MLB 2009

[BallWonk]

Also, if the team struggles and ends up having a poor record at some point in the season, it just looks bad to have a patch that announces how good you were before this year.

That's a good point.

A good point, but not a good reason for not wearing a championship patch all year. I shudder to think what Vince Lombardi would say to the pipsqueak marketing intern who raised the argument, "But if we have a losing record, it would look bad if we wear a championship patch." That's not an argument against wearing the patch; it's an argument against losing.

World Series championships come along rarely enough that it's a shame not to make the biggest possible deal out of it. If it also gives opposing fans an extra thrill to see their team beat the patch-wearing champs, then that's a good thing, not a drawback.

That said, I think it would be better to have something simpler than the patch the Phillies will wear. I love the gold trim on the jersey script; that would be my first choice for all champion teams to wear for the entire following season. If not that, then a patch of the World Series trophy should speak plenty loud enough. Slap the year on there if need be, but this is a case where less can be more.

[Blackjack76]

Also, if the team struggles and ends up having a poor record at some point in the season, it just looks bad to have a patch that announces how good you were before this year.

That's a good point.

A good point, but not a good reason for not wearing a championship patch all year. I shudder to think what Vince Lombardi would say to the pipsqueak marketing intern who raised the argument, "But if we have a losing record, it would look bad if we wear a championship patch." That's not an argument against wearing the patch; it's an argument against losing.

World Series championships come along rarely enough that it's a shame not to make the biggest possible deal out of it. If it also gives opposing fans an extra thrill to see their team beat the patch-wearing champs, then that's a good thing, not a drawback.

That said, I think it would be better to have something simpler than the patch the Phillies will wear. I love the gold trim on the jersey script; that would be my first choice for all champion teams to wear for the entire following season. If not that, then a patch of the World Series trophy should speak plenty loud enough. Slap the year on there if need be, but this is a case where less can be more.

Exact scenario played out with the Marlins after BOTH of their World Series wins. When the Great Fire Sale of 1998 was underway, the Marlins still answered the phone "World Series Champion Florida Marlins up until the All-Star Break, when it became abundantly clear they weren't going to make the playoffs and was a shell of its former self (I know this because I was a junior reporter then). In 2004, the receptionist again used "World Series Champion Florida Marlins" up until they were eliminated from making the playoffs. I think this is the way all teams should do it.

So the Phillies are the reigining W.S. champs and should be able to proudly say so as long as 1) they are still alive to make the playoffs this season and 2) still alive during the playoffs. But I would also argue that any special logo or gold trim is akin to a big, fat, giant, colossal bull's-eye.

[BBTV]

Also, if the team struggles and ends up having a poor record at some point in the season, it just looks bad to have a patch that announces how good you were before this year.

That's a good point.

A good point, but not a good reason for not wearing a championship patch all year. I shudder to think what Vince Lombardi would say to the pipsqueak marketing intern who raised the argument, "But if we have a losing record, it would look bad if we wear a championship patch." That's not an argument against wearing the patch; it's an argument against losing.

World Series championships come along rarely enough that it's a shame not to make the biggest possible deal out of it. If it also gives opposing fans an extra thrill to see their team beat the patch-wearing champs, then that's a good thing, not a drawback.

That said, I think it would be better to have something simpler than the patch the Phillies will wear. I love the gold trim on the jersey script; that would be my first choice for all champion teams to wear for the entire following season. If not that, then a patch of the World Series trophy should speak plenty loud enough. Slap the year on there if need be, but this is a case where less can be more.

What about the point of players who had nothing to do with the team last season wearing a patch that proclaims them as WS Champions? They certainly can't restrict the patch only to players who were on the WS winning team, but I think it's silly for players who were on the Mariners, Dodgers, or even minor leagues to wear this patch.

[BallWonk]

What about the point of players who had nothing to do with the team last season wearing a patch that proclaims them as WS Champions? They certainly can't restrict the patch only to players who were on the WS winning team, but I think it's silly for players who were on the Mariners, Dodgers, or even minor leagues to wear this patch.

