Now that the Brewers and Padres are "fixed," which MLB team is next?

[Telemundo219]

ROCKIES, ANGELS, DIAMONDBACKS, RAYS, INDIANS, ASTROS (TOO TRADITIONAL FOR THAT NAME), PHILLIES (MAROON), TWINS

[Tygers09]

4 hours ago, NicDB said:

The Rockies need to drop black and just be a purple and white team.  Maybe with silver and/or cream trim, but black does nothing for them but muddy up a look that would otherwise have them standing out. 

I think purple and powder blue, a good color combination where purple respresents the mountains and powder blue the sky.

[Lights Out]

The biggest remaining fix is bringing the Expos back to the league.

 

Short of that, I would point to the Rays as a team in desperate need of a rebrand. Their current uniforms were dated the day they were unveiled and haven't looked any better since then. They were really on to something with their mid-2000s look, it just had the misfortune of being associated with losing teams and replaced the year before they made their World Series run.

 

The Angels could use some minor tweaks here and there, but the biggest fix they need to make is to stop pretending they don't play in Anaheim. They also have a lot of room to experiment with their look, whether it's bringing back the PCL-era shoulder stripes, the halo hats, or even periwinkle.

[floydnimrod]

11 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The biggest remaining fix is bringing the Expos back to the league.

 

Short of that, I would point to the Rays as a team in desperate need of a rebrand. Their current uniforms were dated the day they were unveiled and haven't looked any better since then. They were really on to something with their mid-2000s look, it just had the misfortune of being associated with losing teams and replaced the year before they made their World Series run.

 

The Angels could use some minor tweaks here and there, but the biggest fix they need to make is to stop pretending they don't play in Anaheim. They also have a lot of room to experiment with their look, whether it's bringing back the PCL-era shoulder stripes, the halo hats, or even periwinkle.

Move Tampa Bay to Montreal and that takes care of two of those!

 

All kidding aside, I would love for the Angels to wear Red/Gold (actual gold, not yellow), or a Darker Red and Gold. I know that doesn't fit with the "Let's 'rebrand' every team to 1982" thing but it's not something currently worn in baseball, and I think that should count for something.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 11/20/2019 at 4:52 PM, chcarlson23 said:

The TC has good structure and a nice flourish on the letters to not be boring, but not be overly complex. It fits wonderfully on a hat, along with other dual-letter monograms. It's up there with the Yankees, Mets, and Dodgers.

 

The TC is nowhere near the monograms of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, and Giants. (Don't forget the Giants!) The problem with the TC is that it features either a red C on a blue cap or a blue C on a red cap, both of which disappear next to the white T.  As a result, the logo looks horrible from a distance.  In that respect, the cap TC is similar to the PCL Los Angeles Angels' LA logo, which featured a white L and a red A on a blue cap. 

When the Major League Los Angeles Angels wore those uniforms as throwbacks, the cap logo looked just as bad from a distance as does the Twins' TC logo.

 

 

Whereas, when worn on the sleeve, and set against a white backdrop, the TC's differently-coloured (blue and red) letters play nice together.

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, coco1997 said:

Quick idea for a “neo-retro” Angels design using the red and gold color scheme:

 

 

 

I love the colours! But I don't go for the white front panel on the cap (or for the two-tone shoes).  Also, I would add a front number; and it feels to me that the socks should have three horizontal gold stripes. Anyway, red and gold would be a fantastic colour scheme for the Angels.

 

I am much more fixated on restoring the wordmark with the nice friendly curves.  The letters with the notch in the middle don't suit the Angels at all.  That's a typeface that evokes the Old West; it is properly used by the Rangers.

[-Akronite-]

17 hours ago, NicDB said:

The Rockies need to drop black and just be a purple and white team.  Maybe with silver and/or cream trim, but black does nothing for them but muddy up a look that would otherwise have them standing out. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree aesthetically, but the Rockies have prominently featured black from the start and it'd be strange to drop it entirely IMO. Just make purple the focus and black should be more of an accent. Maybe drop the silver entirely? Either way clean it up and flash them PURPS.

[OnWis97]

On 11/20/2019 at 1:17 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Even putting aside the TC logo's annoying illogic (in that the team did not ultimately have the name "Twin Cities Twins", which is where the TC came from), that logo looks terrible on a cap.  Whereas the M reflects the actual initial of the team's locality designation; and, furthermore, it harmonises beautifully with the home wordmark from that set.

By every conceivable measure, the M is a better cap logo.  The TC looks just fine on the sleeve.

