MLB Changes 2020

[LA_Angels]

29 minutes ago, hormone said:

So Canada doesn’t want the jays right now and mlb wants to force the rays up there?

Canada doesn't want people traveling back and forth from the most infected country in the World, despite how "thorough" the protocols are. Citizen safety trumps Major League Baseball any day of the week.

[hormone]

I didn’t mean for it to be a criticism of safety about the jays not being in Canada. I meant it to come off as Canada’s only team is being pushed out where on the business side, mlb wants one of their own sent up there. It just didn’t convey well in writing. 

[damnyoutuesday]

53 minutes ago, hormone said:

I didn’t mean for it to be a criticism of safety about the jays not being in Canada. I meant it to come off as Canada’s only team is being pushed out where on the business side, mlb wants one of their own sent up there. It just didn’t convey well in writing. 

 

I see what you're trying to say, but the two really have no relation

[TBGKon]

Let’s keep this on the subject of uniforms and logos. Please take general baseball discussion to the Sports in General section.

[chakfu]

22 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Keeping navy and red sounds interesting but are too close to 25 other teams.

 

Big difference between keeping and changing to.

[Gothamite]

13 minutes ago, chakfu said:

Big difference between keeping and changing to.

True.  Personally, I would prefer a new color scheme, but if navy and red feel right to Clevelanders, then they should stay. 
 

Were it up to me, I’d go with black and red for Cleveland.  Only the Reds use that color scheme, and the Spiders should use them in the opposite proportion, mostly black but with red as an accent. 

[Ark]

The Orioles spring training cap

 

[bcon_731]

Why not the Blue Jays play in San Juan?

[JayMac]

10 hours ago, Ark said:

The Orioles spring training cap

 

I watched this yesterday and all I could think that this is one f****ed up looking bird

[mjd77]

9 hours ago, bcon_731 said:

Why not the Blue Jays play in San Juan?

 

Didn't the Expos spend the last month or 2 of a season down there for home games one year?

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

12 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Only the Reds use that color scheme

Which is why I don't think they should use it. It wouldn't be unheard of for two teams in the same state to use the same color scheme (reversed or not) in the past (I think the Phils and Pirates were both blue and red at the same time) but I definitely think at a time where branding is more important, changing your color scheme to something similar probably shouldn't happen. Obviously they're in different leagues so it wouldn't be as bad as the Padres changing to blue and white

[Gothamite]

2 minutes ago, Maroon&Gold said:

Which is why I don't think they should use it. It wouldn't be unheard of for two teams in the same state to use the same color scheme (reversed or not) in the past (I think the Phils and Pirates were both blue and red at the same time) but I definitely think at a time where branding is more important, changing your color scheme to something similar probably shouldn't happen. Obviously they're in different leagues so it wouldn't be as bad as the Padres changing to blue and white

 

Which the Padres did, for decades.  And while I objected to that, "but Dodgers!" had nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

[SFGiants58]

Honestly, Cleveland bringing in a totally new color scheme for MLB (e.g., purple/orange, purple/red, burgundy/turquoise, burgundy/orange, navy/burgundy - if they have to stay traditional, navy/light green, forest green/light blue, etc.) would be ideal. 
 

It’s best to have a relatively clean slate when rebranding, especially when you can get rid of navy/red.

[crashcarson15]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Honestly, Cleveland bringing in a totally new color scheme for MLB (e.g., purple/orange, purple/red, burgundy/turquoise, burgundy/orange, navy/burgundy - if they have to stay traditional, navy/light green, forest green/light blue, etc.) would be ideal. 
 

It’s best to have a relatively clean slate when rebranding, especially when you can get rid of navy/red.

 

13 hours ago, Gothamite said:

True.  Personally, I would prefer a new color scheme, but if navy and red feel right to Clevelanders, then they should stay. 
 

Were it up to me, I’d go with black and red for Cleveland.  Only the Reds use that color scheme, and the Spiders should use them in the opposite proportion, mostly black but with red as an accent. 

 

Cleveland has worn navy for every year of its existence, and this will be the 88th consecutive season that Cleveland has worn navy and red — same as Boston. How those colors have been applied over the years has varied, but the only club that’s used them for longer is St. Louis, and they’ve always been a red and navy team, not the other way around.

