Good Tuesday morning, Uni Watchers. I hope everyone had a good Monday.
Longtime UW reader/contributor/author/stalwart Leo Strawn, Jr. returns today, but in a different capacity than you’re used to. Of late, Leo’s given us some fun quizzes, a great piece on night football, and a pair of baseball oddities deep dives.
Today, Leo has a modest proposal for a baseball renaming, with some historical precedents thrown in. I think you’ll really enjoy this one.
Here’s Leo…
Horsefeathers
by Leo Strawn, Jr.
I’m Leo…welcome to my world!
There was a time when the New York Yankees, Brooklyn Dodgers, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Indians, Washington Senators, Detroit Tigers, Pittsburgh Pirates and Boston Braves existed.
In pro football.
There is no need to call them the “New York Football Giants” any longer. Yet it remains a fact that they named their team after one of the most successful teams in baseball history up to that time. The Giants had won 12 NL pennants dating back to 1888, appeared in 9 of the first 21 modern World Series, winning 3 times, were the first NL club to win it and had been in the WS 4 consecutive years leading up to the formation of the NFL Giants. But it didn’t bother them to suddenly share their name with a pro football team in 1925.
When the Chicago Cardinals moved to St. Louis, the NL’s St. Louis Cardinals became one of two pro teams in that city with the same name. The baseball club had a storied history, winning 4 American Association (AA) titles as the Browns before joining the NL. They were the only AA team to win a WS against the NL, in 1886. It took them a while as the Cardinals to put together that type of success, but they began to do so in 1926, winning a modern World Series in their first try. By the time the football team that had been born on Chicago’s South Side moved into town, the baseball club known as the Cardinals had won 9 NL pennants, 6 of those leading to WS titles. But it didn’t bother them to suddenly share their name with a pro football team in 1960.
Maybe this will sound like nonsense, piffle, horsefeathers or whatever you want to call it. I have a theory that some teams should either switch nicknames or locations, but not necessarily the ones I mentioned.
For example, the Lakers were born in the Land of 10,000 Lakes and the Jazz were so named because they played in the birthplace of jazz. The Minneapolis Lakers moved to LA, and the New Orleans Jazz moved to Salt Lake City. When I think about Los Angeles I think of asphalt, concrete and steel and when I think of Salt Lake City, the music that comes to mind is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. LA, specifically Hollywood, is home to Capitol Records, which was the label for, among others, jazz great Miles Davis. Utah plays in a city literally named for a lake.
Make it make sense. Switch nicknames or switch locations. Problem solved.
Now, back to the two teams in different sports with the same name issue. It solved itself over time in all of those instances I mentioned. Most of those franchises went belly up, the Pirates are now the Steelers, the Braves are now the Commanders, the Giants baseball team went west and the Cardinals football team relocated to Arizona.
From the 50,000 foot view, there was never any reason for the Kansas City Royals to not have been the name for two different teams in two different sports at the same time. The basketball team in KC, who changed their name to Kings after moving out of Cincinnati, now play in Sacramento and may as well be called the Royals. I’m sure there’s an alternate reality where that’s the case, but that’s another story. As it stands in this reality, the KC Royals same-name situation would have also solved itself, long ago.
To me, it always made sense for the basketball team to keep the name Royals. They were using that nickname long before the Kansas City Royals became an expansion team in the American League and that same name/same city/different sport type of thing was steeped in American sports history, whether to honor an existing team or because of a move that created a same-name scenario. There was no reason to change it to Kings in the first place, no matter which team insisted upon it.
So, all of this got me to thinking about the A’s. They are going to play in West Sacramento while awaiting the completion of their Las Vegas stadium.
Here’s my proposal: The Royals and A’s should either switch nicknames or locations. The A’s second home was in KC, so it’s not that much of a stretch to think of them returning. Or, just keep the Royals club in Kansas City and rebrand them as the Athletics.
