MLB Road Uniforms w/Team Rather Than City Name

[BBTV]

I wouldn't wear any Phillies jersey, but that's only because the Phillies' script is terrible in any case.

Go back to the classic version, before it was ballooned, and no problem. Not for the nickname on the homes, nor the city names on the road.

It is pretty bad. I've outlined exactly why I think it's bad, and what needs to be done to fix it before.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Rays similarly wanted to make a push towards being a regional team. Unlike the Brewers, this was explicitly stated at the time, IIRC. The Rays held out the possibility that "Tampa Bay" could be put on the roads in future seasons not too far down the road. Don't know what winning a pennant does to that timeline.

That's funny, because "Tampa Bay" IS a region. Someone unfamiliar with the region might think that the team is based in Tampa, and it isn't. Driving in Florida is no fun, but the Rays are centrally located to Clearwater, Tampa, and St. Petersburg -- three separate, large (enough) cities that collectively identify as the Tampa Bay region.

How silly. Is the team trying to draw from Orlando? And if so, do people in that city not know they're driving a couple of hours to watch a baseball game? I don't understand the logic.

Unrelated, do people remember when the Blue Jays wore "Toronto" jerseys at home? That always made me laugh.

[BBTV]

The Rays similarly wanted to make a push towards being a regional team. Unlike the Brewers, this was explicitly stated at the time, IIRC. The Rays held out the possibility that "Tampa Bay" could be put on the roads in future seasons not too far down the road. Don't know what winning a pennant does to that timeline.

That's funny, because "Tampa Bay" IS a region. Someone unfamiliar with the region might think that the team is based in Tampa, and it isn't. Driving in Florida is no fun, but the Rays are centrally located to Clearwater, Tampa, and St. Petersburg -- three separate, large (enough) cities that collectively identify as the Tampa Bay region.

How silly. Is the team trying to draw from Orlando? And if so, do people in that city not know they're driving a couple of hours to watch a baseball game? I don't understand the logic.

Unrelated, do people remember when the Blue Jays wore "Toronto" jerseys at home? That always made me laugh.

When was this? The Jorge Bell-era set, WS-era set, and Clemens-era set all had BLUE JAYS on the home.

[cjzilligen]

Not sure if we're still talking about Philly but maybe they could just put 'Phila' on their roads like the Sixers did on their red alts in '08.

[McCall]

The Rays similarly wanted to make a push towards being a regional team. Unlike the Brewers, this was explicitly stated at the time, IIRC. The Rays held out the possibility that "Tampa Bay" could be put on the roads in future seasons not too far down the road. Don't know what winning a pennant does to that timeline.

That's funny, because "Tampa Bay" IS a region. Someone unfamiliar with the region might think that the team is based in Tampa, and it isn't. Driving in Florida is no fun, but the Rays are centrally located to Clearwater, Tampa, and St. Petersburg -- three separate, large (enough) cities that collectively identify as the Tampa Bay region.

How silly. Is the team trying to draw from Orlando? And if so, do people in that city not know they're driving a couple of hours to watch a baseball game? I don't understand the logic.

Unrelated, do people remember when the Blue Jays wore "Toronto" jerseys at home? That always made me laugh.

When was this? The Jorge Bell-era set, WS-era set, and Clemens-era set all had BLUE JAYS on the home.

He's probably referring to the blue jerseys from the Clemens-era, which a lot of teams around that time put their city/location on their colored alternates and wore them both at home and the road.

(In addition to the aformentioned Blue Jays, here's some others that featured the location and were worn at home):

- Twins: Had "Minnesota" navy jerseys for at least a season, maybe more, before adding "Twins" navy jersey.

- Rangers: Have only used colored jerseys with "Texas" on it, since adding alternates back in 2000.

- Rockies: Purple jersey and black vests have always said "Colorado".

- Mariners: Navy alt said "Seattle" around the first seasons in Safeco.

- Diamondbacks: Purple and black alternates said "Arizona".

[BBTV]

Not sure if we're still talking about Philly but maybe they could just put 'Phila' on their roads like the Sixers did on their red alts in '08.

The problem there is that it would look too similar (at first glance) to the home script, since 80% of the letters are the same.

[jake22]

A few concepts i made over a year ago.

