Dodgers Throwback Alternate Jersey

[hawk36]

If people from New York want to be bitter about the Dodgers move to LA, then let them take it to the grave, because no one really cares. Why the Dodgers moved and why the Giants moved, it doesn't really matter now, 50 plus years later! Stop arguing or even trying to make a point about something that happened 50 years ago. It's a friggin' sports team, just let it go. Oh, I'm sorry I guess to be a real sports fan, you must be bitter about a sports franchise moving 50 plus years later, unlike LA who lost two football teams and could care less. Maybe people in New York just need to get lives.

As far as the Dodgers wearing the jerseys. It's not a money grab by the McCourts. If you know anything about the Dodgers franchise, they have always embraced their past. LA Dodger fans are Brooklyn Dodger fans. We embrace the Brooklyn Dodgers. So this is another way of honoring the past which the franchise has always done. When you're a Dodger, you're a Dodger no matter if you played for Brooklyn or Los Angeles. To the fans and the franchise it's always been the Dodgers. If you want to be bitter because they're wearing a Brooklyn jersey, be bitter. They never cared about you and never will, and nor do Dodger fans.

I seriously doubt there are any Brooklyn Dodger fans who are LA Dodger fans. That just doesn't make sense. In my life I've lost the Clippers while living in San Diego and the Sonics while living in Seattle. I can never see myself cheering for either the LA Clippers or OKC Thunder... in fact I HATE both.

And do you really think there are OKC fans that are proud of the Sonics' NBA Championship from 79? I'm sure they couldn't care less.

[tp49]

Oh, I'm sorry I guess to be a real sports fan, you must be bitter about a sports franchise moving 50 plus years later, unlike LA who lost two football teams and could care less. Maybe people in New York just need to get lives.

Yes, apathy is why LA lost two football teams and why now no one there cares. The only time I've ever seen passion come from LA sports fans is when they go rioting in downtown LA after the Lakers win their titles. Give me a break. I've lived in both New York and LA and the fans in NY are a far more passionate bunch.

As far as the Dodgers wearing the jerseys. It's not a money grab by the McCourts. If you know anything about the Dodgers franchise, they have always embraced their past. LA Dodger fans are Brooklyn Dodger fans. We embrace the Brooklyn Dodgers. So this is another way of honoring the past which the franchise has always done. When you're a Dodger, you're a Dodger no matter if you played for Brooklyn or Los Angeles. To the fans and the franchise it's always been the Dodgers. If you want to be bitter because they're wearing a Brooklyn jersey, be bitter. They never cared about you and never will, and nor do Dodger fans.

Quite frankly I don't give a flying rats a$$ if the McCourts, the Dodger organization or their fans care about me. The fact of the matter is that the McCourts divorce case is showing how they handled the team's finances. It also glaringly shows how the Dodgers right now are playing with a very limited budget because of it. Also, last time I checked the Dodgers honor their past EVERY NIGHT when they were their home jerseys. The same jersey they wore in Brooklyn (sans the unnecessary LA on the sleeve). They don't need to wear a "special" Brooklyn jersey and I stand by what I said which is just because they can doesn't mean they should and it still reeks of a money grab.

[Gothamite]

Look, when Dodger fans realize that baseball games are nine innings long, then you can lecture us about being sports fans.

[Bouj]

Bulls**t. That team should never wear anything that says or references Brooklyn. Ever.

/rant

I would agree. That would be like the Baltimore Ravens wearing Browns throwbacks. Both teams highly offended their former home and fans and should just leave well enough alone and not stoke the fires. What a cheap ploy by the Dodgers to try to cash in and make a buck off thier shameful history.

The Ravens aren't considered the same franchise as the Browns. When they moved the history and records stayed in Cleveland, when the Dodgers left the history left with them. Has everyone forgot when the Texas Rangers wore Washington Senators throwbacks? same thing...