I think this is part of the beauty of the logo; There's an amusing story behind how it came to be.  That, the fact that it came out at a time when a state initial was still unusual, and that they may have even shied away from an "M" so as not to marginalize St. Paul, make the adoption of that logo unique.  Does their removing it from the cap for so many years take some of the shine off?  Maybe.  But in the Twin Cities there's no question about which of the logos is more embraced.

 

The TC's biggest flaw is the lack of contrast between the "C" and the blue hat.  The "M" solves that problem.  I wish the return of TC in the early 2000s or the Target Field update would have included a red "TC" with white outline (like the blue Cardinals cap).  But I always hated the "M." It's clunky at the top and the little underline is cheesy. Yeah, it matched the home wordmark, but in a vacuum, it was among MLB's worst hats. And their hat logo doesn't need to match the wordmark any more than "LA" needs to match the Dodgers wordmark.  I'll take the flawed TC over that M any day.

 

That said, the Twins do need a lot of unification...they currently match their official primary hat with alternate jerseys and their primary home jersey with an alternate hat. What?  Are they using gold?  Which wordmark are they embracing? Pick one. I don't think they got it entirely right in 1987. About two minutes after seeing the updated 2009 wordmark, I realized just how clunky the original was (particularly the "s").  The updated wordmark should never be replaced by the old one.

 

Along with my one-color TC update, I'd like to see one of two things happen:

• 2009 set comes back.  Pinstripes at home.  Current road jersey.  No alternates with the original wordmark.
• New set based on the throwback alt they wore fairly frequently from 2009 to 2018.  That is my favorite jersey, but I'm not sure what the road jersey would be.  Just the same wordmark (as they did 1961-1986)?  A new Minnesota wordmark? If they could make something work there, I'd be for it.

And no gold, please.

 

As to the original topic, there are other teams that need to tighten things up but I don't know that anyone really needs to right the ship the way the Brewers, Padres, Astros, and Blue Jays did. Maybe Arizona, who kinda has a little Canucks in them.  

[Sport]

I'm baffled the Reds haven't come up. They need to be "fixed" exactly the same way the Mets, Royals, Blue Jays, Astros, Brewers, and Padres were fixed. They're still wearing their BFBS black carried over from the 99 unis and the only way to right the ship would be a buttoned up version of the uniforms from 69, Big Red Machine or 1990 - I'd be happy with any one - take your pick. 

 

 

[Brian]

6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I'm baffled the Reds haven't come up. They need to be "fixed" exactly the same way the Mets, Royals, Blue Jays, Astros, Brewers, and Padres were fixed. They're still wearing their BFBS black carried over from the 99 unis and the only way to right the ship would be a buttoned up version of the uniforms from 69, Big Red Machine or 1990 - I'd be happy with any one - take your pick. 

 

 

 

I wish they would give up on the black.. it's LONG over due.  I was hoping all the hype around their old throwbacks last year would lead to a new, clean red/white uniform... or just go back to the 1969 and call it a day.  I don't get it!

[DouglasQuaid]

The twins need to base their uniform off of the 60s with some design elements of the 80s set. I'd keep the TC logo as main and maybe use an M cap on the road (based on current Minnesota script). Mix these two eras into something fresh and new and it'd be a win in my book

[seasaltvanilla]

^ I made a concept a while back basically doing what you describe, taking the Old Met look and modernizing it through the lens of the Metrodome for a new but historically based Target Field brand.

[Sport]

11 hours ago, Brian said:

 

I wish they would give up on the black.. it's LONG over due.  I was hoping all the hype around their old throwbacks last year would lead to a new, clean red/white uniform... or just go back to the 1969 and call it a day.  I don't get it!

 

Literally every single Reds fan I know wants them to go back to using a strictly red/white color scheme.

 

My hope is last season's throwbackapalooza acted as a market test and next season we'll see some changes to a more traditionally Reds appearing uniform. 

[Fitzy0220]

As embarrassing (to say I mention the Pirates) as this is, I would like to see the Pirates go back to the Classic sleeveless vest / different colored undershirt uniform 

[simtek34]

On the Twins, I've been a fan of all of their uniforms from 1961-2014. The Gold just doesn't do it for me. My personal opinion on their best was the 1961-1971 and 2010-2014 Home/Road Combo. 

 

The 1987-2009 Road Pinstripes aren't my favorite, but they were a nice Uniform and an interesting concept.

 

Though the 1972 was criminal underrated. (The Twins switched from their Inaugural Uniform set in '72 to a Pinstripe-Free set in 1972, which still featured buttons, had no belt, made the Home and Road Wordmarks Red rather than Navy, and added (Large) sleeve striping. In 1973, they ditched the Buttons and Grey and jumped on the Powder Blue and Pullover bandwagon, while keeping the '72 Home on the Pullover Template. It looked a lot better in 2009, when the Twins wore the 1972-1986 Hone Uniform as a Throwback Alternate for the final season at the H.H.H. Metrodome, with a Belt, Buttons, and the Striping being standard Piping-Style stripes.)

