MLB Changes 2020

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Missed out on nearly the entire year of 2019 in a move to South Carolina, but things have calmed down enough to finally binge this thread.

 

On 6/6/2019 at 1:28 PM, Gothamite said:

I've been saying it for months, that navy cap is going to become the new primary.  Count on it.  And maybe by then we'll have an accurate graphic up on the mothership.

 

I feel your pain.   Going on what feels like well over ten years with this supposedly as our cap logo.

 

 

On 7/25/2019 at 2:54 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anyway, baseball jersey have buttons.  There have been exactly two cases of teams wearing pullovers that weren't embarassing.

 

       

 

Every other team's pullovers (and also the pullovers from subsequent sets from both of these teams) were awful.

 

I beg to differ.

 

 

 

I wouldn't want to see them come back, and would prefer button-down versions of a lot of uniforms, but there were quite a few beautiful pullovers, including some of the most iconic looks for some franchises.

 

On 8/8/2019 at 7:57 PM, Anubis2051 said:

It'd be great to see the White Sox do the 1919 home unis

 

Think the Yankees do the jerseys that Ray's dad wears - maybe in a gray?

 

Or will we see the gray NEW YORK or YANKEES block text?

 

Wow.   I'd forgotten those were the teams involved.   I would HAVE to think that's why they were chosen, and that therefore they'd have to wear those throwbacks from the movie, right?

 

On 9/8/2019 at 9:51 AM, L10nheart404 said:

At first, I was skeptical of the Braves revamping the red jersey. The Braves have a gorgeous set, the red is so beautiful in person, as is the new navy one. The Braves are now right up there with the Yankees and Dodgers, for uniforms that shouldn't be bothered.

 

They *were* in that status, but like the Cards and A's they've chipped away as they try to add.   They've made great strides lately by making the piping uniform across the alts and getting rid of the navy on navy numbers and wordmark, but I still feel like it needs some tightening up like a script getting a punch-up.   Their sock game is ON POINT, though.

 

On 9/8/2019 at 1:44 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

Well... while this obviously a subjective subject, that's certainly an unpopular opinion.  Their regular home cap is perfect and versatile enough to be worn with any of ther uniforms.  They have no need for a second cap.

 

Perhaps it's a feature of the era I grew up in, much like older ones have screamed about wanting to see players wear their uniforms with the correct tightness and younger ones like the Diamondbacks, but I've really always found home and road caps to work well.   Darker caps play well with away grays while caps with a brighter color on the brim work well at home.   I find different colors with the darker on the road to be similarly pleasing to the eyes.   Front panels and logos have the same effect.

 

 

On second thought, while I find this is pleasing to the eyes, I realized going through the entire league to get examples that... I think teams have another thing in mind as they do this.   There are a number of times that teams have caps with brightly colored bills paired with their away grays rather than home whites.   And in those instances, and in most of these instances, I've found a common theme: The cap used at home is the one with the longest history and the most prominence.   The Cubs, Twins, Brewers, and Astros all introduced caps with brighter colored caps or front paneled, but wore them on the road while wearing the older original solid-color cap at home.   Although I can't say I argue with that tactic either.   If the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, or Royals brought out an extra cap with a red or white cap, I'd expect them to wear the solid-color caps with the home whites still.

 

(Teams that changed both at the same time are often exceptions to this rule, but not always.) 

 

On 9/13/2019 at 8:53 PM, ltravisjr said:

Pardon the hasty execution, but a quick mock-up of the White Sox script on the home pinstripes...

 

 

Their current home is so good based off the strength of the logo.   The lack of anything on it except for a one-color wordmark with no outline makes it look like a beer league uniform.   A front number would be needed like the rest of their set.   Either way, getting rid of their current home would be a downgrade and having both would be weird and redundant like the Dodgers away alts from a couple years back.

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:13 AM, Gothamite said:

I'd call it a fauxback for just that reason - it was specifically designed to appear retro, to look like one of their old wordmarks without actually being one of their old wordmarks.

