Toronto Maple Leafs to get new logo for 2016-2017 season

[jp1409]

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

In middle school, we used to play a game called The Penis Game, where the object was to say "penis" at ever-increasing volume until someone got caught and thrown out of class. 

 

PENIS

 

PENIS

[BBTV]

5 hours ago, uniformity said:

One of the reasons I don't like the Ballard logo is because the shape is so generic. It resembles thousands of other maple leaf logos that are plastered on products and businesses across Canada. The new Leafs logo may not be modern or look like a literal translation of a maple leaf but at least its unique and it's not stuck in the 70s.

 

Fair enough point.  I'll counter it by pointing out that out of all of those similarly-rendered leaves, only one is done in blue, and a blue sharp-angled leaf evokes the Maple Leafs, even if no words are in the logo.  I really like the leaf posted a few posts above this too.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I would think that a blue leaf alone is enough to set it apart, even if they went so far as lifting a leaf right off the flag.  

 

But I don't live in Canada, so I'll defer to those with actual experience. 

[IceCap]

32 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, I would think that a blue leaf alone is enough to set it apart, even if they went so far as lifting a leaf right off the flag.  

 

But I don't live in Canada, so I'll defer to those with actual experience. 

The blue leaf is synonymous with the Maple Leafs.

The Ballard leaf looking like the leaves you see companies tack onto their logos has never been my problem with it. It never did anyway. The 1967 leaf was based off the leaf on the flag. The Ballard leaf was introduced in 1970. It had blockier styling.

 

Which is why I never liked it. It was too stylized. That was a problem. The 1967/flag leaf is already stylized. The Ballard version was just a step too far. 

It was an overly stylized logo rooted in trendy design. It just didn't fit a team with as much history as the Leafs. 

[steve61]

17 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The blue leaf is synonymous with the Maple Leafs.

The Ballard leaf looking like the leaves you see companies tack onto their logos has never been my problem with it. It never did anyway. The 1967 leaf was based off the leaf on the flag. The Ballard leaf was introduced in 1970. It had blockier styling.

 

Which is why I never liked it. It was too stylized. That was a problem. The 1967/flag leaf is already stylized. The Ballard version was just a step too far. 

It was an overly stylized logo rooted in trendy design. It just didn't fit a team with as much history as the Leafs. 

 

Agreed with all of this but I still wish the execution managed to look a bit more like an actual maple leaf (less like a fern) even though I've already explained why that would be difficult to pull off due to the word mark.  Overall, I'm happy that the corporate blockier leaf is gone, but the rectangular look of the vintage leaf has always bugged me.  I think something in between could have been pulled off with the right designer.  Overall an upgrade, but unfortunately still lacking....in my opinion....but far better than what I feared based on some of the concepts floating around.  

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, steve61 said:

Agreed with all of this but I still wish the execution managed to look a bit more like an actual maple leaf (less like a fern) even though I've already explained why that would be difficult to pull off due to the word mark.  Overall, I'm happy that the corporate blockier leaf is gone, but the rectangular look of the vintage leaf has always bugged me.  I think something in between could have been pulled off with the right designer.  Overall an upgrade, but unfortunately still lacking....in my opinion....but far better than what I feared based on some of the concepts floating around.  

Likewise. I was dreading something along the lines of Hockey Canada's 100th anniversary logo. Something that tried too hard to be vintage and whimsical.

What I like about the logo they unveiled is that the vintage look just seems natural. It's clearly based off of the various leafs the team used between 1938-1967. It's not going for a faux vintage look that the team never had. It's just taking a vintage look that they did have and updating it. I'd actually liken it to the Minnesota Vikings' update from a few years back. The only difference being the Leafs spent nearly fifty years in the wilderness before returning to their classic aesthetic.

[The_Admiral]

"Wilderness" is a little severe. The shoulder stripes were bad, the short-lived Kabel numbers were worse, and the original Edge uniforms were a joke, but they managed to look respectable here and there during the lifespan of the Ballard leaf -- like I said, the 1990s sweaters with the double stripes and detailed shoulder leaf were top-notch.

[steve61]

12 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Likewise. I was dreading something along the lines of Hockey Canada's 100th anniversary logo. Something that tried too hard to be vintage and whimsical.

