Houston Colt .45s jersey back....

[Gothamite]

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

[Bouj]

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

Crane also got a discount. MLB cut something like $70M in the deal, which is what Crane said he'd lose in ad money for the west coast games. As an aside, I do love how the argument "The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!" completely ignores that the team used to play in the NL West and will play about the same number of West Coast games as they did in the final year of in the old alignment, give or take a series. Yes, TV ads are different, but this wasn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of their history.

[Firefly]

"The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!"

It's probably more of a dig against the teams in the AL West. I'm really not looking forward to late games against the Mariners. Even our blood hatred for Dallas isn't likely to sustain much interest as they beat the crap out of us for the foreseeable future.

----

Back on topic, I'm a bit disappointed that the gun on the jersey looks pretty crappy compared to the print version. Also, My son pointed out how the jersey reads wrong. It looks like it says, "Colts [.45]"

On the whole, I'm cool that we do get to see the correct historical version of this but I'm now seeing this in a new, far less cool, light.

[Gothamite]

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

Crane also got a discount. MLB cut something like $70M in the deal, which is what Crane said he'd lose in ad money for the west coast games. As an aside, I do love how the argument "The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!" completely ignores that the team used to play in the NL West and will play about the same number of West Coast games as they did in the final year of in the old alignment, give or take a series. Yes, TV ads are different, but this wasn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of their history.

Thank you. I had forgotten about that bit.

Again, there's a reason why the new owner didn't object to the move; he was in on it from the beginning.

[chakfu]

An obvious solution would be to keep the logo but spin the whole thing into anti gun violence education charity etc.

[ManCalledAmp]

PC or not PC, I think it's stupid to do a throwback halfway.

Your team used to be named after a gun, with a gun on the jersey. Now you're throwing back to a gun-themed name, and wearing the same jersey...with no gun on it. If Colt wouldn't allow the gun...you don't wear them. Simple as that. It's like wearing a Braves jersey that's supposed to have a tomahawk without a tomahawk on it; why even bother?

Also, Tampa Bay. A team named the SMOKERS. Really? The freaking "Smokers." But you can't have a smoking implement on there. I don't care if the censored jersey does look better. Don't do a throwback to something offensive, suggestive, or controversial if you won't go all the way on it.

As much as I hate the Wizards' recolor and everything, they got this right with the true Fauxback. They didn't make Bullets jerseys without referencing actual bullets or the name. They made Wiz jerseys that are obviously inspired by the Bullets, but aren't. Retread hands logo, same old colors, stripes, and the like...but the new name, and another alt logo to tie it all together.

If you're ashamed of smoking and guns, don't wear jerseys AT ALL that reference smoking or guns. Or if you must, fauxback it--use the same style, but make it say your current team name. "The Rays" in red-pink cursive, with a simple Cownose at the bottom...And Astros, with the gun replaced by a star, stadium, atom, etc...and a Smoke-made-A. Done.

Bad on you, MLB/Astros, regardless. Ya just stubbed your toe.

[Bouj]

PC or not PC, I think it's stupid to do a throwback halfway.

Your team used to be named after a gun, with a gun on the jersey. Now you're throwing back to a gun-themed name, and wearing the same jersey...with no gun on it. If Colt wouldn't allow the gun...you don't wear them. Simple as that. It's like wearing a Braves jersey that's supposed to have a tomahawk without a tomahawk on it; why even bother?

Also, Tampa Bay. A team named the SMOKERS. Really? The freaking "Smokers." But you can't have a smoking implement on there. I don't care if the censored jersey does look better. Don't do a throwback to something offensive, suggestive, or controversial if you won't go all the way on it.

As much as I hate the Wizards' recolor and everything, they got this right with the true Fauxback. They didn't make Bullets jerseys without referencing actual bullets or the name. They made Wiz jerseys that are obviously inspired by the Bullets, but aren't. Retread hands logo, same old colors, stripes, and the like...but the new name, and another alt logo to tie it all together.

If you're ashamed of smoking and guns, don't wear jerseys AT ALL that reference smoking or guns. Or if you must, fauxback it--use the same style, but make it say your current team name. "The Rays" in red-pink cursive, with a simple Cownose at the bottom...And Astros, with the gun replaced by a star, stadium, atom, etc...and a Smoke-made-A. Done.

