Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

I recently heard a rumor that the National's were bringing back this script, either on a home white jersey or an alternate red jersey. Any truth to it?

NationalsPrototypeFront.jpg

Where did you hear these rumors? The only indication that they might go with this, is that fact that you can find the cursive Nationals everywhere now- clothing, throughout Nats Park, when in previous years you couldn't find it to save your life. Honestly, I think it's too late to make this the new home whites. Nats fans have already embraced the Curly W jerseys. Maybe if they make an alt out of this instead. Like a fauxback Senators uni with "Nationals" instead.

I suppose I wouldn't really mind something like Sedona, Turquoise, and Sand. I'd still prefer the original colors by far, but I could be fine with a combo like that.

Really anything that's even a decent departure from the current would be best. I've tried to get on board with it, really tried, but just can't. I felt it was a set that was doomed from the start, mostly because of how far removed it was from an already successful brand, and the timing in which it was released; Houston was starting to wear thier brick caps more often as well as brick accessory at the time (not to mention the brick alternate jersey), and (though most can agree it wasn't the historically "right" look for them) they began to sort-of own the look of brick-black-tan. Then all of a sudden, Arizona dumps an identity that was undoubtedly and uniquely thier own for something much too similar to the Astros (not identical of course, just similar). Because of that, to me, the currents just never looked like "thier own" look. Even after the Astros have switched, I still look at Arizona and instantly think "brick Astros". That's not good for a brand, especially one which started out as having a look of it's own.

So the fact it might be (hopefully) Arizona is a good thing to me, and what I feel to be the necessary step. Now I just hope that step is far enough from the current that it gives Arizona a good, unique look again, whether that be throwback-inspired or something entirely different.

The combo was their own, but that's not really saying much. The purple and teal thrown together reeked of 90's expansion team, and was the laziest thing they could have done other than what the Devil Rays did. They basically just threw together the two colors that made the Rockies and Marlins stand out. Now that a lot of sports teams have ditched the teal, you can say the DBacks' purple and teal looks great and unique. I honestly wouldn't be upset if they went back to it, or replace the purple with Sedona red to set themselves apart from the Rockies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently heard a rumor that the National's were bringing back this script, either on a home white jersey or an alternate red jersey. Any truth to it?

NationalsPrototypeFront.jpg

Please please please please please please please please please please

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

I've never understood the dislike of the curly W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

Nice deflection there, but I couldn't care less about your team or its rivals.

I do appreciate the logo's history. But I've never confused "old" or "tenured" with "good design". Not everything from the 60s is worth keeping. It's unbalanced, goofy, and virtually indistinguishable from a long-established drugstore logo. I'd put this firmly in the category of "not worth keeping".

You have some great design in the Nationals' package. That script is the equal of anything in the majors. The cap logo suffers greatly in the comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

Nice deflection there, but I couldn't care less about your team or its rivals.

I do appreciate the logo's history. But I've never confused "old" or "tenured" with "good design". Not everything from the 60s is worth keeping. It's unbalanced, goofy, and virtually indistinguishable from a long-established drugstore logo. I'd put this firmly in the category of "not worth keeping".

You have some great design in the Nationals' package. That script is the equal of anything in the majors. The cap logo suffers greatly in the comparison.

lol. The Curly W stands out, and the cap has been popular ever since it came back in 2005. It's one thing to say that there are too many of them on the uniform, but calling it "goofy" and "a Walgreens logo" just shows your bias. If you're as much of a devoted, long-time Walgreens shopper as you're trying to come across as, you would see the difference between the two logos. lol. There are only so many ways a cursive W is going to look. Who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

Nice deflection there, but I couldn't care less about your team or its rivals.

I do appreciate the logo's history. But I've never confused "old" or "tenured" with "good design". Not everything from the 60s is worth keeping. It's unbalanced, goofy, and virtually indistinguishable from a long-established drugstore logo. I'd put this firmly in the category of "not worth keeping".

You have some great design in the Nationals' package. That script is the equal of anything in the majors. The cap logo suffers greatly in the comparison.

It became a rallying point for a return of Major League Baseball to DC though. That's the thing. Is it as solid as other historical options? No. Is it even really that good on its own? Not really. Is it going anywhere? Probably not. It's benefited from the perfect storm of circumstances that's made it untouchable. The "Nationals" script is a huge improvement for the home jersey, but the curly W will never be jettisoned from the team's identity.

