MLB Changes 2017

[OnWis97]

On 12/3/2016 at 1:29 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Their reasoning was equally enraging. The team claimed they needed to put the primary logo on the sleeve so people would know it was a Chicago White Sox jersey.

A jersey with "Chicago" across the chest and a logo featuring a white sock on the sleeve apparently wasn't enough. 

I'd never heard that.  It kinda screams "inferiority complex."

[Yac12]

23 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

True but this kinda IS my one fear... That more teams start trending towards what the D-Backs have done.

I'm hoping that baseball is too traditional to make all kinds of D-Backs type of changes.

[AnPheitseog]

27 minutes ago, Bouj said:

It will probably be a new panel configuration (as opposed to what Flex Base uses now), but it'll probably be the same or similar material.  And the cut of the jersey might change.  I think we'll get the faux button-ups in a few places and the UA faux flannel look too.  I don't want to challenge UA to prove me wrong, but it can't be worse than anything the D-Backs have done.

 

I'm kind of exicited about the ake flannel for certain teams, to see how it would end up looking.

 

At the end of the day, it comes down to team restraint. Which i doubt will end well for some.

 

I fear for the Orioles. Local company, so UA might make them into the testing dummy for crazy designs/bad choices.

[Yac12]

1 hour ago, DiePerske said:

I'm kind of exicited about the ake flannel for certain teams, to see how it would end up looking.

 

At the end of the day, it comes down to team restraint. Which i doubt will end well for some.

 

I fear for the Orioles. Local company, so UA might make them into the testing dummy for crazy designs/bad choices.

I don't think much will be done with the O's as long as Buck is the manager.  But, after his decision not to pitch the closer in the playoffs he might not be there by the time UA takes over.

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, HighCheese said:

Not 2017 but

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18208401/mlb-announces-uniform-deal-armour-fanatics-starting-2020

 

info on the UA/Fanatics deal 

 

worst part is the last sentence: "Starting in 2020, the Under Armour logo will be on the front of all MLB jerseys."

 

This deal keeps getting worse all the time...

[tohasbo]

3 hours ago, (probably)notabandwagonfan said:

So was that Chris's big announcement?

No there is a bigger one coming at 7pm ET

[hawk36]

17 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Retail experts probably are telling them navy blue is much easier to sell than brown.  Most of the league has probably talked to those same experts.

Does anyone have any hard data on this?

 

The few people I've spoken to working at Lids, etc. around Seattle (yes I get that it's not San Diego) say they can't keep the brown in stock and all the navy does is gather dust. My best guess on that very limited information was that brown sells outside the team's area because it is unique and is one of the only caps that work when wanting to match to a brown/earth palette (fashion). By contrast, if you are out of area and need a navy blue cap, you are much more likely to buy a Yankees or Tigers or Braves than a Padres cap.

 

I think that if every place offered both the navy and the brown, the brown would outsell the navy in San Diego and throughout the rest of the country. But again, that's just a guess. I'd love to see actual data.

[bosrs1]

9 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Does anyone have any hard data on this?

 

The few people I've spoken to working at Lids, etc. around Seattle (yes I get that it's not San Diego) say they can't keep the brown in stock and all the navy does is gather dust. My best guess on that very limited information was that brown sells outside the team's area because it is unique and is one of the only caps that work when wanting to match to a brown/earth palette (fashion). By contrast, if you are out of area and need a navy blue cap, you are much more likely to buy a Yankees or Tigers or Braves than a Padres cap.

 

I think that if every place offered both the navy and the brown, the brown would outsell the navy in San Diego and throughout the rest of the country. But again, that's just a guess. I'd love to see actual data.

 

I'm betting you'd be right outside the San Diego area. But inside San Diego the brown is quite easy to obtain both heritage versions and the current Friday cap along with version of navy they've worn. I bet they have plenty of hard data on which cap people buy locally which are their primary consumers. And they continue to not be in any real rush to make brown their color which has to suggest that the brown just isn't as popular locally in San Diego.

[hawk36]

1 minute ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I'm betting you'd be right outside the San Diego area. But inside San Diego the brown is quite easy to obtain both heritage versions and the current Friday cap along with version of navy they've worn. I bet they have plenty of hard data on which cap people buy locally which are their primary consumers. And they continue to not be in any real rush to make brown their color which has to suggest that the brown just isn't as popular locally in San Diego.

Or it could be like the rumors surrounding the Chargers and powder blue. We're heard for years that the fans (heck Chris Berman too) want the powder full time but that the Spanos family simply really likes navy and dislikes powder.

 

It could be the same with the Padres where their owners/management simply dislike brown and don't want to use it. That's fine since it's their team to do with what they wish. But I'd wish, if true, they'd at least just say "we don't like brown and don't want to use it full time".

