ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

Look guys... it's a devil ray and a ray of sunlight together in the same picture... see? The Tampa Bay Rays CAN be both...

Image result for stingray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

Also, there are plenty of teams that are essentially nothing. The Dodgers aren't anything, neither are the Phillies, both Soxes, etc. 

Image result for trolley dodgersRelated imageImage result for red sock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Look guys... it's a devil ray and a ray of sunlight together in the same picture... see? The Tampa Bay Rays CAN be both...

Image result for stingray

Compromise? BLASPHEMY! Crucify him! Crucify him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Look guys... it's a devil ray and a ray of sunlight together in the same picture... see? The Tampa Bay Rays CAN be both...

Image result for stingray

 

Technically I think that's a sting ray ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me in the camp that the Rays should be one or the other.   Names bring images to mind...yes, some of the old-school names like Athletics don't really mean much of anything, but for the most part, they mean one thing.  Should the Chiefs have an arrowhead on their helmet and a police badge (i.e., "police chiefs") on the sleeves?  Maybe the Milwaukee Bucks can keep the deer logo but be the Milwaukee Buck$ and promote themselves as named after dear and money.  People love money. Maybe the Clippers should bring back the shorts with the sails on one leg but add barber sheers to the other.

 

I actually am not convinced any of those ideas is significantly worse than the Rays adding that ray of light.  I suppose the Clippers one is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

Technically I think that's a sting ray ^_^

Yes but he's not very nice and his peers say he is very devilish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cubs should be baby bears but also young and intrepid reporters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Bring something” doesn’t mean a literal representation of your mascot - it means have a consistent identity made up comprised of a single base idea.

 

Someone brought up the Phillies - they’re actually a good example of being a “thing”. Their wordmark appears pretty much the same in any context, their use of their colors is consistent in all applications (except for the ridiculous special days that MLB mandates) and when you see something of theirs you instantly know it’s for the Phillies. 

 

The Rays don’t have a singular concept to base an identity around, which is part of why they’ve never had an iconic image in any of their graphical packages, why thrive always had forgettable uniforms (the OGs might not be forgettable but let’s not pretend they weren’t ridiculed) and why they can’t go full-bore into any type of major campaign. It’s piss poor branding - actually, it’s a total lack of branding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a separate note, I don't believe the Cleveland Indians have worn anything this season other than Navy/Navy/Grey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I wouldn't even allow them that.  When your regular uniform is that good, when your regular cap is that good, you shouldn’t wear anything else.  

 

Yes, and while we're at it, let's bring back the vertical arch to the names. The road hat and terrible alternate jerseys have diluted the Braves, but the NOB change is still a huge downgrade. Especially since the font they use now looks to be half the size of what they used previously. The current homes and roads almost look like knock-offs of the dynasty set from behind. That's how big of a change it was, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way guys I did some research and a "Philly" IS a thing...

Image result for little filly break your heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2018 at 12:18 PM, OnWis97 said:

Put me in the camp that the Rays should be one or the other.   Names bring images to mind...yes, some of the old-school names like Athletics don't really mean much of anything, but for the most part, they mean one thing.  Should the Chiefs have an arrowhead on their helmet and a police badge (i.e., "police chiefs") on the sleeves?  Maybe the Milwaukee Bucks can keep the deer logo but be the Milwaukee Buck$ and promote themselves as named after dear and money.  People love money. Maybe the Clippers should bring back the shorts with the sails on one leg but add barber sheers to the other.

 

While I agree that the Rays should just pick one interpretation of the word and go with it, we should remember that the Seattle Pilots used both ship-related and airplane-related imagery in their logo.

 


Related image

 

 

Of course, the Pilots intentionally merged two concepts that are already related, the nautical and the aeronautical.  By contrast, the Rays sort of bungled their way into a merger of two disparate concepts of a fish and the sun.  Compared to the example of the Pilots, the Rays' identity is a mess. 

Also, no matter what interpretation you graft onto it, "Rays" is just a stupid name.  It's great for a bowling team made up of four guys named "Ray".  But for a Major League Baseball team it is ridiculous.  If only there had been some charismatic historical personage called "Tampa Bay Ray", à la Buffalo Bill, maybe a pool shark or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

While I agree that the Rays should just pick one interpretation of the word and go with it, we should remember that the Seattle Pilots used both ship-related and airplane-related imagery in their logo.

 


Related image

 

 

Of course, the Pilots intentionally merged two concepts that are already related, the nautical and the aeronautical.

 

While that’s an OK example, it does bring up a few odd implications. It’s kind of navy dress-up:

 

1200px-Naval_Aviator_Badge.jpg

 

US_Navy_Hat_Commander_Scrambled_Eggs.jpg

 

While I get the idea of appropriating the imagery (changing the colors to royal/yellow), it’s a little too close for my tastes. Besides, Seattle doesn’t have nearly the same “navy” culture as a place like San Diego, so it’s doubly ill-fitting. I’m sure if the Pilots stuck around, they might have gone for a “vintage aviation” or “generic plane” look by the time they moved to the Kingdome or when the early-1990s rolled around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Rays' current identity is "a mess" at all. They're rays of sunshine based off the bright Florida sun, nothing more nothing less. Their color scheme represents the Florida sky, water, and sunshine. I actually find their identity very simple and clean if not boring. They only have a devil ray on their sleeve as a reference to their previous brand/identity. They're not trying to be both. The Athletics have an elephant on their sleeve... are they a mess of an identity because they can't decide if they're Athletics or elephants? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

While I agree that the Rays should just pick one interpretation of the word and go with it, we should remember that the Seattle Pilots used both ship-related and airplane-related imagery in their logo.

 


Related image

 

 

 

 

Yes, and that was stupid too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long thought that the Rays have, over their 20 years of existence, gathered all of the necessary pieces for a good brand, but they've never put them together. I'm no concept artist, but I think that they could build a uniform and logo set that would be fresh, cohesive, and most importantly, unique.

 

Start with the original-era logos, but drop "Devil" from the name if you please, which leaves "Rays" with the fish logo (one of my all-time favorite logos).

9428_tampa_bay_devil_rays-jersey-1998.pn

 

Use the colors of the 2008 rebrand.

tb-rays-team-colors.jpg

 

And use the uniform template of the current 70s fauxbacks.

f814d42a0270929dcd68c040cb154fca.jpg

 

This combination can take something unique about each item, strip away the problematic elements (the rainbow gradient from the 1998 logos, the boring typeface from the 2008 logos, and the kitschy 70s look of the fauxback logos/color layout), and create a new look. Obviously, I'd like to see a predominantly white jersey and white pants at home, but they could easily utilize powder/Columbia blue on the road and not look ridiculous or contrived.

 

I'd love to see someone with more talent than I mock this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am ashamed to admit this.  I may have missed this for YEARS and just had an epiphany, I think.  In the current RAYS wordmark, is the curvy bottom part of the "R" supposed to be one of the fins of a devil ray?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Whitesox572 said:

I am ashamed to admit this.  I may have missed this for YEARS and just had an epiphany, I think.  In the current RAYS wordmark, is the curvy bottom part of the "R" supposed to be one of the fins of a devil ray?

You're trying way too hard, much like the hidden S in the San Jose Sharks alternate logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now