MLB 2021

[FiddySicks]

On 7/17/2021 at 4:47 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Quite frankly, I’d rather see the Mets mine the NY baseball Giants for designs.

 

 

Windowpane?

I understand the sentiment on that, but it may be a bit awkward considering the franchise still exists with the same nickname. The closest thing I can think of is when the Twins or Rangers use Senators throwbacks. The Nats are obviously a different franchise, but it still feels weird as all hell to see either of them wear the curly W, even for a game, when it’s an active team’s logo. 

[joekono]

4 hours ago, Brian E said:

plus, if you watched the clone wars animated series, you have a completely different appreciation for the prequels.

 

 

yes, the mets are wearing their best set right now. but also, the black jersey on its own for one night a week is not upsetting that, at least IMO. and the blue home alt is basically out of the rotation anyway. i guess my argument boils down to: as long as the mets don't touch their primary look and utilize as such, then i'm not going nuclear over the presence of an alternate. especially when that alt (whether it should have been there or not in the first place) has a fair significant place in franchise history (2000 pennant, NL east clincher, 10-run inning, etc.)

I guess you are correct in "if it's one night a week"(still too many), it might not be bad but again, BLUE AND ORANGE is where they've had such embarrassingly little success. The Black in the uniform reminds a Met fan of LOSING TO THE YANKEES in 2000, choking as having the best team in baseball in the  2006 NLCS, and I don't want to mention the few years after that. This is usually a discussion I don't get into because I don't believe a team's identity should be "if they won a championship in it"(see 2016 Cavaliers). The Mets belong in blue and orange.

[joekono]

On 7/17/2021 at 6:53 PM, the admiral said:

 

It's always been okay to like the Padres in brown and yellow or the Brewers ball-in-glove, not sure what you're going for here.

Where I was going was the posts that DIDN'T want the Padres back in brown and Brewers bring back the BIG logo. When it was brought up, I'd get "oh, your living in the past" comments. I'm not saying the majority didn't want this but I'm just trying to answer your post. I'm just for every team to have an identity and I know a lot of it is money grabbing(NBA) but now I notice posts about bringing some really terrible 90's uniforms and that's ok now. Low and behold, the Padres and Brewers went back and look great. 

[dont care]

33 minutes ago, joekono said:

I guess you are correct in "if it's one night a week"(still too many), it might not be bad but again, BLUE AND ORANGE is where they've had such embarrassingly little success. The Black in the uniform reminds a Met fan of LOSING TO THE YANKEES in 2000, choking as having the best team in baseball in the  2006 NLCS, and I don't want to mention the few years after that. This is usually a discussion I don't get into because I don't believe a team's identity should be "if they won a championship in it"(see 2016 Cavaliers). The Mets belong in blue and orange.

So they made a World Series and NLCS run in black and that’s somehow bad? I get not liking BFBS,  but not considering those successes when the team barely has had any success other than a miracle Mets run in 69 and 86, that most people don’t remember or weren’t born yet. I would think Mets fans would cherish any success they had.

[AstroCree]

21 minutes ago, joekono said:

I guess you are correct in "if it's one night a week"(still too many), it might not be bad but again, BLUE AND ORANGE is where they've had such embarrassingly little success. The Black in the uniform reminds a Met fan of LOSING TO THE YANKEES in 2000, choking as having the best team in baseball in the  2006 NLCS, and I don't want to mention the few years after that. This is usually a discussion I don't get into because I don't believe a team's identity should be "if they won a championship in it"(see 2016 Cavaliers). The Mets belong in blue and orange.

sure if you only look at the negative moments.

they also technically lost the 2006 NLCS in the traditional pinstripes so....

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, joekono said:

Where I was going was the posts that DIDN'T want the Padres back in brown and Brewers bring back the BIG logo. When it was brought up, I'd get "oh, your living in the past" comments. I'm not saying the majority didn't want this but I'm just trying to answer your post. I'm just for every team to have an identity and I know a lot of it is money grabbing(NBA) but now I notice posts about bringing some really terrible 90's uniforms and that's ok now. Low and behold, the Padres and Brewers went back and look great. 

