NEW D'Backs and Reds Changes(pg 4)

[CubsFanBudMan]

I hear you, McCall. Likewise, I hope the Cardinals hold on. I have friends and family that are fans. (And on a side note, I wish the Cards and Cubs could slug it out every year for the NL Central, but those pesky Astros keep getting in the way. Oh, and the Cubs rarely show up. But the Cards are always there, so I tip my cap to them.)

Now, about those uniform changes...

[pooter]

Two words.....DUSTY BAKER. Plus, he has just ruined your team, period. Dusty has just done nothing. I sincerely hope they don't bring him back. For the Cubs sake. From a Cards fan.

Exactly, 6 times coming in 2nd place, winning the NL Manager of the year when the Marlins won the NL and the World Series, losing to the Angels in the World Series in 2000 and letting his kid run amok while the ball was still in play.

Dusty has to go.

[Bouj]

Everyone jokes about the colors being so similar, but its not that bad. the dodgers and royals are almost identical. as a matter of fact, when the astros and dbacks are side by side, a lot of you will se what i saw a few years back. the astros "brick" is actually a toned down nod to the orange of the rainbow days, and the black, being slightly lightened looks close to navy. if they were to change to one of the darker navy blues teams are using, most wouldnt even catch it.

But the Dodgers and Royals play each other, what, every few years now? How often will the Astros play the Diamondba--I mean, D'Backs?

Prior to this past season, the Royals and Dodgers played a lot in the preseason, and there wasn't much of a mixup there.

Also, it's not like the DBacks and Astros are going to be wearing the same style unis, one will be home and one will still be away.

Are you sure the DBacks won't have a brick alt too? I could see that one.

[Artmanc3po]

I think the difference in perception about the D-backs' new colors being too similar to the Astros' is because it was so recently the 'Stros changed, and that when they did, it was portrayed as such a dramatic departure for them as well as for baseball. Now another team is taking on nearly the same colors, albeit in a slightly different direction.

I don't know what the reaction was when the KC Royals unveiled their unis as an expansion team--whether or not tried and true Dodgers fans cried foul. Probably not, though, because they had been wearing uniforms in clean royal blue and white (with the lone red number) for quite a long time. Maybe the Royals wanted to look like the Dodgers. Who knows or really cares? It doesn't seem to be an issue almost forty seasons later.

I feel more and more strange about the new D-backs look--switching the snake D to the home hat, the huge A to the road; keeping generally the same logos with merely a recoloring--I'm just not sure. I don't dislike the uniforms, but I'm not crazy about the obviously Astros-esque look. The Astros don't own those colors, of course, but it just seems hard to carve an identity with colors that are so similar.

I don't know how a shade of copper would have looked instead of Sedona Red, but it would have been unique and different while also avoiding the dreaded purple. I also favor many folks' opinions that keeping just a bit of turquoise would have been another way of honoring something important about the state, like copper would have too. Yes, Sedona Red is important, because when I think of Arizona (one of my favorite states to visit), I think of their spectacular red rocks, but I hate it that the D-backs chose a new look that is so completely similar to another team they'll play several times a year. I really don't believe I'll ever confuse the two teams, and most baseball fans won't, but it's still kind of unfortunate.

Another can of worms: which team really looks better/more appropriate in these colors? I think the real mistake could be laid with the Astros, because their navy and orange was, for me at least, their identity for a long, long time. I didn't like it when they exchanged orange for gold, and then I really didn't like it when they made the big change. Their name bespeaks NASA, not the Wild West. Just like when the Padres got rid of brown: I remember reading an article in SI, maybe a season preview issue or something, with a quote from Tony Gwynn about being so relieved to finally look like a major league team, after switching from brown to navy. People sure don't complain about the Cleveland Browns being brown, and I think old pics of the St. Louis Browns don't look bad either (some of their Mitchell and Ness stuff looks terrific). I wish the Pads had kept brown and stayed unique.

Do I wish the D-backs had stayed purple? Probably not, but changing meant either going in another potentially-too-bold direction (Tampa Bay Gradient Rays) or being accused of copying a look someone else already had. At least they didn't join the legion of navy/red or royal/red (ten if you count the Dodgers, which is a stretch).

I do know, though, that I wouldn't sneeze at a Sedona Red D-snake hat if someone gave me one. Pretty cool, really...

[powersurge]

I don't know why you guys all think they look so similar...its Sooooo obvious that the D-Backs' black is darker than the Astros' black. DUH!

