• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BringBackTheVet

  1. I don’t blame Trout in any way for taking what they gave him and being comfortable staying out of the limelight. As for the Angels, they’d lose any credibility they had with their fan base if they let a HOFer walk, and I know for a fact he’s said he was going to find a way to play in Philadelphia - which was made even more an eventuality once Harper signed. I don’t think it’s coincidence that they did this deal shortly after. He’d be a damn fool to turn down that deal even if it was for a team that played their games on the Sun or moon. As for marketability, I’m not sure if you can correlate his contract to “marketability”, at least not without more context. I’m sure there’s ways of measuring how much a single player contributes to club and league revenues, and maybe he really is worth that much, but I would suspect that the intangibles and PR played a big role in it. Who really is “marketable” in baseball anymore? 20 years ago, if you showed me - an average fan - photos of the top 10 players without their uniforms or caps - I’d probably know most of them. Guys like Griffey, Bonds, Thomas, Thome, Jeter, ARod etc. But now? Again, I’m an “average” to “below average” fan, but I wouldn’t know most players if I was sitting next to them on the subway and they were even in their caps. Hell - I’d barely know half the Phillies, and I see them every day. Maybe Harper is ‘marketable’, but he’s sucking right now so that takes away from that a lot.
  2. Splitting up Phila / NYM, and Cubs/StL is a bad plan. Phillies and Pirates don’t need to be in the same division. I don’t think a NSEW alignment works well, but if you insist, then move PGH to N, NYM to E, CIN to S, and STL to N.
  3. It’s pretty easy for a talented player to be awesome on a bad team when there’s no expectations of pressure. I have no doubts that Trout would be great no matter where he was, but until he does it under intense pressure, the numbers will be a little hollow. There are some guys that prefer the small or indifferent market that allows them to play outside the limelight and not be bothered. Fitzgerald is a decent comparison. They had that freak good season, but I’m not sure he played under anywhere near the amount of scrutiny he would face in a “football town” or a major market where a dropped pass could cost a team a playoff game or SB berth. Bobby Abreu comes to mind as well. Guy put up outstanding numbers for 100-loss Phillies teams, but the one half season that they were contending and drawing, he wilted under the pressure (and it wasn’t even that much pressure). Not sure if he accomplished anything in NY after they finally dropped him.
  4. Often times teams wore whatever their manufacturer’s style was, like the Red Sox (and at one time Yankees.. maybe A’s too?) with the McCuallif font that’s become their thing now. It could have just been a manufacturer thing. Now it’s just the “Red Sox” thing... emulated by Tucson.
  5. Are things still not yet official in this dumb league? Was just checking Sixers page to see about new uniform numbers and the roster has barely been updated. Almost all the departed players are still listed. Usually they're pretty good about these things.
  6. is it safe to say that I'm the only one that doesn't consider the Steelers font change a fundamental change to their look? It's still single color white on black, it sorta matches the helmet numbers that already existed, and the rest of the uniform was unchanged (save for the logo patch but that's not a big deal... or is it?) If people want to say that the Steelers tried to "modernize" their look by changing the numbers, then I guess I'll concede the point. I didn't see it that way at the time, but I get it if people do. The only reason I'd even consider it for the Cowboys is since (at least to me) the classic Cowboys photos usually have Staubach wearing a serifed 2, so to me, that style is almost synonymous with them. Eagles changes were way more drastic than 49ers. 49ers tweaked their logo, while the Eagles came up with a completely new one. 49ers darkened the red a bit (it wasn't as dramatic as made out to be) while the Eagles came out with an entirely-new color. 49ers could say that the shadow was an homage to the throwbacks they wore in 94, while the Eagles new uniform shared nothing with any prior sets. I think the Eagles '96 home/road were pretty much a disaster... but the 2003 changes fixed nearly everything.
  7. Or just play the Phillies. They're 7-6 against the Phillies... a whole hell of a lot worse against everyone else.
  8. Now the question becomes if the move away from the serifed font to the current thicker-block one counts as a significant change.