 

On this board? The Padres going back to brown was this board's default cause when it came to the Padres look. I was, and remain, one of the few who thought going back to brown would have been a mistake. But I was always in a very small minority on this board which had been advocating for that change for many years. 

 

Which hasn't turned out terribly I might add. They definitely got brown right for the first time in the team's history. Still not my favorite, that remains the '98 look, but I can live with their current set. 

[bosrs1]

So does anyone have any good ideas about what a Las Vegas Athletics uniform set should look like? I'd presume a rebranding will be in order in a couple of years when they move.  

[Carolingian Steamroller]

The black era Meta also included these unis which have some interesting things going for them:

 

 

The snow white, headspoon design is really different given the Mets history. 
 

It has the black hat that was originally the road hat. 
 

Despite being technically the “alternate” it was the de facto home uniform, black undersleeves and all, for years.

 

If we’re revisiting that era, this could be cool to see. 

[AstroCree]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

So does anyone have any good ideas about what a Las Vegas Athletics uniform set should look like? I'd presume a rebranding will be in order in a couple of years when they move.  

outside the away script change, I can't imagine the A's doing any sort of rebranding. Their current set is over 30 years old and might have the longest run in franchise history. Is it right to call them too iconic to change?

[SFGiants58]

4 minutes ago, insert name said:

outside the away script change, I can't imagine the A's doing any sort of rebranding. Their current set is over 30 years old and might have the longest run in franchise history. Is it right to call them too iconic to change?

Nah. They’re terrible. The Kansas City A’s-style cursive script is indolent of almost thirty years of boom-and-bust teams that never make any noise in the playoffs. That and the forest green looks depressing compared to Kelly Green. The failures of road caps, the dark green and poorly-rendered elephant, etc. are all pretty bad.

 

Restoring Kelly Green should be a mandate, as well as getting a better white elephant design.

[AstroCree]

3 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

The black era Meta also included these unis which have some interesting things going for them:

 

 

The snow white, headspoon design is really different given the Mets history. 
 

It has the black hat that was originally the road hat. 
 

Despite being technically the “alternate” it was the de facto home uniform, black undersleeves and all, for years.

 

If we’re revisiting that era, this could be cool to see. 

Then we would be back where we were in the 2000s when black became the dominate color EVERYWHERE. Black alts are fine but I draw the line at drop shadows. 

[AnPheitseog]

Forest green is so much better for the A's than kelly imo. clean other things up sure, but love the forest green and yellow.

 

Slap las vegas on the roads and keep the rest the same. touch up logos sure, but keep colors.

[Anubis2051]

3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Nah. They’re terrible. The Kansas City A’s-style cursive script is indolent of almost thirty years of boom-and-bust teams that never make any noise in the playoffs. That and the forest green looks depressing compared to Kelly Green. The failures of road caps, the dark green and poorly-rendered elephant, etc. are all pretty bad.

 

Restoring Kelly Green should be a mandate, as well as getting a better white elephant design.

 

As much as I hate to see any of the A's main elements change (aside from bringing back the kelly, that's a must for me), I think there's a very real opportunity for the A's. Neither the Knights nor the Raiders really own the "Vegas" of their brand. So having an LV cap logo and a road jersey are a must. They really need to steer hard into the LV of the branding. The Raiders just kept their same design with Vegas slapped onto it, and the knights uniform is so generic and lacks any reference to the city. The A's can own this. 

[SFGiants58]

Just now, DiePerske said:

Forest green is so much better for the A's than kelly imo. clean other things up sure, but love the forest green and yellow.

 

Slap las vegas on the roads and keep the rest the same. touch up logos sure, but keep colors.

