Luke_Groundrunner

AHL's Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins unveil new uniforms to reflect parent club.

Recommended Posts

The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins have unveiled new uniforms for the upcoming season on August 8th. They'll be wearing uniforms exactly the same as the NHL Penguins (their parent organization), except they'll have their own version of a 'skating penguin on Gold triangle logo' as the crest, and their primary logo as a patch on the shoulders. There will be no changes made to the team's primary logo.

 

 
P.S - IMO they really should use the crest logo as their primary. Maybe in the near future?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The splash of red does wonders for this already great uniform.  I think the primary logo is perfect as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunder Mifflin approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daniel75 said:

Dunder Mifflin approved.

CbH1NwfUEAA6s-I.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good that they will look like their parent club.  All affilliated minor league teams should follow suit; it should be immediately apparent to any observer who the parent club is.

But, what's the deal with this "Wilkes-Barre/Scranton" business?  Isn't the usual formulation "Scranton/Wilkes-Barre"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It's good that they will look like their parent club.  All affilliated minor league teams should follow suit; it should be immediately apparent to any observer who the parent club is.

But, what's the deal with this "Wilkes-Barre/Scranton" business?  Isn't the usual formulation "Scranton/Wilkes-Barre"?

Usually, yes, but the Baby Pens play in WB, which is why they put it first.

 

Also, I disagree on the visual identity falling in line with the parent club. I'm ok with it when the AHL team is named for the NHL one. It also can work for teams with their own identity that are still owned by the NHL team.

 

Affiliates that are self-owned, though? That often leads to a new color scheme every time they change partners.

 

Also, the Moose and IceCaps looked much better in their previous color schemes. Forcing the wrong colors on an identity, just so they match the NHL team, and not because they work well, is bad design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It's good that they will look like their parent club.  All affilliated minor league teams should follow suit; it should be immediately apparent to any observer who the parent club is.

 

Look, just because you like NYCFC doesn't mean that should be the way of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sodboy13 said:

 

Look, just because you like NYCFC doesn't mean that should be the way of the world.

 

First, NYCFC is not a farm club of Manchester City.  It has the same restrictions on player movement that every other MLS team has. Unfortunately, MLS retains the cheesy and embarassing single entity structure, which functions as a means to rob players by preventing the establishment of their market value. But if NYCFC were a Man City farm club, and if there were easy transfer of Man City's players down to NYCFC (in the way a team in the NHL or in Major League Baseball can do with its farm clubs), then I would be most pleased by that. 
 

Anyway, the idea of an affilliate looking like its parent makes perfect sense.  And when the affilliation changes, so should the uniform style.

 


This year the Buffalo Bisons wore Blue-Jays-style alt uniforms.



Affiliation_Throwback_Jerseys_8j787hyf_q

 


In past seasons they have worn a red version.

 

 

BovMyDVIIAA3m_3.jpg

 

 

Either way, it clearly marks them as a Blue Jays team.  One of these should be their full-time uniforms.

 

 

By contrast, when the Bisons were a Cleveland Indians farm club, they looked, appropriately, like the Indians.

1987-buffalo-bisons-junior-noboa.jpg

 

 

At that time, the Jays' top club was in Syracuse.  Guess what they wore.

 

65873-11Fr.jpg

 

This indeed should be the way of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, you're wrong, but at least you have convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of robbing a minor league team of their individual identity. 

 

I understand the logic - having appropriately colored gear when you're called up, so you don't necessarily need all new stuff - but you should be able to work with that limitation and still have an identity separate from the parent club.

 

That way, small-town local teams can still have an identity that celebrates the town that they're in while still being properly connected to the big league.

 

There's also something to be said for the small-time cartoonish logos and uniforms that everyone says are "minor league". They're fun, they're different, and you know you're in the big time when you have a logo you can have major respect for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2016 at 9:20 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It's good that they will look like their parent club.  All affilliated minor league teams should follow suit; it should be immediately apparent to any observer who the parent club is.

The majority of AHL clubs follow the NHL affiliate's color scheme (to some degree), and it works for most of them. 

 

There's really only one that doesn't that might benefit from adopting their NHL affiliate's colors: the Milwaukee Admirals.

 

If you think that the Condors, but especially the Moose and IceCaps look best in the affiliate's colors, you should probably stop by the unpopular opinions thread.

 

If you think the Wolves, Bears or Amerks should change to their affiliate's colors, you're just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2016 at 6:29 PM, hockey week said:

I am not a fan of robbing a minor league team of their individual identity. 

 

I understand the logic - having appropriately colored gear when you're called up, so you don't necessarily need all new stuff - but you should be able to work with that limitation and still have an identity separate from the parent club.

 

That way, small-town local teams can still have an identity that celebrates the town that they're in while still being properly connected to the big league.

 

There's also something to be said for the small-time cartoonish logos and uniforms that everyone says are "minor league". They're fun, they're different, and you know you're in the big time when you have a logo you can have major respect for.

 

To add to this - it also opens up the minor league team's fanbase to fans of other parents clubs who wouldn't be comfortable cheering for (or wearing merchandise visually similar to) a pro team they might not like.

 

I can wear my Brooklyn Cyclones hat without a second thought despite my antipathy toward the Mets, whereas my NYCFC jersey makes me feel like half a Man City fan even though I support Tottenham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Waffles said:

I can wear my Brooklyn Cyclones hat without a second thought despite my antipathy toward the Mets, whereas my NYCFC jersey makes me feel like half a Man City fan even though I support Tottenham.

