kimball

MLB Changes 2020

Recommended Posts

On 12/9/2019 at 12:54 PM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

Also, assuming that these are all folded the same way -- the Yankees' pinstripes appear to go all the way to the bottom throughout the entire jersey.  While the Cubs, Rockies, Mets, Phillies, White Sox, Padres appear to still have the blank tail space that Majestic had

Jeez, I really really really hate the blank tail.:angered:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

I guess, but I assumed some people would know what I was getting at since the conversation took place a few pages ago. The topic was still kind of relevant. Oh well. Point being, if you switch black with the Astros,Red Sox, Yankees, Indians, Mariners, and Nationals, you get a completely different looking uniform. With the Braves, it wouldn't change the look or appeal of their uniforms. Common folk would hardly notice.

This forum moves quickly from topic to topic. Unless you directly reference it people will assume you are talking about something new when the last time it was talked about was pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joekono said:

Jeez, I really really really hate the blank tail.:angered:

Why? it should go inside the pants.

 

just like underwear

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we will see far more of these untucked on fans than we will tucked in on the field. 
 

And that’s the point of the blank panel - to advertise. 

Share this post


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

Because we will see far more of these untucked on fans than we will tucked in on the field. 
 

And that’s the point of the blank panel - to advertise. 

 

Advertise what, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertise that it is an authentic.  Trying to add value to the high-end merchandise by visually setting it apart from the discount versions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, literally nothing has changed except the logo they sew on.  And the price increase that swoosh adds, of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should MLB step in? Manufacturers set the prices, but leagues have to approve them. Nike has obviously convinced Manfred’s team that the market will bear the additional costs. Only time will tell if they’re right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MattMill said:

There should be more outrage on the price increase. Same everything and a price increase is allowed? MLB can't step in ?


Why would MLB step in? They are already getting their money from Nike. Why would they risk upsetting a commercial partner? It is up to Nike to get the best return they can. Now simple economics takes over. If Nike determines that their current price point is significantly hurting demand, they might adjust. I would bet that they are banking on, as with everything that has changed in the baseball uniform landscape the last few years, a period of fan outrage followed by eventual acceptance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone (in the comments following the article) suggested using a seam ripper to remove the Nike logo from the new jerseys.  That would be fine for any jersey that existed prior to 2020, but for the new ones (Padres, Brewers, Rangers, etc.), it would be the wrong thing to do.  

 

I dislike the Nike logo being where it is, as much as anyone.  But love it or hate it, the only way the new 2020 jerseys will ever take the field is with that logo on them.  If you remove it, you create a jersey in a form that never existed, and that, to me, is worse than the swoosh.  Remove the swoosh and it ceases to be authentic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jungle Jim said:

Someone (in the comments following the article) suggested using a seam ripper to remove the Nike logo from the new jerseys.  That would be fine for any jersey that existed prior to 2020, but for the new ones (Padres, Brewers, Rangers, etc.), it would be the wrong thing to do.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jungle Jim said:

Someone (in the comments following the article) suggested using a seam ripper to remove the Nike logo from the new jerseys.  That would be fine for any jersey that existed prior to 2020, but for the new ones (Padres, Brewers, Rangers, etc.), it would be the wrong thing to do.  

 

I dislike the Nike logo being where it is, as much as anyone.  But love it or hate it, the only way the new 2020 jerseys will ever take the field is with that logo on them.  If you remove it, you create a jersey in a form that never existed, and that, to me, is worse than the swoosh.  Remove the swoosh and it ceases to be authentic.

 

If you want to be pedantic It's only authentic if it's from the same team issued stock as game worn so I wouldn't worry too much about ripping off an aesthetically unpleasant advertiser logo. Especially in this instance you can't even make the argument that it's a maker's mark which might help your argument but nike is not involved with this product except for logo placement. It's like putting a tag-heuer stamp on a renault F1 engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Nike will have their own version of the dugout jacket eventually?  I know they already seem to be falling out of favor as the dugout hoodie seems to be gaining in popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

If you want to be pedantic It's only authentic if it's from the same team issued stock as game worn so I wouldn't worry too much about ripping off an aesthetically unpleasant advertiser logo. Especially in this instance you can't even make the argument that it's a maker's mark which might help your argument but nike is not involved with this product except for logo placement. It's like putting a tag-heuer stamp on a renault F1 engine.

 

They've been referring to retail jerseys as "authentic" for years now, so I'm not sure what else to say.  If nothing else, they're purported to be an accurate representation of what the players wear on the field.  I would assume that part of the motivation for spending $350 on a jersey would be because it's like what the players wear, in every detail, but maybe that's just me. 

 

Again, I'm certainly not here to defend Nike, their logo, or their role in the production of the jerseys, but if the owner wants it to maintain its "authenticity", the logo should stay on there.  If pure aesthetics are the priority and accuracy be damned, then get rippin', because yes, it does look better without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really! Who tucks in their jerseys other than the players themselves. I guess guys like this:doofus.png

This is also from a Uni-Watch article:

Fans: The great irony about athletes being required to tuck in their jerseys is that the millions upon millions of fans who buy and wear replicas of those athletes' jerseys almost always wear them untucked. The protocol of fans going untucked is so entrenched that any fan who tucks in is immediately chastised for looking like a doofus-and-a-half.

You might think this is because athletes just naturally look good with a tucked-in jersey while fans look dorky. But no, that's not it -- it's all about the pants. Simply put, tucking in looks good when the jersey is part of a full uniform but not so hot if you're wearing jeans, khakis, cargo shorts, or anything other than the jersey's matching uniform pants. This rule was handily demonstrated back in January, when Peyton Manning showed up to a pre-Super Bowl news conference wearing a jersey tucked into his sweatpants and promptly found himself targeted for some well-deserved abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 5:49 AM, Gothamite said:

Advertise that it is an authentic.  Trying to add value to the high-end merchandise by visually setting it apart from the discount versions. 

The panel is there because its a lighter and more breathable material.  As a baseball player that back panel is usually where you sweat the most.  It makes a lot of sense for the players that majestic added that panel.  It also makes sense that it is on fan authentics, because when people buy authentic jerseys they want exactly what the player's wear.  I get that it's ugly but it doesn't really make sense to complain about it.

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.