2012 MLB & Logo Changes

[patsox]

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

I live in Boston, don't have a dog in this fight, but if San Jose invests millions in tax breaks or infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up (unlike Oakland), they have "earned" the right to have their cities name on an MLB Jersey.

So if Springfield Massachusetts invested millions of dollars in tax breaks and infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up and the Red Sox moved there then by your logic they would have "earned" the right to be called the "Springfield Red Sox"? Far fetched, but I hope you realize what I'm getting at.

Christ dude, Springfield is not San Jose. It has 153,000 people and it is largely a poverty and crime infested hell hole. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US and has a booming economy with wealthy tech workers abound. Apples to oranges.

I went to school in Springfield.

[Gothamite]

I think the A's relocation discussion really needs its own thread at this point.

Either that or revive one of the Fremont A's threads in an "NFL LA relocation" or "WTF, the Coyotes are still in Phoenix?"-style megathread.

[larrypep]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

The Warriors used the "Golden State" name because the Rockets moved from San Diego to Houston, and the Warriors played a number of home games at San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. They only played in San Diego for one season, but continued to split between Cow Palace and Oakland Coliseum for several years.

I would totally love them to go back to "San Francisco Warriors" and it would be really cool for them to incorporate "The City" into the jerseys.

[bosrs1]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

The Warriors used the "Golden State" name because the Rockets moved from San Diego to Houston, and the Warriors played a number of home games at San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland. They only played in San Diego for one season, but continued to split between Cow Palace and Oakland Coliseum for several years.

I would totally love them to go back to "San Francisco Warriors" and it would be really cool for them to incorporate "The City" into the jerseys.

Still amazing to me that the name change that was implemented because of that one change (San Diego moving to Houston) is still being used. I mean they played all of six games in San Diego. And on top of that two other NBA teams have since moved into the state (Clippers and Kings) and the Warriors haven't played outside of Oakland since the early 70's (not including the year the Coliseum Arena was under construction of course).

[powersurge]

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

I live in Boston, don't have a dog in this fight, but if San Jose invests millions in tax breaks or infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up (unlike Oakland), they have "earned" the right to have their cities name on an MLB Jersey.

So if Springfield Massachusetts invested millions of dollars in tax breaks and infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up and the Red Sox moved there then by your logic they would have "earned" the right to be called the "Springfield Red Sox"? Far fetched, but I hope you realize what I'm getting at.

Christ dude, Springfield is not San Jose. It has 153,000 people and it is largely a poverty and crime infested hell hole. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US and has a booming economy with wealthy tech workers abound. Apples to oranges.

I went to school in Springfield.

yeah, why does that not surprise me? go back and re-read the thread because you might be missing the point of this argument.

[oo_nrb]

1324799813' post='1713105']

That appearing on a blog confirms nothing. Only someone who as actually seen the official files can "confirm" it.

Right. The only thing that confirms is that some people don't know what the word "confirms" means.

I apologize for using that word. I meant that the image was reinforcing the popular opinions going around about the jersey, not that a random image was confirming rumors. I will choose my words more carefully next time.

[tohasbo]

FWIW, the MLBPressbox.com site has "confirmed" the logo of the Giants road alternate.

[bigcoyotes]

FWIW, the MLBPressbox.com site has "confirmed" the logo of the Giants road alternate.

Pics???

[tohasbo]

FWIW, the MLBPressbox.com site has "confirmed" the logo of the Giants road alternate.

Pics???

Nothing else for the Braves or Rockies yet.

[SFGiants58]

OK, that looks exactly what I suspected it to look like, a black version of the cap logo with the unfortunate gold drop shadow (the shadow really needs to go). Still, it'll make for a fun alternate.

[phutmasterflex]

Off the top of my head, are there any other teams out there with two different kind of road grey jerseys? I know the Rangers had it a few years ago.

[tohasbo]

OK, that looks exactly what I suspected it to look like, a black version of the cap logo with the unfortunate gold drop shadow (the shadow really needs to go). Still, it'll make for a fun alternate.

Well, the cap image I do not have for this alternate. I assume it will be the regular cap.

[HighCheese]

Off the top of my head, are there any other teams out there with two different kind of road grey jerseys? I know the Rangers had it a few years ago.

giants would be the only team

[soxkrazy]

I think the A's relocation discussion really needs its own thread at this point.

Either that or revive one of the Fremont A's threads in an "NFL LA relocation" or "WTF, the Coyotes are still in Phoenix?"-style megathread.

Amen! Let's enjoy 2012, 2013, and 2014. See ya' in '15!

[McCall]

OK, that looks exactly what I suspected it to look like, a black version of the cap logo with the unfortunate gold drop shadow (the shadow really needs to go). Still, it'll make for a fun alternate.

I disagree. I think the gold drop shadow, which on the actual uniform is very subtle, really helps make the look.

[RedSox44]

If everyone's cool with it, I'm gonna go post an "Oakland A's relocation topic" in the Sports in General subforum.

~~~~~

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

I live in Boston, don't have a dog in this fight, but if San Jose invests millions in tax breaks or infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up (unlike Oakland), they have "earned" the right to have their cities name on an MLB Jersey.

So if Springfield Massachusetts invested millions of dollars in tax breaks and infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up and the Red Sox moved there then by your logic they would have "earned" the right to be called the "Springfield Red Sox"? Far fetched, but I hope you realize what I'm getting at.

Christ dude, Springfield is not San Jose. It has 153,000 people and it is largely a poverty and crime infested hell hole. San Jose is the 10th largest city in the US and has a booming economy with wealthy tech workers abound. Apples to oranges.

I went to school in Springfield.

yeah, why does that not surprise me? go back and re-read the thread because you might be missing the point of this argument.

I don't think anyone missed the point of the argument, it's just that it's not a very good argument. The A's don't have the kind of history ingrained into Oakland, their third city thus far, that the Red Sox do in Boston, an inaugural American League franchise that barely changed stadiums. You can't compare the two.

EDIT: Not to mention the size and prestige of San Jose is incomparable with Springfield.

[RedSox44]

dp

[The Mojo Maniac]

Off the top of my head, are there any other teams out there with two different kind of road grey jerseys? I know the Rangers had it a few years ago.

giants would be the only team

Actually he's right. The Rangers did have a gray road alternate a few years ago but it was a sleeveless jersey:

But to be sure, the Giants will (to my knowledge) be the first team with a SLEEVED alternate gray.

[HighCheese]

i meant would be the only one this year

[tohasbo]