For Better Or Worse

Matt, this is, without a doubt, the BEST post you have ever written. Not because you simply share my opinions (but not all of them), but because you write it so easily and professionally. That, and you're entirely correct. It's not about the colors, or the logos, or the merchandise--it's about preserving the identity of this team.

Overhauling everything MIGHT be acceptable if the team's history is nothing but frustrating losing (see next year's Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays), but fortunately for this city it has been the opposite. We won, won, and won it all. The World Series was not the only memory/record... there were so many... even the smartest Diamondbacks fan could not remember every great thing this city has seen.

You're correct it's not the colors or the uniforms (red uniforms rarely look ugly), but it's simply the motivations behind them. The F.O. cats want to do away with the amazing history and tradition of this team.

I will be at the game. I will wear purple. I will resist. Because even unlikely, history has shown resistance is indeed, not futile.

I almost agree with bigger unit--this is a marvelous piece. I still think "Touched by Greatness" was better, though. Nevertheless, you make a powerful and compelling argument. Hope somebody listens. Doubt that they will.

Michael Norton - Some Ballyard

http://mlblog.someballyard.com

In this piece, while passionate and clearly heart-felt, you're badly confusing "heritage" with jersey color. Does the change wipe out the World Series win? No. Does it negates the Big Unit's perfect game? No. Will it erase the 111-loss season in 2004? Sadly, no. Does it, in actual fact, change any memories - good or bad - of the franchise since it started? Because that's really what "heritage" is about, not the colors that dot your wardrobe: or if it is, that seems a very strange concept of fandom to me.

Heritage and tradition, similarly, are born far more of people and their actions than anything else. Quick: what color shirt was Hank Aaron wearing when he broke Babe Ruth's record? When Bobby Thompson hit the shot heard round the world, was he wearing a home or road jersey? Don't know? That's because it just isn't important: it's not what people remember, and I am prepared to guarantee you that, when the D-backs make the World Series (be that this September or one down the road), that's what people will remember. And a whole new series of memories will be ADDED to the 'heritage and tradition' of the franchise.

The purple was a mistake - the utterly unwearable purple wind-cheater I have stashed at the back of my wardrobe proves beyond a doubt! :-) The new owners have shown themselves willing to admit mistakes and act to correct them (see: Russ Ortiz) - rather than continuing to deny their existence, thereby compounding them. Now, you may or may not agree with their opinion, but surely it's better to select new colors now; what would you be saying if we had 20, 30 or 40 years of "tradition or heritage" in those colors, rather than less than ten?

I'll counter your list with one of my own:

* Wearing red is not rejecting the past.

* Wearing red indicates loyalty to the CURRENT organization, over those who sunk it deep into debt or abandoned it.

* Wearing red does not make you a corporate drone.

* Wearing red makes one no less a fan of the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Whether you wear purple or red on Opening Day really does make a statement. And that statement is, do you want to move forward with the franchise, and look to the future, or would you rather remain locked in the past, pining for the days of $250m in deferred salaries? Seems pretty much a no-brainer to me...

Jim - AZSnakePit.com

Jim--
Although I can pick out many things to debate in your response, I will only respond to the debt.

Maybe you can explain how a temporary color/uniform change is the answer for paying debt rather than NOT throwing $150 mil at Troy Glaus, Russ Ortiz, Shawn Green, Javier Vazquez, Randy Johnson (2007-08) and Doug Davis? I guess THAT money was well spent?

All the wailing and teeth gnashing. You think they canceled Matlock or something. Oy! - and the sappy pretentiousness worthy of the most cliched baseball movies. Who else heard James Earl Jones intoning the final sentences?

"Purple isn't the color of an owner."

Unless its Colangelo.

"For better or worse, in this town, it's the color of a team."

The Suns.

"And turquoise and copper the colors of a dream. The colors of our shared history that brings us together.

In this town, the colors of baseball."

Puh-leeze.

Coyotes fans had to deal with it. New ownership group meant some changes. They, like the Diamondbacks had no real history or tradition (other than that of the Jets) so while there was a vocal minority ******** and moaning everyone survived the makeover. I don't really care if the D-Backs won a World Series. Great achievement, but it didn't automatically make the D-Backs some kind of tradition woven into the psyche of the Valley. It was an event. And the 'fans' so full of tradition and history couldn't jump ship fast enough a couple of years later.

