It takes a pretty naive and/or trusting person to listen to everything A-Rod has to say about Biogenesis, PEDs and all of that and conclude that he doesn’t lie and mislead about those things sometimes. Or often, actually. I mean, even defenders of the guy like me wouldn’t bet breakfast on A-Rod being truthful about this stuff. Even if you think that his punishment (and the character judgments of others) don’t fit his crimes, he’s just got too much baggage to be given anything close to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the veracity of any specific thing he says.
But in case you were one of those people who are inclined to believe what Alex Rodriguez says, the Star-Ledger has consulted with a “body language expert” and she says A-Rod is lying:
Alex Rodriguez lied during his interview with WFAN radio host Mike Francesa Wednesday, body language expert Susan Constantine told NJ.com . . . Constantine watched the interview, which was also broadcast on the YES Network. Rodriguez’s movements and evasive responses to some questions gave away what he was really thinking, the body language expert said.
I don’t know anything about body language science (if it is indeed a science). But I do feel like the least interesting thing about any of this drama is whether anything A-Rod is saying is the truth. The interesting thing is that he’s saying stuff at all, and the impact those things — truthful or otherwise — have on his future, the Yankees future and the future of Major League Baseball’s drug testing and enforcement system.
Everyone talks about getting rid of Chief Wahoo but nobody does anything about it.
Well, that’s not totally true. As we’ve noted, Major League Baseball and the Indians are slowly doing something about it. But the thing they’re doing — a slow phase-out of Wahoo, hopefully in a manner no one really notices — is likely going to anger just as many as it pleases. Such is the nature of a compromise. Such is the nature of trying to do the right thing but being afraid to state the reason why they’re doing it.
A bold move would be a lot more interesting. Not just getting rid of the logo, but totally rebranding the Indians in a cool and exciting way that would inspire people to buy in to the new team identity as opposed to merely lament or accept the abandonment of the old one. To that end, a man named Nick Kendall came up with a super fun and super great-looking redesign and rebranding of the Indians over the weekend.
Kendall, who is not really a big baseball fan but who has spent a lot of time thinking about uniforms and design, went back to 1871 and Cleveland’s first professional baseball team, the Forest Citys (yes, that’s how it was spelled). He took their logo — an interlocked F and C — and built an entire set of uniforms out of it and some aesthetic choices of his own. The new color scheme is a dark green and white. He even includes two alternate, solid-jersey designs. All of it is done in a great looking mockup. Really, go check it out and tell me that’s not cool.
I like it for a couple of reasons. Mostly because the uniforms just look fantastic. I love the design and would love to see a team with that kind of look in the game. We have too many reds and blues. Green is woefully underused in Major League Baseball and it’d be good to see some more green around.
Also, as Kendall notes, and as soccer shows us, the “[city] [mascot]” name construction isn’t the only way to approach team names, and so the name — Forest Citys, or some derivation of it — would be unique in baseball. Maybe it’s be “The Cleveland Forest Citys/Cities.” Maybe “Forest City B.C.” would be a way to go? Maybe, as so often happened with baseball teams in the past — the Indians included — the nickname could develop over time. It’s certainly preferable to the option a lot of people point to — The Cleveland Spiders — which (a) evokes the worst baseball team in history’ and (b) sounds like something a 1990s NBA marketing team would come up with.
If the Indians are going to get rid of Chief Wahoo — and they are — why not do something fun and new and exciting?