D-Backs Unis revealed weds.

[Gothamite]

You know, the Rockies are the one modern team I can see keeping the purple. A natural fit.

I don't like it with black, though - not enough contrast. But purple and silver is a good scheme with lots of possibilities.

[BallWonk]

2006 will certainly go down as "The Year of Bad Logo and Uniform Design.

-Buffalo Sabres

-Anaheim Ducks

-Arizona Diamondbacks

-Milwaukee Bucks

-Minnesota Vikings

Not sure if budgets have been sliced or if the process (timelines) are bing condensed to the

breaking point but something is amiss and hoepfully 2007 will be a much better asthetic year.

While I disagree about most of your items -- I don't much like the new Vikings uniforms, but "I don't think it's pretty" and "it's a bad design" are two different things -- I think you're looking too hard for systematic causes to individual events. Just because you don't like the design a team came up with it is not necessarily the case that the design process would have produced a design you think is pretty given more money or time. Perhaps the people involved had all the time and money they needed, and did their best jobs, and in fact came up with designs that met all of the criteria they set out to achieve, and you just don't like the results because your tastes differ. What I've seen of the Reds and D-Backs new logos and uniform sets suggests to me that baseball uniform design is turning another of its occasional aesthetic corners. (Making the '05 Nationals the last of its generation of designs.) If your taste in uniform design is conservative, then the early designs in this new generation of uniforms are not going to push your happy buttons.

(I should say that I don't mean to patronize and assume that you are calling these "bad designs" just because you don't like them on purely aesthetic grounds. That conflation is quite common here, though, and you do not offer any substantive reason for calling these designs "bad," so I'm just trying to defend the idea that a design can be ugly to some viewers and yet be a very good piece of design work. Once the D-Backs unis are out all official-like, I'd be interested to know why you feel it is a "bad design.")

Whether it's a "bad design" in any meaningful sense is something that only time will tell. Wait for a late-spring ballgame at Arizona in 2008. If you still see a preponderance of purple and green in the lower-deck stands, then that will be evidence that the team's revamped design is "bad," in that it will not be achieving its purpose.

That said, there is of course no excuse for the Buffaslug. They could have unveiled the current Yankees, Braves, and Dodgers uniforms this year, and it would still be a bad uniform design year on account of the Buffaslug.

[Proc]

You know, the Rockies are the one modern team I can see keeping the purple. A natural fit.

I don't like it with black, though - not enough contrast. But purple and silver is a good scheme with lots of possibilities.

So true...purple and silver could work great. Drop the black or use it as number/letter trim.

[hecticbro]

I think all of the teams you mentioned improved their looks or, if nothing else, didn't make them worse. The Ducks don't look good, but at least they don't look awful anymore. The Bucks definitely look better. The Sabres have a crappy logo, but everything else is pretty sharp. The D-Backs really improved their design.... If only the Vikings got rid of purple like everyone else, we'd have nothing to complain about.

[Newmaniac]

You know, the Rockies are the one modern team I can see keeping the purple. A natural fit.

How about the Lakers?

[Gothamite]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

[BallWonk]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

I agree, and would further postulate that purple is just good enough a color that every league should have one team with purple, but is just difficult enough a color that no league should have more than one team with purple. (And in the NL, that team should be Colorado, not Arizona.)

That said, you're wrong about the Lakers. Wrong, I say! For the simple reason that I've been to Los Angeles, and there are no lakes there, so the Lakers do not deserve to be grandfathered in with an identity they should have ditched more than four decades ago. And it's not like the Lakers franchise can plead longstanding tradition; they were only the Minneapolis Lakers for 13 years (after previously being the Detroit Gems) before moving to LA. Anyway, point is, if you have such a monumentally stupid name, you don't get to hide behind that name, or any traditions associated with it, as a justification when people say you have stupid colors.

(Not that I'm bitter about the Lakers name or anything, or that I spent the 1980s rooting for the Celtics over the Lakers solely on account of resenting the Lakers for taking the franchise name out of Minnesota even though I totally liked Magic over Bird.)

[Gothamite]

LOL!

You won't frequently find me defending the sporting establishment of Los Angeles or, as I call them, "those Dodger-stealing bastards."

I think the Lakers name is silly in LA. But that wasn't really the subject of the discussion, only the color scheme.

I really dislike purple in sports. I hate that it became a popular color for a while there, and that many new teams were adopting it while established teams were throwing over their color scheme to add the hot color of the moment.

I do grant an exemption to the very few teams who adopted purple before it became a wise marketing decision to do so. Teams that liked the colors for their own value and not for cynically wringing a couple dollars out of the fanbase. That means essentially the Lakers and Vikings get a pass, because nobody who's thinking about marketing potential first and foremost would ever choose purple and gold.

[KJTALBOT]

You know, the Rockies are the one modern team I can see keeping the purple. A natural fit.

I don't like it with black, though - not enough contrast. But purple and silver is a good scheme with lots of possibilities.

Why do people have so much emnity for the color purple? (the color, not the book

Are you taking your cues from the Uniwatch guy?

There is nothing inherently wrong with purple. It can be a majestic if used properly. As a mater of fact, the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies had completely different shades of purple. If anything, purple is underused it baseball. With all the royal and navy out there, why not another purple team.? I nominate the Royals or as I call them the AL Dodger Clones.

[ZoDogg34]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

The Suns have had purple since their first year back in 1968. I would hope you'd give them a pass as well.

[Gothamite]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

The Suns have had purple since their first year back in 1968. I would hope you'd give them a pass as well.

Yep, they get one as well.

