I'm sure there's a logic to Raf's suggestion. Now I'm curious what it is. Are New Yorkers not 'yankees'? I grew up in Connecticut and we were certainly 'yankees' there.
But while we're at it, the Dodgers should have changed names when they left Brooklyn. The Red Sox don't wear red socks. The Indians and Braves have image problems by name alone, and just add to them with the grinning Indian, and the tomahawk chop. The Houston Astros are no longer in the astrodome.The Angels aren't in Los Angeles, but say they are, which bothers many, but didn't seem to be an issue when the Los Angeles Rams played in Anaheim.
Maybe once they were around the civil war.. If they want to modernize the team maybe they should be called The Japanese Korean Latino Californian Southern Boys of New York...
All's I'm saying is, if they're going to leave Yankee Stadium, they ought not take the team name with them. It won't be the same. It's like Laverne and Shirley moving to California. It wasn't the same show anymore.
Put the Yankee name in a museum on 161st and River Ave. and call your new team in a new stadium whatever you want, but the moment you pull them out of that Stadium, they just ain't the Yankees no more.
By that logic Raf, almost every team in baseball should have changed their name , since almost every team has built new stadiums.
Are there any Giants on the Giants? Any tigers on the Tigers? Any mariners on the Mariners?
Any padres ob the Padres? Any Indians on the Indians? Any pirates on the Pirates? Any twins on the Twins? Rangers on the Rangers? Brewers on the Brewers?
For that matter, how many athletes that play on any team ,in any city come from that city?
An interesting concept would be for all teams to draft and play only citizens of their own area. That would be intersting.
There's just something about Yankee Stadium. I mean, really, the White Sox can play anywhere. Same with the Rangers. But take the Astros out of the Astrodome? Sacrilege! Yankees out of Yankee Stadium? Heresy! Mets out of last place? Inconceivable!
I agree that there is something about Yankee Stadium, but really, alot of that 'something' was lost when the joint was renovated in the 70's. The biggest loss being the distinctive frieze that ran around the roof, and is now a concrete 'reminder' in center field. One can only hope the new park corrects that error.
Still it is Yankee Stadium, and the shadows of the Babe, Gehrig, Dimaggio, Mantle, are still there. In a way, that's the Yankees greatest 'curse', forever having to contend with their own ghosts.
In a way, that's the Yankees greatest 'curse', forever having to contend with their own ghosts.
Maybe---Even though it is not really Yankee Stadium anymore and hasnt been since the 70's, there is an aura inside old ballparks that I suppose could be counted as a curse, but to many (me included) it adds in some immeasurable but real way to the enjoyment of the game.
I cant explain it or put my finger on it, maybe it is history or 'ghosts' or the collective experiences and memories that have accumulated in a place--- I don't know ---but no matter how good the games have been in the slicker and steriler new ball parks they have have never captured quite the overall feel for me that you get in old parks.
but then again I am historic preservationist so I am biased toward things that already contain some history....
I agree with you MStar, and find that the current run of 'retro' parks are beginning to have a 'sameness ' about them, (tho not the horrid sameness of the astro turfed bowls of the 70's)
My only contention is that the re furbished Yankee Stadium was not well conceived at the time, and I was disappointed from the first day it opened. I'm not really in favor of a new stadium tho, as it's still basically the same place.
In the old days, the 3 main monuments were in center field , in the field of play, and there was nothing like watching a 450 ft blast land back at the monuments and Mickey mantle chasing a ball behind them.
Given the Mick's usual luck, I'm surprised he never ran into them chasing down a fly, tho field heroics were not mantle's stock in trade, and I'm sure he knew when he was dangerously near.
As far as preserving stadiums, I've come to love Dodger Stadium for it's ambience, history, and pure ballpark enjoyment, but the new owner has done everything possible to ruin the place short of tearing it down. You can't escape the ads no matter where you look, and the team is a joke.
Yet the Dodgers draw almost 50 thousand a game-my thinking is that they could throw cub scouts on the field and they would still draw as well, simply because the Dodger Stadium experience is intoxicating. It's not the best park in baseball, but it's habit forming.
Yea its like Fenway-people come from all over the world to see Fenway regardless of who is playing-they have for years--this year because of the championship you have to rob Fort Knox to even get near a game-every game has been sold out for a few years. Fenway itselfis an attraction much like an old cathedral.
There is something contained in the atmosphere that is unmistakable and very personal...I am glad that the new RedSox owners understand this, have taken it into account and although there is more advertising than there used to be, the overall feel (****ty cramped seats and all)still ties remarkably well into the history.
