DGivens87 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You guys do realize, of course, that the NEW YORK on the Yankee$' road jerseys is done in the same block letters less arrogant teams use for the names on the BACKS of their jerseys...don't you?"Less arrogant teams?" Dude...just let it go. It may be heresy for me to say this as a Sox fan, but the Yankees have one of the classiest looks in sports. Even the road jerseys are spot on, especially with the white-bordered "NEW YORK." The unbordered navy font looks fine, but the white borders really make the script POP. A large cheese pizza, just for me.New England's source for soccer newsAnd hey, I made it to ESPN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You guys do realize, of course, that the NEW YORK on the Yankee$' road jerseys is done in the same block letters less arrogant teams use for the names on the BACKS of their jerseys...don't you?"Less arrogant teams?" Dude...just let it go. It may be heresy for me to say this as a Sox fan, but the Yankees have one of the classiest looks in sports. Even the road jerseys are spot on, especially with the white-bordered "NEW YORK." The unbordered navy font looks fine, but the white borders really make the script POP.I agree. I think it looks great. It may not look as classic/traditional/old school as perhaps the Yanks could look, but I think it looks great. I'd still take the stripes off the sleeves. It's always bothered me that those are there.I hate the Yankees too. However, the no-name-on-back thing is not something I view as arrogance. Names were added (I don't really know when...the '50s?) and some teams did not add them--particularly at home. Heck, the Twins did not have them on their home jersey until about 1996 or so. If the Yanks feel that adding names would mess with their iconic look, that's not arrogance. I don't think the reason has ever been..."everyone knows OUR players." Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I agree. I think it looks great. It may not look as classic/traditional/old school as perhaps the Yanks could look, but I think it looks great. I'd still take the stripes off the sleeves. It's always bothered me that those are there.I hate the Yankees too. However, the no-name-on-back thing is not something I view as arrogance. Names were added (I don't really know when...the '50s?) and some teams did not add them--particularly at home. Heck, the Twins did not have them on their home jersey until about 1996 or so. If the Yanks feel that adding names would mess with their iconic look, that's not arrogance. I don't think the reason has ever been..."everyone knows OUR players."The White Sox were the first team to have names on jerseys, doing so on the 1960 road jerseys. I like the Yankees' look, but IMO, they are the only team that looks good without names Not only do I think their jerseys would look worse with names, but I think all other teams who go nameless would look better with names. But that is just me. I really like the Yankees current road unis, and I think the white makes them pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jt0323 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 i think the dodgers could pull off the no name on their jersey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 They tried, but Vin Scully vetoed it. Didn't look that good anyway. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouj Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 They tried, but Vin Scully vetoed it. Didn't look that good anyway.Yeah, a few years ago. The problem, stylistically, was the numbers looked too small because of the font size and placement. The no-name Dodgers works (it looked good in Brooklyn, right?), but it was executed poorly. Go Astros!Go Texans!Go Rockets!Go Javelinas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 That, and you shouldn't let Scully run your organization. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Actually, he does have some pull. If you're doing the games and can't read the numbers or know who's who, and grant you Vinny is old, and the fans love you, then if you ask for the names to be put on the jerseys they do it because you've been broadcasting for 59 years and are the staple of the organization. And you talk about they shouldn't let Vinny run the organization, oh and letting Ned Colletti run it is a good thing? This is the guy who overpaid for Juan Pierre and Andrew Jones! The fact of the matter is, Vinny's forgotten more baseball than you or I or even Ned Colletti will ever know. Now is this the first time a broadcaster has asked a team to change the numbers? Nope. I know the Kings play-by-play man Bob Miller in the early 90's asked the Kings to change the numbers on the home jerseys from silver to black because they couldn't be seen from the broadcast booth. So, the guy calling does have a legitimate beef if he can't do the job he's being paid to do because you put a uniform out that he has trouble viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Just because the Dodgers have had other morons running the team doesn't give Scully any credibility for his input. It just adds one more lousy decision maker.Scully was lazy. It wasn't about legibility - he just didn't want to have to learn new players' numbers. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Hey, whatever it took to fix the situation. I trust Vin's judgment. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Situation didn't need "fixing." The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Hey, whatever it took to fix the situation. I trust Vin's judgment.You'd think then, for the sake of Vin's eyes (which I believe are custom-crafted mahogany,) they'd fix the width of those numbers on the back. On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Situation didn't need "fixing."I found it kind of an affectation to drop the names when they'd been there for some time. Oh well. a2d? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Yes, we do realize that. Do you have a point to this post other than another avenue for your putrid YANKEE$ gimmick? Of course it would be minimalist to just have "NEW YORK" in navy block letters on plain grey. That's the idea.When a team confuses "benefits from accident of geography coupled with MLB's absurdist revenue system" as something more like an act of god; when they refuse makers' marks or NOB on their jerseys because they're "better than that"; when they bigfoot their way across the landscape of a sport for more than 80 years because of MONEY...they are worthy of whatever opprobrium I can hurl at them. Although "putrid" is a pretty good description for how they'll play defense this season.Having said that, their road uniforms look better than their home uniforms do, and would not benefit from removal of white trim around the numbers and letters. I'll agree with those who don't understand the sleeve piping, as it doesn't match any other uniform element. If you took their current road uniforms, replaced the sleeve trim with single braid placket and sleeve piping, and added piping to the pants, you'd have a start. Personally, I'd trade in the number font for standard MLB block, and add NOBs, but THAT's never going to happen.(Of course, I'd also ditch the home uniforms--which I HATE--and we all know how much of a chance there is of that.)To quote the Rainmakers: "some things are classic...some things are just old".And my spin: some things are minimalist...some things are just boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Yes, we do realize that. Do you have a point to this post other than another avenue for your putrid YANKEE$ gimmick? Of course it would be minimalist to just have "NEW YORK" in navy block letters on plain grey. That's the idea.When a team confuses "benefits from accident of geography coupled with MLB's absurdist revenue system" as something more like an act of god; when they refuse makers' marks or NOB on their jerseys because they're "better than that"; when they bigfoot their way across the landscape of a sport for more than 80 years because of MONEY...they are worthy of whatever opprobrium I can hurl at them. Although "putrid" is a pretty good description for how they'll play defense this season.Wait - you're upset because they don't have manufacturers logos on their jerseys? That's insane. I can't believe that anyone of us likes logo creep, and I personally applaud the Yankees for standing up against it. I'm not a Yankees fan by any stretch of the imagination, but there are some things that they just do right, and that's one of them.I agree with Admiral - your "I hate the Yankee$" shtick is getting old. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Billy Martin never refused a Maker's Mark. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yes, we do realize that. Do you have a point to this post other than another avenue for your putrid YANKEE$ gimmick? Of course it would be minimalist to just have "NEW YORK" in navy block letters on plain grey. That's the idea.When a team confuses "benefits from accident of geography coupled with MLB's absurdist revenue system" as something more like an act of god; when they refuse makers' marks or NOB on their jerseys because they're "better than that"; when they bigfoot their way across the landscape of a sport for more than 80 years because of MONEY...they are worthy of whatever opprobrium I can hurl at them. Although "putrid" is a pretty good description for how they'll play defense this season.Wait - you're upset because they don't have manufacturers logos on their jerseys? That's insane. I can't believe that anyone of us likes logo creep, and I personally applaud the Yankees for standing up against it. I'm not a Yankees fan by any stretch of the imagination, but there are some things that they just do right, and that's one of them.I agree with Admiral - your "I hate the Yankee$" shtick is getting old.Am I upset that they don't have logos on their jerseys, in and of itself? No. Am I upset because it's yet another example of their "there's us...the Yankee$...winners...lords of all...and then there's those 29 losers we're forced to associate with" attitude? Oh, hell yes.And when MLB institutes a proper revenue sharing system (and by that I mean a minimum of 75% of all local revenues are shared--off the real books, not the cooked ones--then I'll gladly retire "Yankee$" from the lexicon...at least when speaking in the present tense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunford Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 When a team confuses "benefits from accident of geography coupled with MLB's absurdist