MLB Logo&Uniform changes

[Wally1912]

feel like giving us a run down on what you have that never came to be?

VERY minor changes from final designs. Differences on stripes on arms, patch placement, etc. I have a Red Sox jersey from their redesign that had sleeve piping, where the final version did not. A patch with inverted colors on another jersey, a couple of BP jerseys from the last redesign with slightly different underarm colors, stuff like that.

Anything super-radical never leaves the Majestic or MLB "family" or is just destroyed. That leads me to believe that this is very close to the final design for the Nationals. Wouldn't be surprised to see this design with the lowercase "N" from the "Natstown" wordmark, which would be a real shame, because i prefer the one here.

I'd be interested in seeing some of the prototype jerseys. Is there a chance you can post pictures of them in one of the prototype threads?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=72107&st=0&p=1296555

[Quillz]

That's exactly it - the name "Nationals" was first used in 1905.

Silly thing to celebrate, but there you have it. Kinda sums up what was wrong with their first look.

So, they're celebrating that an unofficial name was used in Washington in 1905? They're not even celebrating their own history, since I believe the Twins retain all the old Senators' history, including any championships.

[McCall]

Actually, the original Senators's official name was Nationals for much their history. "Senators" was the unofficial name they went by and were more commonly referred to as. I can't remember exactly when they made the switch officially.

[zooropean]

That's exactly it - the name "Nationals" was first used in 1905.

Silly thing to celebrate, but there you have it. Kinda sums up what was wrong with their first look.

So, they're celebrating that an unofficial name was used in Washington in 1905? They're not even celebrating their own history, since I believe the Twins retain all the old Senators' history, including any championships.

The Twins do retain all of the history of the original Washington Nationals/Senators, including the 1924 World Series Championship and 1925 and 1933 AL Championships (plus franchise records). The Twins really don't do much to recognize their history in DC, but if you ever get a chance to see various parts of Target Field you will see a pic of the 1924 Washington Team by on the elevators on by some of the suites and there's a nice pic of Harmon Killebrew in a Senator's jersey.

The name change from Nationals to Senators took place in 1956, but as mentioned people pretty much always called the team Senators.

[BlueSky]

Didn't see a WS thread so I will use this one to register my profound annoyance at the Rangers' home unis having 'Texas' instead of 'Rangers.' Asinine.

[The_Admiral]

Hamilton could be the best Texa in franchise history.

[Puckguy14]

I've noticed some new jerseys on the Giants page on the sportslogos.net site. Is this confirmed with the circle alt logo (road patch) will be on the orange jerseys with the primary logo patch on the roads in 2011?

[M59]

I've noticed some new jerseys on the Giants page on the sportslogos.net site. Is this confirmed with the circle alt logo (road patch) will be on the orange jerseys with the primary logo patch on the roads in 2011?

If that's true, it's about time, IMO. I always thought those patches were on the wrong jerseys, with the Giants patch belonging on the roads and the SF patch on the homes.

[BBTV]

I have no problem with the location name being on both Texas jerseys (or anyone's jerseys.) Mascots and nicknames are nice to have for the kids, and for t-shirts, but it just seems a little more serious and professional to build your identity around your local rather than some nickname. This generally applies to larger market cities, but is fine anywhere.

If you want to argue that branding themselves as "Texas" is dumb, then I'm with you. I don't mind the state thing in many cases, but the Dallas area is large enough and recognizable enough to warrant its own name being used (I get the whole Texas Rangers thing, but still.)

The main problem with the Rangers is their childish name/number font, and their abuse of outlines and drop shadows.

[TheOldRoman]

I've noticed some new jerseys on the Giants page on the sportslogos.net site. Is this confirmed with the circle alt logo (road patch) will be on the orange jerseys with the primary logo patch on the roads in 2011?

If that's true, it's about time, IMO. I always thought those patches were on the wrong jerseys, with the Giants patch belonging on the roads and the SF patch on the homes.

No, the Giants patch belongs in the dumpster. Wordmarks look terrible as sleeve patches, and this is a glorified wordmark with a baseball behind it. This is a small step above the Orioles patch on the Baltimore road and alt jerseys. Good change going to the SF on the home and alt, but bad change for the road jersey. If that change is planned, hopefully they nix it now that the Giants won the World Series in the gray jerseys.

