Jump to content

MLB Logo&Uniform changes


UnclearInitial

Recommended Posts

Here's a list of the teams who have worn vests recently and when they wore them:

Anaheim Angels/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim ('97 - '10)

Arizona Diamondbacks ('98 - '06)

Chicago White Sox ('99 - '07)

Cincinnati Reds ('93 - '06)

Cleveland Indians ('02 - '07)

Colorado Rockies ('05 - '11)

Florida Marlins ('93 - '02)

Kansas City Royals ('02 - '05)

Minnesota Twins ('06 - '08)

Pittsburgh Pirates ('01 - '10)

Seattle Mariners ('97 - '00)

Tampa Bay Devil Rays ('01 - '07)

Texas Rangers ('04 - '08)

Toronto Blue Jays ('99 - '03)

The Angels didn't wear vests until 2002. The Blue Jays never wore vests.

What about these?

mo_vaughn.jpg

Those aren't vests. They were just regular jerseys with dark blue sleeves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here's a list of the teams who have worn vests recently and when they wore them:

Anaheim Angels/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim ('97 - '10)

Arizona Diamondbacks ('98 - '06)

Chicago White Sox ('99 - '07)

Cincinnati Reds ('93 - '06)

Cleveland Indians ('02 - '07)

Colorado Rockies ('05 - '11)

Florida Marlins ('93 - '02)

Kansas City Royals ('02 - '05)

Minnesota Twins ('06 - '08)

Pittsburgh Pirates ('01 - '10)

Seattle Mariners ('97 - '00)

Tampa Bay Devil Rays ('01 - '07)

Texas Rangers ('04 - '08)

Toronto Blue Jays ('99 - '03)

The Angels didn't wear vests until 2002. The Blue Jays never wore vests.

What about these?

mo_vaughn.jpg

Those aren't vests. They were just regular jerseys with dark blue sleeves.

I had always thought they were vests but now that I look closer, I can see it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't we just chalk up the 2001 hats as "it seemed like a good idea at the time" and not keep beating them up for being play-acting charlatans?

Many of us thought it was a bad idea at the time, and rightfully ridiculed the Mets for it then. ;)

If they didn't try to repeat their mistake, we wouldn't be beating them up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it an empty gesture? Did you talk to every player to see why they're doing it? Did you talk to every single person in the NYPD, FDNY and other respective departments to see what they thought about it? I'm so sure they'd be pissed to see their favorite teams wearing their department caps in a sign of unity over the events that transpired. I'm sure they were outraged to see their favorite teams in them. Callous Bastards. How dare they think that wearing those caps are anything other than self-promotion. And how do you know it was empty? How do you know they didn't or haven't been donating money this whole time? If they made it public, wouldn't that be an empty gesture? Ya know, to make themselves appear to be this caring team, who supports the city that they call home? How dare they. I guess the only way anyone anywhere can do something truly good is to give money anonymously. I guess I should tell my Dad, a Vietnam War veteran, that his flying the flag is an empty gesture. That all the years that he worked as a teacher and school administrator, he should have been giving all the money that he and my mom, as a teacher, made to all these charities and such instead of using it to raise us 5 kids. Or my Grandpa, a WWII veteran, that they should've done the same back in the 50's and 60's while raising my Mom and her 5 brothers and sisters. I guess I should tell everyone that they need to go see you to determine whether their "blind patriotism" of displaying the American Flag is truly sincere or not, since you guys around here seem to know all the true intentions of every person in this country. Or is it the entire world?

If anyone else gets a little upset because some veteran members here have some complex in the real world that makes them pretentious around here and dictates what everyone should think, just ignore them. Sometimes, if you realize how truly sad it is, it will just make you laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought that the Mets wearing the NYPD/FDNY/Port Authority Police/etc. hats was an empty gesture before, and never will after reading this:

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/34440/zeile-surprised-mlb-still-has-hat-issue

?I find it ironic 10 years later and they still can't get it passed for one day of tribute," said Zeile, who attended the Citi Field ceremony. "I guess they feel it's a slippery slope or something. I saw David still wearing it in the dugout paying homage. ? The hats meant more than what they said on the top. I was wearing one from a kid that had lost his dad. And some of the other hats that we were wearing were hats that we traded with some rescue workers while we were down at Ground Zero. It wasn?t like they came out of a hat box. We felt that was the best way to align ourselves with those guys that were working 24/7 while we were still out trying to play baseball. I don?t think anybody expected it would have the kind of reaction, but the fact that MLB wanted to stop us, and then we decided to do it anyway, I think made it even more significant to the members of the city.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no gesture too small.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that's nonsense, considering how huge the publicity returns can be for some of these meaningless gestures.

And even if it wasn't meaningless on its own, there's the simple matter of pimping out the team's uniform. Bush league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, when did the Brewers wear Union Local 8 caps in a game?