 

One way or another I think the Padres could do a lot of good by simply being transparent regarding the matter:

A. Admit that they don't like brown

B. Reveal the data that definitively show that navy is a much more popular color than brown

 

[Thomas]

4 hours ago, HighCheese said:

Not 2017 but

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18208401/mlb-announces-uniform-deal-armour-fanatics-starting-2020

 

info on the UA/Fanatics deal 

 

worst part is the last sentence: "Starting in 2020, the Under Armour logo will be on the front of all MLB jerseys."

No way........

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

4 hours ago, panthers_2012 said:

5 hours ago, HighCheese said:

Not 2017 but

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18208401/mlb-announces-uniform-deal-armour-fanatics-starting-2020

 

info on the UA/Fanatics deal 

 

worst part is the last sentence: "Starting in 2020, the Under Armour logo will be on the front of all MLB jerseys."

Under Armour wants us to know that they finally made it into the big leagues

 

Placement on the sleeve would have accomplished this just fine.  The front placement is terrible.  That should have been a deal-breaker.  

It's unbelievable how much the teams and the leagues have ceded to uniform manufacturers.  They literally don't understand who works for whom.

 

[bosrs1]

13 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Placement on the sleeve would have accomplished this just fine.  The front placement is terrible.  That should have been a deal-breaker.  

It's unbelievable how much the teams and the leagues have ceded to uniform manufacturers.  They literally don't understand who works for whom.

 

 

Is it possible that the UA on the front statement from that article was figurative? The sleeve would make much more sense.

[bosrs1]

39 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Or it could be like the rumors surrounding the Chargers and powder blue. We're heard for years that the fans (heck Chris Berman too) want the powder full time but that the Spanos family simply really likes navy and dislikes powder.

 

It could be the same with the Padres where their owners/management simply dislike brown and don't want to use it. That's fine since it's their team to do with what they wish. But I'd wish, if true, they'd at least just say "we don't like brown and don't want to use it full time".

 

One way or another I think the Padres could do a lot of good by simply being transparent regarding the matter:

A. Admit that they don't like brown

B. Reveal the data that definitively show that navy is a much more popular color than brown

 

 

I do wish they'd reveal the data. This ownership and the last two have all indicated their data shows brown is not the majority popular color among their fans/customers (I don't think they care about the rest of the country). If that's the case, and we've no reason to believe it's not given the consistency, then I wish they'd release the hard data and put this issue to bed once and for all.

[WSU151]

2 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Is it possible that the UA on the front statement from that article was figurative? The sleeve would make much more sense.

 

I don't think so.  It sounds pretty literal, and UA has a practice of putting it on the front of college jerseys.  I'm guessing it'll be upper-left shoulder area.

[bosrs1]

Just now, WSU151 said:

 

I don't think so.  It sounds pretty literal, and UA has a practice of putting it on the front of college jerseys.  I'm guessing it'll be upper-left shoulder area.

 

Well here's hoping it was figurative and MLB's prudish nature on such issues wins out. Then again given the new era logo on the caps I won't hold my breath. Never thought I'd miss Bud Selig.

[WSU151]

17 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Placement on the sleeve would have accomplished this just fine.  The front placement is terrible.  That should have been a deal-breaker.  

It's unbelievable how much the teams and the leagues have ceded to uniform manufacturers.  They literally don't understand who works for whom.

 

 

Selig would have rejected the logo on the front.  The new commissioners are under more pressure than normal to bring in the revenue.  

[Sec19Row53]

4 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Is it possible that the UA on the front statement from that article was figurative? The sleeve would make much more sense.

Oh, I'm sure it will make plenty of $en$e on the front of the jer$ey$

[joekono]

What font would you say is used on the the 1969 home Padres jersey(brown letters trimmed in yellow). Thanks!

[LMU]

This whole color thing with the Padres is a faulty argument with the assumption that you buy a hat because it's blue and not because it has an interlocking "SD" on it. Like has been stated and as I can verify from going to a game down there plenty of people have no problem wearing brown. If you actually adopt it people will buy it. The main issue is that the team's identity is so disjointed with the current look so uninspiring and representative of an awful era that people are likely going to pick from the plethora of other designs for their fan gear. Even this thought is with the caveat that the Padres are worth a damn enough to shell out money for to begin with.

 

Why wear the hat that Solarte wears when you can buy the one that Gwynn did? 

[hawk36]

14 minutes ago, LMU said:

This whole color thing with the Padres is a faulty argument with the assumption that you buy a hat because it's blue and not because it has an interlocking "SD" on it.

The hat color argument outside of San Diego and its fans I think is valid. Brown is unique, blue is all too common.

 

For its fans, I agree, they want the SD first and then can choose which color they prefer. This would be my bet though...

1. Team keeps blue as the primary, you will still see a large percentage of brown gear worn 5 years later.

2. Team goes to brown as the primary, you will see a very small percentage of blue gear worn 5 years later.

 

Does anyone know how it worked in Houston? Is there still a lot of flying star navy and gold gear worn or has it gone almost completely back to the H star, navy and orange look?