Bucfan56

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

An Arizona sports reporter tweeted that Dbacks player Chase Anderson slipped that a "touch of teal" will appear on the new uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry, yes. The home uniform is not the current home just with yellow added. It very similar to other ones.

Faux backs will have the same current font but in retro colors.

Yellow 'D' on the home cap. Faux back will fit the color scheme of that look.

Sodboy, I didn't want to compare the dbacks to the clippers, since the clippers are far worse, but these uniforms are unique. I'm not sure what they will look like in real life. The art I've seen is flat, it's either gonna translate very well, subtle yet modern or horrible mess.

Sorry to keep asking, and I appreciate the info. But "not current home with just yellow added" and "very similar to other ones" is two separate clues, right? So if I read that correctly we have a white uniform with yellow piping and if not like the current home fonts, do we have an "SD" on the left side?

The yellow D with a white S on a blue cap doesn't seem like it will work too well. I guess I'll have to see it in person before I make that judgement but I'm not picturing a very good looking design with those colors.

The fauxbacks is pretty clear - brown and yellow lettering similar to what they had in 2015 on white, and I'm assuming the cap will be brown with a yellow SD. That sounds like the clear winner of the set.

You said it, not me ;)
The wavy 'Padres' on the old set (last year) is gone, as is the friar. The fauxback is a brown cap, but the 'SD' is also brown, so what do you think is going on there. Jersey color is brown, but in this new font.

With those concepts merge Home and alt 1 for new home uniform and for the fauxback merge home, alt 2 & 3.

Wow. SD on all three new uniforms, with brown fauxback jerseys, white pants, and Taco Bell caps? Very cool.

Interesting the road jersey with "SAN DIEGO" remains untouched, or will that also be adorned with the "SD"?

The 'SD' is only on two uniforms, the home and the Blue alt. 'San Diego' is on the road and 'Padres' is on the remaining uniforms.

An Arizona sports reporter tweeted that Dbacks player Chase Anderson slipped that a "touch of teal" will appear on the new uniforms.

Some. . . some uniforms.

So is the fauxback cap brown with two full yellow panels or the classic bell shaped panels?

Also, any clues of the new "Padres" font on the fauxback? As far as I can tell with your clues, it's just the fauxback (and maybe the BP jersey) that still has "Padres" across the chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nordiques, last question from me:), then I will just wait for the unveilings.

You said the Swinging Friar is gone from the home jersey for the Pads. Is he still part of the logo package? If so, any change to him?

Thanks very much :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some. . . some uniforms.

Do you know if it's the same shade of teal as the classic Dbacks unis? I've also seen people use the word "turquoise" which is actually a much lighter color than teal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the brown Padres "fauxback" might use the old lowercase script, but the jersey won't have the yellow raglan sleeves and might be a button-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the brown Padres "fauxback" might use the old lowercase script, but the jersey won't have the yellow raglan sleeves and might be a button-up.

The clues he gave were "Faux backs will have the same current font but in retro colors", and then added, "the wavy Padres in the old set (last year) is gone. He added that Padres will adorn the chest (as opposed to SD) so that must mean "Padres" will utilize the same font as "SAN DIEGO" on the road jerseys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that little mock-up of uniforms, all the assets are there. Except for the orange and the old 'Padres' mark.

Friar is completely gone from what I've seen.

Arizona "teal" is about three shades brighter than before.

Very cool.

Fauxbacks = brown jersey, yellow PADRES in the same font as SAN DIEGO on the road uniforms, with a brown cap, yellow BELL panel and Brown SD in the current SD design.

New home is white with yellow piping, SD on the left chest with navy blue cap, interlocking SD with a white S and yellow D.

Someone mock those up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So teal it is. Sounds like a good move.Are all the Diamond Back jerseys going to be sublimated? If so, I hope it doesn't start a trend. Will the Padres have one or two faux backs? Finally, please tell me no mlb team will add a camo alt or a cream alt jersey for next season. More or less, the Padres and the Diamondbacks are the only teams getting a rebrand of any kind next season, right? Nobody else, other than the Twins will be adding or modifying an alternate jersey I'm assuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I heard from Friday's Dennis Lin chat from SD Union tribune was they are still "touching up last minute details" from what I remember at least. I wonder if they are putting yellow on the away unis last minute or if it's definitely too late. I'm hoping they fix it. It's the only thing bugging me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this idea of the d-backs bringing back turquoise and combining it with the sand and brick. And I don't mind an expansion team from the 90's that plays in a new market being unconventional. The marlins were supposed to be the unconventional team, but they failed. We survive the 70's pirates, baseball will survive a little snakeskin sublimation. But the color scheme is what I'm happiest about, has the potential to look very good, even in a more subdued set. Kind of reminds me of that McDonalds in Arizona that was forced to make its golden arches turquoise so that it would fit in better with the landscape

arizona_d_backs_a.png

I think this uniform has the potential of looking a lot more interesting and unique than either of the prior ones.

