By Phil Hecken, with Paul “Pretty Boy Paulie” Soto
I’m rejoined this fine day by UW Graphic Artiste Paul Soto, who is back today with the “unfinished” Cinco de Mayo jersey collection. You may recall our prior Cinco de Mayo post, which, not coincidentally appeared on the 5th of May. There were a couple of teams Paulie didn’t have a chance to finish, and some “improvements” of previous efforts he’d like to share with the viewing audience today. Says Paul, “We missed a few and made some mistakes the first time around but no worries we’re back for some more. That’s why pencils have erasers.” So, without the usual chit-chat, we’ll get right into it.
Arizona Diamondbacks: You may remember that in the original Cinco de Mayo post, there was some, shall we say, consternation over Paulie’s original D-Backs/Vivoras jersey offering. “Last time around I made a slight mistake. SOMEHOW I had a brain fart of somesort and didn’t realize that I had typed Vivoras instead of Viboras. I guess I wasn’t paying attention,” admits Paul. “Here’s my correction to that error.” Well, here’s his newest creation. “THE correct way to translate ‘Diamondbacks’ is ‘Cascabeles‘.” Equally beautiful.
Baltimore Orioles: Last time out, Paulie wasn’t able to include the O’s in his package. But he’s made up for it, with two separate offerings. The first jersey logo is that of los Naranjeros. I’m not sure what that means, but it sure is good looking. The second jersey logo is for los Calandrias. Also gorgeous. Paulie explains, the Orioles “Appropriately would be Calandrias or Naranjeros, the latter being the best choice. Calandria would translate to an Oriole in Spanish but they don’t have quite the same color as an Oriole would. Naranjero (another translation for Oriole) pratically speaks for it’s self, with Naranja (Orange) being the root word.”
Colorado Rockies: Also missing from the first batch of special jerseys was the Colorado team. But fear not, Rockies fans, Paulie’s created one just for you. Here is that jersey. He calls them los Rocosas, and this one is a mile high winner.
Florida Marlins: Also missing from the first set of jerseys was the Florida Marlins, due to time constraints. But Paul has unfried his hard drive and he cranked out this selection, which depicts los Agujas for the Fish. Great job there. Almost looks better than “Miami” will in a couple of years.
Los Angeles Dodgers: For the Dodgers, Paulie has created two new concepts, the first one being an almost literal phonetic translation for “Dodgers” (or at least, I think that it is), while the second creation of los Trampistas is more akin to a sneaky or ‘dodgy’ character. I’ve seen “trampistas” on websites that appear to be translations from Spanish to English used to describe the Dodgers before. Shortly after I wrote that, Paul confirmed my thoughts: “Now last time around there were a few comments posted that featured a few different ways to translate ‘Dodgers.’ There was a t-shirt that had Los Doyers, which isn’t correct, but it’s much like ‘Yanquis’ or ‘Jankees’. Some may see it as offensive and some may not. Trampistas was another one featured in the comment section. Trampista would mean more of “a trickster and swindler” but it also would translate to ‘Dodger’.”
Philadelphia Phillies: Paul originally created los “Filis” for the Phillies, but he’s back with a new concept which appears to be the Spanish spelling of the City of Brotherly Love, Filadelfia. Well, that’s one way to fit the city name on the jersey. Paul agrees, “The previous mock-up had Filis on the jersey. It is correct but it does look a bit akward on the jersey being there’s so much negative space. So I went with ‘Filadelfia’; it’s the Spanish way to spell it and still fill up the jersey nicely.”
Texas Rangers: Another redux, Paulie’s first two wordmarks depicted los Guardas. A fine effort to be sure, but Paulie, ever the perfectionist, wanted another shot at it. So, he has created this fine jersey, which is los Vigilantes, which evokes a slightly different feel than “Guardas.” Paulie adds, “There isn’t quite a translation for the famed law enforcement agency that the baseball club is named after. ‘Vigilante’ is still very good … if ESPN Deportes says it’s correct then it’s correct dagnabit!”
Washington Natinals: For the final selection, in honor of a season full of ineptitude, much of it uni-related, Paulie has devilishly made this fitting tribute to the ballclub from Washington. I love los Nacinales (here’s how the jersey should look). When I asked Paul why he created this genius jersey, he simply said, “‘NACINALES’…why not?” Brilliant.
Great job again, Paulie. Those are some super efforts. In the not too distant future, Paul and I will be back with a really fantastic new undertaking. Paul’s been a busy man lately, and despite having his computer crash a short while ago, he (and his machine) have recovered to produce these outstanding efforts. Be sure to keep checking back in the coming weeks for Paul’s next project, which has been a long time in the making.
