D-Backs Unis revealed weds.

[winghaz]

I really like these. I'm glad they kept the fanged A as a logo (main logo?). And these uniforms don't look that much like the Astros' unis.

Actually, now the Astros should change colors, too, to look more Houstonish.

[powersurge]

I really like the red cap with the "D" snake.

I cannot stand the term "D-Backs". Slang...stupid. Spell it out all the way.

I never liked the "A" logo, but it works in red on the black cap.

I understand your disdain for the term "D-Backs" but it is not 'slang' but merely a 'nickname'. I personally like it. What I hate is the use of letters abbreviating the entire name of the team like 'M's' or 'O's'. I find that lazy. I guess it must be the same as to what you are saying too huh? To each his own I guess.

[Gothamite]

Yeah the difference is that with one you at least get some returne on the investment and with the other you get none.

If that is the case why do these cities dump the money into stadiums for fear of losing the team. Don't be naive. A city does well on contributing to a sports franchise. That's why there is a waiting list for expansion teams. It's not that those cities are just bursting with civic pride. It's that it makes them money.

At the risk of getting too far off-topic: No, it does not.

Cities and states do get some economic impact (much of it in the form of tax revenues, where applicable), but the largest amounts of money go to the team. The financial benefit to the cities themselves is minimal, and some studies have shown that the economic impact can well be negative, with more money going to the building and upkeep of the stadium than the city sees in return.

A study of 25 stadiums built between 1978 and 1992 found that none of them generated a net increase in tax revenue for the host city. Even Baltimore?s Camden Yards, which is considered a highly successful stadium, is a net loser for the state.

source:

http://www.dcfpi.org/6-9-03tax.htm

Then there's always Field of Schemes, if you want more examples.

They might think that it makes them money (or, if one wishes to be cynical, they might act like they think it makes them money), but it does not. Every single study shows that stadiums are not the sure-fire moneymakers for municipalities that advocates pretend.

So why do they really do it? Ego is one thing. Politicians like to appeal to the civic pride of their constituents, and gaining/keeping a team is a great way to prove that your city is "major league."

Then there are the pretend economic benefits, such as spurred development in an area. Which, as shown in the links above, is rarely created from scratch. It is much more likely to be existing development re-routed to the stadium area and moved away from another area. There's the notion of being able to attract new businesses to a city, but that falls largely under the "civic pride/we're a major league city" category.

There is also the argument that stadiums create jobs and therefore add something to a local community. The problem is that there are much more efficient ways of job creation:

"As an income generator or a job creator, (Camden Yards) appears to be a poor investment compared with Maryland's Sunny Day Fund."

source:

http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815761112/html/123.html

You know, one of those state-funded workforce-training welfare plans you disparage as not giving "some returne (sic) on the investment".

There you have it. If you have any actual, you know, evidence to demonstrate the marvelous financial benefit that stadiums bring to cities and states, please post it.

Keep in mind that I voted for the Brewers stadium when it came to a public vote. I supported publi money to renovate Lambeau Field and for the two New York baseball clubs. I supported the NYC Olympic bid and the West Side Stadium, though I am no fan of the Jets. But I didn't kid myself into thinking that any of those projects would have brought a net profit to the city in dollars and sense. I supported those because I believe that the benefits to the community in an emotional sense was worthy of the financial loss they would entail.

[huggermugger]

Yeah the difference is that with one you at least get some returne on the investment and with the other you get none.

If that is the case why do these cities dump the money into stadiums for fear of losing the team. Don't be naive. A city does well on contributing to a sports franchise. That's why there is a waiting list for expansion teams. It's not that those cities are just bursting with civic pride. It's that it makes them money.

At the risk of getting too far off-topic: No, it does not.

Cities and states do get some economic impact (much of it in the form of tax revenues, where applicable), but the largest amounts of money go to the team. The financial benefit to the cities themselves is minimal, and some studies have shown that the economic impact can well be negative, with more money going to the building and upkeep of the stadium than the city sees in return.

A study of 25 stadiums built between 1978 and 1992 found that none of them generated a net increase in tax revenue for the host city. Even Baltimore?s Camden Yards, which is considered a highly successful stadium, is a net loser for the state.

source:

http://www.dcfpi.org/6-9-03tax.htm

Then there's always Field of Schemes, if you want more examples.

They might think that it makes them money (or, if one wishes to be cynical, they might act like they think it makes them money), but it does not. Every single study shows that stadiums are not the sure-fire moneymakers for municipalities that advocates pretend.

So why do they really do it? Ego is one thing. Politicians like to appeal to the civic pride of their constituents, and gaining/keeping a team is a great way to prove that your city is "major league."

Then there are the pretend economic benefits, such as spurred development in an area. Which, as shown in the links above, is rarely created from scratch. It is much more likely to be existing development re-routed to the stadium area and moved away from another area. There's the notion of being able to attract new businesses to a city, but that falls largely under the "civic pride/we're a major league city" category.

There is also the argument that stadiums create jobs and therefore add something to a local community. The problem is that there are much more efficient ways of job creation:

"As an income generator or a job creator, (Camden Yards) appears to be a poor investment compared with Maryland's Sunny Day Fund."

source:

http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815761112/html/123.html

You know, one of those state-funded workforce-training welfare plans you disparage as not giving "some returne (sic) on the investment".

There you have it. If you have any actual, you know, evidence to demonstrate the marvelous financial benefit that stadiums bring to cities and states, please post it.

Keep in mind that I voted for the Brewers stadium when it came to a public vote. I supported publi money to renovate Lambeau Field and for the two New York baseball clubs. I supported the NYC Olympic bid and the West Side Stadium, though I am no fan of the Jets. But I didn't kid myself into thinking that any of those projects would have brought a net profit to the city in dollars and sense. I supported those because I believe that the benefits to the community in an emotional sense was worthy of the financial loss they would entail.

You win. Your arguement is sound, although it loses all credibilty in the end. So being a fellow New Yorker I can thank you for higher taxes even though you know that it is a poor fiscal decision. You actually voted FOR something that you have reams of evidence that prove the benefits don't actually exist. Yeah Democracy, voting for things that you know are totally a waste of money.

[Gothamite]

Nonsense. Your snarky reply does not invalidate my argument. Nice try, though.

I fully acknowledge that there are non-financial benefits to stadiums. For that reason, I support many of them.

The principal motive in my life is not money. Money's important, but it ain't everything.

[huggermugger]

Nonsense. Your snarky reply does not invalidate my argument. Nice try, though.

I fully acknowledge that there are non-financial benefits to stadiums. For that reason, I support many of them.

The principal motive in my life is not money. Money's important, but it ain't everything.

Uh I wasn't being snarky, I was being honest. You provide a valid arguement that is backed-up with evidence then you throw it out the window by saying that you don't even follow your own evidence.

It's cute to say money's not important but when we're talking literally about hundreds of millions of dollars then maybe we should be taking money a little more seriously.

[jaredrgray]

Upon further review, an admittedly disjointed series of thoughts:

What was wrong with the old "A" logo?

Well, first of all, putting the city name on a home uniform isn't smart. (Cue Arizona "A")

I'm assuming you mean that you like the "A", cuz that would be the same as New York, which is a timeless look (although I'm not saying the D-backs are like the Yankees).

I noticed the diamond in the D-Backs and Arizona. NIce Touch!!!

Also, there are fangs in the official wordmark (between the A and the K)

(Sorry if someone pointed that out already)

[Kccitystar]

Anyone have an image of the fonts used for the numbers and letters?

[Gothamite]

Nonsense. Your snarky reply does not invalidate my argument. Nice try, though.

I fully acknowledge that there are non-financial benefits to stadiums. For that reason, I support many of them.

The principal motive in my life is not money. Money's important, but it ain't everything.

Uh I wasn't being snarky, I was being honest. You provide a valid arguement that is backed-up with evidence then you throw it out the window by saying that you don't even follow your own evidence.

It's cute to say money's not important but when we're talking literally about hundreds of millions of dollars then maybe we should be taking money a little more seriously.

Civic pride is priceless. I'm willing for my NYC taxes to go up by three dollars to pay for new stadiums, if the city's image (and self-image) benefits. I'd even be willing to pay ten more dollars a year if it could bring one of our football teams home from that godforsaken wilderness.

There are many benefits to having a major league team in a city. Not everything has to be about money first and foremost.

[powersurge]

Upon further review, an admittedly disjointed series of thoughts:

What was wrong with the old "A" logo?

Well, first of all, putting the city name on a home uniform isn't smart. (Cue Arizona "A")

I'm assuming you mean that you like the "A", cuz that would be the same as New York, which is a timeless look (although I'm not saying the D-backs are like the Yankees).

I noticed the diamond in the D-Backs and Arizona. NIce Touch!!!

Also, there are fangs in the official wordmark (between the A and the K)

(Sorry if someone pointed that out already)

I just noticed the diamond as well. I do have to say, regardless of what other team wears the same colors I really really like these. Whoever designed the look did a phenominal job. Very Major League in my opinion.

