There was some pretty big uniform news coming out of Boston yesterday, as it was announced the team will be getting a new City Connect uniform for 2025. Now that isn’t big news (several teams have already announced they’ll be ditching their CC’s for new ones in 2025), but in what is definitely a first, the Red Sox will be keeping their current City Connect uniform as well as getting a new one heading into next season.
Here’s the twist: MLB enacted the “4 + 1” rule in 2023, meaning that every MLB team is limited to four jerseys (home, road, and up to two alternates) plus their CC jersey (uniform). The Red Sox currently have a white home, road gray, and two alternate jerseys: a red home alternate jersey (which, like the current home uniform, is NNOB), and a blue road alternate jersey. The yellow City Connect jersey — which is worn as a uniform, is their “plus one.”
The Red Sox were the first MLB team to receive a CC uniform, back in 2021, and it’s quite popular with both the team and the fans. And with good reason. As I wrote earlier this year, as of June 17th (when that article was published), the Red Sox had been incredibly successful when wearing their CCs:
(The team has) worn their CC unis 42 times over three-plus seasons. Their record wearing them? 33-9. That’s right. Thirty-three wins against only nine losses. For those without a calculator handy, that translates to a winning percentage of .786! Now, 42 games is barely a quarter of a season, so it’s hard to extrapolate whether they’d even approach that percentage over a full season, but just for comparison, the team with the highest all-time single season winning percentage — the 1906 Chicago Cubs, who went 116-36 (.763) — isn’t even as good as the Red Sox winning percentage in the blue and yellow.
I had been thinking about that when several teams began announcing they’d be dropping their CC 1.0 uniforms for new ones next year. I was wondering if the team would get new CCs, or if they would want to keep them going forward, considering how well they have played while wearing them. Their 2024 record in the CC’s didn’t nearly match that of the previous three seasons. They finished at 35-13 overall since 2021 and 8-6 in 2024. But that’s still an overall .729 winning percentage. And more than enough reason to want to keep wearing the yellow CC’s into the future.
It seems like they will able to have it both ways: they are getting a new CC for 2025, but instead of simply retiring the Marathon-inspired uniform, they will have two CCs going forward.
But getting back to that 4 + 1 rule — If they already have four jerseys (white, gray, red, blue) plus the CC … and they’re getting a new CC … something’s gotta give. And so, the Sawx are going to drop the blue road jersey going forward.
According to the Boston Herald…
The blue alternates, which have historically been worn on the road, were first introduced in 2009 and in recent years became one of the club’s most frequently worn uniforms. The Red Sox wore the navy blue tops when they clinched their most recent World Series championship in 2018, and between 2020-23 they were worn as frequently, if not more, than the traditional gray road uniforms.
However, for 2024, the team changed its uniform protocol, wearing the CCs on Saturdays and restricting the blue jerseys solely to road Fridays.
But the biggest news here is obviously the fact that teams can actually elect to keep their current City Connect uniforms AND receive a new CC uniform, so long as they adhere to the “4 + 1” protocol. But if a team has two CC’s, how does that work?
“MLB allows Clubs who have a current City Connect jersey the ability to redesign it after several seasons,” Red Sox chief marketing officer Adam Grossman said. “Given the popularity of our yellow uniforms with our players and fans, we have elected to keep it as a core uniform offering for the foreseeable future. We will unveil a City Connect 2.0 uniform in 2025 and will no longer wear our blue alternate jerseys.”
So by Grossman’s reasoning (which I am sure has been OK’ed by MLB), they can designate their CC as a “core” uniform (so it would fall under the “4” part of the “4 + 1”) and then the new CC will become the new “1”. Got that?
I’m sure it’s just a matter of semantics, but I was always under the impression that the “4” referred to jerseys, not uniforms (since teams who wear alternate jerseys simply pair them with existing home or road pants). But the BoSox CC had its own specific cap, pants and socks, in addition to the yellow jersey. Since pants aren’t generally a retail product, apparently MLB is using jersey and uniform interchangeably (a bane to Uni Watch, but outside of UW, many folks refer to “jerseys” when they actually mean “uniforms”).
I personally liked the Red Sox CC uniforms (one of the very few I do), and I’m glad they’re going to be keeping them. But most CCs are terrible — has MLB now opened a proverbial Pandora’s Box by permitting teams, should they choose — to have multiple CC uniforms? Will the Red Sox be the only team to do this, or will we now have other teams want to add a new CC while keeping their old one? I wouldn’t mind if the White Sox (who have worn their current CC for four years) want to keep theirs, but for most teams? The sooner they can dump their current CC, the better.