Whether the two clubs switch cities or nicknames, it becomes like a reunion of sorts in the Sacramento area since the Kings and Royals played in Kansas City at the same time. The Kings could even change their nickname back to the Royals and create another same name/same city/different sports scenario, if they wanted.
I know what you’re thinking: Soon, they’ll move to Las Vegas and there are playing cards with A’s on them. But even if you call them the A’s, the team is technically still the Athletics, and most poker players are anything but athletic. Besides, you could even have 3 A’s and 2 Kings in your hand and it still doesn’t beat my Royal flush!
The moral of the story: Never fear to use your horsefeathers to fly up to 50,000 feet and take in the view, no matter how strange anyone else thinks it is!
Until next time…
Cheers!
Readers? What say you?
How about a 3 way trade?
Jazz goes back to New Orleans, Saints go to the City of Angels, Lakers go to Utah.
In theory, a straight Saints for Jazz trade would make sense, as the official name of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Taysom Hill must be more versatile than I thought.
Love some JJ Watt uniform musings. Though I find his, and many other people’s reaction to the Eagles wordmark change puzzling. Yes, the new one is bland and unspectacular. But the previous one is incredibly dated and absolutely needed an update. There is far too much going on with it. Make it a little less vertical, compress the drop shadow, etc. It is a design of the 90s that needed a change.
The entire Eagles visual program is a design of the ’90s that needs to change.
A design of the ‘90s that doesn’t look dated…I’d say modern classic that need not change (I’m no fan of the ‘Kelly’ greens from the Braman regime)
YMMV
I agree that the uniform and logo itself are still good to this day. But I do think the dark green is a 90s trend of dark colors that should be ditched. The fact that you can barely distinguish between their green and black helmets is a problem. I’d just color swap their current uniform to kelly green, and go with silver pants. Number font could use an update but its as bad as some other new fonts out there.
Swapping the Jazz and Lakers is an elegant solution. At least for now, while there is still a Great Salt Lake in Utah. In a couple of decades, when we’re landing spacecraft at the bone-dry Great Salt Flats, people will be just as befuddled by the Utah Lakers as we are now by the Utah Jazz.
The swap I’ve always wanted to make is to flip the names of the Dodgers and Giants. The two New York NL clubs each moved to the wrong California city. The Brooklyn team was named for the borough’s trolleys, and San Francisco is famous for its trolleys. And LA is the city of big dreams, where success is sought on the most giant scale.
Straight to jail.
There is no room for “making sense” of anything in the giants/dodgers rivalry.
Scoreboard:
Sunday, May 22, 1960
Connie Mack Stadium
Phillies 9 Dodgers 6
Connie Mack’s scoreboard was made by the same Wisconsin company that made the scoreboard used by the Yankees during the 50s.
Are we ever going to get a definition of what “GettingIt™” means? Far too often it’s used to say “This person shares my opinion so therefore they are correct”.
This has always been my least favorite component of uni-watch’s brand. I understand it is trying to mark community based on shared interests, but it has always felt exclusionary and a bit holier than thou.
It is also apparent that those who “get it” are predominantly white men. While I am sure that the catchphrase isn’t the cause of the homogeneous community, it doesn’t hurt to try to invite / promote more diversity.
Paul did an entire series on how UW readers got it, back during the pandemic. (First one here: link)
In the very first graf, he wrote: “I recently invited readers to share their stories of how they first got hooked on uniforms — in other words, how they first realized that they Get It™”
So there’s your definition — readers getting hooked on uniforms.
We welcome all viewpoints and opinions on uniforms — and it’s certainly not limited to those who “share my opinion”. It’s also not exclusionary.
And the phrase “For People Who Get It™” has been part of the Uni Watch header for more than a decade.
Right, but I would be willing to bet a lot of money that J.J. Watt wouldn’t be considered someone who “GetsIt™” if he had said that he prefers the midnight green set for the Eagles, or BFBS, or any other opinion that doesn’t get a lot of support on UW.