Guess The Game From The Scoreboard: Once again, I know I can’t stump you. So, the following isn’t all that difficult. It might require a modicum of thought and effort, but all the clues are plain to see. So, when you do get it, please explain how you did it, even though doing so may in fact, reveal the answer. Ready? OK. Guess The Game. I’ve asked before, but I’ll ask again, if any of you guys have any scoreboards you’d like to submit, you know what to do. Thanks.
Back today with the last two “weekday” Benchies plus one full color for your Sunday enjoyment. If you missed yesterday’s, be sure to hop back and check them out. Here we go: Day 5 … Day 6 … and enjoy today’s Sunday Benchies
You may remember Paul’s column Friday on his field trip to the Giants practice facility and his meeting with Joe Skiba. If you read the comments, you’ll remember there were a lot of hypotheses as to the throwback uniform the G-men will be reintroducing. Also in those comments were a couple of guesses that the uniform might be one worn by the “Homer Jones-era” Giants, complete with pics of that uniform. And further, Ricko informed us that it was Homer Jones who “invented” the spike. What you may not know, is that back in the day, before many of you were even born, Rick Pearson was a pretty damn good freelance sports writer, and he penned an entire newspaper column on the “demise of the spike.” When I asked Rick if he still had a copy of that column, he replied “yes, but I’ll have to find it.” Well, he did indeed save it, and I’m reposting the article for all to see. It’s an impressive bit of writing — and a good read. And just when did Rick write it? November 24, 1976. It appeared in the St. Paul Downtowner. Thanks, Rick!
Stirrup Club News: UW OCD DIYer Robert Marshall checks in with this:
the red sox stirrups came in early, and are all ready to go. unfortunately, i won’t have the hour to spend in the post office as they weigh and print out the postage for the nearly 70 envelopes one at a time until monday, but we can get started on the next one today. i have faith in your brain-pan’s capacity, so this month we are going to try two stirrups with a missouri theme. if we handle this okay, we will continue to do two at a time. even if you have ordered before, read the directions carefully, there were more then a few people who ordered the first ‘rup who failed to do things properly on the second ‘rup. athletics and/or cardinals anyone?
A little help from my friends is needed. Yesterday in the comments, this SI cover was posted. I noticed the sign behind Ken Boyer, who is pictured. Anyone know what’s up with that? The date of the SI is July 30, 1962. But the sign appears to say “METS” as well as what appears to be “$7000” and “HIT SIGN” plus some words I can’t make out. Anyone know where this sign was (what field)? Was that in the old Polo Grounds? A take off on the old Abe Stark sign?
Any thoughts, suggestions or answers would be greatly appreciated. Anyone got any other pics of this sign? Thanks!
I’ll see you in heaven if you make the list (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) … that’s tomorrow’s uniform of the day.
Have a great Sunday.
Here’s the link.
The hosiery was the clue.
I think I really like the way link looks.
I’m not sure why, but it seems to work better than link for some reason.
Speaking of uniforms and tomorrow, the Astros will wear a cap with the Apollo 11 patch to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing on the moon.
I bought a replica dodgers jersey and put the red numbers on the front. I also managed to pick the majestic logo off. Entirely blank sleeves. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pumped for those cardinals stirrups…
link
Looking at Freddy Sanchez’s sleeves, you’ll see he’s wearing hunter’s camo under his BP jersey. It appears Jack Wilson is also wearing hunter’s camo around his neck. I’ve been meaning to ask about this because a few weeks ago when watching “Inside the Pirates” I counted about 7 Pirates wearing hunter’s camo in the locker room and several hunter’s camo shirts hanging up in lockers.
Can someone please explain the Pirates fascination with hunter’s camo???
[quote comment=”340971″]http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09200/984970-63.stm
Looking at Freddy Sanchez’s sleeves, you’ll see he’s wearing hunter’s camo under his BP jersey. It appears Jack Wilson is also wearing hunter’s camo around his neck. I’ve been meaning to ask about this because a few weeks ago when watching “Inside the Pirates” I counted about 7 Pirates wearing hunter’s camo in the locker room and several hunter’s camo shirts hanging up in lockers.
Can someone please explain the Pirates fascination with hunter’s camo???[/quote]
I have no idea (might be just a team unity thing), but I remember Mike Timlin also wore the camo when he was with the Red Sox.
Regarding the link, it looks like a painting more than a photo… However, the Mets did play in the Polo Grounds in ’62. Unfortunately, link I could find doesn’t show the advertising on the left-field wall.
Thanks for the Benchies, and the column, Ricko! It shows how times have changed – I’m no spring chicken, but I still was ready to click on the bold-faced “Joe Namath and the Other Guys” in your column. 2nd coffee’s kicking in now…
Tony Dungy “rolled six” back in the day…Who knew?? I remember the time he had to play QB against the Oilers, but I don’t remember that little piece of history.
