Gothamite

San Diego Padres focus-grouping new uniforms for 2020

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

No, there's breaking by era (e.g., White Sox) sure, but then there's doing some modification to a look every one to three years, which is that the Marlins, Devil Rays and Diamondbacks have done basically since their inception.  I'm not necessarily an advocate for keeping the same look forever.  But no matter the look, you need to stick with it for an appreciable period of time in order for it to resonate with your audience.

 

To my generation, The Philadelphia Phillies are a team that wore maroon rather than red, blue road jerseys, and a "P" with a baseball within it on the caps.  Meanwhile to my generation, you watched the Pittsburgh Pirates in some small part just to see what wild-ass combination of pillbox cap, jersey shirt and pants they were going to wear for that game.  To this generation, the Phillies have a modernization of their 1950's look and the Pirates have a solid but staid look by comparison to those days.  And that's fine.  But if you've been a Diamondbacks fan since their inception 20 years ago, how many different looks (or annual modifications on those looks) have you seen come and go already?  Eight?  Nine?

That's fair... I think I had an issue with you saying they don't have an identity. Even with all their changes I feel like the Dbacks do have an identity, albeit with color changes along the way. And I'd say the Marlins and Rays have had two identities. Maybe this goes back to the very question of what makes an identity. Probably a discussion for another day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kevin W. said:

That is not a good quality any more.

 

 

Maybe to some. To others it could fill the void. And I'm sure lot of them still root for the Chargers.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Maybe to some. To others it could fill the void. And I'm sure lot of them still root for the Chargers.

 

 

You vastly underestimate how badly that bridge got burned by (:censored: you) Dean Spanos. The media here still acts like they should cover the Chargers but they are not San Diego's team. Anyone in San Diego who roots for them is part of a very small majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

You vastly underestimate how badly that bridge got burned by (:censored: you) Dean Spanos. The media here still acts like they should cover the Chargers but they are not San Diego's team. Anyone in San Diego who roots for them is part of a very small majority.

 

True. I was thinking more about the connection prior to the Chargers decision to move in 2017. The Padres planned to ditch the yellow long before the Chargers made the announcement to move. But you're right, it isn't much of a connection now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the report, the only thing they have made a clear decision on is that orange is out, right?

 

I am a fan who would love to see a return to brown, but I will believe it when I see it. I will be shocked if it actually happens. I do think the org. will focus group this until they get the answer they want. I think they want to keep Navy blue.

If orange is in fact a no-go, then what does that leave if they keep Navy? Yellow/gold so they could look like the football team who just left town? Is that all the identity they could muster? Red? How original that would be......

I will say that for me, watching the Padres in brown and blue is a different experience. They are just a different franchise in brown, and not just because I'm old enough to remember when they wore it every day.

Also, is it just me, or do the Padres seem to have a mountain of difficulty with their brand, and creating something around the Padre/Friar theme? Currently, the Friar is not on any of their uniforms. How is this even possible? They have just tried to basically sell "San Diego" as the brand. It just makes me wonder if the management and/or baseball itself isn't totally comfortable with the subject matter.

Just my opinions, and I guess we will see what they eventually do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long thought they've held a secret aversion to the Friar and its subject matter ever since their blue/sand wave unis were unveiled. I even wrote a letter to the team which, to their credit they actually responded to, but it was just a boilerplate explaining they just wanted to highlight the city and it's beaches. 

 

My point to them though was if you are going to emphasizes waves, sand, and beaches, then lose the Padres name altogether. But, if you keep the name, at least create a design that embraces rather than ignores the mascot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

I've long thought they've held a secret aversion to the Friar and its subject matter ever since their blue/sand wave unis were unveiled. I even wrote a letter to the team which, to their credit they actually responded to, but it was just a boilerplate explaining they just wanted to highlight the city and it's beaches. 

 

My point to them though was if you are going to emphasizes waves, sand, and beaches, then lose the Padres name altogether. But, if you keep the name, at least create a design that embraces rather than ignores the mascot. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had questions about that.

You know, it shouldn't be this hard to design something around the California Missions and the Padres, should it? Of course, the color brown brings that out better than just about anything else. That may be the source of the problem right there. They don't like brown.

In the  90's, they could have used a dark gray for the Friar's robe, along with the navy and orange, and just said, "This is what we're doing". It probably would have taken hold, and become the norm. It is certainly odd how they seem to dance around the subject matter. They put the Friar on the jerseys, take him off, redesign/recolor, put him on just one jersey, take him off. Strange....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

That's fair... I think I had an issue with you saying they don't have an identity. Even with all their changes I feel like the Dbacks do have an identity, albeit with color changes along the way. And I'd say the Marlins and Rays have had two identities. Maybe this goes back to the very question of what makes an identity. Probably a discussion for another day. 

Actually, I would go so far as to say they don't have identities now that you put it that way.  One element of that is how you mention both of the '98 expansion teams versus how I do.  You use "DBacks" while I refer to the original "Diamondbacks."  You use "Rays" while I (admittedly to show my age) still call 'em the "Devil Rays" (actually, it's because I thought the whole idea behind the rebrand was stupid, and that they'd screwed the whole thing up from the start - they should've simply bought the rights to "Tampa Bay Stingrays" from the group that owned it, went with their first choice and been done with it).  And the Marlins destroyed their identity when their vampiric owner took "Florida" off the name and put them in uniforms so different from the originals that it was almost literally a giant "F U" card to their fanbase.

