Jump to content

Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series


Recommended Posts

 

10 hours ago, tp49 said:

I think a lot of this is because MLB does a horrible job of marketing their players.  Guys like Trout, Yelich, Tatis, Jr., Acuna Jr., Soto, and many others should be getting a lot more publicity than they do.  

 

At what point is it the players' fault and not anyone else's?  Not that I blame him for taking the money, but Trout chose to play in anonymity and obscurity, and to my knowledge has no national TV deals (of course... does he even need/want the money for those?)  Since he's on a team I never see, I've actually seen him more at Eagles games than playing the sport at which he's considered the best.  As for those other guys, doesn't one of them have a silly BMW or Porsche ad?  But that's it.  Do they even speak English fluently (I really don't know - maybe they do) but if not then that doesn't help either.

 

The answer to the problem might be for MLB to engineer its league, and "move" players to places where they can be better marketed or at least well known.  Not unlike when Gretzky was traded to LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No one in this world, so far as I know - and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the sartorial sensibilities of sports franchise owners, professional athletes, and the great masses of the plain people."

 

- H.L. Mencken, Nike Senior Creative Director Emeritus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BBTV said:

The answer to the problem might be for MLB to engineer its league, and "move" players to places where they can be better marketed or at least well known.  Not unlike when Gretzky was traded to LA.

 

Trout is already in the second-largest media market. What is the commissioner's office supposed to do, reassign him to the Dodgers? Do they need help in the outfield?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

 

At what point is it the players' fault and not anyone else's?  Not that I blame him for taking the money, but Trout chose to play in anonymity and obscurity, and to my knowledge has no national TV deals (of course... does he even need/want the money for those?)  Since he's on a team I never see, I've actually seen him more at Eagles games than playing the sport at which he's considered the best.  As for those other guys, doesn't one of them have a silly BMW or Porsche ad?  But that's it.  Do they even speak English fluently (I really don't know - maybe they do) but if not then that doesn't help either.

 

The answer to the problem might be for MLB to engineer its league, and "move" players to places where they can be better marketed or at least well known.  Not unlike when Gretzky was traded to LA.

 

Except Trout already plays in the LA market. Even when Yelich was the reigning MVP,  you still never saw the Brewers on national television except for the occasional match with the Cubs or Cards.

 

I'm blaming the league because the NBA would never allow this to happen. They don't give the Nets the shaft the way MLB does the Angels because they're not the "glamour" team in that market. And playing in Milwaukee hasn't stopped them from promoting Giannis as one of their top stars and putting the Bucks in the national spotlight.

 

Even when MLB steals ideas from the NBA, they can't even figure out the right ones to steal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

At least the Yankees were still the Yankees and able to opt out... and at least the overwhelming majority of the teams still wore their colors and logos.  

 

At the time, someone asked the Yankees why they didn't participate with uniforms they'd be wearing in 30 years or whatever. Their reply was "we did."

 

EDIT: Always fun to see 1999 web design: https://web.archive.org/web/19991128065838/http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/turnahead/schedule.htm (too bad none of the links work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

At the time, someone asked the Yankees why they didn't participate with uniforms they'd be wearing in 30 years or whatever. Their reply was "we did."

 

EDIT: Always fun to see 1999 web design: https://web.archive.org/web/19991128065838/http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/turnahead/schedule.htm (too bad none of the links work).

 

 

Cool, thanks for posting that link, I was trying to find the TATC schedule from that year to remind myself how often they were worn.

 

So, yeah, it looks like most teams literally only wore their TATC uniform once or twice ever - and IMO that was the right thing to do.  That's what made them special.  They didn't even make teams wear them for an entire series, which would have been really easy to do if they were really trying to make a big deal out of this program.  They experimented for a game or two, had their fun, and then returned to normal.

 

It also looks like they also only took up a span of about 2 months of the season, and there was never more than one TATC game on any given day. So once again, they didn't let this TATC program become too dominant or overwhelming.

 

I also read online somewhere that in that very last game listed (DET @ BOS) the teams ended up wearing their regular jerseys because the TATC jerseys were not manufactured / completed in time.  Kind of funny, since Boston getting these City Connect jerseys is what started this whole conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Trout is already in the second-largest media market. What is the commissioner's office supposed to do, reassign him to the Dodgers? Do they need help in the outfield?

 

He's in the LA market, but I've always gotten the impression that the Angels were more of a "local" team rather than how the Dodgers were "all of LA's" team.  I could be wrong about that, but to me it feels like playing on the Dodgers does make you more important than playing on the Angels, even if the Angels are better at the time.

 

There's obviously nothing the commissioner's office can do, but it might be "best for business" if he ended up in Boston, New York, or maybe the Cubs.  Get him somewhere where more people can watch him without needing some special baseball package and staying up past midnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

He's in the LA market, but I've always gotten the impression that the Angels were more of a "local" team rather than how the Dodgers were "all of LA's" team.  I could be wrong about that, but to me it feels like playing on the Dodgers does make you more important than playing on the Angels, even if the Angels are better at the time.