The comments about wide receivers: you’d think they were talking about kickers, eh? Glad to see my favorite position was spared in this instance.
I do miss Billy White Shoes, though. He and the Skins’ Fun Bunch seemed to “get it” – if you CAN get it when it comes to TD celebrations. They seemed more about joy than showmanship, at least to me.
[quote comment=”340967″]I think I really like the way link looks.
I’m not sure why, but it seems to work better than link for some reason.[/quote]
I like both, but they’d look better with the teal cap with black brim. I still have one of those. You can get away with that look in Miami, plus the black hat just makes them look like White Sox wannabes now.
i was only kiddng.
[quote comment=”340973″]Regarding the link, it looks like a painting more than a photo… However, the Mets did play in the Polo Grounds in ’62. Unfortunately, link I could find doesn’t show the advertising on the left-field wall.[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t what gives with that SI cover scan. I remember the cover vividly–and may have it in my files–but it WAS a photo, of that I’m sure.
—Ricko
Excellent mock-ups Paulie!
Maybe you already did this, but would you consider doing the Azulejos in Toronto’s powder blue fauxback?
link
BTW, in looking at the comments for Los Uniformes para Cinco de Mayo (episoda uno), someone mentioned “I Still Call It Constantinople” — an excellent Naming Wrongs t-shirt prospect.
I imagine the readers here who think they detect Commie leans in some of Paul’s work would like to see him wearing one that reads…
“I STILL CALL IN LENINGRAD”
IT Leningrad.
I need MY second cup of coffee, evidently.
Excellent work, Paul Soto.
WOULDN’T “VAQUEROS” BE A BETTER TRANSLATION FOR THE RANGERS????
“Trampistas” is not an appropriate translation for “Dodgers” in a baseball context. Recall that they got this nickname as a shortening of “trolley dodger”, due to the frequecy of street cars in Brooklyn. Avoiding getting hit by a strrecar is not the same as running out on a financial, social or moral obligation
Late in yesterday’s comments, the Blue Jays use of black was somewhat supported by the questioning of the Cardinals wearing blue.
I liked the images of actual cardinals
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name. The Blue Jays do. Have “blue”, that is.
Then I got to thinking. The White Sox and Red Sox poorly represent the colors in their names.
I think the Blue Jays are still in question because they had beautiful blue hats and accents for years.
For the record, I still wish the Cardinals wore the 2-toned cap from the Musial era.
The Polo Grounds picture appears to be for something called “Boward”
link
link
I predict that the Giants will throwback to the more recent “LT”/Simms uni. Complete with mismatched blues.
According to this, the Polo Grounds sign was for a contest for the Mets to win a $7000 boat.
link
The scoreboard is from Game #1 of the 1959 World Series at Old Comiskey Park.
[quote comment=”340983″]WOULDN’T “VAQUEROS” BE A BETTER TRANSLATION FOR THE RANGERS????[/quote]
That would be Cowboys, “Vigilantes” would be the best choice.
The sign is for Howard Clothes, At that time it was a major chain, now gone
I’m still calling it Edo.
[quote comment=”340984″]”Trampistas” is not an appropriate translation for “Dodgers” in a baseball context. Recall that they got this nickname as a shortening of “trolley dodger”, due to the frequecy of street cars in Brooklyn. Avoiding getting hit by a strrecar is not the same as running out on a financial, social or moral obligation[/quote]
IIRC, the popular nickname within Brooklyn for the Dodgers was something like “dem Bums”. What would a Spanish translation of that phrase look like?
[quote comment=”340992″]I’m still calling it Edo.[/quote]
Actually you still can call it Edo. What used to be the Toei #12 Line (it was the 12th subway line in Tokyo) was renamed the OhEdo (can’t do macrons in this text box) Line when the underground subway loop was finished.
link
[quote comment=”340988″]According to this, the Polo Grounds sign was for a contest for the Mets to win a $7000 boat.
link
And the Met legend is that it was won by Richie Ashburn – who lived in the middle of Nebraska. At the same time, Marvelous Marv Throneberry ALSO won a boat, due to being voted ‘most popular Met’ or something. The kicker was that Ashburn had to pay taxes on his boat, since he had ‘earned’ it, while Throneberry did NOT have to pay income taxes on his, since it was a ‘gift’
[quote comment=”340985″]
Then I got to thinking. The White Sox and Red Sox poorly represent the colors in their names.[/quote]
I’ll give you the White Sox (shame on them for wearing black socks considering their history), but I’ve got to argue for my Red Sox, considering that they do actually wear red socks (though most of the time you can’t see them). I don’t know how they could represent the color red any better.
They already have red alternate jerseys (which get their fair share of ridicule around here), and if they went to red caps like they had in the ’70s I can just hear the “they look too much like the Angels” gripes.
