing on a single team. You're picking and choosing what you want to allow rather than just properly defining it. This is supposed to be a substitute for the Olympic games but follows none of the logic that the Olympic games does. If team Israel had qualified and reached the point they did with home grown players then it would be a sporting achievement for Israel. All of the countries you mention really don't care whatsoever about baseball. Israel is more interested in soccer, so are both of the other countries. The thing is though, this competition has no legitimacy when a few teams restrict who they can choose while the others pick willy nilly whatever players they can get away with claiming as their own. I have some people I know in Israel who tell me the country really isn't paying attention or those who are view it as a Jewish achievement rather than their own achievement as a country. While Israel is made up primary of those who are of Jewish descent there are many who are not. You are right though, they do have a couple Israeli players. Heritage is fine, I have no issue with that as long as we have proper limits on what is allowed. FIFA has had major issues with this is recent years, with major players such as Costa coming into debate. Now, while baseball is no where near the popularity of soccer (no sport comes close) I still think in order to protect the integrity of the game that restrictions need to be placed. If baseball wants to be an olympic sport it has to apply proper restrictions.
  11. You do know that Israelis actually aren't paying any attention to this, right? There is only even a single Israeli on the team.
  12. Why would the NHL playing an outdoor game with two of the least popular teams in the league? The logic behind that decision is baffling. If any New York team could draw a large audience in an outdoor game it would be the Rangers. At this point the NHL is just giving these outdoor games to anyone who wants one. Let's just kill the classic and just play the one game in Ottawa.