Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: MLB Says "NO" to Nationals Tribute to Military

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The Peach State
    Posts
    671
    Blog Entries
    1

    MLB Says "NO" to Nationals Tribute to Military

    from ThePostGame via Yahoo! Sports:

    MLB's Controversial Decision To Stop Nats From Wearing Military Tribute Hats

    The Washington Nationals, who play their home games just down the street from the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, wanted to wear special hats with military insignias during their game with the Cincinnati Reds on Tuesday night. This was the Nats' first home game since 30 soldiers riding in a helicopter were killed in Afghanistan on August 6th. But Commissioner Bud Selig's top executives stopped it from happening.

    I have a pet peeve of players (and managers and coaches, I'm looking at you Terry Francona) wearing their uniforms properly. I know there is a rule about uniforms and such but special permission can be granted in certain cases.

    Didn't some of the Mets wear FDNY/ NYPD/ PAPD hats for the remainder of the 2001 season after September 11th despite being fined?


    I'm not sure what the deal is here.
    If I had only spent a tenth of the time studying Physics that I spent learning Star Wars and Baseball trivia, I would have won the Nobel Prize.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    me
    Posts
    4,636
    the FDNY/NYPD don't engage themselves in wars, just policing and putting out fires and the occasion grabbing a cat from a tree routine.

    I agree with the movement, why show support of a war we have no part in?

  3. #3
    Because whether we agree with the war or not, we should still support our troops. Our troops should never lose our support.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    me
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
    Because whether we agree with the war or not, we should still support our troops. Our troops should never lose our support.
    when has America ever been supportive of it's soldiers? ask Vietnam vets, who didn't CHOOSE to even go

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    5,773
    I agree with MLBs decision. I think they were probably looking at their Uniform policies and whatever contracts the Nationals have with their uniform suppliers.

    It seems to me that most of MLBs attempt to show so some patriotism fall flat and that this is no exception. I think that professional athletes wanting to wear military insignia trivializes rather than supports the troops.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
    Because whether we agree with the war or not, we should still support our troops.
    OK, but 1st tell me what that means. What does it mean to "support the troops"?


    Military hats are for the military, not for baseball players.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by doctor_gogol View Post
    OK, but 1st tell me what that means. What does it mean to "support the troops"?


    Military hats are for the military, not for baseball players.
    I would really hate to see those hats turn in MLB gift shops.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Round Lake Beach, Il
    Posts
    2,480
    If they cant wear those, why not just wear the Memorial Day/4th of July hats?
    "I don't like to sound egotistical, but every time I stepped up to the plate with a bat in my hands, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the pitcher."
    -Rogers Hornsby-

    "People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
    -Rogers Hornsby-

    Just a note to all the active members of BBF, I consider all of you the smartest baseball people I have ever communicated with and love everyday I am on here. Thank you all!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    2,221
    nevermind....
    Last edited by CandlestickBum; 08-20-2011 at 12:54 AM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Allie Fox View Post
    Didn't some of the Mets wear FDNY/ NYPD/ PAPD hats for the remainder of the 2001 season after September 11th despite being fined?

    Maybe.

    But that's just it... MLB can say "no" and it's up to the team and/or players to follow that decision. If they don't, they could expect penalties. They can still physically do it, just understand that there might be consequences.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackout View Post
    ask Vietnam vets, who didn't CHOOSE to even go
    Some did; some didn't. What makes you think the US had no military and everybody had to be drafted?

  12. #12
    I'm thinking that any alternative uniforms/caps/helmets would have to still be "official" MLB uniforms, which probably means they would still need to have some team identification and some some MLB logo incorporated into the articles of clothing. This would require a whole redesign of the retail available military caps. Even the Padres camouflage (mentioned in the article) incorporate Padres and MLB identification. They are unique to MLB.

