MLB 2016 Changes

[Bouj]

On 6/8/2016 at 9:53 AM, WavePunter said:

1. Which makes the entire CoolBase era unnecessary (plus if any teams preferred CoolBase and wanted to stick with it, and if there were still doubleknit holdovers, it would create 3 different groups)

2. 2 templates is 1 more than needed.. give everyone the non-side-panel version (or at least everyone who wears pinstripes)

3. Gussets were done away with for a reason, so introducing them to modern-era uniforms and materials is still introducing them.. they also matched the rest of the jersey when they were used on flannel, unlike now when they stick out on some (could be fixed if the materials could match, like including pinstripes)

 

their innovations may not be as aggressive as Nike or UA, but they dont seem to be for the better.. i have no real issue with side panels, gussets, diapers, etc. in theory.. it's just an extra seam and goes largely unnoticed IF the areas match the rest of the jersey.  the diaper area, the side panels, and previously, the gussets all differ from the body of the jersey when the jersey has pinstripes.. 

 

also, their BP and ST gear has become more and more innovative (just like NE's "diamond era" caps), and have basically become the guinea pigs for their new technologies - but that has bled over into actual game use and caused a blurring of the lines.. if that's going to be the case, then there needs to be an extra effort made to at least have the various panels match when sewn together.. it can't be that difficult.. i dont care if the pinstripes have to be printed onto the mesh, they should at least be there and line up.. this is what i mean by majestic potentially getting in over their head.. if you can't make it work, don't introduce it.

 

I'm a bit confused about #1.  I don't see how everyone finally going to FlexBase makes COOLBASE unnecessary.

 

And I don't disagree with the point about multiple templates.  But the reality is that the panels were sold as a feature, not a bug.  We (in the royal sense) might find it stupid, but that doesn't mean they don't have a practical purpose that met with positive feedback.  Same thing with the diaper/sweat-tail.  And the side panels do feature prominently on the Mets' throwbacks and the Astros' navy, so at least some teams are doing something with them.  There is no point in arguing about fixing the gussets.  They are gone from the current iteration of the jersey.

 

Again, we see the missing pinstripes as a problem.  Only the Yankees (and Padres, apparently) concurred, otherwise the Cubs or Brewers or Twins or whoever would have insisted on their inclusion.  Again, feature not a bug.  You can slam Majestic for shoddy development (I certainly have, since they can only produce one shade of grey in their jerseys now), but if the teams don't care, then no amount of fan outrage is going to change it.

[WavePunter]

On June 3, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Ice_Cap said:

Don't take this the wrong way but if you're a white, Christian, male in America? You really can't say "I don't see why you minority groups would be offended."

Context is everything. I'm certainly not criticising you for not ever having to experience bigotry first hand. Everyone should have the privilege of being blissfully unaware in that regard. My point is simply that you're not coming from a perspective that allows you to see what the problem is. And that's fine. It falls on everyone though to think outside of their own personal experiences.

To not be content with "I don't see what the problem is" and ask "well why would a Native person be offended by this?"

 

Sure, I agree. At that point though? You're essentially asking for a Washington or Chicago Blackhawks-esque Native logo. Which is fine, but it's essentially an all-new logo anyway. Which means ditching Wahoo.

 

The team's been flirting with that ideal solution for a while now. Wahoo does not represent the entirety of the team's history. The block C calls back to the pre-Wahoo era. An era that was more successful, I might add. The Indians haven't won a World Series since Wahoo was adopted in his current form, following the 1948 season. So Wahoo might have a lot of tradition wrapped up in him, but it's certainly not a winning tradition.

Ditching him wouldn't be akin to the Yankees losing the NY. We're not exactly talking about dropping a logo with a winning pedigree.

I'm not arguing with any of that at all, but if the MLB (as an administrative entity) takes note and feels like we do, then it may not matter how the teams/players feel, and might jump ship to Nike.. Then it would be, as I suggested, Majestic digging their own grave with all this nonsense.. That was my only major point.

[IceCap]

...

 

I'm not sure what the Cleveland Indians' logo debate has to do with MLB's uniform supplier. 

 

On a side note Majestic isn't going anywhere.

[Ark]

IMO this is the best set in Padres history. The Padres should own brown.

 

 

[Gothamite]

Still hate the wordmark, but the colors were better at least.  Second-best set in their history. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

16 hours ago, Ark said:

IMO this is the best set in Padres history. The Padres should own brown.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Still hate the wordmark, but the colors were better at least.  Second-best set in their history. 

 

I'm with you on hating that wordmark.

But I'd give the title of second-best set in Padre history to the team's first uniforms.

 

   

 

  

 

 

(It would appear that there was a version with the thin piping on the collar and sleeve and a version without it.)

[Gothamite]

You and I are so close, my friend.  I'd call that the best set in their history. 

[kroywen]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

You and I are so close, my friend.  I'd call that the best set in their history. 