Arizona "teal" is about three shades brighter than before.

It was pretty bright before. You mean like Miami Dolphins bright?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to the D-Backs "teal", I have always called it "turquoise", because I thought that was their intent in using the color. To kind of represent the strong Native American influence in the State of AZ, (design,art, jewelry, etc..) Anyway, I am excited to see what they have done.:)

The Padres, on the other hand, have got me scratching my head. On one hand, I am thrilled with the fauxback. On the other, I'm a little uneasy that for the first time in their history, the word "Padres" will not appear on the home whites, and once again, the Swinging Friar has left the building. Curious as to their thought process here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My general thoughts thus far...

The Padres sound like a Brewers-esque cluttering of designs. Where one jersey looks nothing like another. Where there's four-five different looks and each one is too different, like they could almost be of 4-5 different teams. The Twins, Indians, Rockies, and others have had this problem at various times in recent history and now it looks like the Padres are doing this intentionally. Individually each jersey could be nice, collectively I shudder.

The Diamondbacks are scaring me. Trying too many new elements at once could be a serious failure. It sounds like a video game create-a-team look on overload. I've already expressed my opinion that they used too many elements in their inaugural uniforms, this now sounds like they're taking that plus the sedona red look plus even more on top of that.

Overall both of these revamps sound overblown and messy, Less should be more. We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

The name "Brooklyn Robins" is particularly fun because it came about as a nod to their manager Wilbert Robinson.

Did they really use the Robins name throughout the 20s? I thought it was phased out well before 1931.

Here is a UP story that ran in the Pittsburgh Press in August of 1928 which speculates that Robinson might be fired at the end of his then-current contract in 1929. (He wound up lasting through 1931.) The story uses the name "Robins".

And even after Robinson was fired, an AP story in the Miami News in January of 1932 about Casey Stengel being hired as a coach continued to use the name "Robins".

Thanks . . . ten pages later since I never logged in over the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having SD on the home and San Diego on the road is redundant. It's like they can't be bothered to spell the whole thing out at home. I think SD would be fine for the road, or for both, but it's kinda silly to abbreviate your city at home but spell it on the road.

I get that the Yankees do this too but it's one of their charming quirks that's just been that way for 80 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having SD on the home and San Diego on the road is redundant. It's like they can't be bothered to spell the whole thing out at home. I think SD would be fine for the road, or for both, but it's kinda silly to abbreviate your city at home but spell it on the road.

I get that the Yankees do this too but it's one of their charming quirks that's just been that way for 80 years or so.

The lack of continuity is what gets me about this rebrand. I think they're absolutely going in the right direction (the white/yellow logo is awesome), but they need to go all the way. Bring yellow onto the alternate. Bring yellow onto the road. But it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having SD on the home and San Diego on the road is redundant. It's like they can't be bothered to spell the whole thing out at home. I think SD would be fine for the road, or for both, but it's kinda silly to abbreviate your city at home but spell it on the road.

I get that the Yankees do this too but it's one of their charming quirks that's just been that way for 80 years or so.

The Tigers and the Nationals do this too. If it's charming for the Yanks there's no reason it can't be charming for another team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I understand correctly, San Diego is probably dropping the friar entirely?

Forget "what are they thinking"...are they even thinking at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having SD on the home and San Diego on the road is redundant. It's like they can't be bothered to spell the whole thing out at home. I think SD would be fine for the road, or for both, but it's kinda silly to abbreviate your city at home but spell it on the road.

I get that the Yankees do this too but it's one of their charming quirks that's just been that way for 80 years or so.

The Tigers and the Nationals do this too. If it's charming for the Yanks there's no reason it can't be charming for another team.

I forgot about the Tigers - yeah it's good for them too. They (and the Yankees) are from an era where your "logo" or nickname went on your home uniform, and the road was really just to identify you to a crowd that may not be familiar with your other marks - just a plain city name was the norm for the time (I guess the Yankees spelled that out for a while too, but whatever.)

The Nationals look like trash with the W logo on the chest. Part of "charming" (a big part) is that it's old, and something you wouldn't normally see today. You can't manufacture charm.

That being said, I like the DC mark so much that I'd support that going on the home uniform - hey - this is all subjective, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.