If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(mlb.com)   Chief Wahoo off the new Indians hats, remains on newly designed ugly jersey   (cleveland.indians.mlb.com) divider line 89
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4266 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2002 at 3:26 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-02-08 03:28:43 PM
OMG the political correct-ers have taken over BASEBALL of all things....PLEASE GOD spare us all from them
 
2002-02-08 03:30:18 PM
In other news, the Red Sox still suck.
 
2002-02-08 03:32:04 PM
Sorry, but the "I" on the hat looks like a "J"

Nice job, Cleveland.

Oh, and VIVA...

Yeah...I know...they suck, but I can't help it...I'm a fan for life.
 
2002-02-08 03:32:13 PM
God damn PC crowd. Get over it, it is just a freakin' mascot. Why not use your lives for some real, helpful purpose?
 
2002-02-08 03:33:27 PM
the "I" that looks like a "J" and quite similar to Atlanta Braves' "A" is luckily only on their home-weekend hats. Wahoo will remain on their weekday and away hats.
 
2002-02-08 03:34:04 PM
Cheif Wahoo is gone....the terrorists have already won.
 
2002-02-08 03:35:34 PM
Every other team but the "class act" of the Major League Baseball world (THE NEW YORK YANKEES) changes its uniform design.
 
2002-02-08 03:37:49 PM
Warren Peese

my sox havent changed their uniforms... so nyah!
 
2002-02-08 03:38:24 PM
"They're still shiatty."
 
2002-02-08 03:38:38 PM
What's up with the hat? Are they changing their name to the "Jindians" to avoid offending folks?
 
2002-02-08 03:38:42 PM
Apparently THIS design was second choice;
 
2002-02-08 03:39:56 PM
God damn anti-PC nazis. It's just a freakin mascot. Why not just change it? Nothin wrong with trying to avoid offending people, especially when it's over something amazingly trivial like this.

Besides, it's still on the jersey. What's the point of this story?
 
2002-02-08 03:39:59 PM
I think the jersey looks great. But Wahoo does belong on the hat.
 
2002-02-08 03:40:10 PM
The "class act" of MLB? Okay, nice uniforms, manager is by all accounts a good guy, and the team seemed to have a bunch of straight-up, hard working guys, BUT Steinbrenner has, over the course of the past two decades almost singlehandedly created the economic crisis that has baseball teetering on the edge of disaster.
 
2002-02-08 03:40:44 PM
Looked like THE Indians have won...............
 
2002-02-08 03:41:39 PM
It really pisses me off when these pro teams change or alter their logos. They expect fans to go and shell out tremendous buckaroos to stay en vogue with new, overpriced clothing.

Meanwhile, jaspers are selling obsolete shirts for Ebbets Field, the Homestead Grays, etc. for MUCHO DINERO!

Baseball? Shove it up your greedy asses, MLB!

I'll miss Chief Wahoo!
 
2002-02-08 03:42:58 PM
Yet, nobody cried when baseball teams dumped the baby blue road uniforms. {shudder}
 
2002-02-08 03:43:03 PM
if you actually read the story, you'll notice the change in the hat is only for home games on holidays and weekends. The rest of the time, the big-toothed Injun stays on the hat.
 
2002-02-08 03:43:14 PM


I'm diggin this picture shiat.
 
2002-02-08 03:43:22 PM
Who would be offended by a cartoon?? I'm American, should I go biatch about the Patriots? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Here is a picture of Wahoo's girlfriend:
 
2002-02-08 03:47:25 PM
A best-forgotten era for my ChiSox:

 
2002-02-08 03:48:51 PM
UG-leee.

Good thing those ugly uniforms are for only special occasions. and weekend home games, the only time I can..waitaminnit goddamit! now I gotta watch them play in those ugly uniforms!
 
2002-02-08 03:49:44 PM
does anybody else put the first initial of the team nickname on their hats instead of the first initial of their hometown? That looks really dumb. In addition to being a lousy script "I" design...
 
2002-02-08 03:52:03 PM
holy crap...I just realized that the shorts-wearin' guy for the White Sox is Kevin Bell, who lived (along with some other ChiSox players) in my humble suburban neighborhood.

I thought it was so cool that the players lived near me (and would sign autographs), that I became a Sox fan.

Thanks for a lifetime of misery, Kevin, you knock-kneed son of a biatch.
 
2002-02-08 03:53:48 PM
Thatguy:
I am embarassed for you! As wacked out as those freak rainbow jerseys my Astros wore in the 70's were, at least they weren't in short pants!
 
2002-02-08 03:53:53 PM
Blaugh. I hate vest uniforms.

Personally I like the blue jerseys best.
 
