Jump to content

Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series


Recommended Posts

Just now, OnWis97 said:

 It's stupid on the field, particularly Wrigley Field, where only the pinstripes should be worn.

 

 

Cubs haven't always worn pinstripes at home. See:

 

spacer.png 

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

 

Cubs wore monochrome blue uniforms from 1911-13:

 

spacer.png

 

32 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

These remind me of the “City” kits I worked on for Republic two years ago. 

spacer.png

 

Sorry, off topic but dang, I'm struck by the difference of the look of the rough edged athlete of the past compared to the athlete of today. Its like sports was war back then but showtime today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logo is nice enough if predictable on the Cubs cap. The color scheme though, ick. The double blue on the cap looks like every other minor league team’s rebrand since 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ltravisjr said:

 

 

Sorry, off topic but dang, I'm struck by the difference of the look of the rough edged athlete of the past compared to the athlete of today. Its like sports was war back then but showtime today.

 

Yep, every baseball player in the early 1900s looked like they were at least in their fifties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cubs uniforms grew on me. Look so much better with blue pants and the caps are nice. I'm a sucker for the 77 neighborhoods marketing tactic they're using. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, coco1997 said:


Nice caps, though the squatchee should be light blue. 

 

I think the squatchee is navy so it doesn't look like an exact copy of the Blue Jays' alt hat, and it doesn't have a red squatchee so it doesn't look like a copy of the Anaheim Angels' 1997-2001 alt hat (with that said, I wouldn't mind seeing the Angels reverse-retroing it and using a modified-color version of the current logo on navy/light blue hat for an alt).  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

 

Yep, every baseball player in the early 1900s looked like they were at least in their fifties. 

Yeah, smoking 5 packs a day will do that to a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Popmart said:

Yeah, smoking 5 packs a day will do that to a person.

 

I'm currently re-reading the original Ian Fleming James Bond novels and one of them mentions 007 smokes sixty cigarettes a day. I can only imagine how old he would've looked! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

And I've said it before and I'll say it again, flags of major cities are just tattoos for fortysomething bartenders who used to be in punk bands

 

I may or may not have a tattoo of my hometown city seal and I may or may not have played in a punk-adjacent band in my late teens/early 20s.

 

Not a bartender though. Whew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how Nike is gonna do teams not named after cities. Like for Texas it might be easy to just do something for the Dallas metro because of Houston, but for Arizona, Colorado, and Minnesota what do you do? Arizona and Colorado have their state flags to work with, but those aren't cities. Sure Denver and Phoenix are the obvious cities, but it would feel weird to have a Denver or Phoenix based uniform for a team with a state moniker. Minnesota doesn't have that iconic flag or single major city luxury. Do you slap Twin Cities on the front and alienate the outstaters? Do you try to pander to the whole state? It just feels like the city connect thing is half baked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NormMacdonald said:

I wonder how Nike is gonna do teams not named after cities. Like for Texas it might be easy to just do something for the Dallas metro because of Houston, but for Arizona, Colorado, and Minnesota what do you do? Arizona and Colorado have their state flags to work with, but those aren't cities. Sure Denver and Phoenix are the obvious cities, but it would feel weird to have a Denver or Phoenix based uniform for a team with a state moniker. Minnesota doesn't have that iconic flag or single major city luxury. Do you slap Twin Cities on the front and alienate the outstaters? Do you try to pander to the whole state? It just feels like the city connect thing is half baked.

 

I don't think the "city" part is meant to be taken literally. For example, Miami's uniform is based on a Cuban baseball team. Like the NBA's city uniforms, the design just needs to be tied to the area and it's population.

 

The Rockies could play off the mountains or "Mile High", Arizona can work in a kachina pattern or something desert related. The Minnesota Timberwolves have had jerseys that said "MSP" or just "Minn" with a north star theme. There's a lot of possibilities.

 

Sure, some will seem half-assed or confusing to outsiders. But most of this stuff generates buzz and makes money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting "Wrigleyville" on the chest and then doing a whole campaign around the 77 neighborhoods is pretty odd, and I'm not sure this is a great fit for the Cubs, but I actually think the aesthetic of this is really strong in a vacuum. Especially with high socks, there's a good color balance, the navy pants work.

 

TBH, I think this could have been really strong as a bit of a faux-back with the "C-star" logo on the chest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about these monochrome uniforms as they absolutely have to be worn with low-cuffed pants. They look so sloppy without them. Case in point, look how much sharper the three Cubs on the right look compared to Rizzo on the left:

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

 

I'm currently re-reading the original Ian Fleming James Bond novels and one of them mentions 007 smokes sixty cigarettes a day. I can only imagine how old he would've looked! 

As Jerry once told Kramer, he'd probably "look like an old catcher's mitt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

One thing about these monochrome uniforms as they absolutely have to be worn with low-cuffed pants. They look so sloppy without them. Case in point, look how much sharper the three Cubs on the right look compared to Rizzo on the left:

 

spacer.png

Reason #1854061 to require players to show socks when playing. The three on the right look amazing, Rizzo looks ridiculous. Button your jerseys, pull up your pants, and then you're wearing a baseball jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ltravisjr said:

Well,  just because they aren't the Griswalds doesn't mean they can't put up some stately white lights and ivy, no pun intended.

If only the actual uniforms were that interesting. 

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.