  9. Back before I ever had cable, the ASG was the only time I'd get to see half of the uniforms. It would have sucked to have to look at the silly hats rather than the real ones. I really don't get how anyone besides little kids cares about the ASG. Most of the players don't care, none of the teams want their pitchers pitching in it, and it's just a 4-day period without anything to watch. The rosters are barely legitimate with the silly voting process. I'm totally fine with giving the players a mid-season break, just not the ASG. They could do it like "bye" weeks, where between mid June and mid July, each team would get a 4-5 day break.
  10. Pretty sure you didn’t read my criteria. If yours is different than mine then that’s fine.
  11. Back on topic (if that's possible anymore): Do the Rays cost MLB money? I assume they don't contribute much to the revenue-sharing pool, but is there really a cost benefit for MLB to move them? They can't be losing money, or costing MLB, right? Where I'm going is that if Montreal is serious about having a team again, then MLB could be costing themselves $500M in expansion fees by moving a team there rather than expanding. That's another reason why the two-city thing seems like the worst option from an MLB standpoint. If the Rays were to flat-out move, then MLB could try to extract a large relocation fee to make up for the lost expansion fee. But the half-season thing doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
  12. I'm just not sure this is technically true. I president can only serve for 10 years if elected twice. The amendment explicitly states that a president can only be "elected" to two four-year terms if he/she hasn't served more than two years of a term in which someone else was elected (getting you your 10.) Vice Presidents have to meet the qualifications for President, which Obama would, since he wouldn't be violating the rule of being elected to a third term. If Biden were to die, Obama could become president, but not run again.
  13. I think that'd be pretty uncomfortable when sliding.
  14. Are there any American sports rivalries where the rivalry between cities does matter? Boston and NY aren't "rivals", because they're not competing for attention or to be the cultural or economic center. It's just sports. Boston could have a rivalry with Philadelphia, but to my knowledge doesn't. I don't see any way in which St. Louis and Chicago are rivals outside the context of sports. Maybe NY has one with LA over being the entertainment or media capital of the country? Maybe the CA cities do? DAL/HOU? IDK. I don't see any American rivalries that would be based on anything as deep as what the TOR/MTL one is.
  15. Steelers: Interesting take, but I put more weight into a primary uniform since that's what they'd wear in promos, marketing, and that's really their "look". If I was going to make an exception, it probably would be for the Steelers, since their road pants are such an integral part of their road aesthetic. That being said, for now, I'm going to keep them as is. Cowboys: what do you mean? Did they wear shoulder stars on their primary uniform since the '60s outside of an occasional alt / throwback?
  16. That's fair, since the combo of the yellow stripes and pants goes add a lot of yellow to their look, and yellow was diminished to more of an accent rather than true second color in '79. I'll think on it.
  17. So for the Eagles... below is the original 1996 uniform (it's the same midnight green despite how it looks in this photo.) Note that the home uniform has no trim, a asymmetrical wordmark under the collar, numbers have only one outline, and pants have traditional striping. They added black trim to both uniforms and put the logo on the white one the next year. They also very rarely ever wore those green pants. In 2003 they modified the pants stripe, switched to the symmetrical wordmark, added a charcoal outline to the numbers with a black border and shadow effect. Like I said, I think the 2003 redesign cleaned it up so much that it counts as a change, but that might be because I'm so close to it and watch them all the time and notice all those details. Since the helmet, color, and fonts never changed, I could see counting 1996 as the berth of this era.
  18. Updated Westgate odds. Looks like the deal helped the Clippers (duh) and Sixers, hurt the Lakers and Raptors (again, duh.) I'm not a gambler, so I may be reading wrong, but it looks like they give the favorite "only" a 25% chance of winning.
  19. So then he left Toronto to take less money in exchange for a better chance to win, to be close to home, and to be in the LA area. Don't blame him at all, but it disputes the point made earlier that he just left for the money.
