This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Darning The Sox In The Night (when there’s nobody there)

Krusty header

By Phil Hecken

Today, I’d like to introduce what I hope will become a semi-recurring feature here at Uni Watch. I’d like to take a look at certain teams, teams that seem to be in need of a unichange. Whether that involves a tweak, a logo change, a complete overhaul, or some combination of those elements, I’d like to work with some of the ‘graphic artists’ we have and (much to your chagrin, submit some of my own work) to come up with some changes to the uniforms of certain teams. I don’t know whether I’ll announce the “upcoming” teams in need of a change, or whether I’ll just ask for suggestions and go from there. Maybe both. After you’ve read this article, if you’re interested in participating in any capacity, drop me a line.

Today, I’ll be joined by three great readers, James Huening, who has been a great help in gathering photographic evidence of many of the current and former uniforms you’re about to see below, Robert Marshall, who has tweaked a design or two of mine and who has come up with his own unique spin on what he’d like this week’s team to don for their uniform, and Michael Emody, who’s created a number of unique and sometime throwback-ish (fauxback?) designs (and is the genius behind the lead photo). As if the title and the header pic weren’t enough of a tipoff, today we’re going to be looking at the Chicago White Sox as a team who may just be a candidate for some uniform improvement.

Before we go any further, though, I want to direct your attention to this fantastic article on the White Sox uniform history, authored by none other than UW Prexy, Paul Lukas. It’s an excellent primer for what follows, and the knowledge gleaned and shared by Mr. Lukas in that work will greatly assist in understanding why the Sox are a perfect candidate for a uniform change. So take a few minutes, read the article, then come back here and we’ll begin.

* * S O X * *

Great article by Paul, yes? Yes. So, lets begin with the Sox’ current uniforms. For their home uniform, the wear a pinstriped uniform in black, gray and white, with “Sox” in Olde English script on their left breast. As often as not, they will break out a black alternate top, also with a script “Sox”. For their road uniform, the team from the South Side wear a grey based uniform with black and white accents, and “Chicago” spelled out across the chest in script. Also, with the roads, they will break out the black alternate with alarming regularity. They rarely show sock, but when certain players do, they’re black. I’m sorry, what was the name of your team again? Clearly, this will not do.

Not that the current uniforms are all that bad; in fact, personally, I feel they’re one of the nicer uniform sets in the bigs, although the use of that softball top should be curtailed. Not eliminated however. As much as I despise alternates, this one does have a time and a place. We’ll explore that below. But, for a team who has changed uniforms with alarming regularity, and the current set has been in use since the beginning of the last decade, it’s time for a change. But to what? Let’s see what we can come up with.

* * C H I S O X * *

white sox monochrome 1976-2 - inlineIf you read Paul’s piece (and I know you did), you’ll have a pretty good idea of the uniform history of the Sox. Clearly, over the years, the boys from the Windy City have really been all over the map in terms of uniform design. Some of these have been very good, some have been pretty basic, while others have been fairly wild, and others have been, well, what the fuck? pretty unique. They have worn pinstripes, they’ve worn powder blues, they’ve donned predominantly blue, predominantly red, uniforms with a black dominate, and some combination of colors over the years. They’ve even worn all dark blue uniforms (which sometimes looked black), and even changed the sock stripe patterns over the years. Still not convinced this is a team that could use a uniform change? It’s only been close to 20 years since their last one — they’re due.

* * G O G O S O X * *

Finally, before we look at the proposed changes, we must also look at one phemenon (which the Sox of course invented), and in which they still partake with regularity — the wearing of throwback uniforms. Why do they wear throwbacks so often? Perhaps the Sox themselves are auditioning uniforms of yesteryear (yes, I know that’s a Negro League throwback, but it’s still a throwback) with an eye towards the future. Most recently, they’ve worn their pennant-winning 1959 duds, and, because they were chosen to play in this year’s Civil Rights Game in Cincinnati, they got to break out their 1964 powder blues. In the past they’ve worn throwbacks from other years of their myriad (and other Chicago teams) histories, including the first ever throwback in history. Yeah, this team is crying out for a new (or old) look.

* * W H I T E S O X * *

white sox gray with red and black piping 2 - insetSo, let’s have a look-see at some proposed uniform changes. There won’t be a lot of “ground rules” on this one, because some of the designs are very close to being throwbacks (but with a twist or two), while others are more “fauxbacks” — which we never clearly defined — but basically is a uniform which was never worn, but is evocative of a feel or style from years gone by. We’ve also come up with a few ‘sorta’ new uniform concepts, but we’ve avoided entirely new uniforms altogether. Perhaps that is for another column. Finally, since the team is called the “White Sox,” we’ve insisted upon actual socks being worn, that they be predominantly white, (either sanitary or stirrup) and sometimes, they be at least two different primary colors. OK then, we’ll begin at the beginning.

We start with the road uniform, and we basically begin with some tweaks of the current roadie. Let’s start by putting the team back in red with red socks and white sanis. Gotta have stripes on those bad boys. Lets flip the sock/stirrups next. Hmmm. OK, they do have a history of not wearing white sanis, but maybe that’s a bit much. Of course, one of the “future” uniforms I have proposed, is putting teams whose main color is not blue in “powder” uniforms. If we’re going to turn the Sox red, then maybe they should think about a powder red road uniform. Interesting.

The Sox wore the black prominently for a number of years, so how might they look if we replaced the white outline with black. That’s interesting as well. Although I personally detest two-tone hats, I will admit that on some teams, they do work. So, let’s add a black crown with red brim (and eliminate the stirrup in favor of a full sock). That’s kind of cool, no? Would it look better with a solid black cap? I don’t think so. We could probably safely change the belt to black though.

Keeping with the current thought line of tweaking through adding (or subtracting color) but keeping the current uniform in tact. Let’s work on the home uniform. Notice, we keep the black/red style, both for the cap and the outline, and we return the stirrups, with a slightly different pattern. That red belt has to go — for the home uniform anyway — so here she is with black belt. Nice. Very evocative of the 1959-era unis.

I’ll take a break now, and turn the floor over to Michael Emody who has some different ideas for the Sox.

* * M I K E S O X * *

blue monday headerWe begin with Mike’s “throwback” to the 1940’s era uniforms which were quite elegant in their own right. Two versions here, both with the “Big S” surrounding the “o” and “x” in both black and blue hues. The black features the “TV numbers” on the sleeve while the blue has the uniform number on the right breast. For the road uniform, Mike has come up with several. The first two feature the same 1940’s logo, one in gray and the second in a powder blue evocative of the shade they wore in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Both feature the uniform number on the right side, and the left sleeve contains the current “white sock on a diamond” which is found on today’s uniforms. The gray uniform is predominantly blue based, with blue striped stirrups, while the blue is rather 1970’s-esque, featuring red stirrups and a red sleeve patch. Taking both of those road uniform concepts a bit further, Mike created two similar unis, but flipped the sock and stirrup combinations, which are reminiscent of the 1969-1970 uniforms. Great concepts Mike.

Moving along, Mr. Emody has gone with additional ‘fauxbacks’ from a different period in White Sox uniform history. This home and away set, which he has nicknamed “Blue Monday,” which brings back visions of the late 1960-early 1970 uniforms. The home features blue pinstripes, blue belt, black shoes, and blue TV numerals and lettering in the Olde English style. The road is powder blue with blue TV numbers, and a white “Chicago” in script with the word “White Sox” on the tail (very reminiscent of the late 1960’s powder blue). The stirrups are blue with white and powder blue stripes (like the home), and black shoes. The pants and shoulders have a blue and white stripe. Finally, Mike created two additional road options, both of which are gray. The first takes elements from the 1950’s black and red color schemes, with “Chicago” in script with a tail featuring “White Sox” (a la the roadies from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s), including a more modern numeral underneath the script insignia and on the left side of the jersey. The second uniform set is similar, only white has been swapped for black, and a TV number has been added to the right sleeve. A black “white sox” patch is found on the left sleeve of both uniforms, and the stirrups are black with red and white stripes and white sanitaries.

Great, great designs, Mike. Interestingly enough, I first noticed Mike’s White Sox uniform tweaks when he posted this in the comments one late evening, shortly after I had posted my first uni tweak. Recognizing we were “on the same wavelength” with the Sox, we began this collaboration.

* * O L D S O X * *

white sock on red stirrups - inlineLets now take a look at some additional possibilities for new Sox uniforms. The boys from Chicago obviously like their throwbacks, as evidenced by the many number of throwback uniforms they’ve donned over the years. So what if we were to outfit them in a modern uniform with an old-style feel? Notice, no stirrups. But, nice stripage on the socks. We can change the sock colors or patterns. They wore that particular style (obviously not with a modern cut) back in the teens, and would continue to wear it (largely unchanged) until 1931. Not a fan of that style? No worries.

In 1932 through 1935, the Sox introduced this jersey design. So how about we modernize the uniform using that as a base? Well, we’d have this design. Again, no stirrups. And again, we can change the sock pattern.

Obviously, when fully half of your name is “Sox,” the socks are uber-important. The fashion trends of baseball have of course, largely relegated hosiery to being an anachronism. But, if any team should wear socks, and proudly, well — the White Sox should. Lets take a look at that powder read proposal again, this time, with an eye towards returning this beautiful sock styling from the 1970s. They wore that sock with both the red pinstripes and the powder blues of that era. But the powder blues, frankly, don’t cut it with a red base. So let’s put them in powder reds. Interesting. A slight twist on that pattern is to remove the circle and replace it with the current shoulder patch, like so. If we were to equip the Sox in real old school off-white stirrups, we’d get something like this.

Couple other “fauxback” possibilities exist. The White Sox only wore this particular uniform for one year, 1930. Don’t know why they shifted away from it, but it provides an interesting uniform possibility. Finally, in terms of really harking back, they might consider this possibility, which could be worn as an away uni. Crisp and clean, but yet still fairly modern despite it’s age.

Certainly, some food for thought. And now on to Robert Marshall.

* * B O B B Y S O X * *

white sox from marshall - inlineMoving on, I’m now joined by Uni Watch OCD DIYer, Robert Marshall, who is fixing to fix ALL the major league teams uniform stylings, but for today, he’s just going to share with his vision for the “perfect White Sox uniform.” When I asked him if he were excited to help fix the Sox, he was more excited than Wilt Chamberlain in a sorority house. Since “rpm” (and several new variations of his ‘handle’) loves him some Sox, he’s taken great care to craft what he feels would be the ultimate uniform for the South Siders. One home, one road, no alternates. However, he does provide several cap options and a special “Sunday” option for the sanitaries. With that, I give you Robert:

i make no apologies for being old school in my aesthetic, especially in baseball, a sport so bound by tradition. and i am not normally so dogmatic unless i hear lunacy when it comes to taste (to each his own), but here are the chicago white sox as they should be, case closed, no debate, might as well close the comments section. if you disagree, you are wrong, lay of the goof-balls. it keeps what works, and draws from the past to fix what does not. take the tv numbers off, fix the hat and ‘rups (not all teams need stripes, but these do), add a patch and this is fabulous. if there is curiosity on the road digs, it’s grey not blue for the cornmother’s sake.

Love that graphic, Robert. Looks like he keeps that face in a jar by the door (either that or it’s a ripoff of Charles M. Schultz). Pretty schweet huh? Kind of in line with what it seems a lot of Chicagoans are pining for, at least in terms of the home. The home uniform would be evocative of the “Go Go Sox” (the uniform was worn from 1951 through 1963), while the road would be of the 1969-1970 vintage. A black cap (with four variations) would be worn with both, the current shoulder patch, and white socks and sanitaries with thin black and red stripes. For Sundays, the sanitaries would switch to black.

I have to say, Robert, a fine, fine job.

* * B L A C K S O X * *

Winding down, one cannot but think of the White Sox without noting that for a fairly long period, they wore an all dark uniform. Although it was dark blue, it sometimes appeared almost black. Even when the Sox were going through their crazy fauxback/throwback phase from 1976 through 1981, they occasionally donned the all dark uniform. So — could they pull the look off in the 2000’s?

They wear that black alternate jersey enough — why not pair it with some black pants? Of course, there are stirrups on that mockup — it would be MANDATORY for any all dark uniform today to have full socks (or stirrups) of contrasting color. In order to pull it off, they’d need some form of white stirrup (the last of those two having gray sanitaries). Of course, so long as the socks were of contrasting color, you could skip the stirrups and just wear … gasp … white socks. How might that look on the field of play? Something like this, perhaps? Might actually be doable.

Of course, if they’re going to throw back to the all-dark look, they may as well kick it old school style with the lettering as well. Or, maybe not.

* * E N D S O X * *

Well — there you have it. A look at the Chicago White Sox with some suggestions for a new look for the team. You’ll notice we didn’t opt for anything completely new, since the Sox have so many wonderful (and not so wonderful) styles and colors from years past to choose from. They could take any number of them and update their current style basing that update off the unis from the past.

Remember Paul’s article? The one you all read before reading this piece? In case you’ve forgotten, Paul concluded the article by stating, “Finally, it’s worth noting that Uni Watch has always loved this logo. Too bad the only uniform element it ever appeared on was a BP jersey.” Well, just for Paul, here is a mockup of that uniform.

What do you folks think? Time to don some new Sox, or are we just writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear? Special thanks, of course, have to go to James Huening for his photographic research, and Michael Emody and Robert Marshall for their mockups. Great stuff guys.

~~~~~~~~~~

reminderBig Uni Watch Gathering Tonight in Cleveland!: Remember, Uni Watch readers will be enjoying an evening together, tonight at 7pm, at the Prosperity Social Club. Paul believes one of “our more prominent Pittsburgh-based readers may be in town for the proceedings, which should put the Rust Belt quotient into the red zone.” Should be a great time, wish I were there with you guys.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: Despite all the fun being in Cleveland this evening, the game being depicted on today’s scoreboard is obviously not being played in Cleveland. It’s also been featured on UW before, albeit in the comments a loooonnnng time ago. So, there’s one way of securing the answer. The other ways are up to you. It might take you less time to find the answer the “old fashioned way” than to search for the thread in which this appeared. So, with that said, Guess The Game. As per usual, we need date, location and final score, but don’t post that in the comments — just link to the game — and for good measure, let us know how you went about solving they mystery.

~~~~~~~~~~

benchies headerIt’s just kind of Chicago type of day, Cleveland festivities notwithstanding. So, even today’s Benchies carries that theme. It’s an oldie (Ricko informs me Lou Holtz was still coaching the Irish when he crafted this one), but it’s even more apropos today. So, enjoy a special Thursday Benchies.

~~~~~~~~~~

raffle ticketRaffle Results: Paul here. I hate it when broadcasters say things like, “If you’re Sabathia, you don’t want to walk him here” or “If you’re Bobby Cox, I think you have to bunt here.” If, if, if — dude, what if I’m not Bobby Cox? Such an annoying communication style.

However: If you’re Jason Whitt, you just won yourself a free T-shirt from SportsCrack — congrats.

