MLB 2009

[patsox]

If "Alt Home 1" means those are going to be worn more often than the blue ones that is stupid. The Rangers primary color is blue, or I'm pretty sure it is at least. I hope the red jersey is matched up with a red hat also. There is supposed to be one, right? Count me in as somebody who hopes the sleeve stripes on both alternate uniforms is an error. Also count me in as someone who isn't THAT bothered by the new home uniforms, either. It is Texas after all, and the sleeve stripes are an improvement IMO. I hope these replace whatever alternates they have now.

[Braden]

The Rangers will look weird.

When the Angels come to town it'll be weird to see the road team have the team name and the home team has where they're from.

I would have preferred a sleeved version of their sleeveless alts as their home jersey.

BTW that Angels patch is super lame. totally would have preferred a modernized wings logo. Would have been a nice nod to the teams past.

[The_Admiral]

Angels Baseball! Not to be confused with Angels Bowling, Angels Hockey, and Angels Jai Alai.

[Sodboy13]

Angels Baseball! Not to be confused with Angels Bowling, Angels Hockey, and Angels Jai Alai.

Or "Orioles Baseball." One's an anomaly, two's a coincidence, three's a completely unnecessary trend.

With that in mind, I fully expect the front of the Rangers' home jerseys to read "BASEBALL" by 2012.

[Perfect Zero]

I mean, if we weren't a laughing stalk already, we now have to be reminded that Texas has a baseball team. Darn, this is almost enough to root for the Astros.

[FiddySicks]

Has anybody seen the new angels patch for 2009 on the sleeve?

I dig em, i think it adds a lot to the overall jersey and is simple but looks really nice IMO

Sorry if this has already been posted, i havent seen it posted yet

Nice one, Jack. Where'd you find this? As we've both talked about, the Angels needed a secondary logo and this one isn't half bad.

[Shumway]

Has anybody seen the new angels patch for 2009 on the sleeve?

I dig em, i think it adds a lot to the overall jersey and is simple but looks really nice IMO

Sorry if this has already been posted, i havent seen it posted yet

Nice one, Jack. Where'd you find this? As we've both talked about, the Angels needed a secondary logo and this one isn't half bad.

What I don't get is why it doesn't use the teams' fonts. The jerseys look goo with a patch, and the patch itself isn't terrible. I just wish it had the team fonts.

Or, heck, I wish they would've come up with an updated "wings" logo or maybe even the halo'd California.

[Milo Meningocele]

I mean, if we weren't a laughing stalk already...

To prevent further embarrassment should you ever have to to type it out again, it's laughingstock.

[Sodboy13]

What I don't get is why it doesn't use the teams' fonts.

Worse yet, the numbers are in freakin' Arial.

[oldschoolvikings]

An absolutely pointless change. Their home jerseys always had the word Rangers on it. I don't see how this could be considered as an improvment.

I'm with you in preferring the previous Rangers home jersey. With, you know, the team name on it.

But I'm willing to make an exception in this case to the general rules of what goes on your home jersey. After all, it is Texas. If there's one place where it makes cultural sense for a pro team to have the state name on their home jerseys, it's Texas. So this is silly, but not wrong.

"After all, it is Texas"? And that makes it sorta OK?

Huh?

Please explain.

[lbr218]

It's just one of MANY things the Mets do that separates them from winners. Even something as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as a patch for a new stadium. It just reeks of half-assed, going the safe route, blah blah blah blah blah.

Next thing you know they'll be talking about how its really symbolic and took months to design, etc.

All I know is if I were in charge and someone designed this and brought it to me as a serious proposal (and not a joke) they'd no longer be designing anything for me. Then again, the Mets are a joke, so...

The key thing that separates them from winners is winning.

They should use Leela:

She's almost as bad as Hank Aaron XXIV!

[ANGELCAT-IDA61]

Well, don't be surprised if the Yankees and Tigers add an alternate jersey in the future with the team name on it. The "NY" and the "D" on the home uniforms though are timeless. Thank heavens this isn't Youtube where I'd really get negative feedback from other board members. Oh yeah, I remember the 1984-1986 "Oakland" A's home jersey, or the Oakland "Oaklands". Got a picture of that?

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, but the hat said A's, so the home jerseys still identified the team by city and nickname, just on different body parts. This is just another silly case of the Los Angeles Angels trying to disavow any sort of geographic location, as if they unlike all other teams transcend the mere notion of representing a place. New York can have its Yankees, and San Francisco its Giants, but this is ANGELS BASEBALL. The Angels are the American League's Los Angeles team, the Angels have always been the American League's Los Angeles team, and they play in a suburb of Los Angeles. Settle the "of Anaheim" nonsense, knock off the "ANGELS BASEBALL" posturing, and just be once and for all the Los Angeles Angels. Moreno changed the name for a good reason, viz. that it's provincial and small-time to represent a suburb on a national scale, and more money can be made by marketing the team to all of Greater Los Angeles, to which they're entitled. It's all just so silly.