 

I have no problem with fauxbacks in general, but I still don't know what the point of this particular one is.

 

Do you consider the Blue Jays and Astros remakes to be "fauxbacks"?

 

On 9/29/2019 at 9:39 PM, Ice_Cap said:

First, the colours. The trend towards darkening and muting colours is reversing, and the Brewers' navy and old gold looks like a relic of the early/mid 2000s. 

The second problem is the style. The Brewers' M/wheat cap logo features both a drop shadow and an outline. It's too much clutter. You can have one or the other, but not both. 

 

There could be arguments made about the Brewers color scheme and whether it's becoming too old/out of style.   I don't think any of that matters.   What matters is that their current color scheme is entirely too dark and drab for indoors.   The gold sings in the sun, but that's rarely seen at home.   They need to brighten it up.

 

On 10/3/2019 at 12:56 PM, NicDB said:

Besides, if the block M was good enough for Hank Aaron, it ought to be good enough for literally every other player who suits up in a uniform that reads "Brewers" or "Milwaukee."

 

Naturally, Hank Aaron would never be caught dead wearing an unbalanced, overly elaborate curly letter with uneven lineweights.

 

 

On 10/10/2019 at 1:25 PM, daveindc said:

Either way, looks like yet another blue and red scheme in MLB. Best case scenario is they go with light blue/navy/red like the Titans. HEAVY on the light blue.

 

Sounds like the Rays.   "They've got that beautiful bright Columbia Blue to lean on."

 

On 10/10/2019 at 5:21 PM, EddieJ1984 said:

They could get rid of that stupid gap in the D at the middle of the S.

 

They don't need it with the two-tone cap, but it's extremely vital with the one-tone current rendering of the logo.   Without that gap, the S and D become a tangled mess of lines.   It is so simple, but goes a long way towards legibility.

 

 

 

[MOD EDIT: Board Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies.]

 

 

On 7/24/2019 at 7:50 PM, Ark said:

The Twins identity is the most annoying to me in baseball.

 

Just go back to the Metrodome/World Series uniforms

 

On 9/5/2019 at 12:09 AM, Marlins93 said:

I'd love to see Nike overhaul the Rays. The Twins need to join the Padres and presumably the Brewers in re-adopting vintage identities.

 

On 10/12/2019 at 8:48 PM, the admiral said:

Because the Metrodome set was bad. They just need cleaner versions of the Metropolitan Stadium-era scripts and a sorted-out color progression: anything on white is navy blue outlined in red, anything on navy blue is white outlined in red. 

 

The Twins have a beautiful history of uniforms that have evolved along with their surroundings.   I think their flip of the home wordmark colors looks great.   It fits the original 1961 color scheme and it looks surprisingly sharp.   It's in the vein of the Blue Jays and Astros modernizations.   The original text was way too irregular and odd, so modernizing it is much better.

 

 

The gold is nice, but the fact that the caps worn with their standard home whites is called an alt cap still drives me into a blinding rage.   Keep the gold off he primaries.   Wear the current roads and put pinstripes on the current home with the standard cap.   Then have a red home alt with blue piping and the home wordmark in white outlined in blue (like the old "Dairy Queen" alts), a blue away alt with red piping and the road wordmark in white outlined in red (like the Metrodome-era road alts) as your alts.   Keep the Thunderdome homes and the Rod Carew red-crown homes (whether as pullover or button-down) as regular throwback alts for throwback days, and you've got every part of Twins culture, history, and identity covered.

 

 

On 10/14/2019 at 10:39 PM, Marlins93 said:

I'd also be surprised if the blue jersey enters the regular season rotation in 2020. I know it gets much more love than the rest of the set does, but it looks way too much like a practice jersey as is. It is a very nice vibrant shade of blue (and that's presumably why people prefer it), but it's not ready for regular season games until they add some piping and replace the cap insignia on the breast with a Marlins wordmark. Frankly they are wasting a perfectly good color with their the barren design work. It reminds me more of a cool dri workout shirt than a baseball jersey.

