Jump to content

MLB 2024 Uniform/Logo Changes


TrueYankee26

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Dynasty said:

That cap logo feels super forced. The style of both the LA and D are vastly different and shouldn't be merged together like that.

 

Aw, come on.  It's the one good thing of the set.  The aspects of the team identity should not be touched, but it's a nice little alternate logo.  Like something you'd put on the ends of rows.

 

Like the logo at the end of rows at Camden Yards.

 

202386957_4a7a6c6962_b.jpg

 

2 hours ago, LakeShow24 said:

Silent Wind of Doom be like after the 2024 city connects are finished:

  giphy.webp

 

Thank you btw!

 

I... may have uttered those words earlier.  Started a new job today and was busy all day.  Got it done while doing things on a Discord call with friends.  And now I sleep.

  • Like 1

spacer.png

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dodgers’ City Connect 2.0 is alright. It definitely looks better in the official reveal than it did in the leaks.


I may have said this when it leaked, but the “funfetti” is actually the one element I definitively like, I’m glad they were bold enough to continue it to the pants instead of going dark, which would look too much like Texas’ CC.


For some of the other bold elements of the set, such as the top-right front number and the NOB below the back number, I actually don’t mind them as much as I would’ve thought. Since these elements were so bold, I was expecting a Nike-speak style explanation for all of it, but I suppose it’s fine we didn’t get one. 
 

The biggest reasons why I’m “meh” on this uniform are the wordmark & the use of navy. The wordmark is fine, I guess, but it doesn’t really do much for me. I know part of the City Connect program involves developing new logos (or modifying existing ones), but I think this would’ve been a great opportunity to use the thinner Dodgers script that has never been on a uniform before. Although I wouldn’t replace the primary scripts, the thinner one would work great on an alternate like this.  
 

The use of navy is what really drags this uniform down for me, since it has never been a color the Dodgers have used, their regular blue would have worked so much better in my opinion.

 

Overall, it’s at least better than the original, almost by default, by virtue of having at least some  creative ambition.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MJD7 said:

I know part of the City Connect program involves developing new logos (or modifying existing ones), but I think this would’ve been a great opportunity to use the thinner Dodgers script that has never been on a uniform before.

 

Huh...  I've never seen that before.  Did it actually come into existence in 2012 wholesale, or does it have older roots?  My instinctual reaction to seeing this is that it feels like gimmick infringement.  🤣

 

Los Angeles Dodgers Logo Wordmark Logo (2012-Pres) - Los Angeles Dodgers scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

New York Yankees Logo Wordmark Logo (1950-Pres) - New York Yankees scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

  • Like 2

spacer.png

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

Huh...  I've never seen that before.  Did it actually come into existence in 2012 wholesale, or does it have older roots?  My instinctual reaction to seeing this is that it feels like gimmick infringement.  🤣

 

Los Angeles Dodgers Logo Wordmark Logo (2012-Pres) - Los Angeles Dodgers scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

New York Yankees Logo Wordmark Logo (1950-Pres) - New York Yankees scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

 

I believe its a reference to this font, which may not have been an official logo:

 

spacer.png

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.pngspacer.png

  • Like 4

Anubis.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, kolob said:

I don't necessarily hate the double number thing. I guess it's a fun quirk. I do like the name under the number though, that's fun and unique we really only see in basketball.

Overall, much better thought out compared to their first CC.

It's amazing how many elements we "really only see in basketball" have made their way into Nike's MLB uniforms. It's not been an improvement. (Seriously, if a designer is too inept for the NBA account, the solution is not to move them over to MLB.)
To modify a line from the Ramones: "D-U-M-B! The Nike designs for MLB!"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

When I was still collecting, you'd see red minor league jerseys (usually BPs) that had been worn to death and had a fade pattern almost exactly like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Huh...  I've never seen that before.  Did it actually come into existence in 2012 wholesale, or does it have older roots?  My instinctual reaction to seeing this is that it feels like gimmick infringement.  🤣

 

Los Angeles Dodgers Logo Wordmark Logo (2012-Pres) - Los Angeles Dodgers scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

New York Yankees Logo Wordmark Logo (1950-Pres) - New York Yankees scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

 

I agree with you. It does step on the Yankees' toes too much. If the Dodgers are to have a full-name wordmark, maybe it could be in Futura for that perfect mid-century modern look. Dodger Stadium uses it a lot. It would clash with the cursive on the jerseys, but it would still fit overall.

  • Like 2

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coco1997 said:

 

Someone had to say that gradient looks too much like the Falcons' red jerseys right?

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to imagine the red version of the Phillies' City Connect would have been better received than what we got, because it contains two actual Phillies colors that are absent from the final design: red and maroon. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Huh...  I've never seen that before.  Did it actually come into existence in 2012 wholesale, or does it have older roots?  My instinctual reaction to seeing this is that it feels like gimmick infringement.  🤣

 

Los Angeles Dodgers Logo Wordmark Logo (2012-Pres) - Los Angeles Dodgers scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

New York Yankees Logo Wordmark Logo (1950-Pres) - New York Yankees scripted in blue SportsLogos.Net

According to the mothership, the “Dodgers” part of the thinner script has been around since 1938, before the team ever moved to LA and, ironically, before the Yankees adopted their scripted logo in 1946.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, coco1997 said:

Looks like a counterfeit to me, which would explain why the sleeve logo is still in blue.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehehe.  I didn't honestly think there was chicanery going on.  It was just my brain's knee-jerk reaction.  The fonts are actually different with the o, e, r and s all making that clear.  It's just funny to see two teams with a one-line, darkish blue, three-word, cursive wordmark.

 

Some of those programs do differ from any Dodgers uniform wordmark and have more similarities, including the same O to the Yankees one.  Perhaps it just comes from being in the same place in the same time period leading to that similar style.

  • Like 1

spacer.png

spacer.png

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.