MLB Logo&Uniform changes

[Gothamite]

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.

I haven't seen the ones they intended to wear this weekend, but the ones the Mets wore in September of 2001 were definitely commercially available.

NYPD/NYFD/DSNY stuff has been available for years, both online and in tourist shops all over Manhattan.

The caps worn at the NFL games yesterday were bought right from the city's online shop.

[DarthBrett]

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

Technically they weren't vests yes, but they were definitely intended to look like vests. In essence they were wearing vests. The intent was to have vests without actually wearing two separate articles of clothing. If you want to be anal then they weren't truly vests. But from an aesthetics standpoint and basically the look they were achieving, they were vests.

[McCall]

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

Technically they weren't vests yes, but they were definitely intended to look like vests. In essence they were wearing vests. The intent was to have vests without actually wearing two separate articles of clothing. If you want to be anal then they weren't truly vests. But from an aesthetics standpoint and basically the look they were achieving, they were vests.

Not really. Vests insinuate a vest on top of another. Simply coloring the sleeves may give a vest appearance, but are not actually vests. Therefore, they do not count as having vests. However, weren't the Blue Jays' at one time actual vests before or after switching to the faux ones?

[The_Admiral]

"I'm not Rex Ryan! I'm the Dude!"

[tubby34]

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

Technically they weren't vests yes, but they were definitely intended to look like vests. In essence they were wearing vests. The intent was to have vests without actually wearing two separate articles of clothing. If you want to be anal then they weren't truly vests. But from an aesthetics standpoint and basically the look they were achieving, they were vests.

Not really. Vests insinuate a vest on top of another. Simply coloring the sleeves may give a vest appearance, but are not actually vests. Therefore, they do not count as having vests. However, weren't the Blue Jays' at one time actual vests before or after switching to the faux ones?

Yes they wore vests- I believe in 03-04

[Bmac]

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

Technically they weren't vests yes, but they were definitely intended to look like vests. In essence they were wearing vests. The intent was to have vests without actually wearing two separate articles of clothing. If you want to be anal then they weren't truly vests. But from an aesthetics standpoint and basically the look they were achieving, they were vests.

Not really. Vests insinuate a vest on top of another. Simply coloring the sleeves may give a vest appearance, but are not actually vests. Therefore, they do not count as having vests. However, weren't the Blue Jays' at one time actual vests before or after switching to the faux ones?

Yes they wore vests- I believe in 03-04

I see the Blue Jays is actual vests from 1999-2000. Faux-vests from 2001-2003.

[Eye]

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

Right. They wore a stupid patch instead?

[Lights Out]

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.

So why aren't teams wearing patches for relatively trivial things like that, then? The "slippery slope" argument doesn't really work here. I think teams realize what is and isn't worthy of special uniforms.

[The_Admiral]

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.

The dog was a --------

[Gothamite]

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

Right. They wore a stupid patch instead?

Yes, because having all members of a team wear the same patch is an entirely appropriate response to a tragedy. That's the way it's done, and when the Mets did that I had no problem with it. Personally, I would rather the Brewers had replaced one of their sleeve patches with the griefy patch, and said so at that time, but their chest patch was not analogous to the Mets' mismatched grab-bag tourist caps.

You're looking for an inconsistency that isn't there. Apples and oranges.

[BBTV]

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.

So why aren't teams wearing patches for relatively trivial things like that, then? The "slippery slope" argument doesn't really work here. I think teams realize what is and isn't worthy of special uniforms.

Well I pulled a page out of your book and busted out a completely extreme scenario. But seriously, you don't see it because it's not allowed. Who knows what kind of "tributes" there'd be. To this point though, most have been tasteful, like the Twins I-35 for example. A patch or band isn't really altering a uniform. (I don't always like, but) I don't really care about whatever kind of patch or arm band anyone wants to wear.

[Lights Out]

So couldn't the league presumably set similar ground rules on special caps, then?

[BBTV]

That's the thing - what are the rules? What do you grant exceptions for? Who judges which events that result in life-loss are cap-altering worthy and which aren't?

[Lights Out]

A horrific tragedy? Yes.

The owner's dog died? No.

It shouldn't be hard to determine what is and isn't reasonable. Then again, Bud Selig is still commissioner.

[BBTV]

A horrific tragedy? Yes.

The owner's dog died? No.

It shouldn't be hard to determine what is and isn't reasonable. Then again, Bud Selig is still commissioner.

OKC bombing? 9/11? I-35? Katrina? Irene? DC Sniper? Some yahoo shoots up the local supermarket? It's not always as cut-and-dried as owners dog vs natural disaster.

[DarthBrett]

Not really. Vests insinuate a vest on top of another. Simply coloring the sleeves may give a vest appearance, but are not actually vests. Therefore, they do not count as having vests. However, weren't the Blue Jays' at one time actual vests before or after switching to the faux ones?

You missed my point, though. Yes they were intentionally not real vests, but they were made in such a way to look like real vests but without the players having to actually wear a another article of clothing, a shirt, underneath. It probably also cut down on time cleaning as well. Anyways, they may not not have been true vests, but they were definitely pseudo-vests. Heck, even this website lists them as vests. I know what you mean, but you can't deny the fact that the intent was to have the unis appear to be vests to most. If you were 100 feet away you would not know the difference.

[DOech714]

Wow mike n mike on ESPN are flipping out right now that the Mets were not aloud to were the NYPD/FDNY hats

[Bouj]

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.

I haven't seen the ones they intended to wear this weekend, but the ones the Mets wore in September of 2001 were definitely commercially available.

NYPD/NYFD/DSNY stuff has been available for years, both online and in tourist shops all over Manhattan.

The caps worn at the NFL games yesterday were bought right from the city's online shop.

If New Era wanted to sign a deal to make a one-off commemorative 9/11 First Responders hat, they probably could have worked something out with the people who produce the actual hats & a charity so as not to step on anyone's toes. But the point is MLB didn't want to piss off New Era. Like I said, if the Astros are allowed to wear New Era Apollo 11 commemorative caps in a real live MLB game, then MLB can go to New Era and tell them to replicate the First Responders hats and work out the details with the correct organizations.

Mike & Mike and Keith Olbermann have been killing MLB over this. They need to be killing MLB AND New Era over this. At least Olbermann is hammering the point that the Mets weren't even trying to replace their normal caps, they're being told they had to wear the Flag Patch caps (available for sale at MLB.com).

I get the "random tribute" arguments and all that, but this whole thing is about MLB and New Era. Arguing over whether or not the owner's dog deserves a special cap or sleeve patch or what degree of tragedy deserves commemoration is ignoring the real issue at hand and letting the guilty parties off the hook.

[rmackman]

"I'm not Rex Ryan! I'm the Dude!"

I didn't think it was possible to make Rex look skinny....I stand corrected.

[Gothamite]

I don't really care why MLB didn't let them wear the caps. This could be an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason; in the end, at least they did the right thing.