MLB Changes 2015

[BadSeed84]

While I like dofferent colored bills, not every team needs one, tigers didnt need one

[Gothamite]

Heck, the Tigers don't even need a road cap. When your home cap is that gorgeous, why would you ever wear anything else?

[IceCap]

And yes the PCL Padres were a different franchise, but they were still the San Diego Padres and still part of the legacy the Padres still claim to this day. They celebrated their 75th anniversary back in 2011 as part of that.

The Washington Nationals can claim to date back to 1905. That doesn't make it true.

The Washington Nationals don't "claim" anything. They acknowledge, and appreciate it. They wear the curly W because it's a part of DC baseball history. You're making his point.

I'm not talking about the curly W, which most definitely does not date back to 1905. I was talking about this logo...

...which clearly pairs a logo of the team that moved to DC in 2005 with an "Established 1905" banner. So I think I was pretty on-point when I said the Nationals "claim" to be founded in 1905. They had a logo that said as much. "Established" doesn't leave much wiggle room.

And my point is that it's as true as the Padres claiming they date back to 1936. As in not at all.

[mafiaman]

The Tigers basically wore that road hat for part of 1994 (besides the navy stitching on the brim) so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

First thing I pictured in my head when I saw that "new" Tigers hat...the worst uniforms in the worst era of Tigers baseball (on the right, not the left). No thank you!

[daveindc]

And yes the PCL Padres were a different franchise, but they were still the San Diego Padres and still part of the legacy the Padres still claim to this day. They celebrated their 75th anniversary back in 2011 as part of that.

The Washington Nationals can claim to date back to 1905. That doesn't make it true.

The Washington Nationals don't "claim" anything. They acknowledge, and appreciate it. They wear the curly W because it's a part of DC baseball history. You're making his point.

I'm not talking about the curly W, which most definitely does not date back to 1905. I was talking about this logo...

...which clearly pairs a logo of the team that moved to DC in 2005 with an "Established 1905" banner. So I think I was pretty on-point when I said the Nationals "claim" to be founded in 1905. They had a logo that said as much. "Established" doesn't leave much wiggle room.

And my point is that it's as true as the Padres claiming they date back to 1936. As in not at all.

lol Where did you dig that up? That "Established 1905" thing is not to be taken serious. They had a bunch of t-shirts with "Established 1905" that they were also selling. Everyone knows where the original DC franchises play now. It's no secret. Again, it's to acknowledge and celebrate DC baseball history, not "claim" anything. They wouldn't be celebrating this next year otherwise:

[Gothamite]

So I think I was pretty on-point when I said the Nationals "claim" to be founded in 1905. They had a logo that said as much. "Established" doesn't leave much wiggle room.

I think it's more fair to say that the Nationals once claimed the 1905 date. It was pretty stupid, a lot of people said so at the time, and I'm not aware of them ever repeating it beyond that logo in 2005.

[VandyDelphia Mike]

This was my favorite Padres set:

As much as I love the brown/yellow and brown/orange (but not all three at the same time), the blue and orange was a beautiful look. My major dislike of that uniform was the white "S" on the cap. It would have looked so much better with both letters orange. It always just looked "off" to me.

All that being said, the blue/orange was still similar to the Mets and the Tigers road colors. So uniqueness is a reason to return to brown.

Can't find if this has been brought up yet, but this was found in a Lids and is a supposed 2015 Tigers alternate road cap.

Could be a defect, could be legit. One of the guys in the group supposedly knows someone in the Tigers' front office that confirmed this is a new hat for 2015.

If the Tigers are going to insist on the white outlines on their road uniforms, then they need a white outline on the "D" on the cap, even if it's minimal.

Like this?

[BBTV]

That's actually worse because the colors are reversed between the Ds (not to mention that the Ds are different, but that's been covered ad nauseum.)

[BBTV]

If they have to have an alt, then I think the Tigers could pull off an orange alt with navy piping and a navy+white D (or just navy) on the chest. As long as it wasn't a bright orange. Then their navy cap or navy+orange brim cap would work well.

That or a navy with orange+white D. Either way, I'd like their alt to be buit around the D and not their horrible Detroit script (or their rarely used Tigers script.)