    I also wonder if MLB would be wary about just 1 team sporting military caps. It could suggest to some people that the other teams did not support the military. It could be a PR thing.
    Last edited by dgarza; 08-20-2011 at 02:14 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    An hour from Cooperstown
    Posts
    8,090
    I think we all "support the troops", whether we agree with the war or not. But MLB teams wearing military hats is inevitably going to start political arguments, and I for one don't want them to go there. Baseball should be a politics-free zone. I would exempt the 2001 Mets from this, I completely support their decision to wear the FDNY hats after 9/11, but not this latest ploy. As Ed mentioned, they would probably sell the damned things online and in the gift shop.
    "Only twice in my life has the hair on the back of my neck stood up straight. The first time was when I saw Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel. The second time was when I saw Sandy Koufax's fastball" - Al Campanis.

  14. #14

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Imgran View Post
    <SNIP PICTURE>
    So Ingram, a reasonable person would then recogize that MLB is likely distinguishing the difference between regular, official alternate jerserys, and a one time "special tribute" caps. I would expect special tribute caps for Teachers, nurses, ER workers, cute kittens and pretty little ponies would also be turned down.

  16. #16
    Baseball would be wise to stay away from any kind of military uniform likenesses, logos, etc. There are many better ways to respect/honor our troops. This from a Vietnam vet.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The Peach State
    Posts
    671
    Blog Entries
    1
    Whoever it was that said "it trivializes" the contribution of the troops. . . was somewhat on point with how I feel about it. Especially if said caps, jerseys, etc. end up in gift shops. I feel similarly about the Jackie Robinson "42" uniforms. It just seems cheeky.

    Ironically I didn't feel the same with the Mets wearing the NY Public Service caps.
    If I had only spent a tenth of the time studying Physics that I spent learning Star Wars and Baseball trivia, I would have won the Nobel Prize.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    5,773
    The only example that I've ever seen of players wearing actual military insignia on their baseball uniforms was in 1945 when several returning veterans wore ruptured duck patches. According to Dressed to the Nines three Cubs and two Yankees wore these patches.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    me
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Some did; some didn't. What makes you think the US had no military and everybody had to be drafted?
    ever hear of draft dodgers

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Some did; some didn't. What makes you think the US had no military and everybody had to be drafted?
    You don't know your history. The Marines were forced, against their better judgement to take draftees during this period. The majority of combat troops were draftees. The smart ones joined the Coast Guard, Navy, Air Force or if they could, could volunteer for the Army with a MOS and assignment that assured no line combat. Very few other than officer candidates volunteered during this period.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    5,773
    About 25% of the American forces in Vietnam were draftees.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Rockland County, NY
    Posts
    12,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    It's bad enough that we have to sit throught God Bless America at every game. I dont ever want to see ballplayers in military uniforms. Baseball, religion, politics. Three things that should never mix.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    About 25% of the American forces in Vietnam were draftees.
    And about 15-20% of American forces are combat troops. Filling up the rest, you got your Navy, Air Force and all that support structure who in the main are specialists of one type or another. US prefers to put it's untrained solders on the line. Still that way mostly. There were people volunteering for Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard for obvious reasons. And they upped their requirements as a result, they didn't take everyone. IIRC a draftee would do 2 years in the Army, to volunteer for the AF you enlisted for 4 and had to pass an aptitude test.

    That's why draftees were overrepresented in combat units.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackout View Post
    ever hear of draft dodgers
    I'm not going to be the one labeling draft dodgers as "vets". I'd guess they wouldn't either. You do as you please.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by CandlestickBum View Post
    And about 15-20% of American forces are combat troops. Filling up the rest, you got your Navy, Air Force and all that support structure who in the main are specialists of one type or another. US prefers to put it's untrained solders on the line. Still that way mostly. There were people volunteering for Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard for obvious reasons. And they upped their requirements as a result, they didn't take everyone. IIRC a draftee would do 2 years in the Army, to volunteer for the AF you enlisted for 4 and had to pass an aptitude test.

    That's why draftees were overrepresented in combat units.
    I don't care what branch a person served in, they are still all veterans. Some were volunteers and some were not. It was not all one way or the other. It was a mix. You can argue what percentages that mix was, but it was still a healthy mix. That's all my point was.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •