MLB 2022 Uniform/Logo Changes

[Carolingian Steamroller]

29 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

 

If you're going to include the Angels then I'd argue you could add "Padres" to this list since their name is inspired by a religious order and some people might find that "icky." 
 

Note: I don't personally feel the Padres should ever change their name nor am I aware of anyone currently demanding they do. But this might be where the road we're heading down leads us in a few decades (if not sooner). 

 

The only thing offensive about the Angels is not winning the division despite having both Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

There's no problem with the Nationals, especially since the team has never incorporated anything particularly militaristic or jingoistic into their identity.

 

We all know how that war turned out so there's no issue with the Yankees.

 

Maybe I could see an issue with the Padres depending on how you view the role of the Franciscan Order in the colonization of New Spain. Though in San Diego, that influence is pretty limited to the founding of the mission which the city grew out of and certainly there's no blaring issues with the Franciscans today.

 

Cool tangent: The Padres brown is derived specifically from the robes of the Franciscan Friars. This is in marked contrast from the Dominican Friars who wear white and black robes and Benedictine monks who wear black. This specific tone of brown worn by the Franciscans is also the etymology of cappuccino. At a coffee house you could specific how much milk would be added to your coffee by telling them that the color should match the color worn by the Capuchin Friars (a subdivision of the Franciscans).

[Digby]

Apart from the (nothing new) opposition to the Braves and their chant, none of these team names have actually prompted any real opposition of note.

 

Except in the minds of people who want to start another PC war/mod-edited thread burn-up, apparently.

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

The only thing offensive about the Angels is not winning the division despite having both Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani.

I’d argue that the red insignia on the red cap is offensive, as is using beveling in a severely inconsistent manner.

 

The Angels desperately need a cleanup of their design. Not an overhaul, but a cleanup.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

There's no problem with the Nationals, especially since the team has never incorporated anything particularly militaristic or jingoistic into their identity.

 

Maybe not militaristic or jingoistic, but this is pretty gross:

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

52 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I’d argue that the red insignia on the red cap is offensive, as is using beveling in a severely inconsistent manner.

 

The Angels desperately need a cleanup of their design. Not an overhaul, but a cleanup.

 

I just did a redesign with a red insignia on a red cap so no comment.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

I just did a redesign with a red insignia on a red cap so no comment.

I get the appeal, but it’s just not my taste. The bevels are a bigger problem for me.

[ManillaToad]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

Maybe not militaristic or jingoistic, but this is pretty gross:

 

 

What am I supposed to be seeing here

[MrAstrodome]

The Angels are there because with the city name, it's redundant.  Either that or the religious connotations. 

 

On 12/18/2021 at 8:23 AM, insert name said:

Texas Power Rangers

I'm all in on players performing an over the top pose before every at bat.

 

Not too far off.

https://i.imgur.com/UV8lK7l_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

[spartacat_12]

On 12/17/2021 at 11:19 PM, QCS said:

The name was taken from a racist police organization, the nickname is already used by a much more famous and long-lasting hockey team, and I don't think they can get a good visual identity out of it.

 

So if the name is problematic, why is it ok for New York to keep it? They were literally nicknamed Tex's Rangers because of their first owner.

 

On 12/18/2021 at 3:36 PM, ManillaToad said:

I think going with the Texas moniker despite Houston already having a team is a hilarious power move. The Angels doing the same thing with California is even better

 

It's the same as the NHL Panthers going by Florida when the Lightning already existed. They named them after the species called the "Florida panther" just like the Dallas-Ft. Worth MLB team being named after the "Texas Rangers" law enforcement agency.

 

The Angels going with California might have just been to avoid calling themselves "The Angels Angels".

[O.C.D]

8 hours ago, coco1997 said:

 

If you're going to include the Angels then I'd argue you could add "Padres" to this list since their name is inspired by a religious order and some people might find that "icky." 
 

