MLB Changes 2020

[SFGiants58]

Cleveland, because of their situation, should really be the only candidate for replacing. Even then, I’m not totally sure.

[FiddySicks]

Atlanta should keep everything pretty much as is, but swap out the navy for black. It has some historical use, and would help to match them with the other Atlanta based teams better. It would also be a relatively subtle change, so I don’t think too many people would be that bothered by it. 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Cleveland, because of their situation, should really be the only candidate for replacing. Even then, I’m not totally sure.

Yeah, if they're going to completely rebrand than a new colour scheme isn't out of the question. Everyone else though? They ought to stick with red, white, and blue. 

 

49 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Atlanta should keep everything pretty much as is, but swap out the navy for black. It has some historical use, and would help to match them with the other Atlanta based teams better. It would also be a relatively subtle change, so I don’t think too many people would be that bothered by it. 

This is the only other exception I can think of, precisely because of the historical precedent and the fact that midnight navy and black are pretty close as-is. I guess I'm neutral. I don't think they need to, but if they did? I'd be ok with it.

 

It's just that people suggesting that the Twins need to wear purple or green (I've seen people suggest that the Twins need to adopt either the Vikings or Wild's colour schemes) or that the Red Sox should swap out navy for forest green seem like they've forgotten they're speaking to a very niche audience. Namely us. Yeah, sure, they're fun concept ideas/thought experiments but are the Minnesota Twins or Boston Red Sox really going to toss away hundreds of years worth of tradition to make some nerds like us who fret about the "overuse" of red, white, and blue happy?

 

I ran this down a few months ago, but really? The concern over the abundance of red, white, and blue is baseball is misplaced. The newest team in MLB to introduce a red, white and blue colour scheme would be the Toronto Blue Jays, going back to 1977 (the Nationals inherited red, white, and blue from their time as the Expos, dating back to 1969). Every new team since has gone with a more distinct colour scheme.

Essentially, the teams that have red, white, and blue have it as a relic from a bygone era before branding was a concern and the idea of half the majors sharing a colour scheme didn't bother anyone. As a result those teams have all had red, white, and blue for extended periods of time. Decades, if not over a century in many cases. Collectively it may seem a bit over-used but in practice? These teams' schemes are holdovers from a different era of baseball aesthetics. No one is shoving new red, white, and blue teams into MLB so maybe we should just accept the ones we do have for what they are and not insist they toss away all of that history.

[MilSox]

14 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm of the opinion that the teams using red, white, and blue should...just keep using red, white, and blue. 

These teams have all been using those colours for decades, over a century in some cases. They absolutely should not toss out that brand equity because some people find it "boring." 

 

The Twins in purple? Nah. 

How much brand equity is actually in the colors for most navy and red teams, though?  I would say for the good majority of them, the colors are the least recognizable part of their brand. 

[IceCap]

13 minutes ago, NicDB said:

How much brand equity is actually in the colors for most navy and red teams, though? 

They're team colours. They're pretty central to the brand. 

You don't change something as fundamental as team colours without a good reason. And "some people on a message board want more variety and think they Twins wearing Vikings colours is neat" isn't a good reason. 

 

I dare say most fans of these teams would prefer their team not change. 

[MJD7]

I know I’m probably the exception as opposed to the rule, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the Twins change color schemes, especially if it resulted in a better uniform set than what they have now. The team is in its biggest identity crisis in its history, and has never really had an iconic look that clearly sets them apart as the Twins, save for maybe the Metrodome set, although I am not a fan of that look for the team. Honestly, the team could even drop red from their set entirely, and go with a navy, powder blue, and kasota gold scheme that would still be well-rooted in the team’s history. As long as the color change resulted in a more cohesive, well-designed uniform set that’s fitting for Minnesota, I’d be happy. 

 

As for Cleveland and Atlanta (and the Angels, for that matter), I’d be happy to see them change color schemes. For Cleveland, I’d be happy to see them drop red for wine, or navy for brown, or anything really, for them to be able to just have some sort of identity. For the Braves, I’d also love to see them in black & red, with a hint of yellow. It would help them separate a bit more from the division rival Nationals.