I understand the general argument about the Browns history being left behind in Cleveland, but I was alive and paying attention to sports when they moved. Art Modell took the Cleveland Browns players and front-office personnel to Baltimore and changed the logo and uniforms. That team in Baltimore is the team Jim Brown played for. The team in Cleveland wearing the Browns uniforms is an expansion team that has zero claim to Jim Brown, Bernie Kosar, or any of the history of the Clevelan Browns. I would say the Ravens SHOULD retire 32. They shouldn't have retired Unitas' 19 because they have zero connection to the Colts.

Giving the Browns name to the expansion team didn't magically recreate the Browns. It just renamed an expansion team. And it's total BS. Everyone knows that those Browns aren't THE Browns, no matter what the NFL or the city government in Cleveland says or the fans in Cleveland delude themselves to believe.

I feel bad for Cleveland for losing the Browns. I really do. I'm in Houston and I hated losing the NFL. But if the the NFL had awarded the team name of Oilers to the new expansion team in Houston, that wouldn't have made them the Oilers. Warren Moon or Earl Campbell never would have had any connection to that team.

The Dodgers are the Dodgers and have every right to wear Brooklyn uniforms. Just as much as the Giants can wear NY jerseys, or the O's can wear Browns uniforms.

(end of rant)

Well the league who is the final arbiter of what is and isn't sees it differently. Not to mention legally you are also incorrect... Oh and what's legal is as close to what's real as we'll ever get on the issue. And when the fans also agree there really isn't much arguing against it. Frankly anyone who objects to what the Browns and later the Earthquakes in MLS did tends to be in the VERY small minority (and often upset because their leaving team and city didn't think of it first).

I never spoke to the legality of the issue (so I have no idea where I am "incorrect legally"). The NFL can magically decide tomorrow that the St. Louis Rams and the Arizona Cardinals should trade names so that the Cardinals are back in St. Louis, but leave all of the players and team personnel in place. That doesn't magically make the new St. Louis team the original Cardinals than the Kansas City Chiefs are. Teams have actual real lineage. My point is that the "leave the records and identity in Cleveland but take the players and personnel" move is horse . My only objection is being told to ignore the actual history of what happened.

And like I said, I have no connection to Cleveland. I just have two eyes and an actual memory of what happened before 1999.

[Gothamite]

And like I said, I have no connection to Cleveland. I just have two eyes and an actual memory of what happened before 1999.

But not, apparently, knowledge of what "franchise" means in the NFL.

[slapshot]

Those uniforms are beautiful, as long as they get the cap logo correct.

It's the same franchise. Yes, they moved, but 55 or so years ago. The franchise has been in Los Angeles almost as long as it had been in existence in Brooklyn. If there was land to build a new stadium in Brooklyn, why hasn't there been another major league team since? All you have now is the Cyclones at Coney Island.

I also don't get the "powder blue hate" bandwagon. It's not like Brooklyn was following a trend. They were one of the first to wear it, and even then, it was only on the saitn version. It's not like this was introduced in the technicolor polyester 70s.

[Gothamite]

If there was land to build a new stadium in Brooklyn, why hasn't there been another major league team since?

It's not that there wasn't/isn't land to build a stadium (just ask the Nets), it's that the city wasn't willing in 1957 to use eminent domain to seize that land from its private owners. LA was willing to do so, NYC was not.

[Gothamite]

And, back on topic, here are larger pictures (from Uni Watch):

And a quick look at the pants:

Contrast those caps with the mockup, which sported a more accurate logo:

Interesting - the style guide graphic assumes a set-in sleeve. The originals were raglan as well:

[Bouj]

And like I said, I have no connection to Cleveland. I just have two eyes and an actual memory of what happened before 1999.

But not, apparently, knowledge of what "franchise" means in the NFL.

I know exactly what "franchise" means in the NFL. It's the identity of the teams that make up the league. If the NFL decided to swap the Texans and another franchise tomorrow, I'm still rooting for the team in the Texans uniforms (like Seinfeld said, we ultimately root for laundry). But the current Browns in Cleveland are like an adopted child: they are loved, they are a part of the family, but there is no "blood relation". The team in Baltimore has the "blood ties".

[Gothamite]

I know exactly what "franchise" means in the NFL. It's the identity of the teams that make up the league.