What I like about the logo they unveiled is that the vintage look just seems natural. It's clearly based off of the various leafs the team used between 1938-1967. It's not going for a faux vintage look that the team never had. It's just taking a vintage look that they did have and updating it. I'd actually liken it to the Minnesota Vikings' update from a few years back. The only difference being the Leafs spent nearly fifty years in the wilderness before returning to their classic aesthetic.

The fact that it's closely based on established historic designs is a big plus.  No need or excuse for faux vintage with an original six team.  I'm probably also in the minority on this, but I'm really glad they didn't include an outline.  I think it's a much crisper look without the extra white border.  Since you brought it up, the new look also separates the look from the stylized leaf of team Canada as well as the that from the Jets roundel.  Truly unique look again.  

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, the admiral said:

"Wilderness" is a little severe. The shoulder stripes were bad, the short-lived Kabel numbers were worse, and the original Edge uniforms were a joke, but they managed to look respectable here and there during the lifespan of the Ballard leaf -- like I said, the 1990s sweaters with the double stripes and detailed shoulder leaf were top-notch.

I would also add the TML/silver outlines to the list. The Leafs have managed to have two really good looks with the Ballard leaf. The 1992-1997 set you mentioned was top notch. The current/soon to be former set (2010-2016) is even better, as it's basically the 92-97 set with a more aesthetically pleasing tie-down collar.

If the edict came down that the Leafs HAD to stick with the Ballard leaf? The current set would be perfectly acceptable. I'm just happy that we have a classically styled logo back.

The simple, bold nature of the Ballard leaf does have its merits, but the 1967 version, in my opinion, outshines it in every way in that regard.

 

2 minutes ago, steve61 said:

I'm probably also in the minority in this, but I'm really glad they didn't include an outline.

I'm right there with you. The outline really isn't needed given the tweaks to the overall shape that they made.

 

3 minutes ago, steve61 said:

Since you brought it up, the new look also separates the look from the stylized leaf of team Canada as well as the that from the Jets roundel.  Truly unique look again.

The Senators too. I know they no longer have it on a sweater but the Peace Tower/maple leaf logo is still used as a helmet decal. The new leaf is distinctly "Toronto Maple Leafs" in design.

So was the Ballard leaf, but the blockiness just kills it for me (in addition to the historical context).

[Morgan33]

On February 9, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Ice_Cap said:

I would also add the TML/silver outlines to the list. The Leafs have managed to have two really good looks with the Ballard leaf. The 1992-1997 set you mentioned was top notch. The current/soon to be former set (2010-2016) is even better, as it's basically the 92-97 set with a more aesthetically pleasing tie-down collar.

If the edict came down that the Leafs HAD to stick with the Ballard leaf? The current set would be perfectly acceptable. I'm just happy that we have a classically styled logo back.

 

Unpopular opinion but I never minded the silver outlines or the "TML" patch.  The silver was subtle and the numbers were a monumental improvement over the 'Kabel' ones.  I don't think the "TML" patch should ever be brought back but it was far from an eyesore.

[wildwing64]

8 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

Unpopular opinion but I never minded the silver outlines or the "TML" patch.  The silver was subtle and the numbers were a monumental improvement over the 'Kabel' ones.  I don't think the "TML" patch should ever be brought back but it was far from an eyesore.

 

I think I liked the TML patch better at the time. I like the way it's arranged to vaguely resemble a maple leaf, but the stretched letters look awkward and the typeface was inconsistent with the rest of the identity. It's also a very modern looking logo that clashes with the otherwise traditional look of the Leafs. I'd like to see an updated version that fits with the new logo, but they probably don't need it.

[Sport]

I took the weekend off and this thread really went off the rails. To Soda's last point that it almost makes it look like the Leafs ripped off the Lightning - uhhh wouldn't that have been truer when the Leafs used a simpler logo? The Ballard leaf is way closer to the Lightning logo than the new one. 

 

On 2/7/2016 at 2:52 PM, Morgo said:

 

This uniform is my main reason for disliking the "Ballard Leaf."  It's so plain and goes directly against the aesthetic they cultivated for 35 years prior.  Returning to the double stripes in 1992 was a great move.  It's just a shame they took so long to follow suit with the logo but hey, better late than never.

I've stated this already in this thread, but this is my take as well. Looking back those uniforms feel really ill-fitting for the Maple Leafs. A lot of sports franchises with long histories and classic looks took a ride on the 70’s design train, but almost all of them jumped off and returned to their traditional looks shortly thereafter. The Leafs, though, wore their 70’s uniforms into the 90’s, which was hard for me to believe. They righted the uniform wrong in 1992 and they’re righting the logo wrong in 2016. I applaud them for that.

