Think they will...?

[gEO 3b 4]

I dont think they will. They've already released a cap with a 27 Championships patch...

I wouldn't be surprised if they wore that cap, I think most teams have worn a cap on opening day the next year with a patch commemorating the championship. I know the Cardinals and Red Sox did for sure.

If they DO use gold trimming I suggest they leave it to this and don't include it on the uniform itself whatsoever...

[CubsFanBudMan]

The White Sox/MLB did mock up jerseys with the gold for opening day 2006 (see photos below), but I am not sure why they didn't wear them.

Wow, that is friggin' phenomenal. Wish they had worn it.

I'm going to have to second that. Maybe they didn't wear it for fear the fans would demand it become permanent? (On a side note, I like when teams recognize a title with a permanent uni addition -- Islanders' "stripe," Italy's World Cup star. If it's significant enough, it warrants that kind of change. Kind of a Chicago-flag-adding-star thing.)

At any rate, someone should use that color scheme. The Marlins started the patch tradition in 2004, celebrating 2003, correct? The Red Sox did the gold trim thing the next year. I'd say the former is fine, but the latter is a bit much, even if it makes for some cool looks.

[Brian E]

The White Sox/MLB did mock up jerseys with the gold for opening day 2006 (see photos below), but I am not sure why they didn't wear them.

Wow, that is friggin' phenomenal. Wish they had worn it.

I'm going to have to second that. Maybe they didn't wear it for fear the fans would demand it become permanent? (On a side note, I like when teams recognize a title with a permanent uni addition -- Islanders' "stripe," Italy's World Cup star. If it's significant enough, it warrants that kind of change. Kind of a Chicago-flag-adding-star thing.)

At any rate, someone should use that color scheme. The Marlins started the patch tradition in 2004, celebrating 2003, correct? The Red Sox did the gold trim thing the next year. I'd say the former is fine, but the latter is a bit much, even if it makes for some cool looks.

Count me in on someone who appreciates celebrating a title of the previous year on the uniform. I really don't think there's anything wrong with doing it as a one time thing or, in a patch's case, the entire season. I'm a die hard Mets fan, so it drove me crazy when the Phils wore that championship patch. And even when the Marlins wore their title patch all season in 2004. But you know what? I respect them for celebrating the highest accomplishment in Major League Baseball and being brazen enough to say, "you know what? we can do it again!"

As far as the Yankees, while I appreciate their staunch uniform regulations and their logo creep-less uniform, I have to say that they probably won't go gold and it's kind of a shame. What's the harm in doing something that says, "Yeah, we've been here before. But it's a pretty big friggen accomplishment, so we're going to celebrate it." This whole "act like you've been there before" thing is what makes some fans who were not even 2 when their team won their last championship (coughmecough) hate them just for their arrogance and ho-hum approach to doing something most teams would kill for.

And the White Sox jersey looks amazing! Too bad it never showed up on the field.

[ESTONES6]

i don't know, that hat with the gold trim looks amazing. I wouldn't mind if they JUST wore that on opening night.

[TheOldRoman]

I found this picture of what the White Sox actually wore opening day 2006. You can see it is has a "World Series Champions" patch on the sleeve, but no gold.

The Sox wore the WS champs patch on the white jerseys all season, but not on other jerseys. On opening night they also had a hat with a champs patch on the side.

[powersurge]

Count me in on someone who appreciates celebrating a title of the previous year on the uniform. I really don't think there's anything wrong with doing it as a one time thing or, in a patch's case, the entire season. I'm a die hard Mets fan, so it drove me crazy when the Phils wore that championship patch. And even when the Marlins wore their title patch all season in 2004. But you know what? I respect them for celebrating the highest accomplishment in Major League Baseball and being brazen enough to say, "you know what? we can do it again!"

As far as the Yankees, while I appreciate their staunch uniform regulations and their logo creep-less uniform, I have to say that they probably won't go gold and it's kind of a shame. What's the harm in doing something that says, "Yeah, we've been here before. But it's a pretty big friggen accomplishment, so we're going to celebrate it." This whole "act like you've been there before" thing is what makes some fans who were not even 2 when their team won their last championship (coughmecough) hate them just for their arrogance and ho-hum approach to doing something most teams would kill for.