Kelly is a happy color and this is a team that needs anything happy. The franchise is about as enjoyable to follow as Dear Zachary. Forest green only represents the bad times. Constant playoff disappointment, zero pennants in over 30 years, the ongoing relocation and stadium talks (old enough to graduate a grad school by now), and just drabness.

 

Bringing back kelly green and condemning the cursive “Athletics” to the trash is a big step forward to looking better.

 

[AnPheitseog]

Just now, SFGiants58 said:

Kelly is a happy color and this is a team that needs anything happy. The franchise is about as enjoyable to follow as Dear Zachary. Forest green only represents the bad times. Constant playoff disappointment, zero pennants in over 30 years, the ongoing relocation and stadium talks (old enough to graduate a grad school by now), and just drabness.

 

Bringing back kelly green and condemning the cursive “Athletics” to the trash is a big step forward to looking better.

 

I'm an outsider and I get that, and know that what the fans like/associate are way more important than what I think. I'm just 1. over kelly as a color and 2. think forest green and yellow is too beautiful of a color scheme to just toss away and no one use in MLB.

[SFGiants58]

I’ll take Kelly over Forest every time. Even the Packers and maybe the Bucks should use a noticeably brighter green than their current shade.

[beachperroAZ]

On 7/17/2021 at 9:59 AM, TheBigFiz21 said:

This hat belongs to one Will Byers. Must have left it with the Demogorgon in a fanfic about the kids of Stranger Things as young adults in the 90s

This looks like something for the wannabe gangster crowd.

[bosrs1]

4 hours ago, insert name said:

outside the away script change, I can't imagine the A's doing any sort of rebranding. Their current set is over 30 years old and might have the longest run in franchise history. Is it right to call them too iconic to change?

 

Honestly I'd say a wholesale change is in order. The above mention of the checkered history of the team in Oakland is true. But also that color scheme is uniquely tied to Oakland. I'd think a team moving to a new market would want to try and link itself to said new market, not bring their baggage with them beyond the name.

 

Maybe bring back the more flamboyant Kelly green for a more flamboyant city, an LV lettered away cap to go with a new away uniform, modify or replace the current home uni (retain the white shoes however), new primary logo that links to the city (maybe keep Stomper on as a secondary?). I'm sure there are other changes that could and should be made. 

 

I think far more than the Raiders, an MLB team in Vegas is going to have to put together an identity that links to the locals like the Knights kind of tried to do and both the 51s and Aviators did in AAA. The Raiders can get away with making no changes because their entire brand has been mobile and deemphasized their home city for decades. Oakland, LA, Oakland, Las Vegas... it's really been irrelevant and the Raiders really don't give a crap where they play. A large contingent of their fanbase doesn't really care either. They could play in Timbuktu and they'd still be the Raiders.  I don't think an MLB team will have that luxury, and the dark green and gold do have much deeper ties to Oakland since KC was kinda all over the place and Philly ended with blue and white and have been wearing dark green and gold for almost 40 years of mostly disappointing years. 

[joekono]

On 7/19/2021 at 12:34 PM, insert name said:

sure if you only look at the negative moments.

they also technically lost the 2006 NLCS in the traditional pinstripes so....

Uh, I'm replying to another poster.

[joekono]

5 hours ago, dont care said:

So they made a World Series and NLCS run in black and that’s somehow bad? I get not liking BFBS,  but not considering those successes when the team barely has had any success other than a miracle Mets run in 69 and 86, that most people don’t remember or weren’t born yet. I would think Mets fans would cherish any success they had.

That's just it, I don't care about what successes or failures a team has had wearing a certain uniform, what I'm trying to convey is that the Mets colors should be Blue and Orange. Not one time did I ask for the 86 uniform back and they are blue and orange. They also made it in 2015, in what they wear now and that's fine with me. It's their perfect uniform in my opinion. If your a Mets fan, the most painful moment was losing to the Yankees in the World Series. If they were wearing just blue and orange, it still would have been the most painful moment.