SportsLogos.Net News

2019 MLB Changes

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Andrew_Gamer_NZP said:

So yesterday the Rangers decided to where their red alternate hats with their blue alternate jersey. But still wore their blue helmets.

I don't think they've ever worn this combo before.

Image result for 1994 texas rangers baseball

I believe they had this combo in spring training only when they changed from the Nolan Ryan-era uniforms in 1994. They usually kept the red and blue separated between home and away uniforms though. Cleveland handled their uniforms in a similar manner minus the home cap which carried over from their Major League II uniforms. And I have to say this,  I hated when they got rid of the team logo on the sleeve for the Texas flag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I'm not sure that any of the discussions I've seen explaining it are REALLY contemporary with its unveiling.

 

Contemporary reports described the logo as being an M, and containing an E (with no mention of a B).

 EXPOS1.jpg?format=1000w

 

EXPOS-LOGO-ANNOUNCEMENT.jpg?format=1000w

 

The team later referred to a B in its official description of the logo. But the lack of any contemporary allusion to a B leads to the conclusion that the logo was not intended to include that letter.

 

Todd Radom wrote the whole matter up on his blog several years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todd’s piece is fantastic.  And he nails the problem with their eMb logo:

 

Quote

The club seemingly gave a definitive explanation starting in the late 80s and early 90s—"The Expos logo is composed of three letters, the largest of which is the overall stylized "M" for Montréal. Represented in the lower left of the logo is a lower case "e" for expos and on the right hand side of the logo, in blue, is the letter "b" for baseball." While this may stand as the final word, it seems unusual that this explanation came some two decades after the logo's debut.

 

The fact that they were still developing a changing explanation after decades of use shows us how lousy it really is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contributing my two cents:

 

I actually really like the classic Expos logo as a curiosity of its time, but I can’t defend it until I hear why there’s a lowercase “l” in white.

 

And my problem with that color-on-color thing is that the Orioles’ orange over gray pants is one of my least favorite combinations in the game. Something about that bright orange over dull gray just looks horribly unbalanced and clashy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Yep - I get it. Sword of Damocles says an M is the answer, not elb.

 

Wrong sharp object: the simplest answer being the right one is Occam's Razor, the Sword of Damocles is when you exist in a constant state of likely doom. Though the Expos were under that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Digby said:

And my problem with that color-on-color thing is that the Orioles’ orange over gray pants is one of my least favorite combinations in the game. Something about that bright orange over dull gray just looks horribly unbalanced and clashy to me.

 

I think they were originally used for home games on the weekend. The black alternate was the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Digby said:

And my problem with that color-on-color thing is that the Orioles’ orange over gray pants is one of my least favorite combinations in the game. Something about that bright orange over dull gray just looks horribly unbalanced and clashy to me.

 

The Marlins tried wearing their orange alternate with road gray pants for awhile and it looked horrible. Of course their shade was more of a red-orange technically speaking, but it often had a "highlighter" look to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Expos logo, and I think it does exactly what a logo should do.  It doesn't matter what letters are in it, or even if there even are letters hidden in it.  When you see it, you know it's the Expos logo.  It passes the book-cover test.  It's iconic, and that's not a word I use lightly.  The fact that nobody knows what it is can actually be viewed as a good thing, because 15 years after the team became extinct, we're still talking about the logo and keeping the memory of the team alive.

 

Hell - our own Lord Commander CC is even on record as stating it's his all time favorite logo.  If you diss the logo, then you're committing treason.  Time for some dracarys.  

Share this post


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

I love the Expos logo, and I think it does exactly what a logo should do.  It doesn't matter what letters are in it, or even if there even are letters hidden in it.  When you see it, you know it's the Expos logo.  It passes the book-cover test.  It's iconic, and that's not a word I use lightly.  The fact that nobody knows what it is can actually be viewed as a good thing, because 15 years after the team became extinct, we're still talking about the logo and keeping the memory of the team alive.

 

Hell - our own Lord Commander CC is even on record as stating it's his all time favorite logo.  If you diss the logo, then you're committing treason.  Time for some dracarys.  

I've been trying to avoid getting ensnared in the Expos logo discussion, but I agree with this. It doesn't really matter too much to me that the e, M, and b are not super straightforward in the way they are integrated. In fact, I appreciate it. There's something refreshingly abstract about the whole design and a nice change of pace from the typical intertwined city/team letters so ubiquitous in MLB. This kind of semi-abstraction in the Expos logo is perfect for a team's identity that is clearly embracing late 60s modernism.

 

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to claim it's one of the "best logos ever" or anything close to that, but as I mentioned before, I much prefer it over the uninspired Washington Walgreens design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

The expos logo is classic, but this is still the absolute best

Milwaukee_Brewers_Alternate_Logo.svg.png

 

Funny you should mention this, because I’ve always thought the logos were of a kind.  Separated by less than a decade, both use sweeping lines and bulbous curves.  They both combine multiple letterforms into a larger image.  They very much start from the same place. 

 

The difference is that the Brewers logo succeeds and the Expos logo fails.  Spectacularly.

 

The evidence for that is patently obvious; when you show somebody the hidden letters in the glove, they invariably say “OMG HOW DID I NOT SEE THAT BEFORE THATISBRILLIANT”.   When you show somebody the hidden “e” and “b” in the Expos’ “M”, the response is usually some variation on “Huh.  But what does the white “l” stand for?  Or “Is that really supposed to be an M?”

