Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I really like the block C, but that one's good too.

 

And I would love to have a team, any team, honoring the Negro Leagues at every game.  Still mad that the new Washington team isn't the Grays. >grumble grumble< ;)  

 

That would have been the one.  Even if they're more well known from Homestead, it would have been such a unique name, and they'd've had the freedom to take it in any direction they wanted to as far as interpretation / mascots goes.  Still coulda had the presidents race and all the hokey USA stuff, coulda had a Negro League HOF there (or some kind of display - not the literal HOF), coulda had some of the most marketable gear in MLB (everyone loves gray and navy/black, right?) - popular with diehard fans, people that only care about stye, and obviously if a tribute to a Negro league club, the black community as well.  Godsdammit I hate Bud Selig.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

...They're a charter AL club, and I'm not sure they need to lose the entire identity just to ape the Spiders' name (the two teams are actually unrelated aside from a shared locale).

 

A little tidbit:

 

After the National League contracted following the 1899 chaos, the remaining assets of the Spiders were sold to the owners of the team that would eventually become the Indians.

 

So, while the franchise never played under the Spiders name, (and the two teams actually existed concurrently for several years), the Spiders were officially absorbed into the franchise before it began play as a charter member of the American League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I apologize for breaking thread rules. I got a little peeved.

 

Anyway, here’s a fun idea for a different “C” logo: the fancy block “C” variants that the Negro League Cleveland Buckeyes used.

 

s-l640.jpg

Size-6-7-8-Cleveland-Buckeyes-1948-Negro

 

The AL club used a similar logo from 1921-36 (and again in 1941).

 

8276_cleveland_indians-cap-1921.png

1553_cleveland_indians-jersey-1922.png

 

While I like the Block C, the Fancy Block C is a fantastic alternative.

It's too bad Ohio State already owns (and owns) the name because the Cleveland Buckeyes could've been a good solution to the team's problem. This logo would still be a good jumping off point for a new look, and that first hat in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The block C is a fine logo, but it's not an identity. It can't stand on its own, so Cleveland will have to do something to replace Wahoo.

 

By the way, put me down as a vote for Spiders. I've loved that name for a long time. It's untapped potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell yeah.  Spiders would be a kickass team name/identity as long as you do it right. 

Share this post


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

Still mad that the new Washington team isn't the Grays. >grumble grumble< ;)  

 

Yeah, but once Nike takes over as MLB's uniform supplier, they would try to change them to the Anthracites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, the admiral said:

1325204.1_434x.progressive.jpg?v=1523055

 

I still like this hat best (though the squatchee should be red to match the bill but other than that). There are just enough details (the outline, the wideness of the letter, the rounded inside corners versus sharp-angled outside corners) to make it an interesting enough monogram that the current block C lacks, which could have been typed right out of Sports Font Serif.ttf.

 

I own that hat and I love it. I believe it will be worn on field for 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the Oklahoma City Thunder have unveiled a uniform that is being described as Native-themed.

okc_uniforms.png

 

 

Well, danged if this doesn't remind me of something:

 

 

indians_okc_logos.png

 

 

This is the best cap logo.  It is respectful and dignified, and it has loads of character.

 

 

robinson_frank_indians.png

 

 

The next best choice amongst historic logos is the one that @SFGiants58 suggested:

8276_cleveland_indians-cap-1921.png

 

 

Or they could come up with a new one.  Surely some talented artists can figure out a nice design for the letter C.

 

But the worst one of all is the block C; I honestly don't see how anyone can go for that logo.  It's like a placeholder that is being used until the real logo is selected.  The white outline helps it a bit.  But, even still, it looks like something that was selected (in a hurry) from the catalogue that is sitting on the counter at your local uniform printer's shop.


Anyway, let's hope that the Thunder have given the Indians an idea.

 


 

Share this post


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

This is the best cap logo.  It is respectful and dignified, and it has loads of character.

 

 

robinson_frank_indians.png

Some on this very message board would disagree. The font used for this C has been described in this very thread as having a "primitive savage look" to it. I've seen others compare it to the font you'd see for a summer camp called "Camp Wigwam" or something along those lines, which is degrading to native culture. 

 

I can't say I agree with that perspective, but apparently some find that font to be racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I apologize for breaking thread rules. I got a little peeved.

 

Anyway, here’s a fun idea for a different “C” logo: the fancy block “C” variants that the Negro League Cleveland Buckeyes used.

 

s-l640.jpg

 

The whole Cleveland Buckeyes look they've used is pretty great:

Cleveland+Indians+v+Detroit+Tigers+5PbOp

 

And it's not much of a departure from the current look obviously. I must agree with the other that it's unfortunate that Ohio State owns the Buckeyes name so well in Ohio that this is undoable. But I sure as hell wouldn't mind using this as a basis for the new identity going forward.

 

I wonder what that logo would look like with a white stroke, but I worry it'd look too much like the Red Sox logo.

 

19 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

This is the best cap logo.  It is respectful and dignified, and it has loads of character.

 

 

robinson_frank_indians.png

 

I really want to like this logo but I don't. It's goofy, obscure (not that it matters if it's a good mark), and just kinda ugly to me. I would much rather stick with the Block C than go to this, which was meant to match up with that eras script anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to talk about these things without getting into "politics."  Frankly, we should be able to, though I know history tells us that we struggle with it. 

