SportsLogos.Net News

2019 MLB Changes

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

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.

 

It's a baseball team logo, so I'd argue that it's applicable.

 

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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.

 

Culturally unacceptable, yes. But I'd also argue that its aesthetic qualities left it in the dust. The linework and detailing is far less appealing and consistent when compared to modern designs. Look at compared to what the Vikings do (since 2013, at least):

 

2704_minnesota_vikings-primary-2013.png

Note the consistent line weights, clean detailing, and proper perspective. Wahoo has none of those elements. Now look at more modern "cartoon"/graphical designs.

 

79863401997.gif5258002019.gif17013982017.gifkwth8f1cfa2sch5xhjjfaof90.gif318.gif1380782017.gif5979581994.gif

 

They generally adhere to consistent line weights, well-defined detailing, and easily-re-sizable forms. Wahoo doesn't have that, which is why it is aesthetically inferior (like the M-blob).

 

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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

 

 

Nice of you to overlook how I disputed the "good outweighs the bad" and "iconic/know what it is" logic behind liking the M-blob. Like it or not, they're comparable and they're both terrible for aesthetic reasons (with Wahoo having an additional stink of MOD EDIT). No amount of "good times" or "iconic status" can outweigh a terrible design, especially when the "good times" weren't all that good. Like it or not, the "success" argument goes further with Wahoo than it ever would for the M-blob. I loathe Wahoo, but the same defenses for the M-blob apply to that outdated cartoon logo.

 

Also, way to put all the blame on Loria when it can spread pretty far and wide (separatists, Olympic Stadium's construction, the Blue Jays claiming Southern Ontario and Ontario's growing population of former Quebecois, and a fairly sizable recession during the 1990s in Canada - one which was worse in Quebec than it was in Ontario, IIRC). I would never be a Loria apologist at all, but he gets too much credit for sabotaging the Expos. If anything, MLB sent him in to finish off the market. 

 

It's OK to let the Expos fade away into baseball history, like the St. Louis Browns, the Washington Senators MK I/AL Nationals, or the Seattle Pilots. Nobody can take away the fond memories of the fans or the great careers of their many hall-of-famers (who often went off to have more success on other teams). Just because there's a cultural clout attached to a design doesn't mean we can critique it and point out its numerous flaws. One can be both a formalist and a new historicist. 

Share this post


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

Then what is the white supposed to be?

 

14 minutes ago, Ark said:

The l could very well be a J

 

There is no mystery here. You all saw the 1969 newspaper clippings that mentioned only an M and an E. The white section is just the left side of the M that is partially obscured by the red E.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

What it can't be is nothing.

 

Yet, in fact, "nothing" is precisely what the white is, as conclusively proven by the above documentation. No imaginary L or J (or any other fanciful character that anyone wants to pretend to see).

Share this post


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

 

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.

 

I was quite baffled by that post too. It seems really evident that Wahoo was ditched for cultural/political reasons that had next to nothing to do with inherent design or aesthetics. I never detected a pervasive sentiment that Wahoo was "fugly" or a "poorly designed cartoon logo that should go away." The fanbase in particular always seemed to embrace it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

I was quite baffled by that post too. It seems really evident that Wahoo was ditched for cultural/political reasons that had next to nothing to do with inherent design or aesthetics. I never detected a pervasive sentiment that Wahoo was "fugly" or a "poorly designed cartoon logo that should go away." The fanbase in particular always seemed to embrace it.

 

 

What's so hard to understand about my: "The logic used to defend the M-blob also applies to Wahoo. Both designs were outdated and flawed compared to illustrations and insignias from their respective schools of design. You can argue that both are 'iconic' and that the 'good outweighs the bad,' but that doesn't change the poor quality of the designs." argument? Sure, Wahoo has the added element of insensitivity (which is why the team was forced to disposed of it), but one can make the argument that it's aesthetics was also a good reason to drop it. Besides, fanbase embrace is immaterial to the argument I was trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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.  

 

This is pretty much how I look at it. If the Expos were ever to move away from the "elb," the 1990s rebrand was the time. But since they kept it throughout their entire existence, there's no way you could bring another team to Montreal and call them the Expos without it.

 

FWIW, I don't honestly care if its a M, a "eb," a "Me" or however it "should" be interpreted. To me, it just looks like abstract, mid-century French-Canadian art; which is more than appropriate for a team named after a 1960s World's Fair.

Share this post


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

 

What's so hard to understand about my: "The logic used to defend the M-blob also applies to Wahoo. Both designs were outdated and flawed compared to illustrations and insignias from their respective schools of design. You can argue that both are 'iconic' and that the 'good outweighs the bad,' but that doesn't change the poor quality of the designs." argument? Sure, Wahoo has the added element of insensitivity (which is why the team was forced to disposed of it), but one can make the argument that it's aesthetics was also a good reason to drop it. Besides, fanbase embrace is immaterial to the argument I was trying to make.

Because while you might feel that it's a "poor quality design" (and I'm sure there are a few others who would agree), I don't find this to be the majority opinion. I actually prefer the late 1940s design elements on a cap to the exceedingly overdefined Vikings logo c. 2013 (and the same goes for most of the other examples you cite). So to each his own, but I've never gathered there to be rampant dissatisfaction with the inherent aesthetic aspects of Wahoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NicDB said:

 

FWIW, I don't honestly care if its a M, a "eb," a "Me" or however it "should" be interpreted. To me, it just looks like abstract, mid-century French-Canadian art; which is more than appropriate for a team named after a 1960s World's Fair.

