We believe it was Matt Silverman that referred to Devil Rays as a “bottom-dwelling fish.” Somebody should show him this video so that he can better understand just how amazing these creatures are and how they still make a better sports mascot than sunlight.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
 
 

11 Comments

  1. stunna says:

    Soooo true

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. Gary says:

    Professor: Notice the name on the picture caption. (Manta). The thing the front office is trying to disassociate itself from is the word (DEVIL), not the animal. If they had only named them the Manta Rays or the Sting Rays from the beginning we wouldn't be talking about this.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Yes, I am aware that we are talking about two different species of Rays. But they are still Rays. And yes the team is moving away from the fish all-together.

      Matt Silverman: "We are no longer the bottom-dwelling fish."

      If the team was just moving away from the word "Devil" they could do that by changing the name to just "Rays," and not change anything else. They could just associate with Rays in general. Kinda like how the Tigers don't refer to a specific sub-species, or the Sharks dont refer to a specific species, or the Eagles or the Dolphins or the Cubs.

      But the team added the sunburst to the logo. Added a sunburst to the outfield turf. And started a side business called "Sunburst Entertainment." In the mind of this front office, the team is the Rays of Sunlight.

      The only things keeping this team associated with the fish at all are the patches on the sleeves (noticeably absent from the new powder blue alt), Raymond and the fish tank beyond the outfield fence. And the last two would be very difficult to switch to sunrays. And my guess is that they keep those things just to placate the fans that hate the idea of changing the team name.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  3. Alex says:

    I hate the sunburst as a main logo. I'm getting sick of this teams constant want to change. I'm just fine with the jerseys the way they are. I like the ray on the sleeve. The sunburst in the field is fine although a ray would look cooler. But a sunburst with light blue jerseys? Get that garbage out of here.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  4. stunna says:

    I also find it ironic that the team is so obsessed with sunlight, yet we play in a dome.....

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  5. Alex says:

    Would making the trops roof retractable be an option? I mean of course if they can find a place near by to make a new stadium then by all means go ahead and do it. But if getting a new stadium doesn't come about has the retractable roof for the trop idea ever been thrown around?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Alex says:

      I've haven't seen a $ amount set to this idea so if it would be expensive ($100 million or more) then just ignore my post

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • It didn't get a lot of media attention, but the Rays did have an architectural firm look at this about a year ago. Turns out it would cost almost as much as a new stadium. I think the number was around $400million. I think the problem is the main structure of the Trop is not designed to support a retractable roof, so it would need a ton renovations.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      • MJ says:

        I wonder if and how much that figure was inflated due to coaxing by the Rays to prove a retractable roof wasn't a viable option.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • Beth says:

          MJ, I don't want to jar your cynicism...but it is often much more expensive to retrofit an existing structure than to build a new one. And the engineering involved in a retractable roof is very complicated. So these figures don't surprise. I'm more interested in why the initial planners of the Trop didn't incorporate a retractable roof from the first.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  6. Alex says:

    I see. Very well then. Nothing to see here.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leave a Comment