Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

Of all the colors to add to Sedona red and black, turquoise is the only one that really makes sense to me. Purple wouldn't contrast well, and Sedona-turquoise is a good enough nod to both eras and can work. Actually, the more I think on it, I think it has the potential to look really good. And Oats' comment regarding "modernized colors" leads me to guess a modernization of the inaugural colors (cause how do you "modernize" the current colors?).

Copper is a bit of a dark horse to me though. With all the use its getting from ASU lately with the Desert Fuel stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if the Diamondbacks would try to jump in on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the colors to add to Sedona red and black, turquoise is the only one that really makes sense to me. Purple wouldn't contrast well, and Sedona-turquoise is a good enough nod to both eras and can work. Actually, the more I think on it, I think it has the potential to look really good. And Oats' comment regarding "modernized colors" leads me to guess a modernization of the inaugural colors (cause how do you "modernize" the current colors?).

Copper is a bit of a dark horse to me though. With all the use its getting from ASU lately with the Desert Fuel stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if the Diamondbacks would try to jump in on that.

From their article I think they meant the old head logo is going to be updated from the old purple and teal to the modern red and black. I honestly think that they are just going to add copper to the color scheme.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/heat-index/2015/11/06/diamondbacks-set-unveil-new-uniforms-2016/75229662/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Nationals, this concept by the admiral is what they should be wearing.

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/95470-2014-mlb-changes-logo-uniform-wise-etc/page-199

I'm surprised by how much I like that uniform. But in itself the wordmark is still a problem and now that uniform looks way too much like what the Twins are wearing.

Copper just seems too close to sand to be the color that's returning. I mean, why have both sand and copper in there together? That's gonna be such a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the colors to add to Sedona red and black, turquoise is the only one that really makes sense to me. Purple wouldn't contrast well, and Sedona-turquoise is a good enough nod to both eras and can work. Actually, the more I think on it, I think it has the potential to look really good. And Oats' comment regarding "modernized colors" leads me to guess a modernization of the inaugural colors (cause how do you "modernize" the current colors?).

Copper is a bit of a dark horse to me though. With all the use its getting from ASU lately with the Desert Fuel stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if the Diamondbacks would try to jump in on that.

GoNordiques said that the new change would be divisive. I don't think adding copper would be considered "divisive." Seems like such a subtle change that it wouldn't even be worth holding a press conference to debut the new unis. I really hope it's turquoise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the D-Backs should at least keep sand.

Gone. . . For the most part.

Purple, Teal, Copper, & Black all making a return?

I would be beyond ecstatic if this is true!

I should say the sand is still there, but more for logos. As for the colors, black is still a staple in the color scheme. . . however, of the three remaining, one will return.

Sedona red?

Yes, the current colors are the staple of the new look, but of the four (really three) I quoted from the previous post, one will return into the fold.

Wait, they're keeping all the current, bad, and underwhelming colors, but shoe-horning in a fifth? These are going to be terrible. The colors might work well conceptually, but there's no way this would work on a uniform.

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.

Is there any changes to the primary hat? Or will it still be the same shade of blue with a white "SD"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snakehead is returning. As for uniforms, it's something we've never seen before. Those are the biggest changes.

Please tell me it's not side panels...

Maybe it's the TATC wraparound snake? (IMO one of, if not the only, TATC design(s) with potential.)

1999-home-future2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snakehead is returning. As for uniforms, it's something we've never seen before. Those are the biggest changes.

I asked the other person who is supposedly "in the know" on these types of changes, the same question about the D Backs changes and got this in response:

"Dbacks is tricky as there was a more radical redesign that the team walked back and this is likely going to be more 'tweaks' than anything radical."

Is this whole "something you've never seen before" thing still a part of that, or could the team have gotten cold feet at the last second and backed off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we assume that As for uniforms, it's something we've never seen before means something never seen before in baseball ever?

Maybe he means something new that we've never seen from an old DBacks set?

"Something we've never seen before" is rather unusual language to use when describing changes. That's just the way my brain processed that line.

It very well may not be as drastic as it sounds and could very well just be new logos or marks here and there, but I just read that and think "you don't hear that statement often, so...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we assume that As for uniforms, it's something we've never seen before means something never seen before in baseball ever?

Maybe he means something new that we've never seen from an old DBacks set?

Just think, if it were to be something we have not seen before, maybe we will get to hear "Majestic speak" for the first time, just like the way Nike and Adidas does to justify all of their stupid uniform elements/designs.

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.