Nike Officially Announced as MLB On-Field Uniform Provider

[MrAstrodome]

 

I kinda wish it was on the collar but whatever.

[MJWalker45]

On 6/7/2019 at 5:30 PM, tp49 said:

George would have paid what it took to make that not happen.  

George made a deal to have Adidas make the Yankees uniforms and MLB came back and said he couldn't put their logo on the uniforms because Adidas didn't have a deal with MLB. Trust me, he'd be fine with this, it's only a change in uniform placement. 

[MJWalker45]

20 hours ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

The last 7 years or so has made me miss the days when teams had to make their own manufacturer deals. While this is sacrilegious for the Yankees and less than ideal for other teams, I'm more worried about what :censored:ed up template Nike comes up with that really :censored:s everyone over.

They'll bring the templates they use in college along with the standard templates MLB teams use now. If there are any crazy new designs, it's the teams job to say how they want those uniforms to look. 

[BBTV]

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You got that right.

 

Steinbrenner had plenty of flaws. His absurd attachment to Billy Martin probably cost the team at least one division title, perhaps more....

 

Is there any situation even close to as crazy as the Billy Martin one in all of North American pro sports?  Even in the world?  Hiring and firing the same manager what- 6 times?  I've always thought bringing a manager/HC back even once was odd.  This is downright crazy.

 

19 hours ago, CitizenTino said:

I’m shocked that Nike is continuing with the mesh shirt tail and side inserts. I thought for sure they would create a unique template.

 

This surprises me too, even knowing the info that was contained in the article and posted by Gothamite.  They can clearly manufacture on new templates, since they're doing so for college teams, so unless they're planning on reinventing the wheel for MLB, they don't have to... well, reinvent the wheel.  Maybe the deal with Majestic/Fanatics makes it tougher since they'd need to integrate whatever new processes / materials into the Majestic facility, but that doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle.  My guess is that they do have something completely new in mind for 2021, and don't want to waste even a dime changing things up before then.

 

3 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Trust me, he'd be fine with this, it's only a change in uniform placement. 

 

Citation needed.

[MJWalker45]

@BringBackTheVet

You're correct.  He allowed Adidas to significantly overpay for signage and retail gear but not touch the uniforms.  I'm having issues attaching the article. The article specifically stated that Wilson and Rawlings made the Yankees uniforms and he didn't want  to give up deciding who made their uniforms.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

On 6/8/2019 at 12:35 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Steinbrenner had plenty of flaws. His absurd attachment to Billy Martin probably cost the team at least one division title, perhaps more....

 

Is there any situation even close to as crazy as the Billy Martin one in all of North American pro sports?  Even in the world?  Hiring and firing the same manager what- 6 times?  I've always thought bringing a manager/HC back even once was odd.  This is downright crazy.

 

It was "only" five times. But if Martin had not gotten himself killed in December of 1989, he would have been back for a sixth time in 1990 when Bucky Dent inevitably faltered.

 

Martin was an embarrassment who brought the Yankees more shame than glory. His ability to immediately improve every team he managed was remarkable. But this effect quickly faded, as he inevitably showed every time that he was no leader of men.

 

Consider the reverence with which old Dodger players talk of Tommy Lasorda. Notice that this is entirely absent on the part of Martin's Yankee players. While we sometimes get a few lauditory comments from Willie Randolph, most players just keep a tactful silence: Nettles, Chambliss, Rivers, White, etc. have nothing to say that compares to the Lasorda-love that pours forth from Garvey, Lopes, Cey, and that crowd. Some of Martin's players, such as Goose Gossage, Ken Holtzman, and Billy Sample, are open in their disdain for him. And even one of Martin's ostensible defenders, Ron Guidry, concedes that Martin was not always on top of things, admitting that, when Martin was seen wearing sunglasses in the dugout, he was most likely dozing.

 

Whenever talk of Pete Rose comes up, I always think of Martin. Rose knowingly broke a rule by betting on baseball, and became a pariah because of it. Martin refused to bat Reggie Jackson cleanup, put out a farcical defensive alignment for the completion of the Pine Tar Game despite trailing by only one run, sent a lefty hitter to the plate right-handed, used a pitcher as a DH, kept a pitcher on the mound just to spite critical reporters, inadvertently gave the steal sign while gesturing to a hot girl in the stands, and so much more. The truth is that Martin compromised his team's chances to win far more than Rose ever did.