~~~~~~~~~~

ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker: (Mostly compiled by Paul) … Ya know, I try to fight the good fight and all, but then there’s crap like this. Sigh. … Nice overview of Colt .45s/Astros uni history here. … Yesterday’s Ticker item about Alain Nana-Sinkam’s family reunion logos prompted Rich Frank to send in the logos he prepared for his own family reunion a few years back. … New road kit for Man U (with thanks to Christopher Burks). … Good NOB note in the second graf of this page (with thanks to Kenn Tomasch). … New football uniforms for Southern Miss (with thanks to Raymond Reeves). … New logo for the A-10 championship. … A Maple Leafs fan has started a petition to get the team to go back to its old-school logo. Further details here (with thanks to Dave Abbatoy). … Former intern Vince Grzegorek recently got a tour of the Pro Football Hall of Fame storage basement, resulting in an excellent article and photo gallery. … Sad news out of Ohio, where a company that makes chenille letters for varsity jackets is closing (as forwarded by Kevin Mueller). … Hmmm, does Adidas manufacture Korean police uniforms, or does it just look that way? (Good spot by Hadyn Green.) … Larry Wiederecht sent along some interesting scans from a magazine that was published in 1970 to mark the opening of Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh. First, here’s Richie Hebner without his vest jersey. Interesting to see how far the black area extended on his undershirt. And second, here’s an ad from Matthews International, the same company I reported on in last week’s ESPN column on HoF plaques. … Robert Marshall doesn’t just order those stirrups for the Uni Watch Stirrup Club — he also gets his softball team, the Unemployed Youppi, to wear them. Those pics are from a recent 5-3 win over the Newport 100s. Okay, it was actually a 36-6 loss, but at least the Youppi looked sharp. … Several readers noted that Joba Chamberlain didn’t have the Yankee Stadium cap patch again last night. … Also from last night’s Yanks game: Robbie Cano wears Phiten socks, although he usually keeps his pants hiked up so we can’t the the logo creep (with thanks to Brian Erni). … Bills safety Donte Whitner will wear a pink mouthguard this season in honor of his late mother (with thanks to Casey B.). … The Eagles have added a Jimmy Johnson memorial design to their practice field (as noted by Adam Brodsky). … Another sleeve-roller: Carmelo Martinez. “I remember that it drove me nuts every time he got into a game when I was a kid,” says James Huening. … The A’s will be wearing 1929 throwbacks on August 16th (with thanks to Brandon Davis) … Jim Wooley checks in with a mention of Rick Reilly’s most recent column on espn.com, “if you haven’t seen it yet. I totally agree with his comments regarding the putting on the t-shirts and hats after you’ve won the championship. I’ve never liked this.” … Everyone’s favorite sneakerhead, Matt Powers asks, “If you remember this, than (sic) check this out too.” Matt also has this juicy nugget concerning the GI Joe movie and Nike: “Check this out — much like what Nike did with the Transformer films, they are releasing kicks that coincide with the movie,” complete with similar toy packaging. … Northwest UW correspondent Jeremy Brahm noticed Tadahito Iguchi’s batting glove, it is designed to look like a noh theater mask. First on the left. Jeremy tried to find some up close photos, but now it is part of a giveaway in Chiba. … Finally, Pittsburgh’s own Doug Keklak, has forwarded this classic (which I believe was posted in the comments at one time, but is always worth another look-see): the Chicago Bulls logo-robot conspiracy.

 

227 comments to Darning The Sox In The Night (when there’s nobody there)

  • Adam | July 30, 2009 at 8:12 am |

    I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.

  • mmwatkin | July 30, 2009 at 8:24 am |

    [quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    Even as a Tigers fan, there are a few tweaks I would make to their uniform that bug me.

    And that Chicago Bulls upside down logo is hilarious, but not quite as blatant as the Texas Longhorns logo looking like a woman’s reproductive system

  • DenverGregg | July 30, 2009 at 8:34 am |

    Rob’s Sox uni is outstanding, but I’d make one tweak. The grey pants should keep the stripes from the current grey pants – that’s a great look!

    FYI on Saturday I wore a pair of Unemployed Youppi stirrups to the Colorado Rapids 4-0 win. In an unrelated development, I broke my foot on the way to the car after the game.

  • Cooper's Dad | July 30, 2009 at 8:36 am |

    [quote comment=”342949″][quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    Even as a Tigers fan, there are a few tweaks I would make to their uniform that bug me.

    And that Chicago Bulls upside down logo is hilarious, but not quite as blatant as the Texas Longhorns logo looking like a woman’s reproductive system[/quote]
    I think the concept is a fun idea — I would like to see what people would come up with for my Cardinals — but I get where Adam is coming from. ESPECIALLY with him being a ChiSox fan. The Pale Hose FINALLY get some regularity, let them rest on their laurels for once

  • Ben from Flushing | July 30, 2009 at 8:49 am |

    Guess the Game:

    I’m 99% sure it’s this game, though the lineup display is puzzling (no DH?)

    How I got there: I saw the unis, figured it was early 80’s, then looked at who batted third for Chi, went to his first year, found opponent, matched out of town scoreboard.

  • Hibbsy | July 30, 2009 at 8:51 am |

    I can only think of a handful of teams (mlb, nhl, nba, nfl) that don’t need some form of change.

    I like the Sox in black and red. I was happy to see the red show up on some of the caps.

    I also feel that the white sanis represent white socks.

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 8:56 am |

    I’m not from Chicago and have a short attention span, but I’ll throw in my two cents worth with some random comments. (As an aside, the first game I attended was the Go-Go Sox vs. the pre-expansion Senators at Griffith Stadium; in 1960 I think it was: but I digress).

    My favorite hat for them has always been the S O X horizontal without the leggos guy. I’ve never been a fan of the white panel on the front of a hat, so put it on a solid color hat-maybe white with red seams and bill. (gray hat w/red letters?)
    One of my favorite color combos on a uniform is gray, scarlet and white with some black accents where necessary. (Like Ohio State-even liked the red shoes back in the day). So any way that can be worked into the uni I’d probably agree with.

    The powder reds:can’t handle it-the graphic depictions look like some sort of breast cancer awareness thing (a program I wholeheartedly support, btw).

    Trying to get into the spirit of today’s post but I’m starting to wander.
    Going to go revisit.

    I hope this review proved helpful.

  • ScottyM | July 30, 2009 at 9:01 am |

    Actually, I think the White Sox were onto something ahead of their time back in 76-81. Those jerseys had an early century flair that nobody seems to appreciate … with some tweaks they would be stellar today.

    Similarly, the white/red, white/blue combos from the 60s are strong ONLY if the text stays white. This is the key to the Sox brand. Keep WHITE as the primary color in all adaptations … not red, not blue, not red/blue, not red/black … WHITE.

    White sanis.
    White lettering.
    White undershirts.
    White hat.

    From that base, move forward with a dark navy bluish black on the hat bill, an outline around the letters/numbers, stripes on the sanis/socks, that kind of thing. Or, replace the blue/black with red if you choose, but keep the focus on white.

  • Mark in Shiga | July 30, 2009 at 9:07 am |

    I really dig those all-navy White Sox uniforms from the 1970s (though I’d take the NOB off if I were in charge).

    Being a Cubs fan, I’d put the Cubs in navy again too: how about these 1910s classics? Or even this from 1913? (though I prefer the bear-in-C logo)

    Those Chicago American Giants navy-with-white-pinstripes uniforms would look great on the Cubs too. Maybe change “CHICAGO” to a more modern font, and the numbers on the back to the Cubs’ actual font, and put a bear-related patch somewhere.

  • Mark M | July 30, 2009 at 9:12 am |

    Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap. The same fate will befall the NBA. This is further away, but I bet it happens.

    There is no earthly excuse for the NFL or MLB to give in though. These leagues can simply adopt rules forbidding these ads without ill effect. Player salaries (and owner profits) will be lower than they would be with the ads, but the players have nowhere else to go. (I can’t see Japan ever being a viable option for baseball players in their prime.)

    Of course this will require some self-discipline on the part of the owners. On second thought look for “Citi” across the Mets uni about a week after the NHL adopts ads.

  • Eriq Jaffe | July 30, 2009 at 9:15 am |

    Don’t forget this throwback that the Sox wore for Sunday home games in 2001. My second-favorite after the ’59 set they wore in 2005 (the ones they wore this year looked cheap, IMHO).

  • Gemnr | July 30, 2009 at 9:16 am |

    One inaccuracy in the entry about the Astros/.45 uniform history. The Astros’ Tequila Sunrise uniform never featured hot pink. It was three different shades of orange and one shade of yellow.

  • TMD | July 30, 2009 at 9:17 am |

    Totally off topic, but I found this on the New Orleans Saints web site. It’s a history of pictorial uniform history.

    http://www.neworlean...

  • Kevin G. | July 30, 2009 at 9:18 am |

    [quote comment=”342955″]Actually, I think the White Sox were onto something ahead of their time back in 76-81. Those jerseys had an early century flair that nobody seems to appreciate … with some tweaks they would be stellar today.

    Similarly, the white/red, white/blue combos from the 60s are strong ONLY if the text stays white. This is the key to the Sox brand. Keep WHITE as the primary color in all adaptations … not red, not blue, not red/blue, not red/black … WHITE.

    White sanis.
    White lettering.
    White undershirts.
    White hat.

    From that base, move forward with a dark navy bluish black on the hat bill, an outline around the letters/numbers, stripes on the sanis/socks, that kind of thing. Or, replace the blue/black with red if you choose, but keep the focus on white.[/quote]
    I totally agree with the 1976-1981 uniforms being ahead of their time. They were throwbacks 15 years before throwbacks started making regular appearances around the Majors. They were based on uniforms from the early part of the century that had collars, and the font was awesome. Being a White Sox fan, the one thing I wish they would change on today’s uniforms is the font. The should go back to that style from 1976-1981. Also they should lose the stripes on the road unis and just use black piping instead.

  • denis | July 30, 2009 at 9:26 am |

    From this link:
    http://www.clevescen...

    In the bottom right of the picture with all of the helmets, you can see the Original Jax Jags car helemt

  • SteveSmith | July 30, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    Finally, Adam Everett has gotten his jersey fixed. As some of you may know, he has been missing the blue dot on the i on his road jersey. But, last night it was fixed.

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 9:42 am |

    Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap. The same fate will befall the NBA. This is further away, but I bet it happens.

    You may be correct about ads on unis, but as far as the 2 players who left the Caps for the KHL, I doubt they’ll miss them. If the other players going to Russia are also basically on the downside of their careers like these (Fedorov, Kozlov) it wouldn’t seem to impact the NHL all that much.

  • Not Impressed | July 30, 2009 at 9:42 am |

    These Sox proposals are all beyond stupid. They all look like tinkering for the sake of tinkering. As if most players will voluntarily hike their pant bottoms up anymore, either. FAIL.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 9:53 am |

    My favorite White Sox unis (and my years cover the “ever-changing” era) were, in no particular order (and I don’t say the “best”, because I’m not in position to say, but I CAN pick my personal favorites, the ones that make me instantly think “White Sox”)…

    a) ’59 World Series with the white stirrups.
    (Because of the actual white socks).
    b) Those first-ever pin striped throwbacks.
    (Again, all white socks, and I liked the idea of what the roads would have been…gray with pins, including the cap crown (sorry, Phil, in that instance it works because of its history).
    c) The later years of the collared all-navy (when they’d added the alternate white pants) but only with pants wore high-cuffed.(As mentioned, ahead of their time as throwbacks and the offbeat collar, while admittedly just decoration, gave the whole set a uniqueness unlike much before and certainly since…plus, I love the antique font).

    As to the current unis, I still contend that swapping the silver for red would be a big improvement. The basic design is beautifully traditional but sorta smacks of the silver-and-black LA Kings era, making it seem dated…and dull. Yes, that color combo still works for the Raiders, but that’s football, a game far more like combat than baseball. Baseball to me seems more about warm summer days and nights and the exuberance of being outdoors. Color suggests and inspires that. Last Sunday night’s White Sox vs. Tigers game in Detroit was something we could have watched in black and white, it was so colorless. I kept thinking, man, a little red on those White Sox unis would sure make this more interesting.

    —Ricko

  • SpfldNate | July 30, 2009 at 10:19 am |

    Add Rajai Davis of the A’s to Stirrup Nation: this was from last night’s game against the Red Sox…

    http://espn.go.com/m...

    Note even the A’s logo on the side. Sweet

  • Robert Eden (formerly Robert in Dallas) | July 30, 2009 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”342958″]Don’t forget this throwback that the Sox wore for Sunday home games in 2001. My second-favorite after the ’59 set they wore in 2005 (the ones they wore this year looked cheap, IMHO).[/quote]

    Great call on both. The first one that you have listed is among my list of all-time greats.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 10:21 am |

    [quote comment=”342955″]Actually, I think the White Sox were onto something ahead of their time back in 76-81. Those jerseys had an early century flair that nobody seems to appreciate … with some tweaks they would be stellar today.

    Similarly, the white/red, white/blue combos from the 60s are strong ONLY if the text stays white. This is the key to the Sox brand. Keep WHITE as the primary color in all adaptations … not red, not blue, not red/blue, not red/black … WHITE.

    White sanis.
    White lettering.
    White undershirts.
    White hat.

    From that base, move forward with a dark navy bluish black on the hat bill, an outline around the letters/numbers, stripes on the sanis/socks, that kind of thing. Or, replace the blue/black with red if you choose, but keep the focus on white.[/quote]

    There ya go. I agree. Keep white as the central element in the design, and begin from there. Currently, they apparently begin with black and work out outward…which on the surface doesn’t seem to make much sense. Not for a team called the White Sox, anyway.

    Or, do as the Red Sox did for awhile, work primarily with a different color (navy, in their case) and ONLY the socks were primarily red, thus focussing on them…and the team name.

    Would be interesting to see the current White Sox uni with plain all white stirrupless socks including the diamond sock logo on the side as in the red ’71 set.

    Build around black everywhere BUT the socks. Make the socks stand out that way.

    (didn’t pick a specific uni here, just showing that plain white socks have been used in something of the “modern” era)
    http://exhibits.base...

    —Ricko

  • Richard | July 30, 2009 at 10:23 am |

    Most of the designs do smack of tinkering for its own sake (the whole point of the post really). But Rob’s work is spot on. The one thing that would make them ideal would be to carry over the red trim of the jersey “Sox” to the hat. With red squatchee and eyelets- perfect.

    The other thing the concepts highlight- stripes and 9″ stirrups don’t work, but look great on 4″ stirrups. Also- designing for stirrups but not solid socks is spitting in the wind. A design has to work both ways.

  • Geeman | July 30, 2009 at 10:25 am |

    The White Sox re-design is change for change’s sake, fixing a problem that does not exist. The uniform’s only flaw is that players don’t show the white hose, which can be easily remedied (as can the Red Sox players showing red socks).

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 10:27 am |

    Ben from Flushing: ignore every number in your link except “Attendance”. Then look at the picture again.

    Actually, I think we’ve had this “guess the game from the scoreboard” once before. It might not have been an official contest, but IIRC we’ve looked at a picture a lot like that one.

  • Big Al | July 30, 2009 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”342968″]Add Rajai Davis of the A’s to Stirrup Nation: this was from last night’s game against the Red Sox…

    http://espn.go.com/m...

    Note even the A’s logo on the side. Sweet[/quote]
    Previously addressed –>
    http://www.uniwatchb...

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 10:35 am |

    On the main White Sox uniform suggestions column; been there, done that. Nice ideas on the stirrups, but that’s theory: can you make the players translate that theory into practice? You can no more do that with your proposals than you can do that with today’s uniform.