 

I put the Leafs on the same plane as the Canadiens in terms of heritage and it makes more sense for them to wear a logo that’s not computer perfect. That’s why I like that their jersey and stripes and sock stripes are so wildly different. It’s a relic from the O6 days when uniform design wasn’t big business, when they combined socks from an old set with the jersey from a new set and just never felt the need to make them consistent. Quirks like that are expected with heritage franchises – like how the Rangers have the shoulder striping on their white jerseys, but not their blues. This thinking also applies to their logo. The new logo matches that aesthetic. The Ballard leaf never did.

 

It also doesn’t look like a pot leaf.

[sparkychewbarky]

On February 7, 2016 at 11:39 AM, monkeypower said:

I'm torn here. It's not a bad logo by any means (or MEANS if you will ) and it's a great update, but there's just something about it I don't entirely like and I think it's the shape of the leaf. 

 

Quote

 

I find it looks dated and out of place in this era, compared to the "cleaner", I guess, Ballard leaf.

 

 

 

I think that monkeypower kinda nailed it.

This "new" logo is fine as a vintage logo alternate, but as the everyday primary logo?...I think it's gonna get real tired-real fast.

McCarthy...talk about jumping on the trendy train, it seems that MLS&E and a lot of its fans are all aboard the current vintage fad.

MLS&E's trumpeting of a "new" logo and then pulling a 1930's design out of its archival ass was disappointing.

 

The only tradition that really needed to be restored was the tradition of winning.

 

The Post-67 logo (P-67) is a great logo. (Maybe THAT'S why it lasted 50 years).

Bold, simple, clean; it packs a lot more punch than its wispy replacement...

 

 

I also was never a fan of the 30's logo fernish shape.

It kind of reminded me of this guy...

 

 

The zigzags in the middle of the shape just don't look right.

With 17 letters, 17 veins, 32-something points...it's very busy IMO.

 

Ice_Cap and the admiral chronicled some of the Leafs fashion hiccups over the past half century, but for the most part, the buds have looked pretty good.

In fact, the current look (with the P-67 logo) is probably their best look ever!...

 

 

 

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

I'm not good at Photoshopping so I just cut and pasted the "Toronto" from the modern leaf to the leaf from the "new" logo. I think it looks so much better having the word "Toronto" horizontal rather than arched.

 

[twi]

I'm late to the party, but I like the new logo. It's got more character than the one it's replacing and I feel it gives the Leafs an old timey type look without pushing that too far and being out of place when compared with the rest of the league. 

[BigBubba]

On February 4, 2016 at 0:15 AM, Magnus said:

As the great philosopher Elsa the Snow Queen would say, "Let it go." As long as they are still making money hand over fist, the corporations that own the Leafs (and rather conveniently the only cable networks that air NHL hockey in most of this country any more) won't really care about how well their players perform on the ice.

 

I've never understood this argument. The Leafs being a cash cow doesn't mean there's no incentive for MLSE to try and build a successful team. IIRC, the Leafs earn just over $2M in ticket revenue. Per game. Not to mention revenue from food stands, programs, souvenirs, etc. Can you imagine how much they would profit from a deep playoff run and hosted anywhere anywhere from 8-16 home playoff games at inflated prices? I remember them selling a fair amount of playoff merch in 2013 -- just for making it to the first round. "Cup Champion" merchandise for the Leafs would probably break league records. Putting effort into assembling a winner is absolutely worth the tens of millions of dollars of additional revenue it would bring.

 

On February 5, 2016 at 0:45 PM, sparky chewbarky said:

MLS&E has grossly mismanaged our loyalty, and has financed its empire on the backs of our hockey passion.

I'm all for business profiting while delivering a good product or service, but the fatcats at MLS&E have failed to deliver what their fans deserve...

A consistently winning hockey team.

They've prospered because they have the NHL monopoly in the world's largest hockey market,

and they've ridden the coat-tails of a glorious past that they've had absolutely nothing to do with.

 

I've even wondered at times, if the Leafs' playoffs absence was entirely a bad thing for MLS&E.

It allowed for the Toronto spotlight to be focused entirely on their up-and-coming Raptors brand.

...A bit of a conflict of interest, IMO.