This is exactly my take on this. Why does it need to so readily and immediately decode into specific letters at all? It's a recognizable logo and it has what I perceive to be nice color balance (and I'm someone who feels that red and blue are far too over-utilized in MLB). Why can't MLB have a logo that's a little abstract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

There is no mystery here. You all saw the 1969 newspaper clippings that mentioned only an M and an E. The white section is just the left side of the M that is partially obscured by the red E.

 

 

 

Yet, in fact, "nothing" is precisely what the white is, as conclusively proven by the above documentation. No imaginary L or J (or any other fanciful character that anyone wants to pretend to see).

 

A very fundamental crux to professional design is that if you have to explain yourself, you have failed at step one. The "elb" theory, among others, is a Google-able phenomenon, which suggests that that interpretation isn't fanciful or conspiratorial or anything. It's just confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

Because while you might feel that it's a "poor quality design" (and I'm sure there are a few others who would agree), I don't find this to be the majority opinion. I actually prefer the late 1940s design elements on a cap to the exceedingly overdefined Vikings logo c. 2013 (and the same goes for most of the other examples you cite). So to each his own, but I've never gathered there to be rampant dissatisfaction with the inherent aesthetic aspects of Wahoo.

 

I never said it was the majority opinion, just that you could "make that argument." I also disagree with you when you argue "exceedingly defined" as being a bad thing, since clarity is a desirable quality. If cultural qualities weren't an issue, a cleaned-up Wahoo with a better perspective and realistic skin tone would be fine (e.g., Blackhawks). 

 

1 minute ago, Marlins93 said:

This is exactly my take on this. Why does it need to so readily and immediately decode into specific letters at all? It's a recognizable logo and it has what I perceive to be nice color balance (and I'm someone who feels that red and blue are far too over-utilized in MLB). Why can't MLB have a logo that's a little abstract?

 

Sure, abstract is fine. It's just that the Expos' logo has fundamental flaws and is an example of how not to execute an abstract design. Look at the Ball-in-Golve or these designs:

 

32tfs723a3bes0p0hb4hgcy1u.gif9zt534ipbfprlfs2vsqfugw41.gif161.gifgnnnrbxcmjhdgeu6mavqk3945.giffor12dfd4agde8ldpkzg.gif

 

The Stick-in-Rink may be a bad example, but at least it doesn't accidentally produce letters the original designer didn't intend. Heck, the local CFL has done it better:

 

6094.gif9535342019.gif

 

The M-blob, as @Gothamite, @B-Rich, and others have said, simply isn't a good design. It's the Expos, sure, but that doesn't mean you can't re-define the team. The Winnipeg Jets demonstrated that it was possible, as have the Washington Nationals, the Ottawa Senators, the MK II Washington Senators, and the Charlotte Hornets. A historical name shouldn't bind a team to the old imagery.

 

Then again, to each their own. My opinion is not fact, but merely an opinion informed by observations and personal preferences. If you have good reasons to like it, then keep on liking it. It's ultimately aesthetics and personal connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Sure, abstract is fine. It's just that the Expos' logo has fundamental flaws and is an example of how not to execute an abstract design.


Normally I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you say in regards to baseball uniforms.  But I think you're (a.) applying retroactive sensibilities to a design that's from an era where those sensibilities didn't necessarily exist, and (b.) disregarding the fact that it stood the test of time in-spite of those flaws.  I mean, could you really imagine a team moving to Montreal and calling itself the Expos without bringing that logo back?

If so, consider this a request for your concept series.  I'm genuinely curious to know how you would go about it.

EDIT: To put it another way, would the Packers logo seriously get approved nowadays?  And yet, any attempt to add the B just looks like its from a cheap movie that didn't want to pay for the NFL license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was elb too in the M and it stood for les Expos de Montreal Baseball.

Share this post


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

disregarding the fact that it stood the test of time in-spite of those flaws.

 

I wouldn’t confuse stubborn longevity with standing the test of time.  After all, the Brewers have worn their ugly current uniforms longer than any other.  That doesn’t make them any less awful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I wouldn’t confuse stubborn longevity with standing the test of time.  After all, the Brewers have worn their ugly current uniforms longer than any other.  That doesn’t make them any less awful. 

 

Point taken, but the elb still sells reasonably well. You can't even say that about the modern Brewers gear while they're still wearing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know, the Brewers’ modern gear sells well enough to keep it around this long.  I suspect they’re going to replace it soon, but the longevity baffles me.  

 

I’ve learned not to project my preferences on a larger group; if others hated it as much as I do it would have been scrapped long ago. 

Share this post


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

What it can't be is nothing.

Actually it CAN be "nothing" and that's what the problem is... that they included a blatant "nothing", a negative space that becomes a positive space, and it ruins what is an otherwise interesting logo.

 

"We're gonna make a logo with an e and a b and a random nothing in between"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the glove's webbing.  It's not a nothing any more than the baseball at its center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mariners are wearing Pilots throwbacks on June 22nd. I’m actually going to be in Seattle that week and I’m really hoping I can make this game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered why New Era started making more-accurate Pilots caps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Actually it CAN be "nothing" and that's what the problem is... that they included a blatant "nothing", a negative space that becomes a positive space, and it ruins what is an otherwise interesting logo.

 

"We're gonna make a logo with an e and a b and a random nothing in between"

It's not "blatant nothing"; it's an "e" and a "b", with the negative space completing the "M" for Montréal. It's exactly like how the Whalers used the negative space of a "W" and a whale's tail to make an "H" for Hartford.

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.