MLB 2016 Changes

[FinsUp1214]

I must say, the "cause this board to be divided" comment, after thinking on it, is pretty intriguing. I don't mean to fish for answers at all - just more or less thinking out loud - but if it IS Arizona, the only things I can think of that would divide the board would be 1) throwback-inspired, as the look seems to be one people either totally love (like me) or totally hate, or 2) something so wacky that people either love or hate that.

This is, of course, conditional on whether or not it's Arizona after all (but I'm starting to be convinced that - hallelujah - it likely is).

[PadreHomer]

I think the Diamondbacks should own those colors, purple, turquoise and copper, but put them together in a way that looks pleasing to the eye. I think its possible, just the old jerseys didn't do that.

[Ray Lankford]

Does this mean the Padres aren't going to be incorporating "battleship" grey?

[SilverBullet1929]

My reaction on it potentially being Arizona is that they didn't spend long enough with the Sedona Red to make it work. The purple and teal was fine but very 90's looking... The Sedona Red is at least a unique color and maybe would look great with a better uniform design. If I'm an Arizona fan I'd like a uniform redesign but with the same color scheme as they currently have. It's just too early to bail on the sedona red.

At this rate they'll change the next color scheme again within the next decade and they'll have a similar issue to San Diego that they spend such a short amount of time with each color than no one can tell their real colors are.

[TheOldRoman]

I must say, the "cause this board to be divided" comment, after thinking on it, is pretty intriguing. I don't mean to fish for answers at all - just more or less thinking out loud - but if it IS Arizona, the only things I can think of that would divide the board would be 1) throwback-inspired, as the look seems to be one people either totally love (like me) or totally hate, or 2) something so wacky that people either love or hate that.

This is, of course, conditional on whether or not it's Arizona after all (but I'm starting to be convinced that - hallelujah - it likely is).

The original color were perfect for Arizona. By that, I mean the 1998-99 colors. In 2000 they already tweaked their uniforms so they wore purple hats/sleeves/alts at home and black hats/sleeves/alts on the road. And the road vests were awful to begin with.

But the original colors, which featured turquoise more prominently, were great. Come up with a consistent identity built around purple, turquoise and copper. Keep black for an accent if you must. Even keep the A logo because whatever. But everything else about their uniform history sucked. The best they ever looked was their inaugural year, and even that wasn't too good. Just go back to those colors but start from scratch.

[Gothamite]

So "Los Angeles" on the road uniforms?

That would be vastly preferable, but they're not going to step on the apparently delicate sensibilities of Orange County.

[daveindc]

My reaction on it potentially being Arizona is that they didn't spend long enough with the Sedona Red to make it work. The purple and teal was fine but very 90's looking... The Sedona Red is at least a unique color and maybe would look great with a better uniform design. If I'm an Arizona fan I'd like a uniform redesign but with the same color scheme as they currently have. It's just too early to bail on the sedona red.

At this rate they'll change the next color scheme again within the next decade and they'll have a similar issue to San Diego that they spend such a short amount of time with each color than no one can tell their real colors are.

I wonder how they would look with the Vancouver Grizzlies' color scheme- teal, copper, black, and red (instead of purple).

[FinsUp1214]

I must say, the "cause this board to be divided" comment, after thinking on it, is pretty intriguing. I don't mean to fish for answers at all - just more or less thinking out loud - but if it IS Arizona, the only things I can think of that would divide the board would be 1) throwback-inspired, as the look seems to be one people either totally love (like me) or totally hate, or 2) something so wacky that people either love or hate that.

This is, of course, conditional on whether or not it's Arizona after all (but I'm starting to be convinced that - hallelujah - it likely is).

The original color were perfect for Arizona. By that, I mean the 1998-99 colors. In 2000 they already tweaked their uniforms so they wore purple hats/sleeves/alts at home and black hats/sleeves/alts on the road. And the road vests were awful to begin with.

But the original colors, which featured turquoise more prominently, were great. Come up with a consistent identity built around purple, turquoise and copper. Keep black for an accent if you must. Even keep the A logo because whatever. But everything else about their uniform history sucked. The best they ever looked was their inaugural year, and even that wasn't too good. Just go back to those colors but start from scratch.

