Bill0813

Report: Cleveland Indians to Drop Name

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

Getting back to Cleveland, I have the feeling that by having the Block C on his plaque in Cooperstown, Jim Thome was trying to absolve himself from complicity towards the continued use of Chief Wahoo during his tenure in Cleveland.

 

What's the backstory behind this? I've always been led to believe that players have some say in terms of what hat they wear on their Cooperstown plaque, but it wasn't exactly unilateral say. Was Thome himself vocal about not having Wahoo or is there a chance that MLB also knew that it wouldn't age well?

 

Unrelated, but I hate that Mussina and Halladay went in logo-less. I understand the reasoning behind it, but something about it feels inauthentic. Just pick a team! It doesn't mean that their legacies or contributions to another team would somehow be forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I actually disagree with both of you...I don't think the Mariners look is tired at all (and I totally agree about the Ravens example, though that was born tired).

 

Given some of the other pacific northwest teams cited by the Admiral (not to mention the Kraken), I can see SF's point that the teal could be more vivid, but overall, I feel like the Mariners look has aged fairly well. I don't really see a need for anything major to happen. (Even though I like the trident-star logo of the early 1980s).

Make teal and silver the main colors, with navy mainly for trim. That would immediately give the look more energy. 
 

Alternatively, brighten the teal and drop the navy altogether. Minimize the silver and make the home uniforms cream. 

 

Or (sigh)...replace the teal with bright lime green while keeping navy the main color. Make the silver more of a dull grey. Drop the only team color that actually reminds one of the ocean (navy blue no longer counts since it’s so ubiquitous anymore). Get fire 🔥 emojis by the thousands. Profit despite having a look wholly unsuitable for a baseball team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I don't disagree that elements of the Broncos look could use an update. I'm over the pants striping and the correlating side panels, for example. But I fear any attempt at an update will end up down a path similar to the one taken by the Patriots. That's another team that modernized 20 years ago to great effect, then changed under similar circumstances, and ended up with a mediocre hybrid of ideas that, to me, just doesn't work. 

 

Well, yeah, if they're going to switch to something worse, I think we all agree that they shouldn't do it. I mean, is that something we're supposed to debate?

 

So is that the new standard? Because a few teams made a switch and ended up worse off, we should just stop redesigning?  Ok, well, shut down the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

 

Unrelated, but I hate that Mussina and Halladay went in logo-less. I understand the reasoning behind it, but something about it feels inauthentic. Just pick a team! It doesn't mean that their legacies or contributions to another team would somehow be forgotten.

It's going to keep happening more often too. At this point I think there's a chance Pujols goes in blank too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to keep threadjack but -- what the Kraken call "shadow blue" is the closest to the same teal that the Seattle city flag uses of any local team, I think, and update to Mariners teal to that shade might do wonders. Lighter, more blue than green but still leaning decidedly teal. Also the Sounders should have used it from the start instead of the world's sickliest shade of lime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Digby said:

Sorry to keep threadjack but -- what the Kraken call "shadow blue" is the closest to the same teal that the Seattle city flag uses of any local team, I think, and update to Mariners teal to that shade might do wonders. Lighter, more blue than green but still leaning decidedly teal. Also the Sounders should have used it from the start instead of the world's sickliest shade of lime.

This whole thread is a threadjack. You aren't doing anything that won't continue until there's news on the Cleveland Clevelanders Baseball Team, Inc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Well, yeah, if they're going to switch to something worse, I think we all agree that they shouldn't do it. I mean, is that something we're supposed to debate?

 

So is that the new standard? Because a few teams made a switch and ended up worse off, we should just stop redesigning?  Ok, well, shut down the site.

I think you're mistaking my stating of a personal concern over what could happen with suggesting they should do nothing. I simply see a corollary between the Broncos and Patriots: Two teams that exhibited successful uniform redesigns lasting decades only to fall victim to the "they've grown tired" crowd. The Patriots switched, and they probably shouldn't have. I could see having similar remorse over an eventual Broncos change. 

 

But if you want to shut the whole site down, I'm not gonna stop you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

It's going to keep happening more often too. At this point I think there's a chance Pujols goes in blank too


I doubt it. His Angels’ tenure is not unlike Griffey with the Reds, filled with injuries and constant disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

 

What's the backstory behind this? I've always been led to believe that players have some say in terms of what hat they wear on their Cooperstown plaque, but it wasn't exactly unilateral say. Was Thome himself vocal about not having Wahoo or is there a chance that MLB also knew that it wouldn't age well?

 

I'm going to answer my own question. This is what Thome said about the matter:

 

Quote

"I know my decision would be to wear the 'C' because I think it's the right thing to do," Thome said. "I think I need to have a conversation with the Hall of Fame because of all the history and everything involved. I just think that's the right thing to do." 

 

Vague, but looks like he just figured that it was objectionable and wouldn't age well. I'm sure it didn't take much to convince Cooperstown to honor that request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

 

If you want to shut the whole site down, I'm not gonna stop you. 

