MLB 2024 Uniform/Logo Changes

[ruttep]

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

I don't know how this got into a baseball thread, but I remember how ticked I was when I saw this matchup live. I also remember probably half the Creamery correctly predicting those two teams would do exactly what they did in that photo.

 

Yeah I think you quoted this in the wrong thread

[M59]

13 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

I would agree that most of these aren’t great, including my Minnesota Twins. Almost all of these feel like let downs, with how good they could have been… But the White Sox seems to be a perfect blend of both city and team branding. I don’t really like the Sox, but honestly wouldn’t mind having one of those jerseys. 
 

What is it about that one you don’t like?

I'm not fond of the "Southside" font...and I'm really not fond of the number font. (Of course, I haven't seen a Cash Grab Connect set yet with a number font that didn't annoy me.) I'm also not a fan of dark monochrome sets...or pinstripes. So, I guess you could say that kit features almost about everything I don't like in a uniform! 

Edited Thursday at 02:54 AM by M59
close parentheses

[M59]

23 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

So, is that the last CityConnect? If so:

 

0/28 

 

Not a single one of these is worth retaining past the life of this program. 

Unfortunately, "the life of this program" is either "forever" or "until MLB finds a new uniform supplier". 

[udubfan19]

FINALLY! I have always disliked that angels CC jersey, the font 'angels' is in is so annoying and they can't even put a city name on it! I find it hard to "connect" with a city if said city isn't even in your team's name either. also, odd the yanks' still think they are above everybody when they have been paper tigers since blowing the 3-0 lead in 04' (save 2009)

[VikWings]

10 hours ago, adsarebad said:

 

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm gonna do one of those "break down each team" posts here:

 

Good/Has the makings of a solid alt:

Arizona: These are decent and thank god it doesn't say 'Los DBacks' aha. Helps that sand works as like a gray replacement like the Padres have done. Solid.

White Sox: These are pretty good even with the black pants. Would look better with white pants and with Chicago instead of Southside.

Cleveland: I like these, just wish it had a full spelled out Cleveland.

Miami: These are one of my favorite ones. Love the colors and design and fits with the brand, even if red is only a trim color usually.

Tampa: I was trying to decide if to put these in the "One thing ruins it tier" or the good tier, cause they badly need to color in the words and numbers, but these are fun and what this program should be about if it must exist. Love the colors and the logos.

 

One thing ruins the whole set:

Houston: 'Space City' much like Wrigleyville, belongs on a t-shirt not a uniform. Mono-navy.

Pitt: I dig the 70s throwback feel, but the PGH just throws it off. Would have rather seen Pitt like the college. The sublimated patterns aren't really noticeable from a distance.

Seattle: No need for black pants. At least it wasn't another mono-blue, but honestly that might have looked better.

 

Aren't completely terrible/Meh/Didn't know where to put em:

Atlanta: They had to have one and the 4+1 rule was added so they just made a worse version of popular throwback.

St. Louis: Seems like the reluctantly participated and kept it restrained as can be. Not completely awful, but the cap logo sucks. Shoulda used the fleur de lis/arch one.

 

Meh at best or just bad:

Baltimore: mono black (or blue) again and the most interesting part is hidden under the sleeve cuff. The B logo could work as a road cap though.

Boston: I get the marathon and all but the Red Sox shouldn't be looking like UCLA.

Cubs: Wrigleyville is dumb. Leave that for tshirts. Mono navy is bad. 

Cincy: Mono black. Can barely read the fonts and isn't fun like Tampa's.

Colorado: I get it's the license plate and all, but doesn't do anything for me. Look better with white pants though.

Detroit: Mono navy again. Bad hat logo. Weird tire track gradient.

KC: Don't have much to say about this other than meh. Another mono-navy look.

Angels: These aren't awful. I don't really like the diamonds though.

LA: the boring Los Dodgers is way better than the confetti cake with the forced 42 and unfinished numbers.

Milwaukee: Another stupid nickname, and the hat logo seems forcing a bunch of things together. Like the colors and grill logo though.

Minnesota: Deviating from the brand too much. Wave lines don't look like waves. Loon logo doesn't look like a loon. Cap logo should be a shoulder patch. And more mono-blue.

Mets: This doesn't do enough for me to like it or hate it. Bridge on the hat is bad.

Philly: The hat is nice, but the rest? Looks like an early 2000s Fubu jersey or a Philadelphia Union alternate kit.

