Jump to content

MLB Changes 2020


kimball

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

MLB is also a league whose fan base is trending older and realizes it needs to attract younger fans. I once wrote on these boards that I thought MLB uniforms would remain conservative in nature with Nike because traditionally the sport is. The more I think about it, the less sure I am that will be true. 
 

Nike has almost full range in the NBA. The NFL actually has some uniform constraint in their rules. Where does that leave MLB? A 162 game schedule leaves a lot to experiment with. 

 

The swoosh on the front and maybe ads on helmets is the most its gonna be for the forseeable future IMO.  Plus, teams decide their own designs so I doubt something like the NBA's "City Edition" designs make their way to baseball.  I mean, the NFL hasnt done anything too crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:


Nope. My dress is part of my personal brand, and I don’t need someone else’s infringing on it. 

 

Fair point.  I think I only have one dress shirt with a logo on it, but my son has several Izods.

 

13 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now.  Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

 

Seriously?  My son is 18 and I'm fairly certain he didn't see the new jerseys and think to himself, "Hmmm . . . I should start paying attention to this baseball thing now that Nike is on board."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

 

The swoosh on the front and maybe ads on helmets is the most its gonna be for the forseeable future IMO.  Plus, teams decide their own designs so I doubt something like the NBA's "City Edition" designs make their way to baseball.  I mean, the NFL hasnt done anything too crazy.

You don’t think Nike won’t come to teams with ideas and some teams will be dumb enough to take them (looking at you ‘15-‘19 Arizona)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now.  Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

 

Honestly thought this was a parody at first. It's very funny if it's written ironically. I guess funny too if it's written straight, but in a different, more depressing way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2019 at 4:50 PM, LMU said:

Also seemingly confirmed that the Indians aren’t getting a new alt logo this year.

Since Nike took over from Under Armour I wonder if that pushed back logo rebrands. Cleveland need something new, even if it's just a color change of some sort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

 

I bet a lot of people would rather buy an authentic Nike MLB jersey vs an Authentic Columbia Sportswear jersey...  an extreme example, but you get my point.

I don't care who makes them as long as I can buy a jersey of my team. I'm not an adidas fan, but if I want a Columbus Crew jersey, it's going to be adidas. I have Russell Athletic Indians jerseys that aren't as well made as Majestic jerseys were. That was more to do with when they were made and the materials used. So for at least the next year the materials will be the same as used last year, with the only change being the placement of the logos for those teams keeping their previous designs. 

 

13 hours ago, VikWings said:

 

I think in the NFL, I'd actually prefer it on the chest, if it meant they'd stop cutting off sleeve stripes to make room for it.

Or God forbid, put the swoosh on top of a stripe if it can fit there (Steelers)!!!!!! If Iowa can fit the whole pattern in, and the Steelers could do it with Starter, do it with Nike.

13 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

MLB is also a league whose fan base is trending older and realizes it needs to attract younger fans. I once wrote on these boards that I thought MLB uniforms would remain conservative in nature with Nike because traditionally the sport is. The more I think about it, the less sure I am that will be true. 
 

Nike has almost full range in the NBA. The NFL actually has some uniform constraint in their rules. Where does that leave MLB? A 162 game schedule leaves a lot to experiment with. 

If Nike tries to capture the attention of youth, they'd end up doing what adidas did and bring back the 1970's style uniforms. That's all that adidas did and look how many other folks copied that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationals Add World Champs Patch to Jersey

December 19, 2019 - 15:22 PM

The Washington Nationals are the champs, and they don’t want anyone to forget it. Throughout the upcoming 2020 Major League Baseball season, the Nationals will wear a patch on the right sleeve on each of their five jerseys. The patch […]

Read More...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now. Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

They've indoctrinated you. First of all, most of us here are not older than 55. I'm in my early 30's and I think the Nike logo makes baseball uniforms look like they've sold out. Compromised jersey designs for an ad. 

 

I get people who don't care because there's a lot of things people are fired up about that I don't care about, but I don't get the people who think it looks better with the swoosh than without. That makes no sense. 

 

Quote

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

They were doing just fine without it and why should we care that Major League Baseball makes more money? They're not going to pass the extra money down to us in lowered ticket prices or anything like that. 

 

Quote

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

 

Nike was already in baseball with equipment, cleats, gear, etc. I'd bet the number of kids who get interested in baseball now that they have a swoosh on their jerseys is minuscule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report: There are more than 1 billion reasons why MLB let Nike put the swoosh on its uniforms

 

Jack Baer
Yahoo Sports Contributor
Yahoo Sports

Dec 18, 2019, 11:27 PM

 

Nike’s swoosh has officially landed on the front of every Major League Baseball team’s uniforms, and many of the league’s fans are predictably not happy about it.

 

Uniforms that have gone unchanged for decades, like the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers, now feature that little swoosh on the right breast, rather than on the sleeve like Majestic when it was the league’s uniform supplier. It is the first time a manufacturer’s logo has reached the front of MLB’s uniforms.