To me, GettingIt™ simply refers to people who understand and appreciate the importance of aesthetics in sports. For them (us) it is much more than a trivial thing, and certainly nothing to scoff at. By that definition, anyone who shares genuine, sincere opinions on sports uniforms GetsIt™.
People who “Get It” are those who love and appreciate the athletic aesthetic. So there are certainly those with whose opinions UW doesn’t necessarily agree — but that doesn’t mean they don’t get it. I may not agree with Malik Nabers’ views/opinions on uniform design, but I absolutely think he gets it. link
Readers share many views and opinions, and we always aim to have constructive discussions about uniforms. Opinions are just that — opinions. All are welcome and I think we can all agree to disagree from time to time.
Thanks for the input Charile!
The tide has turned in recent years, but up until recently, it was broadly viewed as silly to notice and/or care about sports uniforms, uniform changes, uniform minutiae, etc. Most sports fans would give you a “who cares?” or otherwise think it was weird to follow that stuff. I think the “Gets it” slogan (or whatever you want to call it) was more in reference to that, since relatively few people “got it.”
Whether JJ “gets it” or not, I hold him partially to blame for stirring the pot on the whole Texans/Oilers uniform (non)issue…it’s fortunate that the Titans hold their old branding tightly, and unfortunate that the Texans felt it necessary to tinker with their time-tested uniforms – with horrible results.
Can’t reply to your last comment so I’ll do it this way.
I understand your point. I think that it’s 100% true that that happens, and I would chalk it up to the Paul bias. He would often post images of players wearing stirrups and note that that person “gets it”. On the contrary, a football player wearing their pants above the knee would be pointed out as well but labeled as failing in regards to uniform aesthetics, when in fact that player is going out of their way to style their pants that way because they think it looks good (or better than the alternatives), and in his own way he also “gets it” because the details and aesthetics obviously matter to him, just not in a way that Paul likes. This definitely paints a picture of conformity, stubbornness, exclusion, and staunch adherence to “rules” (only certain fonts are acceptable for football numbers!). Again, I would just say that this is something that slowly developed as Paul’s voice (obviously the dominant voice of this site) was established, and then things started changing in the uni-verse (shirts untucked, pants too short, pants too long, alternate uniforms a-go-go! Marketing-speak galore! Colors too dark, colors too light…) and Paul’s tastes were being challenged by what was being put out there in the uni-verse. As mostly an opinions writer, he leaned into that stubborn old coot voice in his writing and people took to it because it could be frequently entertaining. I think that what ultimately happened is the concept of “getting it” – which is by definition bigger than any single opinion, and more about people that simply ARE opinionated about these things – got confused with the concept of staying in line with “the rules” as established by Paul and others over the life of the site.
That said, I propose some questions of the week, though they will probably need to be refined. We’ve done the “when did you first “get it”? question, and I hope we keep getting those stories, but I’d be very interested in hearing what people’s uni pet peeves/deal breakers are, and what are people’s uni “guilty pleasures”, and what uni/design features earn a uni an automatic passing grade for people? And to that end, let’s stipulate that the commentary on these discourages conflict, and encourages extrapolation. I think it might be cathartic for people as we stride forward into this new chapter of the comm-uni-ty.
Thanks for the reply! Charlie’s original point certainly generated a lot of discussion.
For me, “getting it” is a dichotomous variable– you either get it or you don’t. There are no degrees of getting it. That is what feels exclusionary.
I vastly prefer your locution for people who “love and appreciate the athletic aesthetic.” That allows for degrees of love and appreciation, from beginning to more advanced.
While the site may “welcome all viewpoints and opinions on uniforms” if you look at those who comment, the simple fact that it is mostly men (who I assume are white). While the site does not intend to exclude, the result is that the site does not attract diverse commentators (and most likely viewers).