[Tigers6884]

Can't find if this has been brought up yet, but this was found in a Lids and is a supposed 2015 Tigers alternate road cap.

Could be a defect, could be legit. One of the guys in the group supposedly knows someone in the Tigers' front office that confirmed this is a new hat for 2015.

This is probably either a prototype that somehow made it to Lids, or a mislabeled custom hat.

[TheOldRoman]

Heck, the Tigers don't even need a road cap. When your home cap is that gorgeous, why would you ever wear anything else?

I like the road cap better with the road jerseys which feature orange. And before you suggest it again, they shouldn't eliminate the orange from the road jerseys. Not only would it not look as good, but it's a handicap in merchandising when teams only have one color and white. That's why a bunch of teams added black or gray to their palette as an unofficial color. I think two colors plus white is ideal, and I think it would be to the detriment of the Tigers if they removed the orange, essentially making their road jerseys identical to the Padres' roads du jour. I know they're only going to be navy and white at home because that set's classic, by why handcuff them as another navy and white team? The Yankees kinda have that down pat.

[WSU151]

Can't find if this has been brought up yet, but this was found in a Lids and is a supposed 2015 Tigers alternate road cap.

Could be a defect, could be legit. One of the guys in the group supposedly knows someone in the Tigers' front office that confirmed this is a new hat for 2015.

This is probably either a prototype that somehow made it to Lids, or a mislabeled custom hat.

Or, more likely, a legitimate hat that will be new for 2015.

Remember the A's cap on ebay last year (maybe this year)?

[WSU151]

If they have to have an alt, then I think the Tigers could pull off an orange alt with navy piping and a navy+white D (or just navy) on the chest. As long as it wasn't a bright orange. Then their navy cap or navy+orange brim cap would work well.

That or a navy with orange+white D. Either way, I'd like their alt to be buit around the D and not their horrible Detroit script (or their rarely used Tigers script.)

That orange jersey sounds good. Since they re-did the Tigers script above the scoreboard, I wouldn't be shocked if they put it on a jersey. IMO, it's not terrible.

[TheOldRoman]

I think the current orange cap stays true to their overall look and complements the road set. However, an orange brimmed cap is bad for them; too far removed from their home look. And if they were insistent on having an orange brim, they should have left the D white to balance the colors like on the A's classic home cap.

I really think that's just a fashion cap due to the blue brim stitching. Or maybe the blue stitching is an error and that will be a new road cap. Either way, two thumbs down.

[IceCap]

And yes the PCL Padres were a different franchise, but they were still the San Diego Padres and still part of the legacy the Padres still claim to this day. They celebrated their 75th anniversary back in 2011 as part of that.

The Washington Nationals can claim to date back to 1905. That doesn't make it true.

The Washington Nationals don't "claim" anything. They acknowledge, and appreciate it. They wear the curly W because it's a part of DC baseball history. You're making his point.

I'm not talking about the curly W, which most definitely does not date back to 1905. I was talking about this logo...

...which clearly pairs a logo of the team that moved to DC in 2005 with an "Established 1905" banner. So I think I was pretty on-point when I said the Nationals "claim" to be founded in 1905. They had a logo that said as much. "Established" doesn't leave much wiggle room.

And my point is that it's as true as the Padres claiming they date back to 1936. As in not at all.

lol Where did you dig that up?

The team.

It was a patch worn in the left sleeve of the team's home uniform for the inaugural season. It's not some obscure mark.

That "Established 1905" thing is not to be taken serious. They had a bunch of t-shirts with "Established 1905" that they were also selling.

Again, this is a logo that featured prominently on the team's home uniform for their first season in Washington. The "Established 1905" thing wasn't just something you found on a few t-shirts. It was part of the team's first home uniform set.

As for it being "taken serious"? You have a uniform element that says "Established 1905." Well I'm sorry, but words have meanings. And the wording on that patch makes it very clear that the team was trying to claim a lineage dating back to the turn of the century.

Again, it's to acknowledge and celebrate DC baseball history, not "claim" anything.

