Marlins93

Members
  • Content Count

    708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Marlins93

  1. Well as @monkeypower points out, I could be completely mistaken on this part. If this standard does exist at all, perhaps it does indeed only apply to states that have two or more teams. If the Rays were to relocate, it makes sense to me for the Marlins to be known as the Florida Marlins again, since the state has several large media markets outside of Miami. Of course that's not even a remote possibility due to the team's agreement with Miami Dade in order to secure public funds for the new ballpark. But this would be an example of a state name being appropriate if they were the only team.
  2. Hopefully I can help clarify. I recall reading several times over recent years that MLB instituted a policy about team naming conventions that has forbidden current franchises from reverting to "state" names. And it would prevent expansion and relocation franchises from adopting state names as well. As I recall, this rule/policy was instated within the last decade and was not at all the reason for the Marlins and Angels dropping state names. They also determined that teams like the Rockies, Diamondbacks, Rangers, and Twins would essentially be grandfathered in and not asked to change. This might have actually happened under Manfred (a guess) and the league decided that for whatever reason they wanted to move away from state branding even if a state is home to a single team. I honestly can't remember where I read about this. It might have even been on this forum. This certainly isn't something you would expect to find in the rulebook even if it were something actually a thing, so I'd call it more of a league "policy" than anything else. I can't find anything concrete to back this up, but clearly at least one other poster here is familiar with it. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is all nonsense, of course. And I can't imagine that the league wouldn't be receptive to a team asking for a state name if they have a compelling reason.
  3. I know they've changed the rules, but that doesn't mean that it can't be negotiated. They've grandfathered in the other "state" teams and it doesn't seem like they're being pressured to change.
  4. Anaheim Angels is more akin to Arlington Rangers than Brooklyn Nets if you are thinking about panache. I don't think that California Angels establishes them as the state's team or anything. Nobody really seemed to mind it when the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays co-existed. California Angels works well enough as a geographic descriptor when there's a lack of better options.
  5. The Angels don't feel like what the White Sox and Mets are to the Cubs and Yankees, respectively. The closest comparison would be the Athletics, although even that isn't exact. Although it will never happen, I feel like California Angels is the best name for them and corresponds with the best brand aesthetics in the franchise's history. Sure, they were originally named the Los Angeles Angels, but I don't care for the redundancy; sounds kind of silly. They rightfully dropped the LA designation when they moved to Orange County. I understand why aligning with the LA market sounds enticing from a revenue standpoint, but it has always rung hollow to me. LA and Orange County have different cultures in many respects. Anaheim Angels never had a nice ring to it. I think state names are appropriate when there is a geographic gray area between different cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis, Dallas/Ft. Worth). Sure, there are four other teams in the state of California, but that doesn't seem too concerning from a branding standpoint.
  6. Turn Ahead the Clock was infinitely less offensive than what Nike is doing. They didn't feel like the same kind of corporate cash grab; I believe the idea emerged from someone within the Seattle front office. Teams could opt out of they wanted to. The designs were so goofy (clearly just having fun with the new millennium upon us), that they didn't pose any real threat to the brand identities of the MLB teams. They clearly weren't intended to have any real staying power. The problem with the current situation is that MLB and Nike seem intent upon making game apparel seem more "street hip" in order to sell more merchandise. This explains the Marlins new identity, the disastrous player's weekend sets, and the City Connect series. As many have pointed out, they're clearly going down the path of the NBA here.
  7. At that price, wouldn't the market mostly consist of hardcore collectors who pretty much buy anything? My hunch is that there isn't much of a demand for these gimmicks, including the holiday uniforms. Companies put them on the shelves because they cost little to manufacture and the mark up is huge.
  8. The traditional Red Sox branding IS the city of Boston. If you want to showcase the spirit of the city, that's what the players should be wearing, not some gimmicky yellow uniform set intended to generate more revenue for the Nike corporation. The City Connect series is nothing more than a shameless cash grab.