How much more black could it be? And the answer is none. None more black.

you know I was joking.....right?

whooooooooosh

someone needs to watch more movies

sorry, but other than posting on this board while I'm at work I have little time to for movies or anything else really. So call me uncultured if you may but its not like your reference was THAT obvious.

Everybody needs to slow down and Smell The Glove.

Get it?

As bad of a pun as that was it made me smile....thanks for the laugh!

[powersurge]

I think the difference in perception about the D-backs' new colors being too similar to the Astros' is because it was so recently the 'Stros changed, and that when they did, it was portrayed as such a dramatic departure for them as well as for baseball. Now another team is taking on nearly the same colors, albeit in a slightly different direction.

I don't know what the reaction was when the KC Royals unveiled their unis as an expansion team--whether or not tried and true Dodgers fans cried foul. Probably not, though, because they had been wearing uniforms in clean royal blue and white (with the lone red number) for quite a long time. Maybe the Royals wanted to look like the Dodgers. Who knows or really cares? It doesn't seem to be an issue almost forty seasons later.

I feel more and more strange about the new D-backs look--switching the snake D to the home hat, the huge A to the road; keeping generally the same logos with merely a recoloring--I'm just not sure. I don't dislike the uniforms, but I'm not crazy about the obviously Astros-esque look. The Astros don't own those colors, of course, but it just seems hard to carve an identity with colors that are so similar.

I don't know how a shade of copper would have looked instead of Sedona Red, but it would have been unique and different while also avoiding the dreaded purple. I also favor many folks' opinions that keeping just a bit of turquoise would have been another way of honoring something important about the state, like copper would have too. Yes, Sedona Red is important, because when I think of Arizona (one of my favorite states to visit), I think of their spectacular red rocks, but I hate it that the D-backs chose a new look that is so completely similar to another team they'll play several times a year. I really don't believe I'll ever confuse the two teams, and most baseball fans won't, but it's still kind of unfortunate.

Another can of worms: which team really looks better/more appropriate in these colors? I think the real mistake could be laid with the Astros, because their navy and orange was, for me at least, their identity for a long, long time. I didn't like it when they exchanged orange for gold, and then I really didn't like it when they made the big change. Their name bespeaks NASA, not the Wild West. Just like when the Padres got rid of brown: I remember reading an article in SI, maybe a season preview issue or something, with a quote from Tony Gwynn about being so relieved to finally look like a major league team, after switching from brown to navy. People sure don't complain about the Cleveland Browns being brown, and I think old pics of the St. Louis Browns don't look bad either (some of their Mitchell and Ness stuff looks terrific). I wish the Pads had kept brown and stayed unique.

Do I wish the D-backs had stayed purple? Probably not, but changing meant either going in another potentially-too-bold direction (Tampa Bay Gradient Rays) or being accused of copying a look someone else already had. At least they didn't join the legion of navy/red or royal/red (ten if you count the Dodgers, which is a stretch).

I do know, though, that I wouldn't sneeze at a Sedona Red D-snake hat if someone gave me one. Pretty cool, really...

Don't take this the wrong way because I actually think what you said was a nice observation....but 'brevity' helps 'round here. Just thought I'd let you know. Most of our attention spans don't last that......

....uh

....what was I writing about?

Uh....so like I was saying, I think the Blue Jays will finish second this year in the AL East.

[Gary]

Original Posting in Arizona Republic

Internet leak gives early peek at new logo

The Arizona Republic

Sept. 26, 2006 12:00 AM

In the age of the Internet, nothing stays under wraps for too long. Not even major league fashion.

Take the Diamondbacks' new color scheme and logos, for example.

Over the weekend somebody posted the Arizona page from Major League Baseball's Official 2007 Style Guide for Uniforms on a message board.

Diamondbacks President Derrick Hall said it was a "bummer" that the information, due for a November release, was leaked.

Maybe, but The Heat Index claims that the Sedona Red and black combination, with some different lettering, might be more popular than originally anticipated.

Besides, purple and teal was so 2005.

I read this in the paper this morning and this site automatically came to mind.

Yeah I read it and laughed. Its a bummer but it's goin to get out there and 9 out of 10 times its going to be unveiled here

[TurnTwo]

Was anyone smart enough to save the images?

I wasn't.

[knox]

Was anyone smart enough to save the images?

I wasn't.

Consider this a request... I haven't seen the Reds' changes yet.