A couple more questions are now in order: since the Sox had been wearing their blue alternates on the road for Friday games, will they now wear their gray jerseys on Fridays? Or will they elect to wear their red (home) alternate on the road? And will they now wear their CC both at home and on the road (teams have worn CC’s on the road previously)? I guess we’ll find out the answers to these questions next season.
What do you guys think of this news? Are you fans of the Red Sox CC unis (or would you prefer they just go away)? Do you think this is a bad precedent MLB is setting by allowing teams to move their CC’s to part of their “core 4” uniforms, while introducing a new CC in addition to keeping the old one?
When the CC program was first introduced, all teams were supposed to have a CC within the first three years (so all teams would have had one by 2023), and each club would wear their CC for three seasons before it was replaced with a new one. But it took MLB four years to fully roll out the program (with both the Yankees and Athletics not participating), with only the LA Dodgers having a CC 2.0. We know several teams will have new CC’s next year, but so far the Sox are alone in adding a new one while still keeping their old one. What could po$$ibly have factored into MLB’$ deci$ion?
Your thoughts?
The only potential problem I can see coming from this is the same problem I have with the NBA and their ever changing uniforms. When I turn on a game I should be able to tell who is playing because both teams are wearing team colors. If some of these CCs, which don’t have a single team color in them, get more into the rotations, it is going to be increasingly difficult to do this. As a fan I shouldn’t have to wait for a player closeup to know who is who on my screen.
I’ve always thought the solution could be this simple…
NBA: Flip to the NFL model (color at home, white on the road), and require every team to wear their classic white for *all* road games. At home? Go nuts.
MLB: Require every team to wear their classic grey for *all* road games. At home? Go nuts.
Only issue with that in MLB is that some teams have gray CC’s. Mets and Rays are the first that come to mind
And, as mentioned in a couple comments below, this would also eliminate the need for teams to travel with multiple uniform sets.
I can tell who is playing based on the score bug on the TV.
Sure, but can you tell which team is which? That’s the problem I have with the NBA and all their alts. Sure, you can figure it out quickly enough, but if you have to keep consciously reminding yourself (made up example), “okay, that’s Philly wearing black and Houston wearing yellow,” that’s not a good situation.
They could just make the color/background color of whatever the color that team is wearing that day on the score bug. Easy problem solved. I don’t want less uniforms for a reason like that
With streaming, where you choose which game to watch, that isn’t an issue. And honestly wasn’t ever an issue with the score bug.
Not entirely shocked by this. While I dislike the uni since it’s not you know Red, I get it. It’s got the city flag colors and has a tie to the Marathon so it actually accomplishes the goal of a City Connect. Apparently it also doubles as Marathon wear as I’ve heard from that people buy the CCs not seeing it as a Red Sox jersey but as something for the Marathon. So my guess is that probably helps the sales a lot hence the reason to keep it.
As for the Navy top getting dropped that’s not a massive deal. It’s a perfectly acceptable color top but nothing special.
I would prefer that all the CC unis go away. But has that will not be happening any time soon, I hope the next batch are better for most teams.
I’m guessing that yellow jersey sales is driving the decision in Boston, not success on the field. Any time I see a Sox home game, there seems to be plenty of yellow in the crowd. I’ve never been a fan. I get the city flag thing, but would like the teams to still look like the teams.
I think this speaks to a “soccerification” of sports unis in general, with the NBA being the first team to pick unofficial colors for alternates. Once other leagues realized they could constantly cycle in new merch, including stuff with colors that don’t look like the team but appeal to more casual fans, they went all in. I imagine we’ll start to see even the relatively conservative NFL consistently do more one-offs in years to come as basketball, baseball, and hockey uniforms get less uniform.
I love this comment because it perfectly mirrors sentiments throughout the UK and Europe that soccer is becoming too “Americanised” (intentional British spelling).
For the record, I think you’re right.
Ha! It’s so funny how this stuff is ultimately cyclical. Even ads on jerseys were huge in the early 20th century but faded here, then reappeared in Europe.
Ugh. Figured they’d find a way to keep the yellow’s, even it if was saying that they are going to continue as a CC uniform.
Making it part of the 4? Okay, I guess. Life long Sox fan, and I have never liked the yellow’s – but I did pick up a blue shirt, of the CC blue with “BOSTON” in yellow.