I have loved how the site has been looking at greater diversity of sports (under new management). But on the whole the content, it is mostly stories or posts about men’s teams. If you look at the guest posters (is that the right word), I can’t remember any women. I also want to note, that my views here are conjectural– I actually don’t know the gender or race of viewers or even contributors.
I also want to add that I have been a fan of the site for a long time, I do the Uni-watch plus membership because I see the tremendous work you and all the team put into it.
The editors have discretion over content, and folks may be happy with how thing are– I think more women commentators, more women’s sports coverage, and more discussions of African-American, Latino, and Asian aesthetics in athletics would improve the site and extend its audience. The trademark of “getting it” may dissuade those who are interested, curious, intrigued– e.g. those who might enrich the site.
I always took it as people who look at uniforms and jerseys from an aesthetic perspective. So beyond just practical.
I’d dare say that it’s people who are interested in sports fashion, which is how I’d describe it, but I think that a lot of people on here would dislike calling it fashion — even though it is.
I certainly hope it’s more inclusive than people who shared Paul’s taste, because I certainly don’t. But I have seen him pander to more right wing elements in the readership — especially when reminded of the existence of queer people on the field and I certainly don’t think that those people get it lol.
Agreed. I have always considered the definition of “getting it” to mean that athletic aesthetics, and details matter at least on a personal enjoyment level.
I agree with the original thought that it can often feel like “getting it” means people agree with some of the arbitrary “rules” that this site has established over the many years (someone wearing stirrups “gets it”), but I think that’s mostly just founded in Paul’s curmudgeonliness and the fact that it’s “his house, his rules” – or at least it used to be – and that has fostered an audience that often does agree on things like: all football uniforms should look like they were designed in the 70s, all baseball players should wear stirrups, purple isn’t a color, etc. but sometimes that does come across as exclusionary. Just remember: athletic aesthetics, and most content on this site are opinions, so take it all with a grain of salt, and most of the time, the comments are people trying to JOIN the community, not intending to do so at the exclusion of others, it just might come across that way unintentionally.
I can (as can most of us, probably) definitely empathize with being in the minority opinion on certain things, and how it can be frustrating to be asked to defend my point when the validity of the counterpoint apparently “goes without saying”. I think Pat patriot is a weak and very outdated logo, I love when baseball teams wear colored pants, I think football pants and socks can match and color rush can look very good, I think a nice pair of socks is better than any pair of stirrups, I think purple is a fantastic color, even for sports. But that’s just me and my opinion. I shouldn’t HAVE to defend it, but I should be able to, and that discourse is part of what makes the comm-uni-ty so much fun.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I think one thing that’s being missed is that this wasn’t a question posed out of the blue – I’m specifically referencing J. J. Watt’s tweet and how it was shared here. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the opinions he shared are commonplace on this site, and I have a hard time believing he’d be labelled as someone who “gets it” if he had offered less palatable critiques. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone be praised for “getting it” while also saying that they like BFBS, biker shorts, mono uniforms, etc.
I was ready to hate this proposal since I hear way too often from people that don’t seem to realize over half the A’s history takes place before they got to Oakland, but I don’t. This seems like a fine name swap for Sac, especially if the WNBA would bring back the Monarchs.
Jazz fans would die a thousand deaths before taking on the name “Lakers”. The hatred for that team is strong in Utah.
In hindsight, yes, the Jazz should have changed their name when they moved to Utah. But after 40+ years, the name is a part of the state’s culture. Sorry, but the Utah Jazz are here to stay.
*Actual photo of the blackboard that made me decide to no longer study electrical engineering when I was a sophomore.
I think Las Vegas Aces makes a lot of sense. They keep the “A” and make a Vegas card/gambling connection.
Las Vegas Aces is already a team. They just won a championship last year.
Their second championship in a row, and it’s entirely possible they could three-peat this year.
They were the Philadelphia Athletics. They were the Kansas City Athletics. They were the Oakland Athletics. I personally think they should keep the name.