Bad on you, MLB/Astros, regardless. Ya just stubbed your toe.

Very passionate, but you do realize that MLB reneged and the Astros will wear the gun, right?

[ManCalledAmp]

I guess that's what I get for skipping over a couple of pages on what amounts to a 5 page thread. I missed the backpedal...thanks. If you'll excuse me, I'll go back to lurking a bit more. ( Kidding...but it is harder to keep posting when I don't have internet at home anymore..)

[BBTV]

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

Crane also got a discount. MLB cut something like $70M in the deal, which is what Crane said he'd lose in ad money for the west coast games. As an aside, I do love how the argument "The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!" completely ignores that the team used to play in the NL West and will play about the same number of West Coast games as they did in the final year of in the old alignment, give or take a series. Yes, TV ads are different, but this wasn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of their history.

How is the old NL West alignment relevant to this at all? That's like if the president said that slavery was going to be legal again, and then when people revolt, he says "well you're ignoring that it used to be OK and we had it for a long time." Obviously I realize that I'm exaggerating, but it's to make a point. The old alignments were fixed partially because of that problem (though it didn't help every team, it helped many) so saying that "well, sure we broke it, but it was broke before so it's OK" isn't a good argument.

Then again, I couldn't care less - so there's that.

[Bouj]

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

Crane also got a discount. MLB cut something like $70M in the deal, which is what Crane said he'd lose in ad money for the west coast games. As an aside, I do love how the argument "The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!" completely ignores that the team used to play in the NL West and will play about the same number of West Coast games as they did in the final year of in the old alignment, give or take a series. Yes, TV ads are different, but this wasn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of their history.

How is the old NL West alignment relevant to this at all? That's like if the president said that slavery was going to be legal again, and then when people revolt, he says "well you're ignoring that it used to be OK and we had it for a long time." Obviously I realize that I'm exaggerating, but it's to make a point. The old alignments were fixed partially because of that problem (though it didn't help every team, it helped many) so saying that "well, sure we broke it, but it was broke before so it's OK" isn't a good argument.

Then again, I couldn't care less - so there's that.

Jesus, dial back the hyperbole. FOX Sports Houston (and Comcast Sports in the future) getting inconvenienced by late game times isn't anywhere near comparable, even via exaggeration, to slavery.

If MLB wants to have 6 even devisions, then someone has to be slightly put out by the West Coast game times. There are only 7 teams in MLB that play in the Pacific Time Zone, and 1 in the Mountain. Someone has to go from the Central to even it out. The two most Western teams make sense: Texas & Houston.

My point is you're aren't making the Astros play a significantly higher number of later starts than they did when they were in the old alignment, when no one bitched about playing the Dodgers, Giants, and Padres. I get the main complaint about moving leagues in regards to tradition & rivals (even if the Astros have little to no real "rivals" in the NL anymore), but the game time argument is disingenious.

[zpqmaowl]

That's because they only play four series out west (sans interleague). With the new alignment, it'll be 9 before interleague.

[BBTV]

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

Crane also got a discount. MLB cut something like $70M in the deal, which is what Crane said he'd lose in ad money for the west coast games. As an aside, I do love how the argument "The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!" completely ignores that the team used to play in the NL West and will play about the same number of West Coast games as they did in the final year of in the old alignment, give or take a series. Yes, TV ads are different, but this wasn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of their history.

How is the old NL West alignment relevant to this at all? That's like if the president said that slavery was going to be legal again, and then when people revolt, he says "well you're ignoring that it used to be OK and we had it for a long time." Obviously I realize that I'm exaggerating, but it's to make a point. The old alignments were fixed partially because of that problem (though it didn't help every team, it helped many) so saying that "well, sure we broke it, but it was broke before so it's OK" isn't a good argument.

Then again, I couldn't care less - so there's that.

Jesus, dial back the hyperbole. FOX Sports Houston (and Comcast Sports in the future) getting inconvenienced by late game times isn't anywhere near comparable, even via exaggeration, to slavery.

If MLB wants to have 6 even devisions, then someone has to be slightly put out by the West Coast game times. There are only 7 teams in MLB that play in the Pacific Time Zone, and 1 in the Mountain. Someone has to go from the Central to even it out. The two most Western teams make sense: Texas & Houston.