[quote comment=”340996″]I’ll give you the White Sox (shame on them for wearing black socks considering their history), [/quote]
Well there’s not too much that can be done with white stirrups if you also want white sani’s.
Interesting that the white/blace good/bad of 1919 is also a reason that the Sox use white and black as their two primary colors today. Teams like the Reds (as well as numerous colleges) use their color “and white”: the White Sox use their color “and black”. It’s just the most natural, automatic contrast.
[quote comment=”340997″]Interesting that the white/blace[/quote]
That should read black.
(How do I go about getting the edit function for this blog installed on my computer?)
Great column Ricko.
link
expect a patch. never saw or met her, or heard her speak, but she sounds like a great person.
[quote comment=”340988″]According to this, the Polo Grounds sign was for a contest for the Mets to win a $7000 boat.
link
Jimmy Breslin also addressed it in CAN’T ANYBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME?
[quote comment=”340995″][quote comment=”340988″]According to this, the Polo Grounds sign was for a contest for the Mets to win a $7000 boat.
link
And the Met legend is that it was won by Richie Ashburn – who lived in the middle of Nebraska. At the same time, Marvelous Marv Throneberry ALSO won a boat, due to being voted ‘most popular Met’ or something. The kicker was that Ashburn had to pay taxes on his boat, since he had ‘earned’ it, while Throneberry did NOT have to pay income taxes on his, since it was a ‘gift'[/quote]
Think it was other way around. Ashburn was named Mets MVP, hence it was a “gift”. Throneberry, because he hit the sign, had EARNED the money and so had to pay taxes.
And thus was further advanced the legend of Marvelous Marv Throneberry.
—Ricko
Check out this Kansas track suit from 1952.
link
link
link
Pretty swanky. No wonder the ladies all turn and stare.
[quote comment=”341001″]Jimmy Breslin also addressed it in CAN’T ANYBODY HERE PLAY THIS GAME?[/quote]Ricko, I wanted to catch up to you re: Benchies. Hats off on correctly predicting that the “Turn back the clock day” would expand from on-the-field to in-the-stands with the various Mullet Days, 70’s Days, etc.
BTW, exactly how many of those characters are autobiographical? :-)
[quote comment=”341003″]Pretty swanky. No wonder the ladies all turn and stare.[/quote]
Squiddie, are you in San Diego? ;-)
[quote comment=”340997″][quote comment=”340996″]I’ll give you the White Sox (shame on them for wearing black socks considering their history), [/quote]
Well there’s not too much that can be done with white stirrups if you also want white sani’s.
Interesting that the white/blace good/bad of 1919 is also a reason that the Sox use white and black as their two primary colors today. Teams like the Reds (as well as numerous colleges) use their color “and white”: the White Sox use their color “and black”. It’s just the most natural, automatic contrast.[/quote]
Or, according to history, the way that these teams got their names was due to their socks. The teams played way back at the beginning of the 20th century when teams were differentiated by their sock colours. It’s how the White Sox/Black Sox were named, it’s how the Boston Red Sox were named, it’s how the Cincinnati Reds were named, and so on and so forth.
The jerseys were mostly gray back then, so sock colour separated the two teams. That’s where those teams got their names from, and the monikers just stuck due to their history.
Ladies and Gents, I present to you, the Chicago White Sox (with a lil high top action)
Ladies and Gents, I present to you, the link link link (with a lil high top action
[quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?
[quote comment=”341006″][quote comment=”340997″][quote comment=”340996″]I’ll give you the White Sox (shame on them for wearing black socks considering their history), [/quote]
Well there’s not too much that can be done with white stirrups if you also want white sani’s.
Interesting that the white/blace good/bad of 1919 is also a reason that the Sox use white and black as their two primary colors today. Teams like the Reds (as well as numerous colleges) use their color “and white”: the White Sox use their color “and black”. It’s just the most natural, automatic contrast.[/quote]
Or, according to history, the way that these teams got their names was due to their socks. The teams played way back at the beginning of the 20th century when teams were differentiated by their sock colours. It’s how the White Sox/Black Sox were named, it’s how the Boston Red Sox were named, it’s how the Cincinnati Reds were named, and so on and so forth.
The jerseys were mostly gray back then, so sock colour separated the two teams. That’s where those teams got their names from, and the monikers just stuck due to their history.[/quote]
very good teebz…very close too
it’s the 19th century (although the chisox didn’t “officially” begin play until the AL came into being after 1900)
here’s a few brief articles on the subject, and you’ll probably notice a familiar name throughout the articles.
[quote comment=”341006″]
Or, according to history, the way that these teams got their names was due to their socks. The teams played way back at the beginning of the 20th century when teams were differentiated by their sock colours. It’s how the White Sox/Black Sox were named, it’s how the Boston Red Sox were named, it’s how the Cincinnati Reds were named, and so on and so forth.