 

I'm suddenly overcome with such a feeling of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

 

What's the backstory behind this? I've always been led to believe that players have some say in terms of what hat they wear on their Cooperstown plaque, but it wasn't exactly unilateral say. Was Thome himself vocal about not having Wahoo or is there a chance that MLB also knew that it wouldn't age well?

 

Unrelated, but I hate that Mussina and Halladay went in logo-less. I understand the reasoning behind it, but something about it feels inauthentic. Just pick a team! It doesn't mean that their legacies or contributions to another team would somehow be forgotten.

 

The decision ultimately lies with the Hall of Fame, but it's usually made in collaboration with the player. In this case, it was Thome's preference to use the block C, which he expressed publicly the same week Cleveland announced it was retiring the Wahoo logo for good. From the Cleveland.com story at the time:

 

Quote

"I know my decision would be to wear the 'C' because I think it's the right thing to do," Thome said. "I think I need to have a conversation with the Hall of Fame because of all the history and everything involved. I just think that's the right thing to do."

 
 
Edited by gosioux76
I see Marlins 93 beat me to the punch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When/If Albert Belle gets in via Veteran’s Committee, I think he’s probably going to be saddled with a blank cap, the Orioles or White Sox, or an inaccurate ‘80s “C” cap (which Joey never wore). He can insist on Wahoo, but most people will chalk that up to Joey’s assholism.

 

Lofton and Visquel played with enough different teams to justify blank caps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

When/If Albert Belle gets in via Veteran’s Committee, I think he’s probably going to be saddled with a blank cap, the Orioles or White Sox, or an inaccurate ‘80s “C” cap (which Joey never wore). He can insist on Wahoo, but most people will chalk that up to Joey’s assholism.

 

Lofton and Visquel played with enough different teams to justify blank caps.

I think in the scenario that Belle were to be inducted, going logo-less would be the best route because of Wahoo.

 

Mussina's plaque portrait is a profile view, so a cap logo wouldn't be discernible from that perspective. I'd do the same for Belle.

 

Halladay's looks a bit more absurdly generic from a three quarters view. Silly to me that he didn't go in as a Blue Jay (despite how hideous their cap was at the time), despite the perfecto, no-no, and Cy Young award in Philly. Perhaps his unexpected passing had something to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:


I doubt it. His Angels’ tenure is not unlike Griffey with the Reds, filled with injuries and constant disappointment.


Yeah, Pujols is certainly a Cardinal in my mind first and foremost. His Angels tenure also takes a hit in that they’ve been an either frustratingly underperforming or a downright bad team the whole time he’s been there, and there’s little if any memorability to his time as an Angel. The Cardinals years far outweigh the Angels years and it’s not even close.

 

As for logoless caps on plaques in general, it’s one of those things I do understand in terms of why a player would choose it, but don’t like it at all. Those mentioned here, as well as Catfish Hunter’s and others, look pretty goofy and overly generic for a museum with a very specific purpose. I do think the Cleveland situation is a very worthy exception, but outside of that, a specific cap ought to be chosen.

 

Fun, random plaque fact: I’m sure I’m forgetting others, but George Sisler and Mel Ott aren’t wearing caps on thier plaques at all. Ott’s especially is weird, given he played his entire career with the Giants and the choice for cap wouldn’t have been that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Lofton and Visquel played with enough different teams to justify blank caps.

 

I don't know about that.  Both of them had careers that were mostly in Cleveland, with some extra teams sprinkled in.  Especially Lofton - he played one season each (if even that) with about a dozen teams.  Would be a huge mistake to spurn Cleveland on his plaque.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I don't know about that.  Both of them had careers that were mostly in Cleveland, with some extra teams sprinkled in.  Especially Lofton - he played one season each (if even that) with about a dozen teams.  Would be a huge mistake to spurn Cleveland on his plaque.

 


Well, that’s where the ugly “Cursive I” comes in!

 

spacer.png

 

Ugly, but it isn’t Wahoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:


I doubt it. His Angels’ tenure is not unlike Griffey with the Reds, filled with injuries and constant disappointment.

 

Even the Angels can't wait to unload that contract. His best days were obviously with the Cardinals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WSU151 said:

 

Even the Angels can't wait to unload that contract. His best days were obviously with the Cardinals. 


Mike Trout is a sentimental idiot for re-signing with that team. As long as Arte is running things, he won’t make a run in the playoffs again (even the expanded playoffs). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I don't know about that.  Both of them had careers that were mostly in Cleveland, with some extra teams sprinkled in.  Especially Lofton - he played one season each (if even that) with about a dozen teams.  Would be a huge mistake to spurn Cleveland on his plaque.

 

Lofton and Vizquel are such obvious Cleveland inductees if they somehow make the cut. Logo-less for both probably unless you give Lofton the alternate I one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:


Mike Trout is a sentimental idiot for re-signing with that team. As long as Arte is running things, he won’t make a run in the playoffs again (even the expanded playoffs). 

 

Once they get rid of Pujols and Upton (both somewhat productive but horribly overpaid) they'll hopefully get some pitching. If Bauer signs with the Halos it'd help a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.