As we’ve seen over the past years, several major league teams have made adjustments to their City Connect uniforms, usually involving swapping out pants to create mix-and-match sets. No team fiddled around with their CC’s more than the Pittsburgh Pirates, who — in addition to wearing their “regular” gold jerseys over black pants, have also mixed in different caps as well as going black over black, gold over white (with “Stargell Stars” cap), and also gold over white (with their regular CC cap).
That made the Pirates the fifth team to alter their CCs. They joined Baltimore, Arizona, Colorado and the LA Dodgers in mixing non-CC elements (or changing pants color, in the case of the D-Bax) with their original CC uniforms. But the Pirates were the only team to pair their CC pants with a non-CC jersey. They also have mixed in their BP caps with different CC combinations.
The Mets weren’t quite so radical, but in Saturday’s game against the Blue Jays, the team broke out new purple longsleeved undershirts that picked up the purple accents on their CC jerseys. Not every Met played along (some still wore the dark gray/anthracite undersleeves the team introduced last season). But what a difference it made visually!
The purple sleeves stand in stark contrast to the team’s dark gray CC socks.
I’m actually glad the team stuck with the dark gray socks, as I think wearing purple socks might be a bit much. But keeping the purple to just the sleeves, it added a nice, bright element to an otherwise drab and colorless jersey.
Several players also went with custom purple cleats, including third baseman Mark Vientos, whose cleats included an homage to Grimace, who many credit with turning around the team’s 2024 season.
You can see the different color sleeves (more with purple, but several with dark gray) and cleats in this short video of the team taking the field Saturday night.
Let’s do it! ⚾️ pic.twitter.com/gx2jH6NWFc
— New York Mets (@Mets) April 5, 2025
The purple sleeves, IMO, add *just* enough color to the CC uniform, and was a welcome addition. During the game I was chatting with Paul, for whom this addition must have made this a game to watch on the radio. Being that I have no such aversion to the color, I was fine with it.
Of course, I’d prefer the Mets wouldn’t wear the CC at all, but I realize it’s here to stay, so I am not going to complain about it any more. But I will say this: when we bitch about the CC ruining a team’s visual identity, by wearing outfits and colors that do not comport with their normal color scheme, it’s with good reason. Defenders of alternate uniforms often say “just look at the scorebug” if you don’t know who’s playing, and yes, even without the scorebug I was aware the Mets were playing the Blue Jays.
But here’s the thing: the Blue Jays have a gray road uniform and royal blue caps — the same as the Mets. Even when I was watching the game, there were a couple of occasions when I mistook the Jays for the Mets, since the Mets were in their CCs and the Jays looked like the Mets do when they wear gray on the road, especially from the centerfield camera. In fact, on a very close play at first, I actually got upset when a Blue Jay was called out, as in my mind I thought I was watching a road-clad Mets player.
Seriously.
Look at this quickly and tell me you didn’t think the team in gray was the Mets.
TIE THE GAME, JESSE! pic.twitter.com/LDu1dkdrJv
— New York Mets (@Mets) April 6, 2025
Yet another reason for the CC program not to exist.
However, if it must exist, then I’m glad MLB is at least allowing teams some flexibility in what accessories and uni elements teams can pair with the CC.
What did you think of the new purple sleeves? Too much? Just right — or would you even go a step further and encourage players who choose to go high cuffed the option of purple socks as well?
Honoring Grimace like this is so funny to me, even the swoosh is purple, but I’m sure I can think of one fastidious uniform enthusiast who hates it deeply.
The purple is paying homage to the nyc subway. The 7 line takes you to queens and to Citi Field. The 7 line is purple. It’s a pleasant coincidence that grimace is also purple.
Spot on. I like Grimmace. Go Mets!
I think the issue here is that if this is a 7 line theme then why does it have NYC on the front and not Queens. They kind of got stuck halfway in the what the point was here.
I guess one could argue that the 7 is also a “NYC” line. Has a few stops on the city and runs to Hudson Yards on the Hudson River. But agree that “Queens” should be on the front.
Or maybe the Mets stick with their awesome white pinstripes at home and grays on the road and call it a day. No BFBS. No blue softball top.
Because the Metropolitans represent all of NYC as shown in the skyline on the logo.
I love the 7 train tie-in, but I too wish the jerseys said “QUEENS”. Put a Q on the cap too; they’d be the only “Q” team in major league history.
NYC is comprised of the boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island and Manhattan.
