MLB Changes 2015

[DarthBrett]

Just want to chime in to say a team's colors don't always have to relate to the team name or mascot. Case in point: LA Lakers, San Jose Sharks, St Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, Miami Dolphins and at least a few others. So just because friars or padres wore brown doesn't mean the team has to, either. And I am a fan of bringing brown back to SD. Just playing devil's advocate here to make a point.

[TheOldRoman]

Just want to chime in to say a team's colors don't always have to relate to the team name or mascot. Case in point: LA Lakers, San Jose Sharks, St Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, Miami Dolphins and at least a few others. So just because friars or padres wore brown doesn't mean the team has to, either. And I am a fan of bringing brown back to SD. Just playing devil's advocate here to make a point.

I agree. I've said it plenty of times, but there are no navy and orange bears, no blue lions, etc. Sometimes you just pick nice color schemes for the teams. Things would be boring if all Bears teams had to be brown and black, all Lions had to be tan and brown, and so forth. Although, when a mascot is synonymous with a color (such as a cardinal with red), you have to use it. The only exception I can think of is LSU using Tigers with yellow and purple. That being said, I don't think "Padres" is exactly synonymous with brown. However, they should still use brown since it's unique and it's what the team wore when they had an actual identity.

[hawk36]

Agree that not all team colors HAVE to match the mascot. But I'd say it's a better overall design solution if they do. Especially when the mascot is so identifiable with a color.

The exception would be if there is a valid reason for the odd color. I created a sky blue colored brand for a furniture store called Just Green. That reasoning there was the "green" in the name was for eco-friendly and the client didn't want their customers to think they only had green colored furniture.

As for the other examples mentioned, I don't know the histories but I could make up some justifications:

- Lakers: purple and yellow are reminiscent of a lake at sunset

- Sharks: teal is the color of the ocean water the sharks live in

- Rams: gold similar to horns and hyde color, blue, well, got nothing there

- Dolphins: again teal of the ocean water color

- Vikings: purple and gold are the colors of the royalty and riches the Vikings plundered

[BBTV]

Agree that not all team colors HAVE to match the mascot. But I'd say it's a better overall design solution if they do. Especially when the mascot is so identifiable with a color.

The exception would be if there is a valid reason for the odd color. I created a sky blue colored brand for a furniture store called Just Green. That reasoning there was the "green" in the name was for eco-friendly and the client didn't want their customers to think they only had green colored furniture.

...

In Budapest some of the bars I was in had bouncers wearing red shirts that said "BLUE SHIRT SECURITY". I remembered that, so maybe people remember "just green" for the same reasons.

Really doesn't look like a logo for a furniture store though - more like an energy provider, or organic eco-friendly something or other.

[JasonFromMiami]

Also about the Vikings, gold from the vikings blonde hair.

[Ray Lankford]

Has anyone heard anything about the Padres introducing a new uniform for 2015? There are rumblings out of San Diego that they are going to be adding red and soon and bloggers who have looked into it say that there's something to it.

The new club president worked under Lucchino in 98 and they've been stocking a lot of 98 throwbacks in the team store lately so I assume they'll be going back to navy/orange soon but might they be introducing a new (patriotic) alt?

[Gothamite]

Why not? The Padres could hardly be more of a cluster than they are now. Why not a full-on pathetic pander?

[Bigdogshark62]

From what I remember about the "blue lions," the story goes that Lions are associated with royalty, and blue is often also the color of royalty, thus the Lions are blue (although not Royal Blue, go figure).

As for the Padres, is any change a good change? People talk about the brown, and I like the idea, but I wouldn't mind a move back to the orange/blue.

[OnWis97]

Agree that not all team colors HAVE to match the mascot. But I'd say it's a better overall design solution if they do. Especially when the mascot is so identifiable with a color.

The exception would be if there is a valid reason for the odd color. I created a sky blue colored brand for a furniture store called Just Green. That reasoning there was the "green" in the name was for eco-friendly and the client didn't want their customers to think they only had green colored furniture.

As for the other examples mentioned, I don't know the histories but I could make up some justifications:

- Lakers: purple and yellow are reminiscent of a lake at sunset

- Sharks: teal is the color of the ocean water the sharks live in

- Rams: gold similar to horns and hyde color, blue, well, got nothing there

- Dolphins: again teal of the ocean water color

- Vikings: purple and gold are the colors of the royalty and riches the Vikings plundered

[krunyan]

I like the brown/yellow/red look but I prefer the Padres in blue and orange.

[Cleveland Fan]

Does anyone else see the Padres as the Cleveland Cavaliers of the Major Leagues? Roughly four and a half decades old and no discernible visible identity. Admittedly, the Cavaliers have it worse as the Padres at least have some minimal logo continuity and haven't been through two different official nicknames, but both have been through numerous color and uniform changes before reaching a half-century in existence.

What the Padres need to do is find a color scheme they can go with for the long run.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Does anyone else see the Padres as the Cleveland Cavaliers of the Major Leagues? Roughly four and a half decades old and no discernible visible identity. Admittedly, the Cavaliers have it worse as the Padres at least have some minimal logo continuity and haven't been through two different official nicknames, but both have been through numerous color and uniform changes before reaching a half-century in existence.