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

"Troll fans"? Goth is many things. A troll is not one of them :D

As for fans of rival teams? He's a Brewers fan, first and foremost. Last I checked? There's no Brewers/Nationals rivalry.

You really need to stop treating legitimate criticisms of your favourite team as personal insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a huge fan of the curly W, but I'm also a huge fan of the extinct solid navy cap too, so I guess that shows how my opinions work.. But I also am a huge fan of their scripts as opposed to anything beveled or the curly W on home/road jerseys.. maybe if they find a decent way to use it on an alt, but their scripts are infinitely superior, and IMO, compliment the curly W (and vice-versa)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gotta be either the DBacks or the Rockies.

People have mentioned the reasons for it being the DBacks already.

The Rockies have had those unis for their entire history and most people can't even tell the pinstripes are purple, so they could be changing.

They could also divide the board depending on how they use (or change) their colors.

It's not the Rockies

You pointed out the Padres is an half-assed change. Is the other team a full rebrand or minor changes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

Nice deflection there, but I couldn't care less about your team or its rivals.

I do appreciate the logo's history. But I've never confused "old" or "tenured" with "good design". Not everything from the 60s is worth keeping. It's unbalanced, goofy, and virtually indistinguishable from a long-established drugstore logo. I'd put this firmly in the category of "not worth keeping".

You have some great design in the Nationals' package. That script is the equal of anything in the majors. The cap logo suffers greatly in the comparison.

It became a rallying point for a return of Major League Baseball to DC though. That's the thing. Is it as solid as other historical options? No. Is it even really that good on its own? Not really. Is it going anywhere? Probably not. It's benefited from the perfect storm of circumstances that's made it untouchable. The "Nationals" script is a huge improvement for the home jersey, but the curly W will never be jettisoned from the team's identity.

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

"Troll fans"? Goth is many things. A troll is not one of them :D

As for fans of rival teams? He's a Brewers fan, first and foremost. Last I checked? There's no Brewers/Nationals rivalry.

You really need to stop treating legitimate criticisms of your favourite team as personal insults.

I'm sorry, but I've mostly heard those types of remarks like he used from fans of rival teams. I use "rival" here to include all NL teams the Nats have battled with in recent history- Giants, Cardinals, etc. Does "that goofy Walgreens logo" sound like legitimate criticism to you? Is he really that concerned that it looks similar to Walgreens' logo? lol. I never really said he was trolling, but my bad anyway. I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Interesting. Makes me think maybe we'll see something based off of the Navy Working Uniform, rather than the Marines MARPAT

Untitled-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

Nice deflection there, but I couldn't care less about your team or its rivals.

I do appreciate the logo's history. But I've never confused "old" or "tenured" with "good design". Not everything from the 60s is worth keeping. It's unbalanced, goofy, and virtually indistinguishable from a long-established drugstore logo. I'd put this firmly in the category of "not worth keeping".

You have some great design in the Nationals' package. That script is the equal of anything in the majors. The cap logo suffers greatly in the comparison.

It became a rallying point for a return of Major League Baseball to DC though. That's the thing. Is it as solid as other historical options? No. Is it even really that good on its own? Not really. Is it going anywhere? Probably not. It's benefited from the perfect storm of circumstances that's made it untouchable. The "Nationals" script is a huge improvement for the home jersey, but the curly W will never be jettisoned from the team's identity.

Anything that sidelines that goofy Walgreens logo is good by me. That the script is beautiful in its own right is just icing on the cake.

lol. Mostly troll fans of rival teams call it a Walgreens logo. The Curly W has history, since you seem to care about it that much.

"Troll fans"? Goth is many things. A troll is not one of them :D

As for fans of rival teams? He's a Brewers fan, first and foremost. Last I checked? There's no Brewers/Nationals rivalry.

You really need to stop treating legitimate criticisms of your favourite team as personal insults.

I'm sorry, but I've mostly heard those types of remarks like he used from fans of rival teams. I use "rival" here to include all NL teams the Nats have battled with in recent history- Giants, Cardinals, etc. Does "that goofy Walgreens logo" sound like legitimate criticism to you? Is he really that concerned that it looks similar to Walgreens' logo? lol. I never really said he was trolling, but my bad anyway. I'm done.

Why would you take it personally and get defensive anyway? Frankly, it is a goofy logo - unbalanced and on an awkward tilt. A big loop in the middle of a W just looks... well, goofy. I don't really think of Walgreens when I see it, but the association bars it from ever becoming truly iconic, since by definition, something can't really be iconic of two distinctly separate things.

