Jump to content

MLB Logo&Uniform changes


UnclearInitial

Recommended Posts

Goth just said that Anaheim was a lovely place and part of what made greater LA such a fantastic city. What more do you want?

IceCap, lighten up, man...I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit and was joking around. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Eh, really it goes both ways. Yeah, Anaheim should have made the lease stricter when it came to the name (something the city has smartened up and done after the Angels fiasco with the Pond/Honda Center concerning the Ducks or any potential NBA team). But Arte Moreno could have seen this was stupid and ridiculous and gone with the simple layout of the Anaheim lease. But he found his loophole, and silly naming convention be damned, he went for it.

As an Angels fan, would you really want Moreno to leave money on the table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, really it goes both ways. Yeah, Anaheim should have made the lease stricter when it came to the name (something the city has smartened up and done after the Angels fiasco with the Pond/Honda Center concerning the Ducks or any potential NBA team). But Arte Moreno could have seen this was stupid and ridiculous and gone with the simple layout of the Anaheim lease. But he found his loophole, and silly naming convention be damned, he went for it.

As an Angels fan, would you really want Moreno to leave money on the table?

They were never strapped for cash before. And even with the "money grab" of the LA change, Moreno still manages to leave money on the negotiating table <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goth just said that Anaheim was a lovely place and part of what made greater LA such a fantastic city. What more do you want?

IceCap, lighten up, man...I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit and was joking around. smile.gif

Sorry, but I assumed the worst given how seriously you pushed the "Anaheim isn't LA" argument.

Still MIGHTY, I hope the explanations concerning why London-Toronto/Anaheim-Los Angeles is a poor comparison where sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still MIGHTY, I hope the explanations concerning why London-Toronto/Anaheim-Los Angeles is a poor comparison where sufficient.

Yeah that worked. I was actually curious. Looking back the question for it might have come off as a little smarmy, and that's not how it was intended.

And not to restart the discussion, but really from what that sounds like is what LA/Anaheim used to be like and could have still been had there been a greater distance. Like LA and San Diego seem to be the same distance apart as London and Toronto are, and that would be a better comparison. LA and Anaheim used to be separated by farmland and orange groves much like London/Toronto, but as time went on LA grew to be the monolith that it is today and Anaheim grew into it as well. I don't think the LA sprawl came up and engulfed it, but they did kind of grow together. And really, it seems to be the distance thing that's hanging you up, but I do believe had Anaheim been a London-like distance from LA, it would have grown normally and become separate enough from LA for people with your view.

But we're drifting into the opinions and hypotheticals.

I just really think that if Anaheim wasn't as physically close to LA, it'd be allowed to be more viewed as the separate entity we see it as down here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know about Anaheim (which is limited to be honest) it would not have developed the way it did had it not been for Los Angeles' presence as the economic center of influence. The infrastructure was set up in a way that allowed for more people to settle outside of the immediate area in which they worked, so they could bring their money (and real-estate needs) to suburbs. Over time, for various reasons, businesses start developing in those suburbs and may lure employees away from the COI (or even attract new settlers to the area) but if that COI were to vanish from the map, would the Anaheim "metro" area be OK? I highly doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know about Anaheim (which is limited to be honest) it would not have developed the way it did had it not been for Los Angeles' presence as the economic center of influence.

And that's exactly why the situation is not analogous to Los Angeles/San Diego.

Had Anaheim been founded far enough away from LA to be impractical as a suburb, then it could have developed its own independent identity. But then again, it might never developed so large at all.

I do want to clarify one point, though - it's not that I don't see Anaheim as having its own identity. It's just that the identity is tied up with Los Angeles.

  • Hollywood is the part of Los Angeles where kitchy crap and clubs duke it out for tourist dollars.
  • Silver Lake is the part of Los Angeles I'd like to live in again, with funky architecture, little shops and restaurants everywhere.
  • Santa Monica is the part of Los Angeles with beaches, the pier and used to have the most amazing little wine bar.
  • Catalina is the part of Los Angeles where you can go to get away, 20 miles off the mainland.
  • Anaheim is the part of Los Angeles with Disneyland and a couple sports teams. ;)

All of these pieces combine to make LA the world center it is. None of them can truly be evaluated on their own without the greater context. That's no slight on any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding "Los Angeles" to the Angels is not a problem, since Los Angeles and OC are both part of the LA metropolitan area.

But saying that LA and the OC are the same thing is not right either. It's like saying "Manhattan" and "Brooklyn" can be used interchangeably, since they're part of the same city. They can't. It's true: they're close to each other. But they're not the same.

I think Dodger fans should accept the first point. I think Angel fans should accept the second point.