The jerseys were mostly gray back then, so sock colour separated the two teams. That’s where those teams got their names from, and the monikers just stuck due to their history.[/quote]
Right, that’s why I went with the word “today”. My White Sox have gone thru so many color changes just in my lifetime it’s hard to keep track.
JMHO, but they finally went as simple as possible, saying “we need to somehow make white the primary color: what can we combine it with?” and that’s the look we have today.
I’m all in favor of dumping silver in it’s entirety, FWLIW.
[quote comment=”341005″][quote comment=”341003″]Pretty swanky. No wonder the ladies all turn and stare.[/quote]
Squiddie, are you in San Diego? ;-)[/quote]
You’re not going to pin that one on me. That’s the link.
[quote comment=”341010″]
it’s the 19th century (although the chisox didn’t “officially” begin play until the AL came into being after 1900)[/quote]
AFAIK, the team that’s known as the Cubs today originally was the White Sox (back in those Cap Anson days pre-Junior Circuit) they abandoned it somehow (nicknames were a little more casual back then IIRC) and when the AL started up, they took advantage of the nickname with some built-in goodwill and adopted White Sox for the Chicago team.
So there was a team called the White Sox that played in Chicago in the 1870’s and 1880’s. Fairly successful for that era too.
[quote comment=”340994″][quote comment=”340992″]I’m still calling it Edo.[/quote]
Actually you still can call it Edo. What used to be the Toei #12 Line (it was the 12th subway line in Tokyo) was renamed the OhEdo (can’t do macrons in this text box) Line when the underground subway loop was finished.
link
domo arigato
[quote comment=”341012″]You’re not going to pin that one on me. That’s the link.[/quote]
So you don’t fly?
:-)))
[quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
See: Stanford
[quote comment=”341016″][quote comment=”341009″]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
See: Stanford[/quote]
It wouldn’t be a cardinal sin to call Cardinal a shade of red.
Let’s ask the Bishop.
the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name. The Blue Jays do. Have “blue”, that is.
just for the sake of argument, isn’t purple considered the “royal” color?
[quote comment=”341018″]just for the sake of argument, isn’t purple considered the “royal” color?[/quote]Among Vikings fans it certainly is.
[quote comment=”341013″][quote comment=”341010″]
it’s the 19th century (although the chisox didn’t “officially” begin play until the AL came into being after 1900)[/quote]
AFAIK, the team that’s known as the Cubs today originally was the White Sox (back in those Cap Anson days pre-Junior Circuit) they abandoned it somehow (nicknames were a little more casual back then IIRC) and when the AL started up, they took advantage of the nickname with some built-in goodwill and adopted White Sox for the Chicago team.
So there was a team called the White Sox that played in Chicago in the 1870’s and 1880’s. Fairly successful for that era too.[/quote]
absolutely correct…i was referring to the “modern” era which begins with 1900…but the team that became the cubs was at one time called the white stockings in the 1800’s
it’s probably in one of those articles that i linked, but at one time (a very brief time) each position was ALSO designated by a specific color shirt…for example, first base wore green, second wore brown, short wore yellow etc…that (thankfully) never took hold
but teebz’ original point, that teams didn’t wear “home and away” unis, but instead were recognized by the color of their socks is absolutely correct (although i am sure there are exceptions and there were no doubt teams who had more than one uniform)
aight…outta here
[quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
I don’t think the Cardinals wear cardinal. I believe cardinal is slightly darker than the red they wear.
And… I wasn’t suggesting that the White Sox or Red Sox change anything.
In response to comment #30, the Red Sox cap of the seventies is a look sported by no teams. The Angels don’t have a navy bill. However, a gazillion teams wear all navy caps with red and white logos.
[quote comment=”341021″][quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
I don’t think the Cardinals wear cardinal. I believe cardinal is slightly darker than the red they wear.
And… I wasn’t suggesting that the White Sox or Red Sox change anything.
In response to comment #30, the Red Sox cap of the seventies is a look sported by no teams. The Angels don’t have a navy bill. However, a gazillion teams wear all navy caps with red and white logos.[/quote]
Here is the difference in my mind. The Blue Jays are a bird (like the Orioles) and the bird has black feathers (along with blue and white). The Orioles are black and orange like the bird. The Cardinals are red like the male cardinal. The Red Sox are white Sox are items of clothing. The colors are adjectives describing the sox. The Blue in Blue Jay is part of the name of the bird. I have never heard of a Green Jay, Orange Jay or Purple Jay.
Totally unrelated, but yesterday, I saw my first “I’m Calling It Shea” t-shirt. (It was blue.) I wondered if it were a Uni Watcher. Anybody transfer from the 1 train to the E train at about 16h00 yesterday in that t-shirt?