And the White Sox jersey looks amazing! Too bad it never showed up on the field.

totally agree.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a team celebrating their championship, even if it is the Spankmees. If any of the other teams have a problem with it then they should win a title themselves and stop moaning. As far as I'm concerned a team can celebrate their title from the final out of the previous World Series to the final out of the last game that they play, whether its the one that knocks them out of contention or their next World Series title.

this whole "act like you've been there" thing is bull:censored:. To the Yankees I say: Hey, you bought...uh...er...won a title so go celebrate...you deserve it.

[philly97flyer]

As a Phillies fan/employee, I hated the fact that the Champions patch was to be worn all season. I liked it for the gold trimmed jerseys, but thats about it. The clubhouse operations director came to his senses in early August, suggesting that the team remove the patch and focus on this year. The team obliged and came out wearing the patchless jerseys for Cliff Lee's home debut.

[BBTV]

It's silly for players who were acquired in the offseason to wear a patch celebrating a championship that they didn't win.

[Gothamite]

I found this picture of what the White Sox actually wore opening day 2006. You can see it is has a "World Series Champions" patch on the sleeve, but no gold.

Just clarify one point - for the teams which have worn the gold trim, it was during the pregame ceremony only. So far as I am aware, no team actually wore them in a game, Opening Day or otherwise.

[CubsFanBudMan]

It's silly for players who were acquired in the offseason to wear a patch celebrating a championship that they didn't win.

Not if you subscribe to the idea that baseball is a team sport.

It's not like they could say, "Sorry, Raul, no patch for you." The team the new players are representing won the title (and the right to celebrate it... with a patch worn daily, but not a gold outline IMO... unless you're the Yankees).

[The_Admiral]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport. Of course players have to cooperate and communicate and grab one another's ass, but it's still mostly a game of individual matchups. But that's largely neither here nor there.

I think World Champions patches are a little tacky, but I don't like any special patches for anything. I'm anti-patches. I'm also anti-Patchez, but that's a different story. I don't think he even posts here anymore.

[infrared41]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport.

Aren't they all?

[Brian E]

I found this picture of what the White Sox actually wore opening day 2006. You can see it is has a "World Series Champions" patch on the sleeve, but no gold.

Just clarify one point - for the teams which have worn the gold trim, it was during the pregame ceremony only. So far as I am aware, no team actually wore them in a game, Opening Day or otherwise.

not true. the cardinals were the first team to wear gold-trimmed in game when they played the mets on opening night in 2007. i believe the phillies wore gold trim in-case for their game against the braves last opening night as well.

[BallWonk]

Whatever a team does to commemorate being the reigning champions of the league, they should do it on both the home and road uniforms. They're not only the champs at home, and having the world champs come to play your team should be a big deal. Or at least, the champs should act like getting to play them is a big deal. If you're not proud enough of being the reigning champions to wear the patch when you play on the road, then you're not proud enough of the championship to deserve to wear a patch at home either. And no partial-season patches! Either wear it all year, or don't bother at all. Though if wearing the championship patch really does "distract" you from winning games this year, the you probably should remove the patch, because that's not how champions behave.

[The_Admiral]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport.

Aren't they all?

Sure, to varying degrees. If I had to make a continuum of the main four, individual to team, I'd go baseball > football > basketball > hockey. Baseball's set off more from football than basketball is from hockey.

[BBTV]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport.

Aren't they all?

Sure, to varying degrees. If I had to make a continuum of the main four, individual to team, I'd go baseball > football > basketball > hockey. Baseball's set off more from football than basketball is from hockey.

baeball is one pitcher vs. one hitter. Even when you're on base, you're really by yourself. Of course, everything you do on the bases might affect the pitcher and therefore help or hurt your teammate who is hitting, but essentially, it's a bunch of individuals who happen to be wearing the same jersey. You can be successful in baseball without any other talented teammates. In the other sports, it's much harder to have success without the help of your teammates, whether it be blocking, passing, setting picks (blocking, I guess), etc. The next most individual IMO is basketball.

[powersurge]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport.

Aren't they all?

Sure, to varying degrees. If I had to make a continuum of the main four, individual to team, I'd go baseball > football > basketball > hockey. Baseball's set off more from football than basketball is from hockey.

I understand your argument but the bottom line is that baseball is a team sport. period. at no point in time can one man stand out in the field and win a game by themselves. Its absolutely impossible. That being said, yes, some sports can be dominated by one player at any given time; Like a dominant pitcher in baseball or a sharp shooting guard in b-ball. But you are missing the point that it still takes a team of solid players to win a World Series title or an NBA championship.