As for the patch itself, the font doesn't match the Western type the Angels use for everything else, the 19--------61 is a shoehorned afterthought rendered in goddamn Arial WordArt, and it's just as redundant as The Name Joke, this time semiotically speaking, for them to have the Angels' A over a baseball, encircled by "Angels Baseball." Moreover, it in no way makes the uniform better than it was without it.

I would like a picture of those old Oakland jerseys, actually.

[BallWonk]

But I'm willing to make an exception in this case to the general rules of what goes on your home jersey. After all, it is Texas. If there's one place where it makes cultural sense for a pro team to have the state name on their home jerseys, it's Texas. So this is silly, but not wrong.

"After all, it is Texas"? And that makes it sorta OK?

Huh?

Please explain.

I've spent a couple of decades conducting the following experiment: When I meet strangers, as on airplanes, or at trade shows, or whatnot, I ask, "Where are you from?" Most Americans, even Americans abroad, respond in the form, "I live in [name of city or state]."

But many people from both Minnesota and Texas instead respond in the form of, "I'm a Texan," or, "I'm a Minnesotan."

The point is that Texas is a state with a chauvinistic sense of identity of the type most people only display for their country. So it's less silly to put the name "Texas" on your home jersey in Texas, where people tend to be very proud of living in Texas and identify personally with the concept of Texas-ness, than it would be to put, say, "Missouri" on your home jersey.

Also, the fact that both the Yankees and the Tigers already put their geographic initial on their home uniforms mitigates against judging the Rangers too harshly here. And no, "But the Tigers and Yankees have been doing this, like forever" does not make it OK for them but not OK for the Rangers. Tradition doesn't make a wrong thing right, and since all we're really talking about is the Rangers' supposed deviation from the tradition of putting the team name, not the city name, on the home jersey, the fact that one has to appeal to tradition to defend other teams' similar practice disproves the validity of the criticism of the Rangers for breaking with tradition.

Personally, I've always liked the Rangers' current home jerseys, with Rangers on the front in that nice Western type, and the name "Rangers" has personal appeal to me. Replacing "Rangers" with "Texas" on the jersey makes me less likely ever to buy merchandise or root for the Rangers. But I'm probably not the target audience; it seems at least plausible that there are Texas fans who will be more likely to support the team with its stronger emphasis on the Texas identity. That's almost surely the gamble the team is taking here, and it seems a reasonable one.

[oldschoolvikings]

But I'm willing to make an exception in this case to the general rules of what goes on your home jersey. After all, it is Texas. If there's one place where it makes cultural sense for a pro team to have the state name on their home jerseys, it's Texas. So this is silly, but not wrong.

"After all, it is Texas"? And that makes it sorta OK?

Huh?

Please explain.

I've spent a couple of decades conducting the following experiment: When I meet strangers, as on airplanes, or at trade shows, or whatnot, I ask, "Where are you from?" Most Americans, even Americans abroad, respond in the form, "I live in [name of city or state]."

But many people from both Minnesota and Texas instead respond in the form of, "I'm a Texan," or, "I'm a Minnesotan."

The point is that Texas is a state with a chauvinistic sense of identity of the type most people only display for their country. So it's less silly to put the name "Texas" on your home jersey in Texas, where people tend to be very proud of living in Texas and identify personally with the concept of Texas-ness, than it would be to put, say, "Missouri" on your home jersey.

Personally, I've always liked the Rangers' current home jerseys, with Rangers on the front in that nice Western type, and the name "Rangers" has personal appeal to me. Replacing "Rangers" with "Texas" on the jersey makes me less likely ever to buy merchandise or root for the Rangers. But I'm probably not the target audience; it seems at least plausible that there are Texas fans who will be more likely to support the team with its stronger emphasis on the Texas identity. That's almost surely the gamble the team is taking here, and it seems a reasonable one.

Yeh, I have some family in texas and I've noticed that some folks there seem to think rather highly of the place (I'm not one of them... Good God, that place was hot! The only explaination for why some of those towns were originally settled is that the horse they were riding just died), and of themselves. That doesn't mean we have to indulge them in it. To the rest of us, its just another state.

[BBTV]

But I'm willing to make an exception in this case to the general rules of what goes on your home jersey. After all, it is Texas. If there's one place where it makes cultural sense for a pro team to have the state name on their home jerseys, it's Texas. So this is silly, but not wrong.

"After all, it is Texas"? And that makes it sorta OK?

Huh?

Please explain.

The point is that Texas is a state with a chauvinistic sense of identity of the type most people only display for their country. So it's less silly to put the name "Texas" on your home jersey in Texas, where people tend to be very proud of living in Texas and identify personally with the concept of Texas-ness, than it would be to put, say, "Missouri" on your home jersey.