    Do the Sox “utilize” a lot of throwbacks? Maybe. But AFAIK they’re still the undisputed leaders in “Number of throwbacks available”. :-)

    Personally, I like the b/w color scheme, and if anything I’d dump silver altogether and just say black/white (and grey for the road). I’d like to figure out a way to get rid of the home pins too. I don’t want to completely rip off the Cards/Dodgers/Tigers home look, but something in that vein.

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 10:38 am |

    The scoreboard should be no mystery to White Sox fans of a certain age. An iconic shot from an iconic game …

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 10:40 am |

    Let’s try the scoreboard game link again …

    http://www.baseball-...

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 10:41 am |

    [quote comment=”342970″]

    Or, do as the Red Sox did for awhile, work primarily with a different color (navy, in their case) and ONLY the socks were primarily red, thus focussing on them…and the team name.

    Would be interesting to see the current White Sox uni with plain all white stirrupless socks including the diamond sock logo on the side as in the red ’71 set.
    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, I used to think along those lines…”how can we get the Sox to have “white socks”? I thought about stirrups with piping around the arch part as well as the traditional horizontal stripes; I never considered the “no stirrups at all” look that Veeck brought in but that works also.

    I guess that the problem that remains is that IF you provide white trousers for the home uniform, the white socks just disappear for the most part.

    Personally, I have no problem with today’s white jerseys with black numerals/lettering.

  • M.Princip | July 30, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”342960″]Totally off topic, but I found this on the New Orleans Saints web site. It’s a history of pictorial uniform history.

    http://www.neworlean...

    Wow! What a half assed effort the Saints did with that. Really, how much more of an effort would it have taken to get better resolution pics than that crappy set?

  • Craig | July 30, 2009 at 10:46 am |

    [quote comment=”342954″]
    The powder reds:can’t handle it-the graphic depictions look like some sort of breast cancer awareness thing (a program I wholeheartedly support, btw).[/quote]

    Yeah, there’s a reason that no one ever says “powder red.” It’s because those uniforms are pink.

  • Ben from Flushing | July 30, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    Ohhh so I guess I missed it by one day! (That explains the same lineup and out of town scoreboard)

    2 questions remain: 1) Why the scoreboard lineup seems to omit DH? 2) Why is this an iconic White Sox game?

  • Nick | July 30, 2009 at 10:54 am |

    The Cincinnati Bengals have signed a sign practice jersey deal with SpongeTech Delivery Systems according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

    The Bengals are not sponge-worthy.

    Ohio Cards Blog

  • chance michaels | July 30, 2009 at 10:55 am |

    [quote comment=”342979″][quote comment=”342960″]Totally off topic, but I found this on the New Orleans Saints web site. It’s a history of pictorial uniform history.

    http://www.neworlean...

    Wow! What a half assed effort the Saints did with that. Really, how much more of an effort would it have taken to get better resolution pics than that crappy set?[/quote]
    Yeah, they didn’t even bother to scan the plaque on their own. Just took one and blew up certain sections in Photoshop not caring how they looked.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 10:55 am |

    [quote comment=”342981″]2 questions remain: 1) Why the scoreboard lineup seems to omit DH? 2) Why is this an iconic White Sox game?[/quote]

    1)They use “B” for Batter.

    2)Can’t answer that yet without violating Phil’s rules IMHO.

  • Ferdinand Cesarano | July 30, 2009 at 11:00 am |

    It would be a shame for the White Sox to change. They have had 20 years of stability — and this is a good thing. It is cool that players who left some time ago actually wore the current uniform.

    http://images.market...

    Anyway, I thought that the late-70s unis were beautiful — except that I the collar should have gone all the way around. Those unis looked best when either the jersey or the pants was white.

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    http://www.chicagofa...

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 11:02 am |

    [quote comment=”342978″][quote comment=”342970″]

    Or, do as the Red Sox did for awhile, work primarily with a different color (navy, in their case) and ONLY the socks were primarily red, thus focussing on them…and the team name.

    Would be interesting to see the current White Sox uni with plain all white stirrupless socks including the diamond sock logo on the side as in the red ’71 set.
    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, I used to think along those lines…”how can we get the Sox to have “white socks”? I thought about stirrups with piping around the arch part as well as the traditional horizontal stripes; I never considered the “no stirrups at all” look that Veeck brought in but that works also.

    I guess that the problem that remains is that IF you provide white trousers for the home uniform, the white socks just disappear for the most part.

    Personally, I have no problem with today’s white jerseys with black numerals/lettering.[/quote]

    But if they disappear then isn’t that just reinforcing that you wear white socks? Doesn’t the obvious absence of a colored sock stand out? There’s a concept in design: “The void defines the space”. That would apply here, I think, more than a little.

    Upon first look at the WS gear in ’59, wouldn’t one of the initial reactions for anyone with even a nodding familiarity with baseball unis be to notice the whiteness between the bloused pants and the shoe tops as being atypical?

    If so, the designer who wanted the socks/team nickname to stand out and be reinforced accomplished the goal.

    —Ricko

  • mike 2 | July 30, 2009 at 11:06 am |

    Scoreboard:

    http://www.baseball-...

    Technique: I looked here

    http://www.uniwatchb...

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 11:08 am |

    Full disclosure: I’m a huge White Sox fan (and also a 6th grade classmate of James Huening). I have always liked the current uniforms, including the blacks, which are perfect for the personality of the team and its fans.

    Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the current unis unveiling, and they don’t feel stale to me at all. Changing a uniform for the sake of change is usually a bad idea, and after 90 years of changing uniforms every other day, it’s nice to have a consistent look. And since these unis were worn in 2005, I doubt there’s significant sentiment to change them.

    That said, if I were to tweak the current design, my changes would be similar to Robert’s – use the 1959 color scheme and white stirrups. Replace the current script Chicago on the roads with that used from ’67 – ’75 as Robert suggests, although I might prefer it rendered in black with a red border. Also, rather than keep the current diamond sock patch, I’d prefer an updated treatment of the flying sock logo.

    http://www.chriscrea...

    I also agree with several commenters that the late 70s collared look was in many ways ahead of its time (although I loathed the blue pants and still do), and that the font and arched CHICAGO could form the basis of a modern design.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”342986″]But if they disappear then isn’t that just reinforcing that you wear white socks? Doesn’t the obvious absence of a colored sock stand out? There’s a concept in design: “The void defines the space”. That would apply here, I think, more than a little.

    Upon first look at the WS gear in ’59, wouldn’t one of the initial reactions for anyone with even a nodding familiarity with baseball unis be to notice the whiteness between the bloused pants and the shoe tops as being atypical?

    If so, the designer who wanted the socks/team nickname to stand out and be reinforced accomplished the goal.[/quote]
    1st paragraph: so there’s very little difference between today’s pajama look and the proposed look, correct?

    Because as you mention in the second paragraph, the ’59 Sox look is completed with the bloused trousers. Blousing of trousers just isn’t done today.

    I’m all for getting the Sox some white socks. I can’t figure out a way to get this done in practice; about the closest I can get is to keep the pinstripes and use that as a contrast to create the demarcation between trousers and socks. Not my favorite look, but I’m open to suggestions.

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”342988″]Full disclosure: I’m a huge White Sox fan (and also a 6th grade classmate of James Huening).[/quote]
    Full disclosure? Hardly, sir.

    You left out 5th and 7th grade.

  • JoeS | July 30, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    Can someone tell me a good place to get some football referee stirrups? I googled and found some, but I thought someone here might have a suggestion of a good place to get some. Thanks.

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”342981″]Ohhh so I guess I missed it by one day! (That explains the same lineup and out of town scoreboard)

    2 questions remain: 1) Why the scoreboard lineup seems to omit DH? 2) Why is this an iconic White Sox game?[/quote]

    Thanks for pointing out something I completely forgot about! If you look at the pic, the position for the cleanup hitter for the Sox is listed as ‘B’, as in batter. The scoreboard dated to the 60s, predating the DH rule, and apparently the electronics couldn’t display ‘DH’ in the position column.

    RE why the game is iconic, I better not break the rules by discussing it …

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment=”342991″][quote comment=”342988″]Full disclosure: I’m a huge White Sox fan (and also a 6th grade classmate of James Huening).[/quote]
    Full disclosure? Hardly, sir.

    You left out 5th and 7th grade.[/quote]

    Don’t forget 8th grade when we kept wearing the same hooded Ocean Pacific shirt on the same day …

  • KT | July 30, 2009 at 11:20 am |

    From the Colt .45s/Astros thing:

    Since the Colt .45s couldn’t do much about their clothes, they found other ways to try to beat the heat. On a broiling July afternoon in 1962, pitcher Bob Bruce took off his shoes between innings and soaked his feet in an ice bucket. “Bob Gibson and I did not waste a pitch the whole game. The game was over in like one hour and 20 minutes,” said Bruce.

    2:14, actually, so sayeth the boxscore, but 2:14 would be nice to have today.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”342994″]we kept wearing the same hooded Ocean Pacific shirt on the same day …[/quote]Waaaaay TMI guys…

    :-)

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 11:22 am |

    [quote comment=”342951″][quote comment=”342949″][quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    Even as a Tigers fan, there are a few tweaks I would make to their uniform that bug me.

    And that Chicago Bulls upside down logo is hilarious, but not quite as blatant as the Texas Longhorns logo looking like a woman’s reproductive system[/quote]
    I think the concept is a fun idea — I would like to see what people would come up with for my Cardinals — but I get where Adam is coming from. ESPECIALLY with him being a ChiSox fan. The Pale Hose FINALLY get some regularity, let them rest on their laurels for once[/quote]

    I really like all the concepts, but for the sake of compromise I would be willing to let them rest on their laurels with two exceptions: 1) WEAR WHITE SOCKS. Or change your name. 2) Change the gray trim to red. You have a good design, it’s the color scheme that bores me. Adding red trim could help you identify with the Bulls and Blackhawks as well.

  • Beardface | July 30, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”342979″][quote comment=”342960″]Totally off topic, but I found this on the New Orleans Saints web site. It’s a history of pictorial uniform history.

    http://www.neworlean...

    Wow! What a half assed effort the Saints did with that. Really, how much more of an effort would it have taken to get better resolution pics than that crappy set?[/quote]
    Well… I mean it is New Orleans… Can’t expect them to do anything without someone from the outside coming in and holding their hands through the entire process.

    To be fair, the Saints probably used the money that was supposed to go to their web design staff ans built a Casino room within the Superdome.

  • Todd | July 30, 2009 at 11:26 am |

    When I was a kid I had a fitted ChiSox hat that I wore just about everywhere up until my aunt asked me why I was wearing a hat that had “Sex” written across it. I can never look at their logo now without thinking that. If made a change to their uniforms, that is the one thing I would definitely change.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 11:30 am |

    [quote comment=”342997″]Adding red trim could help you identify with the Bulls and Blackhawks as well.[/quote]

    Speaking of the NHL, and the Bulls’ owner: has Teebz commented today on the fact that hockey in Phoenix has been saved?

    (running away, ducking ….) :-))

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 11:30 am |

    [quote comment=”342994″][quote comment=”342991″][quote comment=”342988″]Full disclosure: I’m a huge White Sox fan (and also a 6th grade classmate of James Huening).[/quote]
    Full disclosure? Hardly, sir.

    You left out 5th and 7th grade.[/quote]

    Don’t forget 8th grade when we kept wearing the same hooded Ocean Pacific shirt on the same day …[/quote]
    And somehow we managed to have zero classes together in high school.

    (OK, folks. That’s the last one. I PROMISE.)

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 11:31 am |

    [quote comment=”342999″]When I was a kid I had a fitted ChiSox hat that I wore just about everywhere up until my aunt asked me why I was wearing a hat that had “Sex” written across it. I can never look at their logo now without thinking that. If made a change to their uniforms, that is the one thing I would definitely change.[/quote]

    you want to change the hat to say “sex”?

  • Big Al | July 30, 2009 at 11:33 am |

    [quote comment=”342998″]Well… I mean it is New Orleans… Can’t expect them to do anything without someone from the outside coming in and holding their hands through the entire process.[/quote]
    :: closing my office door in hopes no one comes by to ask what I’m laughing at ::

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 11:33 am |

    One more thing, somewhat related to the Bulls and their logo upside down: does anyone else remember the Kentucky Wildcats logo controversy of about 5-7 years ago?

  • mtjaws | July 30, 2009 at 11:35 am |

    If the White Sox had Chicago all to themselves, a uni with red and blue would be perfectly fine. But since the Cubs have those colors, I think the Sox need to keep either the current black scheme, or that nice looking black and red. Interesting ideas on display though.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 11:38 am |

    [quote comment=”342990″][quote comment=”342986″]But if they disappear then isn’t that just reinforcing that you wear white socks? Doesn’t the obvious absence of a colored sock stand out? There’s a concept in design: “The void defines the space”. That would apply here, I think, more than a little.

    Upon first look at the WS gear in ’59, wouldn’t one of the initial reactions for anyone with even a nodding familiarity with baseball unis be to notice the whiteness between the bloused pants and the shoe tops as being atypical?

    If so, the designer who wanted the socks/team nickname to stand out and be reinforced accomplished the goal.[/quote]
    1st paragraph: so there’s very little difference between today’s pajama look and the proposed look, correct?

    Because as you mention in the second paragraph, the ’59 Sox look is completed with the bloused trousers. Blousing of trousers just isn’t done today.

    I’m all for getting the Sox some white socks. I can’t figure out a way to get this done in practice; about the closest I can get is to keep the pinstripes and use that as a contrast to create the demarcation between trousers and socks. Not my favorite look, but I’m open to suggestions.[/quote]

    Yes, there would be very little difference. At least with PJ bottoms there’s some flirting consistency with the design…all players would be light-colored (white or gray) all the way to the shoe tops. Those black socks on players who do wear shorter pants wouldn’t look so markedly different….and for pete’s sake wouldn’t be black, which flies in the face of the team name.

    And that’s what I was speaking of: How it would look on the players who DO wear their pants shorter (Thome and others). I used “bloused” in ref. to ’59 only as a locator for a visual reference point, not so much as a style of dress. Either way, the points about the “void defining the space”, and the white space between pants and cleats being atypical are still valid…just wouldn’t be team-wide because of the PJs.

    We’re on the same page, I guess. I was thinking “take what you can” by issuing white socks to get away from some players’ black ones standing out as so jarringly different from their teammates and–given that opportunity—say, “See? We ARE the WHITE Sox.”

    —Ricko

  • Cooper's Dad | July 30, 2009 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”343004″]One more thing, somewhat related to the Bulls and their logo upside down: does anyone else remember the Kentucky Wildcats logo controversy of about 5-7 years ago?[/quote]
    I don’t recall….can you provide some details?

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 11:48 am |

    [quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    the cubs yanks and dodgers have had over recent history pretty stable uniforms, with the exception of the last 15 or so years the sox were all over the map, thats the difference.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”342980″][quote comment=”342954″]
    The powder reds:can’t handle it-the graphic depictions look like some sort of breast cancer awareness thing (a program I wholeheartedly support, btw).[/quote]

    Yeah, there’s a reason that no one ever says “powder red.” It’s because those uniforms are pink.[/quote]

    I’ll take the hit for that one. I had suggested the term while thinking back to a ’70s era t-shirt my brother had. It had little flecks of red and white which, when seen from a distance, looked like powder red. I don’t think you can really duplicate the look on the computer, but it was a good effort. Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 11:51 am |

    [quote comment=”343007″]
    I don’t recall….can you provide some details?[/quote]
    I can’t find the logo at this time, but people said that if you looked at the Wildcat’s tongue in just the right way you’d see a part of the male anatomy.