 

The Astros did it.

 

 

On 10/16/2019 at 9:33 PM, daveindc said:

My bold prediction is Portland and Vegas will get the two expansion teams (if the A's don't move to either). Montreal will get the Rays and Nashville will get the O's. The White Sox will look to move to Charlotte in 10 years after the city refuses them another stadium. Thoughts?

 

Where the crap did the O's moving come out of?   The White Sox have discussed it before (although they've got a lot of cred in the city), but I've never heard a moment's wild speculation about the Orioles.

 

On 10/19/2019 at 1:05 PM, itsmb8 said:

Just saw a tweet from Reviewing The Brew that the Brewers might be getting new primary uniforms... so it looks like yall are getting your wish.

 

The Padres said brown was coming back.   That just says new uniforms.   I have no doubt another completely different rebrand/complication/further confusion is coming.

[SFGiants58]

10 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Perhaps it's a feature of the era I grew up in, much like older ones have screamed about wanting to see players wear their uniforms with the correct tightness and younger ones like the Diamondbacks, but I've really always found home and road caps to work well.   Darker caps play well with away grays while caps with a brighter color on the brim work well at home.   I find different colors with the darker on the road to be similarly pleasing to the eyes.   Front panels and logos have the same effect.

 

 

On second thought, while I find this is pleasing to the eyes, I realized going through the entire league to get examples that... I think teams have another thing in mind as they do this.   There are a number of times that teams have caps with brightly colored bills paired with their away grays rather than home whites.   And in those instances, and in most of these instances, I've found a common theme: The cap used at home is the one with the longest history and the most prominence.   The Cubs, Twins, Brewers, and Astros all introduced caps with brighter colored caps or front paneled, but wore them on the road while wearing the older original solid-color cap at home.   Although I can't say I argue with that tactic either.   If the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, or Royals brought out an extra cap with a red or white cap, I'd expect them to wear the solid-color caps with the home whites still.

 

Well, the Reds, black Mets, Braves, A's all have very unnecessary road caps (the Reds and A's especially, since they don't even use matching batting helmets for road headwear). The Orioles and Nats have unneeded home caps. The Mariners should redesign to make teal far more prominent in their look (i.e., teal lettering with navy outlines).

 

I've always hated the idea that teams have to "darken" their caps and accessories for road uniforms. They should distribute colors on their greys better to give them some "life," you know?

 

Quote

 

Naturally, Hank Aaron would never be caught dead wearing an unbalanced, overly elaborate curly letter with uneven lineweights.

 

 

 

Well, that has little bearing on the block "M."

 

[MOD EDIT: Board Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies.]

[Silent Wind of Doom]

9 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Well, the Reds, black Mets, Braves, A's all have very unnecessary road caps (the Reds and A's especially, since they don't even use matching batting helmets for road headwear). The Orioles and Nats have unneeded home caps. The Mariners should redesign to make teal far more prominent in their look (i.e., teal lettering with navy outlines).

 

I've always hated the idea that teams have to "darken" their caps and accessories for road uniforms. They should distribute colors on their greys better to give them some "life," you know?

 

A lot of them can be considered unnecessary, but it's kind of a boon that teams who are going to introduce these caps because they make money and fans like them but not ruin their home look.   The Yankees, Royals, Red Sox, Dodgers, Tigers, Twins, Mets, Giants, Braves, Cubs, Phillies, Pirates, and Cardinals all have home primary caps that have long histories or are updates of looks that have long histories.   If more is going to be added, doing it on the road or with alts is preferred.

 

But for times when both looks just look so dang good (Nats, 90's/00's A's, Tigers, 50+ friggin' years of Cardinals) I'm fine with having two.   Tigers get extra points for having orange with their road, since their home bears no orange.

 

9 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Well, that has little bearing on the block "M."

