MLB Changes 2017

[TheRicSlick]

10 minutes ago, FightingGoldenDevil said:

Most of you guys need to get the stick out of your butts. This is just a fun thing that players have been asking about for a long time. Just because the team will profit off of it doesn't mean it's about money. The uniforms were purposely designed like they are to convey that's it's layed back and not that serious. As a teenager that likes baseball this is a nice change of pace and my friends all love it. Lighten the up people

It's 100% about money. Every MLB one-off is about the money. 

 

It's that simple.

 

 

[RichO]

It is a minor travesty that the one truly great nickname in baseball: Evan Gattis' "Oso Blanco" is not on his jersey.

[Digby]

I think the overall idea is fun and some of the jerseys are actually really nice, and some of the alternate color schemes make me wonder why they aren't always like that (looking at you, Rays). Also the nickname idea is fun in small doses, but then I am someone who used to have a Rich Garces "El Guapo" shirsey. Rather than nitpick along the way I have two wishes for the overall package:

 

1. Why limit the "secondary colors"? The Red Sox uniform, to use my team as an example, would look miles better if the hat "B" simply used their usual navy -- the light royal instead clashes with the red background and doesn't match the jersey.

 

2. Jerseys ought to have the teams' usual number fonts. The generic block fonts are taking the Little League thing too far, at the expense of team branding.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

5 minutes ago, jp1409 said:

Sorry to ruin your fun but this is solely about money...

 

Everything that every for-profit entity does is solely about money; any other motivation is either marketing BS or else a figment of someone's imagination.   Therefore this criticism is pointless, because it applies equally to everyone.  

Every television show and movie that is produced and every book that is published is put out for sole the purpose of the studio or publisher getting a return on their investment; but we don't allow this fact to stop us from critiquing those things on their artistic merits.

Likewise, we should be critiquing these uniforms only on the basis of aesthetics, without worrying about the fact that they are created as a means for the teams to make money.

[Digby]

 

This entire promotion is worth it if only to see Curt Schilling's old uniform denigrated as FIST 38.

[raysox]

8 minutes ago, jp1409 said:

 

Lighten the up? Show a new generation of fans that baseball can be fun by selling them 200 bucks one and done jerseys? Do baseball really need garish jerseys and caps worn once a year to be "fun"? Having the players being friendlier to the kids attending or even visiting little league fields/schools more would be a step in the right direction. I remember being allowed to lay down on the dugout before games chatting with the guys, getting a boatload of autographs every single game I attended, this was pure fun and I didn't care that my team wore their regular uniforms...

1) they're selling shirseys with nicknames on the back
2) it's more than just uniforms, this is from the MLB article

 

"MLB and the MLB Players Association announced jointly on Wednesday that Players Weekend will be a player-focused field festival of sorts, different than anything seen before at the top rung of the sport. In addition to nicknames on the backs of jerseys made by Majestic, players can wear and use uniquely colored and designed spikes, batting gloves, wristbands, compression sleeves, catcher's masks and bats."

so that means 


Never said that the uniforms were necessarily good looking, which they aren't. This is just about expression and they're giving the most visible people the freedom to do whatever they want. Baseball has the amount of games to do something like this, and wearing colorful uniforms shouldn't take away your viewing experience in any way.

[leopard88]

37 minutes ago, raysox said:

Even so, it's not entirely a bad idea to market to a new generation of fans that baseball can be fun. It's for 1 game in 162 in late August.

Lighten the up

 

I thought it was three games.

[SilverBullet1929]

I don't get it.

 

The marketing doesn't make sense.

 

The players already get to wear whatever they want as far as cleats and batting gloves and sleeves and etc. How is putting them in awkwardly bright colors supposed to let them show their personalities or whatever? Do the games not count and they can do back flips while running to first base? The players with personality like Bryce Harper already show that off every night, why is it suddenly different for the players weekend? Is Bryce Harper gonna suddenly be different even though he already is a bright personality every other game anyways? Are traditional classy veteran players like Ichiro gonna suddenly play like the young energetic guys? I can't imagine that this suddenly means Ichiro is gonna do a bat flip and taunt the opposing pitcher if he gets a hit that weekend. 

 

"Oh every other game throughout the season I play without energy and without showing my personality but now that I have this bright hat and a nickname on my back well NOW you'll really get to see me have fun so don't miss these three games!"

 

This is illogical and borderline insulting. 

 

I saw Jose Fernandez play with intensity and excitement and passion every five days for 4 seasons in Miami while playing like a kid and while still playing to win without stupid promotional gear and without a nickname on his back. You don't need this merchandising garbage to show kids how baseball can be fun. 

 

This is stupid. 

[raysox]

1 minute ago, leopard88 said:

 

I thought it was three games.

Looked back and you're right.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/247233346/mlb-to-celebrate-players-weekend/

[SilverBullet1929]

Ah crap... just realized I already have tickets to one of the players weekend games. How can I possibly prep my eyes for this? 

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, bowld said:

Also, why did SD bring the yellow back for this jersey after removing it from color scheme? 

 

To remind us the Padres should have kept the navy/yellow color scheme from 2016?

 

I mean frankly that's the best looking jersey the Padres have worn this year (that wasn't their 1991 uni from Way Back Wednesday). It's a shame it's not their regular alt (button up) with the 2016 home cap.

 

Speaking of the Padres, here's their nicknames.

 

[BrianLion]

I'm totally going to pre-judge how "fun" the players on particular teams are by how many of them didn't just use their last names on the backs of these. 