[quote comment=”341010″]
very good teebz…very close too
it’s the 19th century (although the chisox didn’t “officially” begin play until the AL came into being after 1900)
[/quote]
The start of the 20th century was 1900. I was just shooting for a round number. LOL
[quote comment=”341022″][quote comment=”341021″][quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
I don’t think the Cardinals wear cardinal. I believe cardinal is slightly darker than the red they wear.
And… I wasn’t suggesting that the White Sox or Red Sox change anything.
In response to comment #30, the Red Sox cap of the seventies is a look sported by no teams. The Angels don’t have a navy bill. However, a gazillion teams wear all navy caps with red and white logos.[/quote]
Here is the difference in my mind. The Blue Jays are a bird (like the Orioles) and the bird has black feathers (along with blue and white). The Orioles are black and orange like the bird. The Cardinals are red like the male cardinal. The Red Sox are white Sox are items of clothing. The colors are adjectives describing the sox. The Blue in Blue Jay is part of the name of the bird. I have never heard of a Green Jay, Orange Jay or Purple Jay.[/quote]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.
[quote comment=”341025″]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
I probably should have finished the thought.
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point? The only problem is that they’ve existed for far too long as the Blue Jays, IMHO, to drop the “Blue”. The only problem is that the Blue Jay is a fairly successful bird in southern Ontario, and link do have some black on them.
Do I like the black Blue Jays? Not really. At all. Whatsoever.
So, since the San Diego Padres are the only MLB team with an entirely Spanish name already, should they get a uni with “Saint James Fathers” designed?
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point?
Rays? Jays?
link
While I admit that the Sox/Jays uni matchup on Friday was the worst of the weekend, the Mets/Braves matchup tonight is a very close second.
I do think that game with Boyer was played in the old polo grounds which the mets paid $250,000 for a facelift to get it in playable shape for ’62 and ’63 while awaiting the construction of Shea.
[quote comment=\”341002\”][quote comment=\”340995\”][quote comment=\”340988\”]According to this, the Polo Grounds sign was for a contest for the Mets to win a $7000 boat.
link
And the Met legend is that it was won by Richie Ashburn – who lived in the middle of Nebraska. At the same time, Marvelous Marv Throneberry ALSO won a boat, due to being voted \’most popular Met\’ or something. The kicker was that Ashburn had to pay taxes on his boat, since he had \’earned\’ it, while Throneberry did NOT have to pay income taxes on his, since it was a \’gift\'[/quote]
Think it was other way around. Ashburn was named Mets MVP, hence it was a \”gift\”. Throneberry, because he hit the sign, had EARNED the money and so had to pay taxes.
And thus was further advanced the legend of Marvelous Marv Throneberry.
—Ricko[/quote]
I believe you are correct, sir!
And Marv lived in an equally land locked area of Tennessee, I do believe…..
[quote comment=”341031″][quote comment=\”341002\”][quote comment=\”340995\”][quote comment=\”340988\”]According to this, the Polo Grounds sign was for a contest for the Mets to win a $7000 boat.
link
And the Met legend is that it was won by Richie Ashburn – who lived in the middle of Nebraska. At the same time, Marvelous Marv Throneberry ALSO won a boat, due to being voted \’most popular Met\’ or something. The kicker was that Ashburn had to pay taxes on his boat, since he had \’earned\’ it, while Throneberry did NOT have to pay income taxes on his, since it was a \’gift\'[/quote]
Think it was other way around. Ashburn was named Mets MVP, hence it was a \”gift\”. Throneberry, because he hit the sign, had EARNED the money and so had to pay taxes.
And thus was further advanced the legend of Marvelous Marv Throneberry.
—Ricko[/quote]
I believe you are correct, sir!
And Marv lived in an equally land locked area of Tennessee, I do believe…..[/quote]
Yes, he did. I’d forgotten that. More “marvelousness” for ol’ Marv.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”341026″][quote comment=”341025″]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
I probably should have finished the thought.
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point? The only problem is that they’ve existed for far too long as the Blue Jays, IMHO, to drop the “Blue”. The only problem is that the Blue Jay is a fairly successful bird in southern Ontario, and link do have some black on them.
Do I like the black Blue Jays? Not really. At all. Whatsoever.[/quote]
I don’t see any black on that blue jay. I see dark blue, but not black.
[quote comment=”341023″]Totally unrelated, but yesterday, I saw my first “I’m Calling It Shea” t-shirt.[/quote]
I think you’ll be seeing a whole lot more of them on Tuesday night at Two Boots….
Shhhhh…
a tree just fell in the forest.
LOL
I spoke to soon. Was almost an echo in here.