Denver fans got over it when the Broncos 'adjusted' their colors and changed their logo. Updated it for more of the Nike aesthetic. You know - the corporate branding some focus group suggested we'd all prefer. Well, we would if we knew any better. Focus groups don't lie. Despite the hue and cry from the faithful around the COUNTRY - Broncos actually had a significant history, you see - the city and the team and the fans survived the blatant money grab. And while most of us still prefer the big Donkey D and the resplendent Tangy orange that's now missing - we win because we get the extra 'kewl' cachet by wearing the retro garb.

I have more of a problem with the bp hats and jerseys and the alternate road and home jerseys as much as some silly color change. Of course it's all about the money - and it always has been.

Even when Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were around.

I just don't understand why people have trouble grasping baseball isn't anything BUT a gi-normous business. Nobody howls with righteous fury when any other corporation changes it's 'branding'. But we somehow pretend our patronage of the sport gives us privileges and rights and a 'bond' with the team in a way we'd never pretend our consumption of Big Macs indebts a McDonald's franchise to us.

Look, I get it. Nobody likes change. It's how us humans are wired. That being said, I bet this wannabe storm fades to a gentle breeze by June. Especially if the kids are winning. Winning cures everthing. Ask the Buffalo Sabres*....

IMO, purple always ****** and I am **** glad to see it go. It's NOT a color of the southwest. It was the 'new black' at the time the D-Backs came into being. Trendy. Hip. Ugh. Oh, and it just so happened to be worn by the real top dog in town - the Suns.

P.S. Nice color scheme on the blog. MLB make you do it?

P.P.S. If and when they get rid of that godawful pool in Chase Field - will we be lamenting the loss of that piece of D-Backs history and heritage as well?

In all fairness and seriousness I've spent a few days reading through the archives and must let you know I understand and appreciate your pessimistic and sardonic musings. They DO resonate with me - because that is typically how I filter things. I guess in this context (baseball) I have some trouble with it because as bad as it might get - the sport always overshadows the sideshow around it. And I'm resigned that we'll never be rid of the sideshow and corporate identity of the sport we love. I also, in my advancing years, am wise enough to recognize it has always been with us in all sport. Just materialized in different ways across the decades. Just think back to the utter abomination the parks of the 70's were. Domes and multi-purpose stadiums built solely to maximize revenue. And so on.

Anyway - keep up the passion - fight the good fight and all that. Don't mind me dropping in now and again to tweak your beak. I've nothing better to do from my mother's basement....

Ignore at your leisure.

Hey Jim,

Your first two paragraphs assure us colors are inconsequential, then when it suits your ends, you inform us what kind of important, symbolic statements colors make. This is the kind of willful obfuscation I expect from diamondbacks.com, not from a "neutral" blogger ;-)

"Wearing red indicates loyalty to the CURRENT organization, over those who sunk it deep into debt or abandoned it."

Other than the abandonment part, I totally agree with this. Red absolutely indicates loyalty to the CURRENT organization, and that's the problem. My default position on team loyalty isnt fealty to the PREVIOUS organization or the CURRENT organization - it's to THE franchise; and I resent the way the new group has forced fans to choose not just one COLOR over another, but one OWNERSHIP GROUP over another. They forced that disconnect, not me and, despite his errors, not Jerry Colangelo.

I'm not saying Jerry shouldn't have been replaced, but that kind of ownership squabble is commonplace and should, in my view, be kept as private as possible for the sake of the franchise. Instead, the new guys have gone way, way out of their way to create two very distinct histories, two births if you will, instead of, as you claim, merely "adding" onto the existing one. Well, except when they clearly screw things up themselves(ie Backman, 2005 debacle, declining attendance), at which point, they reflexively and publicly blame Colangelo at the drop of a hat.

The failures and successes of this franchise are shared across ownership groups and will be for a while due to draft picks, etc. and both groups have made plenty of mistakes. But you'd never know that listening to Jeff Moorad or Ken Kendrick or Derrick Hall. They are, after all, the dream team.

I also think we see the club's early success differently. While Jerry's spending was certainly not sustainable and has limited options somewhat, I sense you see our early success more harshly, more as a fraud, and I think that's a reason why you're more willing to dismiss anything associated with it. I see Colangelo more as a gambler than a fraud, who acheived legitimate success, albeit with some nasty costs. As a fan, I'm delighted with his cost benefit analysis(are you?), even though I certainly understand why investors like Kendrick were not.

Back to the colors. I know what colors Hank Aaron and Bobby Thomson(there's no p in thomson, btw) were wearing, in addition to a whole bunch of other stuff about their homers that, as you rightly point out, make up the entire "heritage" of those moments.