[Survival79]

[jbs3529]

The 'new' D-backs colors suck! Look at how many teams (pro, collegiate, amateur, etc.) ALREADY use red. It's a lemming bandwagon that too many teams have jumped onto (including the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team).

As for being "so 2005," the current D-back colors are instantly recognizable and have been so since the franchise started.

Now that they're becoming 'red,' they'll just blend into the background -- dull, plain, and ordinary.

ANY shade of red is so (forget any year) antiquated and overused!

(Apologies to those teams for which red is traditional or for which they are "known" by -- just like how the D-backs are known by their current colors.)

As for "The Heat Index" (Arizona Republic newspaper), I think of it as a 'parody editorial column' -- an attempt at sports 'humor' that rarely succeeds; so why take anything in the column as being serious.

As for everything else the D-backs management has done since Jerry Colangelo was forced out, it's all been financially driven without any thought to/for the fans -- or without any fan input.

Given the way management has treated not only its own (like Colangelo & Garagiola, Jr.); but also coaches (like Brenly), players (like Gonzales, Counsel, Estrada, etc.), and fans, I can understand why EVERYONE I've talked with who has gone to games in the past will no longer go to D-back games. In fact, everyone I've talked with, including many people who are season ticket holders, will no longer go to D-backs games once this season has ended (even the season ticket holders I talked with have either canceled their 2007 tickets or will not buy any future tickets). For most of them (who still care about the team), the color change was just another nail in the coffin.

With the new colors, the D-backs have been figuratively and literally bloodied.

[dahatman]

Well, the Diamondbacks changes are more or less official. I was watching the Mets vs. Braves on TBS last night and one of the announcers, not sure which, mentioned that the D-Backs are changing colors & uniforms next year. This came up while they were discussing the Padres/D-Backs game. I have read that MLB has a policy not to annouce changes until after the World Series but this is the worst kept secret and the teams should just announce it now and show the uniforms for next year.

[leedsunited]

The 'new' D-backs colors suck! Look at how many teams (pro, collegiate, amateur, etc.) ALREADY use red. It's a lemming bandwagon that too many teams have jumped onto (including the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team).

As for being "so 2005," the current D-back colors are instantly recognizable and have been so since the franchise started.

Now that they're becoming 'red,' they'll just blend into the background -- dull, plain, and ordinary.

ANY shade of red is so (forget any year) antiquated and overused!

(Apologies to those teams for which red is traditional or for which they are "known" by -- just like how the D-backs are known by their current colors.)

As for "The Heat Index" (Arizona Republic newspaper), I think of it as a 'parody editorial column' -- an attempt at sports 'humor' that rarely succeeds; so why take anything in the column as being serious.

As for everything else the D-backs management has done since Jerry Colangelo was forced out, it's all been financially driven without any thought to/for the fans -- or without any fan input.

Given the way management has treated not only its own (like Colangelo & Garagiola, Jr.); but also coaches (like Brenly), players (like Gonzales, Counsel, Estrada, etc.), and fans, I can understand why EVERYONE I've talked with who has gone to games in the past will no longer go to D-back games. In fact, everyone I've talked with, including many people who are season ticket holders, will no longer go to D-backs games once this season has ended (even the season ticket holders I talked with have either canceled their 2007 tickets or will not buy any future tickets). For most of them (who still care about the team), the color change was just another nail in the coffin.

With the new colors, the D-backs have been figuratively and literally bloodied.

Um, it's not like the D-backs were a paragon of logo virtue before the change.

Purple?

[Tazz013]

Well, the Diamondbacks changes are more or less official.  I was watching the Mets vs. Braves on TBS last night and one of the announcers, not sure which, mentioned that the D-Backs are changing colors & uniforms next year.  This came up while they were discussing the Padres/D-Backs game.  I have read that MLB has a policy not to annouce changes until after the World Series but this is the worst kept secret and the teams should just announce it now and show the uniforms for next year.

They made it official early in the month that they'd be changing.

http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=ari

[powersurge]

The 'new' D-backs colors suck!  Look at how many teams (pro, collegiate, amateur, etc.) ALREADY use red.  It's a lemming bandwagon that too many teams have jumped onto (including the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team).

As for being "so 2005," the current D-back colors are instantly recognizable and have been so since the franchise started.

Now that they're becoming 'red,' they'll just blend into the background -- dull, plain, and ordinary.

ANY shade of red is so (forget any year) antiquated and overused!

(Apologies to those teams for which red is traditional or for which they are "known" by -- just like how the D-backs are known by their current colors.)