[CubsFanBudMan]

It must be in this thread earlier, but I missed the White Sox adding the primary logo to the sleeve of their road jersey and ditching the sock patch in 2011. That's a downgrade, IMO. I think the current road jersey is a classic, and the sock is a great sleeve patch. The primary is just fine in that set -- on the cap.

[TheOldRoman]

It must be in this thread earlier, but I missed the White Sox adding the primary logo to the sleeve of their road jersey and ditching the sock patch in 2011. That's a downgrade, IMO. I think the current road jersey is a classic, and the sock is a great sleeve patch. The primary is just fine in that set -- on the cap.

Wait, is this your guess as to the sleeve patch changes or are you confirming it?

[CubsFanBudMan]

I suppose I am in the rare position to confirm, but only because I'm looking at a rendering "added Nov. 2" to the CCSL site. I trust that guy.

White Sox road 2011

[TheOldRoman]

That is a terrible decision. In the diamond sock they had a great, subtle sleeve patch which I believe could be close to iconic if used more. It never was on the home jersey, and now it is relegated even further to being only on the black alt (which they wear 75% of the time, anyway). Whereas the diamond looked great as a sleeve patch, the primary logo doesn't. I understand some moron in their marketing department thought it would help branding, but it doesn't, and it looks like crap. There was no reason at all to make this change.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

[TheOldRoman]

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

I'm surprised they didn't just say "ah, what the hell" and throw the logo on the chest in place of the Chicago script.

[OnWis97]

I have no problem with the location name being on both Texas jerseys (or anyone's jerseys.) Mascots and nicknames are nice to have for the kids, and for t-shirts, but it just seems a little more serious and professional to build your identity around your local rather than some nickname. This generally applies to larger market cities, but is fine anywhere.

If you want to argue that branding themselves as "Texas" is dumb, then I'm with you. I don't mind the state thing in many cases, but the Dallas area is large enough and recognizable enough to warrant its own name being used (I get the whole Texas Rangers thing, but still.)

The main problem with the Rangers is their childish name/number font, and their abuse of outlines and drop shadows.

Particularly when the Astros already around. Similarly, the Florida Panthers came after the Lightning. (though I guess, like Rangers, the name makes more sense with the state). It's not as bad when it's the only team in the State (Colorado Avalanche, Arizona Cardinals), but I am with you on preferring a city.

As a "Minnesota" fan, I'd prefer Minneapolis (and I reside in St. Paul). This was the Twins' decision to avoid alienating St. Paul residents...Carried forward by the Vikings, North Stars, T-Wolves, and Wild. I suppose it's all marketing...reaching out to the state/region (Carolina, New England)...saying that a larger number of people are in the fan base. I get it, but prefer the City anyway.

As for the original point, I prefer the nickname at home and the City on the road. Here, we don't say "did Minnesota win last night?" We say "did the Twins win last night?" I like nickname for the home crowd and "here's where we come from" for the road crowd. In all practicality it's not really necessary, but it gives some variety in the uniform and is somewhat of a tradition.

[OnWis97]

Agreed. It seems that marketing departments look at all these elements of a uniform as separate rather than as part of a ... well... uniform. Everyone should know by now that the gray jersey with Chicago script and a white sock on the sleeve that has been used for 20 years is a White Sox jersey. And said jersey will likely be paired with the team's iconic black cap with the team's primary logo, not only on the field, but on most fans. No need for that logo to appear again on the sleeve to hammer the branding home.

While I agree that there is a redundancy to having it on the cap and the sleeve, I will say that in and of itself, the jersey looks great. I think that looks good on the sleeve. They probably should not have done it, but looking at it as a separate element (as you suggest they do), I think it looks better.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Maybe I'm biased as a fan of secondary baseball logos, but cap logos just never look right on the sleeve to me. It's always overkill, IMO. The Marlins did the same thing in 2003 and it irritated me then, too.

[TheOldRoman]

Maybe I'm biased as a fan of secondary baseball logos, but cap logos just never look right on the sleeve to me. It's always overkill, IMO. The Marlins did the same thing in 2003 and it irritated me then, too.

I didn't mind the Marlins' patch. Then again, it was balanced. The Sox' logo slopes down and to the right, and wouldn't look good on the curve plain of the sleeve. Also, the Marlins logo wasn't replacing a great established sleeve patch just for the hell of it.