I agree about the inaugural colors. I thought it was one of the very few 90's product color schemes that never deserved the "90's flak"; that scheme couldntve been more perfect for the region. I'd be absolutely thrilled to see them come back.

If simplification should be pursued, however, I'd love to see how a simple combo of purple-turquoise-sand would work. I think it'd replicate the originals well without being too extensive (if that is to be a concern).

I will say this, though; I hope the D-Snake goes away for good. I never even liked the original version. Diamondback rattlers are big and long, whereas the D-Snake logo, in order to get the shape to look right I presume, has the proportion of a garden snake or baby rattler. It just doesn't look right.

[jp1409]

I don't like the sound of "fauxback." That sounds like it's going to be crap. The only tolerable fauxback would be the current logos in brown and yellow, and that would just highlight how awful the current/new stuff is.

Also, is it just the Padres and one other team changing? Are there more?

Then it might be tolerable.

A second team is also changing (FinsUp might be happy) but that will cause this forum to be very divided.

Cause this forum to be very divided? My bet would be a team going with black or more black or a team going "modern" with side panels or something like that.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Does this mean the Padres aren't going to be incorporating "battleship" grey?

I still haven't seen any indication of where this idea originally came from. Nordique's comments on it would be welcome.

I think the purple color represents the region well, but I like sedona red for the desert team and would like to see both colors utilized, with a sand or copper as the third color.

Fauxback is pretty scary at first hear. The term is something I associate with the Rays, and I don't understand why they'd use a fauxback when they have so many different past looks to actually throw back to. But perhaps they're going to create something similar to the Astros' uniforms, taking elements from the past and combining them to get something they feel is aesthetically pleasing. Given how much people disagree with each other on which if any of the old Padres' looks is the best, that... actually may be the best route, and a good jumping off point for future identities.

As much as I'd love some extra navy on the Angels, and even an actual location name on the away, I just want to see one thing: a gold halo. I don't understand why we're still moving forward with the current halo.

[Packid]

Part of me is happy that the Padres' new look is just a tweak. At least that means they're not screwing up a full rebrand.

[Ray Lankford]

Does this mean the Padres aren't going to be incorporating "battleship" grey?

I still haven't seen any indication of where this idea originally came from. Nordique's comments on it would be welcome.

I think the purple color represents the region well, but I like sedona red for the desert team and would like to see both colors utilized, with a sand or copper as the third color.

Fauxback is pretty scary at first hear. The term is something I associate with the Rays, and I don't understand why they'd use a fauxback when they have so many different past looks to actually throw back to. But perhaps they're going to create something similar to the Astros' uniforms, taking elements from the past and combining them to get something they feel is aesthetically pleasing. Given how much people disagree with each other on which if any of the old Padres' looks is the best, that... actually may be the best route, and a good jumping off point for future identities.

As much as I'd love some extra navy on the Angels, and even an actual location name on the away, I just want to see one thing: a gold halo. I don't understand why we're still moving forward with the current halo.

Battleship grey is what they call the shade of grey in the ASG logo.

[The_Admiral]

I'm sure battleship grey will be something we've seen B4. I wouldn't call it an A1 idea, but I'm sure the Padres will C2 it that they go forward with it anyway. They may be D9 that they're doing anything, but I8 to tell you this, we do have a way of getting leaks right. It may be a living hell for us, but E7 for them.

[Sodboy13]

I must say, the "cause this board to be divided" comment, after thinking on it, is pretty intriguing. I don't mean to fish for answers at all - just more or less thinking out loud - but if it IS Arizona, the only things I can think of that would divide the board would be 1) throwback-inspired, as the look seems to be one people either totally love (like me) or totally hate, or 2) something so wacky that people either love or hate that.

This is, of course, conditional on whether or not it's Arizona after all (but I'm starting to be convinced that - hallelujah - it likely is).

The original color were perfect for Arizona. By that, I mean the 1998-99 colors. In 2000 they already tweaked their uniforms so they wore purple hats/sleeves/alts at home and black hats/sleeves/alts on the road. And the road vests were awful to begin with.

But the original colors, which featured turquoise more prominently, were great. Come up with a consistent identity built around purple, turquoise and copper. Keep black for an accent if you must. Even keep the A logo because whatever. But everything else about their uniform history sucked. The best they ever looked was their inaugural year, and even that wasn't too good. Just go back to those colors but start from scratch.