 

Anyway, sorry for the extended rant. I have just finished reading a very good book about the 1985 Yankees and Mets called Doc, Donnie, The Kid, and Billy Brawl by Chris Donnelly; and this has stirred my negative feelings about that drunken bum. But we must remember that Martin made quite a few decisions regarding uniforms in his career.

 

When the remodeled Yankee Stadium was about to open in 1976, Martin had the Yankees wear road uniforms in their pre-Opening Day workouts at the Stadium.

 

 

During the 1976 season, Martin alone began wearing a black armband in memory of Casey Stengel, who had died in late 1975. This can be seen in the introductions before game 4 of the 1976 World Series.

 

 

It is very curious indeed that the Yankees as a team did nothing to honour Stengel, while the Mets added a black armband to the bottom of the left sleeve.

 

 

When Martin got to Oakland, he made immediate changes. The team had three jerseys: a green one, a yellow one, and a white one. The green and yellow jerseys had been worn alternatingly both at home and on the road; and the white jersey had generally been reserved for Sunday home games. Martin made the white jersey the regular home jersey.

 

 

He also discontinued the tradition of the managers and coaches wearing white caps, a practice that had begun in Kansas City.

 

 

For 1981, he brought in a button-down / belted home uniform that was beautiful, and that could easily be worn today. (Unfortunately, he also ditched the Kelly green for the darker shade.)

 

 

 

The team got rid of this gorgeous uniform after it fired Martin.

 

On the road Martin brought in a grey uniform, and had the team wear an uninspired "Oakland" script that would stay with the team (even moving onto the home uniforms) until the redesign to the current uniforms in 1987.

 

 

[tp49]

3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

George made a deal to have Adidas make the Yankees uniforms and MLB came back and said he couldn't put their logo on the uniforms because Adidas didn't have a deal with MLB. Trust me, he'd be fine with this, it's only a change in uniform placement. 

George for all his flaws protected the Yankees brand over nearly everything.  Ever wonder why there is no manufacturer logo on the sleeve of Yankee game used jerseys?  IIRC years ago he paid to ensure that it was kept off.  I have a Russell Yankees gamer, no manufacturer logo on the sleeve.  Rawlings Yankee jerseys didn't have a manufacturer logo on the sleeve.  So as I stand by what I said before that no, George would not have been fine with this as he protected the brand on the field.  Retail, different story.  The Adidas deal was for signage and retail gear as you later correctly pointed out.  

 

I'm no George lover by any stretch, Howie Spira and George's resulting suspension was the best thing to happen to the team because it stopped his constant meddling and collection of guys like Ken Phelps, Ed Whitson, Andy Hawkins, and Steve Balboni while trading away some good players.  But through all that, I appreciated how he fiercely protected the Yankees brand.

[MJWalker45]

23 minutes ago, tp49 said:

George for all his flaws protected the Yankees brand over nearly everything.  Ever wonder why there is no manufacturer logo on the sleeve of Yankee game used jerseys?  IIRC years ago he paid to ensure that it was kept off.  I have a Russell Yankees gamer, no manufacturer logo on the sleeve.  Rawlings Yankee jerseys didn't have a manufacturer logo on the sleeve.  So as I stand by what I said before that no, George would not have been fine with this as he protected the brand on the field.  Retail, different story.  The Adidas deal was for signage and retail gear as you later correctly pointed out.  

 

I'm no George lover by any stretch, Howie Spira and George's resulting suspension was the best thing to happen to the team because it stopped his constant meddling and collection of guys like Ken Phelps, Ed Whitson, Andy Hawkins, and Steve Balboni while trading away some good players.  But through all that, I appreciated how he fiercely protected the Yankees brand.

I was incorrect on that but if adidas came back with enough, let's not pretend he'd not allow that to happen. The most important part of the article I saw, from 1997, was that Nike and Reebok were only offering around $50,000 per team to be the official shoe of MLB. Getting $10 million a year from adidas helped them get more money for the rest of the league. 

[Gothamite]

59 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

if adidas came back with enough, let's not pretend he'd not allow that to happen

 

But we know he didn’t allow it.  Any manufacturer would have paid him more to put their logo on the pinstripes.  But Steinbrenner held firm.  There was a limit to what he was willing to sell. 

[MJWalker45]

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

But we know he didn’t allow it.  Any manufacturer would have paid him more to put their logo on the pinstripes.  But Steinbrenner held firm.  There was a limit to what he was willing to sell. 