revenue system" as something more like an act of god; when they refuse makers' marks or NOB on their jerseys because they're "better than that"; when they bigfoot their way across the landscape of a sport for more than 80 years because of MONEY...they are worthy of whatever opprobrium I can hurl at them.Quick note about semantics and how to use punctuation: the Yankees organization has never said that they're "better than that" with regards to maker's marks or NOBs. If you put quotation marks around something, that means that someone actually said that. Either show us where this occurred or retract.I understand that these are your perceptions about the Yankees. Doesn't make them fact. The Yankees have paid money to avoid having other logos on their uniform. I appreciate that. No logo creep. This is a good thing. I'm sure other teams could do this too. If it were prohibitively expensive, it probably wouldn't be practiced. The Yankees have never said they're "better than that" with regards to NOBs. They have just said, "nah, we've never done that and we don't want to do that." Let's call it a design quirk and move on. Some teams have odd striping. Some teams have 5 alternative jerseys. The Yankees have no names on the back. Such is life. If you hate MLB's revenue sharing system, the logo you should hate the most is MLB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yes, we do realize that. Do you have a point to this post other than another avenue for your putrid YANKEE$ gimmick? Of course it would be minimalist to just have "NEW YORK" in navy block letters on plain grey. That's the idea.When a team confuses "benefits from accident of geography coupled with MLB's absurdist revenue system" as something more like an act of god; when they refuse makers' marks or NOB on their jerseys because they're "better than that"; when they bigfoot their way across the landscape of a sport for more than 80 years because of MONEY...they are worthy of whatever opprobrium I can hurl at them. Although "putrid" is a pretty good description for how they'll play defense this season.Wait - you're upset because they don't have manufacturers logos on their jerseys? That's insane. I can't believe that anyone of us likes logo creep, and I personally applaud the Yankees for standing up against it. I'm not a Yankees fan by any stretch of the imagination, but there are some things that they just do right, and that's one of them.I agree with Admiral - your "I hate the Yankee{:content:}quot; shtick is getting old.Am I upset that they don't have logos on their jerseys, in and of itself? No. Am I upset because it's yet another example of their "there's us...the Yankee$...winners...lords of all...and then there's those 29 losers we're forced to associate with" attitude? Oh, hell yes.And when MLB institutes a proper revenue sharing system (and by that I mean a minimum of 75% of all local revenues are shared--off the real books, not the cooked ones--then I'll gladly retire "Yankee{:content:}quot; from the lexicon...at least when speaking in the present tense.You really don't make any sense. You should be upset with the "29 losers" that didn't have the guts to stand up against the manufacturers logo. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJaxon Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yes, we do realize that. Do you have a point to this post other than another avenue for your putrid YANKEE$ gimmick? Of course it would be minimalist to just have "NEW YORK" in navy block letters on plain grey. That's the idea.When a team confuses "benefits from accident of geography coupled with MLB's absurdist revenue system" as something more like an act of god; when they refuse makers' marks or NOB on their jerseys because they're "better than that"; when they bigfoot their way across the landscape of a sport for more than 80 years because of MONEY...they are worthy of whatever opprobrium I can hurl at them. Although "putrid" is a pretty good description for how they'll play defense this season.Wait - you're upset because they don't have manufacturers logos on their jerseys? That's insane. I can't believe that anyone of us likes logo creep, and I personally applaud the Yankees for standing up against it. I'm not a Yankees fan by any stretch of the imagination, but there are some things that they just do right, and that's one of them.I agree with Admiral - your "I hate the Yankee{:content:}quot; shtick is getting old.Am I upset that they don't have logos on their jerseys, in and of itself? No. Am I upset because it's yet another example of their "there's us...the Yankee$...winners...lords of all...and then there's those 29 losers we're forced to associate with" attitude? Oh, hell yes.And when MLB institutes a proper revenue sharing system (and by that I mean a minimum of 75% of all local revenues are shared--off the real books, not the cooked ones--then I'll gladly retire "Yankee{:content:}quot; from the lexicon...at least when speaking in the present tense.You really don't make any sense. You should be upset with the "29 losers" that didn't have the guts to stand up against the manufacturers logo.The Yankees not having the manufacturers logos on there uniforms is a good thing. I still hate their very existence. But that is one good thing about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.