Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 787
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject:
biggerunit1 wrote:
Bet ya didn't find any Clown-like team who felt it perfectly normal to change their appearance every 9 years. Imagine... the Cincinnati Reds having 11 completely different uniforms... Oh, the logic is so overwhelming!
The inference here is that you wouldn't be bitching about "tradition" if the Diamondbacks had waited 20 years to change their colors? Give me a break.
Bet ya didn't find any Clown-like team who felt it perfectly normal to change their appearance every 9 years. Imagine... the Cincinnati Reds having 11 completely different uniforms... Oh, the logic is so overwhelming!
"Every 9 years" ???
So you are a seer and prophet now? Can you tell me what the colors will change to in 2016?
Talk about faulty logic.
Brown and tan. Derrick Hall's logic: "We feel that the team will be different in 2016. Things will be different so we think a color change is in order. Because things will be different in 2016, we feel the colors should take a new approach. Since things will be different, we have chosen Bullshit Brown and Puss Tan to better resemble Arizona. Because things will be so different, when people say Arizona, the first thing that comes into their head is brown and tan, because those are the colors of a real rattlesnake. That, and the team will be different in 2016."
Bet ya didn't find any Clown-like team who felt it perfectly normal to change their appearance every 9 years. Imagine... the Cincinnati Reds having 11 completely different uniforms... Oh, the logic is so overwhelming!
The inference here is that you wouldn't be bitching about "tradition" if the Diamondbacks had waited 20 years to change their colors? Give me a break.
There wouldn't be a problem if a color change was actually necessary. If the fans agreed on a change, and the franchise ACTUALLY NEEDED ONE, then no, there would be no problem.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 787
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject:
Here's the thing: The FO says that they did a fan survey about the colors and their choices and changes, and it was very very positive. As was the reaction from the actual team.
You say that the FO did no such thing.
Logic and good business acumen would dictate that they would indeed 'test the waters' before 'diving in' with their proposed changes. Afterall, why chance alienating their fanbase and hence their income?
Point is, they wouldn't chance it. The FO did consult the fans. Maybe not you or me, but probably a cross-section of Diamondbacks fans.
Perhaps someone who has contact with the organization can illuminate us more (you know who you are, I won't out you).
_________________ Oops in the 2 hole!
There wouldn't be a problem if a color change was actually necessary. If the fans agreed on a change, and the franchise ACTUALLY NEEDED ONE, then no, there would be no problem.
To be fair, I did run into this opinion piece about the 1948 Pirates going yellow.
Pittsburgh Sells Piss to Fans
New owner Bing Crosby and company has decided that after 60 years tradition including 2 WS championships and 4 NL pennants, the Pittsburgh Pirates need to not only play like piss, but look like it too. That's right folks, yellow has disgraced MLB and it has come at the expense of the great fans in the Steel City.
Outrage exploded in the streets and young slugging prodigy Ralph Kiner was quoted as saying "Home run hitters drive Cadillacs, but they sure as hell aren't fucking yellow!"
There wouldn't be a problem if a color change was actually necessary. If the fans agreed on a change, and the franchise ACTUALLY NEEDED ONE, then no, there would be no problem.
Dude, the purple and teal was the laughingstock of the bigs. I've been saying we needed a uniform change since before we even started playing. What men out there liked the uniforms before, really? Seemed like they were designed for women and children. At least now they've decided to go with something that doesn't make dudes look like princesses. But the c*$k on the sleeve has got to go.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
This thread is like a car wreck. You know you shouldn't look and just drive right by....but you look anyway.
Yep and we already know where the crash is gonna be.. BU is just another troll and he argues just to argue and probably thinks he's cleaver with his circuler arguements. I personally will never post back to him or Phan again.. even one answer they count as a victory... plus I have a huge suspiscion on just who those two are.
Here's the thing: The FO says that they did a fan survey about the colors and their choices and changes, and it was very very positive. As was the reaction from the actual team.
You say that the FO did no such thing.
Logic and good business acumen would dictate that they would indeed 'test the waters' before 'diving in' with their proposed changes. Afterall, why chance alienating their fanbase and hence their income?
Point is, they wouldn't chance it. The FO did consult the fans. Maybe not you or me, but probably a cross-section of Diamondbacks fans.
Perhaps someone who has contact with the organization can illuminate us more (you know who you are, I won't out you).
So they did do a survey? Hmmm tell me, when was the public surveyed? Also, when were the survey results published/released? Google it. Oh, you can't find it, can you?
There wouldn't be a problem if a color change was actually necessary. If the fans agreed on a change, and the franchise ACTUALLY NEEDED ONE, then no, there would be no problem.