[jaredrgray]

1. I can't wait till people STOP incessantly comparing the Astros and DBacks unis. Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime.

2. The D-Backs' version of the colors are much better than the Astros' version

3. I don't see why people care if a team has a letter on their cap refering to the nickname of the team. I feel it is pretty insignificant especially with the D-Backs. Almost EVERYONE in Arizona calls them the 'D-Backs' anyway so it only makes sense.

4. Whoever said Stadiums are a great investment for a city (if anyone) should remember the Alamo (Dome)and Olympic Stadium in Montreal just to name a couple.

I agree with this guy...nobody complains about the Oakland franchise having an A on their hat rather than an O.

[McCall]

1. I can't wait till people STOP incessantly comparing the Astros and DBacks unis. Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime.

2. The D-Backs' version of the colors are much better than the Astros' version

3. I don't see why people care if a team has a letter on their cap refering to the nickname of the team. I feel it is pretty insignificant especially with the D-Backs. Almost EVERYONE in Arizona calls them the 'D-Backs' anyway so it only makes sense.

4. Whoever said Stadiums are a great investment for a city (if anyone) should remember the Alamo (Dome)and Olympic Stadium in Montreal just to name a couple.

I agree with this guy...nobody complains about the Oakland franchise having an A on their hat rather than an O.

No, the A's hat says, A's. A word...somewhat. It's not JUST a letter. It's intended to SPELL out (kinda) the team's nickname (abbreviated nickname, anyway). Kinda like the White Sox using "Sox". I really don't have a problem with that, as long as it doesn't get outta hand. I believe no more than 3 letters should appear on the hat, and styled in some way that's just not spelling out straight across the hat, like the White Sox's 80's hats. But when it's just the MONOgrammed logo of the nicknames letter, then it just doesn't work for me.

[Guest]

The A's kind of get to be the exception, I guess, because an O wouldn't really look good on a hat. It might make the wearer think he's a zero. The Orioles should have some Baltimore designation, be it a road script or a B on the hat. The one that really bugs me is the Astros using that partial star. It doesn't really signify Houston, Texas, Astros, anything. It's just a star with one side missing. They should have an H on there.

[jaredrgray]

Here are two pictures that show the "fangs". I thought it was a nice touch.

You can see it in the wordmark behind the player (in the A and K of backs), and in the road jersey (R and N)

[FiddySicks]

So i just recieved both of te Diamondbacks caps in the mail today (apparently DHL dilivers not only on Saturdays, but also on holidays. They mustve been there all day long. THankfully nobody swiped them) and both hats are the new 2007 hats. 100% Polyester, black underbill, raised MLB logo on the back. Both fit me like a frickin glove. First time ive ever ordered multiple caps from MLB.com where both fit me perfectly. Ill post pics in a bit.

[Fred T. Jane]

How do you seperate yourself from a team that addopted those colors only 6 years ago, and your

team hasn't even been around a decade?

Actually win a World Series?

[McCall]

So i just recieved both of te Diamondbacks caps in the mail today (apparently DHL dilivers not only on Saturdays, but also on holidays. They mustve been there all day long. THankfully nobody swiped them) and both hats are the new 2007 hats. 100% Polyester, black underbill, raised MLB logo on the back. Both fit me like a frickin glove. First time ive ever ordered multiple caps from MLB.com where both fit me perfectly. Ill post pics in a bit.

Do the new hat styles fit better than the 5950's? I hope cuz I haven't been able to wear an on-field hat for quite sometime. At Busch Stadium, when we got in the official World Series on field hats, the smallest two sizes had the black under bill. All the other sizes were the regular gray.

[AJM]

I picked up both hats at Chase Field. Both fit perfectly and look great.

The had all the new jerseys, but no player jerseys til the season. The team shop would make a custom jersey for you, but the letters and numbers looked generic and didn't really match the fonts used in any of the wordmarks.

[danielbritt]

has anyone seen this yet?

im not sure who had the logo first, but they are awfully close!

fyi, this is david blaine's latest stunt in NYC during thanksgiving week.

[Survival79]

has anyone seen this yet?

im not sure who had the logo first, but they are awfully close!

fyi, this is david blaine's latest stunt in NYC during thanksgiving week.

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System (Tess), it was abandoned on September 17, 2006.

Word Mark DB

Filing Date August 22, 2005

Owner (APPLICANT) DAVID BLAINE PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION DELAWARE 354 Broadway Suite B New York NEW YORK 10013

Live/Dead Indicator DEAD

Abandonment Date September 17, 2006