  20. Thanks - I completely forgot about that. Sure feels like a big change - I'll likely downgrade them to '87, which is a real shame because the change was unnecessary. I'm pretty lenient when it comes to pants - for example, Washington - but this introduced an entirely new color. Curious what others think.
  21. This one will have some controversy and hopefully inspire some good debate, as the inherent subjectivity in such lists is more apparent here than in the MLB list. A few rules: I'm going by "look and feel", not just who's wearing literally the same uniform the longest. In some cases, minor changes matter, in some cases, even what some would call "major" don't. It's just up to my judgement. As we saw in the MLB thread, there was good discussion that resulted in me changing my mind on a few. That's what I'm hoping for here, so I'm intentionally stretching it on a couple. I basically went off of my own memory combined with the Gridiron Uniform Database. When in doubt over if the "look and feel" changed as the result of a tweak, I kinda went back and toggled the uniform through the years just to see if I noticed a distinct change from year to year. If no, then I didn't count it. If yes, then I did. As noted, there's also subjectivity that simply cannot be codified - so something like the Steelers changing number fonts would count as a big change to a lot of people, but not to me. In other cases, even a small logo tweak counted as a change. Funny how that works. I'm sure I left some team(s) out - please point that out as harshly as possible. If I'm not called an idiot, jerk, communist, or worse, I'll be offended. Home / primary uniform counted the most by far. I didn't really count road / secondary uniforms. So here we go: Colts: 1957 (I didn't research every single year, but this is when the helmet changed so I assume it's the start of the look. Facemask change didn't seem to make much of an impact.) Chiefs: 1963 (not counting the addition of sleeve strips and number trim. This is one of those cases where subjectivity played a big role. I don't think the look/feel changed at all when those trim elements were added.) Raiders: 1963 Cowboys: 1965 (not sure when the black trim was added to the blue sleeve stripes, but it doesn't matter.) Steelers: 1968 (As noted, the number font switch didn't alter the look/feel at all. It's still solid white on the same black jersey.) Washington: 1972 (despite the pants changing from yellow to white/burgundy and now back to yellow, it just seems like the same uniform. Interested to hear your takes on this.) Bears: 1973 (more controversy, but I consider changing the helmet logo to orange did change things, since the helmet is the most recognizable element and serves as a de-facto primary logo) Washington: 1979 (changed this one since the reduction of yellow from both the jerseys and pants does change the look more than I originally thought.) Colts: 1987 (counting the gray pants and their attempt to introduce a whole new color to their home and road uniforms as a change in their look, so '87 begins the current era.) Packers 1989 (the G-stripe sleeves and pants number counted as a change to me. It looked like they were trying to add contemporary elements, which detracted a bit from their traditional look, so I'm counting '89 as the start of the current era. The sleeve stripe changes don't matter to me.) Panthers: 1995 (the helmet logo change is kind of irrelevant since most people don't even notice.) Eagles: 1996 (consensus is that the changes made for 1996 are essentially the same look as theyr'e wearing now, since the helmet, logo, number font, and colors are all the same, though the trim, pants, wordmark, and number treatment has been altered some over the years.) Broncos: 1997 (the navy uniform is still in the rotation, and even the switch to orange didn't change the look/feel. Steelers: 1997 (consensus is the change in font to the italicized future for numbers and regular for NOB counts as a change to a more modern look.) Go.
  22. I get custom numbers, but why to teams try so hard to have something that's so unique? More often than not, they look terrible. The current Bengals numbers don't fall into the 'terrible' category, but they don't go well with their uniform - a more Texans-ish style would have been preferable. Hopefully that's something that's corrected.
  23. To me, adding all the trim that comes along with the pullovers changes that classic look. The classic BoB look really out of place on this pullover sans-a-bet uniform:
  24. Does anyone even know what the Raptors offered? If it wasn't the most they were allowed to, then they didn't really try.