2002-02-08 03:54:16 PM
02-08-02 03:37:49 PM BaconFarker
"Warren Peese

my sox havent changed their uniforms... so nyah!
"

And the Beantowners haven't changed their traditional identity either: Losers & Bride's Maids

VIVA LA BUCKY DENT!
 
2002-02-08 03:54:52 PM
What is up with all of the "sleeveless" jerseys these days? They just look sloppy.
 
2002-02-08 03:54:55 PM
Nabb1: Give me some examples to back up your argument. The Yankees have usually spent the bulk of their money on players they either

A)Drafted and Developed (ex. Jeter, Williams, Rivera, etc.)
B)Acquired in Trades (ex. Roger Clemens)

They never have handed out those stupid contracts that force the market skyward (like the Dodgers with Kevin Brown, or the Rangers with Alex Rodriguez). In fact after the past off-season, it looks like the market limit has been reached. There are only so many teams that can afford the $10 mill a year players and as they move away from the auction block, no one else can pay the asking price, so overall salaries come down.

Stienbrenner is merely using the market he is in to put the best product on the field. If baseball were a regular business, the Royals would set up shop in NJ and the Twins would move to CT in hopes of getting some of that market, much like a McDonalds facing Wendys, Subway, etc.

No one forced any owner into the baseball business. If it was so bad, why isn't everyone selling?
 
2002-02-08 03:58:15 PM
DrBenway, I was going to mention the Houston rainbow nightmare, as well as the bright yellow Padres look from the early 70s, but I agree - nothing is worse than shorts.

That look was courtesy of the great Bill Veeck, who was also responsible for the midget at bat and (I think?) Disco Demolition Night.

White Sox Fever - catch it!
 
2002-02-08 03:58:19 PM
Rmdw:
Beg to differ. It was the Yankees and Steinbrenner who started the whole free agent $$$ bonanza in the 70's, if memory serves me correctly. Seems like Andy Messersmith was involved, I'll have to check on that...
 
2002-02-08 04:01:58 PM
Actually, free agency had it's origins in the Curt Flood Affair/Lawsuit.

See: http://www.historicbaseball.com/TMS_flood.html
 
2002-02-08 04:02:42 PM
Yeah, Thatguy it's really kind of creepy to go to a game over there at Un-ron and see fans actually sporting retro copies of those things. Really makes you wonder... hey, was Luzinski with the ChiSox during their shorts phase? Now THAT would truly be an unpleasant image!
 
2002-02-08 04:03:50 PM
DrBenway: First true free agent was Catfish Hunter (due to a contract dispute). 21 teams submitted offers to him in 1975, and he choose the Yankees offer (which wasn't the highest).

Messersmith and Dave McNally were made free agents after the 74 season. Messersmith took the millions offered by Ted Turner.

Free agency in the 70's was a bit different than today. You would be placed in a free agency re-entry draft and 5 or 10 different teams could draft you (basically get the right to offer you a contract). That's how Reggie Jackson became a Yankee. He signed with the Yankees, but the Expos who also drafted him, offered him a lot more money.
 
2002-02-08 04:04:30 PM
You're actually right, Warren, but the $$$ tap opened with the Yanks' wheeling & dealing, didn't it?
 
2002-02-08 04:05:32 PM
Pussies.
 
2002-02-08 04:06:57 PM
Good Read on the subject

http://www.cheathouse.com/restricted/essays/his2/691.html

As far as "just a freakin' mascot", consider this; What if for arguement sake, the Germans won WWII? Then after 50 or so years they felt remorse for killing as many Jews as they did, and decided to name a soccer team after the Jews. Not just the Hamburg Jews, but something like the Hamburg Kikes or the Hamburg Heebs. Hell, even if they named a team that now, especially in Germany, there would be an uprising here in America. The same people of Jewish decent who are Indians or Redskins fans would probably have a hard time with it.
Secondly, the first arguement people have with these mascots, and it always comes up, is "Hey, I am Irish and I don't have problem with the Fighting Irish or the Minnesota Vikings." The realization is that these groups were not forced off of their lands and put on reservations with little more than an apology and a gold coin "commemerating" their ancestory. No, when people think of the Fighting Irish and the Vikings they see a proud heritage. Yeah, you can say that the Irish immigrants were descriminated against when they got here, but almost every group was to some extent. Yet, not to the extent of being toatally wiped out.
 
2002-02-08 04:07:29 PM
"They never have handed out those stupid contracts that force the market skyward (like the Dodgers with Kevin Brown, or the Rangers with Alex Rodriguez)."

The Yankees have the highest payroll in baseball, $128 Million. The Rangers may have the highest paid player, but their payroll is still under $90 million.