 

It’s a jarring sight at first. It also raises the question of just how many truckloads of money Nike must have handed to MLB for the league to agree to the placement. The answer, unsurprisingly, is quite a bit of money. But that’s not all.

 

Why is the Nike swoosh on the front of every MLB uniform?

 

According to Andrew Marchand of the New York Post, the 10-year deal between MLB, Nike and retailer Fanatics is valued at more than $1 billion over 10 years. Even at its minimum, that works out to over $3 million per team per year, for a patch only a few inches long.

 

That might sound somewhat lower than you’d think, but a Fanatics executive told Marchand that there was more than just a financial reason to add the swoosh:

 

“Demand is up significantly based on adding the swoosh to the uniform and is bringing in younger consumers to the sport and a marketing halo from Nike,” Michael Rubin, the founder and executive chairman of Fanatics, told The Post.

 

The young people apparently love the swoosh, according to one of the people at the center of the deal to add the swoosh. Take that for what you will.

 

This is the second time in the past few years MLB has allowed a manufacturer to add its logo to a prominent part of its uniforms, as hat-maker New Era has featured its logo on the side of all official caps since the 2016 playoffs.

 

As much as purists have decried the swoosh, this might only be a warm-up for teams potentially adding jersey sponsors, which could reportedly happen as early as 2022. Teams including the Yankees and Boston Red Sox have already sported advertising patches and more in games played overseas, so it could only be a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gothamite said:

and it makes them sweat .004% faster on the basepaths! :rolleyes:

sweating faster is a good thing?

 

Hmm, gives me an idea for a new sports brand:  "Sweatfast"

 

 

Should i trademark it now and see where i can get t shirts and other stuff produced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Survival79 said:

Report: There are more than 1 billion reasons why MLB let Nike put the swoosh on its uniforms

 

Jack Baer
Yahoo Sports Contributor
Yahoo Sports

Dec 18, 2019, 11:27 PM

 

Nike’s swoosh has officially landed on the front of every Major League Baseball team’s uniforms, and many of the league’s fans are predictably not happy about it.

 

Uniforms that have gone unchanged for decades, like the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers, now feature that little swoosh on the right breast, rather than on the sleeve like Majestic when it was the league’s uniform supplier. It is the first time a manufacturer’s logo has reached the front of MLB’s uniforms.

 

It’s a jarring sight at first. It also raises the question of just how many truckloads of money Nike must have handed to MLB for the league to agree to the placement. The answer, unsurprisingly, is quite a bit of money. But that’s not all.

 

Why is the Nike swoosh on the front of every MLB uniform?

 

According to Andrew Marchand of the New York Post, the 10-year deal between MLB, Nike and retailer Fanatics is valued at more than $1 billion over 10 years. Even at its minimum, that works out to over $3 million per team per year, for a patch only a few inches long.

 

That might sound somewhat lower than you’d think, but a Fanatics executive told Marchand that there was more than just a financial reason to add the swoosh:

 

“Demand is up significantly based on adding the swoosh to the uniform and is bringing in younger consumers to the sport and a marketing halo from Nike,” Michael Rubin, the founder and executive chairman of Fanatics, told The Post.

 

The young people apparently love the swoosh, according to one of the people at the center of the deal to add the swoosh. Take that for what you will.

 

This is the second time in the past few years MLB has allowed a manufacturer to add its logo to a prominent part of its uniforms, as hat-maker New Era has featured its logo on the side of all official caps since the 2016 playoffs.

 

As much as purists have decried the swoosh, this might only be a warm-up for teams potentially adding jersey sponsors, which could reportedly happen as early as 2022. Teams including the Yankees and Boston Red Sox have already sported advertising patches and more in games played overseas, so it could only be a matter of time.

 

Why, exactly, would we take the word of Fanatics at face value in this situation? It's in his interest to claim demand is up, this is brilliant, who wouldn't want to be a part of the swoosh era, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

Why, exactly, would we take the word of Fanatics at face value in this situation? It's in his interest to claim demand is up, this is brilliant, who wouldn't want to be a part of the swoosh era, don't you?

 

100% right. Here's a guy who is loaded up with product that's now 30% more expensive with exactly ZERO change other than the Swoosh. He HAS to say that. By saying this out loud, he and every retailer implicated in this con are essentially willing it into the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

100% right. Here's a guy who is loaded up with product that's now 30% more expensive with exactly ZERO change other than the Swoosh. He HAS to say that. By saying this out loud, he and every retailer implicated in this con are essentially willing it into the truth. 

 

Because every other sales approach done by every company looking to increase sales is 100% truth...?

 

These people are salesmen. That’s their job. 

 

Anyway, $100 million a year is really not much money in baseball land. If I were Manfred, I probably would have held out for more to put the swoosh on the jersey, though Nike had a bit of leverage with UA dropping out. 

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.