 

While in Arizona they've not made it official with a nickname change to "D-Backs", three of the four expansion clubs since 1993 have rebranded.  They destroyed their original identities, and while the Rays have come closest, none has cultivated an identity to which their entire fan basis (granted, in Miami that fan group is only six people anymore, but...) can get 100% behind, because there's no reason to; no sense of permanence behind them yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

Actually, I would go so far as to say they don't have identities now that you put it that way.  One element of that is how you mention both of the '98 expansion teams versus how I do.  You use "DBacks" while I refer to the original "Diamondbacks."  You use "Rays" while I (admittedly to show my age) still call 'em the "Devil Rays" (actually, it's because I thought the whole idea behind the rebrand was stupid, and that they'd screwed the whole thing up from the start - they should've simply bought the rights to "Tampa Bay Stingrays" from the group that owned it, went with their first choice and been done with it).  And the Marlins destroyed their identity when their vampiric owner took "Florida" off the name and put them in uniforms so different from the originals that it was almost literally a giant "F U" card to their fanbase.

 

While in Arizona they've not made it official with a nickname change to "D-Backs", three of the four expansion clubs since 1993 have rebranded.  They destroyed their original identities, and while the Rays have come closest, none has cultivated an identity to which their entire fan basis (granted, in Miami that fan group is only six people anymore, but...) can get 100% behind, because there's no reason to; no sense of permanence behind them yet.

Well I'm one of the 6 Marlins fans and they're already working on their next rebrand... intended to be the longterm defining identity for the foreseeable future here so let's hope they get it right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Well I'm one of the 6 Marlins fans and they're already working on their next rebrand... intended to be the longterm defining identity for the foreseeable future here so let's hope they get it right. 

If they're smart, all they'd have to do is go back to the original 1993 version.  They got it right the first time, then screwed with it a little by adding BFBS, then completely ****ed it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mac the Knife said:

If they're smart, all they'd have to do is go back to the original 1993 version.  They got it right the first time, then screwed with it a little by adding BFBS, then completely ****ed it up.

They'd have to update it though. They can't go back to being Florida anymore. And that's a legal issue agreed upon in the stadium deal, it wasn't a Loria thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

They'd have to update it though. They can't go back to being Florida anymore. And that's a legal issue agreed upon in the stadium deal, it wasn't a Loria thing.

I know, but contract provisions are like horny women.  Always open to negotiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

I know, but contract provisions are like horny women.  Always open to negotiation.

It won't go back to Florida though, nor should it. They're not the only Florida team any more and they've moved closer to the actual city of Miami as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

It won't go back to Florida though, nor should it. They're not the only Florida team any more and they've moved closer to the actual city of Miami as well. 

Well, unfortunately, it looks like soon they may be, and they would probably draw more former Rays fans if their name was “Florida”. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it will a lot easier to a lot of people (probably including me) to switch if the team tries to represent all of Florida instead of just Miami. 

Share this post


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

Well, unfortunately, it looks like soon they may be, and they would probably draw more former Rays fans if their name was “Florida”. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it will a lot easier to a lot of people (probably including me) to switch if the team tries to represent all of Florida instead of just Miami. 

I get your point but the new ownership's marketing has actually now focused on becoming even more about Miami and its communities with "We are Miami" as their slogan in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Well, unfortunately, it looks like soon they may be, and they would probably draw more former Rays fans if their name was “Florida”. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it will a lot easier to a lot of people (probably including me) to switch if the team tries to represent all of Florida instead of just Miami. 

 

What are you hearing?

 

If the Rays leave the state, which seems very unlikely, then maybe we could discuss a return to "Florida".  But that's even less likely, considering that the city of Miami paid dearly for the privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gothamite said:

 

What are you hearing?

 

If the Rays leave the state, which seems very unlikely, then maybe we could discuss a return to "Florida".  But that's even less likely, considering that the city of Miami paid dearly for the privilege.

They'd have to convince the politicians of the actual city of Miami to drop a huge advertisement for their city in favor of advertising the rest of the state. I can't see it ever happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

They'd have to convince the politicians of the actual city of Miami to drop a huge advertisement for their city in favor of advertising the rest of the state. I can't see it ever happening. 

 

The Marlins aren't a "huge" anything.  In Miami or anywhere else.  And given the relationship between that franchise and the city and its "fans," would you really insist on them keeping that appellation?

 

That said, there's nothing in the Major League Constitution that would prohibit them from going back to "Florida."  It's a stadium contract provision, that's all.  In fact, the only league where I've ever seen a prohibition on "regional" references in a league's governing documents was in the original Arena Football League, which stipulated essentially that (i) if a team was the only one in a particular state, it could use a state or city name, (ii) if there was an existing team in the same state, it had to give permission to the new team to use the state name, and (iii) no two teams could use the state/region's name simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

The Marlins aren't a "huge" anything.  In Miami or anywhere else.  And given the relationship between that franchise and the city and its "fans," would you really insist on them keeping that appellation?

What a small minded way of looking at it. The Marlins are a Major League Baseball team, one of only 30. Even if they don't have the largest fanbase they're a huge advertisement for the city of Miami. They travel to 29 other cities wearing the word Miami across their chests. And yes the Marlins have a relationship with their fanbase that is in desperate need of repairs but they've been here for over 25 years it's not like the people in this city don't know who the Marlins are. 

 

And once again, while they could somehow go back to being called Florida the chances of it happening are very slim. It's not a matter of the team or MLB suddenly deciding to switch it back. It's a stadium provision made with the city that the city isn't likely to give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Marlins' name provision as similar to the Angels' provision from 2005. It could change if both parties want it to.

 

But I believe we're getting off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.