    And apparently it was a male who was veeerrry happy to see you.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”343008″]
    the cubs yanks and dodgers have had over recent history pretty stable uniforms, with the exception of the last 15 or so years the sox were all over the map, thats the difference.[/quote]And the Sox won’t get to that Cubs/Yanks/Tigers/Cards “stability” by changing their present uniform.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    Just an idea: since the White Sox are the runaway leaders in uni changes, how about devoting an entire season to this? For each series, home and road, wear a different throwback. Auction them off at the end of the series and donate the proceeds. Nice tax write-off, guaranteed merchandise sales, a little something for everybody.

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    [quote comment=”343009″][quote comment=”342980″][quote comment=”342954″]
    The powder reds:can’t handle it-the graphic depictions look like some sort of breast cancer awareness thing (a program I wholeheartedly support, btw).[/quote]

    Yeah, there’s a reason that no one ever says “powder red.” It’s because those uniforms are pink.[/quote]

    I’ll take the hit for that one. I had suggested the term while thinking back to a ’70s era t-shirt my brother had. It had little flecks of red and white which, when seen from a distance, looked like powder red. I don’t think you can really duplicate the look on the computer, but it was a good effort. Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.[/quote]
    Dunno if it’s considered the “correct” term, but it’s often called heather red, no?

  • Ferdinand Cesarano | July 30, 2009 at 11:58 am |

    [quote comment=”343008″][quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    the cubs yanks and dodgers have had over recent history pretty stable uniforms, with the exception of the last 15 or so years the sox were all over the map, thats the difference.[/quote]

    Yes, the Sox used to be all over the map — but then they got better. They have since joined the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Cardinals, and Tigers of the world. The Sox’ identity now involves the dignified look, not the ever-changing parade of looks that defined them in past eras.

    See the Fisk photo above; the fact that photos like that from almost 20 years ago show the current set is a good thing. This uniform’s longevity is an asset, not a liability.

  • Berto | July 30, 2009 at 11:59 am |

    [quote comment=”342965″]These Sox proposals are all beyond stupid. They all look like tinkering for the sake of tinkering. As if most players will voluntarily hike their pant bottoms up anymore, either. FAIL.[/quote]

    Troll

  • Scott Zielan | July 30, 2009 at 11:59 am |

    I’m not a Sox fan, but I think they have one of the best unis in baseball. Don’t change a thing.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”343014″][quote comment=”343008″][quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    the cubs yanks and dodgers have had over recent history pretty stable uniforms, with the exception of the last 15 or so years the sox were all over the map, thats the difference.[/quote]

    Yes, the Sox used to be all over the map — but then they got better. They have since joined the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Cardinals, and Tigers of the world. The Sox’ identity now involves the dignified look, not the ever-changing parade of looks that defined them in past eras.

    See the Fisk photo above; the fact that photos like that from almost 20 years ago show the current set is a good thing. This uniform’s longevity is an asset, not a liability.[/quote]

    And the Twins. Went to current look in ’87, won a couple W-S.

    Not being a Twins booster, just noting they often get left off such lists.

  • flip | July 30, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    I realize the Sox have had a varied uniform history, running from outstanding to train wrecks. I also realize this was a fun exercise. Still, the fundamental test remains: Is it good or is it stupid.

    The powder red is an unqualified stupid idea. May it never again be surface.

    The ChiSox are my favorite Chicago franchise. The stadium’s better, Harry Carey was a better fit at old Comiskey, etc. None of their uniforms without the Old English “Sox” ever seemed right. It has to stay on the home unis.

    The team’s “Good guys wear black” marketing campaign of a few years ago has stuck, so I’d keep ’em in black and white. Pins at home, gray on the road. I always liked the “White Sox” in the flourish beneath the script “Chicago,” but the current version is pretty clean. I can go with either.

    I’m glad they lost the vests, and the alts should be just that, alts. Used only rarely. (I like the Royals rule: Alts for games that start before 2 p.m., with powder blue on Sundays, I think.

    The socks, though, offer an opportunity to be

    a) True to their namesake; and
    b) An opportunity to be unique.

    I like the white football-style stockings. It is not without precedent and adding them with a new stripe pattern each year, like they did in the Veeck era would be outstanding.

    Those changes would qualify as good.

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”343017″][quote comment=”343014″][quote comment=”343008″][quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    the cubs yanks and dodgers have had over recent history pretty stable uniforms, with the exception of the last 15 or so years the sox were all over the map, thats the difference.[/quote]

    Yes, the Sox used to be all over the map — but then they got better. They have since joined the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Cardinals, and Tigers of the world. The Sox’ identity now involves the dignified look, not the ever-changing parade of looks that defined them in past eras.

    See the Fisk photo above; the fact that photos like that from almost 20 years ago show the current set is a good thing. This uniform’s longevity is an asset, not a liability.[/quote]

    And the Twins. Went to current look in ’87, won a couple W-S.

    Not being a Twins booster, just noting they often get left off such lists.[/quote]
    I don’t know if the Cubs are really a team that should be pointed out as a paragon of consistency.

    This is the 38th MLB season I’ve been on this planet and believe it or not, the Cubs have had more uniform changes than the White Sox during that time. It’s just that their changes have been more subtle. (Colors have stayed the same, primary logo has been tweaked only slightly.)

    So the basic look of their home uniform has been fairly consistent but the road unis have kinda had that “all over the map” quality to them.

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”342957″]Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap.[/quote]

    What the hell?

    How does putting ads on NHL jerseys prevent players from going to the KHL? The NHL operates within a salary cap. It doesn’t matter how much money you have rolling in – you still have to play within the salary cap. The advertising money is just an additional revenue source for the team. It will not keep players in the NHL no matter how much money the team makes off jersey advertising.

    The league really didn’t miss players like Radulov, Jagr, and Yashin last year. In fact, I’d argue it was much better WITHOUT them than with them.

    If the NHL decided to advertise on jerseys, I’ll burn down the NHL Offices personally. Mark my words.

    [quote comment=”343000″][/quote]
    Speaking of the NHL, and the Bulls’ owner: has Teebz commented today on the fact that hockey in Phoenix has been saved?[/quote]

    No, but I’m glad the NHL has finally told Jim Balsillie that they don’t trust him. Personally, I think Reinsdorf’s request for concessions from Glendale are a little out there, but the guy isn’t dumb. He runs two pretty successful franchises as it is.

  • Jim Bullard | July 30, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    I love Phil’s columns more and more each time he posts. Great idea for tweeking/overhauling unis, I wish I knew how to use photoshop to get involved.

    Thoughts on the White Sox ideas:

    – the “powder red” unis were pretty interesting, I would like to see that done on a real jersey…my only concern is will it look pink?

    – on the look Phil came up with, I too would never wear a two-tone hat, but in this case, I like it. My only disagreement is I actually liked the red belt with the home whites better than the black belt.

    – I very much liked the third link “patterns” under Old Sox, that was my favorite one, the striped sox are great.

    – I also think the idea of going all dark is interesting, though I’m not sure how much I would like solid black unis in baseball. I think mixing up the Negro League-style dark blue with white pinstripes, with the old style Chicago lettering and current sox-in-diamond sleeve patch would be killer.

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”343019″][quote comment=”343017″][quote comment=”343014″][quote comment=”343008″][quote comment=”342948″]I guess I can understand how somebody who doesn’t watch the team every day would want a new uniform because “it’s been time”, but as a White Sox fan, I think it’s a horrible idea. Nobody would say the Yankees or Tigers or Cubs or Dodgers or Red Sox should get a new uniform because “it’s time”. For pretty much the first time in franchise history they’ve stuck with one design for almost 20 years now, and it’s a good design, and they’ve had a lot of success in it (at least by White Sox standards), and I really hope they never ever change it.[/quote]

    the cubs yanks and dodgers have had over recent history pretty stable uniforms, with the exception of the last 15 or so years the sox were all over the map, thats the difference.[/quote]

    Yes, the Sox used to be all over the map — but then they got better. They have since joined the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Cardinals, and Tigers of the world. The Sox’ identity now involves the dignified look, not the ever-changing parade of looks that defined them in past eras.

    See the Fisk photo above; the fact that photos like that from almost 20 years ago show the current set is a good thing. This uniform’s longevity is an asset, not a liability.[/quote]

    And the Twins. Went to current look in ’87, won a couple W-S.

    Not being a Twins booster, just noting they often get left off such lists.[/quote]
    I don’t know if the Cubs are really a team that should be pointed out as a paragon of consistency.

    This is the 38th MLB season I’ve been on this planet and believe it or not, the Cubs have had more uniform changes than the White Sox during that time. It’s just that their changes have been more subtle. (Colors have stayed the same, primary logo has been tweaked only slightly.)

    So the basic look of their home uniform has been fairly consistent but the road unis have kinda had that “all over the map” quality to them.[/quote]

    the Homes have had very little change in a long time, mostly adding/removing NOB and tweaking the chest logo. The roads on the other hand…

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”343020″][quote comment=”342957″]Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap.[/quote]

    What the hell?

    How does putting ads on NHL jerseys prevent players from going to the KHL? The NHL operates within a salary cap. It doesn’t matter how much money you have rolling in – you still have to play within the salary cap. The advertising money is just an additional revenue source for the team. It will not keep players in the NHL no matter how much money the team makes off jersey advertising.

    The league really didn’t miss players like Radulov, Jagr, and Yashin last year. In fact, I’d argue it was much better WITHOUT them than with them.

    If the NHL decided to advertise on jerseys, I’ll burn down the NHL Offices personally. Mark my words.

    [quote comment=”343000″][/quote]
    Speaking of the NHL, and the Bulls’ owner: has Teebz commented today on the fact that hockey in Phoenix has been saved?[/quote]

    No, but I’m glad the NHL has finally told Jim Balsillie that they don’t trust him. Personally, I think Reinsdorf’s request for concessions from Glendale are a little out there, but the guy isn’t dumb. He runs two pretty successful franchises as it is.[/quote]

    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games

  • mmwatkin | July 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”343004″]One more thing, somewhat related to the Bulls and their logo upside down: does anyone else remember the Kentucky Wildcats logo controversy of about 5-7 years ago?[/quote]

    Penis tongue cat

    http://img39.imagesh...

  • DJ | July 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm |

    White socks, yes. White undershirts…impossible under current MLB rules, IIRC.

    Swapping red for silver? A better idea might be to add a bit of red to the silver and black. Say, black numbers and lettering trimmed in silver, then in red.

    I’d also put a wing on the sock in the secondary logo.

    But in the end, I would be quite happy with no changes. It took Reinsdorf nine years, and a couple of missteps, to finally get an iconic uniform for the White Sox (part of it being iconic, of course, was sticking with it since the last two weeks of 1990).

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 12:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    Say what you want, but Chicago had a pretty good run with the Bulls while that MJ character was in town. I’d qualify that as successful. Oh, and the 2005 World Series win? Yeah, that was pretty decent too.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”343013″][quote comment=”343009″][quote comment=”342980″][quote comment=”342954″]
    The powder reds:can’t handle it-the graphic depictions look like some sort of breast cancer awareness thing (a program I wholeheartedly support, btw).[/quote]

    Yeah, there’s a reason that no one ever says “powder red.” It’s because those uniforms are pink.[/quote]

    I’ll take the hit for that one. I had suggested the term while thinking back to a ’70s era t-shirt my brother had. It had little flecks of red and white which, when seen from a distance, looked like powder red. I don’t think you can really duplicate the look on the computer, but it was a good effort. Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.[/quote]
    Dunno if it’s considered the “correct” term, but it’s often called heather red, no?[/quote]

    That’s as close as I’ve seen. Red enough to not be pink – that’s what I had in mind.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 12:27 pm |

    “Penis tongue cat”

    She work by the hour, or…?

    Oh, wait.
    Sorry, thought we were talking about something else.
    Like, y’know, somebody’s screen name.
    I, um, well, okay, damn…
    This is really embarrassing.

    Never mind.

  • J Exby | July 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    Being a huge White Sox fan, and almost having every Mitchell and Ness jersey recreating the White Sox fashion trends, I’d like to make a a slight addition to the statement that the 1980s “batter man” logo appeared on Batting jerseys.

    It also appeared on this seldom used BP jersey

    Fisk in white BP jersey

    I have one of these (from the team) in my closet, and it’s supremely cool.

    and also on the pitcher’s jackets (worn in bullpen/dugout, etc) as recreated here:
    Pitchers jacket

    btw, “heather red” is a horrid color. fail.
    otherwise I feel the Sox re-coloring exercise was an interesting read, but without much need to actually execute it since the current uniform set is close to perfect. (except the socks colors)

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”343028″]”Penis tongue cat”

    She work by the hour, or…?

    Oh, wait.
    Sorry, thought we were talking about something else.
    Like, y’know, somebody’s screen name.
    I, um, well, okay, damn…
    This is really embarrassing.

    Never mind.[/quote]

    You’re confusing her with “Heather Red”!
    :)

  • J Exby | July 30, 2009 at 12:35 pm |

    The other AWESOME White Sox uniform news that I haven’t seen reaction to, was the blurb on the A’s site that Aug 16 the A’s (and Sox apparently?) will wear uniforms from 1929?!!

    1929 White Sox unis

    Stellar news if it happens!

  • Christopher | July 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    The White Sox have been one of the most successful teams in the AL since 1990. The Bulls need no explaination.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm |

    “otherwise I feel the Sox re-coloring exercise was an interesting read, but without much need to actually execute it since the current uniform set is close to perfect. (except the socks colors)”

    There it is. That’s sort of the core issue, isn’t it.
    Given the way baseball uniforms have evolved we’d kinda expect a team called the White Sox to have uniforms, especially socks, that would be at least a little unorthodox.

    Instead, what they’ve been wearing the past umpteen years is very, very “off the rack”. Gotta admit, not much about the White Sox uni offers anything they could call distinctly their own (not counting logos, c’mon, you know what I mean)….other than Black and Silver combo (in baseball anyway).

    But, if they messed around with white socks on players who choose to show socks…they could succeed on both levels. Keep a uni they have finally settled on–and won a W-S wearing–and still deliver on the uniqueness a name like White Sox would suggest.

    Make sense?

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 12:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”343031″]The other AWESOME White Sox uniform news that I haven’t seen reaction to, was the blurb on the A’s site that Aug 16 the A’s (and Sox apparently?) will wear uniforms from 1929?!!

    1929 White Sox unis

    Stellar news if it happens![/quote]

    (wrong link)

  • Hott Rodd | July 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm |

    TMBADQ but I can’t get flickr at work so what is Benchies?

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm |

    Here you go, JExby…
    http://exhibits.base...

  • Steve May | July 30, 2009 at 12:44 pm |

    [quote comment=\”342957\”]Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap. The same fate will befall the NBA. This is further away, but I bet it happens.

    [/quote]

    Ads on NHL practice jerseys aren\’t that much of a new thing. http://www.dropthepu...
    http://www.dropthepu...

    I know that in the 80\’s the practice jerseys for Canadian teams (Canucks, Flames, Oilers, Jets) for sure – had big a big MOLSON across the front…but I can\’t find a pic.