I cannot imagine what Nike has in store for the next Boston CC uniform – maybe just a giant Dunkin’ billboard?
Phil, I love your work, love the site, and enjoy reading your thoughts on any subject. However, I always have to smile at your obsession with team records/success and how they impact fan/team opinions of uniforms. Case in point:
“The Red Sox were the first MLB team to receive a CC uniform, back in 2021, and it’s quite popular with both the team and the fans. And with good reason. As I wrote earlier this year, as of June 17th (when that article was published), the Red Sox had been incredibly successful when wearing their CCs:”
I can understand that success may be a MINOR factor when it comes to people’s acceptance and/or memories of a given uniform, but I assure you it is not anywhere near as relevant as you make it out to be. If I’m way off base here, please tell me, but I feel like I read similar commentary multiple times a week here on UW.
It may not matter as much to Uni Watchers (ie, those who are obsessessed over the athletic aesthetic), but I assure you people absolutely DO equate winning and losing with certain uniforms. I’ve written about this many times, and it absolutely is a thing. If your team has success in a given uniform (no matter how good or bad it is), that uni will be associated with winning, and it will be “liked” more by fans. The same holds true for really good uniforms in which a team doesn’t have much success. The fans will equate the uniform with losing.
We all know the uniform has no effect on outcome. But athletes and fans are human, so they will ascribe certain “powers” to a uniform if a team performs well or poorly in it.
link
Sounds like some sort of empirical study is needed. I think what you’re saying is more accurate for throwback uniforms, and less so relevant to the present.
As for the article you linked, there may be some truth to it, but here’s how I see it:
1) I don’t have any issues with the Mets 1986 unis, but I would defer to you as a Mets fan.
2) I don’t think people love nor hate these uniforms in general. I don’t remember there being a ton of negativity towards them when they were the current set, and it’s hard for people to not have fond memories of a uniform that is tied to a literal dynasty. It doesn’t help that the set that replaced them is terrible.
3) I’m almost 100% certain that nobody likes these. Being a big admirer of the city and a huge LeBron fan, I’m somewhat of a casual Cavs fan. I’ve never heard any positive remarks about this uniform, not even along the lines of the “well we won in them” sentiment that you wrote about. I’ve also never seen anyone in public wearing it, and I don’t think I’ve seen more than 5 sleeved NBA jerseys in the wild in my entire life.
4) I’ve never really heard anyone justify their affection for the Flying V jersey based on success. It truly is a love it or hate it situation, and even those that love it seem to echo your reasoning (so bad it’s good).
Anyway, my point was that while there may be some veracity to the idea that success (or lack thereof) impacts fans’ opinions of uniforms, the frequency at which it is referenced on here seems to give it too much weight. YVVM.
YVVM…OMG did I read that right?
; )
Hahaha CheisH, I’m not sure if you’re the originator, but I’ve certainly seen YVVM on here enough so I thought I’d join in!
Okay, I’m stumped. I know what YMMV means, obviously, but what is YVVM? I thought you’d just mistyped but then you doubled down in your response to CheisH’s question. I googled it but all I found was YMMV.
It was originally *once* a typo by “ChrisH” — and UWers thought it was funny and ran with it … same with “CheisH” — he once misspelled his own name to log in and well, the rest is also history.
The 86 Mets jersey’s were OK because they looked enough like the original with the stripes added. The black ones the wore in the late 90’s to early 2000’s were trash and that was just an attempt to cash in on the popularity of black that started when the White Sox changed to that color in 1991.
Former college baseball player here. At least for us, we felt the day’s jersey did matter for our success. We played in the regional tournament and needed one win for the title. We lost in game one wearing our blue jerseys. We decided to switch to gold tops for game two and blew out our opponent to win the regional. We played well in gold all season and it was a confidence boost for us.
My soccer team is the same, but I feel like that’s partially due to smaller sample sizes. Any time we feel like we’re on a run with a particular kit to the point where we purposely wear it, we instantly lose in it.
I appreciate Phil engaging you. And you do have very valid points. But you proved yourself a bit of a hypocrite when you discounted opinions and called people “some boomer” recently. Goes against what I thought you were trying to do here.
I didn’t see your response to my comment at the time (or any of the others as they came late in the day).
I think you’re right to call out my dismissive use of “Boomer”, but you may have also misconstrued my overall point. I called him a Boomer as a response to his “get off my lawn” type remarks. I wouldn’t openly dismiss an entire generation without provocation. Maybe my response was immature.