There was a movement about 5 -10 years ago to build a 'new' Fenway Park that thankfully died when the new owners bought in--they were smart enough to realize what they have.
It was interesting to me that the day Steinbrenner announced his new stadium, the Red Sox also announced they planned to be playing at Fenway for 'generations to come', which again pointed out (to me at least) the difference between the Yankee/RedSox mindsets.
Old stadiums and owners who understand fans
subtler concerns are very good for the game imo--unfortunately there is just not quite enough of them right now---hopefully that may change ....
...thanks for reminding me of the monuments--when i was a kid I used to think people were actually buried way out there (about a mile and a half into centerfield)...its little things like that are absolutely irreplaceable in tying baseball and place into memory...
Im not exactly up on all the nuances of 'Landmark' status, but I am pretty sure if they get it, that first it will never see the horrors that have happened to some of the older parks -renovations will be tightly controlled and have to be historically sensitive , and second-it may well be with us forever, i dont think that it can ever be torn down
Fenway can be a landmark, but that doesn't mean it will always be where the Sox play. I'm not anticipating any move, though, which is just fine.
The old Fenway green monster was covered with ads. They could conceivably do that again and still be 'historically sensitive'. And who would control the renovations? If it's a landmark won't they have to go through a government committee?
Yea, I am guessing the National Trust of Historic Preservation. I have worked with them-they are sticklers-and sometimes a real pain-but they are good..very good ...I am aware that someday (hopefully no time soon) the Red Sox may have to move, in which case Fenway would probably become a museum or something like that...
I told you that I like these owners, they know what they have and this move will preserve it well beyond their lifetimes as at the very least a small segment of American history that one day can be remembered.
Recommended Posts
mstar1
I've never liked the place but (as i said in the baseball thread) it doesn't seem right to me that it is coming down...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
They should change the name of the team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I'm sure there's a logic to Raf's suggestion. Now I'm curious what it is. Are New Yorkers not 'yankees'? I grew up in Connecticut and we were certainly 'yankees' there.
But while we're at it, the Dodgers should have changed names when they left Brooklyn. The Red Sox don't wear red socks. The Indians and Braves have image problems by name alone, and just add to them with the grinning Indian, and the tomahawk chop. The Houston Astros are no longer in the astrodome.The Angels aren't in Los Angeles, but say they are, which bothers many, but didn't seem to be an issue when the Los Angeles Rams played in Anaheim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Me too
and just as an aside the Red Sox wore red socks for the first time (that i recall anyway) last year--it worked...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Maybe once they were around the civil war.. If they want to modernize the team maybe they should be called The Japanese Korean Latino Californian Southern Boys of New York...
Are there any actually yankees on the Yankees?
Even Steinbrenner is from Florida isn't he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
All's I'm saying is, if they're going to leave Yankee Stadium, they ought not take the team name with them. It won't be the same. It's like Laverne and Shirley moving to California. It wasn't the same show anymore.
Put the Yankee name in a museum on 161st and River Ave. and call your new team in a new stadium whatever you want, but the moment you pull them out of that Stadium, they just ain't the Yankees no more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Since Mickey's gone, there can be no passing of the Mantle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
By that logic Raf, almost every team in baseball should have changed their name , since almost every team has built new stadiums.
Are there any Giants on the Giants? Any tigers on the Tigers? Any mariners on the Mariners?
Any padres ob the Padres? Any Indians on the Indians? Any pirates on the Pirates? Any twins on the Twins? Rangers on the Rangers? Brewers on the Brewers?
For that matter, how many athletes that play on any team ,in any city come from that city?
An interesting concept would be for all teams to draft and play only citizens of their own area. That would be intersting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
only those aided by steroids
I actually thought it was that way until the time I was 9 or so,--if it ever goes that way my money will be on the Dominican team----
although a game between actual Brewers and actual Pirates could be entertaining...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I noticed there's a basketball team called the Boston Celtics. I also noticed that not very many of them look Celtic.
Maybe it's just the owners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
The fighting Irish of Notre Dame have been looking conspicuously non Irish to my eyes lately too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
All I can say, is that if there were no New York Yankees...there would be no baseball.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hiway,
There's just something about Yankee Stadium. I mean, really, the White Sox can play anywhere. Same with the Rangers. But take the Astros out of the Astrodome? Sacrilege! Yankees out of Yankee Stadium? Heresy! Mets out of last place? Inconceivable!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
what does a celtic look like?