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 12:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”343026″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    Say what you want, but Chicago had a pretty good run with the Bulls while that MJ character was in town. I’d qualify that as successful. Oh, and the 2005 World Series win? Yeah, that was pretty decent too.[/quote]

    I specifically mentioned the baseball team, not basketball. He’s lucky to get 28K to the games even when they are fighting for 1st.

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm |

    Regarding ads on unis.

    I find this idea patently oafensive.

  • Jeffrey | July 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm |

    The White Sox don’t need more color, and they don’t need to mess with a good thing. Yeah, these uniforms are starting to age, but they’re aging gracefully because of their classical beauty. This exercise would be much more useful for teams like Toronto or Houston that completely abandoned everything that came before the last time they changed their uniforms.

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”343032″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    The White Sox have been one of the most successful teams in the AL since 1990. The Bulls need no explaination.[/quote]

    not in wins or people in the seats, but maybe in gang related jersey sales.

  • Jim BC | July 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”343020″][quote comment=”342957″]Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap.[/quote]

    What the hell?

    How does putting ads on NHL jerseys prevent players from going to the KHL? The NHL operates within a salary cap. It doesn’t matter how much money you have rolling in – you still have to play within the salary cap. The advertising money is just an additional revenue source for the team. It will not keep players in the NHL no matter how much money the team makes off jersey advertising.

    The league really didn’t miss players like Radulov, Jagr, and Yashin last year. In fact, I’d argue it was much better WITHOUT them than with them.

    If the NHL decided to advertise on jerseys, I’ll burn down the NHL Offices personally. Mark my words.

    [quote comment=”343000″][/quote]
    Speaking of the NHL, and the Bulls’ owner: has Teebz commented today on the fact that hockey in Phoenix has been saved?[/quote]

    No, but I’m glad the NHL has finally told Jim Balsillie that they don’t trust him. Personally, I think Reinsdorf’s request for concessions from Glendale are a little out there, but the guy isn’t dumb. He runs two pretty successful franchises as it is.[/quote]
    What? The NHL doesn’t miss Yashin? Really? (sarcasm)…

    Balsille’s spokesman said today that he feels the NHL doesn’t want a 7th team in Canada… my take is that they don’t want a 7th team in Canada rammed down their throats – I’m hoping that there will be a 7th, 8th, 9th sometime soon!

  • jbona | July 30, 2009 at 1:05 pm |

    another ‘conspiracy’:
    http://images.myride...

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 1:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”343043″]another ‘conspiracy’:
    http://images.myride...

    I had to look it up, but yeah,I see daffy duck looking at me.

  • Kevin G. | July 30, 2009 at 1:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”343041″][quote comment=”343032″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    The White Sox have been one of the most successful teams in the AL since 1990. The Bulls need no explaination.[/quote]

    not in wins or people in the seats, but maybe in gang related jersey sales.[/quote]
    I’m not positive, and I don’t have time to check right now, but don’t the White Sox have about the 3rd or 4th best record in the AL since 1990? I’m pretty sure they had the third best record in all of baseball during the 1990’s. In the 2000’s, they have won 3 division titles and a World Series… That sounds like a pretty successful team to me.

  • Hal | July 30, 2009 at 1:11 pm |

    Of all the suggestions shown, I would vote for Robert’s. Great color choices with appropriate balance of modern and retro influences.

    The sad thing is that I think the best White Sox uni set of all time comes from the Black Sox era, but I can’t see them ever returning to anything that would remind MLB of that incident.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”343044″][quote comment=”343043″]another ‘conspiracy’:
    http://images.myride...

    I had to look it up, but yeah,I see daffy duck looking at me.[/quote]

    It’s the logo for a secret society: hardass guys who repair stuff with duck tape but don’t want it known.

  • Mike Calagna | July 30, 2009 at 1:13 pm |

    Has anyone else noticed that the Mets started winning again once they started wearing blue at home again?

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”343040″]The White Sox don’t need more color, and they don’t need to mess with a good thing. Yeah, these uniforms are starting to age, but they’re aging gracefully because of their classical beauty. This exercise would be much more useful for teams like Toronto or Houston that completely abandoned everything that came before the last time they changed their uniforms.[/quote]

    Those would be great choices!

    I’m still glad Phil and company did this with the Sox, though. Yes, you finally have some stability, but given your history that means you’re like an old volcano – you’re either going to remain dormant or you’re in for a dramatic change soon. Either way is fine, IMHO, as long as you wear white socks.

    I wouldn’t even mind playing around with the Yankees unis just for fun. I’m the last person to say the Yanks should change anything, but I also feel that nothing in sports is so sacred that we can’t have a little fun with it on sites like this one.

  • Mike Calagna | July 30, 2009 at 1:22 pm |

    Gary Cohen:”It’s great to see Chris Rock wearing his mets cap….his BLUE mets cap…that’s a true fan”

  • joe | July 30, 2009 at 1:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”343045″][quote comment=”343041″][quote comment=”343032″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    The White Sox have been one of the most successful teams in the AL since 1990. The Bulls need no explaination.[/quote]

    not in wins or people in the seats, but maybe in gang related jersey sales.[/quote]
    I’m not positive, and I don’t have time to check right now, but don’t the White Sox have about the 3rd or 4th best record in the AL since 1990? I’m pretty sure they had the third best record in all of baseball during the 1990’s. In the 2000’s, they have won 3 division titles and a World Series… That sounds like a pretty successful team to me.[/quote]

    white sox attendance http://www.baseball-...

    they played at 44321, increased to 45936, to 47098 seat new comiskey until they lowered seating to about 40615 when they changed the name. That’s not a good % capacity if you look at it. they had a bump after the WS and that is now gone. they didn’t even fill the place the year they actually won.

  • Greg | July 30, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    The WHITE sox should never add any red to their uniforms. It’s already bad enough that ESPN refers to the Red Sox as simply the SOX. They don’t call the LSU Tigers just the Tigers because there’s other teams named the tigers. Screw ESPN. sorry i ranted.

    Anyway, i’d like to see the White Sox add touches of hunter green to their current design. Not too much. But sort of like the pirates adding in the red (although that full red jersey was horrid). Its a nice accent on their black and yellow.

    The American Giants throwbacks are my favorite. I love that CHICAGO font and would really like if they used something similar as their away alternate.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    just to kind of follow up on what jim vilk said about the sox unis

    this idea came about one night in the comment section and some ideas were tossed about concerning tweaking (not completely remaking) the sox unis

    half of the concepts (if not almost all) i wouldn’t advocate for, but just was throwing some of the ideas tossed about out there

    i realize the post was quite long, but to all those who are defending the current set, do realize i said at the beginning of the article that (quoteing myself):

    [quote]Not that the current uniforms are all that bad; in fact, personally, I feel they’re one of the nicer uniform sets in the bigs, although the use of that softball top should be curtailed.[/quote]

    really was just soliciting ideas and suggestions for some tweaks or minor changes (which morphed into some crazy shit on my part — and i apologize for that)

    i’ll side with those who like robert marshall’s redesign, tho…that would be freakin perfect…if impractical

    as far as other teams, by all means…let’s see…i’ve already gotten suggestions to rework the astros, the rangers, the brewers, the A’s and the blue black jays

    plus a bunch of football teams (college and pro)

    this is (i hope) just the beginning

    to all the sox fans who like the current unis — i agree, they’re great now…and if they don’t change a thing that wouldn’t be a bad thing at all

    one last point…

    jim vilk also suggested the “red heather” or whatever it’s being called…i don’t have the templates here at work, but after seeing them on the board, i agree they’re a huge “FAIL”…the red needs to be waaaaay toned down and the gray needs to be strengthened…i think that uni could look okay if i get the color better…may try that at home

    thanks to all who’ve commented so far, keep em coming

    PH

  • ren | July 30, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    does anyone have a link to the espn page 2 washington nationals uni design contest. thanxs

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”343019″]This is the 38th MLB season I’ve been on this planet and believe it or not, the Cubs have had more uniform changes than the White Sox during that time. It’s just that their changes have been more subtle. (Colors have stayed the same, primary logo has been tweaked only slightly.)

    So the basic look of their home uniform has been fairly consistent but the road unis have kinda had that “all over the map” quality to them.[/quote]
    JTH, I’d have to say that the Cubs have been extremely consistent: and I think the key term here is home uniform. I’ll ignore the changes to/from the doubleknit & sansabelt look as subtle.

    No doubt the “CUBA” look, etc. for their roadies have come and gone: but as far as the basic home uni’s it’s been pins, circle logo on the left side and their classic hat forever now. Some may argue that NOB on/off is a change: it’s not for me.

    If you had obtained a real (home) Cubs hat on the day you were born and you put it on today, would anyone be able to tell the difference between your birthday hat and something sold as “authentic” last week at Wrigley?

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”343051″]
    they played at 44321, increased to 45936, to 47098 seat new comiskey until they lowered seating to about 40615 when they changed the name. That’s not a good % capacity if you look at it. they had a bump after the WS and that is now gone. they didn’t even fill the place the year they actually won.[/quote]

    Not to ruin an analysis, but how many teams are playing at capacity?

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm |

    “When I asked him if he were excited to help fix the Sox, he was more excited than Wilt Chamberlain in a sorority house.”

    Great line! I’ll have to borrow that one sometime.

    And great work, Mr. Marshall. You, Phil, James and Michael did a bang-up job. Fun stuff.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”343042″]my take is that they don’t want a 7th team in Canada rammed down their throats – I’m hoping that there will be a 7th, 8th, 9th sometime soon![/quote]
    I’m all for that: as long as we don’t EXPAND the NHL any more (because it’s pretty diluted as it is right now).

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”343056″]Not to ruin an analysis, but how many teams are playing at capacity?[/quote]Throwing one more thing INTO the analysis (and answering your question at the same time): at least one team is playing to capacity, and they’re located about 7 miles north of Comiskey.

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”343026″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    Say what you want, but Chicago had a pretty good run with the Bulls while that MJ character was in town. I’d qualify that as successful. Oh, and the 2005 World Series win? Yeah, that was pretty decent too.[/quote]

    Reinsdorf may have had his share of missteps with the White Sox, but he is also the most successful owner in Chicago sports history … certainly more successful than anyone who has owned the North Side AAAA team.

  • Geeman | July 30, 2009 at 1:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”343053″]just to kind of follow up on what jim vilk said about the sox unis

    this idea came about one night in the comment section and some ideas were tossed about concerning tweaking (not completely remaking) the sox unis

    half of the concepts (if not almost all) i wouldn’t advocate for, but just was throwing some of the ideas tossed about out there

    i realize the post was quite long, but to all those who are defending the current set, do realize i said at the beginning of the article that (quoteing myself):

    [quote]Not that the current uniforms are all that bad; in fact, personally, I feel they’re one of the nicer uniform sets in the bigs, although the use of that softball top should be curtailed.[/quote]

    really was just soliciting ideas and suggestions for some tweaks or minor changes (which morphed into some crazy shit on my part — and i apologize for that)

    i’ll side with those who like robert marshall’s redesign, tho…that would be freakin perfect…if impractical

    as far as other teams, by all means…let’s see…i’ve already gotten suggestions to rework the astros, the rangers, the brewers, the A’s and the blue black jays

    plus a bunch of football teams (college and pro)

    this is (i hope) just the beginning

    to all the sox fans who like the current unis — i agree, they’re great now…and if they don’t change a thing that wouldn’t be a bad thing at all

    one last point…

    jim vilk also suggested the “red heather” or whatever it’s being called…i don’t have the templates here at work, but after seeing them on the board, i agree they’re a huge “FAIL”…the red needs to be waaaaay toned down and the gray needs to be strengthened…i think that uni could look okay if i get the color better…may try that at home

    thanks to all who’ve commented so far, keep em coming

    PH[/quote]

    The A’s uniforms are great, except for the black jerseys and hats. Add gold if you need a fourth jersey.

    Now, about those Black Jays (LOL) — yes, by all means, man the drawing easels!

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”343059″][quote comment=”343056″]Not to ruin an analysis, but how many teams are playing at capacity?[/quote]Throwing one more thing INTO the analysis (and answering your question at the same time): at least one team is playing to capacity, and they’re located about 7 miles north of Comiskey.[/quote]

    But that doesn’t make them more successful. It just means that they have a bigger following. 100 years and counting, right?

    Look at the TML. They sellout their building every night, but they suck hard. They make money, but successful? 1967 says no.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”343033″]Instead, what they’ve been wearing the past umpteen years is very, very “off the rack”. Gotta admit, not much about the White Sox uni offers anything they could call distinctly their own (not counting logos, c’mon, you know what I mean)…[/quote]
    Ricko, we’ve been throwing around the word classics today too, so here’s my question: of the Yanks, Cubs, Tigers, etc. which one of them is NOT off-the-rack?

    (I left out Cards: but is that birds-on-a-bat a part of their logo? If so… then put them into the question.)

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”343062″]But that doesn’t make them more successful. It just means that they have a bigger following. 100 years and counting, right?

    Look at the TML. They sellout their building every night, but they suck hard. They make money, but successful? 1967 says no.[/quote]
    Well, some would say the Cubs are more succesful than the Sox at marketing. I’m not sure I agree, but I do think that the 40k Cubs take some part of attendance away from the Sox.

    Some of it’s Wrigley, some of it’s Wrigleyville and some of it’s “nothing succeeds like success” but that bar in Terre Haute that runs one bus per year to a major league game is ten times more likely to drive (LITERALLY) right past Comiskey to get to Wrigley.

    When the Brewers switched leagues, somebody in their front office said “now we can have a rivalry with Chicago” as if those last six miles were some sort of fence or barrier. As a Sox fan I was annoyed, but if I was a Milwaukee businessman I’d agree.

    So to get back to where this started: I think a substitute in the same market faces an uphill climb to overcome a team that’s had a zillion years of “lets go to their game because it’s the thing to do”.

  • Jim BC | July 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”343058″][quote comment=”343042″]my take is that they don’t want a 7th team in Canada rammed down their throats – I’m hoping that there will be a 7th, 8th, 9th sometime soon![/quote]
    I’m all for that: as long as we don’t EXPAND the NHL any more (because it’s pretty diluted as it is right now).[/quote]
    Absolutely – it’s all about relocation – cough, Phoenix, cough, Nashville, cough, Atlanta etc, etc.

  • chance michaels | July 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”343059″][quote comment=”343056″]Not to ruin an analysis, but how many teams are playing at capacity?[/quote]Throwing one more thing INTO the analysis (and answering your question at the same time): at least one team is playing to capacity, and they’re located about 7 miles north of Comiskey.[/quote]
    Not actually true – the Cubs are currently playing to 97.7% capacity.

    I think % is not the best indicator, since the capacity of ballparks varies so wildly. There are two teams over 100% – Boston and Philly. The Yankees lead the majors in terms of raw numbers (reports of empty luxury seats notwithstanding), but because Yankee Stadium has the largest capacity in the AL their percentag is only 86.8%.

  • sgalob | July 30, 2009 at 2:01 pm |

    3 hours sleep thanks to stats league bullshit, will read toays brilliant column after i take pineapple to lunch.

    big playoff game tonight for the winless youppi. thank you to UW reader “shaggy” for helping us out tonight as a ringer. anyone in chicago who wants to see our stirrup clad nightmare…6:30 in ping tom park(google it)vs. the drunken bats.

    speaking of stirrups. i have had to scramble since our supplier dropped it’s UW advertising just as i was ready to place an order for 1oo pair. they drop us, we say cram it with walnuts to him(ass-clown). anyway, i got a new dealer because we need our fix. but here is the everybody should know kicker…cards stirrups are special order, so up to 4 weeks on that one. did everyone here me? 4 weeks for our order, not 2!!!! does it matter that i just said that? hell no, i am going to get 97 emails…where are my stirrups. i am sorry, 4 weeks, very very sorry, but 4 weeks.

