Unpopular Opinions

[Quillz]

Miami Marlins sounds awful and feels awkward to say.. Sometimes an ever-changing flow of sounds is smooth and rolls off the tongue better, like in Miami Dolphins and Florida Marlins, but flipping them is equally awkward, like I'm trying to shove extra syllables into my mouth as I speak..

Also, with the state-named teams, what about "Golden State"?

I dislike it. Again, we've got the LA Lakers, LA Clippers, and Sacramento Kings. And let's be honest, the Lakers are probably the ones that could best claim the California crown. (But none of them should). There was nothing wrong with "San Francisco Warriors," and even their time in Oakland could still make sense if you expand it to imply the San Francisco Bay Area. (This is how I now justify the 49ers being in Santa Clara).

Silly admission here - In my youth I used to think the Washington Bullets played in the state of Washington and couldn't figure out why they played Seattle, they were from the same place, they should be friends...

I was the same. I literally had no idea the Wizards weren't based in Washington State until Jordan went there...

[The_Admiral]

Come on, they were in the Eastern Conference with other cities that are near Washington! It was right there in the video games and everything!

[KittSmith_95]

Because of what today is, I'm bringing back my unrealistic love for this jersey set/logo.

Don't have a clue why, but

I like this steroid jay for some reason too.

I also liked 04-11 stuff in vacuum, but not for the BLUE Jays.

Yeah, I feel the same. That was always my biggest problem with the Jays during that period... You're called the BLUE Jays, not the graphite jays or the black jays. The uniforms and logo in of themselves weren't awful, but just didn't belong with Toronto. It's how I feel about the White Sox not wearing white socks at the moment.

To quote all of you:

I feel the head of the steroid Jay would make a great logo with a few tweaks. Also.... I enjoyed the Graphite/Blue colour scheme as well. All they needed was to tone down the black.

[KDubK414]

I think when the BLUE Jays changed their color scheme it was more of a change to the actual Canada Jay, or Gray Jay.

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Gray_Jay/lifehistory

They really didn't emphasize the BLUE part on the uniforms and on their end, just that their official MLB trademark and other entities didn't change to reflect it. It was kind of an informal name change. And the colors did reflect that as seen in the link provided. I didn't notice that until my Godfather started getting me into birds and then going through a guide, I saw the Canada Jay and it all of a sudden made sense to me.

This is all just putting two and two together, I much rather prefer the current set and the one from the 80's to early 90's myself as it fits better with the official MLB trademark. But it was kinda cool figuring out the reasoning behind that overhaul.

[IceCap]

I think when the BLUE Jays changed their color scheme it was more of a change to the actual Canada Jay, or Gray Jay.

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Gray_Jay/lifehistory

They really didn't emphasize the BLUE part on the uniforms and on their end, just that their official MLB trademark and other entities didn't change to reflect it. It was kind of an informal name change. And the colors did reflect that as seen in the link provided. I didn't notice that until my Godfather started getting me into birds and then going through a guide, I saw the Canada Jay and it all of a sudden made sense to me.

This is all just putting two and two together, I much rather prefer the current set and the one from the 80's to early 90's myself as it fits better with the official MLB trademark. But it was kinda cool figuring out the reasoning behind that overhaul.

That's all well and good, but blue jays are found all over southern Ontario. So it's not like they needed to change the identity. The blue jay worked, and works, when it comes to having a name with a local connection.

[Quillz]

Not sure how unpopular this is, but watching the NLDS last night, I don't like the gray the Mets have. It doesn't provide enough contrast with their blue-and-orange word mark. Seems either the gray should be a bit lighter, or there should be a white outline. I don't recall there being much contrast even with the black jerseys.

[KDubK414]

I think when the BLUE Jays changed their color scheme it was more of a change to the actual Canada Jay, or Gray Jay.

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Gray_Jay/lifehistory

They really didn't emphasize the BLUE part on the uniforms and on their end, just that their official MLB trademark and other entities didn't change to reflect it. It was kind of an informal name change. And the colors did reflect that as seen in the link provided. I didn't notice that until my Godfather started getting me into birds and then going through a guide, I saw the Canada Jay and it all of a sudden made sense to me.

This is all just putting two and two together, I much rather prefer the current set and the one from the 80's to early 90's myself as it fits better with the official MLB trademark. But it was kinda cool figuring out the reasoning behind that overhaul.

That's all well and good, but blue jays are found all over southern Ontario. So it's not like they needed to change the identity. The blue jay worked, and works, when it comes to having a name with a local connection.

You're right too! Good call! It was just one of those moments I had when I realized something. And maybe it also coincided with the loss of the Expos and becoming more of Canada's team. Either way it's cool, cause they kinda did what the Bucks are doing now!