 

It was mostly a joke on the mentioned idea of the block M being a better fit because Hank Aaron wore it, given that he also wore something with the features that make people complain about the current Brewers cap logo.

 

[MOD EDIT: Board Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies.]

[SFGiants58]

6 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

If more is going to be added, doing it on the road or with alts is preferred.

 

Alternates, yes.

 

Quote

 

But for times when both looks just look so dang good (Nats, 90's/00's A's, Tigers, 50+ friggin' years of Cardinals) I'm fine with having two.   Tigers get extra points for having orange with their road, since their home bears no orange.

 

 

Except the A’s road caps are awful.

 

Quote

 

It was mostly a joke on the mentioned idea of the block M being a better fit because Hank Aaron wore it, given that he also wore something with the features that make people complain about the current Brewers cap logo.
 

 

OK

 

[MOD EDIT: Board Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies.]

[Gothamite]

[MOD EDIT: Board Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies.]

[officeglenn]

While this most recent occurrence has been far more civil than most other times it has been brought up, I will remind everyone in this thread that the CCSLC Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies. I would ask everyone involved to drop the subject and move on. And if it does pop up again, please let the moderating team know via a PM or the report button rather than posting memes.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

13 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Anyway, baseball jersey have buttons.  There have been exactly two cases of teams wearing pullovers that weren't embarassing.

 

       

 

Every other team's pullovers (and also the pullovers from subsequent sets from both of these teams) were awful.

I beg to differ.

  

 

 

All three of these are examples of the inadequacy of pullovers and beltless pants, as they were all much better in the standard button-down / belted format.

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

   

 

The Twins had one of the worst uniforms in an era with some profoundly bad ones.  Between this unsightly mess (including its powder blue road version) and the drab slapdash uniform that preceded it, all combined with the inappropriate cap logo that belongs to a proposed name that the team never used ("Twin Cities Twins"), I'd say that the Twins didn't get good baseball uniforms and caps until 1987.

 

As far as the Red Sox: while that uniform is not bad sartorially (unlike the Twins, the Red Sox at least knew enough not to put a blue logo on a red cap without outlining that logo in white), the Red Sox by their nature simply should not be wearing pullovers/beltless.  That team is in the category of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, and Tigers, with designs that should remain the same for all eternity.  But, sadly, the Red Sox and Cardinals abandoned their legacies in the 1970s; and seeing those historic teams clad in pajamas was downright embarassing.  (Fortunately, the Tigers were only embarassing on the road, while the Yankees and Dodgers held firm, notwithstanding the Dodgers' ill-advised 1971 pants stripe.)

 

 

13 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Without that gap, the S and D become a tangled mess of lines.   It is so simple, but goes a long way towards legibility.

 

 

 

The solution to the problem caused by shoving the S into the D is to restore the proper monogram:

 

  

 

 

 

Here we see the S actually hooking the D, as it did on the Padres' caps going back to the PCL days.

 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

2 hours ago, officeglenn said:

While this most recent occurrence has been far more civil than most other times it has been brought up, I will remind everyone in this thread that the CCSLC Code of Conduct clearly states no discussion of Native American team name controversies. I would ask everyone involved to drop the subject and move on. And if it does pop up again, please let the moderating team know via a PM or the report button rather than posting memes.

 

Whoop.   Sorry.   Suppose that's the effect of missing a year of the forum and being insular in a couple threads for the last few rough years of my life.

 

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Except the A’s road caps are awful.

 

Do you mean now, or always.   I hate the current ones because they unnecessarily complicated nature and the betrayal of the earlier stated darker caps on the road thing which we are on either side of.   The Yankees, Royals, White Sox, Rays, Rangers, Reds, Brewers, Phillies, Nationals, and Padres have cap logos that are pretty much entirely white on the road, but also have white outlines on their away grays.   The A's have not one speck of white on their away grays.   The change to the white on green with an outline that they've never worn on any cap in their history was just to match an unnecessarily complex alternate.   That cap's an abomination.