  • Mark in Shiga | July 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”343055″]If you had obtained a real (home) Cubs hat on the day you were born and you put it on today, would anyone be able to tell the difference between your birthday hat and something sold as “authentic” last week at Wrigley?[/quote]

    Yes, because I was born before they started putting that god-awful MLB logo on the back, and making the team logo three-dimensional.

    Aside from that (which is all the commissioner’s fault, not the Cubs’), the Cubs home hat thankfully hasn’t changed a bit.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 2:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”343063″][quote comment=”343033″]Instead, what they’ve been wearing the past umpteen years is very, very “off the rack”. Gotta admit, not much about the White Sox uni offers anything they could call distinctly their own (not counting logos, c’mon, you know what I mean)…[/quote]
    Ricko, we’ve been throwing around the word classics today too, so here’s my question: of the Yanks, Cubs, Tigers, etc. which one of them is NOT off-the-rack?

    (I left out Cards: but is that birds-on-a-bat a part of their logo? If so… then put them into the question.)[/quote]

    Never said those teams weren’t just as “off the rack”. What I said was that for a team whose name (White Sox) might suggest something at least a little unorthodox-looking considering the way unis have evolved…what they wear isn’t unusual at all. You would think a team so named wouldn’t fall into the “right out of the catalog” category. That’s what I said.

    I’ll render up what I’m talking about when I get home and can mess around a bit…and post it later . It’s just a tweak, but it moves the overall look into the “anything but typical” category…and still preserves absolutely every other element of the current uni intact.

    I’m not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. Honest.

    And I sure as hell don’t expect everyone to love it.

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | July 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm |

    Just an FYI Phil, I would comment on your graphic creations/articles a whole lot more than I do, yet, I work at a Flickr unfriendly site, and don’t get a chance to see the pics until I get home. By the time I get a chance to post, well, the discussion’s pretty much over. I’m sure it’s all good.

  • sgalob | July 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm |

    i almsot forgot…stirrup pricess WILL come down too:)

  • Kevin G. | July 30, 2009 at 2:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”343051″][quote comment=”343045″][quote comment=”343041″][quote comment=”343032″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    The White Sox have been one of the most successful teams in the AL since 1990. The Bulls need no explaination.[/quote]

    not in wins or people in the seats, but maybe in gang related jersey sales.[/quote]
    I’m not positive, and I don’t have time to check right now, but don’t the White Sox have about the 3rd or 4th best record in the AL since 1990? I’m pretty sure they had the third best record in all of baseball during the 1990’s. In the 2000’s, they have won 3 division titles and a World Series… That sounds like a pretty successful team to me.[/quote]

    white sox attendance http://www.baseball-...

    they played at 44321, increased to 45936, to 47098 seat new comiskey until they lowered seating to about 40615 when they changed the name. That’s not a good % capacity if you look at it. they had a bump after the WS and that is now gone. they didn’t even fill the place the year they actually won.[/quote]
    Joe is obviously a Cubs fan because attendance is the first thing they always point to. On the north side, they don’t care if they win, they’re just proud to fill the “World’s Largest Beer Garden”. Anyway, I digress… I was pointing out that a successful franchise is one that wins games, division championships and World Series titles. I guess some people don’t understand that is the point of the game. I would be very curious to see where the White Sox rank in the overall standings since 1990.

  • JD | July 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

    At first I thought, “Are you crazy?!? The White Sox look great! Don’t mess with a good thing.”

    (Sorry fellas)

    Then I saw Mr. Marshall’s design. Yes, a little red would be a great thing. However, in real life I don’t trust the team to make good, subtle changes. They’d come out with a scrolling LED board on their chest or something.

    Finally, let’s call powder reds what they really are…PINK.

  • Hibbsy | July 30, 2009 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”342962″]From this link:
    http://www.clevescen...

    In the bottom right of the picture with all of the helmets, you can see the Original Jax Jags car helemt[/quote]

    I noticed that the yellow Steeler’s helmet in that pic has the logo on the left side. It doesn’t show up to well, either.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”343073″]At first I thought, “Are you crazy?!? The White Sox look great! Don’t mess with a good thing.”

    (Sorry fellas)

    Then I saw Mr. Marshall’s design. Yes, a little red would be a great thing. However, in real life I don’t trust the team to make good, subtle changes. They’d come out with a scrolling LED board on their chest or something.

    Finally, let’s call powder reds what they really are…PINK.[/quote]

    Indeed they are. And when searching for other more appealing descriptions, we find only the likes of “Soft Rose” or “Mauve”.

    You think MLBers don’t like stirrups, wait’ll they got a load of those.

  • JD | July 30, 2009 at 2:39 pm |

    Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.[/quote]

    Powder green? Now THAT would be interesting. I’d love to see what those gentlemen’s minds would come up with.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 2:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”343076″][quote]Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.[/quote]

    Powder green? Now THAT would be interesting. I’d love to see what those gentlemen’s minds would come up with.[/quote]

    here

    i should have done a similar treatment on the “powder reds” (meaning, much more gray, much less red)

  • Kevin Z. | July 30, 2009 at 3:01 pm |

    Noticed this while watching gamecast of red sox-athletics game. A’s pitcher Gio Gonzalez appears to have a New Era logo on the side of his hat in his individual photo. or could it be a BP hat?
    http://msn.foxsports...

  • Alex | July 30, 2009 at 3:02 pm |

    “Hmmm, does Adidas manufacture Korean police uniforms, or does it just look that way?”

    I wouldn’t be be surprised – Adidas has a long history in outfitting military and law enforcement.

    Adidas created the first modern tactical combat boot way back in 1975. The “GSG-9” boot shares it’s name with the organization for which it was initially created – the counter-terrorism unit of the German Federal Police, which was established in 1973 after the worldwide embarrassment of the mishandling of Munich Olympics terrorist attack.

    The “GSG-9” is still preferred by most military and law enforcement organizations today, including the US Navy SEALs.

  • Scott | July 30, 2009 at 3:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”343055″]If you had obtained a real (home) Cubs hat on the day you were born and you put it on today, would anyone be able to tell the difference between your birthday hat and something sold as “authentic” last week at Wrigley?[/quote]

    There was a TV commercial a few (15-20?) years ago that played on this concept. I don’t remember if it was a Cub commercial, or some other Chicago business, but it alluded to the “consistency” of the business by showing a guy who collected Cubs hats, one per season…row after row of “identical” caps in his garage.

    (I think it must have been early 90s, before they started wearing those horrible red-billed monstrosities on the road.)

  • Prexy Hater | July 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”343042″][quote comment=”343020″][quote comment=”342957″]Regarding ads on unis.
    The NHL will quickly have to go to them, they are already losing players to the Russian League. With ads to augment arena and TV money they can avoid losing players to KHL teams operating without a salary cap.[/quote]

    What the hell?

    How does putting ads on NHL jerseys prevent players from going to the KHL? The NHL operates within a salary cap. It doesn’t matter how much money you have rolling in – you still have to play within the salary cap. The advertising money is just an additional revenue source for the team. It will not keep players in the NHL no matter how much money the team makes off jersey advertising.

    The league really didn’t miss players like Radulov, Jagr, and Yashin last year. In fact, I’d argue it was much better WITHOUT them than with them.

    If the NHL decided to advertise on jerseys, I’ll burn down the NHL Offices personally. Mark my words.

    [quote comment=”343000″][/quote]
    Speaking of the NHL, and the Bulls’ owner: has Teebz commented today on the fact that hockey in Phoenix has been saved?[/quote]

    No, but I’m glad the NHL has finally told Jim Balsillie that they don’t trust him. Personally, I think Reinsdorf’s request for concessions from Glendale are a little out there, but the guy isn’t dumb. He runs two pretty successful franchises as it is.[/quote]
    What? The NHL doesn’t miss Yashin? Really? (sarcasm)…

    Balsille’s spokesman said today that he feels the NHL doesn’t want a 7th team in Canada… my take is that they don’t want a 7th team in Canada rammed down their throats – I’m hoping that there will be a 7th, 8th, 9th sometime soon![/quote]

    The biggest losers of another NHL team in or near Toronto would be the Blue Jays and Raptors. Much of their season ticket base consists of people that would rather have Leafs tickets. In fact, many Raptors season ticket holders canceled their Jays tix.

    Reinsdorf owns teams in the NBA and AL, and realizes that keeping the Coyotes out of Canada benefits his 2 Chicago teams.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”343068″]…and making the team logo three-dimensional.[/quote]
    I remember it was quite a demonstration of a local channel’s capabilities when you could tell that the Cubs glued an actual “C” patch on their batting helmets by watching WGN. :-))

  • Evan | July 30, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

    Is there a reason none of your links work? God, Talk about annoying.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”343074″][quote comment=”342962″]From this link:
    http://www.clevescen...

    In the bottom right of the picture with all of the helmets, you can see the Original Jax Jags car helemt[/quote]

    I noticed that the yellow Steeler’s helmet in that pic has the logo on the left side. It doesn’t show up to well, either.[/quote]

    By golly, you’re right. Stay on that row and look way to your left (whoever said yesterday about holding ctrl while turning the mouse wheel to zoom in on stuff – thanks) and you’ll see a So. Cal. Sun WFL helmet. And on the top row above the Bears helmet is one from the WLAF’s Sacramento Surge.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”343066″]
    Not actually true – the Cubs are currently playing to 97.7% capacity.

    I think % is not the best indicator, since the capacity of ballparks varies so wildly. There are two teams over 100% – Boston and Philly. The Yankees lead the majors in terms of raw numbers (reports of empty luxury seats notwithstanding), but because Yankee Stadium has the largest capacity in the AL their percentag is only 86.8%.[/quote]
    I wonder if that 97% number counts the people across the street? :-) Anyway, I just read that they are over 2 million in fifty dates; and that’s the largest number in their history for the first fifty.

    I don’t mind % of capacity: as we’ve gotten into the post 1970’s era of parks, I think many teams are much better at building a park for their markets. Maybe NYC and LA should have the biggest stadiums IOW. And compared to 20 years ago, the total capacity numbers seem to be a much tighter “distribution” these days.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”343065″]Absolutely – it’s all about relocation – cough, Phoenix, cough, Nashville, cough, Atlanta etc, etc.[/quote]
    I’d cough up the hairballs known as Columbus, Miami, Tampa and Dallas too.

    And what the HELL LA is doing with two teams is beyond me.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 3:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”343086″][quote comment=”343065″]Absolutely – it’s all about relocation – cough, Phoenix, cough, Nashville, cough, Atlanta etc, etc.[/quote]
    I’d cough up the hairballs known as Columbus, Miami, Tampa and Dallas too.

    And what the HELL LA is doing with two teams is beyond me.[/quote]

    You can have the Blue Jackets – just leave behind the Tim Horton’s franchises that seem to follow NHL teams. I can’t drive to Canada all the time to get their donuts and coffee, you know…

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | July 30, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    Marvelous post gentlemen!!! I personally think the White Sox don’t need a uni change but I would definately welcome some of those concepts. I have mixed feelings about the black pants with white socks. It’s just so strange and akward but yet it’s so intriguing.

    Again, top notch post. Let’s keep this idea going!

  • Berto | July 30, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”343086″][quote comment=”343065″]Absolutely – it’s all about relocation – cough, Phoenix, cough, Nashville, cough, Atlanta etc, etc.[/quote]
    I’d cough up the hairballs known as Columbus, Miami, Tampa and Dallas too.

    And what the HELL LA is doing with two teams is beyond me.[/quote]

    Please don’t conflate Anaheim and LA.

  • Berto | July 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”343089″][quote comment=”343086″][quote comment=”343065″]Absolutely – it’s all about relocation – cough, Phoenix, cough, Nashville, cough, Atlanta etc, etc.[/quote]
    I’d cough up the hairballs known as Columbus, Miami, Tampa and Dallas too.

    And what the HELL LA is doing with two teams is beyond me.[/quote]

    Please don’t conflate Anaheim and LA.[/quote]

    Just to clarify I mean that in kind of a pleading way, not as an imperative.

  • M.Princip | July 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm |

    Another off topic post, from yours truly, yet had a gander at the opening camp video at Seahawks.com: Setting the Stage and there is lot’s of green stuff for the team to wear this training camp. More reason to believe they’ll be donning an alt. green jersey this year? Check out that equipment room, wow! It’s come a long way since these days.

  • Hott Rodd | July 30, 2009 at 4:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”343087″][quote comment=”343086″][quote comment=”343065″]Absolutely – it’s all about relocation – cough, Phoenix, cough, Nashville, cough, Atlanta etc, etc.[/quote]
    I’d cough up the hairballs known as Columbus, Miami, Tampa and Dallas too.

    And what the HELL LA is doing with two teams is beyond me.[/quote]

    You can have the Blue Jackets – just leave behind the Tim Horton’s franchises that seem to follow NHL teams. I can’t drive to Canada all the time to get their donuts and coffee, you know…[/quote]

    We are still waiting for our Tim Hortons here in phoenix, TYVM.

  • M.Princip | July 30, 2009 at 4:02 pm |

    whoops, here’s the correct link. Seahawks: Setting the Stage

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”343087″]… just leave behind the Tim Horton’s franchises that seem to follow NHL teams. I can’t drive to Canada all the time to get their donuts and coffee, you know…[/quote]
    I know that in order to make this post legal I need to post a picture of the uniforms worn at Tim Horton’s, but I don’t have one of those available.

    I just wanted to mention that Chicago is not a part of TimHortonNation, despite being an O-6 town. (And we didn’t treat Krispy Kreme too (k)indly, so it might be a while before Horton’s expands here.)

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”343091″] It’s come a long way since these days.[/quote]
    A) That Seahawk perching on a football? Ultra cool.

    B)How about the idea that they were still using Super 8-style movie projectors in 1976!

    C)No SeaGals in 1976?? I vote that progress is good.

  • Dan Morgenthaler | July 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    I’m a White Sox fan, and if they ever wore any of these designs, except for the Blue Monday design, I would be embarrassed to be a fan. Terrible idea.
    As said, the Blue Monday is beautiful, but I don’t think it’s an improvement on the current uni. The only thing I’d take from it are those socks. I’d love to see them wear a black version of that everyday.

  • M.Princip | July 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”343095″][quote comment=”343091″] It’s come a long way since these days.[/quote]
    A) That Seahawk perching on a football? Ultra cool.

    B)How about the idea that they were still using Super 8-style movie projectors in 1976!

    C)No SeaGals in 1976?? I vote that progress is good.[/quote]

    A) Yea, I would kill to have it. Seriously, I’m offering contract hits if you know it’s whereabouts.

    B) I have a projector exactly like that.

    C) Oh yes, there were SeaGals in 1976. Their outfits were 50s Bobby Sox retro like.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”343094″][quote comment=”343087″]… just leave behind the Tim Horton’s franchises that seem to follow NHL teams. I can’t drive to Canada all the time to get their donuts and coffee, you know…[/quote]
    I know that in order to make this post legal I need to post a picture of the uniforms worn at Tim Horton’s, but I don’t have one of those available.