Or what adidas was willing to pay? It can also be somewhere in the middle of those points. And it would have taken a lot of money to make it happen. Like Alex Rodriguez money for that to happen. I'm not sure why he felt putting a logo on his uniform was line that shouldn't be crossed, but I'll give him credit for sticking to his guns. Had he been in charge of the Indians or Browns, I'm certain his stance would have been different. 

https://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/george-steinbrenner-almost-clevelands-boss/

[BBTV]

5 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

@BringBackTheVet

You're correct.  He allowed Adidas to significantly overpay for signage and retail gear but not touch the uniforms.  I'm having issues attaching the article. The article specifically stated that Wilson and Rawlings made the Yankees uniforms and he didn't want  to give up deciding who made their uniforms.  

 

 

My point is that there's no evidence to suggest "he'd be fine with this, it's only a change in uniform placement. " While we'll never know if he would have been OK with it had MLB allowed a non-approved ad on the jerseys, all evidence suggests that he would not have wanted any ad on their uniform.

 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Or what adidas was willing to pay? It can also be somewhere in the middle of those points. And it would have taken a lot of money to make it happen. Like Alex Rodriguez money for that to happen. I'm not sure why he felt putting a logo on his uniform was line that shouldn't be crossed, but I'll give him credit for sticking to his guns. Had he been in charge of the Indians or Browns, I'm certain his stance would have been different. 

https://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/george-steinbrenner-almost-clevelands-boss/

 

Maybe, maybe not.  

 

That goes both ways, though. I think it’s a near-certainly that adidas offered the Yankees more than they would have offered the Indians.  

 

And maybe he wouldn’t have turned it down if they offered him a billion gazillion dollars.

 

All we can judge him on is what he actually did.  And what he did was refuse to sell ad space on the uniforms to any manufacturer. I think we should give him credit for that without wandering too far into hypotheticals. 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Or what adidas was willing to pay? It can also be somewhere in the middle of those points. And it would have taken a lot of money to make it happen. Like Alex Rodriguez money for that to happen. I'm not sure why he felt putting a logo on his uniform was line that shouldn't be crossed, but I'll give him credit for sticking to his guns. Had he been in charge of the Indians or Browns, I'm certain his stance would have been different. 

https://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/george-steinbrenner-almost-clevelands-boss/

“If things were different they’d be different” is not an effective way to argue against something that actually happened. 

[tp49]

47 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.  

 

That goes both ways, though. I think it’s a near-certainly that adidas offered the Yankees more than they would have offered the Indians.  

 

And maybe he wouldn’t have turned it down if they offered him a billion gazillion dollars.

 

All we can judge him on is what he actually did.   He what he did was refuse to sell ad space on the uniforms to any manufacturer. I think we should give him credit for that without wandering too far into hypotheticals. 

Agreed.  To compound on this thought is that George throughout his tenure as Managing General Partner enforced grooming standards for the players regarding hair length and facial hair.  The guy had a fit because Mattingly's hair was too long or someone started growing a beard because it had a perceived "negative impact" on the Yankees brand.  From the evidence of how George conducted business a logo other than the interlocking NY on the jersey was a non-starter.

 

When TATC was introduced he was asked why the Yankees weren't participating and he famously said words to the effect that they already were because that's how the Yankees were supposed to look and would always look in the future.  I'd further argue that under George there'd have been no Players Weekend Yankee jersey either.

 

 

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, tp49 said:

When TATC was introduced he was asked why the Yankees weren't participating and he famously said words to the effect that they already were because that's how the Yankees were supposed to look and would always look in the future.  I'd further argue that under George there'd have been no Players Weekend Yankee jersey either.

 

And the sport would be a little better off today.  

[AgentColon2]

I’m still irked by that New Era logo on the caps. I could live with the Nike swoosh had it been on the lower cuff. This here is an abomination.

[BC985]

I fully expect the arguments made in this thread to be used again when teams begin applying non uniform supplier advertising patches a few years from now. 

[pianoknight]

This thread is hilarious to read.

 

Nike swoosh looks fine. Cry a river. 

[Gothamite]

You sure you’re on the right boards?  

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, pianoknight said:

This thread is hilarious to read.

 

Nike swoosh looks fine. Cry a river. 

 

Are you saying that a team’s uniform shouldn’t exclusively represent their brand but also serve as a canvas for other unrelated brands?