TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, insert name said:

I always did like the Angry Blue Jay logo. I wish they made a blue jersey and/or hat with this logo. It may have gotten a better reception. 

logo_torontobluejays.jpg

Yeah, that's a good logo, just not for a baseball team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Chris Creamer vividly remembers the Blue Jays’ logo reveal in 2003. The Port Perry, Ont., resident is founder of Sportslogos.net, a website that documents team branding from across the globe. The site has always featured message boards, which allow Creamer to gauge how fans feel about different logos. Reaction to Toronto’s new look was pure disappointment.


"It bit, blew, and sucked," said Creamer, adding "it didn't pop, wasn't iconic, and didn't scream Toronto." According to Redford, omitting the Maple Leaf was the Blue Jays’ decision, possibly made in an attempt to appeal more to fans outside the nation. “I do recall hearing, much to my surprise, that the hat was extremely popular in the Bay Area, California,” Creamer says. “Probably just because there was one sociopath who bought the entire stock in between vague death threats."

Share this post


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

Agreed. A blue jersey would have been good but if they emphasized the graphite caps and jersey it might not have been too bad. I just think I like it because it was a new color scheme in baseball. 

hentgen-big.jpg

 

The coolness of that mustache overwhelms everything wrong with the jersey and the cap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charcoal graphite hat was pretty awesome, and, as with most on-fields, looks way better in real life than in pictures.  But everything else about that set sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logo and wordmarks were reminiscent of a minor league team and reading that article you can see why - they were trying to appeal to kids, which is where every creative brief for a minor league team rebranding begins and ends. 

 

I bet they could've squeezed a few more years out of it if they'd actually worn blue. The black should've been a non-starter just because the team is called the Blue Jays - You have a color in your name then you should wear that color, but also because it was like 5 years late on the Adopt Black Because it Sells bandwagon which made them dated the day before they were unveiled and that's why those unis had like a 3 year death rattle where they kept making tiny lateral move tweaks here and there before finally making the right call, put it out of its misery, and just going back to an updated version of the WS unis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the Graphite Jays were a tragic case of a great identity ruined by the team making every terrible choice imaginable - from the shortened team name to the ugly Crillee number font to the emphasis on black and grey over blue. That shade of blue looked incredible in person, and they underutilized it for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

September "cause" uniforms are once again for Childhood Cancer Awareness, this Friday. Just gold decals and wristbands, a la the early days of Mother's/Father's Weekend.

Share this post


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

I still think the Graphite Jays were a tragic case of a great identity ruined by the team making every terrible choice imaginable - from the shortened team name to the ugly Crillee number font to the emphasis on black and grey over blue. That shade of blue looked incredible in person, and they underutilized it for no reason.

Well, it wasn't that great if that many things sucked about it. But that was a lovely shade of blue. it should have been the base color for everything.

 

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

The black should've been a non-starter just because the team is called the Blue Jays - You have a color in your name then you should wear that color

Obviously I agree with this but I maintain now and forever that the Red Sox shouldn't wear red undershirts or jerseys.

Share this post


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

September "cause" uniforms are once again for Childhood Cancer Awareness, this Friday. Just gold decals and wristbands, a la the early days of Mother's/Father's Weekend.

Athletic gold would look great with some teams' uniforms (A's, Rays, and Pirates especially, but probably some more), but would look terrible with others. It'll look like everyone's wearing Livestrong bracelets.

Share this post


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

Obviously I agree with this but I maintain now and forever that the Red Sox shouldn't wear red undershirts or jerseys.

 

Yes, but they should wear red socks for every game.

 

Chicago, I'm looking at you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Maddon confirmed the North Siders will indeed dress in bear suits for their next stupid team-building exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lights Out said:

I still think the Graphite Jays were a tragic case of a great identity ruined by the team making every terrible choice imaginable - from the shortened team name to the ugly Crillee number font to the emphasis on black and grey over blue. That shade of blue looked incredible in person, and they underutilized it for no reason.

Nah. Nothing about that identity works for the Blue Jays. Maybe a minor league team called the Jays that wanted to do their own thing, but not the Toronto Blue Jays. 

The current identity was a return to form after seven years in the wilderness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, McCarthy said:

The black should've been a non-starter just because the team is called the Blue Jays - You have a color in your name then you should wear that color, . . . 

 

Sort of like Johns Hopkins football . . . 