San Diego: I dig the color scheme and hat as like a fashion/beach vibe and that's probably what they were going for, but like most of the program it's deviates too much from team colors and shouldn't exit.

San Fran: The orange doesn't really contrast well against the white and the fade/fog stuff is bad and dumb.

Texas: Some people like these. I don't, maybe it's the black pants.

Toronto: Seems to be a bit much going on and the word mark and number get kinda lost. And like I said about Cincy, isn't as fun as the Rays.

Washington: Don't hate these but can't say I like them either.

 

 

 

So of it all it I found, IMO, maybe 5 good ones? And even 3 of those 5 I noted something I'd change. And the ones in my 2nd/3rd categories, ATL/ANA/PIT/SEA would be better off just wearing the throwbacks they're based on and Houston is essentially a re-design of their ALT/BP that had the tequila sunrise colors.

[coco1997]

 

[spartacat_12]

17 hours ago, udubfan19 said:

FINALLY! I have always disliked that angels CC jersey, the font 'angels' is in is so annoying and they can't even put a city name on it! I find it hard to "connect" with a city if said city isn't even in your team's name either. also, odd the yanks' still think they are above everybody when they have been paper tigers since blowing the 3-0 lead in 04' (save 2009)

 

I mean technically the team name is just an anglicized version of the city name. Personally I think the Angels have the best CC of anyone. It's the only one that I'd like to see become the basis for a full set.

[Germanshepherd]

 

[MJD7]

On 6/12/2024 at 11:23 PM, VikWings said:

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm gonna do one of those "break down each team" posts here:

 

Good/Has the makings of a solid alt:

Arizona: These are decent and thank god it doesn't say 'Los DBacks' aha. Helps that sand works as like a gray replacement like the Padres have done. Solid.

White Sox: These are pretty good even with the black pants. Would look better with white pants and with Chicago instead of Southside.

Cleveland: I like these, just wish it had a full spelled out Cleveland.

Miami: These are one of my favorite ones. Love the colors and design and fits with the brand, even if red is only a trim color usually.

Tampa: I was trying to decide if to put these in the "One thing ruins it tier" or the good tier, cause they badly need to color in the words and numbers, but these are fun and what this program should be about if it must exist. Love the colors and the logos.

 

One thing ruins the whole set:

Houston: 'Space City' much like Wrigleyville, belongs on a t-shirt not a uniform. Mono-navy.

Pitt: I dig the 70s throwback feel, but the PGH just throws it off. Would have rather seen Pitt like the college. The sublimated patterns aren't really noticeable from a distance.

Seattle: No need for black pants. At least it wasn't another mono-blue, but honestly that might have looked better.

 

Aren't completely terrible/Meh/Didn't know where to put em:

Atlanta: They had to have one and the 4+1 rule was added so they just made a worse version of popular throwback.

St. Louis: Seems like the reluctantly participated and kept it restrained as can be. Not completely awful, but the cap logo sucks. Shoulda used the fleur de lis/arch one.

 

Meh at best or just bad:

Baltimore: mono black (or blue) again and the most interesting part is hidden under the sleeve cuff. The B logo could work as a road cap though.

Boston: I get the marathon and all but the Red Sox shouldn't be looking like UCLA.

Cubs: Wrigleyville is dumb. Leave that for tshirts. Mono navy is bad. 

Cincy: Mono black. Can barely read the fonts and isn't fun like Tampa's.

Colorado: I get it's the license plate and all, but doesn't do anything for me. Look better with white pants though.

Detroit: Mono navy again. Bad hat logo. Weird tire track gradient.

KC: Don't have much to say about this other than meh. Another mono-navy look.

Angels: These aren't awful. I don't really like the diamonds though.

LA: the boring Los Dodgers is way better than the confetti cake with the forced 42 and unfinished numbers.

Milwaukee: Another stupid nickname, and the hat logo seems forcing a bunch of things together. Like the colors and grill logo though.

Minnesota: Deviating from the brand too much. Wave lines don't look like waves. Loon logo doesn't look like a loon. Cap logo should be a shoulder patch. And more mono-blue.

Mets: This doesn't do enough for me to like it or hate it. Bridge on the hat is bad.

Philly: The hat is nice, but the rest? Looks like an early 2000s Fubu jersey or a Philadelphia Union alternate kit.

San Diego: I dig the color scheme and hat as like a fashion/beach vibe and that's probably what they were going for, but like most of the program it's deviates too much from team colors and shouldn't exit.