 

Now, I say all of this as someone who would also enjoy the Red Sox switching from navy to forest green, as @Ice_Cap suggested, but I also definitely see the impracticality of it. Sure, it’ll never happen, neither will it with the Twins, but it’s fun to at least talk about. That’s what we do.

[WSU151]

I think green and red Red Sox unis would be cool for about two months before a billion Gob Bluth .gifs would flood social media accounts. 

[IceCap]

24 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

Sure, it’ll never happen, neither will it with the Twins, but it’s fun to at least talk about. That’s what we do.

And to be sure, yeah, that's cool. A lot of this is fun speculation, and we get some fun concepts out of it. Like that purple and powder blue Twins set a few pages back (as an aside, the Utah Jazz really missed the boat on that as a potential colour scheme). 

 

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

They're team colours. They're pretty central to the brand. 

You don't change something as fundamental as team colours without a good reason. And "some people on a message board want more variety and think they Twins wearing Vikings colours is neat" isn't a good reason. 

 

I dare say most fans of these teams would prefer their team not change. 

I feel I need to state for the record that I am not one of these people.  I'm advocating for what amount to evolutionary tweaks to a team's color palette rather than blowing up decades worth of history and starting from scratch.  Such as the Braves swapping out midnight blue for black, or the Twins replacing navy with dark purple, but otherwise keeping everything else the same.  It's no different than the Brewers going from royal blue to navy to stand out in the NL Central, or the Royals incorporating powder blue in a more "traditional" sense.
 

[IceCap]

6 hours ago, NicDB said:

I'm advocating for what amount to evolutionary tweaks to a team's color palette rather than blowing up decades worth of history and starting from scratch.  Such as the Braves swapping out midnight blue for black, or the Twins replacing navy with dark purple, but otherwise keeping everything else the same.  It's no different than the Brewers going from royal blue to navy to stand out in the NL Central, or the Royals incorporating powder blue in a more "traditional" sense.

I wouldn't mind it at all if the Braves switched navy out for black. I don't think it's necessary, but if they did? I'd dig it (assuming they didn't botch the execution). That's primarily because of historical precedent though. There's a history of the Braves using black in places they currently use blue.

 

The Twins are a funny case because I totally get what others were saying earlier. I remember card companies and even earlier video games giving the Twins a sort of purplish-navy/purplish-red pallet as far as complimentary graphics went. I assume, as other have, that this was done to create some variety. I always thought it was weird though, because the pictures seemed to be navy and red. That seemed apparent to me, even in lower-quality images at the time. I can't recall ever believing the Twins were a "purple" team. I just thought they had purplish graphics for some strange reason. Then everything got standardized, that purplish Twins stuff vanished, and I forgot about it entirely until this very conversation

 

As for the Twins currently switching to purple? Again, I don't think there's value there. The team's been a red, white, and blue team for over a hundred years. Even if you want to say the clock restarted when they moved to Minnesota? That's nearly sixty year in red, white, and blue. That's not nothing. I'm not sure there's much to be gained by switching navy out for dark purple. To what end? To capitalize on dorks like us who remember weird baseball card graphics from the early/mid 90s?

 

I would also say that it's not the same as the Brewers trading royal blue for navy. That happened when teams across sports were darkening their colour schemes. The Brewers remained what they had always been- a blue and gold team. It's just that the shades changed. That's different than switching out one colour for something else, in my opinion.

[McCall]

Changing your longtime color scheme just because too many other teams have it is about the worst branding direction a team can take. If they were to change it because they feel they've created a new brand they feel is better for the team, then so be it. But changing for the sake of changing is violating Marketing 101 and you're basically doomed from the start.

[Ray Lankford]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

Changing your longtime color scheme just because too many other teams have it is about the worst branding direction a team can take. If they were to change it because they feel they've created a new brand they feel is better for the team, then so be it. But changing for the sake of changing is violating Marketing 101 and you're basically doomed from the start.