[quote comment=”341024″][quote comment=”341010″]
very good teebz…very close too
it’s the 19th century (although the chisox didn’t “officially” begin play until the AL came into being after 1900)
[/quote]
The start of the 20th century was 1900. I was just shooting for a round number. LOL[/quote]
You’re very close again. 1900 was the last year of the 19th century.
[quote comment=”340975″][quote comment=”340967″]I think I really like the way link looks.
I’m not sure why, but it seems to work better than link for some reason.[/quote]
I like both, but they’d look better with the teal cap with black brim. I still have one of those. You can get away with that look in Miami, plus the black hat just makes them look like White Sox wannabes now.[/quote]
I never liked the teal crown/black brim cap. I like the solid-black and I loved the solid-teal. I always thought a teal crown/black brim cap would have been a much better road cap than the teal crown/black brim.
Uh, make that:
I always thought a black crown/teal brim cap would have been a much better road cap than the teal crown/black brim.
I are a collage grad you it.
[quote comment=”341039″]Uh, make that:
I always thought a black crown/teal brim cap would have been a much better road cap than the teal crown/black brim.
I are a collage grad you it.[/quote]
At least you caught it – I was going to give you five more minutes before I said something…
I used to have a Portland Sea Dogs hat with black crown and teal brim and I didn’t like it as much. But I would prefer it to the all black hat.
[quote comment=”341025″][quote comment=”341022″][quote comment=”341021″][quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
I don’t think the Cardinals wear cardinal. I believe cardinal is slightly darker than the red they wear.
And… I wasn’t suggesting that the White Sox or Red Sox change anything.
In response to comment #30, the Red Sox cap of the seventies is a look sported by no teams. The Angels don’t have a navy bill. However, a gazillion teams wear all navy caps with red and white logos.[/quote]
Here is the difference in my mind. The Blue Jays are a bird (like the Orioles) and the bird has black feathers (along with blue and white). The Orioles are black and orange like the bird. The Cardinals are red like the male cardinal. The Red Sox are white Sox are items of clothing. The colors are adjectives describing the sox. The Blue in Blue Jay is part of the name of the bird. I have never heard of a Green Jay, Orange Jay or Purple Jay.[/quote]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
The Red Sox cap colors were worn by the Twins, as I recall. (red cap with a blue brim).
[quote comment=”341003″]Check out this Kansas track suit from 1952.
link
link
link
Pretty swanky. No wonder the ladies all turn and stare.[/quote]
That’s the most ganasta thing I’ve ever seen-
-in Kansas.
[quote comment=”341022″][quote comment=”341021″][quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
I don’t think the Cardinals wear cardinal. I believe cardinal is slightly darker than the red they wear.
And… I wasn’t suggesting that the White Sox or Red Sox change anything.
In response to comment #30, the Red Sox cap of the seventies is a look sported by no teams. The Angels don’t have a navy bill. However, a gazillion teams wear all navy caps with red and white logos.[/quote]
Here is the difference in my mind. The Blue Jays are a bird (like the Orioles) and the bird has black feathers (along with blue and white). The Orioles are black and orange like the bird. The Cardinals are red like the male cardinal. The Red Sox are white Sox are items of clothing. The colors are adjectives describing the sox. The Blue in Blue Jay is part of the name of the bird. I have never heard of a Green Jay, Orange Jay or Purple Jay.[/quote]
Yes. That.
[quote comment=”341033″][quote comment=”341026″][quote comment=”341025″]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
I probably should have finished the thought.
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point? The only problem is that they’ve existed for far too long as the Blue Jays, IMHO, to drop the “Blue”. The only problem is that the Blue Jay is a fairly successful bird in southern Ontario, and link do have some black on them.
Do I like the black Blue Jays? Not really. At all. Whatsoever.[/quote]
I don’t see any black on that blue jay. I see dark blue, but not black.[/quote]
Trust me about the black. We have about 20 of them around here. They have black around the neck.
[quote comment=”341041″][quote comment=”341025″][quote comment=”341022″][quote comment=”341021″][quote comment=”341009″][quote comment=”340985″]
My immediate thought was that the Cardinals don’t have the word “red” in their name.
[/quote]
Isn’t “cardinal” also a color, a variety of red?[/quote]
I don’t think the Cardinals wear cardinal. I believe cardinal is slightly darker than the red they wear.
And… I wasn’t suggesting that the White Sox or Red Sox change anything.
