San Diego Padres 2020 Rebrand Discussion

[bcon_731 194]

39 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

I thought these looked good. 

 

Hopefully there will be no combination of soutache and pinstripes. 

Im nowhere complaining but at what point will it be a slippery slope where we start asking for the #BRINGBACKORANGE

[SFGiants58 12,987]

11 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

As I said, I know many teams have had them over the years, my point is that pinstripes are most synonymous with the Yankees, and success, which is why all teams that use them are simply trying to be like the Yankees. I think the Padres, with the unique brown, should be the Padres, not the Yankees lite. 

That’s a very shallow take. Pinstripes aren’t Yankee-exclusive, they’ve never been. Not everybody who does pinstripes wants to “be like them.” Look at how many non-traditional designs (be they through fonts have pinstripes:

 

 

Thinking that all pinstripe teams just want to be the Yankees is being ignorant of baseball’s aesthetic options.

[el_gmac 80]

12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

That’s a very shallow take. Pinstripes aren’t Yankee-exclusive, they’ve never been. Not everybody who does pinstripes wants to “be like them.” Look at how many non-traditional designs (be they through fonts have pinstripes:

 

 

Thinking that all pinstripe teams just want to be the Yankees is being ignorant of baseball’s aesthetic options.

I'll just add one more

[bosrs1 1,288]

33 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

As I said, I know many teams have had them over the years, my point is that pinstripes are most synonymous with the Yankees, and success, which is why all teams that use them are simply trying to be like the Yankees. I think the Padres, with the unique brown, should be the Padres, not the Yankees lite. 

I mean isn’t the fact it’s brown pinstripes and the sleeves and neck have edging unique and very not Yankees? 

[SilverBullet1929 3,141]

Pinstripes aren't a Yankees thing, they're a baseball thing. The fact that the Yankees are so synonymous with baseball is just a side effect to this pinstripes thing.

[Krz 1,870]

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Pinstripes aren't a Yankees thing, they're a baseball thing. The fact that the Yankees are so synonymous with baseball is just a side effect to this pinstripes thing.

Not even a baseball thing, I think they work well in basketball as well

[hawk36 3,353]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

That’s a very shallow take. Pinstripes aren’t Yankee-exclusive, they’ve never been. Not everybody who does pinstripes wants to “be like them.” Look at how many non-traditional designs (be they through fonts have pinstripes:

 

 

Thinking that all pinstripe teams just want to be the Yankees is being ignorant of baseball’s aesthetic options.

Totally disagree. It may have been at one time but it's completely been owned by the Yankees for a long, long time. It's their thing like it or not. 

[zoogs44 51]

Hmmmmm  maybe the Yankees were trying to be like the Cubs??

 

The Chicago Cubs' baseball uniforms have had pinstripes since 1907 and they are recognized as the first Major League Baseball team to incorporate pin-striping into a baseball uniform^[4] Many other former and current Major League Baseball teams—including the Florida Marlins,  Minnesota Twins, Montreal Expos, Colorado Rockies, New York Mets, New York Yankees, Chicago White Sox and Philadelphia Phillies—later adopted pinstripes on their own uniforms. 

[Gothamite 22,992]

2 hours ago, hawk36 said:

As I said, I know many teams have had them over the years, my point is that pinstripes are most synonymous with the Yankees, and success, which is why all teams that use them are simply trying to be like the Yankees.

 

Can't really disagree with that. 

 

And I grew up watching a pinstriped team.

[SilverBullet1929 3,141]

14 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Totally disagree. It may have been at one time but it's completely been owned by the Yankees for a long, long time. It's their thing like it or not. 

This would make sense if the Yankees were the only pinstriped team for decades after everyone else dropped them but, while many of the above pinstriped unis have gone away, there have still been multiple teams wearing pinstripes along with the Yankees this "long, long time." The Yankees have never monopolized it.

[Ray Lankford 1,298]

A hot dog is a sandwich.Maybe it wasn't at one point but it has been for a long long time.It's its thing.

 

 

[Brian in Boston 2,352]

18 hours ago, hawk36 said:

And I'd say pinstripes are even worse than cream since it's embarrassing trying to be the Yankees (which is basically what teams that wear pinstripes are trying to do). I know other teams have, and have had them, but the truth is it's a poor attempt to be the Yankees. I wouldn't say wearing cream is the same thing. 

Pinstripe uniforms being worn by big league teams is something that predates the New York Yankees donning them. The Chicago Cubs wore pinstripes as early as the 1907 World Series, five seasons before the New York Highlanders/Yankees would wear them for the first time. In fact, the Cubs liked pinstripes so much that they adopted the look for their road uniforms for the next five seasons.The Philadelphia Athletics (1909), St. Louis Browns (1910), and New York Giants (1911)  all wore pinstripes before the Highlanders/Yankees did. The 1912 season - the first in which the then New York Highlanders wore pinstripes - saw eight other big league teams don the look: Boston, Chicago, Detroit and Washington in the AL; Brooklyn, Chicago, New York and Pittsburgh in the NL. The 1915 season - the campaign in which the Yankees began their unbroken run of pinstripe uniforms - saw 7 of 8 AL teams include at least one pinstripe outfit amongst their wardrobe, with half of the NL squads following suit.