 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

All three of these are examples of the inadequacy of pullovers and beltless pants, as they were all much better in the standard button-down / belted format.

 

     

 

I'm getting an extreme case of deja vu.   I have the sneaking suspicion that we've done these exact same two posts, although I don't know if you were the poster of the original claim that there were only a couple good pullovers that last time.

 

Those are beauties, but I think in some way they show what may be the only benefit of pullovers: the lack of a need to parse things to avoid the placket.   That Angels script is way lower quality because it all had to be moved over, whereas it looks better with the g in the center on the pullover. Those blue jays are beautiful, but the unique logo in the center of the others is impossible.   Now, I'm not saying that the other Blue Jays look is more iconic than the World Series set, but I think it's still good/a major part of history.   For the same reason, I think that Reds gray is good looking, but with how much it looks like heather and has no adornment, it looks like a uniform that has been in use since the 40's or a throwback.   It throws away the pullover's slightly blue gray and bright bands of colors that are characteristic of the team's most iconic period.

 

Side note: My instinct about that Cincinnati gray is correct.   As I went to make sure I was correct about the pullover I posted being the Big Red Machine uniforms (I'd just looked up a year range and the teams in an image search to get my pictures), I saw that the one you posted is essentially the 1939-1955 road uniform without the patches.

 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

There's so much wrong here that I barely know where to begin.

 

The Twins had of the worst uniforms in an era with some profoundly bad ones.  Between this unsightly mess (and its powder blue road version) and the drab slapdash uniform that preceded it, all combined with the inappropriate cap logo that belongs to a proposed name that the team never used ("Twin Cities Twins"), I'd say that the Twins didn't get good baseball uniforms and caps until 1987.

 

As far as the Red Sox: while that uniform is not bad sartorially (unlike the Twins, they knew enough not to put a blue logo on a red cap without outlining that logo in white), the Red Sox by their nature simply should not be wearing pullovers/beltless.  That team is in the category of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, and Tigers, with designs that should remain the same for all eternity.  But, sadly, the Red Sox and Cardinals abandoned their legacies in the 1970s; and seeing those historic teams clad in pajamas was downright embarassing.  (Fortunately, the Tigers were only embarassing on the road, while the Yankees and Dodgers held firm, notwithstanding the Dodgers' ill-advised 1971 pants stripe.)

 

Long ago I've stated my favorite uniform color schemes, which mostly centers on contrasts.   I love the way a dark or cool color and white combine to make each color pop.   It's clean and beautiful.   Perhaps watching the Yankees in the 90's where the white seemed fluorescent and the navy looked like the deepest part of the ocean was my first notice of the aesthetics of uniforms (although I picked the Dolphins as my favorite team solely on their look).   The white cap logos of the Dodgers and Royals also have the same effect.   And slipping a warm color in between that darker coolness and bright white just brings this up even higher.   It's a clean, beautiful look that strengthens all three colors and makes them pop like a fireworks show.   I'm talking the Red Sox, the Mets, the Cubs.   

 

I love the traditional home caps of the Twins and Red Sox, but dangit if the red crowns of the 70's don't just look beautiful to me.   I hate the block C cap because of the lack of a white outline, and it sounds like you feel the same, but the inclusion of the white T makes the whole thing work better despite the C in the Twins' logo not popping as much.   That being said, I think the teams should wear the navy caps as their primaries, but I'd love to see the red caps in rotation as an alt.   They're beautiful.   And the featuring of Navy, Blue, and White so heavily may be why I love both looks so much.   It takes the team's colors and puts them much more at the forefront in equal measures and in ways we don't get to see.   I'd say the Twins look actually looks better given how they separate the colors with white on the bands.   That Red Sox uniform, however, is a legend, featured in perhaps the most iconic moment in Red Sox history.