Not what I was getting at. "Franchise" is the right to field an NFL team in a particular location. Since the 1920s, the franchise is quite literally a certificate. There was some panic on the part of the Packers when Curly Lambeau was finally forced out in 1950 - they couldn't find the certificate and thought he had taken it with him when he decamped to Chicago.

Sometime around or after the 1960s, franchise certificates incorporated team nicknames as well - I've seen photos of the Vikings franchise, but can't find it now.

So yes, the current Browns are the old Browns. The same franchise, if not the same team - Modell was forced to leave the franchise behind, even though he was allowed to move his employees (including players). Maybe it's a legalistic argument, but it's one perfectly in keeping with the particualar history of the NFL from its earliest days.

But what do you think of the new alternate uniforms?

[kw11333]

Jerseys are fine, but I don't think they should wear something that has anther cities name on it.

[Perfect Zero]

For the uniforms themselves, they are really nice, but I wouldn't want to see nine innings of it.

For the idea, I hated it when the Rangers wanted to wear Senator's jerseys. The Texas Rangers were born in 1972 in Arlington; they don't share any real history with Washington with nearly any Rangers fan out there.

[Bouj]

I know exactly what "franchise" means in the NFL. It's the identity of the teams that make up the league.

Not what I was getting at. "Franchise" is the right to field an NFL team in a particular location. Since the 1920s, the franchise is quite literally a certificate. There was some panic on the part of the Packers when Curly Lambeau was finally forced out in 1950 - they couldn't find the certificate and thought he had taken it with him when he decamped to Chicago.

Sometime around or after the 1960s, franchise certificates incorporated team nicknames as well - I've seen photos of the Vikings franchise, but can't find it now.

So yes, the current Browns are the old Browns. The same franchise, if not the same team - Modell was forced to leave the franchise behind, even though he was allowed to move his employees (including players). Maybe it's a legalistic argument, but it's one perfectly in keeping with the particualar history of the NFL from its earliest days.

But what do you think of the new alternate uniforms?

I think we're probably not that different on how we're viewing this franchise issue, but that is for another thread.

I like powder blue, but I don't like these uniforms as the choice. I like the other two options more. Too bad Majestic won't sell all three of them. But it's fine for a one-year thing. I am completely in favor of teams wearing a historic throwback over a contrived alternate as their 3rd jersey.

[Wally1912]

And a quick look at the pants:

It is interesting to note the pants do not have the standard upside-down trapezoidal belt tunnel used by Majestic and there is only a single loop on the side of the belt buckle as opposed to the more common double loops. As a matter of fact, I don't see a Majestic logo on the jerseys or the pants. I wonder why?

[Anubis2051]

Any word on if this will be available for purchase?

[Gothamite]

Pants? Doubtful.

Jerseys? The first day they're worn.

[Bouj]

Any word on if this will be available for purchase?

If MLB Shop doesn't carry them, call the team store. I cannot stress this enough: the team stores at the ballparks have things MLB Shop would never carry. I went to Anaheim in 2009, and I scored the 1970's Angels authentic TBTC jersey they wore the previous week at the team store. Last year, the Astros wore the 1965 shooting star TBTC jerseys the first Saturday of the season, and I scored on of those authentics at the team store. I also picked up the Latino Heritage jerseys from the D-Backs and the Brewers (Los D-Backs & Cervaceros) by calling their team stores. None of these turned up at MLB Shop.

If any will be selling these jerseys, it'll be the team store at Dodger Stadium.

[Gothamite]

There's no way the Dodgers will not be selling them online. There's a huge market out there for them, much of it about three thousand miles east of the Dodger Stadium team store.

Another good shot of the originals:

[DGivens87]

Regardless of whether these unis are Rick James bitchslaps to Brooklynites, I can't emphasize how anxious I am to get a couple of these jerseys for my dad and I. Although I'm a Red Sox fan, my dad's family is from Yonkers and New Rochelle, and some of the earliest baseball memories I have were the stories my dad told me about Jackie, Campy, Pee Wee, and the Duke.