MLB 2019 Changes

[MilSox]

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.

[Marlins93]

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 Both designs were outdated and flawed compared to illustrations and insignias from their respective schools of design.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.

[Marlins93]

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?

[Digby]

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.

[SFGiants58]

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:

 

 

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:

 

 

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.

[MilSox]

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.

[VikWings]

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

[Gothamite]

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. 

[MilSox]

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.

[Gothamite]

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. 

[SilverBullet1929]

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"

[Gothamite]

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

[ZipperClub]

Marc Okkonen, who handled the graphics for the Dressed to the Nines website, passed away Monday.

 

SABR’s obituary: https://sabr.org/latest/memoriam-marc-okkonen

[FinsUp1214]

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.

 

 

[Gothamite]

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

[Ridleylash]

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.

[_DietDrPepper_]

5 hours ago, ZipperClub said:

Marc Okkonen, who handled the graphics for the Dressed to the Nines website, passed away Monday.

 

SABR’s obituary: https://sabr.org/latest/memoriam-marc-okkonen

That’s so sad! Dressed to the nines is a great site, big help on my projects, would recommend to anyone who’s interested in baseball jersey history. It’s got history all the way back to 1900

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Spoke to someone who would know about the Nats/Expos throwback uniforms, and he strongly alluded that it would be happening.

 

He did the ole "I can't say (wink)"... one of those type of things.  So it's not officially confirmed, but I'm expecting it'll happen

[Gothamite]

13 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

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.

 

Except that the Hartford logo is actually, you know, good.  

 

Theres no element here that doesn’t tie directly into the “H”, “W”, or the whale tail.

 

 

No phantom letters cluttering up the design. Each element clear and unmistakeable, coherent and complete in its own right. 

Simple and precise imagery that has never had to be re-defined over time, never seen shifting explanations from the team itself. Not everybody glimpses the totality on first sight, but once you get it you get it, and there isn’t ever any question as to what it contains.

 

Which actually makes the Expos’ design almost the opposite of “exactly like” the Whalers’.   

[Ridleylash]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Except that the Hartford logo is actually, you know, good.  

 

Theres no element here that doesn’t tie directly into the “H”, “W”, or the whale tail.

 

No phantom letters cluttering up the design. Each element clear and unmistakeable, coherent and complete in its own right. 

Simple and precise imagery that has never had to be re-defined over time, never seen shifting explanations from the team itself. Not everybody glimpses the totality on first sight, but once you get it you get it, and there isn’t ever any question as to what it contains.

 

Dunno, they already did try redefining the Hartford logo as having a giant grey shield.

 

And no, it's not as good, but I'd hesitate to outright call it a bad logo. When I think "bad logo", I think "poorly drawn", "ugly-looking" or "bland as hell". It's a very simple logo; an "M" that has an "e" and a "b" in the design with some negative space. The fact that the logo has still been so popular years after the team moved to D.C proves it's a logo that worked. It's an iconic logo, even if it's not perfect.