I agree with this. They’ve been a nomadic franchise since their creation. Let them keep the Athletics name in their newest of homes.
The Lakers become the Raptors, the Raptors become the Ontario Lakers, The Kings become the Grizzlies, because the bear is on the state flag. Make Memphis the Kings in honor of Elvis Presley. The Jazz name is retired, and they become whatever they have in Utah that’s worth naming a team after.
Hi Michael. Just feeding off your comment, not necessarily agreeing with your musical nicknames rotation (although some are creative, like the Memphis Kings).
I was 12 when the Jazz left N’awlins for Utar (Tommy Heinsohn pronunciation) and thought then that the Lakers and Jazz name switch would be great. It was a new era in LA, with Magic Johnson coming in, so stirring a little Magic into the LA Jazz would have been a great marketing ploy. Alas, nobody cared about my opinion.
With the Jazz about to start their 46th season in Utah (wow!), the relocation of the Coyotes gives Utahans the chance to name the UHC something they can own. My personal favorite is the Blizzard, though I heard that one of the players possibly slipped Yeti, and that offers a phonetic alliteration with YOU-tah.
I’ve always thought a name swap between Memphis and Sacramento would have made great sense. Grizzlies are more of a California thing and the Kings could be in tribute to MLK. Or as you proposed, Elvis. That’s the alternate reality I live in!
If you are moving basketball team names around to make sense for their locale/history:
Utah Raptors
Toronto Huskies (avoided this originally because they thought it was too similar to the T’wolves)
Minnesota Lakers
New Orleans Jazz
Memphis Kings
Sacramento Grizzlies
Los Angeles…. eh could just have one team in LA and be the Clippers. Move the second LA franchise to Seattle as the Supersonics.
The Oakland A’s, become the Las Vegas (High) Rollers.
Back when the Vancouver Grizzlies were seriously considering moving to New Orleans, I read that there were serious discussions about swapping names with the Utah Jazz. They still should have done it, considering Memphis has great jazz to go along with all their other great music. Now “Lakers” and “Jazz” don’t mean anything in the NBA but just the team names of their Los Angeles and Utah franchises. The Lakers fans would riot if that name was taken from them. I don’t think all teams should leave their names in the cities they moved from, but some just make sense.
Return the A’s to KC? OK…but I’d move the Royals to Montreal (keeping the name, colors, records, etc of course).
Then maybe…just maybe…the Nats would throw back to their Expos heritage more often and not be accused of “trolling”.
They will always be the Kansas City Wiz to me and now that the electronics chain Nobody Beats The Wiz that forced them to change their name the first time went out of business, Sporting Kansas City should be able to get their rightful/ original name back. Long live the Wiz!
I get the SLC -> Lakers thing, but an alternate proposal:
New Orleans receives: Jazz
Utah receives: Pelicans
Apparently, 10-20% of all American white pelicans nest at Gunnison Island in the Great Salt Lake.
I know from my childhood experiences of attending Royals games that the A’s were booed vehemently — and new Yankee Reggie Jackson was still, even though he was two uniforms/years removed from Oakland — after Charlie O snubbed the KC faithful in late 1967 when he uprooted the A’s. I don’t know if that hatred remains or has eroded over time, but returning the Athletics moniker to KC I doubt would not gain much favor. Keeping the Athletics name when they land in Vegas makes the most sense.
As for the Royals/Kings issue in Kansas City, I was too young when the Cincinnati Royals relocated to Kansas City-Omaha in 1972. All I could find on the Royals-to-Kings change was so it avoided confusion with the MLB Royals.
Otherwise, Leo, I enjoyed the fun elements you offered in your column.
Thanks for the comments!
Looks like everyone had fun with this one…mission accomplished.
Should any American team be named after kings or other royalty?
This piece made my head hurt.
There’s many names that work for many cities. No need to trade, mix brands & confuse people.
The title of the article was “Horsefeathers”, taken from a Marx Bros movie. It means “nonsense”.
: )