You know, the Rockies are the one modern team I can see keeping the purple. A natural fit.

I don't like it with black, though - not enough contrast. But purple and silver is a good scheme with lots of possibilities.

Why do people have so much emnity for the color purple? (the color, not the book

Are you taking your cues from the Uniwatch guy?

There is nothing inherently wrong with purple. It can be a majestic if used properly. As a mater of fact, the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies had completely different shades of purple. If anything, purple is underused it baseball. With all the royal and navy out there, why not another purple team.? I nominate the Royals or as I call them the AL Dodger Clones.

You don't think I might have formed my own opinion? If anything, he stole it from me - I've been complaining about the overuse of purple for years.

I don't give other teams with "hot" colors a pass (which is one of the reasons I personally would like to see the Rockies drop the black). But purple is a special case, since it is problematic to reproduce. Purple uniforms rarely show well on television - they tend to look bluish under most lights.

So add 1 (overreliance on trendy colors) with 2 (almost never shows up correctly on television and in photos) and you get 3 (bad sports color, should be eliminated whenever possible). The math is simple.

[amare32]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

...

That said, you're wrong about the Lakers. Wrong, I say! For the simple reason that I've been to Los Angeles, and there are no lakes there, so the Lakers do not deserve to be grandfathered in with an identity they should have ditched more than four decades ago. And it's not like the Lakers franchise can plead longstanding tradition; they were only the Minneapolis Lakers for 13 years (after previously being the Detroit Gems) before moving to LA. Anyway, point is, if you have such a monumentally stupid name, you don't get to hide behind that name, or any traditions associated with it, as a justification when people say you have stupid colors.

They're not named after lakes. They're named the Lakers cos they're denizens of the City of Los Angeles, otherwise known as L.A. For convience, they've dropped the punctuation. But the origin of their moniker would be more readily apparent if written: L.A.-KERS.

(Also, by your standard, the Dodgers should change their names, since there are few if any trolleys in Los Angeles.)

[ZoDogg34]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

...

That said, you're wrong about the Lakers. Wrong, I say! For the simple reason that I've been to Los Angeles, and there are no lakes there, so the Lakers do not deserve to be grandfathered in with an identity they should have ditched more than four decades ago. And it's not like the Lakers franchise can plead longstanding tradition; they were only the Minneapolis Lakers for 13 years (after previously being the Detroit Gems) before moving to LA. Anyway, point is, if you have such a monumentally stupid name, you don't get to hide behind that name, or any traditions associated with it, as a justification when people say you have stupid colors.

They're not named after lakes. They're named the Lakers cos they're denizens of the City of Los Angeles, otherwise known as L.A. For convience, they've dropped the punctuation. But the origin of their moniker would be more readily apparent if written: L.A.-KERS.

(Also, by your standard, the Dodgers should change their names, since there are few if any trolleys in Los Angeles.)

Actually they are named the Lakers from their Minneapolis days as Minnesota is the "Land of 1000 lakes"

[bterreson]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

The Suns have had purple since their first year back in 1968. I would hope you'd give them a pass as well.

NCAA teams as well.. like U of Washington

[Brian in Boston]

That said, you're wrong about the Lakers. Wrong, I say! For the simple reason that I've been to Los Angeles, and there are no lakes there...

Actually, there are several lakes within the City of Los Angeles, including Lake Balboa, Lake MacArthur, Echo Park Lake, Hollenbeck Lake and Machado Lake.

[Roger Clemente]

Also, by your standard, the Dodgers should change their names, since there are few if any trolleys in Los Angeles.

You mean bullets don't count?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Brian in Boston]

Also, by your standard, the Dodgers should change their names, since there are few if any trolleys in Los Angeles.

Trolleys? Dodging trolleys is child's play. Try crossing the street at a major intersection in Los Angeles and you'll be dodging the finest steel that the world's leading automobile manufacturers have to offer.

[amare32]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

...

That said, you're wrong about the Lakers. Wrong, I say! For the simple reason that I've been to Los Angeles, and there are no lakes there, so the Lakers do not deserve to be grandfathered in with an identity they should have ditched more than four decades ago. And it's not like the Lakers franchise can plead longstanding tradition; they were only the Minneapolis Lakers for 13 years (after previously being the Detroit Gems) before moving to LA. Anyway, point is, if you have such a monumentally stupid name, you don't get to hide behind that name, or any traditions associated with it, as a justification when people say you have stupid colors.

They're not named after lakes. They're named the Lakers cos they're denizens of the City of Los Angeles, otherwise known as L.A. For convience, they've dropped the punctuation. But the origin of their moniker would be more readily apparent if written: L.A.-KERS.

(Also, by your standard, the Dodgers should change their names, since there are few if any trolleys in Los Angeles.)

Actually they are named the Lakers from their Minneapolis days as Minnesota is the "Land of 1000 lakes"

Shhh ... work w/ me here. << wink >>

[BigEd76]

Not to be rude, but you know this, how?

*looks at pinned topic about leaked logos and uniforms*

We didn't see them over a month ago and don't know anything about the recolored current logos or the db snake head....

[Gothamite]

I said "modern team."

I'm willing to give a pass to any team who adopted it before it was a hot color. Namely, the Lakers and Vikings.

The Suns have had purple since their first year back in 1968. I would hope you'd give them a pass as well.

NCAA teams as well.. like U of Washington

True. But college teams generally have less history in changing/choosing team colors to appeal to momentary marketing trends. That is by far the exception, not the rule.

Except, of course, the Ducks. Pretty damned embarrassing to be an Oregon alum some days....