I wish they would've put a roof on The Ballpark in Arlington... then maybe some good pitchers would want to come pitch here...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Shouldn't they rename that place "The Oven at Arlington"?, any team goes in there it seems it takes them a week to get back to normal...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I agree that there is something about Yankee Stadium, but really, alot of that 'something' was lost when the joint was renovated in the 70's. The biggest loss being the distinctive frieze that ran around the roof, and is now a concrete 'reminder' in center field. One can only hope the new park corrects that error.
Still it is Yankee Stadium, and the shadows of the Babe, Gehrig, Dimaggio, Mantle, are still there. In a way, that's the Yankees greatest 'curse', forever having to contend with their own ghosts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Maybe---Even though it is not really Yankee Stadium anymore and hasnt been since the 70's, there is an aura inside old ballparks that I suppose could be counted as a curse, but to many (me included) it adds in some immeasurable but real way to the enjoyment of the game.
I cant explain it or put my finger on it, maybe it is history or 'ghosts' or the collective experiences and memories that have accumulated in a place--- I don't know ---but no matter how good the games have been in the slicker and steriler new ball parks they have have never captured quite the overall feel for me that you get in old parks.
but then again I am historic preservationist so I am biased toward things that already contain some history....
wish I could have seen Ebbets
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I agree with you MStar, and find that the current run of 'retro' parks are beginning to have a 'sameness ' about them, (tho not the horrid sameness of the astro turfed bowls of the 70's)
My only contention is that the re furbished Yankee Stadium was not well conceived at the time, and I was disappointed from the first day it opened. I'm not really in favor of a new stadium tho, as it's still basically the same place.
In the old days, the 3 main monuments were in center field , in the field of play, and there was nothing like watching a 450 ft blast land back at the monuments and Mickey mantle chasing a ball behind them.
Given the Mick's usual luck, I'm surprised he never ran into them chasing down a fly, tho field heroics were not mantle's stock in trade, and I'm sure he knew when he was dangerously near.
As far as preserving stadiums, I've come to love Dodger Stadium for it's ambience, history, and pure ballpark enjoyment, but the new owner has done everything possible to ruin the place short of tearing it down. You can't escape the ads no matter where you look, and the team is a joke.
Yet the Dodgers draw almost 50 thousand a game-my thinking is that they could throw cub scouts on the field and they would still draw as well, simply because the Dodger Stadium experience is intoxicating. It's not the best park in baseball, but it's habit forming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Yea its like Fenway-people come from all over the world to see Fenway regardless of who is playing-they have for years--this year because of the championship you have to rob Fort Knox to even get near a game-every game has been sold out for a few years. Fenway itselfis an attraction much like an old cathedral.
There is something contained in the atmosphere that is unmistakable and very personal...I am glad that the new RedSox owners understand this, have taken it into account and although there is more advertising than there used to be, the overall feel (****ty cramped seats and all)still ties remarkably well into the history.
There was a movement about 5 -10 years ago to build a 'new' Fenway Park that thankfully died when the new owners bought in--they were smart enough to realize what they have.
It was interesting to me that the day Steinbrenner announced his new stadium, the Red Sox also announced they planned to be playing at Fenway for 'generations to come', which again pointed out (to me at least) the difference between the Yankee/RedSox mindsets.
Old stadiums and owners who understand fans
subtler concerns are very good for the game imo--unfortunately there is just not quite enough of them right now---hopefully that may change ....
...thanks for reminding me of the monuments--when i was a kid I used to think people were actually buried way out there (about a mile and a half into centerfield)...its little things like that are absolutely irreplaceable in tying baseball and place into memory...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Meanwhile:
Red Sox seek Landmark status for Fenway Park
Im not exactly up on all the nuances of 'Landmark' status, but I am pretty sure if they get it, that first it will never see the horrors that have happened to some of the older parks -renovations will be tightly controlled and have to be historically sensitive , and second-it may well be with us forever, i dont think that it can ever be torn down
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
Fenway can be a landmark, but that doesn't mean it will always be where the Sox play. I'm not anticipating any move, though, which is just fine.
The old Fenway green monster was covered with ads. They could conceivably do that again and still be 'historically sensitive'. And who would control the renovations? If it's a landmark won't they have to go through a government committee?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Yea, I am guessing the National Trust of Historic Preservation. I have worked with them-they are sticklers-and sometimes a real pain-but they are good..very good ...I am aware that someday (hopefully no time soon) the Red Sox may have to move, in which case Fenway would probably become a museum or something like that...
I told you that I like these owners, they know what they have and this move will preserve it well beyond their lifetimes as at the very least a small segment of American history that one day can be remembered.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.