MilSox

Fun fact. This is based on an arcade game manufactured by Service Games (Sega) in the 1960s.

Fort Myers?

I've said for awhile, this uniform on a modern (traditional?) template would not be a bad look. Though they could probably use some piping.

I don't blame you. On its own, it's a good looking hat. Not its fault that the uniforms its worn with are a well polished turd. ?

I like the Rangers entire identity. I wouldn't be upset if they changed the cap logo to be more consistent with the scripts, but it's a good look overall. I can even deal with the colors since they're the colors of the Texas flag and the Rangers have incorporated it into their uniforms.

Just Miller Park. The Selig family was the team's only owner until 2004 when Mark Attanasio bought it.

Yeah, if it were to be brought back, I'd prefer to see it with the current "SOX" monogram.

Take away the disco collar and this isn't a bad uniform. I wouldn't mind seeing a fauxback version of this on a modern template.

We are. I'm just using your point as a jumpoff point to make mine to the BiG detractors... that there was no reason for the Brewers to rebrand so close to the club's first major overhaul which yielded some pretty nice uniforms in their own right. It was just a cynical cash grab to tie in with the move to Miller Park. Now, with the success of the Blue Jays and Astros rebrands, on top of the Brewers fauxbacks, most fans have it set in stone what they want.

They had a potentially timeless rebrand. But they didn't give it enough of a chance to establish itself, and now it's associated only with the worst era of Brewers baseball. You can't blame fans for wanting to return to the BiG when their retro fauxback easily outclasses every other uniform that's currently at their disposal. Which also happens to be their best option at this point. Because you can only rebrand so many times before you become a team with no discernible identity... for which that "other" Milwaukee team is a perfect example.

Not in the Texas League. The Burlington Bees and Salt Lake Bees don't seem to have any problems co-existing. And they have the same parent club.

Long Haulers... I guess. But wouldn't a better name for a Route 66-based identity be, I dunno... 66ers? I miss when MiLB clubs had dignified identities.

I dig all of the Germanic looks. Perhaps if the BiG hadn't been immortalized by the greatest moments in franchise history, I'd be advocating for a return to those. But SFGiants58 hit the nail on the head, and I don't think that's something people understand unless you've spent some time here. When you're more over than Bucky Badger in Wisconsin's biggest city, it's just plain foolish to not embrace it and run with it. I would put the Brewers fauxbacks in that category. They may not be as historically significant as the NYC-rooted clubs, but you can put them in any era and they wouldn't look out of place.

Another reason I hate the current Brewers identity.... it was literally change for the sake of change and got rid of this potentially timeless look way too quickly. Instead, it has only the painful post-Robin Yount years to be associated with. I play a lot of Ken Griffey Jr. on the SNES though too, so I have a soft spot for this one.

I would argue they can get away with it precisely because the name is so relevant to the region. Plus, the BiG has the added advantage of steering clear from any imagery that could be construed as marketing alcohol to kids... not that I see that happening anytime soon in a place like Wisconsin. We think nothing of getting hammered at a toddler's birthday party, FFS!

My point about the W is that the scripts would be a lot more legible without the drop shadows. But because of the cap logo, it needs them in order to match. I just wonder how many tweaks you have to make before you end up with something different enough to justify scrapping the entire thing. I get the feeling that a lot of Brewers fans are sick of the current identity simply because of the perception that it keeps getting forced on us when its obvious what the fans prefer. But I'm gonna go off on a tangent now because this is the unpopular opinions thread... I don't actually mind when baseball teams combine their city and nickname for a cap monogram. I'll admit my biases as a BiG loyalist are at play here. But I also logged in a lot of hours playing Super Baseball Simulator 1.000 as a tween and teen, which made me curious about Japanese baseball where this is a much more common practice. Yomiuri Giants: Chunichi Dragons: Yakult Swallows: Hanshin Tigers: In some cases, the "city" is actually the corporation that sponsors the team. The Yomiuri Giants for example, play at the Tokyo Dome and wear scripts that actually say "TOKYO" on their road greys.

If that were true, it would only be popular with the over 30 crowd. Not people who don't remember or weren't even around for the BiG's original run. It's the cleverness of the hidden "mb" that's allowed it to endure. I would also have to disagree that only a "few" tweaks would be needed to make the current identity work. You'd have to start by getting rid of that goofy MS Word number font. The current gold doesn't contrast well enough with gray, making it a muddled mess on the road unis. The scripts are unbalanced to accommodate numbers, which is a flaw in their design. Those half-assed droptails look goofy, yet don't actually work when extended all the way (several attempts at this have been made in the concepts forum). Even the blue Milwaukee jerseys exposed another design flaw... that weird blob behind the W that's needed to accommodate the drop shadow. I also feel the current M really only works when you pair it with that heavily flawed identity package. You can't really pair it with other scripts the way you can with the BiG. Wheat can come in all different shades of gold, depending on age, texture, and lighting.

If that logo looked a bit more like this I might agree with you. But as it is, no one can say the BiG is somehow more outdated than the "current" early 00s drop-shadowed mess of a logo. I know that's not necessarily what you're saying here, but it's the most common reason I hear for why people should prefer the newer stuff.

I'm pretty neutral on which shade of blue they go with going forward, as long as they stick with the yellow. I think most fans prefer royal, and I don't blame them. But navy has the advantage of having represented Milwaukee teams for much longer and looking less like the Cubs. This particular uniform though, is the epitome of the best of a bad situation. It might be the best example of their current identity, but it has to be compared to the fauxbacks, which blow it out of the water.

Especially considering Milwaukee's prominent place in the original AA. So many missed opportunities. But given the politics of the area, it's not at all surprising. Most people who don't live in Milwaukee proper literally hate Milwaukee.

Look no further than their 1969 AL expansion mates, the Brewers, if you want an example of how diluted and messy it can get when you move away from a proven brand for no reason.

Point taken, but the other problem is that the Monarchs trademark is owned by the Negro League HOF, and is a significant source of its revenue. For the Royals to take on the Monarchs identity, they would have make it worth the NLHOF's while, which would probably include funding and maintaining the museum.

Kansas City's American Association club was known as the Blues. I always thought Royals was the perfect name as it alludes to both the Monarchs and the Blues.

Purple wasn't very popular locally once the 90s trend was over. Meanwhile, these were going for $50 on eBay during their last year of the previous (red & green) uniforms. I was willing to give the current identity a chance. But as time goes on, it becomes more and more obvious they dropped the ball.

I'm already sick of it, TBH. I think they really botched a chance to bring back the green rainbows like everyone wanted.