Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[The_Admiral]

The Seahawks, Sounders, University of Oregon, and Canucks all make use of vivid and striking colors. The Mariners wear navy blue and muted turquoise. Their uniforms felt fresh with Griffey in the '90s but feel so staid now. They're not even endearingly of their time, the '90s, like the Baltimore Ravens. They just look tired.

[SFGiants58]

Tired is the perfect descriptor. They need some refresh, something to get it back to the fervor of the 1993 redesign. Brightening and expanding the teal/modernizing the ‘77 font/general simplification would be the basis of a good redesign. The Brewers and Padres showed that such a move was possible.

 

Friz Quadrata feels very tired these days, especially with the outlines and the compass rose.

[The_Admiral]

Hard disagree. I don't think there's anything to salvage from the '70s or '80s M's. They're the rare baseball team with license to, beyond a baseline blue/green color scheme, start from scratch.

[SFGiants58]

Just now, the admiral said:

Hard disagree. I don't think there's anything to salvage from the '70s or '80s M's. They're the rare baseball team with license to, beyond a baseline blue/green color scheme, start from scratch.

Not really. The Rays, Angels, and Rangers could also start from scratch at this point, since these clubs have genuinely dull/tired looks. Cleveland is getting the opportunity to start from scratch. Heck, the Marlins have repeatedly started from scratch (each time less successful than the prior one). 
 

The M’s just need to refine/simplify what they have. No big modern revolution, just a refinement that uses tiny bits of their past. Modern could work, but that could get Marlins-level ugly. They could also go very old-fashioned with dark green/red and rename themselves the Rainiers, but nobody wants that.

[OnWis97]

I actually disagree with both of you...I don't think the Mariners look is tired at all (and I totally agree about the Ravens example, though that was born tired).

 

Given some of the other pacific northwest teams cited by the Admiral (not to mention the Kraken), I can see SF's point that the teal could be more vivid, but overall, I feel like the Mariners look has aged fairly well. I don't really see a need for anything major to happen. (Even though I like the trident-star logo of the early 1980s).

[The_Admiral]

I don't think the Angels will ever stray from red, navy, and a haloed A at this point, nor should they. 

 

I was intrigued by three-tone green for an NHL Seattle Evergreens, and then the (soul leaves body) Kraken ended up using three-tone blue. What if we split the difference and did three-tone teal? I was playing around with that for the Kraken and actually ended up liking it more than the standard blue. A little shift of the ol' hue slider (I took White Castle franchising classes with Hugh Slider) and it felt much more marine to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DDR]

14 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Not really. The Rays, Angels, and Rangers could also start from scratch at this point, since these clubs have genuinely dull/tired looks. Cleveland is getting the opportunity to start from scratch. Heck, the Marlins have repeatedly started from scratch (each time less successful than the prior one). 
 

The M’s just need to refine/simplify what they have. No big modern revolution, just a refinement that uses tiny bits of their past. Modern could work, but that could get Marlins-level ugly. They could also go very old-fashioned with dark green/red and rename themselves the Rainiers, but nobody wants that.

 

I actually like the Angels look, but even if they revamped, the halo A isn't going anywhere so I don't really think they could "start from scratch."

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Serious question: Would you have said the same thing about the Denver Broncos in 1996?

No. Then again, I don't believe that the new uniforms and logo that the Denver Broncos introduced in time for the 1997 NFL season represented an upgrade over those that they'd worn (with minor changes, here and there) from 1968 through 1996.

In a perfect world, I'd have liked for the 1968-1996 Broncos primary logo to have been updated, with the horse rendered more cleanly and crisply... and the ridiculous "laser-snort" removed entirely. As for the uniforms, I've never been a fan of the curving/tapering jersey side-panels and pants stripes that the 1997 Broncos uniforms introduced. I'd have preferred the team adopt a modern rendering of its 1966 uniforms. Finally, I'd have gone with a color scheme of Academy Blue (1970-1976), Orange (1999-2001), and White. For comparisons sake:

My Preferred Denver Broncos Color Scheme


1996 Denver Broncos Color Scheme


1997 Denver Broncos Color Scheme


With regard to the Seattle Mariners, I do believe that the Nautical Compass Rose logo and Navy, Northwest Green, and Silver color scheme were an improvement over the branding elements that preceded them.