In response to comment #30, the Red Sox cap of the seventies is a look sported by no teams. The Angels don’t have a navy bill. However, a gazillion teams wear all navy caps with red and white logos.[/quote]
Here is the difference in my mind. The Blue Jays are a bird (like the Orioles) and the bird has black feathers (along with blue and white). The Orioles are black and orange like the bird. The Cardinals are red like the male cardinal. The Red Sox are white Sox are items of clothing. The colors are adjectives describing the sox. The Blue in Blue Jay is part of the name of the bird. I have never heard of a Green Jay, Orange Jay or Purple Jay.[/quote]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
The Red Sox cap colors were worn by the Twins, as I recall. (red cap with a blue brim).[/quote]
But not at the momment.
[quote comment=”341044″][quote comment=”341033″][quote comment=”341026″][quote comment=”341025″]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
I probably should have finished the thought.
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point? The only problem is that they’ve existed for far too long as the Blue Jays, IMHO, to drop the “Blue”. The only problem is that the Blue Jay is a fairly successful bird in southern Ontario, and link do have some black on them.
Do I like the black Blue Jays? Not really. At all. Whatsoever.[/quote]
I don’t see any black on that blue jay. I see dark blue, but not black.[/quote]
Trust me about the black. We have about 20 of them around here. They have black around the neck.[/quote]
Or maybe it’s dark blue?
[quote comment=”341046″][quote comment=”341044″][quote comment=”341033″][quote comment=”341026″][quote comment=”341025″]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
I probably should have finished the thought.
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point? The only problem is that they’ve existed for far too long as the Blue Jays, IMHO, to drop the “Blue”. The only problem is that the Blue Jay is a fairly successful bird in southern Ontario, and link do have some black on them.
Do I like the black Blue Jays? Not really. At all. Whatsoever.[/quote]
I don’t see any black on that blue jay. I see dark blue, but not black.[/quote]
Trust me about the black. We have about 20 of them around here. They have black around the neck.[/quote]
Or maybe it’s dark blue?[/quote]
No. It’s black. Yankees caps are dark blue. Those feathers? They’re black.
[quote comment=”341047″][quote comment=”341046″][quote comment=”341044″][quote comment=”341033″][quote comment=”341026″][quote comment=”341025″]
Blue Jays are a specific type of jay. There are all sorts of jays including link – suitable for charcoal jerseys – and link which has both blue and black.[/quote]
I probably should have finished the thought.
The Blue Jays clearly went for the BFBS look, so maybe they were going to head down the route of the Rays and dropping the specific name at some point? The only problem is that they’ve existed for far too long as the Blue Jays, IMHO, to drop the “Blue”. The only problem is that the Blue Jay is a fairly successful bird in southern Ontario, and link do have some black on them.
Do I like the black Blue Jays? Not really. At all. Whatsoever.[/quote]
I don’t see any black on that blue jay. I see dark blue, but not black.[/quote]
Trust me about the black. We have about 20 of them around here. They have black around the neck.[/quote]
Or maybe it’s dark blue?[/quote]
No. It’s black. Yankees caps are dark blue. Those feathers? They’re black.[/quote]
Or so it seems?
Aunque el nombre de los Dóyers casi NUUUUUUUUUNCA se traduce, las pocas veces que se hace, se les llama Los Esquivadores (Duck the Fodgers).
Also, “cascabeles” sà es la traducción adecuada para “rattlesnakes” but I’m living in Phoenix now, and I haven’t run across it once here. Mucho más común que se dice “los Diamondbacks” (pronounced Daimonbacs) or, en medios escritos, hasta “los D-Backs”. La castellanización habitual es “los Diamantes”, pero se usa muy poco.
I think “Vigilantes de Texas” is the most common, but you also hear “Rancheros de Texas” for this autochthonous denomination (hint: the Texas Rangers don’t work in forests). Sure, crappy translation, meaning-wise, but it sounds similar enough.
Didn’t Tampa change their name from Rayas to los Rayos, and that’s why they won the World Series?
“Rocosos” is rarely used, but never the feminine form, as shown. He oÃdo “Los Metros” un par de veces. Sometimes the Angelinos are called “Serafines”, too. Marlins is just “Marlines”. ¿No serÃa “Los Oriólidos”? How do you get “naranjeros” from “orioles?”
Finally, I don’t thinking adding “Los” to English team names is lazy or unimaginative at all. The fact is, NBA team names are almost never translated, although since coming to Arizona I have seen “Soles de Phoenix” and “Magia de Orlando” ONCE. NFL teams are slightly more often rendered with their Castilian counterparts, though still much less often than baseball, which has the strongest Spanish-language tradition. In Spain, it’s often just “los New York Giants” (though also “los Giants de New York”), but they say “el quarterback” and “el wide receiver”, too; I’ve heard, though, one of the Méxican networks has a policy of hispanicizing everything (e.g. “los Gigantes de Nueva York” and “mariscal de campo” (QB). Generally for American football, it’s about, 60-40 in favor of “los [English name]”, unlike soccer teams, which most often have “el” appended to the club name. If you still care and read Spanish, see link.