With an overdose of visual distractions it is not easy to concentrate on watching actual games, I admit. Adopting confusing CC uniforms does not help, but it helps if you shut out all the clutter and concentrate on the game itself. Submerge in it if necessary. Avoid sports bars anyway, you can hang out with your mates anytime anyplace else without games interrupting your boisterous bar behaviour trying to impress the clientele. Yes, I am no fun to watch any game with, I watch it like a coach does anyway.
So couple of things;
*I think it is important to complain on the team social media pages. Not super rudely but enough to get the point across and in my case make the focus on Blue and Orange are Mets colors not purple and pencil filling (besides the obvious fact that the NYC flag in blue and orange).
This is the only way to make change happen. No team wants negativity for something like this and it will encourage them to change. Make them aware that their agency, Nike, made bad choices on their behalf that are now causing negative social media commentary for something very controllable. That likely part of the reason for the tweak.
I am also happy to point out that the graphics are great on these when portrayed in Blue and Orange as well.
* as for the purple it definitely adds something to the look. The issue with Mets CCs has never been whether they are objectively bad as jerseys. Unlike say Philly, these are bad Mets jerseys not bad jersey’s overall.
*The purple helps a lot in making them look less drab and kind of makes 7 line reference a little more logical. I still don’t understand if you’re going for a queens theme you didn’t put Queens on the jerseys but oh well. Still it’s an improvement and they look better.
* The other thing that made no sense from a coordination standpoint is that the Blue Jays wore their baby blues in the other two games, why not here. That would have made a the contrast a non issue. Really this is a hidden weakness of a grey CC is it kind of forces the road team to wear a colored top.
TL:DR keep fighting but it is an improvement.
I like your point about complaining on the team’s social media
I agree that, given and laying aside the whole CC concept being stupid and objectionable, they looked good with the purple undersleeves and charcoal/black socks.
I also experienced the uni/team confusion on a couple of fleeting occasions during the game. Remember the Blue Jays debuted these uniforms in 2012, the same year the Mets finally went back to wearing blue caps and accessories with the road greys, so they’re connected in that sense as well.
I watched the game live. I didn’t at any point think that the Blue Jays were the Mets.
But you almost make the argument for the city connect program (or alternate uniforms in general).
If uniforms and color schemes are so generic that you can’t tell the difference between them without seeing a logo (See Mets/Dodgers/Royals/Blue Jays grey roadies – Angels/Cards/Nats red home uniform among others), then wearing a CC that generally can not be confused with any other team is exactly what you (and others) seem to be clamoring for. Yes
That the team is readily identifiable from a long distance just by sight and no other additional info (a TV chyron or need to look at a scoreboard). The CC uniforms are really the only ones that do this.
Your complaint about the CC uniforms is actually really well put, and so I get your perspective. I am sure you’ve heard this before, but what MLB/Nike is doing with CC’s is similar to what futbol/soccer clubs have been doing with their 3rd/Alternate kits for some time now.
The Mets utilizing purple was a nice look, and playes like Vientos sporting Grimace gear is chef’s kiss.
The Mets owned NYC in the 1980s, but since about 1994, the Yankees have owned the city and probably 2/3 of NYC fans are Yankee fans. Putting QUEENS on the front of the jersey runs counter to any hopes the Mets ever have of owning the whole city again and all the boroughs. Doubt you ever will see it.
Agreed. Plus it’s one thing to include purple as a nod to the 7 Line. It would be another thing entirely to emblazon the jersey with just “QUEENS.” My quick math tells me that only 27% of the residents of New York City (2.4 million of 8.8 million residents) live in Queens. “NYC” helps residents of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island feel the love!
The phrase “lipstick on a pig” comes to mind.
I’ve had this question for a while and I hope it will be received in the respectful manner it is intended.
Specific to MLB. Why is there such a great dislike of “BFBS” when so few established teams embraced black as an additional jersey color in the 90s. By my count teams with established colors that embraced this trend were the Mets, As, Royals, and Blue Jays. The Reds re-added black accents to their uniform (they had used black accents for a short time in the 1960s), and the Rangers added some black trim as well.
For the other teams that used black in the 90s. The Giants, O’s, and Sox had history of using the color. The Rays, Marlins, Rockies, and DBacks were new franchises and free to pick any colors they wanted. They all chose to use black in some form, but I don’t think this counts as “BFBS.”