 

As an non-local Angels fan, I would tend to agree with you. They Angels are in the LA media market, but the Dodgers are "LA's team" and the Angels are "Anaheim's/Orange County's team".

 

it's not really like it's a Lakers-Clippers thing where one is the clear little brother in a shared city splitting (well, you know, "splitting") the same population, it's more regional (for the most part), despite what Arte would want you to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

 

As an non-local Angels fan, I would tend to agree with you. They Angels are in the LA media market, but the Dodgers are "LA's team" and the Angels are "Anaheim's/Orange County's team".

 

it's not really like it's a Lakers-Clippers thing where one is the clear little brother in a shared city splitting (well, you know, "splitting") the same population, it's more regional (for the most part), despite what Arte would want you to think.

which is why I want them to use Anaheim instead of LA. Be honest with who you are and who you represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Angels (more specifically Arte Moreno) live under the delusion that they can somehow claw out a living of attention in the heavily-crowded downtown LA sports market. Unfortunately, LA proper is firmly Dodgers country, and it'd take a miracle and a half to make any kind of dent in their stranglehold. Going with "California Angels" also strikes me as swinging above your weight class when the A's, Giants and Dodgers are all more relevant right now than your franchise has been in years and also literally can't happen under MLB rules so long as the other three exist in Cali.

 

OC is much more conducive to being Angels turf, and it's not as if "Anaheim" as a geographic denomination has made the Ducks any less popular. Plus, again, "Anaheim Angels" just phonetically works. Unless you're moving into Dodger Stadium (in which case you're actively encouraging the Chargers/Clippers comparisons, which nobody wants), "Los Angeles Angels" isn't really gonna work.

 

You're always going to be the smaller of the two anyways, may as well just embrace what you have instead of pining for something you never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand about the LA market, it's probably accurate to say the Dodgers are LA County's team and the Angels are Orange County's team.  The Angels have the Los Angeles moniker mostly because it makes them more money in sponsorship/ad revenue.  There's also the point that Los Angeles Angels is a "legacy" name like San Diego Padres, Baltimore Orioles, or Milwaukee Brewers; and it really wouldn't make sense to call them the Angels without it.

Still, LA and OC are the same media market.  So unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how that should effect MLB's ability to market one of its biggest stars.  In the early 70s, the NFL didn't use the excuse that Joe Namath played for the Jets and not the Giants, even though the Jets fanbase was very localized to Long Island at the time.  They hitched their wagon to his star power and propelled the league into the pop culture mainstream because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NicDB said:

There's also the point that Los Angeles Angels is a "legacy" name like San Diego Padres, Baltimore Orioles, or Milwaukee Brewers

What? How are those legacy names? Each of those teams play in those actual cities unlike others like the Atlanta Braves that play in a different county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dont care said:

What? How are those legacy names? Each of those teams play in those actual cities unlike others like the Atlanta Braves that play in a different county.

They were all used by minor league teams before being adopted by the major league team. The Padres and Angels played in the Pacific Coast League, the Brewers in the American Association, and the Orioles in the International League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dont care said:

What? How are those legacy names? Each of those teams play in those actual cities unlike others like the Atlanta Braves that play in a different county.


All of those teams were named after another team (and in some cases, several) that had previously played in those cities.  This also applied to the Angels at first.  They played at the LA Wrigley Field (where the original LA Angels of the PCL used to play), and then Chavez Ravine before moving to Anaheim.  They're called the Angels because that's what "Angeles" means in Spanish.

I've always made the argument that they should have been called the LA Stars, so as to pay tribute to both of LA's PCL clubs.  Then it wouldn't have been so awkward when they eventually became the California Stars or Anaheim Stars.  That, or adopted a whole new identity upon moving to Anaheim altogether.  But that horse left the barn a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

There's also the point that Los Angeles Angels is a "legacy" name like San Diego Padres, Baltimore Orioles, or Milwaukee Brewers; and it really wouldn't make sense to call them the Angels without it.

I mean, to be fair, which name has more significance to the MLB franchise; the one of an unrelated minor-league team from the 1900's-1950's (even if one of the best of all time) or the one that was used when the franchise won its only World Series title?

 

The main reason the name isn't changing isn't because it's a "legacy" name, unless the "legacy" is being out of the playoffs for much of your team's history, it's because Arte Moreno doesn't want to lose the prestige of owning an LA-branded team. That's why he came up with the cumbersome "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, QCS said:

They were all used by minor league teams before being adopted by the major league team. The Padres and Angels played in the Pacific Coast League, the Brewers in the American Association, and the Orioles in the International League.


In the case of the Brewers and Orioles, they were used by teams in the American League even before that.

Ironically, those Brewers are the current Baltimore Orioles.

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.