 

I can hardly believe that there is a Brooklyn Cyclones fan who has antipathy for the Mets, especially when every player, manager, and coach of the Cyclones is an employee of the Mets.  

This is why the idea of separate identities for minor-league affilliates rubs me the wrong way.  It's selling a fiction.  I was a fan of the Newark Bears when they were in the independent Atlantic League.  The job of their manager was to win for the Bears.  Thus their separate identity was legitimate. By contrast, the job of the Brooklyn Cyclones' manager is to evaluate players and to prepare the best of them for promotion to the next level in the Mets' farm system.  We shouldn't be hiding that; the team should look like the Mets.  And likewise for all affilliated teams.  The idea of honestly saying what you are should not be a radical idea.

 

I understand the argument that minor-league teams allow for a widening of the world of uniform aesthetics.  But for me reflecting reality is a more worthy goal.

I am also a fan of NYCFC who is not a Man City supporter.  And I don't mind at all that we share a colour scheme with Man City, and I wear my sky blue hat and shirt proudly.  I am a Chelsea fan; but I have tremendous respect for Man City, a club which has done things the right way, as has Chelsea. So NYCFC's association with that club makes me proud.

However, I do see that a Man United fan would not have that luxury, and probably would not support NYCFC. Likewise, if it were Man United and not Man City which had helped found NYCFC, I could not have become a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I can hardly believe that there is a Brooklyn Cyclones fan who has antipathy for the Mets, especially when every player, manager, and coach of the Cyclones is an employee of the Mets.

 

To the extent I am a Cyclones fan, it's because I enjoy attending their games and I take pride in their identification with my borough. I am under no illusion that they don't primarily exist to evaluate and prepare players to advance in the Mets' organization, but that is just not relevant to my personal interest in the team. They aren't obscuring their player development agenda by calling themselves the Cyclones instead of the Mets; to my earlier point, they're making the team more accessible to people like me who are not invested in the Mets' or their future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a good balance of independent, inspired, and identical across the AHL and AAA. The fact of the matter is that affiliations come and go for most teams, so they shouldn't find themselves going from Orioles facsimiles to Blue Jays facsimiles to Mets facsimiles or what have you. It's probably arbitrary why some teams work this way and some don't: I love that the Braves are the Braves from top to bottom, but I feel as though the only Yankees should be the New York Yankees. Maybe there can be other Dodgers, but probably not in Oklahoma City. I like the Toledo Mud Hens and miss the S/W-B Red Barons, but I'll take the Omaha Royals over the Storm Chasers or Tucson Padres over El Paso Chihuahuas.

 

As for the AHL, you have the Chicago Wolves, Rochester Americans, and Hershey Bears who should always do their own thing, plus now the Manitoba Moose who could do their own thing again but are choosing to doublebluewash themselves to match the Jets' dismal color scheme. The Phantoms and Baby Pens are good examples of taking cues from the parent team; the Reign and Barracuda are bad ones. The Rockford-based Chicago affiliate would be fine if it weren't named after frozen pigs to my unending consternation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, the admiral said:

I like a good balance of independent, inspired, and identical across the AHL and AAA. The fact of the matter is that affiliations come and go for most teams, so they shouldn't find themselves going from Orioles facsimiles to Blue Jays facsimiles to Mets facsimiles or what have you. It's probably arbitrary why some teams work this way and some don't: I love that the Braves are the Braves from top to bottom, but I feel as though the only Yankees should be the New York Yankees. Maybe there can be other Dodgers, but probably not in Oklahoma City. I like the Toledo Mud Hens and miss the S/W-B Red Barons, but I'll take the Omaha Royals over the Storm Chasers or Tucson Padres over El Paso Chihuahuas.

 

As for the AHL, you have the Chicago Wolves, Rochester Americans, and Hershey Bears who should always do their own thing, plus now the Manitoba Moose who could do their own thing again but are choosing to doublebluewash themselves to match the Jets' dismal color scheme. The Phantoms and Baby Pens are good examples of taking cues from the parent team; the Reign and Barracuda are bad ones. The Rockford-based Chicago affiliate would be fine if it weren't named after frozen pigs to my unending consternation.

Exactly. Some minor league teams have strong brands. The Americans are older than the Sabres; I wouldn't want them to bend to the Sabres' will, even though the Sabres now own them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2016 at 1:36 PM, BeerGuyJordan said:

The majority of AHL clubs follow the NHL affiliate's color scheme (to some degree), and it works for most of them. 

 

There's really only one that doesn't that might benefit from adopting their NHL affiliate's colors: the Milwaukee Admirals.

 

No way - the Admirals look so much better than the Predators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2016 at 2:58 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I can hardly believe that there is a Brooklyn Cyclones fan who has antipathy for the Mets, especially when every player, manager, and coach of the Cyclones is an employee of the Mets. 

 

One of my sons is a Yankee fan, and he loves going to Cyclones games as much as his Mets-loving brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for this whole thing, I prefer Minor-league teams to have unique identities with clever tie-ins to the major league team.

 

If a team happens to use a similar/same identity, then I don't mind seeing that team pull out the same template.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bisons really do set a high bar in terms of paying homage to a revolving door of parent clubs while preserving their own unique identity.

Share this post


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