 

Changing the colors a franchise has had for 88 (or 120 years, if you want to change the navy) years for some flavor-of-the-month trend is silly.

[SFGiants58]

Just now, crashcarson15 said:

 

 

Cleveland has worn navy for every year of its existence, and this will be the 88th consecutive season that Cleveland has worn navy and red — same as Boston. How those colors have been applied over the years has varied, but the only club that’s used them for longer is St. Louis, and they’ve always been a red and navy team, not the other way around.

 

Changing the colors a franchise has had for 88 (or 120 years, if you want to change the navy) years for some flavor-of-the-month trend is silly.

It’s not silly, it’s reasonable.

 

Of all the other navy and red teams, you can make the best case for Cleveland to ditch it. The Twins mix things up with gold accents, the Braves and Red Sox have a bunch of national brand equity around their look, the Cardinals and Angels emphasize red, and the Yankees only use red in their brand equity-having primary logo. If we want to diversify the color schemes of the league, Cleveland needs to throw out navy/red.

 

Like it or not, Wahoo was the brand in Cleveland. Wahoo’s colors were navy and red. The navy/red is intertwined with the “Indians” brand too much at this point. The Blues and Naps don’t matter for this discussion, and the whole reason for finally eliminating the name would be to change up the negative history. 
 

If “Indians” goes, I think it would be best for navy and red to go as well, tradition of failure be damned. It’s the best way to show that the franchise will have a fresh start.

[Gothamite]

18 minutes ago, crashcarson15 said:

Changing the colors a franchise has had for 88 (or 120 years, if you want to change the navy) years for some flavor-of-the-month trend is silly.

 

Well, that's a lovely straw man you've built.

 

I don't recall anyone here suggesting Cleveland should adopt anthracite and volt.

[The_Admiral]

Then maybe Indians shouldn't go. I remember the line was always that the Redskins had a tolerable logo and a detestable name, and the Indians had a detestable logo and a tolerable name, and let's thank our lucky stars one team or the other didn't have both. Well, they got rid of the logo, I think they're better off without it, and the name can be lived with if they throw some money around and keep spectators (dare to dream) from dressing offensively.

 

I would say that there's more resistance to a franchise overhaul from Indians fans than from Redskins fans, who can at least seem to admit in their heart of hearts that the name was kind of a problem. With the Tribe, it's like, okay, they already did what you told them to do, and the fans who have gotten enough enjoyment from the last quarter-century or so of Indians baseball don't seem as eager to throw it all out for the creamsicle-and-pine-green Cleveland Spiders as much as outsiders want to impose it upon them.

[crashcarson15]

6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Well, that's a lovely straw man you've built.

 

I don't recall anyone here suggesting Cleveland should adopt anthracite and volt.

It’s not anthracite or volt, but purple, turquoise or light green (all suggested in the post I quoted) have no place in the identity of a charter member of the American League.

[Gothamite]

2 minutes ago, crashcarson15 said:

It’s not anthracite or volt, but purple, turquoise or light green (all suggested in the post I quoted) have no place in the identity of a charter member of the American League.

 

Then argue against those specifically.  You can't extrapolate that out to an argument against a color change in general.

[crashcarson15]

17 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

It’s not silly, it’s reasonable.

 

Of all the other navy and red teams, you can make the best case for Cleveland to ditch it. The Twins mix things up with gold accents, the Braves and Red Sox have a bunch of national brand equity around their look, the Cardinals and Angels emphasize red, and the Yankees only use red in their brand equity-having primary logo. If we want to diversify the color schemes of the league, Cleveland needs to throw out navy/red.

 

Like it or not, Wahoo was the brand in Cleveland. Wahoo’s colors were navy and red. The navy/red is intertwined with the “Indians” brand too much at this point. The Blues and Naps don’t matter for this discussion, and the whole reason for finally eliminating the name would be to change up the negative history. 
 

If “Indians” goes, I think it would be best for navy and red to go as well, tradition of failure be damned. It’s the best way to show that the franchise will have a fresh start.

We’ve been back and forth on this before; your desire to change the colors of the Cleveland franchise has come up independent of its name or logo (and you present it as such in your first ‘graph).

 

Identities are, first and foremost, for the fans of the actual team. We don’t need to dress a baseball team in purple and orange just because Ted Turner put the Braves on national TV.