Jump to content

MLB changes 2018?


ANGELCAT-IDA61
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Dnice said:

Casually watching the braves broadcast and seeing how off to see a pitcher(snellt of TB,) in single digits.

 

 

Him wearing #4 is the only thing I like about Snell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ark said:

jSanz3s.png

 

19 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That never worked as an M.  It works even less as a W.

 

That and flipping the logo upside-down just comes across as disrespectful to Expos fans. It’s like giving their team a “thumbs-down.” Also, the hidden features become even more pointless when turned upside-down.

 

The M-ELB logo is one of my least favorites in Big Four sports’ modern history (post-WWII). It should have been dumped in favor of an “M” in the style of the “Montréal” script in the 1992 redesign.

 

If you want to see an Expos-style logo done right, look to the Winnipeg Whips (Pepsi-ish, but still clearer) or the Jacksonville Expos.

 

8ad272fb2400ccfffb9f0b960dadc7c3.jpg

01Jacksonville1.jpg

 

Heck, I’m sure one of us here tried to make a Nationals logo with the Whips’ insignia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2018 at 5:05 PM, Ark said:

ct-max-scherzer-sullivan-cubs-nationals-

 

13704245-1040x572.jpg

 

ct-nationals-max-scherzer-not-enough-spt

 

guerrero-expos-584.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm... never noticed... I wonder if it was intentional or a coincidence lol

I'm inclined towards coincidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

That and flipping the logo upside-down just comes across as disrespectful to Expos fans. It’s like giving their team a “thumbs-down.” Also, the hidden features become even more pointless when turned upside-down.

 

The M-ELB logo is one of my least favorites in Big Four sports’ modern history (post-WWII). It should have been dumped in favor of an “M” in the style of the “Montréal” script in the 1992 redesign.

 

If you want to see an Expos-style logo done right, look to the Winnipeg Whips (Pepsi-ish, but still clearer) or the Jacksonville Expos.

 

8ad272fb2400ccfffb9f0b960dadc7c3.jpg

01Jacksonville1.jpg

 

Heck, I’m sure one of us here tried to make a Nationals logo with the Whips’ insignia.

 

 

Those are both far better than the parent club's logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2018 at 1:26 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Ought to be kept around? No.  

 

No objectively-bad logo ought to be kept around. It should at a minimum be tweaked to be less objectively bad.  

 

Maybe the Walgreens W isn’t objectively bad after all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

That and flipping the logo upside-down just comes across as disrespectful to Expos fans. It’s like giving their team a “thumbs-down.” Also, the hidden features become even more pointless when turned upside-down.

 

The M-ELB logo is one of my least favorites in Big Four sports’ modern history (post-WWII). It should have been dumped in favor of an “M” in the style of the “Montréal” script in the 1992 redesign.

 

If you want to see an Expos-style logo done right, look to the Winnipeg Whips (Pepsi-ish, but still clearer) or the Jacksonville Expos.

 

(Photo snip)

 

 

Heck, I’m sure one of us here tried to make a Nationals logo with the Whips’ insignia.

 

I prefer the Vermont Expos rendition:

 

IMG_6526.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask what everyone has against the Walgreens W? I get that a lot of people prefer the old DC, and I don't blame them because I do as well. But I never understood what about the W could possibly be so deserving of all the hate it draws.

 

All in all, it's a solid mark that you're not gonna mistake for anything else. At least not in the sports world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NicDB said:

All in all, it's a solid mark that you're not gonna mistake for anything else. At least not in the sports world.

 

 

That's a very low bar.  And the fact it has to be qualified shows how bad the logo really is.

 

As a cap logo, it's mediocre.  But as a jersey logo, it's awful.  It's too slight to anchor a jersey front, and the italic swoop means it always looks unbalanced.  In order to work on a jersey, a good logo really needs to be more or less rectangular.  The Tigers, Yankees, and A's are all good examples of this.  Their logos are proportionally balanced left to right, and that makes them strong enough to stand alone on a jersey.  Even the White Sox can get away with it, since their logo is much taller than it is wide.   The Walgreens W is too squat to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was never a fan of the Expos logo for anything other than nostalgia. It’s kind of a terrible logo if we’re being honest here. It’s similar to other logos bathed in the refreshing waters of nostalgia, like Bucco Bruce. 

 

That being said, it’s still a FAR more interesting logo than the Nats curly W. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pretzel dub is fine for the hats, but they lost me when they put it on the chests. It's not strong enough to be the jersey identifier and sort of encroached on the Reds' territory by using placket piping, red hats, and a chest logo. 

 

I was a big fan of the old wordmark. Also I didn't remember this happening, but I guess it did - the Washington script and (superior) beveled numbers with gold inlays coincided for at least one season. 

 

900620698_W2WH9-M.jpg

 

They should still be using those numbers. They're still using that font, but without the bevels so now it just looks chubby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have all sorts of nostalgia for the Expos.  I did not like the pinwheel hat, but I liked the jerseys of that era (and owned a replica powder blue as a kid).  I loved their upgrade to a more traditional look.

 

But I have to admit that the logo is bad.  I always just thought it was something abstract and I don't think I thought of it as an "M" until I came to the boards.   As an "M" it is, at best, overdone.  It draws your attention too much to the three colors.  You see a possible lower-case "e" and lower-case "b."  Could the e be for expos (which is written with a lower-case e below on the jersey)?  Could the "b" be for "baseball?"  Add to that that ignorant Americans like myself also consider that there could be something french behind whatever letters may or may not be incorporated in that logo.

 

In fact, i don't know.  Is it just an "M?"  Or is an an "M" that incorporates an "e" and/or a "b?"

 

Regardless, it's too confusing to be a really effective logo.  I like it...but probably because of nostalgia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a thought about the D-Backs.  Some fans like their red color, some fans want the old purple & teal back.  As far as I hear, the front office doesn't want the purple back because it's the Rockies color.  So the compromise between red and purple is magenta!  No team in MLB uses it (I don't know of any team that does) and magenta & teal would be similar to the old southwestern look.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I just had a thought about the D-Backs.  Some fans like their red color, some fans want the old purple & teal back.  As far as I hear, the front office doesn't want the purple back because it's the Rockies color.  So the compromise between red and purple is magenta!  No team in MLB uses it (I don't know of any team that does) and magenta & teal would be similar to the old southwestern look.  

 

The Rockies are only 5 years older than the Diamondbacks, who have won a World Series in purple. As long as the Rockies insist on being predominantly black (a mistake IMO), Arizona could easily own the color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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