  9. Nobody is pretending that teams are going to change their identities. The issue is that nobody wants to see teams like the Red Sox wearing hideous, gimmicky uniforms for large chunks of the season. That's a very real and imminent concern. Just so that NIke and the owners can further line their pockets.
  10. People said this same exact thing after the Players Weekend uniforms were first announced. "It's only one series!" So what's next?
  11. I know we uniform snobs can act like the sky is falling sometimes, but there's an obvious creep here. First it's the New Era logo on caps. Next it's the swoosh. We're most certainly only a few seasons away from ad patches on jerseys and decals on helmets. The owners and their corporate partners are not going to leave a single penny on the table. That's why we have in-game commercials and advertisements plastered onto pitching mounds now. The RSNs are now emerging as platforms for gambling. Baseball has always been a for-profit enterprise. Advertisements date back to the earliest days. But there's been a noticeable, downward trajectory over the last five years. The owners have no qualms about sullying the game with any corporate venture they can think of. As much as I disliked Steinbrenner, at least he would stand up against this kind of BS.
  12. Fair point, but the problem as I see it is that this is yet another gimmick uniform thrown into the rotation. You're now adding City Connect on top of Players Weekend, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, etc. Where does it end? Back when Turn Ahead The Clock was a thing, the league wasn't already swimming in hideous uniform gimmicks. This further increases the chances of players reaching milestones and breaking major records in uniforms that look nothing like their team's traditional set.
  13. It's very possible that it would look better than the Marlins' current lackluster identity, but I really don't want a Vice look. And that's exactly what it's going to be.
  14. So are we reaching the point where "normal" uniforms will only be worn about half of the time?
  15. I think the Angelos sons, assuming they inherit the team, are hoping to open up the concourses in an effort to modernize the park. I agree that would be a major improvement but that sounds like a very expensive and long renovation project. I can't imagine something like that being easy from an engineering standpoint.
  16. Although Manfred has vehemently denied this, I'm actually rather convinced that the MASN drama is the main reason why Camden Yards hasn't been awarded the All Star Game again. One of the worst things a franchise/ownership can do in the eyes of MLB is be a headache with regard to broadcast revenue. If I'm not mistaken, there's still ongoing litigation or at least there has been some court cases recently.
  17. I wonder if Baltimore not having one lined up has to do with the MASN drama. They could be waiting for Angelos to be out of the picture.
  18. There is no point in having a score ticker throughout the entire game. That might have made sense in 1998, but it's not needed at all in the smartphone era. One has to imagine that the decision to have one mostly has to do with Ballys trying to entice people to gamble. That has to be the reason and it's disgusting that MLB has allowed this to happen to their product. Aesthetically it's a mess for the reasons that you mention. Too much wasted space. I sense that cameras even have to zoom back further just so they can get the advertisements stenciled on the mound in frame. Another recently adopted sellout abomination.
  19. The Marlins won the 2003 World Series in black alternates and yet I have no desire to bring them back in any regular or semi-regular capacity. A throwback weekend commemorating the championship, sure.
  20. The White Sox, Pirates, Orioles, and Giants are the only teams that should have permission to wear black alternates.
  21. What's hard for me to comprehend is having nostalgia for a look that is generally perceived to be ugly. It seems like the BFBS Mets jerseys have a cult following that I didn't know existed. I thought that those uniforms were fairly universally maligned when they were being worn in the 90s and 00s. I have nostalgia for the Marlins 90s look, but that's because I think those sets were and still are gorgeous.
  22. Several years ago I never would have fathomed them bringing those eyesores back and yet here we are.
  23. I'd say it's more than a little simple. It doesn't have much going for it aside from the shade of blue, which is why I think most people are drawn to it. No front number, piping is minimal, and I don't think that particular logo is suitable for this kind of jersey. And there's something muddy about the white border in addition to the red and blue double outlines of the black M. A wordmark version would be a major improvement.
  24. That exact jersey? Absolutely not. It's ugly. A jersey with that shade of blue? Hell yes!