 

10313919.jpeg

 

For the record, I actually liked the road version of that set . . . with the exception of the overly large NOB.  However, except for the hat, it didn't look like it was part of the same set of uniforms (different wordmark style, different number font, more use of blue).

 

13012211523387.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, leopard88 said:

 

For the record, I actually liked the road version of that set . . . with the exception of the overly large NOB.  However, except for the hat, it didn't look like it was part of the same set of uniforms (different wordmark style, different number font, more use of blue).

 

13012211523387.jpg

 

Those were 2.0 and they were way better than the first road uniform

 

inning7-3.jpg

 

 

But they usually wore them with this awful cap

 

165003556.jpg.49bda5ca1eea4fc7925e089b96872d28.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Those were 2.0 and they were way better than the first road uniform

 

inning7-3.jpg

 

 

But they usually wore them with this awful cap

 

165003556.jpg.49bda5ca1eea4fc7925e089b96872d28.jpg

 

 

I must be repressing my memories of the cap and the first version of the road uniforms.  They're both horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Blue Jays set (had it used much more blue, anyway) was similar to my take on the Buffaslug.  The Buffaslug was not terrible (ducks tomatoes) but when it was introduced, the immediate reaction was "this is NOT the Sabres."  Similarly, this was not the Blue Jays.  Had that been an expansion team at that time, the uniform would have worked OK.  But this was a team creating a new look "just because."  I know we were coming off the Clemens-era uniforms (which were OK, but again, not a needed change) but this was a much bigger departure.

 

Also, I hate using the "J" with the bird.  That would work for the Jacksonville Blue Jays but using a picture of the mascot with a letter (from the second word) from the mascot bugs me.  It would make more sense (though not work as well) with a "T."

Share this post


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

The logo and wordmarks were reminiscent of a minor league team and reading that article you can see why - they were trying to appeal to kids, which is where every creative brief for a minor league team rebranding begins and ends. 

 

I bet they could've squeezed a few more years out of it if they'd actually worn blue. The black should've been a non-starter just because the team is called the Blue Jays - You have a color in your name then you should wear that color, but also because it was like 5 years late on the Adopt Black Because it Sells bandwagon which made them dated the day before they were unveiled and that's why those unis had like a 3 year death rattle where they kept making tiny lateral move tweaks here and there before finally making the right call, put it out of its misery, and just going back to an updated version of the WS unis. 

The article mentions that steroid blue jay with the leaf tattoo served as the primary for a year.  

 

I have to suspect that appeal to kids was the main motivation of that logo.  I guess I did not realize it was the primary.  And that's what you get, I suppose when you market to kids.  And I think big-league teams should be more dignified than that...sell mascot logos in the pro-shop, but don't make them your primary (That's how I feel about the Orioles cartoon bird, and I know I'm in the minority).  It looked that that blue jay was designed with six-year-olds in mind.  Using black was probably designed with 13-year-olds in mind.  And I as I allude to in my above post, the latter probably flies if you don't have a great past to overcome like the Blue Jays did.  And now they have such a dignified, yet not boring, look that I just wish we could erase the black jays era (and maybe even the previous era).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Also, I hate using the "J" with the bird.  That would work for the Jacksonville Blue Jays but using a picture of the mascot with a letter (from the second word) from the mascot bugs me.  It would make more sense (though not work as well) with a "T."

 

I hadn't even thought about this part.  Now I dislike it even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leopard88 said:

 

I hadn't even thought about this part.  Now I dislike it even more.

So they had the following choices:

  • BJ: A non-starter for obvious reasons
  • B: Using "B" for "Blue Jays" is like using "N" for "New York" (or "G" for "Green Bay")
  • J: "J" works better than "B" since people actually call them the "Jays" and not the "Blue."  But it's showing an illustration of the mascot, with a letter not only representing the mascot, but in an informal, almost slang-like, way.  It's probably OCD, but I don't like using a logo and a letter representing the logo together (like the Falcons working in an "F"...if they could work in an "A" that would be OK...but what they do is redundant).  But doing it like this is worse.  Still, it's the best choice, unless...
  • "T" for Toronto.  I'd guess that was considered and the rendering with the angry bird did not come out great. 

Share this post


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

 

But they usually wore them with this awful cap

 

165003556.jpg.49bda5ca1eea4fc7925e089b96872d28.jpg

 

 

I probably shouldn't, but I absolutely LOVE this cap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.