[CDunn]

If I remember correctly, the Rays said when they dropped the Devil part of the name that they would put "Tampa Bay" on the roads within a couple seasons. The reason for putting "Rays" on both the home and the road uniforms was to properly establish the brand. By putting "Rays" on all their stuff they'd make sure everybody, not just the Tampa Bay area fans, would remember to call them the Rays and not the Devil Rays. Considering their national television time last season due to their success and playoff run, they could have switched to a "Tampa Bay" road script this year. Had they been terrible as usual and not have received so much attention nationwide, they probably would have needed to keep "Rays" on the roads a bit longer to make sure everybody got the picture. They certainly didn't plan on being a worst to first team, so their plan for the uniforms was probably to change after 2 or 3 seasons. What with filing deadlines for changes and all, that's probably still when we'd be likely to see a Tampa Bay road script.

On another note, anybody know why San Francisco uses that block print on their roads instead of the nice script seen on their road jackets? Would it not fit on a uniform? I just think that block print looks silly. It's too long, bland, and there is not enough space between the San and Francisco. It kinda all runs together.

[McCall]

If I remember correctly, the Rays said when they dropped the Devil part of the name that they would put "Tampa Bay" on the roads within a couple seasons. The reason for putting "Rays" on both the home and the road uniforms was to properly establish the brand. By putting "Rays" on all their stuff they'd make sure everybody, not just the Tampa Bay area fans, would remember to call them the Rays and not the Devil Rays. Considering their national television time last season due to their success and playoff run, they could have switched to a "Tampa Bay" road script this year. Had they been terrible as usual and not have received so much attention nationwide, they probably would have needed to keep "Rays" on the roads a bit longer to make sure everybody got the picture. They certainly didn't plan on being a worst to first team, so their plan for the uniforms was probably to change after 2 or 3 seasons. What with filing deadlines for changes and all, that's probably still when we'd be likely to see a Tampa Bay road script.

On another note, anybody know why San Francisco uses that block print on their roads instead of the nice script seen on their road jackets? Would it not fit on a uniform? I just think that block print looks silly. It's too long, bland, and there is not enough space between the San and Francisco. It kinda all runs together.

The block goes better with the rest of their look a whole helluva lot better than that script does. I think it looks fine. As much as I hate the Giants, I think they have some of the best uniforms around. They're definately a team that did a great updated-classic look.

[Gothamite]

Couldn't agree more. The Giants look great, modern and classic at the same time.

A few concepts i made over a year ago.

I like it, but I hope they take the "Milwaukee" patch off the sleeve once they put it on the chest.

[STL FANATIC]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

I for one hope Cardinals remains on both jerseys.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

[Gothamite]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

Strange. Wonder where Chris got it, then.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

There's a difference between nicknames and city names.

When a team puts its nickname on the roads, the clear inference is that they're trying to downplay the city. And for the Cards, it's hard to deny that's exactly what they are trying to do. Become a regional team at the expense of their true home.

[-kj]

Dude, you don't have to respond to every vaguely Cardinals-related post and sound defensive. Seriously.

But, in this case, he is right. According to the sheet I have, there's no official city name mark with the birds-on-bat.

[rebelx]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

I for one hope Cardinals remains on both jerseys.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

I suppose my logic here is that the Yankees and Tigers (at least as far as I know) never had their club nicknames on their home unis, whereas the Cardinals once used their city name on the road, and it looked good. Why did they take it off, I wonder? Do you happen to know when the last time they actually used the St. Louis script was? I have no idea.

To be completely honest, I've often thought that the Yankees could benefit from using that script logo on their jackets on the home unis, and changing nothing else about them. I highly doubt they'll ever do that, though. Kinda harder for me to imagine the Tigers using their nickname on their homes. What would they use? Would it just be the nickname rendered in the same cursive script used for the city name on their road unis (minus the orange trim, of course)?

[Sport]

I once saw a concept for a St. Loius road jersey with "St. Louis" in navy outlined in red (along with the numbers, I assume to match the road cap) with the bat passing thru the upper section of the "S". Looked sharp IMO.

By the way, on this board, maybe we can officially call all road baseball uniforms GARYS. Just confuse the newbies.

shh, you'll ruin it. It's got to be natural, though I'm thinking the same thing.

[STL FANATIC]

When a team puts its nickname on the roads, the clear inference is that they're trying to downplay the city. And for the Cards, it's hard to deny that's exactly what they are trying to do. Become a regional team at the expense of their true home.

You think so?

I don't know about that. I think it's a tradition thing. And I think that tradition started, not because they were TRYING to become a regional team, but because they WERE a regional team (they of course have keep fans all over, but they certainly don't represent as large of an area any longer). And at this point, it's just the way things are.

