Our Road Uniforms

by joedobr on Nov 12, 2008 10:48 PM EST Comment 19 comments

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3698950

Its that time again. While many on the site don't understand the importance of this, and its subtlety is certainly overlooked, the fact that the Rays have a neutralized home and road uniform that they unveiled last year was UNIVERSALLY abhorred for the lack of our geographic identifier being on the road uniforms.

As many on this site knew and what took place earlier today, the Baltimore Orioles revealed their new uniform sets. Not only did they correct the road uniforms, but they also embraced the state of Maryland by adding a patch on their alternate uniforms.

While I can comprehend on the bare peripherals why the team did not want Tampa Bay being on the uniforms, as well as I understand the policies on updating their uniforms, why can't the team issue a press release stating that this will indeed be corrected instead of skirting and jumping around on this. Do they deserve benefit of the doubt? Absolutely since many consider this something of a "trivial" nature, however, I don't think this is. This was a symbolic maneuver that would for me act as a rubber stamp not just being the Rays, but being absolutely Tampa Bay's team.

I can only hope that the club corrects this for the 2010 season (as I have a "basic" understanding that is the proposed plan). Should this issue prohibit fans from enjoying the club? Eh, perhaps not, as for I have different reasons, you shouldn't be swayed one way or the other. I for one am for civic pride and beyond them being just the Rays, but being the Tampa Bay Rays.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I remember hearing about this issue before last season

And while I can’t find any links right now, they wanted to have “Rays” on the away jersey just to get the new name out there. Same reason why they “charge” $1 every time someone in the media says Devil Rays. Just going by the amount of articles that still play on the Devil Rays or make some reference to “removing the Devil”, I completely understand wanting to keep Rays on the away jersey for another year. As I understood it, this is only supposed to be for two years. Hopefully they change it for 2010.

by Albertrayon on Nov 12, 2008 11:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yup...they wanted people to know they were only the "RAYS". They plan on changing the road jersey to "Tampa Bay" in another season or two

by Matt C on Nov 13, 2008 12:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well if you ask me

It’s one season too many. This was the cover reason and cover story behind the decision, I know this all to well. I have gone as far as ask the team for an explanation on this, but for some reason, they haven’t answered me yet.

It’s one thing to “plan” to do it, but when most fans don’t like it, well, you got a problem. Fans at home and on the road start yelling “T-A-M-P-A B-A-Y”, it gets my juices flowing. My gist is there shouldn’t be “hope” or “plan”, it should be WILL!! I can barely comprehend the why on it, but there are other tactics for reinforcement that can be used.

Believe me, this is a “money” issue for me and I have the links. The team is wrong in my mind on this. I would love for them to go on the record AGAIN on this, but since they have such good relationships with the media, I doubt highly they will put themselves anywhere close to being misconstrued.

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 13, 2008 7:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It took the Orioles 36 years

to put Baltimore back on the road uniform, I think I can give the Rays two years.

by Tommy Rancel on Nov 13, 2008 8:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Am I

The only one who doesn’t have a problem with “Tampa Bay” not being on a uniform?

by Erik Hahmann on Nov 13, 2008 8:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 13, 2008 8:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably because I'm from Seattle, that makes three of us.

Indie.

by Taylor H on Nov 14, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You got yours on the roadies

Seattle is a nice city. It deserves to be mentioned:)

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 14, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

But as long as they do it, which they said they would, then they should be held to their own statement, yes?

It’s more precarious here than it is up there. I am tired of the provinciality of this area, but its a rallying point, plain and simple.

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 13, 2008 9:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

'They took out the "Tampa Bay", now it's for everyone'

(Paraphrased the stupidest related quote I could think of)

by kericr on Nov 13, 2008 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Elaborate more on that one, please. Who is “everyone”?

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 13, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

'They took out the "Me", now it's for everyone'

It was a joke, in reference to the members of Metallica referring to the band collectively as ‘Tallica’ a few years back and crazy ass fan-boys arguing over whether Metallica took the ‘Me’ or the ‘Metal’ out of “Metallica”. There’s no deep thought involved in my comment.

by kericr on Nov 13, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha

Just trying to feel you there….

Some have more feelings about this than others. A dead horse to many, I recognize this. But don’t deceive anyone, please. If the road uniforms is the biggest thing I hold against them (and it is) is it all that bad? I will weigh that one out:)

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 13, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not trying to make light of your complaint

Personally, not having the home city on the road uniform is not something I agree with, but it doesn’t bother me to the same extent as it does listening to people say that the reason it was done was so the team wouldn’t have to change their uniforms if they move.

by kericr on Nov 14, 2008 8:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No good point

I disagree with the notion in the same way you do. I have made this a serious complaint with the ownership, because in the final analysis it was unnecessary and only adds fuel to the fire for conspiratorialists.

I have heard this same complaint, and it frosts me. It was done for ANOTHER reason, which still doesn’t make it right. Yet, the reason you just named is precisely what bothers me too.

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 14, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs