Since Nike and MLB first introduced the City Connect uniform program in 2021, we’ve seen a handful of standout designs along with a bunch that missed the mark.

Some, like the Red Sox original yellows, the Padres’ colorful Baja design and Milwaukee’s powder blue “Brew Crew” kits, were home runs. Others, like the “Wrigleyville” Cubs design and the blue “Los Dodgers” look, were bland and forgettable.

Then you had some like the Phillies and Tigers’ weird and disjointed blues, which were as ugly as they were confounding.

Now four years in, Nike has begun rolling out a new cycle of City Connects. So far this spring eight MLB clubs have unveiled their second generation look, with the Red Sox becoming the most recent this weekend following the Astros, Nationals, Giants, Rockies, White Sox, Marlins and Diamondbacks.

Of that group, the Red Sox’s new Fenway Greens clearly rank among the best.

When it comes to alternate uniforms and City Connects in particular, many teams have a tendency to go overboard. Whether it’s too many design elements, ill-conceived concepts or “bold” style decisions, the result is often messy and off-putting.

The Red Sox wisely took a less is more approach.

Everyone who sees the new uniform will immediately recognize the Fenway Park inspiration, and every design element flows naturally from that concept. The “Red Sox” across the front in the scoreboard font is immediately identifiable, as is the yellow front number, which evokes the running line score and the foul poles. The circle B sleeve patch is a creative touch, and the green and red dots mimicking the balls, strikes and outs lights are subtle but effective.

But what separates the uniform is everything it could have featured, but doesn’t.

The Red Sox could have put the Wally Head home run prop or some other overwrought logo on the hat. They could have gone with green pants, which might have seemed cool in theory but would have been a disaster in practice.

Look no further than the New England Patriots, whose home uniforms look infinitely better with silver pants rather than wearing navy blue on navy blue.

The early response to the new uniform appears to be overwhelmingly positive, but if there’s one area the club will likely draw criticism, it’ll be for playing it safe. Red Sox CEO Sam Kennedy predicted the uniforms would be controversial, and I don’t think either the design’s supporters or detractors would argue that’s the case.

Still, you don’t have to search hard to find examples of other clubs who pushed the envelope to their own detriment.

Look at the Astros new uniform, which is close to being great but shoots itself unnecessarily in the foot. The overall aesthetic is a cool blend of their modern championship look and their sleek ’90s style, but the “Stros” across the front looks like someone forgot to add the “A” before sending the design to the printer. The new hat also looks too much like the old Arizona Diamondbacks logo for my taste.

How about the Marlins new design? I would have given it an A+ except for the hat, which curiously features the city’s 305 area code rather than one of the team’s many excellent logos.

And don’t even get me started about the Giants, who replaced their bad original City Connect uniforms with one that’s somehow even worse. I think it’s sup

posed to evoke the city’s psychedelic music history and look like a lava lamp? At least it’s more original than the White Sox, who basically just took a Chicago Bulls basketball top and turned it into a baseball jersey.

The Red Sox, meanwhile, are now 2 for 2 with their City Connects. Other clubs would do well to learn from their success.

Red vs. Blue

While the Red Sox largely hit it out of the park with their new City Connects, there is one uniform-related area where the club really missed the mark.

They retired the wrong alternate jersey.

As it stands now Nike has a “four-plus-one” policy that dictates an MLB club can have four core uniforms plus a City Connect. Other clubs that have received a new City Connect have historically retired their previous ones, but the Red Sox decided to keep their original yellow uniforms and convert it to a core offering. That meant the club had to retire one of their other uniforms instead, and the Red Sox opted to do away with their road blues.

I think that was a mistake.

In general I like the reds better than the blues, and between 2021 and 2023 the club wore the blues far too frequently. But the blues were fine as a Friday night alternate, and the problem the Red Sox have is the blues were their only alternate uniforms designed to fit with the club’s usual road look.

Historically the club’s road uniforms say “Boston” across the front, have names on the back and are worn with grey pants. The home uniforms, meanwhile, generally say “Red Sox” across the front (with some exceptions), do not have names on the back and are worn with white pants.

Given that the two City Connects were always going to be prioritized at home, the club has instead worn red on the road. The result, I’d argue, has been a mess.

Besides the fact that it’s odd seeing the Red Sox playing on the road without names on the back of their jerseys, the reds just don’t look as good with grey pants. Worse, the red and grey combination looks more like something the Cleveland Guardians would wear, to the point that it was borderline confusing when the Red Sox wore red while playing at Progressive Field a couple of weeks ago.

Keeping the blues would have made for a more sensible uniform rotation, but that’s not the only reason they should have stayed.

For as long as the Red Sox exist, Chris Sale striking out Manny Machado to clinch the 2018 World Series championship will remain an indelible image in club history. That clip will be a fixture of hype videos for years to come, which means fans will always have a reminder that the blues not only existed, but were a prominent part of one of the franchise’s greatest seasons.

Whatever detractors the blues may have had, their absence will make the heart grow fonder.

I suspect the blues will eventually enjoy a nostalgic resurgence among fans, much like the Patriots’ classic red uniforms and to a lesser extent their ’90s era blues. They’ll likely retain a strong market on platforms like eBay, and if they haven’t been reintroduced by the 10th anniversary of the 2018 championship in three years, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s momentum among fans to bring them back.

Nice as they look on a warm Friday night at Fenway Park, the red alternates don’t have anywhere near that level of historical significance. And with the superior yellow and green alternatives now at their disposal, the club doesn’t really need the red top any more.

Rose, Jackson not shoe-ins

Earlier this week MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred stunned the baseball world when he announced that anyone placed on the sport’s permanently ineligible list would be reinstated upon their death. As a result, Pete Rose and 16 others are now effectively back in the game’s good graces and eligible for Hall of Fame consideration.

The immediate reaction was predictably polarized, but most people seemed to agree that the decision likely paves the way for Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson — a member of the infamous 1919 Chicago White Sox team that threw the World Series — to eventually make the Baseball Hall of Fame, most likely when the Hall’s Classic Era committee next convenes in 2027.

Me, I’m not so sure.

While Rose and Jackson are now eligible, they remain highly divisive figures in the baseball world and those on the Hall of Fame’s Classic Era committee may not have any interest in enshrining players who for decades have been barred for gambling on baseball — the sport’s cardinal sin. Especially not someone like Rose, whose transgressions went far beyond the playing field and included everything from a tax evasion conviction to an extramarital affair with a teenager.

The experience of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens may prove instructive.

When Bonds and Clemens were on the BBWAA ballot, they consistently polled in the 60% range and probably would have eventually cleared the 75% needed for induction if the Hall hadn’t shortened the eligibility period from 15 to 10 years. Yet when they came before the Classic Era committee in 2023 they were roundly rejected, receiving fewer than four votes from the 16-member committee. It’s entirely possible they may not have received any votes at all.

Even if Bonds and Clemens were never permanently banned, the sport rendered judgment against them anyway.

Rose has never been on a Hall of Fame ballot, so at the very least he will now get the same shot as those ostracized for their association with performance-enhancing drugs. But Bonds and Clemens’ landslide defeat in 2023 was a clarifying moment, ending more than a decade of debate and speculation about their Hall of Fame fates and all but assuring they will remain on the outside looking in.

Whether he makes it or not, Rose’s eventual candidacy will likely do the same, potentially closing the book on a story nearly 40 years in the making.