Jump to content

2006 MLB Uniforms


ocmr1877

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
really huh. How did the NHL get your home phone number when you have no personal information listed in your profile.

They saw just your screen name and knew exactly how to get in touch with you.

Explain.

For someone like Pantone, who has a website, they can get his contact information from when he registered his domain name.

Besides, if they can't come after you personally, they'll go after Chris as the owner of this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the post I made mentioned how I knew about the changes. I foolishly explained this in detail as since I did not release any picutres, only words, I thought I was not doing anything wrong. The NHL contacted my source and through him contacted me to disucss. In the end, why would I post something on here that is not true. Do you really think it makes me look cool to have made this type of mistake. The purpose of my post was to thank the people on here who do have inside info for posting what they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a reason why the ball and glove logo sucks?

For one, it has absolutely nothing to do with the art of making and brewing beer. The team was named the Brewers in tribute to the rich history of the largely German-American population that elevated making beer from cultural tradition to an art form. Most times, the logo and colors ought to reflect the team nickname somewhat, and in an ideal situation, the nickname fits the city name (think: New Orleans Jazz, Minneapolis Lakers - and how ridiculous those teams sound in Utah and Los Angeles).

Milwaukee has never had a good logo/uniform since the Milwaukee Braves... courtesy of Boston.

Be that as it may, the ball & glove era uniforms would be included in that time period, which would contradict your argument... <_<

It's unique, creative and genius.

Agreed; so is the Rubik's Cube, but it wouldn't make a good logo for a sports team.

I show friends and family that logo, and they love it!

Super-duper. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I like the logo for its creativity, but it still has no place representing a sports team when it has nothing to do with the team's nickname.

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please. The Boston B has nothing to due with Red Socks. Nor does the New York NY have anything to do with a Yankee. The Giants logo has nothing Giant in it whatsoever, and where are the twins in the Twins primary? I saw no Expos in the Expos old logo.

Proud owner of the Utah Pioneers of the Continnental Baseball League.

GBCanada.png

PACKER BACKER FOREVER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a reason why the ball and glove logo sucks?

For one, it has absolutely nothing to do with the art of making and brewing beer. The team was named the Brewers in tribute to the rich history of the largely German-American population that elevated making beer from cultural tradition to an art form. Most times, the logo and colors ought to reflect the team nickname somewhat, and in an ideal situation, the nickname fits the city name (think: New Orleans Jazz, Minneapolis Lakers - and how ridiculous those teams sound in Utah and Los Angeles).

Milwaukee has never had a good logo/uniform since the Milwaukee Braves... courtesy of Boston.

Be that as it may, the ball & glove era uniforms would be included in that time period, which would contradict your argument... <_<

It's unique, creative and genius.

Agreed; so is the Rubik's Cube, but it wouldn't make a good logo for a sports team.

I show friends and family that logo, and they love it!

Super-duper. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I like the logo for its creativity, but it still has no place representing a sports team when it has nothing to do with the team's nickname.

J-Rol got player of the week...

You just got post of the week. :notworthy:

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ ...except that the hat logo for a team does not necessarily have to match that team's nickname.  In fact, it rarely does.

And 10 million Angelenos would argue the statement that the name Los Angeles Lakers sounds "ridiculous."

It rarely does, but generally only when it is letters representing the city. The MB is a logo in and of itself, and a logo should match the team's identity.

And, while LA Lakers sounds nice, it doesn't make sense, and while I wouldn't go as far as to say it is "ridiculous", it is pretty close.

Utah Jazz is still way worse.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm not a Brewers fan, but I would rally around the logo that existed when the team was good.

Beer is about fun, as was the old logo.

Have they ever done a poll on old Brewers players? What would they like to see?

Thanks again for whoever (Pat) debunked the myth of the logo representing the sports team.

I used to work for a marketing company, so it maks me ill whenever I see a ballclub have a logo directly out of a marketing meeting.... gold and navy blue were the hot colors when it was created.

Brewers, be yourself! Be the team with a baseball glove logo. Somebody has got to do i: ask the Nets and NY Jets and Winnipeg Jets. They both have something representative of their sport in the logo.

What about something like this?

http://brandx.net/pilots/flocker.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to chime in re the Jazz keeping that nickname when they bolted New Orleans for Salt Lake. Keeping the nickname "Jazz" is a contender for most inexplicable team naming decision in the history of sports.

At least it wasn't the other way around. Imagine the New Orleans Mormons taking the court. :blink:

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B) A few days ago, I read some information, posted on the

message board about the up and coming mlb uniform changes for the 2006 season

and I have a few questions about it. It said that there will be a lot of vests, but

only listed the Twins and the Rangers, as if they need another alternate jersey.

The Brewers wearing blue and yellow pinstripes?? Huh?!? I hope they don't mean

blue uniforms with the yellow pinstripes. Imagine how hidious that would look.

like pajamas. How about the Chicago cubs? Weren't they supposed to add a red

alternate jersey for next year or was that a rumor? I sure hope it is, because it

wouldn't look right. I also thought the Nationals were to be adding a vest home jersey next season with three new caps with the "DC" logo replacing the soft

pretzel looking "W" which seems temperary. I hope the white Sox will be wearing

their 1906 jerseys for just one season, like they did with their 1917 ones in 2001.

And last but not least, any news on the St. Louis Cardinals making any changes

major or minor, as well as adding an alternate jersey for the first time for their

new ballpark next year. I hope their unis remain the same like the Phillies and Tigers did when they moved to their new park. If you have any further information, if it isn't too premature, keep me posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.