 

And just because I love this photo of Harmon, here's a bonus.

 

 

[AstroCree]

On 11/19/2019 at 9:49 PM, coco1997 said:

Agreed 100%. It’s crazy to me that the Rockies have remained almost completely unchanged over the past 25 years while the other three ‘90s expansions teams have each undergone multiple dramatic redesigns.

Maybe because it works? Look at all the teams that have changed. Only the Rays have stuck with it when they rebranded.

D-Backs for years like to play dress up between their current and 2001 set. Meanwhile, the Marlins have gone through 3 identity changes in one decade. All the Rockies have done are small tweaks. 

 

What is exactly wrong with the Rockies? I always see their name pop up in topics like this but I fail to see why they should change. I feel they have a strong, unique, timeless identity. All their tweaks have also been good ones. 

[seasaltvanilla]

The Rockies look quintessentially 90s, not sure that qualifies as "timeless." Updating their font would go a long, long way.

[coco1997]

43 minutes ago, insert name said:

Maybe because it works? Look at all the teams that have changed. Only the Rays have stuck with it when they rebranded.

D-Backs for years like to play dress up between their current and 2001 set. Meanwhile, the Marlins have gone through 3 identity changes in one decade. All the Rockies have done are small tweaks. 

 

What is exactly wrong with the Rockies? I always see their name pop up in topics like this but I fail to see why they should change. I feel they have a strong, unique, timeless identity. All their tweaks have also been good ones. 

 

Colorado overall has a solid set, but I've never much liked their Times New Roman-esque wordmarks. Certainly that aspect of their look could stand to be addressed. I also think they should either use a much brighter shade of purple (even considering that the lighter shade they introduced a few seasons ago was a big improvement) or drop the black altogether.

 

Also, please, please get rid of that awful black vest alternate. 

[KittSmith_95]

I agree with most people here that the Angels, Twins, Rangers, Mariners, Rockies, Rays & Phillies need to figure things out jersey wise (my personal order of who I want fixed 1st). There's a few looks that could use a few tweaks (Reds) and then others who need to pick a side rather than trying to have their cake and eat it too.The worst culprits here are the White Sox and Brewers, who both want to to embrace the past, but not fully, so we get all these little shoehorned things, trying to blend eras and whatnot. I get wanting to call back, but sometimes, it just doesn't work. My other case here, well... the Royals. Ever since the World Series, Kansas City has slowly tried to embrace gold as a 3rd colour, using it well on alternate looks. However, they also look good with baby blue as the 3rd colour, which is also a big part of their history. They need to pick one, fine tune the look with a few tweaks, and run with it... and either direction can work for them. Then again, I also like the 02-05 Royals set with the black (which looks good, it just didn't suit KC), so yeah.... 

Also, now that we got Road Pinstripes back, when are we getting vests again? That is all. 

[coco1997]

1 hour ago, KittSmith_95 said:

The worst culprits here are the White Sox and Brewers, who both want to to embrace the past, but not fully so we get all these little shoehorned things, trying to blend eras and whatnot

While I agree about the Brewers, I disagree with your assessment of the White Sox, who have maintained nearly the exact same look for going on 30 years. I assume what you’re referring to is the ‘83 style throwbacks they’ve worn almost exclusively on Sunday home games for the past few years? That’s not quite the same as what Brewers did the last few seasons, straddling the line between their ‘00-19 and BiG era colors and regularly using the BiG without committing to it as a full time logo.

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, coco1997 said:

 

Colorado overall has a solid set, but I've never much liked their Times New Roman-esque wordmarks. Certainly that aspect of their look could stand to be addressed. I also think they should either use a much brighter shade of purple (even considering that the lighter shade they introduced a few seasons ago was a big improvement) or drop the black altogether.

 

Also, please, please get rid of that awful black vest alternate. 

 

That's kind of where I stand. The purple/silver/white look would be fantastic, as seen on their 1994-99 road uniform.

 

 

Pair it with a purple cap, socks, and undershirts, and you'd have one of the best looks in the majors. I'm fine with the current shade of purple, but something resembling the Ducks' old aubergine purple would be perfect.

 

 

The Times New Roman-emulating wordmarks are a problem. While they were a good idea at the time (and a good way to inject the grey into the home uniform), they just look "of a particular vintage" now. A new font, perhaps slab-serif, would be welcome. Just don't go all Colorado flag-looking or do anything resembling this overdesigned trash:

 

Yuck.