[Mitch B]

I dislike it. Again, we've got the LA Lakers, LA Clippers, and Sacramento Kings. And let's be honest, the Lakers are probably the ones that could best claim the California crown. (But none of them should). There was nothing wrong with "San Francisco Warriors," and even their time in Oakland could still make sense if you expand it to imply the San Francisco Bay Area. (This is how I now justify the 49ers being in Santa Clara).

I could care less how a team chooses to label their locality, but then again, I've never lived in a major league market. I don't think the use of a regional name is any real threat to other teams in the same state. Some combinations of localities and team names do sound better to the ears than others. I remember when the Warriors rebranded to Golden State. I've always liked the uniqueness and the sound of it personally. Now that they've won a title as Golden State, I don't see why they'd ever change it.

[IceCap]

They've won two titles as Golden State.

And that doesn't change how stupid it is as a name.

[colinturner95]

I don't mind the QuadriStripes UA is pushing on us.

[Dynasty]

Golden State always makes me think of a college name. It's like saying "Golden State University".

[Mitch B]

They've won two titles as Golden State.

And that doesn't change how stupid it is as a name.

I forgot about '75.

To each his own ?

[daniel75]

Don't know if its unpopular but i hate jerseys that are primarily yellow.

[Mac the Knife]

What about Florida Marlins, which sounds a lot better than Miami Marlins IMO

How?

Florida Marlins rolls off the tongue.

What about Florida Marlins, which sounds a lot better than Miami Marlins IMO

They were created when there were no other MLB teams in Florida

And they changed it soon after there was another team in Florida.

Also, there are 7 states in the US that have and will have more than one pro team per league in each state:

California

Florida

Missouri

New York

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Texas

Of the teams in those states (not counting New York), only two currently use the state names (Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers), and those two teams are named after something. To me, California Kings sounds just as good as the LA Kings (and better than the unabbreviated Los Angeles Kings). Adding in teams that recently changed their names, you have the California Angels, California (Golden) Seals, and Florida Marlins. All of which sound good.

Some work better than others, and for different reasons. "California Angels" worked, for example, as it distinguished the franchise from the Los Angeles Dodgers and had a unique identity (no one else was using "California") all its own. "Texas Rangers" worked due to its connection with the law enforcement agency. "Colorado Rockies" worked because of its previous use by the NHL as well as memories of John Denver's song "Rocky Mountain High."

"Florida Marlins" was a bad choice, but honestly they should've stuck with it. "New England Patriots" was a bad choice, but it was picked on the fly after a poorly conceived effort to rebrand as the "Bay State Patriots." "Golden State Warriors" was devised as a means of enlisting support in Oakland while not pissing off San Franciscans too much. "Carolina Panthers" was a futile attempt at extending an expansion team's fan base not only across the North/South Carolina state line, but to further eastern and coastal cities where it had no chance of succeeding.

By and large I'm a fan of "regional" names, especially in cases where the team's not playing in a "large market proper" (e.g., Anaheim, Arlington Texas). But in as many cases as not, the reasons behind that branding don't seem to pan out.

[The_Admiral]

The Marlins were named for Florida because Wayne Huizenga is one of those Broward County snobs who thinks Miami is just a cesspool of drugs and ethnics.

[Quillz]

Another potentially unpopular opinion:

I like jerseys with huge numbers and small names.

Not sure when baseball uniforms transitioned to more uniformly sized elements, but I've never liked it. This applies to other sports, too.

[ScoffingYayap]

I was completely ok with this matchup

[SilverBullet1929]

What about Florida Marlins, which sounds a lot better than Miami Marlins IMO

I think they both sound fine but Miami works better now as in present day for a couple of reasons. They aren't the only MLB team in Florida anymore as they were when they were created. Also, they're now literally playing in the city of Miami, as they used to play an hour north in Miami Gardens, technically a different city and even a different county. Also, there were legal issues with the city of Miami asking for the name change as a perk for helping to build the new ballpark. All of these things are well known, so I'm sure most knew all of this. But yes, Florida Marlins sounds wonderful as well, probably better honestly.

But I'll add a fun trivia fact... when the team was created in 1991, the first owner actually wanted them to be specifically called the "South Florida Marlins"... the Miami name was involved as well but the Florida name was chosen because they predicted (correctly) that in the future a second Florida team would be born and they wanted to kinda grab fans from all over the state before that 2nd team could build its fanbase. In a sense, it worked.

[Quillz]

Still hard to believe a team with 2 championships in just over 20 years of existence can't draw a consistent fan base.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Still hard to believe a team with 2 championships in just over 20 years of existence can't draw a consistent fan base.

Yeah, that is strange. Especially since that area is a hotbed for baseball. I think Miami is just one of those towns where the "they have better stuff to do" theory applies.