My question is then, why isn’t there as great a dislike of the powder blue trend that overtook MLB in the 70’s and 80’s? It was just as much a trend as using black in the 90’s.
At least 13 teams wore powder blue during its initial run, though never more than 11 at once. That was nearly half the league at that point. Why does powder blue get a pass when it was every bit of the trend that the use of black was?
So I think a couple of things here.;
* Powder blue was seen as a replacement for grey as people felt it looked better on TV. It was never meant to be a permanent part of a color scheme other than replacing one “base color” with another. It also didn’t get quite the heat as As were going nutty with their unis and others followed suit. It was more akin to having a cream home uni than a white one.
* The BFBS and (also Navy tops) was all about alternates and doing something different. When the White Sox and Orioles did it was different and special. When 23 of 30 since have rocked dark navy/black tops it’s played out. And again this isn’t replacing a road top or going all dark like turn of the century teams did. It’s a home top in a lot of cases which looks odd for baseball. If teams were choosing black tops as roads similar to the say the Mariners now it wouldn’t cause as big a deal.
* The other issue with BFBS that got people nuts was they tried to jam it into existing looks to diminishing returns. For the Mets/Royals/Reds it felt a little like a loophole so they could play in the black jersey pool too. Toronto was even more egregious as they literally pointed away from their namesake to embrace black.
* the powder blue OTOH didn’t get jammed in or tagged on. It simply swapped out grey for a similarly muted color. Those at the time was far more outraged by the other big uni trends like colored tops (As/Pirates/Padres) and the change from buttons/belts to pullover/sansa belt to get really bent out of shape by it. They might not have loved it but it wasn’t a big deal due to those other events.
I think the short answer is that BFBS is and was rightly regarded as a cynical ploy to sell merchandise, whereas the “powder blue trend” (“PBT”) was tied to the advent of color television (and synthetic double-knit fabrics); i.e., form follows function.
You’re looking at BFBS vs. PBT through the lens of breaks with tradition, which is fair, because they both are/were. Obviously, not all breaks with tradition are equivalent; some make more sense than others. The issue here at UW, at least from my perspective, has always been the distinction between design choices that are intended and made with an eye toward what looks good on the field (or secondarily, on TV), vs. those that are intended and made in order to sell jerseys and other merchandise at retail. People didn’t really start buying team jerseys (or wearing them to games) until the mid-late ’80s, long after PBT had run its course.
Well said and I think the other thing that was underrated was that was least of the trends at the time. The real issue it seems fans had was with the brightly colored looks that looked outlandish (Padres post 71, As, late 70s Pirates, Astros, Braves etc) along with the change to tight pullovers and sansa belts. These were the issues that would have made 70s Uni watch chatter (good and bad).
The PBT was a thing but much more minor and kind of made sense. There were variations like the Padres numerous experiments with tan. I think the reason it’s popping up again is that the teams doing have unis that are close to what they wear now. Teams like the Royals and Cardinals are basically in a modern version of their looks from that period. The Phillies had the burgundy but it’s still quite close to the current design. The Powders are a way to honor that era.
Thank you both for your kind and measured responses.
To your points – had jersey sales been more widespread during that time, it may have been seen more as the “merch dump” that people think black unis were.
Bringing back the powder blues also seems like it hits both the nostalgia button and the desire to sell some more gear (as they know it is popular with their fanbases).
The colors of the Mets CC’s should be what the Rockies actually use. Bright purple and dark gray.
That’s what I think whenever I see these. Change what the letters say and remove the pretty princess tiara, and these would be pretty good uniforms for the Rockies to lose in.
Agreed, these are excellent Rockies road uniforms. They are terrible Mets home uniforms.
Do the mets have a City connect BP hat now too?
Purple does not look ok on any baseball uniform.
These CC uniforms would not be as terrible if they would incorporate only the team’s REAL colors
I loved the Diamondbacks purple and teal World Series champion uniforms.
Having these in purple because of a train line is really dumb.
What’s the deal with orange teams adding purple? Somebody at Nike must really love that combo.
George Springer made me “grimace” when he bounced off of the right field fence like a WWE wrestler
Does anyone think the Mets’ CC would be improved by the NYC and the cap’s NY being in purple ? Thats what i thought when i first saw them last year. Tho if the NYC is in purple, the name and number on the back wouldn’t match or would also have to purple, which might be too much.
But I definitely wish the NY on on the cap was purple, just to add a little more color overall and make it pop more. The cap is pretty blah as is, and too close to a Yankee cap.