Dude, the purple and teal was the laughingstock of the bigs. I've been saying we needed a uniform change since before we even started playing. What men out there liked the uniforms before, really? Seemed like they were designed for women and children. At least now they've decided to go with something that doesn't make dudes look like princesses. But the c*$k on the sleeve has got to go.
There wouldn't be a problem if a color change was actually necessary. If the fans agreed on a change, and the franchise ACTUALLY NEEDED ONE, then no, there would be no problem.
But then when does a franchise ever NEED to change their uniform color scheme? Not that you'll think this is a valid reason, but according to this article the Diamondbacks weren't selling much purple.
"Sales of D-backs merchandise and apparel are near the bottom of the league. Through September, 2006, the team ranked 28th out of 30 teams, ahead of only the Florida Marlins and the Colorado Rockies, according to MLB Properties, which tracks merchandise and apparel sales data. The top in retail sales were the Yankees, Red Sox and White Sox."
Now the above has absolutely nothing to do with tradition, which I think is BS anyway for a 9 yr old franchise when you look at the uniform schemes of some of the other teams in the league when they first started. But in this day and age it's all about generating revenue, so obviously a change was needed. Can't blame the owners for changing from something that wasn't selling. Tradition implies that people are happy with the uniforms of the team, and I can't think of a better way to judge that than how much gear they sell. So in a way, you can already form a judgment on whether or not us fans have spoken.
I know fellas, this guy has a bee in his bonnet so he can't be persuaded by logic or reason, but I have to at least try. It's either that or it's just monotonous trolling. My money is on the latter. But like Dylan said, it's kind of cool to go back and look at the uniform changes around the league over the last 100+ years. The HOF site has a nice database.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1746
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject:
Hey, SalMaglie, thanks for the link! (Although it's not what I needed -- another place to go and waste time when I'm supposed to be working!)
Couldn't help but notice that, in just 9 years of existence, there have already been several uniform styles for the Diamondbacks, even though the color scheme was more-or-less the same. So what's one more? And, given the sales data you cited, I can't blame the FO for wanting to stir up sales a bit. Yes, it's a game; but it's also a business...
Personally, I'm far more upset about losing the word "Diamondbacks" on the jerseys (replaced by "D*backs") than the colors. I didn't mind the old color scheme (especially the road jerseys - the black with teal and copper accents were kinda cool; and if I could've afforded the pricetag for the authentic ones, I'da bought it, and worn it with pride -- even after the new color scheme was announced).
For me, the bottom line is this: Put a quality -- that is, winning team on the field, and I don't care what color they're wearing. I think the team we're going to see starting this year is going to be the start of many exciting, and successful, Diamondbacks teams.
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3018
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject:
Great post Sal. Once again, people like Sal and Dylan and others have risen to the occasion and handled a difficult situation with intelltigence and reason. It's people like this that make this the baseball forum that doesn't suck.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 171
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject:
biggerunit1 wrote:
That's funny. You seem so insulted by purple attacking your sexuality, yet you claim to be a Dbacks fan. Makes me wonder how you survived these 9 years if purple affects you in such a negative way.
But then again... I never heard complaints BEFORE the color change.
"Hop on the Sedona Red bandwagon.."
[Shrug] I support the team, not a color of the spectrum. They could play in pink polka-dots and I wouldn't throw a hissy fit about it - unlike some people. They'd still be my Diamondbacks.
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit
Last edited by AZ SnakePit on Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 130
Location: do you really care
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject:
AZ SnakePit wrote:
biggerunit1 wrote:
That's funny. You seem so insulted by purple attacking your sexuality, yet you claim to be a Dbacks fan. Makes me wonder how you survived these 9 years if purple affects you in such a negative way.
But then again... I never heard complaints BEFORE the color change.
"Hop on the Sedona Red bandwagon.."
I support the team, not a color of the spectrum. They could play in pink polka-dots and I wouldn't throw a hissy fit about it - unlike some people. They'd still be my Diamondbacks.
i don't think he gets that
_________________
its all fun and games untill some loses an eye then its fun we cant see
You weren't listening for them. And you were too busy playing out on the jungle gym rather than watching the game.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
I know fellas, this guy has a bee in his bonnet so he can't be persuaded by logic or reason, but I have to at least try. It's either that or it's just monotonous trolling. My money is on the latter. But like Dylan said, it's kind of cool to go back and look at the uniform changes around the league over the last 100+ years. The HOF site has a nice database.
Awesome link, Sal! I just checked how my original Cardinals uniforms changed over the years (one of the more traditional in MLB) and was surprised to see how they changed their uniform quite a bit each of its first 20 years... and that they often switched between red and black. Any arguments that cite "tradition" as a reason to stay with the same color scheme simply don't wash well with historical trends... even with the more traditional MLB franchises.
_________________
Old School Reviews
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
