Marlins93

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

There's been some really interesting reporting on Mets introduction of black in the late 90's. Reportedly, the design came up with idea of New York as a "city of shadows," something I've found to be true. Even the pinstripes were supported to have black accents.

Sorry if I'm being a little harsh, but designers and brand managers come up with all kinds of silly justifications for their poor decisions. I don't feel any better about the Marlins' mostly black color scheme if I'm told it's some kind of reference to South Beach.

In the Mets' case, I have trouble justifying it because they had a rather unique color scheme in MLB. There were some missteps in its execution prior to 1998, but there really wasn't any legitimate reason to introduce black where it had never been before.

On 5/2/2022 at 10:15 AM, Lights Out said:

 

I think BFBS adds a lot to the Mets' identity purely as an alternate look. It really captures that "NYC at night" feeling. Where the Mets went wrong the first time around was cramming black trim into their regular home and road jerseys, where it added nothing and only detracted from the bold color scheme and classic design. It looked particularly bad on the white and pinstripe jerseys because the drop shadows actually hurt the legibility of the script and the NOBs. They aren't repeating that mistake this time around, so it's not a problem, IMO.

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.

On 4/26/2022 at 12:55 PM, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Why can't they just wear it now?  I don't understand these damn rules or why they're so stiff about it.  Maybe a new blue alt with Marlins on it?

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.

11 minutes ago, hormone said:

They may be on the list of supply chain issue missing uniforms that a bunch of teams are dealing with. They wouldn’t be that bad if they weren’t black on black or their blue being a better color. This is one team that should just go back to the start. Their og colors were amazing as well as their F logo. Unfortunately they seemed to become more of a black and silver team in that era.

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. 

On 3/20/2022 at 10:31 PM, WBeltz said:

You know. It’d be cool to see Miami lean more in on pink like Inter Miami. But probably won’t see that any time soon.

 

excited for this though

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.

On 3/20/2022 at 3:02 PM, CardsFan79 said:

Not everyone is happy with this year’s Spring Training caps.

https://twitter.com/burgatron13/status/1505368893065347074?s=21

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.

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

It seems I was right about the number font! I’m anxious to see the whole font set released.

 

I find myself liking the brand more upon reflection, but I’d prefer a guardian statue face logo to the G-ball. The font is the right amount of “different” for me, helping to set it apart from the old brand in a subtle way. That and a display font is a good way to differentiate the Guardians from the other navy/red teams.

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.

20 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

The homes are almost identical, minus the name/logos.  Look at this photo of the back of the home uniform....

 

 

 

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.

3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Better than Spiders.

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.

1 hour ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Because its a black and white set for a team that should be purple.  I would rather not look like the White Sox....

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.

On 8/26/2021 at 1:19 AM, joekono said:

Glad nothing really on the horizon as far as ant team changing uniforms. I've said it a lot the past few years, the league looks as good as it' ever has considering all 30 teams. The City's were dumb this year and not every team did it so let's hope it stays that way. THANK YOU AGAIN PADRES FOR GOING BACK TO BROWN.

 

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.

7 minutes ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

Wow, baseball in Florida has looked awful for the past few years. It's not even like we can place it on the teams themselves being bad: the Marlins have two World Series titles (in like 25 years), and the Rays also made it the Fall Classic. The problem is, no one in the region seems to care. The Rays have been decent to pretty good for the past few years, but they're still setting record lows for attendance. That's pathetic. The Trop is obviously in an awful location, but I have to argue that the announcement of this split relocation has permanently killed any chance of this team staying in Tampa Bay forever. Whatever little goodwill the tiny fanbase has for the Rays is now gone. Even less people will show up, even if the partial move doesn't go through. As less people show up, the team will get more desperate for any kind of move, and Montreal may bend over backwards for a new stadium, and the Rays (and the MLB) leave the Tampa Bay area for good. It's a shame for the 10,000 (at most) people in the area that seem to care, but the market just is not right for the Majors.

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.

15 minutes ago, buzzcut said:

1. Contract both the Rays and Marlins.

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.