Something like "Washington Baseball: Since 1905" or something similar would have been an acknowledgement of DC's baseball history. The "Established 1905" line means a specific thing, and that specific thing was "we date back to 1905," which was an untrue statement.

They wouldn't be celebrating this next year otherwise:

As Gothamite said, the team has gotten away from the "Established 1905" nonsense. They seem to have embraced a more factual account of their history, which is good. Doesn't change the fact the team did, at one point, try to present a version of their history that was entirely untrue.

[Gothamite]

I'm not sure they intended that as such. There wasn't a specific link to the "history" that I'm aware of beyond this one logo. I think this was more a failure to properly use the English language (ironic, considering the man on the left of that photo above).

The Nationals obviously wanted to promote the spiritual link to the original club, but "Established" was the wrong word in every possible way. Not only was the current club not established in 1905, the original one wasn't either. They also couldn't use "Since", which would be a possible option under other circumstances. So they came up with this, which was as profoundly stupid as it was profoundly wrong, and they abandoned it as soon as they could.

[IceCap]

The Nationals obviously wanted to promote the spiritual link to the original club, but "Established" was the wrong word in every possible way.

Which is sort of my point. The phrase "Established 1905" means a certain thing. Was it their intent to say "we have direct ties back to the original Washington team from the turn of the century"? Probably not, but again, words have meanings. And if their intent was to simply imply a spiritual connection then the wrong word was chosen and the message ended up saying something else entirely.

A bit of the "I have to grade you based on what you wrote, not what you meant to write" principal.

[TheOldRoman]

I think this was more a failure to properly use the English language (ironic, considering the man on the left of that photo above).

No, I think you mean, "appropriate, considering the man on the left." But the fact that you misused words while critiquing another's word choice is ironic.

[daveindc]

And yes the PCL Padres were a different franchise, but they were still the San Diego Padres and still part of the legacy the Padres still claim to this day. They celebrated their 75th anniversary back in 2011 as part of that.

The Washington Nationals can claim to date back to 1905. That doesn't make it true.

The Washington Nationals don't "claim" anything. They acknowledge, and appreciate it. They wear the curly W because it's a part of DC baseball history. You're making his point.

I'm not talking about the curly W, which most definitely does not date back to 1905. I was talking about this logo...

...which clearly pairs a logo of the team that moved to DC in 2005 with an "Established 1905" banner. So I think I was pretty on-point when I said the Nationals "claim" to be founded in 1905. They had a logo that said as much. "Established" doesn't leave much wiggle room.

And my point is that it's as true as the Padres claiming they date back to 1936. As in not at all.

lol Where did you dig that up?

The team.

It was a patch worn in the left sleeve of the team's home uniform for the inaugural season. It's not some obscure mark.

That "Established 1905" thing is not to be taken serious. They had a bunch of t-shirts with "Established 1905" that they were also selling.

Again, this is a logo that featured prominently on the team's home uniform for their first season in Washington. The "Established 1905" thing wasn't just something you found on a few t-shirts. It was part of the team's first home uniform set.

As for it being "taken serious"? You have a uniform element that says "Established 1905." Well I'm sorry, but words have meanings. And the wording on that patch makes it very clear that the team was trying to claim a lineage dating back to the turn of the century.

Again, it's to acknowledge and celebrate DC baseball history, not "claim" anything.

Something like "Washington Baseball: Since 1905" or something similar would have been an acknowledgement of DC's baseball history. The "Established 1905" line means a specific thing, and that specific thing was "we date back to 1905," which was an untrue statement.

They wouldn't be celebrating this next year otherwise:

As Gothamite said, the team has gotten away from the "Established 1905" nonsense. They seem to have embraced a more factual account of their history, which is good. Doesn't change the fact the team did, at one point, try to present a version of their history that was entirely untrue.

MLB still owned the franchise that year. Direct your complaints to MLB, not the Nationals. The Nats' owners, franchise, team, and fans don't "claim" 1905. The end.

[Gothamite]

I think this was more a failure to properly use the English language (ironic, considering the man on the left of that photo above).

No, I think you mean, "appropriate, considering the man on the left." But the fact that you misused words while critiquing another's word choice is ironic.

It most certainly is.