    I just wanted to mention that Chicago is not a part of TimHortonNation, despite being an O-6 town. (And we didn’t treat Krispy Kreme too (k)indly, so it might be a while before Horton’s expands here.)[/quote]

    Where have I seen these unis before? http://www.timhorton...
    “What can brown do for you?”

    Since Detroit and Columbus had Tim’s, I thought a lot of other cities did – my bad. I know Pittsburgh doesn’t have any, because I was listening to some college radio station out of California, PA (I think PA has the most towns named after other states) and the kids were saying how they had to cross the border into SE Ohio to get their Tim fix.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 4:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”343098″][quote comment=”343094″][quote comment=”343087″]… just leave behind the Tim Horton’s franchises that seem to follow NHL teams. I can’t drive to Canada all the time to get their donuts and coffee, you know…[/quote]
    I know that in order to make this post legal I need to post a picture of the uniforms worn at Tim Horton’s, but I don’t have one of those available.

    I just wanted to mention that Chicago is not a part of TimHortonNation, despite being an O-6 town. (And we didn’t treat Krispy Kreme too (k)indly, so it might be a while before Horton’s expands here.)[/quote]

    Where have I seen these unis before? http://www.timhorton...
    “What can brown do for you?”

    Since Detroit and Columbus had Tim’s, I thought a lot of other cities did – my bad. I know Pittsburgh doesn’t have any, because I was listening to some college radio station out of California, PA (I think PA has the most towns named after other states) and the kids were saying how they had to cross the border into SE Ohio to get their Tim fix.[/quote]

    Note the alternate “powder brown” shirts…

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”343081″]The biggest losers of another NHL team in or near Toronto would be the Blue Jays and Raptors. Much of their season ticket base consists of people that would rather have Leafs tickets. In fact, many Raptors season ticket holders canceled their Jays tix.

    Reinsdorf owns teams in the NBA and AL, and realizes that keeping the Coyotes out of Canada benefits his 2 Chicago teams.[/quote]
    Yeah. Totally.

    Wait. What? Bulls and Sox season ticket-holders are going to bail out so they can scoop up tickets for a team that plays a completely different sport almost 500 miles away?

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”343057″]And great work, Mr. Marshall. You, Phil, James and Michael did a bang-up job. Fun stuff.[/quote]
    Thanks for including me, but all I really did was spend a couple hours looking for pictures. Those guys did the real work.

  • jesse | July 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm |

    Really enjoyed the treatment of the White Sox unis, very well done. Would love to see the same article happen with the Nats unis

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm |

    Back to White Sox…
    This is REALLY crude, technicall speaking, but here’s what I was talking about. Switch the socks to white (with a diamond sock logo positioned ala the ’71 red set).
    At least there wouldn’t be the occasional player with black lower legs.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 4:47 pm |

    Oh, yeah, the black alt isn’t current, I just wanted to show the general look.

    —Ricko

  • JD | July 30, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”343077″][quote comment=”343076″][quote]Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.[/quote]

    Powder green? Now THAT would be interesting. I’d love to see what those gentlemen’s minds would come up with.[/quote]

    here

    i should have done a similar treatment on the “powder reds” (meaning, much more gray, much less red)[/quote]

    That looks pretty good. In fact, I wouldn’t mind a little less gray and a little more green.

    If you have an extra minute, Mr. Hecken, would you try the powder red with more gray? I’d like to see that.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”343103″]Back to White Sox…
    This is REALLY crude, technicall speaking, but here’s what I was talking about. Switch the socks to white (with a diamond sock logo positioned ala the ’71 red set).
    At least there wouldn’t be the occasional player with black lower legs.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    that’s nice ricko…i like that

    i had to just fix it a smidge tho ;)

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 4:59 pm |

    [quote]If you have an extra minute, Mr. Hecken, would you try the powder red with more gray? I’d like to see that.[/quote]

    yes…the “originals” are on my home computer, so when i get home, i’ll tweak them like i did with the a’s…

    gimme a couple hours :)

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 5:00 pm |

    gray=powder black

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 5:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”343106″][quote comment=”343103″]Back to White Sox…
    This is REALLY crude, technicall speaking, but here’s what I was talking about. Switch the socks to white (with a diamond sock logo positioned ala the ’71 red set).
    At least there wouldn’t be the occasional player with black lower legs.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    that’s nice ricko…i like that

    i had to just fix it a smidge tho ;)[/quote]

    Hey, was just dealing with reality.

  • JimV19 | July 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 5:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]
    Don’t you mean gray=powder white?

    (Asssuming we’re not talking about those Just For Men/Just Five Minute products.)

  • sgalob | July 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”343096″]I’m a White Sox fan, and if they ever wore any of these designs, except for the Blue Monday design, I would be embarrassed to be a fan. Terrible idea.
    As said, the Blue Monday is beautiful, but I don’t think it’s an improvement on the current uni. The only thing I’d take from it are those socks. I’d love to see them wear a black version of that everyday.[/quote]

    if you’re dan morgenthaler you’ve got ta bunt in this situation. because a swing and a miss just won’t do.

  • Larry Kurtze | July 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”343105″][quote comment=”343077″][quote comment=”343076″][quote]Now powder green on the other hand…ah, but that’s for another team and another day.[/quote]

    Powder green? Now THAT would be interesting. I’d love to see what those gentlemen’s minds would come up with.[/quote]

    here

    i should have done a similar treatment on the “powder reds” (meaning, much more gray, much less red)[/quote]

    That looks pretty good. In fact, I wouldn’t mind a little less gray and a little more green.

    If you have an extra minute, Mr. Hecken, would you try the powder red with more gray? I’d like to see that.[/quote]

    So are the current Padres road unis “powder yellow”?

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”343103″](with a diamond sock logo positioned ala the ‘71 red set[/quote]Diamond or circle?

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”343114″][quote comment=”343103″](with a diamond sock logo positioned ala the ‘71 red set[/quote]Diamond or circle?[/quote]

    Diamond, cuz it’s what they’re using now. Basically pick up the shoulder logo.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 5:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”343115″][quote comment=”343114″][quote comment=”343103″](with a diamond sock logo positioned ala the ‘71 red set[/quote]Diamond or circle?[/quote]

    Diamond, cuz it’s what they’re using now. Basically pick up the shoulder logo.[/quote]

    I meant in that position on the sock, as in ’71

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 5:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”343110″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)[/quote]

    you are a sick sick man

    Q&D

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”343117″][quote comment=”343110″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)[/quote]

    you are a sick sick man

    Q&D[/quote]
    [quote comment=”343117″][quote comment=”343110″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)[/quote]

    you are a sick sick man

    Q&D[/quote]

    Wouldn’t that be the color of the K-State hoops jerseys of the ’70s?

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”343100″]Wait. What? Bulls and Sox season ticket-holders are going to bail out so they can scoop up tickets for a team that plays a completely different sport almost 500 miles away?[/quote]

    If you squint and tilt your head 45 degrees, then having a weak NHL team in Phoenix (which I assume was the start of this little trip on the road to Fantasyland) benefits the Hawks, which helps Reinsdorf as they’re the co-tenants in the United Center with his Bulls. Parking, concessions, etc. A stronger team in Canada would push the Hawks further down the overall NHL power rankings.

    Or maybe I’m totally off base…. :-))))

    Seriously: Mrs Reinsdorf has as much to do with this as anyone. Apparently there was no way in hell she was spending February and March in Florida, so Jerry moved Sox Spring training to Arizona. I imagine the Coyotes will help her stretch the winter out even further.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”343115″]Diamond, cuz it’s what they’re using now. Basically pick up the shoulder logo.[/quote]
    Powder Diamond?

    :-)))

    Ah, I just wanted to get you going Ricko. You caught me Monday on the “circle vs diamond” insignia.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm |

    I have forgotten all day to print this: but of all of the concepts presented in the main article, hats off to Robert the artist’s work.

    I remain a big fan of the current Sox uniforms; but if we were still dealing with the uniforms from 1989 or even the ones before that (Veeck’s 1900 throwback look) I’d vote to change and the look would be what Robert presented.

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”343111″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]
    Don’t you mean gray=powder white?

    (Asssuming we’re not talking about those Just For Men/Just Five Minute products.)[/quote]

    if adding white to white equals gray.

  • sgalob | July 30, 2009 at 5:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”343121″]I have forgotten all day to print this: but of all of the concepts presented in the main article, hats off to Robert the artist’s work.

    I remain a big fan of the current Sox uniforms; but if we were still dealing with the uniforms from 1989 or even the ones before that (Veeck’s 1900 throwback look) I’d vote to change and the look would be what Robert presented.[/quote]

    thanks. i really have no problem with the current sox either except the grey/silver. essentially all i call for is making that part of the uni red. and the road is fine as is, but if i were going to tweak it, i more or less am just flipping the primary colour from black to white.

    they just won a world series for the first time in forever wearing their current digs, so they are not going away, a moderate tweak is all you could hope for here even if you hated the sox look, which i don’t.

  • el scotto | July 30, 2009 at 6:18 pm |

    With all due respect Phil… you redid the White Sox a few days ago in their city colors. How many times can we redo the Sox unis?

  • sgalob | July 30, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

    engence will be swift this evening on the diamond
    youppi!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Brian | July 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm |

    Am I the only one who thinks a commemorative bat is the wrong type of memorabilia to celebrate a no hitter/perfect game?

    http://bigtimebats.c...

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 6:39 pm |

    Somewhere in Cleveland very soon a bunch of us will be gathering in one spot.

    (This is where Phil says, “You say that like it’s a good thing.”)

    —Ricko

  • fox | July 30, 2009 at 6:54 pm |

    i know even suggesting a yankees uniform switch is sacrilege, but i’d love to see my boys wear a home throwback that changes the white to a cream/off-white and takes the NY off the chest. simple, something they actually wore (i think), and true enough to their uni history to be a change the team and fans would likely not bitch about.

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 7:02 pm |

    In what may tickle some people due to it’s look, I just acquired this.

    I might be the only NBA jersey that I’ll ever own. And if the right offer comes my way, I’d part with it.

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 7:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”343129″]In what may tickle some people due to it’s look, I just acquired this.

    It might be the only NBA jersey that I’ll ever own. And if the right offer comes my way, I’d part with it.[/quote]

    Damned spelling mistakes.

  • Teebz | July 30, 2009 at 7:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”343130″]
    It might be the only NBA jersey that I’ll ever own. And if the right offer comes my way, I’d part with it.[/quote]

    And apparently my link doesn’t care to work either. Let’s try this one.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 7:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”343128″]i know even suggesting a yankees uniform switch is sacrilege, but i’d love to see my boys wear a home throwback that changes the white to a cream/off-white and takes the NY off the chest. simple, something they actually wore (i think), and true enough to their uni history to be a change the team and fans would likely not bitch about.[/quote]

    Rarely were unis cream intentionally. Flannel is difficult to make pure white. They wanted those unis to be white, but it was just about impossible to accomplish, so they got a light cream and that was considered “white”. Over time and with cleanings, flannel loses “color”, just as any older flannel shirt fades. In the case of white, it reverted to it’s natural color (ever seen a sheep?). The older the “white” flannel uniform is, the more “cream” it’s likely to look.

    The science experts here can tell us precisely why, but I suspect it has to do with the high lanolin content.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 7:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”343107″][quote]If you have an extra minute, Mr. Hecken, would you try the powder red with more gray? I’d like to see that.[/quote]

    yes…the “originals” are on my home computer, so when i get home, i’ll tweak them like i did with the a’s…

    gimme a couple hours :)[/quote]

    ok…i think this may be infinitely more palatable…wouldn’t call this powder red, or heather red…

    but more like red-tinged gray…just a “touch” of red in this

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”343133″][quote comment=”343107″][quote]If you have an extra minute, Mr. Hecken, would you try the powder red with more gray? I’d like to see that.[/quote]

    yes…the “originals” are on my home computer, so when i get home, i’ll tweak them like i did with the a’s…

    gimme a couple hours :)[/quote]

    ok…i think this may be infinitely more palatable…wouldn’t call this powder red, or heather red…

    but more like red-tinged gray…just a “touch” of red in this[/quote]

    Looks like the concrete around Jimmy Hoffa.

  • Patrick | July 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm |

    Adam’s first comment hit the nail right on the head. But the only thing I’d want to add to it is the suggestion that White Sox fans, much in the same way Mets fans have it in New York, are in the shadow of the Cubs in many ways.

    Sure, they won a series more recently, but everyone seems to love the pastoral, sunny look of the Cubs and their legendary (and in actuality, decrepit) home park.

    So, the fact we have an all black, Darth Vader dressed team of goth kids playing in what looks like, from the Dan Ryan at least, a prison yard is sort of what makes up our “anti-Cubs” image.

    And the guy that suggested “powder red” can get bent.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 7:14 pm |

    [quote]ever seen a sheep?[/quote]

    taken out of context, it’s a frightening question

    even in context…

  • Berto | July 30, 2009 at 7:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”343126″]Am I the only one who thinks a commemorative bat is the wrong type of memorabilia to celebrate a no hitter/perfect game?

    http://bigtimebats.c...

    Huh, I thought they’d make it with a big hole in it.

  • Mike Engle | July 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”343136″]ever seen a sheep?[/quote]
    If you’re at Queen’s University, you’ve done more than see a sheep.

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 8:09 pm |

    Here’s a really down and dirty rendering of the original TBTC uni adapted some. Current logo on chest & hat. 1976 lettering on chest of roads. Home is white; road gray, including hat. Ditiched chest placket piping on road cuz fought with all the lettering. Sort of the look from EIGHT MEN OUT.
    http://farm4.static....

    And the current home set, with nothing other than the silver to changed to red.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 8:24 pm |

    but more like red-tinged gray…just a “touch” of red in this

    I’m calling it “Dusty Rose”.

  • Michael Emody | July 30, 2009 at 8:24 pm |

    Thanks to all who had positive comments on my “renderings.” To those that hated them, all I can say is: I know I need to get a life! I’m trying. Most of the Sox uni ideas were done when I should have been using my animation app for… animating. For those interested, the Krusty pic was done with Toon Boom Studio, using their stock background. (Though I think the floor is from one of my sets.) I’ve spent a lot of time studying screen shots of animated shows, tracing and deconstructing characters to see how they move, etc. You kind of have to figure out this stuff on your own. So, importing and posing Krusty was no big deal.

    BTW, my project is no where close to being presentable. It’s original characters, backgrounds, voices, scripts – damn I’m insane. I’m also attempting to revive a comedy career, by taking improv classes at Second City. I’m entering their conservatory program next week.

    So, before I turn this into a therapy session, here’s what I REALLY think the White Sox should go to:
    White Sox for 10.

    Great work by LI Phil for putting all this together- thanks!

  • leon | July 30, 2009 at 8:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”343137″][quote comment=”343126″]Am I the only one who thinks a commemorative bat is the wrong type of memorabilia to celebrate a no hitter/perfect game?

    http://bigtimebats.c...

    Huh, I thought they’d make it with a big hole in it.[/quote]

    good one!

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 8:54 pm |

    My parents are visiting right now and my dad’s wearing a… ummm… powder red shirt.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 8:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”343143″]My parents are visiting right now and my dad’s wearing a… ummm… powder red shirt.[/quote]

    pics?

