hawk36

Members
  • Content Count

    5,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by hawk36


  1. On 11/15/2019 at 9:23 AM, DastardlyRidleylash said:

    I don't. It's really generic, almost like if they decided to name their affiliate the Firebirds. I doubt they go for a team name that could be pulled straight from an EASHL club.

    I'd say, like the Sounders name with Seattle soccer, Thunderbirds is a name very close to Seattle fan's hearts. I know it's a national game and they will want to market nationally, but a name that is a hit with Seattle fans (regardless of what people not in the region think) should be very high on the list. 


  2. 4 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

    They wont be the Thunderbirds. The Thunderbirds will still be around. Even though they're a minor league team in a big league city, there's too much of a fan base and a following. 

     

     

    Money talks if the owners really want it...


  3. 14 hours ago, WSU151 said:

     

    The Pirates’ non-outlined cap is superior to the outlined cap in all instances though, even if the outlined cap matches the alternate.

     

    The Mets, White Sox, Indians, and Royals have single color hat logos but outlines on the alternate jersey. The Mets don’t need the outline on the hat to match, either. 

     

    H3QL34LW3ZCLVKGN6OCVBMUF64.jpg

    1176010340.jpg.0.jpg

    Right, it's something messed up a lot. Consistency would for all, would help all. The SOX is especially egregious since it's the exact same logo just treated differently. Horrible. 


  4. On 11/9/2019 at 7:27 PM, daveindc said:

    IMG_20191109_191511-590x770.jpg

    Pinstripe issue aside (I'm not a fan of them), of this set the brown jersey sticks out like a sore thumb. The pinstripe versions are very nice, brand consistent. The brown top, in particular the white outline of the yellow logo, doesn't match the system. I'd be happy if they just exclusively used the pinstripe versions and then the camo on Sundays. All in all though, as an "always browner" I'm happy. 

     

    Padres2020.jpg


  5. 1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:


    That’s a very shallow take. Pinstripes aren’t Yankee-exclusive, they’ve never been. Not everybody who does pinstripes wants to “be like them.” Look at how many non-traditional designs (be they through fonts have pinstripes:

     

    spacer.png

    spacer.png
    spacer.png

    spacer.png

    spacer.png

     

    Thinking that all pinstripe teams just want to be the Yankees is being ignorant of baseball’s aesthetic options.

    Totally disagree. It may have been at one time but it's completely been owned by the Yankees for a long, long time. It's their thing like it or not. 


  6. 16 hours ago, bosrs1 said:


    Since when did the Yankees have a monopoly on pinstripes?

    As I said, I know many teams have had them over the years, my point is that pinstripes are most synonymous with the Yankees, and success, which is why all teams that use them are simply trying to be like the Yankees. I think the Padres, with the unique brown, should be the Padres, not the Yankees lite. 


  7. 14 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

    Cream would not go over well with the fanbase since the Giants already wear it.

    How many years did the Padres try to be darker Dodger blue south?

     

    And I'd say pinstripes are even worse than cream since it's embarrassing trying to be the Yankees (which is basically what teams that wear pinstripes are trying to do). I know other teams have, and have had them, but the truth is it's a poor attempt to be the Yankees. I wouldn't say wearing cream is the same thing. 


  8. 16 minutes ago, GFB said:

    a8ba20a3838ad7dfa18068fe7c06d35d.jpg

     

    This is a better look than the Chargers. Change my mind.

    Could they actually be the Monarchs and use the branding? I believe the WLAF was owned by the NFL weren't they? That would be pretty cool. 

     

    It would be interesting though to see what fans in London would want. Would they want their own team name or would they feel having an existing NFL team name was better? Like what if the Wolverhampton Wanderers moved to New York but stayed in the EPL. Would New York fans want to be the New York Wanderers and keep the existing brand, etc. or would they want to rename the team?


  9. 55 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

    Man, the logistics alone of having a team in London is an absolute nightmare. Go back to San Diego.

    I agree but I heard the best solution I've heard on the radio today (for a Jacksonville/London combo though). Play 4 consecutive games in London, become "London's" team, and have a HUGE home field advantage since you'd be acclimated for at least games 2 through 4. 

     


  10. 23 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:


    A white S maybe like 91 and 16?

    No white S and yellow D. No. It only works on a dark background. If you outline or do anything else to try and make it work on a light background it gets overly complicated. Simple yellow S and D on brown and brown S and D, outlined in yellow, on white is perfect. 


  11. 34 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

    But I agree, they moved to the quite popular and attractive blue and yellow look on the home uni and cap in 2016, developed a very attractive away uni they used only during the ASG... and then inexplicably stayed with the bland blue and grey away uni during the season.  
     

    And even I didn’t like that they then switched to the drab blue and white the next season. No one wanted that. 

    That, to me, a born and raised Padres' fan for over 40 years, was the final straw. When they went from those great ASG year uniforms to the navy only I was out, couldn't handle the continued idiocy of the management. Haven't followed them since. Now I feel I can come back since they are once again becoming the San Diego Padres. 


  12. 1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

    The world is full of people commenting on stuff that's not within their immediate vicinity ;)

     

    I wish there was more variety in sports uniforms based on the team's region and fan base and thus always defer to what those people think is right for their team. There are many looks that I think don't work, but I can be open minded enough to consider that they may work perfectly well for that teams's fans/region. Who am I, an outsider, to say it's bad for them? 


  13. 1 hour ago, axiom20xx said:

    as far as everything i've heard/read, these are what the uniforms will look like.

     

    Home: Pinstripes, updated Padres wordmark.

    Away: In the same realm as the old khaki road uniforms, but supposedly darker. Unsure if wordmark will remain the same.

    Alternate: Brown, Yellow SD on chest.

     

    We're only a week and a half away, but we're pretty much just waiting on wordmarks at this time, anything is an improvement over this garbage we've had the last few years.

    I sure hope you are joking or misinformed. Pinstripes at home and khaki roads is almost bad enough to ruin the return to brown. Horrible. 


  14. 53 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

    Midnight Brown. 

     

    Too easy. 

    Dark Chocolate or Espresso Brown. I often use those names with clients for a very dark, almost black, brown.

     

    And maybe it's just the designer in me but I think a very dark brown is much more interesting than black. It has just the right amount of personality than the overused black can't compare with.