I'm partial to the 1974 set, personally. In spite of the sansabelts, this is such a great uniform:

Throw that wordmark on a modern template, with the current interlocking SD, and you'd have the ideal Padres jersey. 

 

That said, the 1969 set is great as well - my choice for second best in franchise history - especially the version with the piping.

[Jungle Jim]

I'm with Gothamite.  The Padres got it right with their first try in 1969.  It's too bad that set didn't last throughout their history, with only tweaks to the cap logo and lettering as the decades passed.  It's still not too late to switch to it and use it for the next forty years.  

[OnWis97]

19 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

And when they were at the peak of their exposure, in the 1984 World Series, on the national stage for the first time, they foolishly threw away that defining look immediately thereafter, bringing in new uniforms for 1985.
 

Wouldn't that have been committed to well before the postseason? 

 

(In any case, I love the brown and orange)

[FiddySicks]

Brewers throwback game cap.

 

I told myself I wouldn't buy any more hats. I told myself I wouldn't buy any more hats. I told myself I wouldn't buy any more hats...

 

[kroywen]

Unpoular opinion: I love the brown and gold for the Pads, but hate the brown and orange. To me, those two shades just did not complement each other well, and became very muddled down when next to each other. Doesn't help that neither color 'pops' at the viewer.

[BBTV]

I'd like to see their Kruk-era set in brown and yellow rather than orange.  I don't dislike that wordmark as much as some do, but I think the orange muddied it up.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Wouldn't that [have] been committed to [well] before the postseason? 

 

(In any case, I love the brown and orange)

 

I am sure that it was.  But there must have been a way to back out of it, involving buying their way out of contracts that had already been signed.

Even though they lost the World Series, the season was still a huge success.  The Tigers, with their 35-5 start to the season, had been presumptive World Champions all year; so losing to them was no great shame.  By contrast, their comeback against the Cubs in the playoffs after having been down 2 games to none, particularly beating the virtually invincible Rick Sutcliffe in the decisive Game 5 after Garvey's dramatic homer had won Game 4, was the stuff of fairy tales.  Indeed, when they won that League Championship Series, their television announcer said that the Padres had "won it all".  Winning the NL pennant had that kind of magnitude for the Padres, a team that had had only one winning season before 1984, but had experienced many last-place finishes.  The 1984 season was the team's blossoming. 

As mentioned, cancelling the 1985 uniform change would presumably have required them to buy themselves out of various contracts.  But it would have been worth it. That historic moment in the franchise's history called for that extreme measure, in order to preserve the identity that had just made such a profound impression.  The 1984 season had provided imagery that could have defined a generation, imagery that could have been used to reinforce that great season, and to sell the team to fans for many years to come.  But the team blew it when they appeared for Opening Day 1985 with an entirely different look.  This was a great mistake.  By abandoning the vibrant colours and the cheeful wordmark that they had just made so meaningful the previous fall, they lost a great opportunity.

[Sport]

22 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

I strongly believe there will never be a definitive answer to what the Padres *should* look like. Their strongest looks each have strong connections to different divisions of their fans and its really hard to ever pick which look or color scheme they should have. I think the only thing to do is for the team to pick ONE look and stick with it for 30 something years and commit to it without muddling it with a variety of color schemes mixed in. They need to just run with one look and that's it.

 

That's the White Sox model. Wear a bunch of different and weird (at times) looks, pick one and then stick with it through a generation and then that becomes exactly how you should look. Maybe this current look, which I sort of like, will be the Padres lasting look. They just need an ownership group to stick with something longer than 6 years. 

 

19 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This is the one true correct Padres look.  If they had done the smart thing by scrapping the uniform changes that had already been planned for 1985, then this gorgeous look would still be with us.  It would have lasted untouched for at least another decade; and all subsequent looks would have consisted merely of tweeks.  This Padres' look, with the beautiful wordmark and the distinctive colours, would today be so firmly established that it would be considered as untouchable as the looks of the Cardinals or Cubs.
 

 

Even if they hadn't changed in 85 I can't see how those uniforms would've survived the mid 90's when anybody who was still wearing their 70's tastic uniforms changed to a souped up 90's version of whatever they were wearing. They changed to a more contemporary look in 85 and then changed again in 91 deciding blue played in merchandise better than brown, and that still would've been true if they'd kept on wearing the Taco Bells. Also nothing happened with the Padres in that time frame that would've further cemented the Taco Bells or created a lasting impact beyond reaching that World Series. Those uniforms were only worn for 5 years and the button fronts were only worn for one so once the WS luster wore off and the team started downwards I'm not seeing how they stick around any longer than the uniforms that followed. If they'd held onto those colors that wordmark would've been left far far in the dust, the massive cuffs and pants stripes would've been minimized if not eliminated, the number font would either go back to block or some custom near-block font, the hat would've lost the bell front panel, and they wouldn't really look the same. 