San Fran: The orange doesn't really contrast well against the white and the fade/fog stuff is bad and dumb.

Texas: Some people like these. I don't, maybe it's the black pants.

Toronto: Seems to be a bit much going on and the word mark and number get kinda lost. And like I said about Cincy, isn't as fun as the Rays.

Washington: Don't hate these but can't say I like them either.

 

 

 

So of it all it I found, IMO, maybe 5 good ones? And even 3 of those 5 I noted something I'd change. And the ones in my 2nd/3rd categories, ATL/ANA/PIT/SEA would be better off just wearing the throwbacks they're based on and Houston is essentially a re-design of their ALT/BP that had the tequila sunrise colors.

Here's how I would rank them:

 

Amazing

• Angels: I’m a sucker for surfer/beach aesthetics, so this one really does it for me. I love the script, the stripes, the hat, the front number, all of it.
• White Sox: Love the dark set with pins. “Southside” works for me, it adds to the whole feel of it. The number font should be their full-time font.
• Rays: They clearly had the most fun with this, I love the sky-ray, the gradient colors, and the skater aesthetic. 

Great

• Rockies: I love adding pine green to the color scheme, as well as the mountain on the front. The rest of the elements have grown on me as well.
• Astros: The tequila sunrise gradient makes this one. The hat might be better than their regular one. The NASA font would be fun to incorporate into the main set too.
• Cardinals: They’re one team I’m glad kept it traditional. The city flag direction was predictable but also what they should’ve gone with, since it already is so similar to their brand.
• Blue Jays: I actually really like theirs. It feels like a cold winter night in Toronto, without going with the obvious Drake black & gold theme, or instead just embracing all of Canada.
• Diamondbacks: Keeping things simple & going with the sand color as the main focus was a great decision.
• Mariners: I didn’t love the black pants at first, but they’re alright, & everything else is so great, it’d be a wonderful basis for a rebrand in the navy & teal.
• Guardians: I love the darker “wine” color for Cleveland, & the return of racing stripes is awesome. I just don’t like the airport code “CLE.”
• Mets: This feels like New York to me, & the magenta color is a nice alternate brand for the Mets that ties in surprisingly well with the city’s baseball history.

Good

• Braves: A fine update of the Hank Aaron throwback. Safe but it looks good.
• Nationals: The cherry blossom inspiration is a wonderful idea, but the pink barely registers as such & the gray is kind of an odd shade, especially on the matte batting helmets. Hopefully they keep the theme but embrace it more fully next year.
• Padres: I thought this one looked awful on TV at first, way too bright, but after seeing it in person & everyone wearing it at Petco earlier this spring, it just “fits” for San Diego. 
• Pirates: The black & gold looks great as always, the airport abbreviation just strikes again. The batting helmet knocks it do a bit too.
• Rangers: I like this one mostly because of the uniqueness of the dark pants (paired with a light jersey, at least) & the logo on the opposite side of the chest as it typically is.
• Red Sox: It might not feel like a Red Sox jersey, but it is so quintessentially Boston, it’s hard to deny the Marathon’s importance to the city. Wear it that weekend, but not much more than that.
• Reds: I appreciate their honesty that they were going for something modern & didn’t feel the need to justify it with an explanation. The all-black with the bright red looks cool.
• Tigers: I like the Motor City stripe, I just wish they added the tiniest  bit of orange.

Meh

• Brewers: This one is growing on me, but still leaves a lot to be desired with the hat & the lack of powder blue pants.
• Cubs: This one is fine, it just doesn’t really do much for me beyond the cool wordmark. The cap is really nice though.
• Royals: Similarly, this one leaves me a bit uninspired. Navy & powder blue is one of my all-time favorite color schemes (as evidenced by my profile picture), I guess it just doesn’t fit the Royals. I love the logos though.
• Giants: This one could be great if the fog was executed better & the awesome “San Francisco” script was on the front of the jersey. I can’t rank it any higher because of the emptiness those two elements give the jersey. 
• Marlins: A lot of people love this one, but I can’t get past the fact that it is inspired by a team from Havana, not Miami, & I’m bitter that the Marlins made themselves yet another blue & red team unnecessarily.