  • mike 2 | July 30, 2009 at 8:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”343138″][quote comment=”343136″]ever seen a sheep?[/quote]
    If you’re at Queen’s University, you’ve done more than see a sheep.[/quote]

    Hey now! I resemble that remark.

    (Science ’89)

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 9:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”343144″][quote comment=”343143″]My parents are visiting right now and my dad’s wearing a… ummm… powder red shirt.[/quote]

    pics?[/quote]
    Or it didn’t happen? I guess it didn’t happen.

  • Michael Emody | July 30, 2009 at 9:10 pm |

    I forgot to mention – the Blue Monday design was meant as an alt to be worn on Mondays only, where only blues music is played during the game. The road version would mostly advertise the promotion.

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 9:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”343140″]b…gray…just a “touch” of …[/quote]
    …kind of suits you any way…

    Yeah, earlier today I was going for something with the Grecian Formula thing (leave in as much gray as you want!). It was a swing-and-a-miss with my “powder white” joke. I’ll get back to it when time to flesh it out.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 9:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”343149″][quote comment=”343140″]b…gray…just a “touch” of …[/quote]
    …kind of suits you any way…[/quote]

    i guess i get the gist of it

    /don’t give up your day job

  • pflava | July 30, 2009 at 9:37 pm |

    Excellent job today, Phil. I love the idea of posting concepts here for teams that need tweaking (or full blown redesigns). I side with those who think there are only 4 or 5 uniforms in all of the major sports that are just about perfect, if that many. There are almost always a few slight changes that can make a good uniform great, or a great one perfect.

    Of the ones today, Rob pretty much nailed it. That red trim brings some much needed vibrancy to a dull color set. However, not to sound blasphemous, but I don’t think it has ever made sense for the White Sox to wear stirrups. I mean, they aren’t the White Stirrups. White socks with striping is all this team ever should have used.

    Can’t wait to see ideas for the Blue Jays, Padres, Nationals, Astros, Diamondbacks, Twins, Rangers, Marlins, Mets, Phillies…let’s just say there are a lot of teams that could use some changes. And that’s just baseball.

  • flip | July 30, 2009 at 9:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”343118″][quote comment=”343117″][quote comment=”343110″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)[/quote]

    you are a sick sick man

    Q&D[/quote]
    [quote comment=”343117″][quote comment=”343110″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)[/quote]

    you are a sick sick man

    Q&D[/quote]

    Wouldn’t that be the color of the K-State hoops jerseys of the ’70s?[/quote]

    That’s pretty funny. Here’s those hoops jerseys:

    http://www.mmbolding...

  • JTH | July 30, 2009 at 9:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”343150″][quote comment=”343149″][quote comment=”343140″]b…gray…just a “touch” of …[/quote]
    …kind of suits you any way…[/quote]

    i guess i get the gist of it

    /don’t give up your day job[/quote]
    … unless that actually is your day job.

  • TJ | July 30, 2009 at 9:54 pm |

    The Buffalo Bills just unveiled their new throwback jerseys in celebration of the franchise’s 50th Anniversary. It’s the AFL Champions, 1964-1965, era Away sets. And they’re already on sale

    http://www.buffalobi...

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”343151″]Excellent job today, Phil.[/quote]

    thank you, thank you very much

    [quote] I love the idea of posting concepts here for teams that need tweaking (or full blown redesigns). I side with those who think there are only 4 or 5 uniforms in all of the major sports that are just about perfect, if that many. There are almost always a few slight changes that can make a good uniform great, or a great one perfect.

    Of the ones today, Rob pretty much nailed it.[/quote]

    absolutely agree…he’s an artist, i just kinda fuck around

    but yeah…i LOVED his set

    [quote]That red trim brings some much needed vibrancy to a dull color set. However, not to sound blasphemous, but I don’t think it has ever made sense for the White Sox to wear stirrups. I mean, they aren’t the White Stirrups. White socks with striping is all this team ever should have used.[/quote]

    well…i did make a couple that were stirrupless, and for just that reason

    [quote]Can’t wait to see ideas for the Blue Jays, Padres, Nationals, Astros, Diamondbacks, Twins, Rangers, Marlins, Mets, Phillies…let’s just say there are a lot of teams that could use some changes. And that’s just baseball.[/quote]

    i will announce the next team over the weekend…and i’ve already got some real graphics guys lined up too (not that robert & mike weren’t awesome — i was referring more to my efforts)

    hell…maybe they’ll even be back too

  • flip | July 30, 2009 at 9:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”343154″]The Buffalo Bills just unveiled their new throwback jerseys in celebration of the franchise’s 50th Anniversary. It’s the AFL Champions, 1964-1965, era Away sets. And they’re already on sale

    http://www.buffalobi...

    With sleeves?
    http://www.buffalobi...

  • TJ | July 30, 2009 at 10:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”343154″]The Buffalo Bills just unveiled their new throwback jerseys in celebration of the franchise’s 50th Anniversary. It’s the AFL Champions, 1964-1965, era Away sets. And they’re already on sale

    http://www.buffalobi...

    http://www.sportslog...

    Sports Logo’s visual aid for it

  • TJ | July 30, 2009 at 10:06 pm |

    [quote comment=\”343156\”][quote comment=\”343154\”]The Buffalo Bills just unveiled their new throwback jerseys in celebration of the franchise\’s 50th Anniversary. It\’s the AFL Champions, 1964-1965, era Away sets. And they\’re already on sale

    http://www.buffalobi...

    With sleeves?
    http://www.buffalobi...

    Just order it as a XXL for that vintage feel :-P

  • anotherguy | July 30, 2009 at 10:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”343150″]don’t give up your day job[/quote]Yeah yeah.

    Coming from the guy with all the Beatles references today….

  • MPowers1634 | July 30, 2009 at 10:14 pm |

    Just got back from Fenway…

    Words cannot describe how much I fell in love with that place today.

    I will post pics saturday!

    And Davis went with the logo stirrups again today.

  • LI Phil | July 30, 2009 at 10:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”343159″][quote comment=”343150″]don’t give up your day job[/quote]Yeah yeah.

    Coming from the guy with all the Beatles references today….[/quote]

    that’s from the dead (though technically, it’s from jerry’s solo album)

    robert zimmerman tomorrow

  • JD | July 30, 2009 at 10:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”343133″][quote comment=”343107″][quote]If you have an extra minute, Mr. Hecken, would you try the powder red with more gray? I’d like to see that.[/quote]

    yes…the “originals” are on my home computer, so when i get home, i’ll tweak them like i did with the a’s…

    gimme a couple hours :)[/quote]

    ok…i think this may be infinitely more palatable…wouldn’t call this powder red, or heather red…

    but more like red-tinged gray…just a “touch” of red in this[/quote]

    Yeah…MUCH better.

  • Patrick in MI | July 30, 2009 at 11:23 pm |

    That Chicago Bulls logo thing reminds me of the logo for Red Dog beer. Turn it upside down and it resembles Batman performing…uhhh…something.

    http://m17.photobuck...

  • Ricko | July 30, 2009 at 11:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”343158″][quote comment=\”343156\”][quote comment=\”343154\”]The Buffalo Bills just unveiled their new throwback jerseys in celebration of the franchise\’s 50th Anniversary. It\’s the AFL Champions, 1964-1965, era Away sets. And they\’re already on sale

    http://www.buffalobi...

    With sleeves?
    http://www.buffalobi...

    Just order it as a XXL for that vintage feel :-P[/quote]

    And the stripes are all wrong, too. The Bills never–repeat, never—wore that jersey.

    —Ricko

  • MPowers1634 | July 31, 2009 at 12:05 am |

    I should be ashamed for not complimenting Phil and JTH for another incredibly in-depth entry.

    As Paul said the other day, your work is magnificent.

  • Jim BC | July 31, 2009 at 12:24 am |

    [quote comment=”343164″][quote comment=”343158″][quote comment=\”343156\”][quote comment=\”343154\”]The Buffalo Bills just unveiled their new throwback jerseys in celebration of the franchise\’s 50th Anniversary. It\’s the AFL Champions, 1964-1965, era Away sets. And they\’re already on sale

    http://www.buffalobi...

    With sleeves?
    http://www.buffalobi...

    Just order it as a XXL for that vintage feel :-P[/quote]

    And the stripes are all wrong, too. The Bills never–repeat, never—wore that jersey.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    You’re right Ricko… of course… so, why, why would the do this? Instead of this:
    http://www.weirdwolf...

  • JimV19 | July 31, 2009 at 12:36 am |

    [quote comment=”343117″][quote comment=”343110″][quote comment=”343108″]gray=powder black[/quote]

    Since Paul’s not here, can anyone put the Rockies in powder purple? ;)[/quote]

    you are a sick sick man

    Q&D[/quote]

    You’re only saying that because it’s true…

  • Craig | July 31, 2009 at 1:18 am |

    A shoutout from the AVC.

  • chance michaels | July 31, 2009 at 9:57 am |

    [quote comment=”343072″]Joe is obviously a Cubs fan because attendance is the first thing they always point to. On the north side, they don’t care if they win, they’re just proud to fill the “World’s Largest Beer Garden”. Anyway, I digress… I was pointing out that a successful franchise is one that wins games, division championships and World Series titles. I guess some people don’t understand that is the point of the game. I would be very curious to see where the White Sox rank in the overall standings since 1990.[/quote]

    Marketing being part of any business plan, attendance does in some part reflect on the success of a franchise.

    But sometimes attendance reflects more on the market itself than the team. The Tampa Bay area, for example, has shown that it just doesn’t care about baseball. The Rays win, the Rays lose, and Floridians stay away in droves either way.

  • joe | July 31, 2009 at 10:18 am |

    [quote comment=”343056″][quote comment=”343051″]
    they played at 44321, increased to 45936, to 47098 seat new comiskey until they lowered seating to about 40615 when they changed the name. That’s not a good % capacity if you look at it. they had a bump after the WS and that is now gone. they didn’t even fill the place the year they actually won.[/quote]

    Not to ruin an analysis, but how many teams are playing at capacity?[/quote]
    its not about being *at* capacity, its about the % capacity, they play to a low % capacity. They do not draw people even when they are winning. If JR runs hockey like baseball they will still be playing in front of low crowds in AZ, that was the only point. They got a new stadium in the 90s because JR threatened to move them to FL. The state paid of the stadium and by all accounts they literally moved the hands back on the clock to beat the midnight deadline when it happened. Now the taxpayers are paying for a stadium and no ones going, he’ll do the same thing in AZ. Just let the team move to somewhere it can survive.

  • joe | July 31, 2009 at 10:22 am |

    [quote comment=”343064″][quote comment=”343062″]But that doesn’t make them more successful. It just means that they have a bigger following. 100 years and counting, right?

    Look at the TML. They sellout their building every night, but they suck hard. They make money, but successful? 1967 says no.[/quote]
    Well, some would say the Cubs are more succesful than the Sox at marketing. I’m not sure I agree, but I do think that the 40k Cubs take some part of attendance away from the Sox.

    Some of it’s Wrigley, some of it’s Wrigleyville and some of it’s “nothing succeeds like success” but that bar in Terre Haute that runs one bus per year to a major league game is ten times more likely to drive (LITERALLY) right past Comiskey to get to Wrigley.

    When the Brewers switched leagues, somebody in their front office said “now we can have a rivalry with Chicago” as if those last six miles were some sort of fence or barrier. As a Sox fan I was annoyed, but if I was a Milwaukee businessman I’d agree.

    So to get back to where this started: I think a substitute in the same market faces an uphill climb to overcome a team that’s had a zillion years of “lets go to their game because it’s the thing to do”.[/quote]
    cubs attendance does not take away form the Sox, they almost never both play at home on the same day

  • joe | July 31, 2009 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”343072″][quote comment=”343051″][quote comment=”343045″][quote comment=”343041″][quote comment=”343032″][quote comment=”343023″]
    and if he runs hockey anything like baseball there will still be a half empty stadium for the games[/quote]

    The White Sox have been one of the most successful teams in the AL since 1990. The Bulls need no explaination.[/quote]

    not in wins or people in the seats, but maybe in gang related jersey sales.[/quote]
    I’m not positive, and I don’t have time to check right now, but don’t the White Sox have about the 3rd or 4th best record in the AL since 1990? I’m pretty sure they had the third best record in all of baseball during the 1990’s. In the 2000’s, they have won 3 division titles and a World Series… That sounds like a pretty successful team to me.[/quote]

    white sox attendance http://www.baseball-...

    they played at 44321, increased to 45936, to 47098 seat new comiskey until they lowered seating to about 40615 when they changed the name. That’s not a good % capacity if you look at it. they had a bump after the WS and that is now gone. they didn’t even fill the place the year they actually won.[/quote]
    Joe is obviously a Cubs fan because attendance is the first thing they always point to. On the north side, they don’t care if they win, they’re just proud to fill the “World’s Largest Beer Garden”. Anyway, I digress… I was pointing out that a successful franchise is one that wins games, division championships and World Series titles. I guess some people don’t understand that is the point of the game. I would be very curious to see where the White Sox rank in the overall standings since 1990.[/quote]

    fandom is irrelevant, this comment was about nothing more than if he run Hockey like baseball they won’t survive.

  • joe | July 31, 2009 at 10:33 am |

    [quote comment=”343100″][quote comment=”343081″]The biggest losers of another NHL team in or near Toronto would be the Blue Jays and Raptors. Much of their season ticket base consists of people that would rather have Leafs tickets. In fact, many Raptors season ticket holders canceled their Jays tix.

    Reinsdorf owns teams in the NBA and AL, and realizes that keeping the Coyotes out of Canada benefits his 2 Chicago teams.[/quote]
    Yeah. Totally.

    Wait. What? Bulls and Sox season ticket-holders are going to bail out so they can scoop up tickets for a team that plays a completely different sport almost 500 miles away?[/quote]

    I think he means Toronto will lose ticket sales which will, in turn, hurt all NBA franchises

  • Big Al | July 31, 2009 at 10:49 am |

    [quote comment=”343113″]So are the current Padres road unis “powder yellow”?[/quote]
    Sand. For some reason, I’ve always dug those jerseys.

  • anotherguy | July 31, 2009 at 10:59 am |

    [quote comment=”343212″]cubs attendance does not take away form the Sox, they almost never both play at home on the same day[/quote]
    Well, that’s certainly one way of looking at thihngs.

  • Steve | July 31, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”342952″]Guess the Game:

    I’m 99% sure it’s this game, though the lineup display is puzzling (no DH?)

    How I got there: I saw the unis, figured it was early 80’s, then looked at who batted third for Chi, went to his first year, found opponent, matched out of town scoreboard.[/quote]

    Guess the Game
    Ben was off by one day. I got there almost exactly the same way as Ben without looking at Ben’s guess. Started by uniform 1976-81 per Paul Lukas article, then noticed overlap of only one year for popular catcher on the Sox, and then out-of-town scoreboard. From that point, had to identify which game in 2-game series. The only games played that day are ones with pitcher numbers listed. Another way to confirm which of the 2-game series it was is to look at the lineup. Brewers had different order of 4,5,6 hitters. By the way, there was a DH, but it is listed as “B” on the scoreboard. This was the game.

  • JTH | July 31, 2009 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”343165″]I should be ashamed for not complimenting Phil and JTH for another incredibly in-depth entry.

    As Paul said the other day, your work is magnificent.[/quote]
    Thanks, but I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again today. The other guys did all the heavy lifting. I just found a bunch of pictures.