I don't see this as a serious argument. Here's why:

1. This argument confuses the commemoration. A championship patch doesn't signify "I won the championship," it signifies, "This team is the reigning champion." Baseball is not an individual sport. It is a team sport. Chase Utley is not the champion of baseball. The Philadelphia Phillies are. And frankly, the roster that won the World Series is never exactly the same roster that gets a team into the playoffs in the first place, so once you start treating this as an individual, rather than a team, honor, there isn't even a slippery slope. Your first step drops you neck-deep into a quicksand of obvious absurdities, such as the idea that only some players should be "allowed" to wear the patch. Sure, you reject that idea, but why? Your concern about the patch actually requires that approach. If you reject out of hand the necessary conclusion of your argument, that should tell you that your argument is a bad one.

2. Has there been a World Series since the Phillies last won it? No? Then the team is the reigning champion team, no matter who plays for it. Right? Or should the PA announcer introduce the starting lineup before every game like, "And now, the starting lineup for Your World Champion Philadelphia Phillies, Except these players who are not actually champions!" Again, this is obviously ridiculous on its face, yet it is the necessary conclusion of this argument against wearing the patch.

3. Further, this argument does not make it logically possible to differentiate between wearing the patch once, say for opening day, or wearing it all season. The roster isn't the same in either case, and you end up with plenty of guys who didn't play for the Phillies at the end of October 2008 wearing the patch. Why permit it once but not twice? If twice, why not every day? There is no basis within the terms of the argument for allowing the patch even once if new players are on the roster.

As to the notion that it's embarrassing to be a loser the year after winning the championship, well, yes. It is. It should be. Wearing the patch doesn't make it any more embarrassing, though. You're not suddenly not the reigning champions when you start to choke if you didn't put a patch on your sleeve. Again, this is not an argument against wearing a patch. It's an argument against losing. Or if it is an argument against wearing the patch, it's also an argument against hoisting a championship banner in their ballpark or in any way making any visible, lasting acknowledgement of the championship.

[The_Admiral]

Also, if the team struggles and ends up having a poor record at some point in the season, it just looks bad to have a patch that announces how good you were before this year.

That's a good point.

Didn't the 2004 Marlins do this?

I'm against this, but just because I'm against patches in general.

[patsox]

Also, if the team struggles and ends up having a poor record at some point in the season, it just looks bad to have a patch that announces how good you were before this year.

That's a good point.

Didn't the 2004 Marlins do this?

I'm against this, but just because I'm against patches in general.

I thought the Cardinals either did it or there were rumors of them planning on doing it. I could be wrong.

[BBTV]

What about the point of players who had nothing to do with the team last season wearing a patch that proclaims them as WS Champions? They certainly can't restrict the patch only to players who were on the WS winning team, but I think it's silly for players who were on the Mariners, Dodgers, or even minor leagues to wear this patch.

I don't see this as a serious argument. Here's why:

1. This argument confuses the commemoration. A championship patch doesn't signify "I won the championship," it signifies, "This team is the reigning champion." Baseball is not an individual sport. It is a team sport. Chase Utley is not the champion of baseball. The Philadelphia Phillies are. And frankly, the roster that won the World Series is never exactly the same roster that gets a team into the playoffs in the first place, so once you start treating this as an individual, rather than a team, honor, there isn't even a slippery slope. Your first step drops you neck-deep into a quicksand of obvious absurdities, such as the idea that only some players should be "allowed" to wear the patch. Sure, you reject that idea, but why? Your concern about the patch actually requires that approach. If you reject out of hand the necessary conclusion of your argument, that should tell you that your argument is a bad one.

I think this is debatable. It could be argued that the "team" that won the championship was technically the team that... you know, won the championship (the 25 or 40 man roster during the playoffs.) Once you start adding and subtracting players, it could be argued that it's not the same team.

I think I should make it clear that I'm not angry or upset about this, I just like to think of each season as an individual entity and that accomplishments in 2008 don't really have anything to do with 2009.

As for the opening day vs. entire season, I feel the same way about opening day. We already had a parade and celebrated 2008. Short of presenting the rings to the players still around from last year, and raising the flag (which I think was done after they clinched in game 5), that should be the end of it.

As for the PA announcer announcing the "starting lineup for your World Champion Philadelphia Phillies", I don't really have too much of a problem with that, because the PA announcer is just trying to get a pop from the crowd, and I don't think it's a really serious thing. If I had a vote, I'd probably vote against doing it, but I kind of don't care about that.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it in this case.

[Mat]

MVP 2005 is the best baseball game ever made. 2k is a joke for gameplay.

