MiLB teams with MLB-caliber identities

[hjwii]

 

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Not sure what you're trying to say here - do you like it or not?

He doesn't like it.  The majority of the baseball fans in the New Orleans  think it's an asinine name, forced onto us by outsiders that have no concept of the city and its culture.

 

Our only hope is that the "baby" in baby cakes is dropped, Baby Finster is relegated to a tertiary logo and they eventually evolve into the King Cakes (since every other MiLB team has a food moniker, if only for a day).  I mean, the "N.O." logo with the king cake is pretty sweet (HA...see what I did there...cake...sweet.... you'll laugh later....) 

[RichO]

Something I keep thinking about when I click through the thread:

Where is the boundary between a rock solid, classic, minor league classic identity- and an MLB-grade identity?

 

Some things- like the Chattanooga Lookouts are so specific and local that no matter how clean a look they have, they're more like the perfect minor league identity, because they're bound by the size of their home.

 

And certainly the <<Insert City>> MLBParentNames are as inescapably minor league as the Lansing Lugnuts.

 

But trying to define the gray area is hard. The Hops land squarely in that area for me. It's not that hard to imagine that kind of name having been around a lot longer than it has. But put the identity on a bigger city team and there's something that doesn't quite feel major league. Like it's too on trend.

 

[eastfirst107]

1 hour ago, RichO said:

Something I keep thinking about when I click through the thread:

Where is the boundary between a rock solid, classic, minor league classic identity- and an MLB-grade identity?

 

Some things- like the Chattanooga Lookouts are so specific and local that no matter how clean a look they have, they're more like the perfect minor league identity, because they're bound by the size of their home.

 

And certainly the <<Insert City>> MLBParentNames are as inescapably minor league as the Lansing Lugnuts.

 

But trying to define the gray area is hard. The Hops land squarely in that area for me. It's not that hard to imagine that kind of name having been around a lot longer than it has. But put the identity on a bigger city team and there's something that doesn't quite feel major league. Like it's too on trend.

 

Not sure what you mean by "they're bound by the size of their home" - do you mean that, because Chattanooga is a small city, that would mean that they couldn't be considered an MLB-grade identity, because Chattanooga would never have a MLB team?

If so, then this entire thread is sort of pointless, except for maybe a half-dozen markets that are borderline MLB size (Indianapolis, Columbus, Portland etc.)

 

I'd say we're ignoring the city name for the purposes of this discussion - but I would argue that the nickname has a lot to do with it. Mobile has classy, MLB-level uniforms, but I wouldn't say it's a MLB-grade identity, because I don't think a MLB team would ever take the name "BayBears."

[Mac the Knife]

On 3/4/2018 at 11:16 PM, johnnysama said:

That look is ON FIRE, baby!

 

On 3/5/2018 at 5:03 PM, MJWalker45 said:

The Columbus Clippers have a beautiful name, logos and looks as well. The Myrtle Beach Pelicans have put out some great sets as well.

The Clippers had a really good uniform/identity package in the late 70's/early 80's.

Then they replaced it with a look that was even better.

Then... they screwed it up.

 

I'll back up what's been said about the Durham Bulls - most of their uniforms and identity packaging has been first rate.  Same has been true of the other team in our area, the Carolina Mudcats (see below), though now that they're owned by the Brewers, I suspect they'll start tinkering with the team's look and screw it up over time.  Maybe a "Mudcat in Glove" or something. 

[Gman13]

20 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

That look is ON FIRE, baby!

 

The Clippers had a really good uniform/identity package in the late 70's/early 80's.

Then they replaced it with a look that was even better.

Then... they screwed it up.

 

I'll back up what's been said about the Durham Bulls - most of their uniforms and identity packaging has been first rate.  Same has been true of the other team in our area, the Carolina Mudcats (see below), though now that they're owned by the Brewers, I suspect they'll start tinkering with the team's look and screw it up over time.  Maybe a "Mudcat in Glove" or something. 

 

Another team I can add to is the Gwinnett Stripers, they just changed their name this year, from the Braves to the Stripers.

 

[Korkie]

I always thought the old Scranton-Wilkes Barre Red Barons had a classic MLB caliber uniform set. 

[ChicagoOakland]

21 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

I'll back up what's been said about the Durham Bulls - most of their uniforms and identity packaging has been first rate.  Same has been true of the other team in our area, the Carolina Mudcats (see below), though now that they're owned by the Brewers, I suspect they'll start tinkering with the team's look and screw it up over time.  Maybe a "Mudcat in Glove" or something. 