That's how I've always perceived it.

I also don't think they've done anything at the expense of their true home. St. Louis identifies with few if any things more than the Cardinals, and the Cardinals with St. Louis.

In this case, it just doesn't take the script on the jersey to make that so or to improve upon it.

I'm just for what looks and feels right both design wise and with that gut feeling.

Philly should keeps Phillies.

Baltimore, with the newer script, looks great in their new roads.

Milwaukee I could go either way on. The jersey that was mocked up looks a little dry to me, but I wonder if that's because numbers were left off the front.

Tampa Bay I think would look great in Tampa Bay jerseys. Their design scheme calls for it IMO.

On the other hand, I actually dig that the Rangers put TEXAS on their home jersey. That's just feels right for a Texas team, and they don't have a strong traditional identity to demand anything otherwise.

Who's the other team I'm leaving out here...?

[rebelx]

I don't know why, but I get the feeling that the Rangers won't have "Texas" on their home jerseys for too many years. Granted, that's not as bad as that abomination of a batting helmet they trotted out early this season, but somehow, I think management will eventually see how weird it looks not having the team name on any of the unis anymore.

[Still MIGHTY]

STL, You're forgetting the Angels

I've said my opinion many times on the LA/Anaheim thing and the Angels, and that is why the location is no longer on the uniforms. Arte Moreno wanted LA for recognition and money purposes, but of course the city of Anaheim and the Stadium lease have gotten the team name where it is now. Arte also changed the Angels road to "Angels" for branding purposes and to avoid controversy. If Los Angeles was put on the jerseys, you'd have a massive fan backlash. Probably a bigger backlash than what happened when the whole "LA of Anaheim" thing first came up. And if they put "Anaheim" back on the jersey, then the Los Angeles portion of the fan base would also complain and some might even make Arte out as backing down or being a hypocrite. Also IIRC, there isn't any merchandise in the team store that has the location on it. And if there is anything, I'm pretty sure it has the whole name on it. ANd if Arte has the idea of putting "LA of Anaheim" on the jersey... well... then... ughhh. That's all that needs to be said if that happened lol.

So unless the Angels change their name again, the jerseys will remain the same.

[BBTV]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

I for one hope Cardinals remains on both jerseys.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

Seriously, you don't see the difference between wearing a monogram logo vs. a team name? There's "guidelines" for each (obviously with some exceptions allowed.) For example, if the Tigers' monogram was a "T", we'd be giving them all kinds of crap. Monograms should be the first initial of the city name - the nickname doesn't deserve the monogram treatment (the "D snake" is the biggest offender here, with the "CR" in second place.) If the Cardinals had traditionally worn a StL monogram on their chests, I don't think anyone here would say a word about it. There's no "rule" about wearing a nickname on your jersey, it's just kind of "accepted" that if you put a wordmark on a home jersey, it should be the nickname, not city name, and if you put a monogram, it should be of the city, not nickname. On the road, if you put a wordmark, it should be the city name, but like you pointed out, it just doesn't work in some cases.

I'm kind of indifferent about the Cardinals. The St. Louis script is pretty nice, so certainly that would look nice on the away jerseys, but for some reason, I don't have a problem with the way they do it now.

[illwauk]

"Intricate details"?

What intricate details would that be? Looks okay on the jersey to me.

I don't really buy the whole "we'll be excluding fans outside of our city" reasoning.

The Brewers dropped "Milwaukee" from their roads as part of the push to attract fans from all around the state, boosted in no small part by Miller Park's retractable roof, which guaranteed fans driving in from all over the state that games wouldn't be rained out. I've never heard any confirmation from the team, but that was the clear inference.

For a long time, Milwaukee sports teams (and businesses in general) really did have to fight the perception that Milwaukee was a different world compared to the rest of the state and that nothing out of Milwaukee represented "Wisconsin" any more than, say, Chicago or the Twin Cities. When I was in Green Bay in the late 90s, it was actually more common to see Cubs gear than Brewers gear.

I still see traces of that attitude up here, but it's not nearly as bad I remember it. And I think the Timber Rattlers affiliation has done wonders for cementing the Brewers as "Wisconsin's Team." Either way, whatever the reasons were for keeping Milwaukee off the roads is obsolete. I fully expect them to be wearing a real life version of your photoshopped jerseys sooner than later.