 

The Sox look like they had a blast with this. The Padres look like they suck at this too. 

[O.C.D]

21 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Everything that every for-profit entity does is solely about money; any other motivation is either marketing BS or else a figment of someone's imagination.   Therefore this criticism is pointless, because it applies equally to everyone.  

Every television show and movie that is produced and every book that is published is put out for sole the purpose of the studio or publisher getting a return on their investment; but we don't allow this fact to stop us from critiquing those things on their artistic merits.

Likewise, we should be critiquing these uniforms only on the basis of aesthetics, without worrying about the fact that they are created as a means for the teams to make money.

1st paragraph- this idea is factually wrong. Not everything that a for profit entity does is solely about money.

 

2nd paragraph -not necessarily. Philanthropy exists in media production, as well as people making something for the love of the message or the art.

 

3rd paragraph- Agreed.

[bosrs1]

4 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

I'm totally going to pre-judge how "fun" the players on particular teams are by how many of them didn't just use their last names on the backs of these. 

 

The Sox look like they had a blast with this. The Padres look like they suck at this too. 

 

You don't want a Churro or Brotato jersey?

 

Seriously though it does seem like certain teams used different ways to approach the names. The Padres apparently used the actual nicknames they have for each other in the clubhouse. For 9 it's just their last names, for 14 it's something more clever. I've no idea what approach the Red Sox took

[eRay]

42 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

This entire promotion is worth it if only to see Curt Schilling's old uniform denigrated as FIST 38.

I wish I was well-off enough to buy a Robbie Ross Jr. jersey to wear while mowing the lawn.

[SilverBullet1929]

I'm curious if the Marlins lucked out and got their correct unique shade of blue on the caps. I'd love to have a side by side comparison of their players weekend caps to the blue homerun derby cap or the AL ASG jersey to see how close the blues are.

 

Also, I just noticed the Marlins are the only one to not match the cap to the sleeves, they've matched the cap to the torso color. And while most are excited they're finally wearing a blue cap, I'm thinking their unused red-orange cap would have looked great for that weekend. That cap is the epitome of a bright kid friendly cap. Plus people actually like that cap and it fits the team color as opposed to, for example, the Dodgers wearing bright blue for no reason at all. 

[kroywen]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Everything that every for-profit entity does is solely about money; any other motivation is either marketing BS or else a figment of someone's imagination.   Therefore this criticism is pointless, because it applies equally to everyone.  

Every television show and movie that is produced and every book that is published is put out for sole the purpose of the studio or publisher getting a return on their investment; but we don't allow this fact to stop us from critiquing those things on their artistic merits.

Likewise, we should be critiquing these uniforms only on the basis of aesthetics, without worrying about the fact that they are created as a means for the teams to make money.

 

This. Businesses are profit-seeking entities by their very nature. Not to say they always seek out profit at the expense of any sense of ethics or morality (though many do, unfortunately), but at the end of the day, businesses sell goods or services seeking to maximize their profits. Selling uniforms is no different. MLB saw an opportunity to make more money at virtually no expense and took it. From a business perspective, this makes sense, and I have no qualms with it.

 

But that's not why we're here, of course - we're here to discuss the aesthetics of it. And good lord, are these things hideous. Perhaps the biggest bunch of eyesores to hit a Big 4 playing field/court/rink since the original Christmas sleeved jerseys in the NBA. Or worse yet, maybe since the infamous TATCs. There's been more awful gimmicky uniforms than I care to remember in the past decade, but these... they're right up there with the worst of them. 

 

I have to admit, I'm almost crawling out of my skin at the mere thought of my beloved Yankees taking the field in blue uniforms, with grey caps, in pullovers, with names on the back - nicknames, at that! At home, no less!

 

I am a lover of the history of the game of baseball, and especially of the Yankees. The continuity of their uniforms and overall aesthetic, the rich tradition behind those pinstripes and that interlocking NY - these are things that are honestly important to me, and most Yankee fans. I know that probably sounds like crazy hyperbole to most fans, but there is incredible value (to me) in knowing that when you go to Yankee Stadium, you'll watch the Yankees of today play in the same uniforms that the likes of Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio, Berra, Munson, Jeter, and Rivera all wore. No gimmicks, no alternates, no needless changes. That's the Yankee brand, and it's one that almost all Yankee fans value and identify with.

 

And for three games, Yankee fans will go to the Stadium and watch the New York Yankees play in little league uniforms. Seriously, little league uniforms. Imagine Mickey Mantle striding up to the plate in a blue pullover with "Commerce Comet" plastered across his back. Imagine Joe DiMaggio running across the outfield wearing a "Yankee Clipper" little league top. Oy.

 

I know, I know... I probably seem like some crazy old stick-in-the-mud to most. But for a team that's never worn a full-time alternate, and hasn't substantially changed their uniform design since 1936 (outside of refining the chest logo), you can't just put the team in bizarre uniforms for three games and expect it to be well-received by fans.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

To remind us the Padres should have kept the navy/yellow color scheme from 2016?

 

I mean frankly that's the best looking jersey the Padres have worn this year (that wasn't their 1991 uni from Way Back Wednesday). It's a shame it's not their regular alt (button up) with the 2016 home cap.

 

Speaking of the Padres, here's their nicknames.

 

 

I like how ol' "Three-Six" wears the big Two-Seven.

[CardsFan79]

[Cardsblues02]

Man did, they really have to put "Wach" on poor Wacha's uniform? And Big T??? I expected better nicknames for my Cardinals. At least they didn't give Molina a stupid name.