 

The M caps are the technically correct monogram, but they look like something Brandiose or Humongous Entertainment would come up with.   I feel like every team has an era that they fit into aesthetically.   The Dodgers with their blocky serifs and the aesthetic of Dodger Stadium are firmly in the 60's.   The Astros are in the 50's-60's with their old style uniforms and space race aesthetic complete with plastic space helmets.   The Tigers are in the Hammerin' Hank 30's and 40's.   The Red Sox are in Ted Williams's 40's.

 

The Twins were very 80's/90's with their Homerdome look and their home ballpark.   But with the aesthetic of Target field they wanted to focus on their outdoor roots and the fact that despite their more recent success, they're a charter franchise.   They changed back to the 60's aesthetic, and the TC with its angled serifs, thin lines, and curving crossbar feels incredibly of this era.   Much like the LA monogram, it's dated, but in a way that evokes an era, the era they're trying to entrench themselves in, rather than just looks bad like the old Twins wordmark did.

 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The solution to the problem caused by shoving the S into the D is to restore the proper monogram:

 

  

 

Here we see the S actually hooking the D, as it did on the Padres' caps going back to the PCL days.

 

Both of those logos seem a bit unbalanced and squished to me.   I took the letters as they were and put them together like those old caps, then squished them a bit.

 

 

The thing about interlocking them is the huge open area on the bottom and the contast between the bottom of the S with more lines in it and the top with nothing in it creates an optical illusion that makes the top look larger.   On closer inspection I see that in the old days they shrunk the top loop down to combat that, but the open D still looks bigger because of that.   Interlocking the squished SD I found actually looks the best.   It looks balanced and even, taking out most of the empty space.   It doesn't solve your issue, though, but I think the best option is to go two-tone and drop the notch.   That is, unless with stitching or slight lines of the background colors they could show the letters interlocking.

[squamfan]

On 10/19/2019 at 2:11 PM, NicDB said:

There's at least one Redditor claiming to have confirmation from someone at MLB properties.  Not exactly an infailable source, but it sure is nice to hear these rumors heating up before the World Series.

 

what rumors?

[CaliforniaGlowin]

I loved pullover jerseys and elastic stripes on the pants.

[itsmb8]

3 hours ago, squamfan said:

what rumors?

 

The Brew are getting new primary uniforms.

[ThunderCeltic]

I'm hoping the Brewers bring back the Beer Barrel Man logo. It's doubtful but it would be nice if MLB 20 The Show had Milwaukee County Stadium in the game. In the game the have the 1991-1993 Brewers uniforms but for some reason SCEA has never added the popular 1982 uniforms.

 

So I'm gonna take a guess that the Padres will have a Brown and a Gold alternate and they'll also have Gold Spring Training uniforms similar to the 1984 team.

 

Not official but something I'd like to see from some of the clubs:

 

Tampa Bay going back to it's original colors and adding Purple Top and a Green Top

 

Detroit's road uniform going back the the 1984 set.

 

Chicago White Sox also bringing back the 1983 Road Uniform for Sunday Away games (MLB The Show won't add that uniform sadly)

 

Cleveland going back to their 1980-1985 set

 

Royals Blue alternate top says "Royals" in cursive

 

Angels adding a Navy cap with red bill and a Navy top and go back to being called CALIFORNIA Angels

 

Oakland adding a yellow top and white top in Kelly green based on the 1980 set

 

Seattle making the Teal Bill their permanent home cap and bring back the Teal Crown with Navy bill as an alternate cap

 

Texas going back to a set similar to 1984-1985

 

Marlins introducing a Teal alternate top

 

Pirates can have Black Tops/Yellow Trousers/Yellow Caps/White Pinstripe Tops/White Pinstripe Trousers to mix in match on Sunday

 

Cubs changing their away uniform to the 1990-1993 set

 

Cincinnati bringing a pinstripe alternate with the White Cap similar to the 1993-1998 home set to be worn on Sunday.