 

Even knowing what’s supposed to be in the “elb” logo doesn’t help, because they’re still not clear.  The “e” reads clearly, the rest not so much. 

 

(And this isn’t a biased fan talking; I don’t particularly love the glove logo, and it isn’t even in my top five Brewers logos of all time.  But I can’t deny that it’s really well-designed, and it just works.)

 

The Expos logo is iconic, but that doesn’t make it good.  It’s iconic in the way a Ford Pinto is.  Or Enron.  Longevity and nostalgia spread a thin layer of cheap gloss on a very, very bad design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Even knowing what’s supposed to be in the “elb” logo doesn’t help...

 

There is no L in the Expos' logo. There never has been an L in the Expos' logo. Therefore, the formulation "elb" is nonsensical.

 

Referring to the logo as "eM", according to its original intent, is most correct; calling it "eMb", according to the latter-day interpretation, is also technically acceptable. But a mention of an L constitutes a rhetorical loading of the dice.

 

What's more, the overall shape of an M is obvious; any claim not to realise this is simply not believable.

 

The Expos' logo is a triumph in every way imaginable. First, its pure aesthetics are charming, as it manages to be simultaneously bold (in its broad strokes) and elegant (in its curves, and in the lines in the "e" segment).

 

And from the standpoint of brand recognition this logo — even after a decade and a half of inactivity — succeeds in being more recognisable than the vast majority of current North American team logos.

 

Finally, the logo is associated overwhelmingly with positive memories. The unpleasant associations with Loria's destruction of the team and the ensuing move are overwhelmed by happy associations with Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Rusty Staub, Tim Raines, Steve Rogers, Warren Cromartie, Ellis Valentine, Felipe Alou, Larry Walker, Vladimir Guerrero, Pedro Martinez, and many others.

 

The Expos' logo is beautiful in its own right, and it is filled with plenty of meaning derived from its history. This remarkable symbol embodies everything that a good logo should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the “elb” formation is nonsensical, don’t make your damn logo look like it says “elb”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something being iconic or recognizable does not exclude it from being hideous. This is an "iconic" image:

 

wnyd2zhh84f50ux4uxyqbktbh.gif

 

...yet most people look beyond its brand recognition to see how fugly it is. You can cite all of the guys from the late-1940s/early-1950s, Major League, the 1994-2001 squads, 2007 and the recent run of success as the "positives outweighing the negatives" (never mind that Cleveland has had more success with Wahoo than the Expos had with the M-blob). There's no questioning what it is, how bold it is, and how recognizable it is. It has kept Cleveland relevant, even in periods of non-contention. Every praise you can sing of the Expos' logo, you can sing of Wahoo.

 

However, none of that saved it. People saw it as a poorly-designed cartoon logo that should go away. While I'm probably making a false equivalence, I'm just illuminating how the logic used to defend the fugly M-blob can be used on Wahoo.

 

Hey, you can critique that logo without bringing up MOD EDIT issues!

Share this post


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

 

Wrong sharp object: the simplest answer being the right one is Occam's Razor, the Sword of Damocles is when you exist in a constant state of likely doom. Though the Expos were under that.

[insert Homer Simpson]

[D'oh!]

I'll go hide out for a bit now...

😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Something being iconic or recognizable does not exclude it from being hideous. This is an "iconic" image:

 

wnyd2zhh84f50ux4uxyqbktbh.gif

 

...yet most people look beyond its brand recognition to see how fugly it is. You can cite all of the guys from the late-1940s/early-1950s, Major League, the 1994-2001 squads, 2007 and the recent run of success as the "positives outweighing the negatives" (never mind that Cleveland has had more success with Wahoo than the Expos had with the M-blob). There's no questioning what it is, how bold it is, and how recognizable it is. It has kept Cleveland relevant, even in periods of non-contention. Every praise you can sing of the Expos' logo, you can sing of Wahoo.

 

However, none of that saved it. People saw it as a poorly-designed cartoon logo that should go away. While I'm probably making a false equivalence, I'm just illuminating how the logic used to defend the fugly M-blob can be used on Wahoo.

 

Hey, you can critique that logo without bringing up MOD EDIT issues!

 

That is a totally inapplicable argument.

 

First of all, the Wahoo logo is a graphical logo, not a letter logo.  As such, it is in the category of the Orioles' cartoon bird, rather than the category of the stylised letter logos of the Expos or the Brewers.

 

Moreover, the Cleveland logo went out of style not due to its inherent aesthetic qualities, but solely on account of cultural context. Absent this cultural issue, the Wahoo logo would be just as good as the Celtics' logo or the Vikings' logo — the very logos which people attempting dishonestly to ignore the cultural context tend to invoke in defence of Wahoo.

 

So literally everything in your comparison fails. Other than that, great work.

 

Share this post


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

There is no L in the Expos' logo. There never has been an L in the Expos' logo. Therefore, the formulation "elb" is nonsensical.

 

Then what is the white supposed to be?

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZBeH-wJDMUYqCMkJbcEC

 

If they didn't want people to see an "l". they shouldn't have put one in their logo.  And yet they did.

 

The Montreal Elbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The l could very well be a J

 

Expos Jeux Baseball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it could easily be a "j".

 

The Montreal Ejbs.  

 

What it can't be is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.