January 23, 200521 yr QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 05:32 PM) You were really fishing for a new thread weren't you greasy? lol, it's all good though.
January 23, 200521 yr I was hoping you were gonna say their new marketing gimmick was, "It's Time." We all know how well that bit of marketing genius worked out..... JM: "If you come to our park, you better bring your 'A' game."
January 23, 200521 yr I actually believe they were contracted from the union. My memory is beer-induced fuzzy though
January 23, 200521 yr They should have just used something catchy like "3 time defending division champs."
January 24, 200521 yr QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 05:51 PM) They should have just used something catchy like "3 time defending division champs." That's their radio/tv campaign, iirc from living there. 'Back to back to back champions'
January 24, 200521 yr QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 05:31 PM) Don't they look pretty similar? not even close
January 24, 200521 yr QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 05:31 PM) Damn Bastards kinda stole our font. Bring me the head of their webdesigner.
January 24, 200521 yr I would think that the MLB makes all of its club sites dont you think? So in a way, the Twins didnt steal our font, the designers for MLB just used similar font for Twins.
January 24, 200521 yr QUOTE(El Caballo @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) I would think that the MLB makes all of its club sites dont you think? So in a way, the Twins didnt steal our font, the designers for MLB just used similar font for Twins. Actually each site is run individual under MLB supervision but still has its owner designer and webmaster.
January 24, 200521 yr Aside from not being very similar at all, they're incredibly similar in a not-really-similar kind of way.
January 24, 200521 yr QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 11:18 PM) Aside from not being very similar at all, they're incredibly similar in a not-really-similar kind of way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I somewhat agree and disagree with you on that point.
January 24, 200521 yr QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 23, 2005 -> 11:56 PM) I somewhat agree and disagree with you on that point. I am offended by and appreciate your opinion on this issue, sort of...
January 24, 200521 yr Yea, fish and paint are similair too. They both come in many colors, they both don't have feet and they both hate turpintine...
January 24, 200521 yr Since this is a Twin related thread let me ask this question. A cub fan I know suggested the Cub would sell-out if they moved to the burbs & into a 50K stadium. I said no. I said you have to consider that if the Cub move out another MLB team is going to want to play in Wrigley. The Cubune would have to probably sell Wrigley to the ISFA in order to get approval for their new place. That would mean the new Wrigley occupant would rent the stadium from the ISFA. With that being the case I think it's a given Selig would approve the move. Which team would move to Wrigley? I say Twins. Cubs move to Schaumburg or Addison Twins move to Wrigley & the NL Sox stay at the Cell Pitts, & Milwaukee join the AL. Rays move into Rollerdome Royals join the ALW New Cub division is: STL, Cub, Twins, Astros, Cin New NYY division is: NYY, BOS, Pitts, Bal, Tor New Sox division is: Sox, Cle, Milw, Det, Rays New Oak division is: Oak, Sea, Tex, ANA, KCR 15 in AL, 15 in NL The Cub might never win a World Series again!
January 25, 200521 yr QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 24, 2005 -> 05:32 PM) 15 in AL, 15 in NL You can't have an odd number of teams in each division. One team would be left without an opponent for each series. Unless you had interleague play all year long...
January 25, 200521 yr You can't have an odd number of teams in each division. One team would be left without an opponent for each series. Unless you had interleague play all year long... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would actually help standardize the schedule doing away with the terrible two & 1 game series that exist now with these crazy off days. Every series would be a 3 gm series. Each team would play 54 series. Ex: Sox vs ALC: 4 teams, 7 series = 28 vs ALW: 5 teams, 2 series = 10 vs ALE : 5 teams, 2 series = 10 vs NL : 6 teams, 1 series = 6 Just over 1/2 of the series will be against division rivals. The way it should be. The Cubs would consume 2 of the 6 teams for the Sox. Throughout the year there would be 54 IL matchups. About 9 a month. That still allows 126 IL matchups during the exclusive play period in June.
January 25, 200521 yr QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 02:15 PM) It would actually help standardize the schedule doing away with the terrible two & 1 game series that exist now with these crazy off days. Every series would be a 3 gm series. Each team would play 54 series. Ex: Sox vs ALC: 4 teams, 7 series = 28 vs ALW: 5 teams, 2 series = 10 vs ALE : 5 teams, 2 series = 10 vs NL : 6 teams, 1 series = 6 Just over 1/2 of the series will be against division rivals. The way it should be. The Cubs would consume 2 of the 6 teams for the Sox. Throughout the year there would be 54 IL matchups. About 9 a month. That still allows 126 IL matchups during the exclusive play period in June. You kinda missed the point. Let me write it out for you. Here are some matchups I just threw together using the 15 AL teams you listed. NYY vs BOS Pitts vs Bal Tor vs Sox Cle vs Milw Det vs Rays Oak vs Sea Tex vs ANA KCR vs ??? Who are the Royals supposed to play? The NL team that doesn't have an opponent??? You have to have an even number of teams in each league or else you will have this situation every single day...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.