My point is you're aren't making the Astros play a significantly higher number of later starts than they did when they were in the old alignment, when no one bitched about playing the Dodgers, Giants, and Padres. I get the main complaint about moving leagues in regards to tradition & rivals (even if the Astros have little to no real "rivals" in the NL anymore), but the game time argument is disingenious.

I stand by the analogy that justifying an inconvenience by citing a previously-rectified inconvenience isn't really a justification. And nobody probably bitched back then because either 1) they did bitch, but there wasn't the internet or other ways of hearing the bitching, 2) there was bitching but it was kept internally, or 3) they just accepted it because the idea of realignment was too radical to even be considered a solution.

Either way, like I said - doesn't matter to me. If I was an Astros fan though, I'd be ticked (at least I think I would be.)

[Bouj]

That's because they only play four series out west (sans interleague). With the new alignment, it'll be 9 before interleague.

I was referring to 1993 (the old NL West) vs. 2013 (the new AL West). In 1993, Houston played 8 series (24+ games, because I think they played a couple of 4 gamers on the West Coast) in the Pacific & Mountain time zones. Next season, they'll probably play 9 series at their West Coast foes, before IL games. Yes, from 2012 to 2013, it is a big difference, but from 1993 to 2013, when Houston got realigned the first time and the "traditional" divison alignment went away, it isn't that significant a difference.

Good, now if only we can get him to go back on moving them to the AL...

I have the feeling that MLB gave the Astros a hell of a check to move to the AL so that are not bothered by it.

Actually, MLB made accepting such a move part of its approval of the sale of the team to its current owner. So it has always been part of his deal.

Crane also got a discount. MLB cut something like $70M in the deal, which is what Crane said he'd lose in ad money for the west coast games. As an aside, I do love how the argument "The Central Time Zone Astros will play too many games on the West Coast!" completely ignores that the team used to play in the NL West and will play about the same number of West Coast games as they did in the final year of in the old alignment, give or take a series. Yes, TV ads are different, but this wasn't exactly groundbreaking in terms of their history.

How is the old NL West alignment relevant to this at all? That's like if the president said that slavery was going to be legal again, and then when people revolt, he says "well you're ignoring that it used to be OK and we had it for a long time." Obviously I realize that I'm exaggerating, but it's to make a point. The old alignments were fixed partially because of that problem (though it didn't help every team, it helped many) so saying that "well, sure we broke it, but it was broke before so it's OK" isn't a good argument.

Then again, I couldn't care less - so there's that.

Jesus, dial back the hyperbole. FOX Sports Houston (and Comcast Sports in the future) getting inconvenienced by late game times isn't anywhere near comparable, even via exaggeration, to slavery.

If MLB wants to have 6 even devisions, then someone has to be slightly put out by the West Coast game times. There are only 7 teams in MLB that play in the Pacific Time Zone, and 1 in the Mountain. Someone has to go from the Central to even it out. The two most Western teams make sense: Texas & Houston.

My point is you're aren't making the Astros play a significantly higher number of later starts than they did when they were in the old alignment, when no one bitched about playing the Dodgers, Giants, and Padres. I get the main complaint about moving leagues in regards to tradition & rivals (even if the Astros have little to no real "rivals" in the NL anymore), but the game time argument is disingenious.

I stand by the analogy that justifying an inconvenience by citing a previously-rectified inconvenience isn't really a justification. And nobody probably bitched back then because either 1) they did bitch, but there wasn't the internet or other ways of hearing the bitching, 2) there was bitching but it was kept internally, or 3) they just accepted it because the idea of realignment was too radical to even be considered a solution.

Either way, like I said - doesn't matter to me. If I was an Astros fan though, I'd be ticked (at least I think I would be.)

I am from Houston. I live here, I grew up here. Before 1993, no one complained about the West Coast games because people here considered SDO/LAD/SFO as their rivals. If Houston had been realigned into the NL West with Arizona going to the AL, the bitching would be severely muted because those games would be coming back. No one here complains about late starts when you are facing the Giants or Dodgers.

On the flip side, there is no feeling towards the Mariners, A's, or Angels. I'd argue I am not more ambivalent towards them than I am towards Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Milwaukee, so it's silly to get all bent out of shape over getting new division rivals.

[walkerws]

Also, with the new alignment, everyone plays inter league all year long which IMO is cool.