As for inclusivity, I think UW is fairly inclusive. What I take issue with is people toeing the party line and blindly supporting the opinions of current and (especially) former staff. I appreciate you acknowledging my efforts to diversify the voices in the comments, and if you think I went too far with the Boomer comment, I would say I felt it was warranted but that I don’t disagree.
I’ve mostly come to terms with the Sox CC unis…I wish there were some red accents but it’s fine. I kind of figured the next iteration would be a variation on the marathon colors (maybe just the inverse), so my real reservation about this is what it means for the next CC design.
With the navy road alternate, the only extra clothing packed with the team on a road trip is an extra jersey, which isn’t a big deal. The CC uniform includes different hats, pants, and matching accessories as well. I suppose if the Pirates of the late 70s/early 80s can travel everywhere with at least 3 sets of uniforms, I suppose a team in the 2025 MLB can as well.
Still, the CC set should be a home set only. You’re not exactly connecting to anything when you’re on the road, you’re just a visiting team in weird colors and logos.
I think we will see a lot more of this in the future. Multiple color schemes = more merchandise. The Phillies now market the traditional red-royal blue, the retro powder blue and maroon and now the blue and yellow City Connect. And for baseball, I’m fine with it. 162 games mean plenty of opportunity to wear all options. For NFL, I think we have reached overkill–17 games / 4 uniforms (not even counting mix and match pants) feels like it’s too much.
I like to days when the has just white and gray or blue.
As a Red Sox fan, I hate their current CC uniforms. Perhaps the new ones will feature red, but I doubt it. We are in the era of shitastic uniforms.
I wouldn’t mind too much if the new CC is …Navy. (Probably won’t happen though).
It’s entirely semantics. There is no difference between Boston having what amounts to a third uniform and what St Louis or Toronto do with having a full powder blue set in their 4+1, except the St Louis and Toronto originally wore powder blue 40+ years ago. Nike and MLB can call it whatever they want to make them feel better about the restrictions.
Personally, I hope the next CC has a lot of Fenway Green in it—yes it’s outside the color scheme, but also so obviously a part of Red Sox history and culture that it would just make sense
I would be into that–and there’s a history of the Sox occasionally wearing green unis. So that certainly feels connected to the Red Sox uniform tradition.
IIRC the Sox have worn green jerseys three times, outside of their St. Patrick’s Day spring training tradition — once in once in 2007 for Red Auerbach (link), once in 2008 to honor the Celtics’ title (link), and once in 2009 for Earth Day. (link)
I would not be surprised to see green on their new CCs!
But how does that connect to the city? It connects them to their own ballpark.
As a Red Sox fan, I think this is the wrong decision. The navy blue jerseys were nothing special, but they hold a special place in my heart—the team won the 2018 World Series wearing them.
Aside from wearing the yellow CC unis for all Saturday home games this season, I really liked the rules the Sox put in place this season. They wore the gorgeous red alternates for Friday home games, the navy alternates for Friday road games, and white and grey for everything else. It made sense.
I do like that the yellow CC uni pays homage to the Boston Marathon, but with the white “Boston Strong” jersey the Sox wear on Marathon Monday, I’m not sure that it’s needed (and wearing them at all Saturday home games this season felt like a bit much to me, personally). I would’ve phased out the yellow for a new CC next year, and kept the navy blue alternates for Friday road games.
As a lifelong Red Sox fan, here are my quick takes:
– Should have axed the red alts, not the blue. Yes, I’m middle-aged.
– Marathon CCs are fine, but look *AWFUL* in real life. They look like they should be selling hot dogs.
– I’m predicting Nike to present the next Red Sox CC as a home uniform but in translucent plastic vinyl up to the letters to commemorate the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.
*translucent plastic brown vinyl
” (a bane to Uni Watch, but outside of UW, many folks refer to “jerseys” when they actually mean “uniforms”). ”
The last part is backward. it should read “…folks refer to “uniforms” when they mean “jerseys”
No?
Nope. Just look at almost any headline on any sports-related website. It will read something like “XXX team drops (specific adjective of the moment — fly, dope, cold, etc) new jerseys” when it’s the full uniform that is actually being unveiled. But since retailers aren’t pushing pants (or in the case of football/hockey helmets), the full uniform is often referred to as a jersey. This seems (at least anecdotally) true to me with CCs: “I hate when XXX wears their CC jerseys” … when the CC jersey is just one part of the CC uniform. This isn’t universally true, of course. Many sports-related sites call uniforms “uniforms,” but I’ve yet to encounter anyone refer specifically to a jersey as a uniform, but I’ve often heard people refer to full uniforms as “jerseys”.