The purple alternate they wore from 1999-2001 remains one of my ₣avorite MLB jerseys ever. No qualifiers on that; it's just gorgeous.

[daveindc]

My reaction on it potentially being Arizona is that they didn't spend long enough with the Sedona Red to make it work. The purple and teal was fine but very 90's looking... The Sedona Red is at least a unique color and maybe would look great with a better uniform design. If I'm an Arizona fan I'd like a uniform redesign but with the same color scheme as they currently have. It's just too early to bail on the sedona red.

At this rate they'll change the next color scheme again within the next decade and they'll have a similar issue to San Diego that they spend such a short amount of time with each color than no one can tell their real colors are.

Replacing the purple with Sedona red on the old color scheme could work. Similar to the Vancouver Grizzlies:

[leopard88]

I will say this, though; I hope the D-Snake goes away for good. I never even liked the original version. Diamondback rattlers are big and long, whereas the D-Snake logo, in order to get the shape to look right I presume, has the proportion of a garden snake or baby rattler. It just doesn't look right.

Agreed. Beyond that . . .

1. Snakes don't generally bend at 90 degree angles (though at least the second version doesn't actually have corners).

2. Using a D instead of an A goes against the general rule that a cap logo should reflect the place name instead of the nickname.

[ConcreteCharlie]

I will say this, though; I hope the D-Snake goes away for good. I never even liked the original version. Diamondback rattlers are big and long, whereas the D-Snake logo, in order to get the shape to look right I presume, has the proportion of a garden snake or baby rattler. It just doesn't look right.

Agreed. Beyond that . . .

1. Snakes don't generally bend at 90 degree angles (though at least the second version doesn't actually have corners).

2. Using a D instead of an A goes against the general rule that a cap logo should reflect the place name instead of the nickname.

Leopards don't generally stand on their hind legs, but your profile logo is still pretty cool

[TheOldRoman]

Yeah, but the leopard is only cool because he's doing a sexy pose. Snakes can't be sexy.

[larrypep]

Does this mean the Padres aren't going to be incorporating "battleship" grey?

I still haven't seen any indication of where this idea originally came from. Nordique's comments on it would be welcome.

I think the purple color represents the region well, but I like sedona red for the desert team and would like to see both colors utilized, with a sand or copper as the third color.

Fauxback is pretty scary at first hear. The term is something I associate with the Rays, and I don't understand why they'd use a fauxback when they have so many different past looks to actually throw back to. But perhaps they're going to create something similar to the Astros' uniforms, taking elements from the past and combining them to get something they feel is aesthetically pleasing. Given how much people disagree with each other on which if any of the old Padres' looks is the best, that... actually may be the best route, and a good jumping off point for future identities.

As much as I'd love some extra navy on the Angels, and even an actual location name on the away, I just want to see one thing: a gold halo. I don't understand why we're still moving forward with the current halo.

The Padres do use grey, in the new digicamo. Other than that grey only shows up in the roads.

But I feel people will love the fauxbacks.

Any idea of the frequency they will use these "fauxbacks"? I hope it's more frequent than the amount of time they wore the 1985 uniforms last season.

[Ray Lankford]

Does this mean the Padres aren't going to be incorporating "battleship" grey?

I still haven't seen any indication of where this idea originally came from. Nordique's comments on it would be welcome.

I think the purple color represents the region well, but I like sedona red for the desert team and would like to see both colors utilized, with a sand or copper as the third color.

Fauxback is pretty scary at first hear. The term is something I associate with the Rays, and I don't understand why they'd use a fauxback when they have so many different past looks to actually throw back to. But perhaps they're going to create something similar to the Astros' uniforms, taking elements from the past and combining them to get something they feel is aesthetically pleasing. Given how much people disagree with each other on which if any of the old Padres' looks is the best, that... actually may be the best route, and a good jumping off point for future identities.

As much as I'd love some extra navy on the Angels, and even an actual location name on the away, I just want to see one thing: a gold halo. I don't understand why we're still moving forward with the current halo.

The Padres do use grey, in the new digicamo. Other than that grey only shows up in the roads.

But I feel people will love the fauxbacks.

Does this mean their going with Navy digicamo?