And so does Brandon Webb. Not sure if you saw today's taped segment, but even Brandon knows the color of the home run televison graphic that briefly flashed on the TV screen after Henry's 715th. I know the exact minute of the day Aaron hit the ball because I had a poster in my bedroom for several years commemorating the event. If stuff like that is silly, or inconsequential to you, that's fine, but these tidbits and symbolic references to the game's past are terribly important to some of us.

Your last paragraph, linking the wearing of purple to not "moving forward" and exalting debt sounds eerily like front office talking points. So, if I wear a purple shirt, I get to root for Colangelo's guys(Webb, Drew, Quentin, etc) and you get to root for Chris Young and Randy Johnson? See how silly that sounds?

What are you loyal to exactly? Even though I'm hardly enamored with some of the new owner's plans, my loyalty remains with the hometown team - the guys on the field. Regardless of ownership, I like to see the home team do well.

But your primary loyalty seems to be towards CURRENT ownership, so much so that you eagerly and passionately discredit the past, as if doing so further justifies your current allegiance.

Thanks for stopping by.

cav,

I couldnt afford J Earl Jones on the audio version, so you were actually listening to F Murray Abraham intone the final paragraph.

"Coyotes fans had to deal with it."

So.

"New ownership group meant some changes."

OK by me - getting the debt down was a great start.

"..the Diamondbacks had no real history or tradition"

I'm confused.

"I don't really care if the D-Backs won a World Series"

Thanks for clearing that up - now it makes perfect sense.

"But we somehow pretend our patronage of the sport gives us privileges and rights and a 'bond' with the team in a way we'd never pretend our consumption of Big Macs indebts a McDonald's franchise to us."

Well, for one thing,construction of McDonalds restaurants isnt financed by a regressive sales tax - baseball franchises are financed and promoted as quasipublic concerns, and in that sense, have a moral responsibility to serve the public.

"Look, I get it. Nobody likes change."

cav, i eat change for breakfast. I like some of the changes new ownership has made. Its this PARTICULAR change I object to.

"I bet this wannabe storm fades to a gentle breeze by June. Especially if the kids are winning."

Gosh, probably well before June. How can my righteous indignation possibly combat 45000 free t shirts on opening day, and mlb.com's PR juggernaut? It's just principle at this point.

"Winning cures everthing"

It didnt cure Colangelo's debt, but I understand your point :-)

"IMO, purple always ******..."

I agree purple was a trendy color, but it took on special status as an original.

If the Phoenix franchise was founded by the guy who invented Pink Lemonade, and the team wore pink, when the new owners came in ten years later, I would fight like he11 to keep pink on the uniform - somewhere. On the piping, in the highlights - somewhere. It's just a respect thing.

"Nice color scheme on the blog. MLB make you do it?"

Gee, thanks ;-) I love my new color scheme and my Manny Ramirez posts will be updating shortly.

"If and when they get rid of that godawful pool in Chase Field - will we be lamenting the loss of that piece of D-Backs history and heritage as well?"

Haven't really thought about it. I guess it depends on what they replace it with - and why. I'll be really ticked if they ever get rid of the dirt path between the mound and the plate though - because it STANDS for something. I feel that way about the uniforms.

"I...am wise enough to recognize it[money, sideshow etc] has always been with us in all sport. Just materialized in different ways across the decades."

Agree, but no sense fighting 1970's battles today, is there?

"Anyway - keep up the passion - fight the good fight and all that"

Thanks. I appreciate your insights and humor.

as an englishman and therefore a follower of Gods winter game (soccer as you call it)the debate about team jerseys is well worn (sorry about the pun!)soccer teams change their team shirts at least every 2 years-maybe not the colours but things like sleeve design or markings so i can't get too excited about a change of colour for the d-backs and i actually prefer the red-I look forward to the reaction when the d-backs start putting sponsors names on their shirts!

"I look forward to the reaction when the d-backs start putting sponsors names on their shirts!"

Great comment, Russell!

The reaction here will be predictable, as will that of the bleaters:

"Baseball is a business. What are you gonna do?"

"The orange "Circle K" across the jerseys doesnt undermine our team, or the sport's, tradition in any way. It ADDS to it."

"I dont care what they wear, therefore nobody else should either"

"The name "Diamondbacks" was so out of date and uncool - you could barely say it without getting tongue tied - I'm so glad they changed it to something fresh and exciting - like Circle K."

"Why are people fussing over the change from Diamondbacks to the "Circle K's"? Didn't the "Diamondbacks" lose, like a lot of money? Circle K "makes" money. Dont we want to be associated with a finacially responsible team like that?"