What the Padres need to do is find a color scheme they can go with for the long run.

The Vancouver Canucks belong to that club as well.

[The Mojo Maniac]

Does anyone else see the Padres as the Cleveland Cavaliers of the Major Leagues? Roughly four and a half decades old and no discernible visible identity. Admittedly, the Cavaliers have it worse as the Padres at least have some minimal logo continuity and haven't been through two different official nicknames, but both have been through numerous color and uniform changes before reaching a half-century in existence.

What the Padres need to do is find a color scheme they can go with for the long run.

The Vancouver Canucks belong to that club as well.

I think the Canucks can run with their current color scheme for quite some time. It fits the PNW/coastal BC very well. Lots of people don't like the orca logo, but I don't see them moving away from blue and green anytime in the near future.

Cleveland Fan, agreed. I think it's an accurate comparison; the only sort of "continuity" the Padres have had throughout their history has been some semblance of the interlocking "SD."

[swilson160]

Does anyone else see the Padres as the Cleveland Cavaliers of the Major Leagues? Roughly four and a half decades old and no discernible visible identity. Admittedly, the Cavaliers have it worse as the Padres at least have some minimal logo continuity and haven't been through two different official nicknames, but both have been through numerous color and uniform changes before reaching a half-century in existence.

What the Padres need to do is find a color scheme they can go with for the long run.

Say what about the Cavaliers?

[Cleveland Fan]

Does anyone else see the Padres as the Cleveland Cavaliers of the Major Leagues? Roughly four and a half decades old and no discernible visible identity. Admittedly, the Cavaliers have it worse as the Padres at least have some minimal logo continuity and haven't been through two different official nicknames, but both have been through numerous color and uniform changes before reaching a half-century in existence.

What the Padres need to do is find a color scheme they can go with for the long run.

Say what about the Cavaliers?

IIRC, between the mid-80s and the late 90s or early 2000s, they were known officially as the "Cleveland Cavs", not the Cavaliers.

[The_Admiral]

No, they've always been the Cavaliers, the logos just said "Cavs." I'm sure if you went back and watched games, no broadcasters were opening games by calling them the Cleveland Cavs. You could be thinking of how the Oakland Athletics were officially just the "Oakland A's" in the 1970s, but this isn't universally observed.

[Mac the Knife]

IIRC, between the mid-80s and the late 90s or early 2000s, they were known officially as the "Cleveland Cavs", not the Cavaliers.

Your recollection is incorrect. As for the Pads, they're on a level all their own when it comes to uniform schizophrenia. 46 seasons of baseball. Three complete overhauls of their color scheme (brown/gold to navy/orange, to navy/light blue/beige, to whatever they're doing now). Who can count how many different uniform sets. By comparison the Cavaliers have been relatively sane, save the aforementioned 90's/00's genericization to "Cavs."

If I owned the Padres, I'd immediately go back to the brown/white/yellow color scheme. Return the two-tone brown/gold caps.

Home whites with the brown tackle-twilled interlocking "SD" across the chest, keeping the only element the Padres have consistently held to throughout its history. No braiding, no number on the front. A 1" or 1 1/2" brown stripe running from the neckline down the sleeve, and from the armpit to the bottom, similar to the 1970's/80's Philadelphia Phillies powder blues. Numbers on the back, and on the left pant leg (old Houston Astros-style) in varsity. No names unless NL rules require it.

Road greys with brown tackle-twilled "SAN DIEGO" across the chest. Identical styling as the home whites, except with names on the back.

For alternate looks, replace the white or grey pants with brown. If there must be an alternate jersey, go with a unique brown one that has the "swinging friar" logo on the chest. No striping or braiding, but simple collar/sleeve adornment in gold/white/gold. Worn solely with white pants.

Then here's the trick: I'd not change it. No adjustments, no tweaks, nothing. The reason the Padres don't have a classic look is the organization's constant desire to tinker with it. When you think of the other 1969 expansion teams, you think for the most part of consistency: the Montreal Expos original look, which save tweaks remained for two decades. The Milwaukee Brewers of the 1970's with the ball-in-glove. And of course, the Kansas City Royals, who've been around only as long as the Padres, but are seen as the epitome of "if it works, don't mess with it."

[FinalBeast]

Has anyone heard if any teams are getting new batting practice hats? I was looking on minorleagues.com and they have the Braves hat at a pretty steep discount compared to every other team but it's regular price on MLB Shop.

[The Mojo Maniac]

I haven't heard anything, but it would be nice to see a few changes (as long as they're good, not just change for change's sake).

It was fun and interesting a couple years ago when multiple MLB teams were rebranding/tweaking their looks, so as a result this current dormant period is somewhat boring for people like us

[JayMac]

I haven't heard anything, but it would be nice to see a few changes (as long as they're good, not just change for change's sake).

Kind of like the Twins' change?