MLB changes 2018?

[Dnice]

Casually watching the braves broadcast and seeing how off to see a pitcher(snellt of TB,) in single digits.

 

 

[Matito]

12 hours ago, Dnice said:

Casually watching the braves broadcast and seeing how off to see a pitcher(snellt of TB,) in single digits.

 

 

Him wearing #4 is the only thing I like about Snell.

[leopard88]

18 hours ago, Ark said:

 

Is it QIA?  Or is it QP?

[SFGiants58]

22 hours ago, Ark said:

 

19 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That never worked as an M.  It works even less as a W.

 

That and flipping the logo upside-down just comes across as disrespectful to Expos fans. It’s like giving their team a “thumbs-down.” Also, the hidden features become even more pointless when turned upside-down.

 

The M-ELB logo is one of my least favorites in Big Four sports’ modern history (post-WWII). It should have been dumped in favor of an “M” in the style of the “Montréal” script in the 1992 redesign.

 

If you want to see an Expos-style logo done right, look to the Winnipeg Whips (Pepsi-ish, but still clearer) or the Jacksonville Expos.

 

 

Heck, I’m sure one of us here tried to make a Nationals logo with the Whips’ insignia.

[AstroCree]

23 hours ago, Ark said:

[KGeeX5]

On 5/7/2018 at 5:05 PM, Ark said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm... never noticed... I wonder if it was intentional or a coincidence lol

I'm inclined towards coincidence

[AstroCree]

I always liked the Curly W as a logo and a jersey but it would be better off as an alternative jersey. As soon as they start using the Nationals script logo on their home whites, the better. 

[daveindc]

2 hours ago, KGeeX5 said:

 

Hmm... never noticed... I wonder if it was intentional or a coincidence lol

I'm inclined towards coincidence

 

Coincidence...

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

That and flipping the logo upside-down just comes across as disrespectful to Expos fans. It’s like giving their team a “thumbs-down.” Also, the hidden features become even more pointless when turned upside-down.

 

The M-ELB logo is one of my least favorites in Big Four sports’ modern history (post-WWII). It should have been dumped in favor of an “M” in the style of the “Montréal” script in the 1992 redesign.

 

If you want to see an Expos-style logo done right, look to the Winnipeg Whips (Pepsi-ish, but still clearer) or the Jacksonville Expos.

 

 

Heck, I’m sure one of us here tried to make a Nationals logo with the Whips’ insignia.

 

 

Those are both far better than the parent club's logo.

[Digby]

On 5/8/2018 at 1:26 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Ought to be kept around? No.  

 

No objectively-bad logo ought to be kept around. It should at a minimum be tweaked to be less objectively bad.  

 

Maybe the Walgreens W isn’t objectively bad after all?

[Digby]

10 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

That and flipping the logo upside-down just comes across as disrespectful to Expos fans. It’s like giving their team a “thumbs-down.” Also, the hidden features become even more pointless when turned upside-down.

 

The M-ELB logo is one of my least favorites in Big Four sports’ modern history (post-WWII). It should have been dumped in favor of an “M” in the style of the “Montréal” script in the 1992 redesign.

 

If you want to see an Expos-style logo done right, look to the Winnipeg Whips (Pepsi-ish, but still clearer) or the Jacksonville Expos.

 

(Photo snip)

 

 

Heck, I’m sure one of us here tried to make a Nationals logo with the Whips’ insignia.

 

I prefer the Vermont Expos rendition:

 

[MilSox]

Can I ask what everyone has against the Walgreens W? I get that a lot of people prefer the old DC, and I don't blame them because I do as well. But I never understood what about the W could possibly be so deserving of all the hate it draws.

 

All in all, it's a solid mark that you're not gonna mistake for anything else. At least not in the sports world.

[Gothamite]

25 minutes ago, NicDB said:

All in all, it's a solid mark that you're not gonna mistake for anything else. At least not in the sports world.

 

 

That's a very low bar.  And the fact it has to be qualified shows how bad the logo really is.

 

As a cap logo, it's mediocre.  But as a jersey logo, it's awful.  It's too slight to anchor a jersey front, and the italic swoop means it always looks unbalanced.  In order to work on a jersey, a good logo really needs to be more or less rectangular.  The Tigers, Yankees, and A's are all good examples of this.  Their logos are proportionally balanced left to right, and that makes them strong enough to stand alone on a jersey.  Even the White Sox can get away with it, since their logo is much taller than it is wide.   The Walgreens W is too squat to work.

[FiddySicks]

I was never a fan of the Expos logo for anything other than nostalgia. It’s kind of a terrible logo if we’re being honest here. It’s similar to other logos bathed in the refreshing waters of nostalgia, like Bucco Bruce. 

 

That being said, it’s still a FAR more interesting logo than the Nats curly W. 

[Sport]

The pretzel dub is fine for the hats, but they lost me when they put it on the chests. It's not strong enough to be the jersey identifier and sort of encroached on the Reds' territory by using placket piping, red hats, and a chest logo. 

 

I was a big fan of the old wordmark. Also I didn't remember this happening, but I guess it did - the Washington script and (superior) beveled numbers with gold inlays coincided for at least one season. 

 

 

They should still be using those numbers. They're still using that font, but without the bevels so now it just looks chubby. 

[OnWis97]

I have all sorts of nostalgia for the Expos.  I did not like the pinwheel hat, but I liked the jerseys of that era (and owned a replica powder blue as a kid).  I loved their upgrade to a more traditional look.

 

But I have to admit that the logo is bad.  I always just thought it was something abstract and I don't think I thought of it as an "M" until I came to the boards.   As an "M" it is, at best, overdone.  It draws your attention too much to the three colors.  You see a possible lower-case "e" and lower-case "b."  Could the e be for expos (which is written with a lower-case e below on the jersey)?  Could the "b" be for "baseball?"  Add to that that ignorant Americans like myself also consider that there could be something french behind whatever letters may or may not be incorporated in that logo.

 

In fact, i don't know.  Is it just an "M?"  Or is an an "M" that incorporates an "e" and/or a "b?"

 

Regardless, it's too confusing to be a really effective logo.  I like it...but probably because of nostalgia.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

I just had a thought about the D-Backs.  Some fans like their red color, some fans want the old purple & teal back.  As far as I hear, the front office doesn't want the purple back because it's the Rockies color.  So the compromise between red and purple is magenta!  No team in MLB uses it (I don't know of any team that does) and magenta & teal would be similar to the old southwestern look.  

[Digby]

Just got a weird look at the bar after vocalizing my confusion at the Red Sox wearing the blues on a Thursday.

[MilSox]

7 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I just had a thought about the D-Backs.  Some fans like their red color, some fans want the old purple & teal back.  As far as I hear, the front office doesn't want the purple back because it's the Rockies color.  So the compromise between red and purple is magenta!  No team in MLB uses it (I don't know of any team that does) and magenta & teal would be similar to the old southwestern look.  

 

The Rockies are only 5 years older than the Diamondbacks, who have won a World Series in purple. As long as the Rockies insist on being predominantly black (a mistake IMO), Arizona could easily own the color.

[seasaltvanilla]

23 hours ago, NicDB said:

Can I ask what everyone has against the Walgreens W?....you're not gonna [it] mistake for anything else.

 

Anyways, the D-backs in 2001 throwbacks tonight look great.