All of that being said, was the Yankees' initial adoption of pinstripes "a poor attempt to be" any of the big league clubs that preceded them in donning the look?

The bottom line is that no big league team is "embarrassingly trying to be the Yankees" when they choose to wear pinstripes. Said teams are simply electing to adopt a baseball uniform design element that dates back to before a team dubbed the New York Yankees even stepped onto a baseball diamond.    

[SFGiants58 12,987]

26 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Totally disagree. It may have been at one time but it's completely been owned by the Yankees for a long, long time. It's their thing like it or not. 

Fair, but you’re wrong.

[Gothamite 22,992]

8 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

Pinstripe uniforms being worn by big league teams is something that predates the New York Yankees donning them.

 

I don't think anybody denies that. 

 

But neither can we deny that they are most identified with the Yankees today.  I'm not aware of any other circumstance where "pinstripes" itself is used as a synonym for the team.  You read "pinstripers" and there's no real doubt who's being referred to.  Honest question here, do people really talk about a new White Sox or Cubs player "donning the pinstripes"?

 

Heck, Man United wasn't the first "United".  There were plenty before them, and Man U took the name because it sounded soccer-y and professional, and the new club wanted to latch on to a little of that.  And there are still a lot of Uniteds in football.  But I'd still say that Atlanta and DC and Minnesota are glad for the association with Manchester.

[SFGiants58 12,987]

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

I don't think anybody denies that. 

 

But neither can we deny that they are most identified with the Yankees today.  I'm not aware of any other circumstance where "pinstripes" itself is used as a synonym for the team.  You read "pinstripers" and there's no real doubt who's being referred to.  Honest question here, do people really talk about a new White Sox or Cubs player "donning the pinstripes"?

They’re different pinstripes. The pinstripes dominate the Yankees’ identity in a way that they don’t for the Cubs or any other pinstripes team. The Cubs have the “Cubbie Blue,” the White Sox are whatever they choose to be (“pale hose?”), the Diamondbacks has the purple/teal/black, the Marlins had the light teal, and the Rockies have purple. They have distinctiveness in their identities that are unrelated to pinstripes.

 

The Yankees can be called “the pinstripes” because they don’t place an identity behind a color. Nobody says “Yankee Navy.” Besides, if they truly “owned” pinstripes, they’d have road pinstripes.

 

Pinstripes doesn’t mean “Yankees wannabe.” 

[NicDB 2,910]

On 11/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, LaJolla Archon said:

We have a fan mock up!

 

 

I actually really like this.  The combo of pinstripes and neck and sleeve piping feels very much like a classic PCL thing, which is perfect for the Padres.  I don't get a Yankees vibe from this at all.

[Gothamite 22,992]

2 minutes ago, NicDB said:

I actually really like this.  The combo of pinstripes and neck and sleeve piping feels very much like a classic PCL thing, which is perfect for the Padres.  I don't get a Yankees vibe from this at all.

 

I think the extra piping really helps.  Especially if the Padres insist on using a midnight brown that can look black at a distance.

[tp49 1,053]

I look forward to being able to purchase the new Padres brown cap and, if the mock up hold out to be the new jersey for the most part I like it as well except for the neck and sleeve piping.  For whatever reason it just looks too busy for my taste, and while I was growing up when the Mets had both sleeve and neck piping on their home jersey I thought they looked as bad as the teams that wore them.  I am interested in seeing what they do with the road set whether they go with grey or tint it towards brown like the '69 set.  At least they seem to be on the right track, and this is coming from someone who loves navy blue.

 

 

[gosioux76 1,862]

21 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I don't think anybody denies that. 

 

But neither can we deny that they are most identified with the Yankees today.  I'm not aware of any other circumstance where "pinstripes" itself is used as a synonym for the team.  You read "pinstripers" and there's no real doubt who's being referred to.  Honest question here, do people really talk about a new White Sox or Cubs player "donning the pinstripes"?

 

Heck, Man United wasn't the first "United".  There were plenty before them, and Man U took the name because it sounded soccer-y and professional, and the new club wanted to latch on to a little of that.  And there are still a lot of Uniteds in football.  But I'd still say that Atlanta and DC and Minnesota are glad for the association with Manchester.

I'd never argue this point. I would, however, argue @hawk36's earlier argument that any team wearing pinstripes is only doing so to imitate the Yankees.

 

These are two separate things: it's possible for pinstripes to be a common design aesthetic for baseball AND for them to be synonymous with the Yankees without one having anything to do with the other. I don't buy that teams do it with the strict intent of emulating the Yankees. 

[Gothamite 22,992]

3 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I don't buy that teams do it with the strict intent of emulating the Yankees. 

 

Sole intent of emulating the Yankees?  No.  But I do think that's part of it. 

 

Just as the Padres have tried to emulate the Dodgers' look on a couple occasions,  Openly, one of those times.