The big argument for the Padres bringing back the brown was that everyone wears blue.

[JayMac]

3 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

The big argument for the Padres bringing back the brown was that everyone wears blue.

But at least there was an established precedent to bring back the brown. The Sox changing to 'Green Monster' green or the Twins changing to 'Purple Rain' purple makes no sense as there isn't any established history with these clubs and these respective colors.

[McCall]

4 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

The big argument for the Padres bringing back the brown was that everyone wears blue.

They didn't go back to their original color scheme simply because people wanted to reduce the number of blue teams. People wanted brown back. Besides all those navy/red teams have a much longer history than the Padres in blue. The Padres going to blue WAS them changing for the sake of change and therefore prove my point... in reverse.

[Marlins93]

4 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

The big argument for the Padres bringing back the brown was that everyone wears blue.

Isn't that oversimplifying it? The Padres wore brown and gold historically and switched to blue because that was considered more fashionable than their original colors. I don't think many people hated the navy with pinstripes they wore during the 90s but rather took issue with the bland concepts they adopted afterwards.

 

I would say that Padres had poorly designed uniforms featuring a color that everyone wears. They tried different iterations to make them seem less lifeless and none worked, so fans were eager to switch back to the team's original colors.

[Marlins93]

20 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I dare say most fans of these teams would prefer their team not change. 

Changing a team's longstanding color scheme that has been integral to the brand is almost never a good idea.

 

I would say that has definitely worked for the Mariners and perhaps for the Phillies (although some seem to want the maroon brought back).

 

I can't think of another instance where it has worked. It's been a disaster for the Marlins, for one.

[JayMac]

4 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

Changing a team's longstanding color scheme that has been integral to the brand is almost never a good idea.

 

I would say that has definitely worked for the Mariners and perhaps for the Phillies (although some seem to want the maroon brought back).

 

I can't think of another instance where it has worked. It's been a disaster for the Marlins, for one.

The only thing with the Phillies is that they only woworwowore maroon for a little over 20 seasons. They were and are still a primarily red team. But your point stands with the Mariners.

[kroywen]

3 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

The only thing with the Phillies is that they only woworwowore maroon for a little over 20 seasons. They were and are still a primarily red team. But your point stands with the Mariners.

 

Yeah, with the Phillies, it was more a return to a historic color scheme, a la the Padres this year (or Astros before them), rather than a change to a color scheme.

 

Changing a color scheme with decades worth of history is generally a bad idea. Tweaking it is one thing - darkening or lightening a shade, getting rid of a secondary or tertiary color (looking at you, Rockies' black), etc. - but a wholesale change destroys years' worth of branding.

[Frylock]

On 11/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, AndrewG70 said:

Breaking news: The Rangers will unveil new uniforms at an event at the almost-completed Globe Life Field on Wednesday. I’ll be covering it for my radio station.

 

I’m still kind of shaking my head... in the last 48 hours, there’s been little to no discussion of this, yet, this thread has been Cleve-jacked and “Minnesota teams should be purple”-jacked.

 

My hope is that the Rangers bring back the team name to the front of the jerseys, but my fear is that they are just going to hype up the “new” Nike uniforms with the Globe Life Field inaugural season patch.

 

But here’s a thought: could they be one of the other teams rumored to have a powder blue jersey?

[BBTV]

I don't think there's much talk about the Rangers because nobody is expecting much.  "New uniforms" could simply mean new alts to add to the rotation, or throwbacks, or it could mean an all-new set, but the last time they did that, they didn't do anything dramatic - just removed black and butchered the name/NOB font.

 

It's likely just that all anyone is expecting is tweaks - and I wouldn't consider adding "RANGERS" to the home to be anything drastic.  I wouldn't expect a return to the late '80s script, or anything wild.  I'm probably one of the few that doesn't mind them being the Texas Texases.