The Mets' 9/11 sleeve embroidery was a baseball-appropriate tribute. Much more so than mismatched caps.

mets2.jpg

I think it's an inelegant design, a little ugly, but at least it's uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so if it's on the jersey, fine. If it goes above the neck, though, travesty. Is anything below the belt also uniform sacrilege? Cleats or socks, perhaps? I'm just trying to establish the artifical, unwavering boundaries you've established as official arbiter of appropriate tributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, you new to strong opinions on the Internets? :P

I don't think I've been unclear at all. And FWIW, I've been very consistent with the "Stars & Stripes" caps, the pink and blue accessories, and all the other ways teams pimp out their uniforms to show how much they support good causes. Bad as those are, at least they are consistent across the entire team. I really hate handwritten tributes and other personal "touches" that players scrawl on their caps. I happen to believe that uniform means uniform, even in tribute.

So individual "shout-outs" are bad. Selling out your team's uniform is bad. And unnecessary. Sleeve patches are the way baseball teams have done memorials for a century. But no, that wouldn't have gotten the Mets enough coverage on the back pages.

What the Mets did was self-aggrandizing, showy, sloppy and wholly inappropriate to the occasion. Public grief as a toddler's cry for any attention they could get.

That's what I think, YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as long as the citizens who work for those departments and GAVE them the caps, are touched by the tribute and the Mets intentions are true, which other than your opinion, seems to be the case, then it is in fact a sincere gesture. Some people whining about it on a sports logo message board is not going to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to wonder if the NY Giants were allowed to wear NYPD/FDNY caps on the sidelines in Washington, DC, why couldn't the NY Mets in their own stadium?

Two replies:

1. Two different leagues, so consistency is not an issue.

2. The Giants wore those caps on the sideline, not in the game.

As I said in the other thread, I am OK with the Mets' request and I would have been OK with either decision by MLB.

Admittedly, I have no memory of the 2001 Mets cap scenario. I totally get what people are saying about who brought those caps in (though suspect, as Gothamite does, that they had to go buy a box of caps to fill in the rest). I did not know the players did that and it is my feeling that the team / MLB should make those decisions and not the players. I'd feel better about it if it had gone through those channels.

One of the ugliest things they've ever done in MLB is the military caps, where a team would have blue "Navy" caps for some players, red "Marines" caps for some, etc...Uniforms should be, what do you call it, uniform. It's not wrong to honor 9/11 heroes or members of the military. But it does not mean that every single opportunity to do so is by definition a good idea. I feel that MLB and the NFL (with the exception of Goodell caving on the glove/shoe issue) did a good job yesterday...respectful without being loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have less of a problem with wearing the actual caps of those organizations as opposed to some manufactured marketing-inspired "tribute", like the ridiculous stars-and-stripes hats.

The problem is while we get that 9/11 is regarded as the single biggest attack on our nation in our lifetime (right?), who's to say that any innocent person who died in that attack was any more significant than anyone who died in any other terrorist attack or any other catastrophe. If there was a team in OKC (the OKC Rays?), would you tell them that they can't "honor" anyone who died in the bombing there? Or if there was the New Orleans Rays, wouldn't they want to wear some kind of Katrina cap once a year? 9/11 may be "different" from a National perspective, but it's no different to anyone involved in those catastrophes. You can't just arbitrarily say that one is OK and the other isn't, so allow them all or allow none. If you allow all, some jackass team will wear caps that honor the owner's dog on the anniversary of the day he got ran over by the car. You "honor" people by going out like a professional and doing your job, and maybe dedicating your performance (and a portion of your large salary, certainly made possible by the families of the victims) to those who died - not by playing dress up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people whining about it on a sports logo message board

Making this about attacks on me, instead of the issue on hand, indicates that you don't have much of an actual argument.

Thanks, though.

Hey, at least he didn't call you Sparky, or some other patronizing pet name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't New Era catching more heat here? The cap contract is the real reason Bud banned those hats. Remember the same thing happening with the Nats last months in regards to the SEALs killed in Afghanistan? The article specifically said New Era didn't have time to make a game hat, so the Nats were SOL.

This is just like with the NFL gloves/cleats issue. The corporations (New Era & Reebok) should be getting WAY more blame here. Reebok knew the 9/11 gear was out-of-spec and unwearable (they are the NFL's corporate partner), and New Era knew that the Mets would want to repeat the 9/11 tribute. If they can produce Apollo 11 tribute hats in time for the 40th anniversary in Houston, they could have made hats for this and resolved the contractual issue.

And I'm not wading into the "Is it tasteful or genuine?" argument. Everyone covered it thoroughly above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can New Era make FDNY or NYPD hats without entering an agreement with those organizations, which would blur the line between simple tribute and shameless marketing opportunity? Part of the "charm" (for lack of a better word) was that those are actual hats that the FDNY and NYPD would wear (I think - correct me if I'm wrong) and not commercially-available hats with massive logo creep on them.

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.