 

Brewers going back to Royal and Yellow BiG

 

Giants making the "SF" interlocked as their permanent road uniform  1983-1993 set

 

 

[cheo25]

On 10/16/2019 at 1:44 PM, NicDB said:

 

Maybe it's more correct to say the Rangers have benefitted from the Astros switch. But it's not as if the Astros weren't on an island in the NL Central. Frankly, the point you raised still supports my own.... that baseball is better off with teams playing closer together.

When the Astros were in the NL Central, they were with three other teams in the Central time zone, and the other two teams were in the Eastern time zone. It's easier to watch a game that starts at 6 p.m. Central time (the time most games played in Eastern time zone start) than games that start at 9 p.m. Central time (the time most games played in Pacific time zone start).

 

I'm sorry, but when a team triples the amount of games it plays in a time zone two hours behind the one where the majority of its fans reside, it's not an improvement for the fans of that franchise. I don't really care about what's good for baseball when the team I care about is playing 17-20 road games per year at 9 p.m. back home. Throw in the fact that I enjoyed the Astros playing the Reds, Cubs and Cardinals more than I enjoy them playing the Angels, Mariners and A's. If the Astros had to move West (again, not ideal), I would have preferred they stay in the NL. At least then, they would have been playing the Dodgers, Padres and Giants. 

 

I don't even care about some supposed rivalry with the Rangers. Both teams have to be good for that to matter in a state where football reigns supreme. Both teams have been good once in the same season (the Rangers were the better team from 2013 to '16, the Astros from '17 to present). 

 

But I'm an old guy who misses the playoffs consisting of only division winners and who doesn't like the designated hitter. So don't mind me.

[Beeperino]

I would take the Astros back in the NL Central over the Brewers any day. Milwaukee needs to go back to the AL where they belong.

[Gothamite]

12 minutes ago, Beeperino said:

I would take the Astros back in the NL Central over the Brewers any day. Milwaukee needs to go back to the AL where they belong.

 

Nope.  We like it here, thanks.  And at this point, we've been in the NL almost as long as we were in the AL.

[BC985]

2 hours ago, Beeperino said:

I would take the Astros back in the NL Central over the Brewers any day. Milwaukee needs to go back to the AL where they belong.

The NL Central is a great geographically placed division. Living in Illinois, it is not too much of a trek for me to go to St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, or Cincinnati for a game. Pittsburgh makes for a decent long weekend destination. I don’t think Houston would come into play. I like how things are. 

[The_Admiral]

The Astros switching leagues after 50 years was a terrible decision done only to placate the whiny new-money Rangers. Milwaukee was one thing because it had been in the National League before, and it didn't saddle us with the loathsome year-round expanded interleague play. We don't need a tertiary level of game importance that isn't being offset by a petty local rivalry.

[MilSox]

The Astros are the only NL West team to win a pennant since they arrived, and they've done it twice. I can think of a lot of fans who'd sacrifice a couple west coast road trips for those results.

 

 

[daveindc]

Here's my predictions for division realignment after expansion and relocation is done:

 

NL East- DC, Philly, Mets, Montreal

NL North- Pitt, Cubs, StL, Mil

NL South- Cinc, Atl, Mia, Charlotte (or Nashville)

NL West- SF, Dodgers, SD, Ariz

AL East- Bos, Yanks, Tor, Bal

AL North- Det, Chisox, Minn, Cle

AL South- Col, KC, Tex, Hou

AL West- Sea, Portland, Oak (or Vegas), Angels

[KDubK414]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Nope.  We like it here, thanks.  And at this point, we've been in the NL almost as long as we were in the AL.

I agree wholeheartedly Gotham! At this point, I'm 38, and that means they've been in the National League longer in my lifetime, than in the AL. 18 years in the AL as opposed to 20 in the NL. People around here that were and are old enough to remember the Braves time here were ecstatic to hear the news, as the old rivalries could be restored. I love the division we play in, as it's always competitive. I know Pirates and Reds fans won't exactly agree as of late as it's pretty much been a combo of Brews, Cubs, and Cardinals.