 

The Indians is a difficult case because, aside from Wahoo, I don't think we're exactly sure where cultural norms are going to take us.  Will they introduce a "C" with a feather that will eventually end up going through the same exhausting debates as Wahoo?  Will the name eventually get to a place where replacement is an option?  I don't think we know.  Ideally, I'd like them to do something that won't bring us back down that road, but without a crystal ball, that's easier said than done (unless they scrap the name and everything right now).

 

Me...I don't love the names or the imagery but I've decided with few exceptions that it's no longer for me to really opine on because it's basically a continuum from totally innocuouss (Bears) to awful (Redskins).  So aside from things like Redskins and (some colleges and high schools) Savages, I sort of keep out of the debate.  Wahoo, though, is another one.  I think it's long time to put that caricature to rest.  

 

Wahoo will be one of the longest-lasting logos to ever disappear.  Maybe the longest.  That said, the team has a very up-and-down history with it.  They've used it on their caps every day at times but they've also marginalized it.  I don't know whether any of that was because of the issue of how respectful the logo isn't (maybe it's the fact that it's a stupid logo either way).

 

So what should they do?  I agree that the current block "C" is boring.  And on that color scheme it really needs the white outline like on the early 1980s hat.  But they'll probably want another logo.  They'll have to be careful with the tone of the imagery.  

 

Regarding the name, I don't see it changing, at least not anytime soon.  If they were to change it, I think Spiders is the only way to go.  There's a history there and it would be unique within big-league North American sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

It's hard to talk about these things without getting into "politics."

Well you're all just gonna have to try :)

 

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Frankly, we should be able to, though I know history tells us that we struggle with it.

We had a mod come in fairly early on and go "things have been going well, but as a reminder no politics."

And then some guy decided to go full politics anyway, in the manner that forces us to ban politics in the first place.

 

So sadly it looks like it'll be awhile before we can go open up this avenue of discussion.

The shame of it is that it's a selected minority who force us to take these actions. Still? It is what it is.

 

15 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

A little tidbit:

 

After the National League contracted following the 1899 chaos, the remaining assets of the Spiders were sold to the owners of the team that would eventually become the Indians.

 

So, while the franchise never played under the Spiders name, (and the two teams actually existed concurrently for several years), the Spiders were officially absorbed into the franchise before it began play as a charter member of the American League.

I don't know. Seems kind of weak to be honest. If the Spiders folded and had their assets bought by the future Indians, who had yet to begin play? That's one thing. You could say the Spiders effectively became the future Indians.

Instead the Indians team and Spiders team existed concurrently, and the future Indians just absorbed what was left of the Spiders. Doesn't seem like enough of a connection to claim the Indians ever played "as" the Spiders. And given the history behind the Indians' name? I would think that's more appropriate then Spiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

8276_cleveland_indians-cap-1921.png

 

With all the retro merchandise available, I really, really wish a decent hat with this logo was sold. I bought one about 10 years ago, but the fit was terrible, the logo was too small and the hat was closer to Dodger blue than the Indians’ midnight navy. And now, even that version is off the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

What’s wrong with the feathered-c logo that every concept uses? Seems like a fine compromise to me.  

 

I have a feeling we'll see a move away from any kind of Native American imagery altogether. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

What’s wrong with the feathered-c logo that every concept uses? Seems like a fine compromise to me.  

 

It's a political minefield to introduce a new logo with Native imagery, and I'm sure the team would like to avoid that, so I imagine they will not go that route. Aesthetically I've liked a few concepts like the one below (tho I never had an issue with Wahoo's aesthetic), but won't get into the politics therein, given the warnings.

 

OOKQfTU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but if a flippin' feather is considered too offensive, then I don't know what the heck is 'acceptable' anymore. 

 

There has got to be some imagery that is considered respectful for the 21st century. The Spokane Indians use feathers in their logos, I say go for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ptaylor said:

I'm sorry but if a flippin' feather is considered too offensive, then I don't know what the heck is 'acceptable' anymore.

 

SVzm8aY.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well you're all just gonna have to try :)

 

We had a mod come in fairly early on and go "things have been going well, but as a reminder no politics."

And then some guy decided to go full politics anyway, in the manner that forces us to ban politics in the first place.

 

So sadly it looks like it'll be awhile before we can go open up this avenue of discussion.

The shame of it is that it's a selected minority who force us to take these actions. Still? It is what it is.

 

I don't know. Seems kind of weak to be honest. If the Spiders folded and had their assets bought by the future Indians, who had yet to begin play? That's one thing. You could say the Spiders effectively became the future Indians.

Instead the Indians team and Spiders team existed concurrently, and the future Indians just absorbed what was left of the Spiders. Doesn't seem like enough of a connection to claim the Indians ever played "as" the Spiders. And given the history behind the Indians' name? I would think that's more appropriate then Spiders.

 

I suppose the key distinction for me is that the franchise never played a major league game before buying the Spiders’ assets. The Western League was considered minor and didn’t declare itself “major” until 1899 happened and it renamed itself as the American League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ptaylor said:

I'm sorry but if a flippin' feather is considered too offensive, then I don't know what the heck is 'acceptable' anymore. 

 

There has got to be some imagery that is considered respectful for the 21st century. The Spokane Indians use feathers in their logos, I say go for it. 

 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that a feather was considered offensive.  Plenty have said it's better to avoid the issue altogether and not use any NA imagery, but I can't recall ever hearing anyone ever call a feather or headdress offensive.

 

It's obviously not my call since I'm not a member of the group whose likeness is being used here, but I happen to find this concept by McCarthy (link below) very appealing.  There are many similar ones that are also very nicely done.

 

tribe-hats.png.eba3f24fc88721f569e859f1e

 

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