Bad 

• Dodgers: They clearly wanted no part in this early on, & it was just incredibly bland and uninspired.
• Orioles: No clear tie to the city & an uninspiring design, failing the two main components of the City program.
• Phillies: My main gripe with this one is that the font looks more like AC/DC than it does a Revolution-era document. The colors also make it feel nothing like a “Phillies” uniform. The hat is cool I guess.
• Twins: I’m so sad my team missed the mark. Like the Rams, banana yellow doesn’t feel like a sunset, nor does it feel like Minnesota. The jersey pattern looks nothing like water, & the solid blue pants clash with it so badly. At least the hat logo is cool.

Overall, as I've said before, I was really pleasantly surprised by the City Connect prgram, at least for the first round. Here's to hoping designs don't continue to downgrade over time, like the NBA has.

 

I also made a separate thread for rankings of the first batch of City Connects, using a tier generator I made, feel free to add your own ranking there!

[Section30]

12 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

 

 

Negro League throwbacks are always great and these are no exception. I really dig the StL hat.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

4 hours ago, Section30 said:

Negro League throwbacks are always great and these are no exception. I really dig the StL hat.

 

I still can't believe they didn't make the T on the cap of the Cardinals' City Connect smaller like that and almost all renderings of the three letters on uniforms.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Oh yeah.  I don't usually double-post, but I forgot to mention this...

 

 

The Orioles do indeed switch their ad patch and their old flag roundel patch depending on the handedness of the player.  However... it's the opposite of everyone who does this.

 

Everyone else who switches the patches has them in on the player's off hand.  That way at bat it faces the camera.  But the Orioles are doing the opposite, putting the ad patch on the dominant hand.

 

[FrutigerAero]

On 6/12/2024 at 10:55 AM, adsarebad said:

For CC unis i think Angels, Astros, Diamondbacks, Mariners are good.......

 

this year is a real stinker from Nike, only the Cardinals are acceptable.

 

 

 

 

So many brutal ones 

 

I think the CC program has been a success.  I think there are a few uniforms that were kinda "mid" or even flops, but I think the program fulfilled its purpose which is not to appease traditionalists but appeal to the younger/casual crowd.  I live on a college campus whose student body is pretty national, and I've seen as many people wearing these jerseys as I have "regular" uniforms.  And I may not like the Red Sox in blue and yellow but the people of Boston seem to appreciate the uniform.  All this is I'd say is what they were going for.  

 

I have thoughts on a couple of the jerseys that relate to teams whose "city" I've lived in:

 

Serpientes (Diamondbacks):  This is a really good one, especially when they started wearing it with the matching pants.  Color is perfect for Phoenix and the Jersey has been popular but the hat especially I've seen all over, possibly more than the regular red Dbacks hat.  Also Google "Zac Gallen Snakeskin belt" and you'll see another reason this jersey is awesome.

 

San Francisco:  So, this one hasn't been as popular among the fans.  However, I'd say that part of that is that the classic giants jersey is basically "perfect" (at least as far as fans are concerned.  no one else's opinion matters).

However... the Giants started winning big time in the City Connect jerseys (they were like 26-7 in them at one point) and therefore these jerseys have earned their keep.  Giants fans wish they could wear them all the time now!!!

 

Kansas City:  This one gets a "meh" rxn online.  However, many fans actually like it because of the connection to the city (flag and fountains) that I don't think others pick up on because no one knows anything about Kansas City.

 

If anything, you have to wonder if as a traditionalist you should like City Connects more, because it lets teams get out all their "weirdness" in one uniform they can sell to "kids these days" and then the regular uniforms you're stuck with only four.

 

 

[FrutigerAero]

22 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

 

My problem with the Giants when I saw them last year is I had to google "why do giants uniforms have a big brown blob on them now".

 

EDIT: I appreciate that they're true to the original look though

Edited Friday at 11:20 PM by FrutigerAero
had something to add

[Ted Cunningham]

On 6/12/2024 at 11:23 PM, VikWings said:

Pitt: I dig the 70s throwback feel, but the PGH just throws it off. Would have rather seen Pitt like the college. The sublimated patterns aren't really noticeable from a distance.

 

19 hours ago, MJD7 said:

• Pirates: The black & gold looks great as always, the airport abbreviation just strikes again. The batting helmet knocks it do a bit too.

I believe this has been pointed out before, but to reiterate: If one were to go the city abbreviation route for Pittsburgh, "PGH" is the appropriate and traditional abbreviation for the city. PIT is the airport code. Pitt is the school, and only the school. If the point of the City Connect program is to connect with the city; and Nike, the Pirates, and MLB settled on using a city abbreviation for the Pirates' iteration of the City Connect uniforms, any abbreviation other than PGH would be referring to something other than the city itself.