I'm not sure I'd use the word "chauvinistic", but I agree wholeheartedly with this. That's not a knock on Texans, just the way it is.

[BallWonk]

I'm not sure I'd use the word "chauvinistic", but I agree wholeheartedly with this. That's not a knock on Texans, just the way it is.

Perhaps I should have made clear that:

(1) I'm just as chauvinistic about being a Minnesotan as Texans are about being Texans, so I don't use the word "chauvinistic" pejoratively; and

(2) I have a lot of Texan friends, and I think the whole proud-to-be-a-Texan thing is pretty cool. It's usually expressed in a positive, somewhat jocular sense, not in a negative, too-serious way. More, "We're Texas, and we rock," not, "You're not Texas, so you suck."

[spyboy1]

I would be expecting the Twins to have a memorial patch this season for Carl Pohlad, since they did it for Casey, Pucket, and Carneal. Anybody heard anything about them having patches made?

Don't forget they also had the Eloise patch in there too. Seems we've had a patch for someone almost every year for the past 5+ years.

It's been quite a run of patches for the Twins this century.

2000 - Twins 40th Anniversary & Calvin Griffith Memorial

2001 - American League 100th Anniversary and USA Flag

2002 - none

2003 - none

2004 - Eloise Pohlad Memorial

2005 - 40th Anniversary of 1965 AL Champs

2006 - Kirby Puckett Memorial

2007 - Herb Carneal Memorial

2008 - none

2009 - Metrodome Final Season & Carl Pohlad Memorial

and the certain to happen;

2010 - Target Field Inaugural Season

These are just the full season patches. Last year they also wore the 150th Anniversary of Minnesota for a weekend series and the 35W Memorial for one day.

If you want to see all these patches, check out my webshots album. http://sports.webshots.com/album/559140679 There's a limit to the number of pics I can add to a post, so I can't show them all here.

I suspect the Eloise and Carl Pohlad patches might be the first time a husband and wife were both honored by a team.

5 memorial patches in 10 seasons. That's kind of sad.

[BBTV]

Said it before and I'll say it again - that's one sweeet patch.

[McCall]

But I'm willing to make an exception in this case to the general rules of what goes on your home jersey. After all, it is Texas. If there's one place where it makes cultural sense for a pro team to have the state name on their home jerseys, it's Texas. So this is silly, but not wrong.

"After all, it is Texas"? And that makes it sorta OK?

Huh?

Please explain.

I've spent a couple of decades conducting the following experiment: When I meet strangers, as on airplanes, or at trade shows, or whatnot, I ask, "Where are you from?" Most Americans, even Americans abroad, respond in the form, "I live in [name of city or state]."

But many people from both Minnesota and Texas instead respond in the form of, "I'm a Texan," or, "I'm a Minnesotan."

The point is that Texas is a state with a chauvinistic sense of identity of the type most people only display for their country. So it's less silly to put the name "Texas" on your home jersey in Texas, where people tend to be very proud of living in Texas and identify personally with the concept of Texas-ness, than it would be to put, say, "Missouri" on your home jersey.

Also, the fact that both the Yankees and the Tigers already put their geographic initial on their home uniforms mitigates against judging the Rangers too harshly here. And no, "But the Tigers and Yankees have been doing this, like forever" does not make it OK for them but not OK for the Rangers. Tradition doesn't make a wrong thing right, and since all we're really talking about is the Rangers' supposed deviation from the tradition of putting the team name, not the city name, on the home jersey, the fact that one has to appeal to tradition to defend other teams' similar practice disproves the validity of the criticism of the Rangers for breaking with tradition.

Personally, I've always liked the Rangers' current home jerseys, with Rangers on the front in that nice Western type, and the name "Rangers" has personal appeal to me. Replacing "Rangers" with "Texas" on the jersey makes me less likely ever to buy merchandise or root for the Rangers. But I'm probably not the target audience; it seems at least plausible that there are Texas fans who will be more likely to support the team with its stronger emphasis on the Texas identity. That's almost surely the gamble the team is taking here, and it seems a reasonable one.

I proudly say "I'm a Missourian."

The difference between the Tigers/Yankees and the Rangers is that the former 2 teams use a Monogram of their location, not the word spelled out. If the Rangers just did the 'T', it would be acceptable. May not look as good to some, but that's not the point I'm making. The point is that it wouldn't seem like it was wrong. And some may disagree with that, but that's just the way it seems to be with baseball. Again, though, my main qualm with Texas is that it takes away from the play of the name "Texas Rangers", which is, in fact, the name of the group they are named after. Like I mentioned before, it's just a natural name, like the Baltimore Orioles and the state bird of Maryland being the Baltimore Oriole. You can say the same for the Buffalo Bills. The location and nickname combined to make, essentially, one nickname out of both parts of the name. I may not being saying this very clearly, but hopefully most understand what I am trying to say.