CubsFanBudMan

MLB changes for 2007?

Recommended Posts

A in.

Vest a goner?

Terra cota so much better term in AZ.

AZ (almost).

DB (not defensive back either).

Any cryptology majors want to take a crack at this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with purple? I don't get it.

Navy and Red teams (boring):

Boston,

Cleveland,

Minnesota,

Texas,

Washington,

Atlanta,

Navy as main color:

Yankees

Detroit

Seattle

San Diego

Milwaukee

Red as main color:

Angels

Philadelphia

Saint Louis

Cincinnati

The blue ones:

Mets

Dodgers

Kansas City

Cubs

So, 19 out of 30 either have navy or red or blue or both.

The black ones:

Florida (with teal)

Chicago White Sox (with gray)

Pittsburgh (with gold)

Toronto (with gray)

San Francisco (with orange)

Baltimore (with orange)

Houston (with brick)

Colorado (with purple)

Tampa Bay (with green)

The few with unique color schemes:

Oakland

Arizona

So that's:

6 navy and red

5 navy main

4 red main

4 blue main

9 black main (with different combinations)

2 unique and different

And everybody is happy because one of the only 2 completely unique and different decides to change its unique main color?

Totally stupid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A in.

Vest a goner?

Terra cota so much better term in AZ.

AZ (almost).

DB (not defensive back either).

Any cryptology majors want to take a crack at this one?

"A in" probably means that the A logo will still be the primary one on the caps

"Vest a goner?" probably means that they'll be ditching the vest uniform and going with a traditional jersey style

"Terra cota so much better term in AZ." probably means that they'll be calling the new red color Terra Cotta instead of Brick due to its ties into the desert and the Pueblos from the Southwest area.

I have no clue about the other two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Diamondbacks purple jerseys (at least the Russell ones) were beautiful, and I was sorry to see them go. Another case of a team with an alternate jersey that looked vastly better than their primarys.

I'm hoping for the best (no more pinstriped vests / no more pinstriped roads), but I'm not holding my breath. This could be a step backwards for the Diamondbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post. How can you get "flood controlled" on your first post in days?

:rolleyes:

Edited by tpoh59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

131107.jpg

could this be the new logo?

i know i had seen this hat on this site before. but do you think they might go to this one instead of the other a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131107.jpg

could this be the new logo?

i know i had seen this hat on this site before. but do you think they might go to this one instead of the other a

it's nice, but i like the primary they have now, the 'desert" A looks good and makes sence, just the colours suck. just make it red, copper and whatever and keep the overall look

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131107.jpg

could this be the new logo?

i know i had seen this hat on this site before. but do you think they might go to this one instead of the other a

it's nice, but i like the primary they have now, the 'desert" A looks good and makes sence, just the colours suck. just make it red, copper and whatever and keep the overall look

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And everybody is happy because one of the only 2 completely unique and different decides to change its unique main color?

Totally stupid!

"Unique" does not equal "good." :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its safe to say that the teal and purple craze of the 90's is officially over!

It felt like just about every new team or uni change that came out in the 90's had either some variation of teal or purple in the color scheme.

Rockies

Marlins

D-Backs

Hornets

Jaguars

Mariners

Sharks

Islanders (Gorton's Fisherman Logo)

Ravens (although I like there colors)...

...did I forget anyone?

Good Riddance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Reds changes have a dedicated thread, but since this relates to 2007 MLB changes:

Lukas confirmed this morning at Uniwatchblog that the Reds are getting new uniforms next year and ditching the black trim. He still hadn't gotten an answer on any return of navy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with purple? I don't get it.

Navy and Red teams (boring):

Texas,

Texas is Blue and Red, not Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with purple? I don't get it.

Navy and Red teams (boring):

Boston,

Cleveland,

Minnesota,

Texas,

Washington,

Atlanta,

Navy as main color:

Yankees

Detroit

Seattle

San Diego

Milwaukee

Red as main color:

Angels

Philadelphia

Saint Louis

Cincinnati

The blue ones:

Mets

Dodgers

Kansas City

Cubs

So, 19 out of 30 either have navy or red or blue or both.

The black ones:

Florida (with teal)

Chicago White Sox (with gray)

Pittsburgh (with gold)

Toronto (with gray)

San Francisco (with orange)

Baltimore (with orange)

Houston (with brick)

Colorado (with purple)

Tampa Bay (with green)

The few with unique color schemes:

Oakland

Arizona

So that's:

6 navy and red

5 navy main

4 red main

4 blue main

9 black main (with different combinations)

2 unique and different

And everybody is happy because one of the only 2 completely unique and different decides to change its unique main color?

Totally stupid!

1. Texas is royal and red.

2. "Navy or red or blue" are three different colors, not two.

3. Houston's primary color is not black, it's brick (sand as the secondary).

4. The DRays primary color is green, not black (black secondary)

5. As "unique" as Arizona may be, it's hideously ugly and very outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... I've been away a few days. Wow. So it's the Diamondbacks. Looks like DAJackson7 and a few others called it early on in this thread, although the new owners' denials seemed to throw us off the scent. Makes sense, especially after reading about the Colangelo connection. I guess new owners trump recent world titles.... but at least some logos will keep a tie to the past.

Another tip of the cap to TOG... he didn't lead us astray on any of these.

Just a thought, but couldn't the cryptic message above about AZ and DB and "no PHX" suggest that the D modification talked about incorporates a B into it? Looks like it could be fairly easy with the snake's diamond-pattern. Same could be said for the A, although the report said it will stay the same.

I prefer using the A to the D, but that A just doesn't pop off the purple cap. If they could improve that with the color switch, they should, but the copper on purple just didn't highlight the letter enough, IMO. In that respect, the D cap worked better, but it's probably more because it was on a black cap than the logo itself.

I'm anxious to see the new look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sincerly doubt that the Dodgers and Cubs will be adding names to the back of their jerseys. Well, maybe the Dodgers to their aways, but that's it.

Frank McCourt has already announced the Dodgers will have the names on the backs of both the home and away jerseys next season...at the request of his wife. The announcement was in February.

Not only that, but McCourt is also appealing to Vin Scully to put them on for next season when the Voice of the Dodgers, in his 57th season, signed on for '07 and '08.

Also, if you're going to make jerseys without names on the back, at least make the numbers thicker, like the Yankees, Giants, Red Sox and Cubs have done. Before names ('72, '73?), Los Angeles had thicker numbers on the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.