As for "The Heat Index" (Arizona Republic newspaper), I think of it as a 'parody editorial column' -- an attempt at sports 'humor' that rarely succeeds; so why take anything in the column as being serious.

As for everything else the D-backs management has done since Jerry Colangelo was forced out, it's all been financially driven without any thought to/for the fans -- or without any fan input.

Given the way management has treated not only its own (like Colangelo & Garagiola, Jr.); but also coaches (like Brenly), players (like Gonzales, Counsel, Estrada, etc.), and fans, I can understand why EVERYONE I've talked with who has gone to games in the past will no longer go to D-back games.  In fact,  everyone I've talked with, including many people who are season ticket holders, will no longer go to D-backs games once this season has ended (even the season ticket holders I talked with have either canceled their 2007 tickets or will not buy any future tickets).  For most of them (who still care about the team), the color change was just another nail in the coffin.

With the new colors, the D-backs have been figuratively and literally bloodied.

Um, it's not like the D-backs were a paragon of logo virtue before the change.

Purple?

and the award for the "Best usage of the words 'paragon' and 'virtue' in an internet uniform chat site" goes to....

funny....very funny!

[STL FANATIC]

Yeah, I could tell McCall was joking...it was friendly ribbing. I'd say he does speak for all of us...how many of us don't give the Cubs a friendly jab no and then? You just didn't take it friendly, that's all.

I never read Viva El Birdos. I still to the stlouissportsforum.com/forum. It's not full of the fans that think everything is bad ALL the time like birdsonthebat seems to have a lot of. It's a generally optimistic board, but if you wanna call the negative outlook on the current situation the "realistic" outlook, well, there's plenty of that too. And it doesn't put up with trolling at all. In fact trolls basically just stay away.

[STL FANATIC]

The Reds running man has been running the wrong direction since they changed him in 1999.  For years he ran to the right, now he runs to the left.  It's awkward, especiall now that they've putting him over top of the "C" in the logo again.

Same goes for the Bengals tiger head logo and the leaping tiger.  They should be going to the right, just as the pictures and icons of helmets always should face that way.

See, now I think having him run to the left is correct, because it's like standing at home plate and watching him run from 1st - 2nd or 2nd - 3rd. (Or, even more to the point, standing on the mound and watching him run all the bases.

Eh, he's got a bat in his hands. I'd say he just looks like a giddy player running out for BP.

[M59]

Didn't the Twins toy with a red alt several years back, one that never made it to the field--even modeling it once?

Oh no, that alt made it onto the field, in 1996. Red, with white lettering and numbering outlined in blue. ESPN pounded it mercilessly, calling the "Dairy Queen" uniform. One game, the Twins were wearing it, and SportsCenter showed a highlight... with a Dairy Queen ad behind the batter. Patrick and Olbermann lost it then and there and could barely finish the segment.

Personally, I liked it. I'd love to get my hands on a Molitor one.

I own one of those Twins "Dairy Queen" jerseys. A Mike-Trombley gamer. Sweet jersey--they shouldn't have listened to those lunkheads on ESPN!

[bradleyrmanuel]

From the Reds notes in the Cincinnati Enquirer today:

NEW HAT, OLD HAT: A representative of New Era, supplier of Major League Baseball hats, dropped off a couple of dozen home hats the Reds will wear next year. The hats are part of an overall uniform change.

They are all red with a white "C" with thin black trim.

"I like 'em," Narron said.

They are similar to hats the Reds wore in the '70s to early '90s.

The new Reds uniforms will be unveiled at Redsfest.

No mention of course that the Reds are supposed to already HAVE an all-red cap with a black-trimmed C (they wore it twice in 2000 and that's it in the eight years of this uni set), but at least I probably won't have to buy all-new caps.

[averyj]

Didn't the Twins toy with a red alt several years back, one that never made it to the field--even modeling it once?

Oh no, that alt made it onto the field, in 1996. Red, with white lettering and numbering outlined in blue. ESPN pounded it mercilessly, calling the "Dairy Queen" uniform. One game, the Twins were wearing it, and SportsCenter showed a highlight... with a Dairy Queen ad behind the batter. Patrick and Olbermann lost it then and there and could barely finish the segment.

Personally, I liked it. I'd love to get my hands on a Molitor one.

I own one of those Twins "Dairy Queen" jerseys. A Mike-Trombley gamer. Sweet jersey--they shouldn't have listened to those lunkheads on ESPN!

do you have an image of it?