Jump to content

Marlins93

Members
  • Posts

    774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Marlins93 last won the day on November 15 2018

Marlins93 had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,105 profile views

Marlins93's Achievements

1.4k

Reputation

  1. Neither do I, but I imagine that the MLB team would want to obtain that domain name, even if it would simply redirect to mlb.com/guardians.
  2. Meh, I know that kind of idolatry existed in baseball 100+ years ago (hence the "Naps") but that feels much too out of place in today's game. So I'm not a fan. Guardians might not be perfect but it works much better than everything else that's been considered. Spiders, Forest Citys, Foresters, Commodores (that would have been okay, but I have some reservations), or anything to do with music or rock. I agree that green is underutilized in MLB and while Cleveland historically has the nickname "Forest City," it doesn't genuinely reflect the character of the city today. Leaning into a green, woodsy color palette wouldn't work so well, in my opinion. When/if Portland gets a team, hopefully they can do more with greens and browns. A truly perfect Brandiose name would have been the Cleveland River Fires, but obviously no MLB team would be so self-deprecating. While Guardians doesn't connote much excitement in some respects, it's a name that's akin to The Mets/Metropolitans, Twins, or Phillies. I feel like if any of those cities tried to adopt those names today irrespective of their storied histories, many fans would be put off and disgruntled. Change can be tough sometimes but they will get used to it, especially if they start winning and they manage to fine tune the branding visually. The Guardians works splendidly as a name. The wordmark is very nice, but the insignia feels undercooked.
  3. I was referring more to them apparently having to get clearance from Marvel. In that case they actually wanted to use that name and I was curious about what the trademark status actually protected. As someone else mentioned, the possibility of the Guardians of the Galaxy outright preventing Cleveland from using that name sounds as preposterous as Spider-Man doing the same. The University of Richmond roadblock I can understand somewhat. I wonder if the Marvel conversations were more about social media accounts than trademarks. I wish the article had explained more fully.
  4. I believe that's the same article that mentions them needing to clear the name Guardians with Marvel, but it doesn't really go into details about what that actually entailed.
  5. Yeah it sounds like they weren't worried about the Spiders having an icky connotation. It was more a legal/money issue and they sought a stronger local connection. The Spiders being a Cleveland-based team from over a century ago didn't cut it.
  6. I still feel like Guardians was the best name among those mentioned as possibilities or proposed by fans. A better name is out there somewhere but hasn't been mentioned yet. According to one article I read, the status of existing trademarks seems to have been a major factor. Guardians had few roadblocks in that regard. Spiders was discussed but they seemed dissuaded by the "worst team in history" legacy and the trademark status for the name held by the University of Richmond. They didn't hold a fan vote because they feared that the fans would select something with too many trademark issues. Evidently they did have some agreement with Marvel about the Guardians name. The branding would look better with a different color scheme but I understand why they wanted some aesthetic continuity in terms of colors and wordmark. My sharpest criticism is directed towards the ball logo, which is frankly rather terrible. It looks a bit rushed, as some have pointed out. It's important to remember that they decided all of this in about a year.
  7. Guardians was my preferred name and I'm happy that's what they selected. Not surprised at all, actually. Could there have a been a better choice? Absolutely, but not among those floating around over the past year. I still don't understand why Spiders had so many advocates.
  8. It definitely damped my enthusiasm a ton. Seeing all of the team uniforms was one of my favorite parts of the whole experience.
  9. I'm convinced that New Era has become some kind of crazy social experiment at this point. Some of the products they put out defy reason. At least everything at Taco Bell tastes delicious.
  10. I definitely think that the presence of big four sports teams can elevate a city's prestige and recognition. But among those cities that don't have a team, some feel more "worthy" than others. I want to again emphasize how all subjective this is, but placing teams in Austin or Albuquerque wouldn't feel strange to me from a branding standpoint. I think Anaheim feels obscure because nobody really talks about it much. Maybe if I were a SoCal person I'd think differently, but people refer to Orange County all of the time, but rarely Anaheim in particular.
  11. My point was that it felt bizarre back when they adopted that name back in 1997. "Anaheim Angels" always kind of stood out to me as odd. Even more once they became the LA Angels of Anaheim. That's not because they had been known as the California Angels for so long; more so because Anaheim didn't feel like a city worthy of marketing in such a way. To me at least. I think that Jacksonville, Sacramento, Buffalo, etc. have much more cachet from marketing and recognizability standpoints than Anaheim does. My understanding is that they adopted that name mostly because the city put up a lot of money for the stadium renovations. I'm also sure that Disney didn't mind much because it probably helped promote their theme park.
  12. Anaheim is arguably the most obscure city to be featured in the name of a big four sports team. Maybe a case can be made for Green Bay but that doesn't feel so odd to me given the franchise's longevity. Columbus feels a little low tier but at least it's a state capital. I'm basing this mostly on perception (not population or anything like that), so this is admittedly highly subjective.
  13. I mean, at that point it's a practically a different jersey, is it not? The caps are hideous too. Everything about this screams failure. It's almost as tacky as those awful New Era Local Market hats that everyone mocked. The Giants set is easily the worst so far. Even worse than Boston's.
  14. I think it's awful. That's exactly the type of thing I feared when I learned Nike was taking over.
  15. Well, there you have it. Fog and the Golden Gate Bridge. Some of the posters here called it, but no one should be too surprised. I'm curious what the back of the jersey and hat look like but this is already shaping up to be the worst City Connect so far. The fog effect doesn't work for me at all. The G on the breast feels plain and lazy. And not sure what's going on with the bridge on the sleeves.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.