Note: I don't personally feel the Padres should ever change their name nor am I aware of anyone currently demanding they do. But this might be where the road we're heading down leads us in a few decades (if not sooner). 

The Braves I could see changing relatively soon.  This was more of a thought experiment because people wanting to change Texas Rangers took me by surprise. I don't think the next name change will take as long as Cleveland specifically because the precedent has been set

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, O.C.D said:

The Braves I could see changing relatively soon.  This was more of a thought experiment because people wanting to change Texas Rangers took me by surprise. I don't think the next name change will take as long as Cleveland specifically because the precedent has been set

 

The dogs in Atlanta that continue to do the chop and their war cry would never let it go.  It's one thing to get rid of questionable names in Washington and Cleveland (and neither of those were easy) but in the deep south?  LOL.

[BlazerBlaze]

Oh get over yourself BBTV with that deep south BS. If you think Atlanta/Cobb County is the "deep south" then you obviously haven't left your bubble lately and seen the South. Could you project your biases and stereotypes any harder against those of us who live here? 

 

And changing the names of the Rangers and the Nationals and Yankees? Good lord, you people are just making up ways to be insulted. None of this has anything to do with 2022 MLB uniforms. Go start a thread under General Discussion called "These names hurt my feelings" and take this hogwash over there. 

[CS85]

Let's all just breathe and remember we're discussing uniforms and such.  Stop being dicks.

[Digby]

12 minutes ago, BlazerBlaze said:

And changing the names of the Rangers and the Nationals and Yankees? Good lord, you people are just making up ways to be insulted.

 

You're right, no one's actually making that case particularly for the latter two, the original poster for this digression said it was a thought experiment, though I might call it an attempt at trolling and fomenting conflict where none exists to get people all worked up. I guess it worked! Gonna be a long lockout!

[Digby]

22 hours ago, BBTV said:

Maybe not militaristic or jingoistic, but this is pretty gross:

 

 

The Nats used to be so close to threading that needle between "Washington the metonym" and "D.C. the place where people live." Too bad with this, especially, they went hard to the former. Even more than the other pro teams that play in D.C. proper, feels like the Nats entire business model is "let's be the 2nd team for congressional staffers and think-tank employees who moved here from away." In fairness, seems like it worked better for them building a fanbase than a lot of other MLB teams in transplant cities.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

18 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

So if the name is problematic, why is it ok for New York to keep it? They were literally nicknamed Tex's Rangers because of their first owner.

 

I was unaware of the "Tex's Rangers" connection. It probably gets a pass given that the connection is in the distant past and the visual identity doesn't connect to the Texas Rangers or a general Western motif.  If the team wore spurs or stars you could definitely make the argument but they don't even have a sleeve patch. If you don't know that specific history with the owner there's little to indicate it to viewers.

I could see it coming up but its probably indirect enough.

[BrySmalls]

On 12/21/2021 at 9:43 AM, Digby said:

 

The Nats used to be so close to threading that needle between "Washington the metonym" and "D.C. the place where people live." Too bad with this, especially, they went hard to the former. Even more than the other pro teams that play in D.C. proper, feels like the Nats entire business model is "let's be the 2nd team for congressional staffers and think-tank employees who moved here from away." In fairness, seems like it worked better for them building a fanbase than a lot of other MLB teams in transplant cities.

 

As much as I love the various interlocking DC logos, I am glad the Nats brass stuck with "Washington" on their uniforms as their geographic identifier.

[Digby]

On 12/22/2021 at 10:29 AM, BryanSmalls said:

 

As much as I love the various interlocking DC logos, I am glad the Nats brass stuck with "Washington" on their uniforms as their geographic identifier.

 

I'd agree there... the current scripts with a good block letter or serifed DC cap logo might tie together nicely, but that's almost too many Twins similarities to bear at that point. The curly W works at least. (But whatever they do needs to not have a corny, literal American flag art pushed into it.)

[MegaDramonFan31]

If there was a Cleveland Guardians good