On topic, is there any news about the Jays? I thought there was a rumour about a blue alt.

+1

any news on the jays?

Rogers Sportsnet (their tv station) is promoting opening day with 2 things:

1- using old school jays logo (ie. shows old school jays logo vs. detroit logo; rather than using the modern logo as they normally would for such commercials)

2- "OPENING DAY 09" is in the old school jays font

something up here?

[SLAM]

MVP 2005 is the best baseball game ever made. 2k is a joke for gameplay.

On topic, is there any news about the Jays? I thought there was a rumour about a blue alt.

+1

any news on the jays?

Rogers Sportsnet (their tv station) is promoting opening day with 2 things:

1- using old school jays logo (ie. shows old school jays logo vs. detroit logo; rather than using the modern logo as they normally would for such commercials)

2- "OPENING DAY 09" is in the old school jays font

something up here?

Yeah I noticed that a few weeks ago.

I have no idea why they did that.

[Texasrangers13]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, the Rangers socks now have the T on the side of them. Very subtle addition.

[philly97flyer]

As a Phillies fan, not to high on the patch being there all season. Wear it, and the gold trimmed jerseys for the opening series, then hang them up. Believe me, they will sell a TON of them regardless. Im a proponent of moving forward. Thankfully, this team is full of character guys. I dont think last years success will have any kind of negative effect on their play this year.

[BigEd76]

Also, if the team struggles and ends up having a poor record at some point in the season, it just looks bad to have a patch that announces how good you were before this year.

That's a good point.

Didn't the 2004 Marlins do this?

I'm against this, but just because I'm against patches in general.

yup, and the 2007 team had one for the 10th anniversary of their first title...

[Bouj]

Lukas has a nice close-up of the 2009 Mets replica jerseys. You can see how the new Swingman-syle numbers and letters look.

Uni Watch - Mets Home Replicas at Citi Field Gift Shop

[GuitarPunk2512]

Lukas has a nice close-up of the 2009 Mets replica jerseys. You can see how the new Swingman-syle numbers and letters look.

Uni Watch - Mets Home Replicas at Citi Field Gift Shop

i love that patch, but the way the logos, names, and numbers are now is just absolutle crap. you can see the pinstripes through the white. It looks like a cheap sticker on the jersey. Id take my doubleknits anyday over that.

[CubsFanBudMan]

So the Mets switched to the better patch? I guess I missed that.

[Bouj]

So the Mets switched to the better patch? I guess I missed that.

Lukas said the Mets said they are only putting the better patch on the replicas. The Dominos patch will allegedly still be on the game unis. Alllegedly. We'll see next week.

[McCall]

Uni Watch - Baseball Preview 2009

Confirms the Braves making the navy alternate cap the official away caps... with matching helmets.

[Gothamite]

Ugh.

The Braves have one of the best caps in the bigs - why bother with an alternate?

Of course, they also have beautiful uniforms, but they insist on selling ugly-ass alternates as well.

[richie923]

Ugh.

The Braves have one of the best caps in the bigs - why bother with an alternate?

Of course, they also have beautiful uniforms, but they insist on selling ugly-ass alternates as well.

I wish the Braves would make all their tomahawks the same on all jerseys. I wish they would make the blue tomahawks with red outline that you see on the alternates on the home and away too.

[BallWonk]

Ugh.

The Braves have one of the best caps in the bigs - why bother with an alternate?

It's not just that the Braves have one of the best caps in the bigs. That's a question of taste, and people can disagree. What's beyond dispute is that the Braves have one of the most iconic and instantly recognizable caps in baseball history. You see a dark navy cap with a red bill, you think "Atlanta." (Sorry, Cleveland, but you didn't get Ted Turner to broadcast your games nationwide for twenty years, much of that in a time before everyday TV broadcast of even local games.)

So the Braves aren't just messing with a uniform that most of us regard on subjective grounds as a beautiful uniform. The Braves are objectively trashing their brand identity, and with it costing themselves money in the long run. It's pure foolishness, and it's as clear a sign as can be that the people running the Braves are not serious about their business. If I were a Braves fan, no matter how much I might have wished to have an all-navy cap on aesthetic grounds, I would regard this as exceedingly bad news. Businesses that screw up their marketing on such a basic brand-management level tend to be poorly run in other departments, too.