 

None of that passes value judgments on the quality of the uniform design. But within the context, "PGH" is correct.

[MJD7]

16 hours ago, Ted Cunningham said:

I believe this has been pointed out before, but to reiterate: If one were to go the city abbreviation route for Pittsburgh, "PGH" is the appropriate and traditional abbreviation for the city. PIT is the airport code. Pitt is the school, and only the school. If the point of the City Connect program is to connect with the city; and Nike, the Pirates, and MLB settled on using a city abbreviation for the Pirates' iteration of the City Connect uniforms, any abbreviation other than PGH would be referring to something other than the city itself.

 

None of that passes value judgments on the quality of the uniform design. But within the context, "PGH" is correct.

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with the abbreviation they chose, just that they used an abbreviation in the first place.

 

Also, the Twins' City Connect doesn't look as  bad in action.  The blue pants just kind of ruin it, since they don't match the pattern on the jersey.

[M59]

13 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

 

I think the CC program has been a success. 

If anything, you have to wonder if as a traditionalist you should like City Connects more, because it lets teams get out all their "weirdness" in one uniform they can sell to "kids these days" and then the regular uniforms you're stuck with only four.

 

 

If by "success" you mean "lined Nike & MLB's pockets", then...yes Cash Grab Connect has been a successful program. Sartorially, everything Nike has imposed on MLB uniforms has been a disaster. (And based on the decisions made, a disaster imposed by people who came from the basketball division.) The demise of Majestic has really negatively impacted MLB uniform design and quality.

[Ted Cunningham]

10 hours ago, MJD7 said:

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with the abbreviation they chose, just that they used an abbreviation in the first place.

That's fair, certainly. It's an unfortunate coincidence that it's trendy right now to use three-letter, "airport style" abbreviations in uniform designs; and that Pittsburgh's historic abbreviation is also three letters. I don't think PGH would look out of place on the left chest of a uniform Honus Wagner wore, for instance. It's the same kind of abbreviation as MPLS, etc. But it does happen to fit into that current trend, so I get where you're coming from.

[adsarebad]

15 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

 

I think the CC program has been a success.  I think there are a few uniforms that were kinda "mid" or even flops, but I think the program fulfilled its purpose which is not to appease traditionalists but appeal to the younger/casual crowd.  I live on a college campus whose student body is pretty national, and I've seen as many people wearing these jerseys as I have "regular" uniforms.  And I may not like the Red Sox in blue and yellow but the people of Boston seem to appreciate the uniform.  All this is I'd say is what they were going for.  

 

I have thoughts on a couple of the jerseys that relate to teams whose "city" I've lived in:

 

Serpientes (Diamondbacks):  This is a really good one, especially when they started wearing it with the matching pants.  Color is perfect for Phoenix and the Jersey has been popular but the hat especially I've seen all over, possibly more than the regular red Dbacks hat.  Also Google "Zac Gallen Snakeskin belt" and you'll see another reason this jersey is awesome.

 

San Francisco:  So, this one hasn't been as popular among the fans.  However, I'd say that part of that is that the classic giants jersey is basically "perfect" (at least as far as fans are concerned.  no one else's opinion matters).

However... the Giants started winning big time in the City Connect jerseys (they were like 26-7 in them at one point) and therefore these jerseys have earned their keep.  Giants fans wish they could wear them all the time now!!!

 

Kansas City:  This one gets a "meh" rxn online.  However, many fans actually like it because of the connection to the city (flag and fountains) that I don't think others pick up on because no one knows anything about Kansas City.

 

If anything, you have to wonder if as a traditionalist you should like City Connects more, because it lets teams get out all their "weirdness" in one uniform they can sell to "kids these days" and then the regular uniforms you're stuck with only four.

 

 

Giant fans wish the team would wear that bland awful white CC jersey all the time??   

 

When they have such a great home uniform  + a black jersey and an orange one as well!

 

 

 

 

[SFGiants58]

19 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

San Francisco:  So, this one hasn't been as popular among the fans.  However, I'd say that part of that is that the classic giants jersey is basically "perfect" (at least as far as fans are concerned.  no one else's opinion matters).

However... the Giants started winning big time in the City Connect jerseys (they were like 26-7 in them at one point) and therefore these jerseys have earned their keep.  Giants fans wish they could wear them all the time now!!!

 

Eh, that's not really the case anymore with City Connect. It's hardly a favorite of any Giants fan I know, and many of us were glad when their arrival got delayed this year.