MLB changes for 2007?

[Bouj]

The brick?

You heard it here first: the Philadelphia Phillies.

They've been cherry red since 1993 and won an NLCS right out of the box, but the uniform hasn't changed since (except for the occasional sleeve patch).

I think they'll go a shade towards the cranberry they wore in the 70s and 80s. Perhaps this?

Don't hold your breath. They ain't changing anything anytime soon. Unfortunately.

Here's the relevant Phillies post. Out of anyone, I now think the Phillies are the most likely candidate, and it would not interfere with tradition at all. I obviously have been overthinking it. BBTV, you seemed pretty certain it wouldn't be them... why is that?

Bouj, did you have any luck with your friend that had access to the Majestic catalog?

I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet. He's inundated with work in August. He has to get the Texans' jerseys ready for the season.

I'm really interested to see the catalog too, because he mentioned something about the new BP jerseys either being in the catalog or being mentioned in the catalog.

[Lumbergh]

If I had to guess off the top of my head, i'd say the Brewers are the team to use the brick. But maybe just for spring and BP. I've had the chance to dowload their official package and color specs off the media site, and know the brickish red is used sparingly, if that, but the team is trying to be more traditional, and it wouldn't really surprise me. Maybe a brick BP with the "Milwaukee" script.

I agree, I think the Brewers are going to be the team with the brick red. First, because, as mentioned, they already have Brick as an official color and in the shadowing of their logo. Second, because of history. When Bud Selig bought the Seattle Pilots and moved them to Milwaukee in 1969, he wanted to make their colors navy and red like the old minor league Milwaukee Brewers. But the move took place only 6 days before the start of the 1969 season, so the Brewers were forced to use the blue and yellow Pilots uniforms, with "Milwaukee" hastily stitched on them--in fact, the outlines of the old letters were still visible. Due to this, the team kept some version of blue and yellow as their colors until the '90s. I'd bet that now that Bud has sold the team, they are going to make brick red alternate jerseys as a tribute either to his original vision for the club or to the old minor league club.

Not saying he deserves it, but the logic works...

Here's a game program of the 1947 minor league Milwaukee Brewers... navy and red.

Sounds believeable

[UTampaSpar10]

My guess is the Devil Rays because we've already heard that they are in the process of doing an image overhaul. They'll probably drop the "Devil" and become the "Tampa Bay Rays" as the always should have been. I think a Brick red and gold with light blue accent would be a nice change.

Isn't Tampa supposed to be the Tarpons are something?

No no, the deadline came and went for that kind of thing in May, and the D-Rays announced that they were making no changes for next year.

And yeah, of course I knew that. Chalk that one up to error, Bouj. If I didn't know that, how could I have made this statement? Heh, brain fart!

Well, that's good. I always like the Devil Rays logos and stuff. I hate the name. They should just shorten it to Rays. But, it's not like it matters anyways. Tampa has never had a good season and they probably won't for a long time.

The D-Rays might be kicking the Devil out but they won't change the name Rays, they just installed a 10,000 ray tank in the stadium, why spend the money if you are going to change the name??

[Survival79]

The D-Rays might be kicking the Devil out but they won't change the name Rays, they just installed a 10,000 ray tank in the stadium, why spend the money if you are going to change the name??

Rays in the tank join Rays on the ballfield

By Times Staff Writer

Published July 12, 2006

Team officials say the rays are unrelated to any future name change for the team, and that they can always add other marine life if they eventually choose another mascot for the team.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Once again, Carrie Muskat, cubs.com writer, comes through for me on the Cubs name issue. Last November, she answered in her mailbag that the Cubs would not bring back names on home jerseys.

Next year, they're back (she confirms, eighth question -- although not the one from me -- in new mailbag):

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/new...t=.jsp&c_id=chc

Score one for TOG. Now, will the brick materialize?

[Survival79]

Now, will the brick materialize?

You want the brick to materialize?

[CubsFanBudMan]

Now, will the brick materialize?

You want the brick to materialize?

Not for the Cubs. Sorry, that was a question on whether another of TOG's predictions -- that another team would wear brick next year -- would materialize, since this was all part of the same leaks package he dropped on Uni Watch a couple weeks back. He said he was at the MLB office looking at next year's stuff.

[schlim]

The Padres?

current alt from Chris' site

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Padres?

current alt from Chris' site

Nice call. That's something I hadn't thought of. The color is there... and it might satisfy those that want brown to come back (if the tan roads have failed to do it). Interesting. Not sure how it'd look with their current scheme, but you never know.

[Tazz013]

The Padres?

current alt from Chris' site

If that were brick, I'd say it was possible, but it's not, so I won't.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Padres?

current alt from Chris' site

If that were brick, I'd say it was possible, but it's not, so I won't.

OK... PANTONE calls it "San Diego Padres Red" at SSUR, so it's not brown, and it's certainly not Cincinnati Reds red... so maroon?

In which case, with apologies to PANTONE, I say "close enough" for this wild brick chase.

[powersurge]

The Padres using brick red is a TREMENDOUS stretch since they JUST did a uni redo not too long ago and that color isn't really part of the uni other than that logo.

My bet is either on the Rays (which we might eliminate because of the missed deadline) or the Phillies.

[Lumbergh]

I still say the brewers are going with brick bp's:

[Roger Clemente]

My money's on the Indians adding brick red. Don't know why...just a hunch .

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Krona]

The D-Rays might be kicking the Devil out but they won't change the name Rays, they just installed a 10,000 ray tank in the stadium, why spend the money if you are going to change the name??

I'm no marine biologist, but Tarpons are pretty good swimmers, aren't they?

And the old Tarpons were red. Could be a change, that was proposed, then delayed. I imagine if two teams would have the same obscure color of red, they'd probably be in different leagues. Why doesnt a team get with burgandy?

[Gothamite]

I imagine if two teams would have the same obscure color of red, they'd probably be in different leagues.

Why do you say that?

[John in KY]

And the old Tarpons were red. Could be a change, that was proposed, then delayed. I imagine if two teams would have the same obscure color of red, they'd probably be in different leagues. Why doesnt a team get with burgandy?

I think the only reason why the old Tarpons wore red for a while was because they were a Cincinnati Reds farm team, and Cincinnati used to like to have their teams wear similar uniforms to the parent club. Those throwbacks from earlier this year were pretty much the Big Red Machine era pullovers with "Tarpons" in red block letters.

I don't know if the Reds mandated it, but the Louisville Bats are the Reds AAA team and they were the same style uniforms (vests, home pinstripes, etc.) as the Reds. However, they do have their own color set (purple, black and a bit of gold trim).

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Looks like brick is the new navy blue.

I'd love to see a team switch to a vibrant color instead of a dull one.

[Gothamite]

Precisely why I want the Brewers to adopt their Sunday uniforms full-time. I'm tired of these boring colors.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Tribune reports on the Cubs jersey change:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...i-sportsnew-hed

Not sure the arguments the team made are valid, though. One was that the old Wrigley scoreboard "isn't conducive to associating players with their numbers." Hmmm, yeah... the number shows up under "BATTER" and his name appears on the three-year-old LED screen under the old board. Tough to make that connection.

Another reason was "roster turnover." They didn't think of that when they took them off? Do the Yankees, Red Sox and Giants have roster turnover?

It does say "many fans didn't care for the move." Not this fan, but if the majority wants them back, well, they got it.