While I don't agree with Gil McGregor's assertion that Hornets "cut all of its ties" with the past, I also don't agree with commentator Jeffrey's opinion that the unis "more closely represent a shallow cartoonish use of a cliched New Orleans than any sort of attempt to integrate into the city in any sort of meaningful fashion." Clearly, the new unis themselves are a middle ground that sort of bridges the past (pin stripes) and the present ("NOLA"). Superficial? Maybe. But give credit to the Hornets organization who really didn't have to do any of this and could have just gone with the same color scheme as years past.
Back to McGregor's statements saying that there are no "past lovers": it's clear that the Hornets weren't trying to cut ties to the franchise's roots in Charlotte. If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't have gone back to the pin stripes or even have left the original Hornet logo. It seems pretty clear to me that, with this event, the Hornets are cutting ties to Oklahoma City and the "NOOCH" and affirming, without a doubt, that this team is here to stay.
My personal thoughts on the new colors, logos and unis? The "NOLA" logo is by far the best thing that they came up with and it should be featured more prominently (at the very least it should be the logo on the alternate jersey) and I love the pinstripes. Other than that, this was a pretty safe move from the old colors. That is to say, it's not much of a move. Not that that's a bad thing. In fact, fans should be grateful that the new colors and logos aren't so different that they have to do a complete overhaul on their Hornets apparel. But here's the key: either the team could have done nothing and stayed with the old unis or they could have done some minor changes, added the NOLA logo and held a big event to showcase it all (and thus grabbing the spotlight from the Saints in the middle of the summer). The decision seems obvious, no?