Marlins93

I never bought into the whole gimmick that "we must have black in our color scheme because our city has nightlife." It doesn't work for the Marlins. It doesn't work for the Mets. As others have said, the Mets had a great brand identity for decades before the introduction of black ruined it.

I never liked the Mets BFBS look and I am annoyed that they brought it back. Having said that, their black jerseys look much better with the blue piping.

Design-wise, it's not a great jersey aside from the shade of blue. That's the only thing it has going for it. It needs to be re-designed for real game use.

I heard something about supply chain issues but haven't been paying close attention. That's a plausible explanation. Which teams were facing those problems? And is that still presenting an issue for them?

I could be mistaken, but I am under the impression that the Marlins have not worn their black alternates even once this season so far. It could this be the end of an error? They typically wore them on Fridays and Saturdays but during the current Braves series, they've been sporting the road greys instead. It sure seems like they've been mothballed to me. Maybe after three seasons, they finally decided to scrap those jerseys which were pretty widely ridiculed. Perhaps they plan on doing more with the City Connect jerseys (very popular) as they get deeper into the season. My gut tells me that they will replace the black alternate with a blue alternate for 2023.

No thanks. The Marlins unis already feel too much like a Miami Heat City Edition rip off. I'd rather they stay away from the Vice look. Let the Heat own it.

I knew this would be an issue. I recall ranting about trucker caps for on-field for various reasons but this is a major one. Even for people without shaved domes, plastic mesh can be pretty uncomfortable during hot sunny days. The UPF fabric they used a few years back worked really well.

We all know it was coming but I'm surprised there isn't more venting and hand-wringing about the fact that ad pitches and helmet decals are officially here.

There was a lot of speculation that the Rockies were getting some kind of [partial] rebranding or at least some new stuff just because the owner Dick Monfort told a fan on social media to expect a "new uniform." Some misconstrued this as "new uniforms." It seems pretty likely now that he was just referring to the City Connect. I'm not sure why we didn't piece that together sooner.

So if you want to buy an authentic MLB jersey now, will it come with a cryptocurrency ad patch too?

I can never keep up with the Royals' changes. I thought they already had a powder blue alternate? And it feels like they change their road primaries every other year.

From what I've seen so far, the ball logo is the only thing I'm iffy about. But it does have a vintage look, so that's a plus. I saw a lot of concept art around the internet trying to integrate the statue face into a logo and nothing worked for me. Everything I saw looked like a bad college football mascot.

I'm into it! I think Cleveland chose a great name and I have liked the aesthetics of the new identify thus far. I'm really eager to see the uniform set. I presume that will be released tomorrow? I'd give this rebranding high marks.

You have a point about the back numbers and last names, but I think that the front works for the most part. Also remember that the pinstripes are purple, not black. I think that silver works for the front wordmark, but I do agree that some purple accenting would be welcome. My overall point here is that people seem to be clamoring for the Rockies to either hard or soft rebrand, and I don't think that's necessary. I don't mind the serif text at all. I think they should preserve their current identify but perhaps just add more purple to the existing home uniform or introduce an all-purple or partially purple cap. The road uniforms have a sufficient amount of purple and they do have an all-purple alternate. It's only the home primaries that would benefit from some slight tweaks.

I still do not understand the hate that some people have for Guardians. It ties to the city and sounds like something that could have been adopted a century ago. It's much better than any alternative that's been floated, including Spiders.

I think they should introduce a bit more purple, but I wouldn't call them the White Sox or a black and white team. They use silver fairly well and I think that it should be a major part of their scheme. In terms of adding more purple, it's mostly the front numbers and/or wordmark on the home primary that could use that. But I get the impression that people want more drastic changes than that and I wouldn't see that as necessary.

I never understood why people clamor for a new Rockies set. I realize that some do not care for the serif font, but I think it works well enough for them. They have a distinctive look. although I think they should own the purple a tiny bit more. I find it impressive that the Rockies have sustained more or less the same identity since their inception, even if it isn't entirely perfect. The other three 90s expansion teams have hit the reset button several times during the same stretch. And in most cases, those were downgrades. A team should never be in the position where fans are eager to return to an identity that the team mothballed. Keep the Rockies and Mariners just as they are for the most part, aside from making minor changes or changing up one of the alternates.