 

As for the assertion that they would've been as untouchable as the Cubs and Cardinals, not even close. Both those teams came out of the pullover era and more or less went back to wearing exactly what they were wearing before. Not to mention they both wear classically styled baseball uniforms that can work and have worked in many different decades. Those Padres uniforms are from a very specific time and that is the only time they'd ever be an acceptable every day uniform for a major league team.

 

Now, if they had never varied from the originals then I can agree with that point and they'd be on a level with the Giants, Dodgers, Mets, Braves 

[Gothamite]

5 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Brewers throwback game cap.

 

I told myself I wouldn't buy any more hats. I told myself I wouldn't buy any more hats. I told myself I wouldn't buy any more hats...

 

 

Never liked that one, not even when it was new. 

 

The single white "M" they introduced two years later was so much better.  Part of a massive upgrade-via-tweak where they fixed almost all the problems of the uniforms to create a classic (if sadly short-lived) look. 

[OnWis97]

5 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

That's the White Sox model. Wear a bunch of different and weird (at times) looks, pick one and then stick with it through a generation and then that becomes exactly how you should look. Maybe this current look, which I sort of like, will be the Padres lasting look. They just need an ownership group to stick with something longer than 6 years. 

 

 

Even if they hadn't changed in 85 I can't see how those uniforms would've survived the mid 90's when anybody who was still wearing their 70's tastic uniforms changed to a souped up 90's version of whatever they were wearing. They changed to a more contemporary look in 85 and then changed again in 91 deciding blue played in merchandise better than brown, and that still would've been true if they'd kept on wearing the Taco Bells. Also nothing happened with the Padres in that time frame that would've further cemented the Taco Bells or created a lasting impact beyond reaching that World Series. Those uniforms were only worn for 5 years and the button fronts were only worn for one so once the WS luster wore off and the team started downwards I'm not seeing how they stick around any longer than the uniforms that followed. If they'd held onto those colors that wordmark would've been left far far in the dust, the massive cuffs and pants stripes would've been minimized if not eliminated, the number font would either go back to block or some custom near-block font, the hat would've lost the bell front panel, and they wouldn't really look the same. 

 

As for the assertion that they would've been as untouchable as the Cubs and Cardinals, not even close. Both those teams came out of the pullover era and more or less went back to wearing exactly what they were wearing before. Not to mention they both wear classically styled baseball uniforms that can work and have worked in many different decades. Those Padres uniforms are from a very specific time and that is the only time they'd ever be an acceptable every day uniform for a major league team.

 

Now, if they had never varied from the originals then I can agree with that point and they'd be on a level with the Giants, Dodgers, Mets, Braves 

I don't even know what their look is.  (Seriously).  I know that they have a blue and yellow alt.  I know they have a brown alt.  I know they wear camo.  But I am going to have to google their primary.

 

(goes to look)

 

Oh, it turns out the yellow trim is  the home primary.  (no joke; I did not know).

 

I think it would take a while for these to become the definitive Padres look.  Right now, with the differing color scheme at home vs. the road and the specter of brown hanging over their heads, this time feels very transitional.  I feel like the two most similar teams (i.e. "what is their look?") i can think of is the Astros.  I feel like the Astros, by going back to orange and blue gave an instant answer to that question.  But even if they'd stuck with the brick look, it would have taken years to become the White Sox.

 

The Padres have the same problem.  If they stick with this, or add the yellow to the roads soon, it'll be well over five years before anyone (or at least people like us) buys that it's gonna last.  Go brown next year and we have our answer.

 

I really, really want the Padres to go brown because it's the only chance of a team not named "Browns" will ever do that.  But I will say that I do like the Padres current home look (even if I thought it was an ALT minutes ago).  basing a road uniform on that scheme would make it decent overall...particularly given the movement away from traditional vivid schemes. If the Padres are flat out never going brown again, then the blue/yellow would be my second choice (assuming the Brewers never go back).

[SFGiants58]

I said it before on this thread, but I'd love it if the Padres just got the creative team that did the Blue Jays' rebrand to update the 1969-71 uniforms. It's a way to tastefully have their unique color scheme while tying in to the whole Mission San Diego/Franciscan order aesthetic.

 

Avoiding the taco bell caps, having a navy PCL/1998 alternate (to appease the navy fans, i.e. bosrs1), and simply sticking with it for long enough (like the Canucks have done with royal/kelly, and the Bucks should have done with green/red) will firmly establish the identity. 

[WavePunter]

On June 9, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Ice_Cap said:

...

 

I'm not sure what the Cleveland Indians' logo debate has to do with MLB's uniform supplier. 

 

On a side note Majestic isn't going anywhere.

No idea why it quoted that.. I guess it's a bug with the new website layout and using a mobile device.. It has happened to me more than once.. I meant to quote the post by Bouj directly above it

[WavePunter]

Giants not looking too good tonight in orange jerseys with cream pants.. The black hat doesn't help.. I normally kinda like the 3 different color elements, but it works much better with white pants.. The cream kinda clashes with that much orange