I'm a Dodger fan, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take this discussion away from the importance of whether or not adjacent metro areas should be considered suburbs of each other, but Phil at Uni Watch brought up the Padres wearing their 1983 throwbacks to honor Dick Williams on Thursday night. While the discussion was primarily concerning the reason for wearing the 83's instead of getting a set of 84's from Majestic, he shared an interesting anecdotal tidbit that a team set of throwbacks from Majestic costs ~$10,000. I worked it out that if they get 40 uniforms (25 players, 10 coaches, 5 spares), then it's $250 per uniform. I've seen a team invoice and I know they pay something close to cost when they do buy the sets from Majestic. It makes sense that they would upcharge for one-off unique sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take this discussion away from the importance of whether or not adjacent metro areas should be considered suburbs of each other, but Phil at Uni Watch brought up the Padres wearing their 1983 throwbacks to honor Dick Williams on Thursday night. While the discussion was primarily concerning the reason for wearing the 83's instead of getting a set of 84's from Majestic, he shared an interesting anecdotal tidbit that a team set of throwbacks from Majestic costs ~$10,000. I worked it out that if they get 40 uniforms (25 players, 10 coaches, 5 spares), then it's $250 per uniform. I've seen a team invoice and I know they pay something close to cost when they do buy the sets from Majestic. It makes sense that they would upcharge for one-off unique sets.

Did the Padres order these last minute after Williams died, or had they worn these previously in the year? Also, I am amazed that the teams have to pay for uniforms. I would have figured Majestic's contract with MLB has them pay $X and provide uniforms to team in exchange for the ability to sell official unis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take this discussion away from the importance of whether or not adjacent metro areas should be considered suburbs of each other, but Phil at Uni Watch brought up the Padres wearing their 1983 throwbacks to honor Dick Williams on Thursday night. While the discussion was primarily concerning the reason for wearing the 83's instead of getting a set of 84's from Majestic, he shared an interesting anecdotal tidbit that a team set of throwbacks from Majestic costs ~$10,000. I worked it out that if they get 40 uniforms (25 players, 10 coaches, 5 spares), then it's $250 per uniform. I've seen a team invoice and I know they pay something close to cost when they do buy the sets from Majestic. It makes sense that they would upcharge for one-off unique sets.

Did the Padres order these last minute after Williams died, or had they worn these previously in the year? Also, I am amazed that the teams have to pay for uniforms. I would have figured Majestic's contract with MLB has them pay $X and provide uniforms to team in exchange for the ability to sell official unis.

He's just talking about the one-offs. I think it's been covered here (probably by Bouj himself) how Majestic does provide x number of uniform sets to each club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take this discussion away from the importance of whether or not adjacent metro areas should be considered suburbs of each other, but Phil at Uni Watch brought up the Padres wearing their 1983 throwbacks to honor Dick Williams on Thursday night. While the discussion was primarily concerning the reason for wearing the 83's instead of getting a set of 84's from Majestic, he shared an interesting anecdotal tidbit that a team set of throwbacks from Majestic costs ~$10,000. I worked it out that if they get 40 uniforms (25 players, 10 coaches, 5 spares), then it's $250 per uniform. I've seen a team invoice and I know they pay something close to cost when they do buy the sets from Majestic. It makes sense that they would upcharge for one-off unique sets.

Did the Padres order these last minute after Williams died, or had they worn these previously in the year? Also, I am amazed that the teams have to pay for uniforms. I would have figured Majestic's contract with MLB has them pay $X and provide uniforms to team in exchange for the ability to sell official unis.

He's just talking about the one-offs. I think it's been covered here (probably by Bouj himself) how Majestic does provide x number of uniform sets to each club.

I see. So, did Majestic put these together last minute or were they planning to wear them before Williams died?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to take this discussion away from the importance of whether or not adjacent metro areas should be considered suburbs of each other, but Phil at Uni Watch brought up the Padres wearing their 1983 throwbacks to honor Dick Williams on Thursday night. While the discussion was primarily concerning the reason for wearing the 83's instead of getting a set of 84's from Majestic, he shared an interesting anecdotal tidbit that a team set of throwbacks from Majestic costs ~$10,000. I worked it out that if they get 40 uniforms (25 players, 10 coaches, 5 spares), then it's $250 per uniform. I've seen a team invoice and I know they pay something close to cost when they do buy the sets from Majestic. It makes sense that they would upcharge for one-off unique sets.

Did the Padres order these last minute after Williams died, or had they worn these previously in the year? Also, I am amazed that the teams have to pay for uniforms. I would have figured Majestic's contract with MLB has them pay $X and provide uniforms to team in exchange for the ability to sell official unis.

He's just talking about the one-offs. I think it's been covered here (probably by Bouj himself) how Majestic does provide x number of uniform sets to each club.

I see. So, did Majestic put these together last minute or were they planning to wear them before Williams died?

They are the throwbacks they wore in Seattle during Interleague. The article at Uni Watch said that they likely just recycled them because it was faster.

As to the Majestic contract, we've discussed it before without a firm answer, but the consensus is that each team gets X sets of uniforms/jackets/teamwear, and they pay for extras. We never found out for certain how the current contract is structured, but originally each team got one set of uniforms for each of their sets, in either doubleknit or COOLBASE, and they had to pay if they wanted the set in the other fabric. Now, the thought is that every team gets 5 sets of uniforms, however they want them (15 are exclusively COOLBASE, 14 use a mix, and the Yankees are all doubleknit). That way, the Astros aren't rewarded for having 5 uniforms and the Cardinals aren't punished for having 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cool ,i love this article .

it's standardized, clear and concise ,that inever heard about it before .

how i wish to meet the anthor of the article ,so we can share happiness and sorrows .

Preserved for posterity.

That is the best Spambot I've seen all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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