Jump to content

MLB changes 2018?


ANGELCAT-IDA61
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jerseyjunk said:

Giants got 1958 2018 on their patch, Royals got 1969  2018.

Why is that? 

 

1958 to 2018 is 60 years since moving to San Francisco.

 

1969 to 2018 is the 50th season played as a franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2017 at 12:57 PM, Ray Lankford said:

I wonder if any teams will start wearing something other than gray on the road.

 

One of UA's signature looks is the faux flannel grey material.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that used in the same way the D-Backs adopted graphite as the away color.  Maybe one or two teams try it out at first.

 

It has to be said every time: just because the manufacturer has crazy ideas, it doesn't mean the teams will adopt them en masse.  Teams control their identities, and some teams are EXTREMELY conservative in regards to making changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray Lankford said:

The Padres celebrated their 35th anniversary in 2003 and are going to celebrate their 50th in 2019 so  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

Pretty sure the Padres celebrated 35 seasons in 2003 since their 30th anniversary and 40th anniversary patches were worn in 1999 and 2009, respectively.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2017 at 2:47 PM, Viola73 said:

By offended, you mean the 9 out of 10 Native Americans who take no offense to their likeness being used in sports? The only straw man here is to believe the argument that a sports logo is the cause of everything that has happened to the Indian Nations and that being offended means being hurt. Now, if your feelings are hurt and you feel like you need to say something, the go ahead, no one is stopping you. But it also means that I don't have to agree with your feelings or even see the harm in a sports logo.

As someone who is of Irish ancestry, should I feel offended by the Boston Celtics character of a portly, smoking, winking Irishman or Notre Dames fighting leprechaun to represent the Irish? If I was thinskined....maybe....but I see them as what they are...a sports logo and nothing more. So, if anyone wants chief wahoo gone and be replaced by something more dignified, like some here have posted, then fine. Have the Indians replace chief wahoo with something like the Redskins have...no problem. But those that want chief wahoo totally gone just because it will make them feel better, or make the one Native American feel better, then I suggest a better argument than your feelings.

 

Well said, and a grand analogy regarding the Notre Dame 'Fighting Irish' (Remember 'Far and Away'), and Boston Celtics logo. I don't think that people are under the belief that Irish people have fighting in their DNA just because of a nickname or cartoon-like logo.

 

The Washington Redskins didn't stand down to the MINORITY of Native Americans who relentlessly attempted to pressure them to change both their Redskins nickname and logo, and now the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in Washington's favor.  I would have hoped that ruling would have put an end to all these issues but apparently not.  

 

The Tribe have been known as the INDIANS since 1915, that's 20 years longer than even the Redskins name.  They've used a Native American image logo since the late 20s, that's who they are.  No matter how much I try to keep an open mind I just don't view it as being a show of disrespect.

 

The Redskins didn't buckle to the pressure, and when the Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously in their favor it should have put an end to all this once and for all, but appparently not.  I really hope Cleveland retains Chief Wahoo and doesn't cave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always loved the red, black, and white color scheme in sports teams. I think it adds some pop and isn't so plain like the Red Wings with just red and white. I even loved when the Mets had black in their color scheme. It's kind of relegated to an accent now as apposed to a while they had it featured like the black sleeves. I was even okay with that, but I think it would be too plain if they rid themselves of black entirely.

 

I think the Mets could back and the Red could do where they had some uniforms and hats with the black and some without. Adds something different to break it up. I really do enjoy red/white and orange/blue (I'm an Islanders fan), but I've never minded black added in to the mix.

 

I should post this is the unpopular opinions thread though, I know most people don't like the black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.