YMMV
I am not a Sox fan, but I personally love the Yellow CCs. I think they look great, and I like the meaning behind them. I don’t mind them keeping it and adding another. Unlike other people, I don’t mind them not having their team colors in the uniform, as long as it’s for a good meaning or cause. I think the Marathon uniform is great. JMHO
I would assume the Red Sox normal colors are more of a connection to the city than banana and blue (barf).
That’s an incorrect assumption, given that the two of the other three Boston pro sports teams have completely different color schemes than the Red Sox, AND blue and yellow are the colors of the Boston city flag and (more importantly) the Boston Athletic Association and the Boston Marathon.
There’s a discussion to be had about the aesthetics of the uniform, but the colors are unquestionably connected to Boston.
I hope I’m wrong, but it seems to me if they’re ditching the blue alternate tops it means we’re getting one of those stupid “deep navy blue hat over deep navy blue jerseys over deep navy blue pants with just a whiff of red and white on the numbers and letters” abominations. They’ll come up with some silly story about the costumes being a celebration of Boston’s vibrant night life and the famous early closing time for bars.
Bonus points if the socks are navy blue without a hint of red as well.
The Red Sox aren’t my team so I don’t care,but it’s disheartening to see a blue blood team wearing a uniform that isn’t in team colors. Yes I know the story why and I don’t care. They look like UCLA.
I still loathe the existence of the entire CC program and having two is worse than having one. However, the blue alts are maybe the most softball-y of all softball tops, so I’ll take their retirement as a silver lining.
Hate the yellow and aren’t crazy about the red! The way it’s going, I would not be shocked to see them in all navy or something black, especially the pants!
My problem with the whole CC program is the focus begins to be on the uniforms, not the player or more importantly the game itself!
It’s sad a traditional team like the Sox as well as Cardinals, Tigers can’t grow a set like the Yankees and not be a part of this program
I’m sure Nike is hard at work on a dark jersey with dark pants and a chest wordmark that is illegible from more than 4 feet away.
What does this mean for other well liked city connects? Could we see the Texas Peagles, or Taco Bell Padres stick around?
The way I’m reading this is that teams are free to do whatever they want with their CCs provided they stay within the 4+1 rule. I would’ve expected the Marlins to retain theirs, but alas.
I do wonder if this is a case where the Red Sox asked to retain their CCs and other teams who wanted to didn’t bother, thinking they wouldn’t be allowed.
I’m not a Red Sox fan, but I always liked their City Connect jerseys. I liked the marathon tie-in because I’m an avid runner.
The whole CC idea, and all the CC uniforms, are terrible and just need to go away. Without exception they’re worse than the team’s regular set. No love for the Red Sox, but their base home and road unis are terrific; the more they wear the CCs (or any alts), the less they wear their superior regular unis. And this goes for every other team as well.
I’ve switched away from many a game I would otherwise watch because the unis are crap, whether it’s CCs, the Padres’ camos, the silly Mother’s Day pink hats, and any number of other examples.
I hate the CC program for the most part, and would be more than happy for teams to go back to having a road set and a home set, with maybe a throwback added to the mix a couple times a season. Yes, I’m middle-aged and damn kids get off my lawn and all that.
I didn’t like the Boston CC when it was introduced because it doesn’t look like the Red Sox, but I appreciate that the color scheme is fairly recognizable to fans in Boston. If you’re going to have a CC, fine, I guess – but it shouldn’t require a decoder ring to understand the “story.”
One of the few other CCs I like is the Nationals, because again – it’s recognizable to people familiar with DC. Bonus points for not making some lazy reference to the military or government. I sort of wish they were keeping it, only because I fear the corporate-speak crap they’re going to come up with for their CC next year. That said, if the Nats were going to keep anything other than the home white and road grey, I would want the softball alt with the W superimposed over the Capitol dome. Yes, I am the one person who likes that jersey. I wish they’d make the corresponding hat all blue rather than having the white panel, but I really like that logo.
I may have said this here before but I think the silver lining of the CC program may be that teams keep their traditional looks around longer because they are more focused on changing up the CCs every few years. Of course, what the Sox are doing here flies in the face of all that.