Yankees Suck.
 
2002-02-08 04:07:57 PM
 
2002-02-08 04:09:20 PM
DrBenway: Thank God Luzinski wasn't around in '76 - he was '81 to '84.

As it turns out, the shorts were only worn for one game, the first half of a doubleheader with KC.
 
2002-02-08 04:10:25 PM
Hmmmmmmmm.......


 
2002-02-08 04:12:56 PM
LOL HughJass
 
2002-02-08 04:14:01 PM
DrBenway The dimanondbacks have a hat with a D on it but they also have one with a A for Arizona. IMHO Diamondbacks have the worst uniforms in the leauge. I hate there stupid south west color scheme.
 
2002-02-08 04:14:24 PM
DrBenway

The Yanks were just ONE of many teams doing what they had to do in the bidding for free agants when they came "on the market." Steinbrenner invested in order to pull the otherwise dismal Yankee teams of the Horace Clarke era out of the pits. But BEFORE he did that, terrific trades were pulled off by the Yanks; noteably the ones with Cleveland and the Angels which brought Chris Chambliss, Nettles, Mick "the Quick" Rivers and Ed Figueroa et.al. to town.
 
2002-02-08 04:15:49 PM
And let's not forget that the Yankees created the first million-dollar (per year) man in one Catfish Hunter in the '70s as well. Furthermore, this is not about where the Yankees chose to spend their money. It's about creating an unsustainable economic model.

The Yankees payroll for next year is already in excess of $128 million. A large amount of that is sewn up in free agent signings. Giambi is not home-grown, nor is Karsay, Santangelo, R. White or numerous others. The Yankees are by no means alone in driving up salaries over all, but their payroll is clearly out of control.

Baseball has to come up with meaningful revenue sharing and get this stuff under control. Any professional sports league is more like a joint venture when it comes to marketing and promoting the sport. Sure, they compete with each other, but it's collusion. By creating such lopsided economics between teams, it hurts the league overall. Yes, the rich do indeed get richer, but that does not exactly create a healthy situation where maybe eight out of the thrity teams can realistically field a team they can count on to get to the playoffs.

And don't point to the Athletics about what can be done with a budget. The two World Series teams this year were number 1 and 3 in payroll. I'm not knocking the Series, because it was the best since '91, but the fact remains a lot of the smaller market teams are just fodder for a few others.
 
2002-02-08 04:17:06 PM
i thought this was gonna be the new logo



oh and Warren Peese

And the Beantowners haven't changed their traditional identity either: Losers & Bride's Maids

VIVA LA BUCKY DENT!


ha! thats all you can say? you'll have to cut deeper, my friend. remember im a sox fan, my skin is tough...
 
2002-02-08 04:17:36 PM
Bildo: Again, the Yankees are paying the bulk of the money to a team they assembled through the draft and trades. If you built a great company, wouldn't you pay to keep it together?

Let's look at the Yankee Roster:

C Jorge Posada (Homegrown)
1B Jason Giambi (Free Agent)
2B Alfonso Soriano (Homegrown, signed from Japan in his teens)
SS Derek Jeter (Homegrown)
3B Robin Ventura (Trade)
RF Shane Spencer (Homegrown)
CF Bernie Williams (Homegrown)
LF Rondell White (Free Agent)
DH Nick Johnson (Homegrown)
OF John Vander Wahl (Trade)
C Todd Greene (Waivers)
SS/2B Enrique Wilson (Trade)
IF Luis Sojo (Waivers)
OF Gerald Williams (Waivers, originally a Yankee prospect)

Roger Clemens (Trade)
Andy Pettite (Homegrown)
Mike Mussina (Free Agent)
Sterling Hitchcock (Trade, originally a Yankee prospect)
David Wells (Free Agent)
Ramiro Mendoza (Homegrown)
Steve Karsay (Free Agent)
Mariano Rivera (Homegrown)
Mike Stanton (Trade)
Ted Lilly (Homegrown)
Randy Choate (Homegrown)
Adrian Hernandez (Homegrown)

So that's

Homegrown: 12
Waivers: 3
Trades: 6
Free Agent: 5

So of the 26 players I have listed, only 5 were bought on the market. The rest were either developed by the Yankees or traded for. Don't blame them for keeping a winning squad together.
 
2002-02-08 04:18:42 PM
I can think of a much more offensive logo.

 
2002-02-08 04:19:01 PM
Nabb1: Yankees were one of 21 teams to submit offers to Hunter, all of which were high number deals. It could easily have been the Red Sox or Braves that signed him.
 
2002-02-08 04:19:28 PM
Can anyone find a picture of the old Chief Wahoo? That one was even better than the current one.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report