I'd gladly trek down to Zebulon if they actually tried to do the mudcat-in-glove thing haha. That sounds so ridiculous that it might ironically work.

Although to be fair, the Mudcats never tried to incorporate teal when they were a Marlins affiliate (thank God).

Speaking of the Marlins, I'm singling them out for having no farm teams whatsoever that would ever be considered for this thread.
AAA: Baby Cakes
AA: Jumbo Shrimp
A+: Hammerheads
A: Grasshoppers

[Mac the Knife]

8 minutes ago, ChicagoOakland said:

I'd gladly trek down to Zebulon if they actually tried to do the mudcat-in-glove thing haha. That sounds so ridiculous that it might ironically work.

Although to be fair, the Mudcats never tried to incorporate teal when they were a Marlins affiliate (thank God).

 

I had the privilege of first meeting Steve Bryant about six months after moving here, and every time I'd see him after that he made it a point to say hello to me; usually at the stadium.  He was very much attuned to the Mudcats overall branding philosophy, and loathe to tinker with it, even when the team fell from the #1 spot in overall MiLB merchandise sales.  I don't think he was thinking in terms of a brand tradition so much as it was that he understood that even minor changes in branding cost big dollars, but I told him more than once, "When you have it right, you don't mess with it to try and improve it."

 

Both the Braves and Reds tried to entice changes during their affiliations, but Bryant sternly resisted their ideas.  I'd like to think the Brewers will keep the look intact, but the "Carolina Brewers" or the "Zebulon Hop Hustlers," with some garish Brandiose-created identity package, wouldn't surprise me a bit, either.

[coco1997]

The Syracuse Chiefs have had an interesting uniform history, but I was struck how much this particular look is derivative of the White Sox:

 

[eastfirst107]

On 09/03/2018 at 8:35 PM, Mac the Knife said:

The Clippers had a really good uniform/identity package in the late 70's/early 80's.

Then they replaced it with a look that was even better.

Then... they screwed it up.

 

Interesting, Columbus had home and road uniforms that looked nothing like each other back then.

[eastfirst107]

4 hours ago, ChicagoOakland said:

Speaking of the Marlins, I'm singling them out for having no farm teams whatsoever that would ever be considered for this thread.
AAA: Baby Cakes
AA: Jumbo Shrimp
A+: Hammerheads
A: Grasshoppers

Don't forget their short-season-A team, the Muckdogs.

[Mac the Knife]

Good:

 

Gooder (logo, but not necessarily uniform):

 

Garbage (compared to the others):

[DCarp1231]

Rochester Red Wings:

 

And they also apparently had a "color rush" uniform last year:

 

[Rebuy]

I'm going to disagree with the person about the Chattanooga Lookouts. I think it could easily work on the MLB level.

[shstpt1]

As previously mentioned... this topic has changed from what MiLB looks could work in the MLB to post random ‘unique’ MiLB looks, and lately feels like just a post your local MiLB uniform 

 

That white and grey Redwings set could work, if they used the R hat and not the bird logo. 

 

Several pics of uniforms here do look good, but the teams have way too many hats and cartoon logos on their uniforms. 

[eastfirst107]

1 hour ago, Rebuy said:

I'm going to disagree with the person about the Chattanooga Lookouts. I think it could easily work on the MLB level.

I don't know, I'm having a tough time picturing an MLB club wearing this:

[coco1997]

6 minutes ago, eastfirst107 said:

I don't know, I'm having a tough time picturing an MLB club wearing this:

 

I tend to agree. The Lookouts have had some really nice, tasteful uniforms, but the cartoon eye logo is probably a little too silly for a Major League club. 

[eastfirst107]

Now that I think about it, in the early 90s, you could have had a whole league of clubs playing in major-league cities with MLB-caliber identities:

(we're fortunate that the baseball card boom of that era gave us great visual evidence of all of these, and that the cards' photographers tended to take really boring shots of the players.)

 

[C-Squared]

I thought for sure the Buffalo Bisons would hit page one, especially considering they were a finalist for the majors 30 years ago... aside from their Mets affiliate days, I have loved every single set they have ever worn... as a 90s kid, this one stands out, so many greats passed through town in this era:

 

[Gothamite]

That is such a terribly 90s warped wordmark.  Ugh. 

 

They've had great uniform sets, but that isn’t one of them.