Thanks for stopping by.

Just a quick comment - more when I get a chance (currently scheduled for October 2009...). You may be interested to know that in Japan, the teams are ALREADY named for the businesses that own them: Andy Green plays for the 'Nippon Ham' Fighters, for example. But do you think that makes Japanese baseball less of a game, or the fans there any less "true"?

"I'll be really ticked if they ever get rid of the dirt path between the mound and the plate though - because it STANDS for something. I feel that way about the uniforms."

I'd be curious to know what it stands for.

IMO it 'stands for' a very clever ownership group that looked around and saw NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING about their building that tapped into that oversold, now completely trite idea of baseball as a connection to better, simpler times.

It tapped the vein of the 'homage to the nostalgic parks of yore' wave that rippled through MLB at the time. While the roof was neato - it was way too futuristic to resonate with anything Field of Dreams taught us about baseball.

To me, the path is especially galling. The juxtaposition of the path and the rest of the completely hideous and thoroughly modern Air Force base hangar surroundings masquerading as a ballpark only underscores how completely devoid of 'baseball charm' (real or imagined) the place really is.

------

There is a very subjective quality to determining what is worthy of hanging onto or commemorating as tradition or heritage. AND how to do so. In my mind, the uproar over the color change is more a reaction to change itself than anything else. But, I'm more than willing to admit I might be misguided. While I believe it amounts to a tempest in a teapot (most don't care or seem to favor the new duds) - for those that have a strong emotional connection to the team and the color purple I understand some of the consternation. As I alluded in my original response, I went through a bit of the same with my Denver Broncos.

Guess it makes sense in this day and age we'd be more worried about the colors sported than the team itself. After all, as the sage of our times Jerry Seinfeld pointed out (and I paraphrase): we are rooting for laundry.

Cheerio.

"But do you think that [corp names on jerseys,etc] makes Japanese baseball less of a game, or the fans there any less "true"?

No, Jim, but I and most Americans would feel degraded paying to root for an MLB team who's players' unis reflected back an ad for Datatel instead of a team or place name that reflects the very real role that a community's fans play in the financial success of a franchise.

One of my little league teams had an oil company name across the jersey, and that's fine because they subsidized the uniforms. Unlike my Little League, MLB franchises(uniforms, players, stadiums,etc) are paid for by a complex mixture of fan, public(ie tax) and private/corp funding.

I cant speak to Japan, but if Chase Bank, for example, actually built the stadium instead of sticking their decal on it, and charged us all $7 to watch "their" team, operating like a non-profit, I wouldn't have a problem rooting on the Jefferson Street "Chasers".

But as it is, you and I(well, mostly you ;-) are the ones keeping this franchise solvent - not US Air or Circle K. That's a myth. Their importance, relative to the fans, is already grossly overstated at Chase Field.

Enjoy tonight's game. It's your team. You paid for it.

"There is a very subjective quality to determining what is worthy of hanging onto or commemorating as tradition or heritage. AND how to do so."

Cav, absolutely. That subjective judgement will differ between Phoenix and Boston or NY. PHX fans dont care as much about this sort of thing, and I understand why.

What I'm more arguing is that traditions need to start somewhere, and the seminal, defining event of this franchise, IMO, was not 2007, or even 2001, but in terms of colors and such, ought to be 1998. The Broncos, as far as I can tell, respect that notion of originality. I still see orange and blue on their helmet, despite a significant logo overhaul. It's not like the Broncos are green and purple, with orange unceremoniously eliminated.

There's a big difference here. The Dbacks had myriad choices before them, probably similar to the Broncos. They could've downgraded purple from the primary hue to a highlight. They could've upgraded copper for all sorts of dramatic, fresh jersey looks. They even could've ADDED a new color and dissent would've been muted. I dont object to adding to the team's colors, but I object to eliminating the existing spectrum, when so many reasonable choices were there to avoid that. The dream team rejected ALL those options, citing a need to vibrantly reflect their new era, but what they seem equally intent on is eliminating the old one in the process - at least symbolically.

Go laundry!

"From that 1962 twin birth, the Astros won more games and had more playoff appearances than the Mets, who stuck with less than fashionable orange and cobalt blue - through good times and bad."

Hey Matt, I'm a bit surprised, all the talk about heritage and tradition...the reason the Mets went with those colors was to honor the teams that deserted NY a few years earlier...of course, we also know who the pinstripes honor...totally agree with you on keeping even a little purple...cj

hi cj,

"the reason the Mets went with those colors was to honor the teams that deserted NY a few years earlier"

good point. the mets are a bit of a special case, arent they? They still honored tradition - even if it wasnt their own! It was the city's tradition they honored and I think that's plenty cool. In time, their "adopted" look became a unique style in it's own right.