 

Same with this. Are you suggesting that MLSE has a vested interest in having the Leafs win less and make less money so that the Raptors can win more and make more money? Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Should they trade Sebastian Giovinco away, lest a successful TFC team draw fans away from a rising Blue Jays team?

[Magnus]

2 minutes ago, BigBubba said:

 

I've never understood this argument. The Leafs being a cash cow doesn't mean there's no incentive for MLSE to try and build a successful team. IIRC, the Leafs earn just over $2M in ticket revenue. Per game. Not to mention revenue from food stands, programs, souvenirs, etc. Can you imagine how much they would profit from a deep playoff run and hosted anywhere anywhere from 8-16 home playoff games at inflated prices? I remember them selling a fair amount of playoff merch in 2013 -- just for making it to the first round. "Cup Champion" merchandise for the Leafs would probably break league records. Putting effort into assembling a winner is absolutely worth the tens of millions of dollars of additional revenue it would bring.

 

Probably, but I feel like the mentality at Leafs ownership is "If it's still functional enough to get the job done (make money hand over fist), don't try to change it."

I'm betting my dad, whose allegiance is to the Raptors first and foremost as a sports fan, but is old enough to have watched the Leafs win in the 60s (and remember it!), doesn't mind that the Leafs are taking a back seat in success to the Raptors. Basketball is Canadian, too. We ought to embrace it a bit more - without necessarily letting go of our passion for hockey.

[DAKINS24]

I'm fairly certain that MLSE is embarrassed by the fact that they are no longer the top earning team in the NHL after slipping last season.  That, and the fact that after decades, they had games that weren't sell outs.  They finally got to the point where they couldn't continue sitting on their hands if they wanted to keep the money rolling in.

 

They understand that they have to start winning to keep their earnings up.  Do you think they would finally do a real rebuild if they thought they could continue to rake in the cash putting sub-par teams on the ice season after season and claiming that they will win?

 

I've always said that fans needed to start publicly shaming the Leafs at games in order to get MLSE to bring them a cup, and after last season's jersey tossing "scandal", look what's happening....

[sparkychewbarky]

53 minutes ago, DAKINS24 said:

I'm fairly certain that MLSE is embarrassed by the fact that they are no longer the top earning team in the NHL after slipping last season.  That, and the fact that after decades, they had games that weren't sell outs.  They finally got to the point where they couldn't continue sitting on their hands if they wanted to keep the money rolling in.

 

They understand that they have to start winning to keep their earnings up.  Do you think they would finally do a real rebuild if they thought they could continue to rake in the cash putting sub-par teams on the ice season after season and claiming that they will win?

 

I've always said that fans needed to start publicly shaming the Leafs at games in order to get MLSE to bring them a cup, and after last season's jersey tossing "scandal", look what's happening....

 

I agree with you DAKINS.

It appears that, for now at least, MLS&E is going down the right path.

I like what they've done recently. (except for the logo thing).

...But I don't think that they're righting the ship because of some sort of moral obligation to their fans.

It's because they've realized that, "Holy Crap...We're finally killing the Golden Goose!!"

 

We should have stopped selling out the joint and buying their stuff decades ago.

[IceCap]

That's the problem I have with your take on this subject, sparky. MLSE cannot win. They make moves that don't pan out? You accuse them of resting on their laurels. They start to figure it out and try to put a solid team together? You accuse them of only doing it for the money. Which is funny because that's ultimately why any team does anything. 

 

I swear. The Leafs could win the Cup and you'd still find a reason to complain.

Probably something along the lines of "they put the current team in a montage with images from older Leafs championship teams. Why do they always need to rely on the past? MLS&E always rests on their laurels!" 

 

15 minutes ago, sparky chewbarky said:

We should have stopped selling out the joint and buying their stuff decades ago.

Decades ago, eh? Would this have been during the early 90s when they made it to two straight Campbell Conference Finals and a game (and blown call) away from the Stanley Cup?

Or the late 90s/early 2002s when they were a regular playoff team and made it two Eastern Conference Finals?

 

Fact is you're conflating Harold Ballard's reign with MLSE's. MLSE as we know it only really started to take shape following Ballard's death, and turned the team around following two decades of Ballard's mismanagement. Clark, Gilmore, Potvin, Sundin, Roberts, Tucker, Joseph, Burns, Quinn. MLSE actually put a few really good teams and playoff runs together. 

This myth of yours, that MLSE has always mismanaged the team, simply doesn't hold up.