Uniformity Conformity
OK, I agree. The new uniforms, are, um, blah. And as one fellow blogger suggests, the curly 'W' on the hat doesn't match the uniform. I think the 'blahness' of the uniforms were done for a reason.
We have to remember that no one owns the Nats yet. Well, MLB does, but a bunch of rich old guys don't much care about uniforms; they care about making even more buckets of money then they already have. The soon-to-be new owner has been given a 'generic' uniform that will most certainly (I hope) be revamped the year after the team is purchased. So, for now, it isn't 'barf' ugly, but it aint a Picasso either.
I gotta talk about the hat. It was terribly important that MLB connect with those of us who remember Ted Williams, Frank Howard, Eddie Brinkman and Denny McLain. Well, o.k., McLain went 10-22 his only season as a Senator, so I guess we should try to forget him, but the other fellas are part of our youth, and the hat is a great way of connecting my generation of Senators fans with the new generation of Nationals fans. I love the red at home and blue on the road motif. Thank goodness, though, that they didn't replicate the ugly blue hat used in '66 that had the red piping between the hat panels. Yuck. Rather than have a new hat to match the uniform, I believe (hope) that the next generations of uniform will match the hat.
A word about the team name. The 'Senators' being politically incorrect, and my personal favorite (the Federals, a la our late USFL team) being unpopular, the name 'Nationals' make a lot of sense. I never saw 'Senators' in any headline in the Post sports page. It was always something like, "Howard hits two homers, Nats lose 8-3."
Memo to Robert Short: Stay away. We're keeping this team, thank you. Memo to the Griffith family: Stay away. Why didn't the Senators draw? Does the phrase, "First in war, first in peace, and last in the American league" mean anything to you?? Go Nats
We have to remember that no one owns the Nats yet. Well, MLB does, but a bunch of rich old guys don't much care about uniforms; they care about making even more buckets of money then they already have. The soon-to-be new owner has been given a 'generic' uniform that will most certainly (I hope) be revamped the year after the team is purchased. So, for now, it isn't 'barf' ugly, but it aint a Picasso either.
I gotta talk about the hat. It was terribly important that MLB connect with those of us who remember Ted Williams, Frank Howard, Eddie Brinkman and Denny McLain. Well, o.k., McLain went 10-22 his only season as a Senator, so I guess we should try to forget him, but the other fellas are part of our youth, and the hat is a great way of connecting my generation of Senators fans with the new generation of Nationals fans. I love the red at home and blue on the road motif. Thank goodness, though, that they didn't replicate the ugly blue hat used in '66 that had the red piping between the hat panels. Yuck. Rather than have a new hat to match the uniform, I believe (hope) that the next generations of uniform will match the hat.
A word about the team name. The 'Senators' being politically incorrect, and my personal favorite (the Federals, a la our late USFL team) being unpopular, the name 'Nationals' make a lot of sense. I never saw 'Senators' in any headline in the Post sports page. It was always something like, "Howard hits two homers, Nats lose 8-3."
Memo to Robert Short: Stay away. We're keeping this team, thank you. Memo to the Griffith family: Stay away. Why didn't the Senators draw? Does the phrase, "First in war, first in peace, and last in the American league" mean anything to you?? Go Nats
# posted by Farid Rushdi @ 9:39 PM 