Seattle is fine as they are right now. The Rays, Diamondbacks, and Marlins are the only teams that need significant overhauls. The Angels, Twins, and Nationals need some major adjustments, but not as drastic as those former three. The Reds need to lose the drop shadow and the Rockies need a tad bit more purple. Otherwise the rest of MLB should stay put with the exception of some minor changes here and there.

The Padres and Brewers made much needed corrections in recent years, but there are still several teams now that are overdue for some pretty serious overhauls (by this, I mean, actually re-evaluating their color schemes and identities in a conspicuous way). The Rays, Diamondbacks, and Marlins immediately come to mind. All three of them have looked better at earlier points. I personally would include the Angels in this mix as well, but I sense that might be an unpopular opinion. The Reds, Twins, and Nationals could also stand to make some changes, but on a smaller scale. I'd keep the Rockies and Mariners as they are for the most part. Maybe incorporate some more purple in Rockies' case, but I wouldn't change more than that.

It is starting to seem like the bizarre Montreal-St. Pete split proposal isn't a ploy to gain leverage for public financing of a new ballpark in the Tampa area, but rather to generate buzz and build momentum for a relocation to Montreal. Why else would Sternberg publicly question the viability of the Tampa market for baseball? How can you walk back on that and expect a deal to be made? The Marlins were publicly exploring relocation circa 2005-2006 when ballpark financing reached a standstill, but I don't recall them throwing the market under the bus. If anything, they were denouncing the local and state governments for not being supportive enough.

Both teams are floundering attendance wise for slightly different reasons, but the common denominator is a general lack of enthusiasm in their respective cities. This could probably be attributed to the number of transplants or also the overall lack of a strong baseball culture. Regardless, splitting a team between two cities in very different markets that have both demonstrated attendance issues and a lack of fan enthusiasm is a recipe for a disaster. It simply won't work because it would only exacerbate the current conditions that lead to lackluster ticket sales. And the whole premise of building a new multi hundred million dollar ballpark for only 41 home games is a total joke. Tampa or St. Pete would never publicly fund something like that. Regardless, it makes little sense to play only half a season in Marlins Park when the attendance issues they've been facing have little to do with the ballpark and more to do with the culture of distrust and frustration regarding ownership. The Marlins don't need to play half their games in the Tampa area to succeed, they just need competent ownership and they will be fine.

I don't think the Marlins splitting their time between Tampa and Miami would work at all. It's as outlandish and defeatist as the Tampa/Montreal proposal. As soon as you start splitting the season between two different cities (even what the Expos were doing in Puerto Rico), you signal that the franchise is floundering with the writing on the wall for relocation/contraction. Neither Miami nor Tampa would embrace a shared team. And why would the Marlins be better off playing half their games in the Trop, which we've all concluded is poorly located and provides a subpar baseball experience? I'm still baffled why people want to relocate, contract, split a team that is playing in a brand new, state of the art ballpark.

Of coursed I'm biased, but I think the Rays fans have more to be ashamed of than Marlins fans right now when it comes to attendance. I understand the ballpark location argument (but I'd argue that Marlins Park is poorly located too), but at least the Rays have had competent ownership, no history of soul crushing firesales (despite still losing franchise players like Price and Longoria), and are a competitive team on the field. If the Marlins were playing so well that they were first in their division up until several days ago, their attendance figures would most definitely be better than what the Rays are pulling so far this season, although not necessarily sell outs by any stretch.

I'm still really baffled when people think it's remotely possible that the Marlins are a candidate or relocation or contraction. Are you ignoring the fact that they are playing in a brand new, state of the art, climate controlled ballpark? MLB wouldn't relocate the Rays because their attendance is low; it's because they play in a ballpark that was obsolete the second it opened...in 1990. The Marlins might not remain in Miami forever, but they have at least two or three decades before anything like that is considered. The attendance situation is dire right now, sure, but I wouldn't say the future is eternally hopeless. It will take several years for Jeter to rebuild trust, but it's far from impossible. He made some unpopular moves and some other ill advised moves that reek of Loria incompetence, but there's some good mixed in there too in terms of their drafted prospects and trade hauls. The Marlins will always face some huge obstacles that other teams don't (most notably transplants from NYC and elsewhere), but you are wasting your breath if you think MLB will consider making any bold decisions regarding baseball in Miami, at least in the near future.