It clashes with the rest of their identity, and its faults are magnified when it is... well, magnified (as in blown up and used as a chest logo.) Fair points about it being a rallying point, but it should have been phased out after the first couple of seasons in favor of either the DC cap or another new design altogether. The DC logo was sharp and really deserved a longer life. The whole initial identity was a few too many bevels and outlines away from being really sharp (with the exception of the goofy cap logo.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I thought Washington's original jersey set was fantastic. I loved the gold and I loved the bevels. The only thing that dragged it down was that lame curly W logo.

I get the "rally cry" begind the curly W debate, but it's still a really lame logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should've embraced the DC hats and drop the curly W. Stick with being the Washington Nationals, but the use the DC hat. Would've worked in the same way the TC hat works for the Minnesota Twins.

I don't like the Nats home uniforms because from a distance they look like the Reds. They should put that script Nationals on the uniforms tomorrow and call it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purple and teal gets plenty of love and looked good but its so overrated as a color scheme in baseball. I don't get how it's uniquely their own if all they did was grab the two unique colors of the two previous expansion teams (Colorado and Florida) and just mash them together. Total rip off to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The curly W hat should always be the Nationals' hat. It trancends the team and links them to their city's history, just as does the Mets' use of the Giants' NY cap logo.

Should've embraced the DC hats and drop the curly W. Stick with being the Washington Nationals, but the use the DC hat.

But they aren't the "DC Nationals". So no "DC" cap logo is appropriate. As long as the locality name is "Washington", then the cap logo should be a W.

...the DC hat [w]ould've worked in the same way the TC hat works for the Minnesota Twins.

Yes, it would have worked in the same way, which is "not at all". One of my earliest memories as a baseball uniform fan was wondering what that bizarre "TC" was on Minnesota's caps. Learning that it was for "Twin Cities" did not solve my confusion, because the team clearly was not called "the Twin Cities (somethings)". So "TC" clearly was ridiculous. (Side note: I cannot say "TC" without thinking of Top Cat.)

I loved the M hat that came in with the 1987 redesign. (Another side note: notice that I didn't say "rebrand". It wasn't a rebrand, people! The brand's name stayed the same.) To have later dropped that cap logo for a return to the silly TC cap logo was a big mistake.

Likewise, it would be a mistake for the Washington Nationals to drop their actual initial from their cap. The DC logo would be fine as a sleeve patch, just as the TC logo for the Twins was for a few years before it displaced the superior M logo on the caps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It clashes with the rest of their identity, and its faults are magnified when it is... well, magnified (as in blown up and used as a chest logo.) Fair points about it being a rallying point, but it should have been phased out after the first couple of seasons in favor of either the DC cap or another new design altogether. The DC logo was sharp and really deserved a longer life. The whole initial identity was a few too many bevels and outlines away from being really sharp (with the exception of the goofy cap logo.)

it doesn't clash with their identity currently. It clashed with the first one, but now their identity is a matching Washington script and, well, the W on the chest. Their current uniforms are a mess, but that's because of the awful holdover number font, the silly number of hats, differing piping from jersey to jersey and the home jersey not having the wordmark on it. The Nats are a solid 5 tweaks from having a really good set, but their set currently sucks. It's on the W logo's fault, though.

I've always liked the W, but I agree that the inaugural set would have been really good on its own with a different cap logo. I liked the road jerseys in particular. However, the people decided and the curly W was here to stay, so they should have jettisoned the bevel set sooner and come up with a better replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal Nationals set would have been the beveled scripts in navy and the DC monogram on navy. No one else in the National League wears navy and red with a heavy emphasis on navy, plus metallic gold jumps off a base layer of navy better than it does red. The park's proximity to the Navy Yard makes an emphasis on navy blue make even more sense. Yes, the Capitals and Not Bullets are red-based, but that's all the more reason not to be: you're not part of their parent company; don't let people get away with wearing the same gear to Nats games that they'd wear to Caps games.

But they aren't the "DC Nationals". So no "DC" cap logo is appropriate. As long as the locality name is "Washington", then the cap logo should be a W.

Isn't this line of thinking rather facile? As erstwhile board superstar BallWonk was fond of pointing out, there is no legal incorporated City of Washington, just the District of Columbia which is informally called "Washington, D.C.," so there would be nothing wrong with the DC monogram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IceCap locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.