The new CC better be themed after the green monster.
Hopefully they will avoid ‘dirty water’ (aka-dishwater) as the base color!
I hope Nike does the Red Sox better than they just did the Celtics with their new City uniform, my god that thing is awful!
The Yankees and A’s made the best decision ever choosing not to participate in this absurd marketing folly.
So,
A home white.
A home red.
A home CC.
Could that mean, that the Red Sox new CC will be road themed?
Let’s see a not as dark navy top with some red pants for their next CC. Do something different. I don’t mind colored pants in baseball. I actually think it’s pretty cool.
Agreed. Colored pants is something that softball teams have proven CAN work
The Red Sox yellow CC is one of the only decent looking CC’s. Most of them are hideous and should be dumped. If Boston is going to dump a jersey it should be the red alternate. I think MLB should require all teams to wear white at home and grey on the road with alternates or cc’s being limited to once per week.
I don’t love the idea of any team having two non-team-color alternate uniforms. But I do love the idea of the Red Sox ditching that navy alt. Next step: ditch the navy caps for red. Boston wears way too much navy, way too prominently, for a team with “red” in its name.
They’re the Red SOX, not the Red Bodies. The uniform could be purple and pink–as long as the socks have some red, they’re working within the parameters of the name.
I am a Red Sox fan and I absolutely hate this idea. First off, hate the CC. I don’t care how well we played in them. That’s not actually a thing, it’s a coincidence. They are ugly as sin. Second, loved the navy alts. They look great. It was really a great set up they had, white and grey then the red and navy being inverses of each other. Red Sox for home, Boston for road. Very tidy.
The one thing, the ONLY thing I will ever fully admit I am jealous of the Yankees for, is that they never have to through any of this uniform bullshit. Say whatever else you will about the Yankees, you have your white home, your road greys, you have no names, they’ve been pretty much unchanged for like 120 years, and that is that.
Luckily, I don’t think the white homes will ever change, and that’s the one I care about far and away the most. I don’t think John Henry is stupid to change the uniform my grandfather watched Ted Williams play in at Fenway. But who knows with FSG anymore.
Why are they referring to the next round of City Connect unis as CC 2.0? It’s the second round, so they should be called City Connect 2. This isn’t a new phone, where 2.0 makes sense because there might be a version 2.1 before version 3 is released.
Well…
You had the Dodgers change their CCs not once but twice. So…technically CC 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2.
Same with the Orioles and Rockies and D-bax. All changed their original CCs.
And then you have the Pirates…
So I’d say giving them 1.0 and 2.0 actually does make sense, given that several teams have changed up their CCs from what they were originally wearing.
link
I must be an old man yelling at kids to get off my lawn, but I like home white, road gray. The gray road jersey with “Boston” on it is my favorite.
I love the Red Sox’ CCs, but I also really like the blue alternates. The one elephant they won’t axe? The hideous, garish, red alternates. If any uniform were to go, it should be that one. They’ve always looked terrible. They could wear the blue at home if they really wanted to. That style used to be a spring training jersey as well.
My biggest fear with the second generation of CC garbage kicking in –
You would think that the first CC for each team would be the best, most obvious design for such a themed jersey. A “no-brainer” of word association – when you think of a specific city, what comes to mind? And the answer serves as the muse for the CC look. That being said, so many of these things have been a disaster. If what we’ve seen has been the best they can come up with for each team, I shudder to think what we’ll be subjected to on the next go-round.
The way that the city of Boston was galvanized by the creation of the “BOSTON” cream jersey introduced following the Marathon bombing was quite remarkable. Since the Red Sox are going to have a CC 2.0 in 2025, it makes all the sense in the world to bring this look back. There’s no reason that the Finish Line yellow jerseys couldn’t be paired with the road grey pants, and the UCLA blue hats may go better with the grey.
Will it help them in the free agent market? They need a lot of help.
I’ve always liked the dark blue Boston road uniforms (though I wish they were NNOB; the white-bordered names look huge atop their slightly-small number font). As a hater of dull gray I’d be happy to see them ditch their default gray road jerseys in favor of dark blue.
In fact, I’d like to see my Chicago Cubs wear their City Connect uniforms on the road; they wore that all-navy look on and off from the 1880s to 1910s and it still looks great. Maybe ditch the NOBs and change the weird number font to their standard one. But it’s in a historical team color and looks great; the cap too. If there’s going to be a second round, how about dark blue with light blue or white pinstripes?