Quillz Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I think the Twins have as much an identity problem as the Padres. They just can't decide what they want to look like, or which logo to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 12 hours ago, Brandon9485 said: Dear Minnesota Twins, I'll give you some credit for trying to switch things up and add gold to your uniforms. Truth is it's a disaster, and you already had a great home uniform. Time to cut your loses and revert back to this beauty full-time. Unpopular opinion (likely), those uniforms suck. The script is ugly and the cream is dumb. The '91 Champions set was the best they've worn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 The Twins have SO much good going on with their set. The TC logo is great and the M logo is equally good IMO. Both of those logos could be used in that set without a problem IMO. I wouldn't mind seeing the TC logo (paired with something similar to their last set) at home and the M cap on the road. The only thing really bad about the Twins is that they really flubbed things up going with the non pinstripe set at home. That was a really stupid move, as was the addition of that weird old gold. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I think the Twins should get a more radical refresh. One that produces a new "TC," totally removes the "M" logo, and one that unifies the home/road look. A slightly tweaked version of this concept by @the admiral is basically what I'm talking about: I'd clean up that "TC" logo and make the "Twins" script better match the "Minnesota" script, but Admiral's color balance (really differentiating the Twins and Indians, without altering their color scheme) and uniform design are basically what I'd want out of the team. Of course, Twins fans often freak out whenever anybody considers replacing the original "TC" with a new "TC," thinking it to be on the same level as any other classic interlocking letter logo (here's the scoop: it isn't). MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman1211 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I think a "TC" logo is fine if they want to be the Twin City Baseball Club. Right now it is just ridiculous. "Twins" is okay if you want to be the Minneapolis & St. Paul Twins. If you are Minnesota, then find a mascot that represents the whole state. I think their whole identity and logo is a hodge podge of confusion. IMO, figure who you represent then create any identity around that. Right now they don't know if they represent the state, or two cities within. I think they have the weakest identity in any major sports league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Lankford Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 The gold on the Twins' jersey is unnecessary but pretty inoffensive considering that you can barely see it from a slight distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 As far as Twins vs Indians in terms of color scheme. I think the Twins should be navy first then red secondary and the Indians should be red first then navy secondary. To varying degrees they do stick to this but I like for this to be made clear because they definitely need to be differentiated in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Lankford Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said: As far as Twins vs Indians in terms of color scheme. I think the Twins should be navy first then red secondary and the Indians should be red first then navy secondary. To varying degrees they do stick to this but I like for this to be made clear because they definitely need to be differentiated in some way. This is why I support their wordmark changes. They look better in red but I'm pretty sure they're the only navy and red team with navy wordmarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahaye7 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 8 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said: The '91 Champions set was the best they've worn. when I think of the Twins, this is what come to mind. You can wear the cream throwbacks on sunday at home. I am sore,wounded, but not slainI will lay down and bleed a whileAnd then rise up to fight again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twi Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 On April 15, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Ice_Cap said: Stance has the nerve to charge over $100 for socks. I'll never approve of anything they do. Those things are $100!? Can't imagine how that's justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 44 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said: This is why I support their wordmark changes. They look better in red but I'm pretty sure they're the only navy and red team with navy wordmarks. The navy wordmarks are my favorite part of the current Twins look and I think that's the way they should look. The 91-era red wordmark was great but that can be an outlier, they can look good with a navy wordmark as long as the rest of the uniforms are good around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikWings Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 Matt Carpenter wore the socks with the logo on them last night. Definitely not as good as the regular striped ones without it. Also looks like Stance made the stripes thicker than they used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsaline97 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 9 hours ago, SFGiants58 said: I think the Twins should get a more radical refresh. One that produces a new "TC," totally removes the "M" logo, and one that unifies the home/road look. A slightly tweaked version of this concept by @the admiral is basically what I'm talking about: I'd like that if it were a two color interlock like the current, sure, but the outlined version here doesn't work very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahaye7 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 I'll chime in on the stance socks. The Diamond edition ones I like Cleveland, STL, Tampa. They rest are pretty meh. The team logos are too big and the strips on some are too high on the calf. But, like someone said, if it gets rid of pajama pants, I'm all for it. I am sore,wounded, but not slainI will lay down and bleed a whileAnd then rise up to fight again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matito Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 On 4/15/2017 at 10:07 PM, cheo25 said: Agreed. Not everyone needs to wear 42. If I went to the game and am staring at the players in the field and none of them have names on the backs of the jerseys and all are wearing 42, then how the hell am I supposed to know which player is playing in the field (especially on the visiting teams)? Not only is everyone wearing 42 an act of overkill, it's an impractical mess. I've always liked the idea of not mandating it, but allowing players to choose to wear it on April 15th if they desire, much like Ken Griffey, Jr. did in 1997 and 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1409 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 16 minutes ago, lahaye7 said: I'll chime in on the stance socks. The Diamond edition ones I like Cleveland, STL, Tampa. They rest are pretty meh. The team logos are too big and the strips on some are too high on the calf. But, like someone said, if it gets rid of pajama pants, I'm all for it. As much as I hate pajama pants, I'd take pajama pants all day every day over the douche styles they came up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lahaye7 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 19 minutes ago, jp1409 said: As much as I hate pajama pants, I'd take pajama pants all day every day over the douche styles they came up with. oh absolutely. Thankfully, the socks are easily changeable. I saw a few more that were ok. Brewers, the giants/ O's ones w/o logo. The black and white ones w/ 10 stripes. I really dislike the MLB logo on all of them. I am sore,wounded, but not slainI will lay down and bleed a whileAnd then rise up to fight again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 On 4/15/2017 at 10:07 PM, cheo25 said: Not everyone needs to wear 42. If I went to the game and am staring at the players in the field and none of them have names on the backs of the jerseys and all are wearing 42, then how the hell am I supposed to know which player is playing in the field (especially on the visiting teams)? Not only is everyone wearing 42 an act of overkill, it's an impractical mess. While I am not in favour of having everyone wear no. 42, these uniforms do illustrate how good the uniforms would look without the players’ names on the back. The Braves’ uniforms show this most clearly. Anyway, I also don't go for the the league-wide retirement of the number. This, combined with having everyone wear it on Jackie Robinson Day, feels uncomfortably like baseball congratulating itself for being so progressive, giving the impression that the baseball establishment welcomed Jackie Robinson. This papers over the real history, the fact that there were many in baseball who resented Branch Rickey for bringing in Robinson and other black players, and the fact that the other National League owners complained that visits by the Dodgers attracted black fans to the ballpark. (The same owners who, only a few years earlier, had made sure that Bill Veeck didn't buy the Phillies once they knew of his plan to stock the club with Negro League stars.) It was better when individual players could take the number 42 in tribute. When Mo Vaughn and Butch Huskey wore the number, this constituted a more natural and honest tribute. Also, it promoted more awareness of Jackie Robinson, as Robinson was mentioned during just about every game in which these players appeared. We could still have a yearly Jackie Robinson Day commemoration without the league-wide number retirement and without the weird spectacle of everyone wearing the number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 50 minutes ago, lahaye7 said: Thankfully, the socks are easily changeable. I never once thought the socks wouldn't be easily changeable. They can't be any harder than just sliding them on and off your feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVIXX Posted April 17, 2017 Author Share Posted April 17, 2017 Add the nats to the raised batting helmet logo club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.