It's a long thread - thx for reading :-)

Matt,

I disagree with you on this topic. There are plenty of teams that change their look and continue to win. Here's a short list of some teams that have changed their uniforms and are better off for it. (Forgive me if I miss a few.)

Anaheim Angels,

Milwaukee Brewers,

Seattle Mariners,

San Diego Padres

The Angels do it all the time, and I think they have finally settled on one that will last.

I'm also a hocket fan, and the Coyotes were successful in their uniform change. My L.A. Kings have overhauled their look twice, yet none of the fans have forgotten their heritage. In fact, the 5 jerseys they have retired are all from different eras. It's a nice reminder. At the same time Kings fans have embraced the new uniforms. You should do the same with the red D'backs unis.

The Diamondbacks' uniforms were terrible before, and I'm glad someone had the sense to change them. Do you realize how bad it looked when the D'Backs and Rockies met up? WAAAAY too much purple.

"I disagree with you on this topic."

That's cool. Thx for taking the time to read such a long thread and weighing in.

"There are plenty of teams that change their look and continue to win."

First, I've made no connection between uniforms and winning on the field. Note what I said about the Astros vs the Mets.

I've also made distinctions, several actually, between changing "a look" and what the Dbacks have done.

And I've never argued that changing colors is unprecedented; quite the opposite(see Astros), instead I've argued that the Dbacks changes were "unusual" and "wrong". You're countering that "plenty" of teams have taken this path.

Let's take a look at your control group of teams. My source is each team's wiki page, btw.

The Padres color changes have been more gradual than Arizona's, but I'll concede they've made basically one wholesale color change over 37 years, from a brown and yellow scheme to today's navy and sand with some orange trim.

The Angels have changed their "look" alot, but not really their colors. They're red with some blue.

Seattle went from a royal blue to a navy, and updated accent colors from teal to silver, but they're still a "blue" team.

And I'm surprised you mentioned the Brewers. Not only have they remained steady with blue forever, updating accents from yellow to white, they also honored their exact Seattle Pilots colors when they migrated to Milwaukee.

So, I'll concede the Astros and Padres have not shown much respect for their traditional colors, a la the Dbacks. That's not plenty, IMO, considering thirty teams, many which are far more tradion minded and respectful of colors than your control group.

I dont really follow hockey, but I'm guessing the situation is fairly similar there. You can point out a couple teams that make complete color overhauls, and I can dig up the majority of the teams that dont - and for the most part, those are the teams with the strongest identities and followings in the sport(Red Wings, Candadians, Rangers, etc). And to speak for ALL LA Kings fans (ie none have them have forgotten their heritage) is a big reach, altho I like your example up in the rafters :-)

"The Diamondbacks' uniforms were terrible before, and I'm glad someone had the sense to change them."

FWIW, I think your LA Kings uniforms look terrible, but I wouldn't presume to change them based on my personal aesthetic concerns.

"Do you realize how bad it looked when the D'Backs and Rockies met up?"

Yes. Roughly as bad as when Arizona now plays Washington, Cincinnati, Houston, Philly and a handful of AL teams :-)

As An Official ML Style Consultant, I really must point out a few things. First of all, dumping the colors, then painting over the wall featuring past glory, was Not A Good Thing. Don't mess with Tradition, even New Traditions.

As for the purple, turquoise, and copper combo, it was . ..well . .. kinda Castro, know what I mean? Not that there's anything wrong with that. But still . . a purple, turquoise and copper snake logo? Sounds like what people see when they are Chemically Imbalanced, know what I mean?

The "Sedona Red" is impossible to match with other reds, making your fan's lives miserable, I'm sure. Nothing worse than clashing. I should mention that I find the TV shots of the stands, with patches of S Red and Purple to be surprisingly wonderful, it works, somehow. Very festive.

Now, I am a Giants fan, always fly the colors at the game. It's ever so hard to match orange shades, you know. And there are always Twatwaffles who ask me if Halloween is early . ..but fact is, Tradition is, Giants used the orange/black combo long before Halloween was commercialized into a time of teaching children the importance of dressing up and demanding sweets from strangers. So I have to ignore the Philistines who Don't Get It, and fly my team's colors.

You D'back fans have my sympathy. I would really hate to have to come up with outfits using your team's palette.