The Cubs Unveiled A New Alternate Uniform: Are They Any Good?

[Jason Ross]

Just before the Cubs Convention is slated to kick off, and well into Thursday night, the Chicago Cubs dropped a surprise - no, it's not an extension with Kyle Tucker or anything crazy - but a new alternate uniform designed to replace their Wrigleyville City Connect uniforms...but are they any good?

I'll get this out of the way at the top - I'm not someone who thinks the Chicago Cubs need an alternate look. The Cubs are one of the more classically dressed teams to begin with, and they could easily get away with pinstripes at home and their road grays only. That said, we must understand that uniform culture currently suggests all teams have multiple looks. For as much as I think City Connect looks are mostly superfluous, the Chicago Cubs will not shy away from these opportunities to have a wider variety of merchandise available to be purchased with alternate looks. Last night, they added a new uniform to the lineup while retiring another - the Wrigleyville City Connect (worn exclusively at home and on Fridays), which will leave the rotation in 2025. 

 

The first thing that stands out with their new uniform is that it is primarily powder blue. While many may remember the 1970s powder blue and pinstripe look the team used on the road, people may not know that 1941 the Chicago Cubs became the first MLB team to use a powder blue uniform. The team has a history in the color, even if they're not always remembered for it. Nike and the Cubs will use "uniform speak" to claim that the uniform is for the cities' history with the musical genre of Blues, but truthfully, I think this uniform has more to do with the team's history in powder blue than anything. I also don't think it should be lost that the light/powder blue and red motif is akin to the city's beloved flag. 

The logo on the breast is also a callback to the team's past - with the logo evoking that of the Chicago Federals (also known as the Chicago Whales), who played three seasons from 1913-1916 and were Wrigley Field's original team. Sporting an old wishbone C, it does just enough to be unique and new (completed with a six-point star in the logo, also a clear nod to the Chicago city flag), but not enough that it's difficult to tell that it's a wink and a nod to the history of baseball in Chicago. So, while it can't be called a "throw" back, it's certainly veering into "faux" back territory (a fictitious throwback)

Paired with the powder blue top, the cap has a distinctive white panel on the front and uses the same Cubs logo from the chest. However, the hat is more "Cubs Royal" blue than powder, giving the team a double-blue look in areas. The name on the back, as well, will be royal, while the numbers will be red. 

If we're thinking about uniform design across sports, I think there are some general rules that most (if not all) good sets follow; 

1. They are generally of simple design
2. They do not chase perceived current trends
3. They evoke the team who's wearing them (think of this as "I don't need to ask who's playing")

Most of the best-dressed teams in sports follow these guidelines, regardless of their specific sports. Why do the New York Yankees, the Chicago Bears, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Michigan Wolverines, and the Detroit Red Wings always look good? They follow those rules. Teams consistently bouncing between looks (such as the Jacksonville Jaguars) generally don't follow those rules. Most teams, recently, who have released a clunker of a set almost always fall back on a throwback to revert and fix the errors in their ways. City Connect, in particular, has difficulty falling into the third category (the Boston Red Sox in yellow feels like a crime). The good news for the Cubs? I think these hit almost every one of these guidelines. They're mostly simple and don't overcomplicate things with too much going on. They don't chase current trends; instead, they use pieces from their history, and because they're using nods to their history, they will consistently look like the Cubs, whether they're wearing these or their pinstripes at home.

It's why, generally speaking, I really like this set. They have a clean look and add small wrinkles to the set as a whole. If you like anything about the Montreal Expos (and I'll admit to having a really soft spot for them), you'll probably be excited as well, as they have a bit of an "Expo" vibe. They're a fine take on a powder blue look overall, even if some of the "uniform speak" Nike puts out about them being about Blues music feels...forced.

If there's something I'm less of a fan of, I wish the hat was different. The logo on the hat feels cluttered and is too reliant on letters. A rule of thumb with full words on a hat - you can't read them from afar, and they become jumbled at that point, losing their effectiveness. A simpler logo, for example, maybe the Cubs bear with the bat, would have looked better, even if it wasn't identical to the chest logo. It would, however, be more legible from far away and would have stuck to the theme of "fauxback." I also think the name on the back may be a bit hard to read, as these will be in the royal-outlined-in-white instead of sticking with red, though that might be a "wait until you see them on the field" type of thing. 

Again, the Cubs don't need this uniform - it's superfluous. But if the Cubs are going to introduce an alternative look, they could do far worse than this. They have been confirmed to be used for "select home homes," I assume they'll just directly replace the Wrigleyville look on Friday afternoon games. Those old City Connect uniforms felt drab - these feel bright. They should look good on a Friday afternoon under the sun. So, while I don't need this uniform, they should be fun, and most importantly, they'll still look like the Cubs. Solid B from me. 

What do you think of the Cubs' new alternate uniforms? Do you like them? Hate them? What would you change? Let us know in the comments below!

View full article