Relating this all back to the original discussion...it doesn't matter if a player who was acquired in the off season wears a 'champions' patch with a team the next season. He is still part of the team, and therefore now part of the history of the team. Part of that history is following up winning a championship with the defense of said championship, which that newly acquired player is a part of. So there should be no problems with him wearing the patch now that he is on the team.

[powersurge]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport.

Aren't they all?

Sure, to varying degrees. If I had to make a continuum of the main four, individual to team, I'd go baseball > football > basketball > hockey. Baseball's set off more from football than basketball is from hockey.

baeball is one pitcher vs. one hitter. Even when you're on base, you're really by yourself. Of course, everything you do on the bases might affect the pitcher and therefore help or hurt your teammate who is hitting, but essentially, it's a bunch of individuals who happen to be wearing the same jersey. You can be successful in baseball without any other talented teammates. In the other sports, it's much harder to have success without the help of your teammates, whether it be blocking, passing, setting picks (blocking, I guess), etc. The next most individual IMO is basketball.

I just saw this after I posted my response. Refer to my post above. I totally disagree with your logic. Because first of all, you don't have the same pitcher throwing against the same batter each time. If anything, baseball is totally a team sport. Take into consideration when a manager continously goes to his bullpen in a clutch situation in the late innings of a game to counter act certain batters at the plate. If you don't have a great TEAM of relievers who come in and accomplish their role then you won't win that game. I think the main issue here is that it seems like each of us have different meanings of the word 'team'. Just because every player doesn't work in unison on one play all at once like football, it doesn't mean that it isn't a TEAM effort. I think thats where the confusion lies here. In no way shape and form, is baseball an INDIVIDUAL sport like tennis or golf or figure skating for that matter.

[BBTV]

Baseball is somewhere between individual and team sport.

Aren't they all?

Sure, to varying degrees. If I had to make a continuum of the main four, individual to team, I'd go baseball > football > basketball > hockey. Baseball's set off more from football than basketball is from hockey.

baeball is one pitcher vs. one hitter. Even when you're on base, you're really by yourself. Of course, everything you do on the bases might affect the pitcher and therefore help or hurt your teammate who is hitting, but essentially, it's a bunch of individuals who happen to be wearing the same jersey. You can be successful in baseball without any other talented teammates. In the other sports, it's much harder to have success without the help of your teammates, whether it be blocking, passing, setting picks (blocking, I guess), etc. The next most individual IMO is basketball.

I just saw this after I posted my response. Refer to my post above. I totally disagree with your logic. Because first of all, you don't have the same pitcher throwing against the same batter each time. If anything, baseball is totally a team sport. Take into consideration when a manager continously goes to his bullpen in a clutch situation in the late innings of a game to counter act certain batters at the plate. If you don't have a great TEAM of relievers who come in and accomplish their role then you won't win that game. I think the main issue here is that it seems like each of us have different meanings of the word 'team'. Just because every player doesn't work in unison on one play all at once like football, it doesn't mean that it isn't a TEAM effort. I think thats where the confusion lies here. In no way shape and form, is baseball an INDIVIDUAL sport like tennis or golf or figure skating for that matter.

Of course it's a team sport. But there's more individual moments in that sport than any other team sport. Batter facing pitcher - one on one. Outfielder catching fly ball - solo.

A guy can hit 500 HR and be a HOFer without ever having any good teammates. He'll never win a title, but that's not the point.

Think about it - what are the big numbers in baseball?

60, 61

714, 755

500 (HR to probably get in the HOF, though maybe not anymore)

3000 (hits - a "magical" hit number)

4,192

300 (magical win number)

20 (wins in season)

etc.

They're all individual numbers and individual achievements. Every sport has them, but none are celebrated like baseball's. Every kid who's a fan knows those numbers by heart (or at least they used to.) How many kids can tell you the record for career rushing yards off the top of their head? Career NBA points? But most know that the '72 Dolphins were 17-0, and the Bulls won 72 games one year, etc.

Nobody has ever compared it to tennis or golf or said that it's not a team sport... you're taking the comments waay too far. It's just the most individual of the team sports.

[mania]

Just clarify one point - for the teams which have worn the gold trim, it was during the pregame ceremony only. So far as I am aware, no team actually wore them in a game, Opening Day or otherwise.

not true. the cardinals were the first team to wear gold-trimmed in game when they played the mets on opening night in 2007. i believe the phillies wore gold trim in-case for their game against the braves last opening night as well.

I remember, with the Cardinals, that it looked so good that I wouldn't have minded making it permanent, only perhaps athletic gold instead of metallic, the same shade as their logo.