Jump to content

Mets uniform changes


SPORTSDOCTOR

Recommended Posts

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Don't tell me what I understand and don't understand. I collect baseball jerseys, I enjoy reading about what is happening and what has happened, but grown men critquing what other men are wearing and complaining about a color combos and designs...most people would agree, those people have no life.

You must have gotten lost. You do realize what this forum is here for right?

And what about the people who have the job of actually creating these color combos and designs? What's your take on them? They must be complete losers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Someone wasn't hugged enough as a child.

Let me get this straight. This degenerated into a discussion about bowel movements and you didn't make one of your patented poop posts?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team has NO identity, and that's their biggest problem. They re-introduced name-less uniforms in 1999ish against, of all teams, the Yankees. Then they put them back on a year later. For 10 years they had not one, but two black uniforms and two black hats yet their colors are supposed to be orange and blue. They wear pinstripes sometimes, sometimes they dont. Their stadium is a shrine to another team, not themselves as it should be.

So when they introduce yet another uniform, its worth discussing whether they did it right or not.

This time, another failure before I even see it, Its cream colored! Guess who else introduced a cream-colored uniform recently... the Phillies! They're your arch-rivals! Why would you want to immitate them? Just like they immitate the Yankees with name-less uniforms and pinstripes and the Dodgers with Citifield. The Mets need their own identity really bad. Its not about looking good so much, that's the next step. First, figure out who you are and what you want to represent and your logo and uniform are the first thing that presents that.

I agree with everything you said 100%. They don't have an identity. Their look is complete mix and match from day to day. Black makes no sense for them, they just shoehorned it in 10 years ago when it was all the rave. They should get away from it like other teams have (Royals, Reds).

Any the stadium is completely Met sterile. If someone just dropped you off in one of the concourses it would take you a while to figure out who actually played there. I don't get Wilpon's boner for the Dodgers either.

Someone wasn't hugged enough as a child.

Let me get this straight. This degenerated into a discussion about bowel movements and you didn't make one of your patented poop posts?!

I like to keep the fans guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any the stadium is completely Met sterile. If someone just dropped you off in one of the concourses it would take you a while to figure out who actually played there. I don't get Wilpon's boner for the Dodgers either.

I think the allure of the Brooklyn Dodgers is something that can't quite be explained by people who weren't there. So I won't. He has a boner for the Dodgers because he grew up with the Dodgers. This shouldn't justify building a Dodger shrine when you are the owner of the New York Mets, but I'm not in a position to criticize because I don't know what it meant to live in Brooklyn before 1958. I did read most of The Boys of Summer, though (I was more interested in Roger Kahn's autobiographical section than the parts about the players, so I got bored and started reading some Mailer or something, I don't remember, not important).

Another rumored instance of Dodger Boner arose (as it were) on Chicago's south side, when the city built the new Comiskey Park for Jerry Reinsdorf, also of Brooklyn. Instead of being forest green like at Old Comiskey, the seats were a vivid shade of blue that one could perhaps associate with the shade of blue favored by his erstwhile hometown Dodgers. You could call it "Dodger Blue." That's bad enough, but who else happens to wear a similar shade of blue? It's been fixed now, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with them paying homage to their New York NL predecessors, but not at the cost of the identity of the stadium not really reflecting its current tenant.

As for the not getting it factor, I don't doubt you. My Mom lived around there and was just old enough to be upset about the Dodgers leaving town for LA. She still won't root for them ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Brooklyn Dodgers allure is quote obvious really. They were the anti-Yankees through the 20s and 30s and when they got good they became a natural post season rival. Think of the Dodgers as like the Red Sox nowadays. But on top of that to Brooklynites the Dodgers became the representatives of a small borough that had been sussumed into the city of New York. Brooklyn maintained its scrappy, maligned image, and that was reflected in the baseball team. For the Dodgers therefore the Yankees were the big city glamourous rivals.

(Its actually hard to think of a place less like Brooklyn than Los Angeles!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all starts to make sense when you explain Wilpon's (& Reinsdorf's) connection to Brooklyn. The problem seems to be that no one with any stature will stand up to Wilpon and say, "The nod to MLB's history in NY is great but this franchise is the New York METS. You shouldn't pay homage to a rival franchise in the same league. And black is not one of our team colors."

And if the Mets are trying to pass this off as some tribute to NY baseball, where's the homage to the Polo Grounds and the Giants?

The Mets are a major source of pet peeve-ery, and I'm not even a Mets fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Brooklyn Dodgers allure is quote obvious really. They were the anti-Yankees through the 20s and 30s and when they got good they became a natural post season rival. Think of the Dodgers as like the Red Sox nowadays.

The Red Sox have more in common with the current Yankees than the old Yankees do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Its actually hard to think of a place less like Brooklyn than Los Angeles!)

Indeed. It's a real shame the relocation of New York's senior circuit teams didn't work out differently. The name "Dodgers" actually makes sense in San Francisco, and while only Brooklyn is Brooklyn, the Bay is closer to it in spirit than SoCal, and "Giants" is just an excellent name for an LA team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to disagree slightly on that last part. "Giants" is marginally better for Los Angeles than San Francisco, but it's not really excellent for either. Several cities could've passably hosted the Giants: Chicago (city of big shoulders), Atlanta (the giant of the South or something), Dallas (phallic anxiety leads to fetishization of large things), Detroit (auto industry giants), Denver (mountains are big). Slight reaches all, but there's not a whole lot to the identity, so it's about as malleable as putty.

You've got me on "San Francisco Dodgers," though. An alternative history based on this simple flip-flop could be fascinating. What if the Giants ended up with Chavez Ravine but never won anything? What if San Francisco had Vin Scully and numerous championships in the dump at Candlestick Point? Would Scully even be the phenomenon he is without the enormous southern California audience? I don't want to think about this. It's too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Brooklyn Dodgers allure is quote obvious really. They were the anti-Yankees through the 20s and 30s and when they got good they became a natural post season rival. Think of the Dodgers as like the Red Sox nowadays.

The Red Sox have more in common with the current Yankees than the old Yankees do.

I merely meant that in the sense that the Red Sox are the Anti Yankees of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Red Sox have the second-highest payroll which itself is higher than a lot of recent Yankee teams, they've hired people to build the best developmental system, and they run their own cable channel among other media ventures. They're not the scrappy neighborhood ball team.

The closest thing we've had to the Brooklyn Dodgers following the demise of the Brooklyn Dodgers has been the Chicago White Sox: small but passionate fanbase generally limited to one part of the city, interesting history, and their Brooklynite owner threatened to move them somewhere warm if he didn't get a free park. It's not as evident under Reinsdorf as it was under Bill Veeck, but it's kinda there. However, they've been trying to position themselves as a mainstream middle-class sports team in recent years (though they still don't hesitate to use class warfare as a marketing tool when they feel it suits them), now that they have the modern park and the Cubs have the elegant dump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Red Sox have the second-highest payroll which itself is higher than a lot of recent Yankee teams, they've hired people to build the best developmental system, and they run their own cable channel among other media ventures. They're not the scrappy neighborhood ball team.

4th highest, but point still holds.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=nyy

1. NY Yankees 208,097,414

2. NY Mets 145,367,987

3. Chicago Cubs 134,058,500

4. Boston 122,435,399

5. Detroit 119,160,145

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of their ad campaigns have capitalized on glorifying a "blue-collar" atmosphere in opposition to the resented "white-collar" Cubs, which is a bunch of hooey when they dare to charge you out the ass for parking. Various people attend Sox games, but when they push "Grinder baseball" and "the REAL team plays on the South Side" and all that jazz, they're trying to appeal to the people whose resentment of the Cubs is part of a greater resentment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of their ad campaigns have capitalized on glorifying a "blue-collar" atmosphere in opposition to the resented "white-collar" Cubs, which is a bunch of hooey when they dare to charge you out the ass for parking. Various people attend Sox games, but when they push "Grinder baseball" and "the REAL team plays on the South Side" and all that jazz, they're trying to appeal to the people whose resentment of the Cubs is part of a greater resentment.

The Sox have used that at times, but the biggest part of that is the identity Chicago has in general, especially through the Bears. The Bears are using the same line of advertising now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.