To  my mind, the only other Mariners logo that was even halfway decent was the original 1977-1980 mark... and that comes up short compared to the Nautical Compass Rose. The 1981-1986 mark is a slapdash mash-up of Trident M and star that made for less-than-impressive MLB All-Star Game branding, let alone a major pro primary logo. And the 1987-1992 Mariners logo is the very definition of forgettable. The capital letter-apostrophe-small 's' contraction for a team nickname superimposed over a nondescript baseball is about as generic as a logo can get.

As for colors, I could possibly see swapping out the Navy Blue for the Mariner Blue that preceded it... and, perhaps, adding a bit of lighter blue to the mix.

Current Seattle Mariners Color Scheme


Potential Seattle Mariners Color Scheme


       

      

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, DDR said:

 

I actually like the Angels look, but even if they revamped, the halo A isn't going anywhere so I don't really think they could "start from scratch."

Well, keep the “Halo A,” color scheme, and ditch the rest. 
 

My basic idea for the Mariners has been around since 2017, when I made a thing.

 

 

I also did something for the Cleveland Guardians.

 

 

I’m not as keen on it now, but I still like it.

[WSU151]

I think the Angels are fine - I wish they'd add a navy alternate hat. They already have so much navy merchandise with the current A that it seems like it'd be easy to add the hat. 

 

The Mariners could add NW green hats with just the compass and it'd look pretty good. 

[DEAD!]

I think the Mariners can brighten up the teal have all wordmarks with a single outline. I would like to see an alternate jersey that prominently features the compass rose. I often think it doesn't stand out as much as it should. 

[WSU151]

12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Well, keep the “Halo A,” color scheme, and ditch the rest. 
 

My basic idea for the Mariners has been around since 2017, when I made a thing.

 

 

 

I'd say the sleeve patch is too busy, and I can't make out the hat logo other than the S (an anchor?) ...the trident on the pants is pretty damn cool though. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

13 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

Potential Seattle Mariners Color Scheme


       

      

 

I'd be 100 percent on board with just this minor change. @the admiral said it best -- the current Mariners are completely tired, and are born of this world:

 

when, for better or worse, they should be targeting this one:

 

 

[SFGiants58]

13 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I'd say the sleeve patch is too busy, and I can't make out the hat logo other than the S (an anchor?) ...the trident on the pants is pretty damn cool though. 

The S-anchor is my design. Honestly, it’s the part that could use refinement/simplifying (my dumbass thought perspective would be cooler than flat). As for the sleeve patch, it’s a modified anniversary patch. It really wasn’t my best choice.

[DEAD!]

45 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I'd be 100 percent on board with just this minor change. @the admiral said it best -- the current Mariners are completely tired, and are born of this world:

 

when, for better or worse, they should be targeting this one:

 

 

I don't know if I want to be associated with Elon Musk...

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, Brian in Boston said:

In a perfect world, I'd have liked for the 1968-1996 Broncos primary logo to have been updated, with the horse rendered more cleanly and crisply... and the ridiculous "laser-snort" removed entirely.
      

Thread about Cleveland MLB and here I am asking about (nay defending [sorry for the pun]) the Broncos.

 

Is the issue with the snort how it is rendered, or not having seen a horse breath in the winter? 7 year old Sec19Row53 knew that was a horse that was exhaling in the cold mountain air. I won't argue that it is too angular and not organic enough, but I haven't had an issue with it.

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Is the issue with the snort how it is rendered, or not having seen a horse breath in the winter? 7 year old Sec19Row53 knew that was a horse that was exhaling in the cold mountain air. I won't argue that it is too angular and not organic enough, but I haven't had an issue with it.

Oh, I've seen plenty of horses exhale into cold winter air. That said, the rendering of such an exhalation in the Denver Broncos' 1970-1996 logo is just abysmal... and a superfluous bit of detail, to boot. In my opinion, the logo would be far stronger without it.

[DEAD!]

Well, that horse would be wearing a mask these days.... 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Also, no trident and no blue/yellow. The answers do not lie in the “losing 100 games every year and about to move to Tampa Bay” identities. 

 

4 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Eeeh, I disagree on the blue and yellow. Their cream alts look pretty friggin' nice with those colors;

 

 

And I disagree on the trident. 

 

 

That cap logo should rightfully have lasted a hundred years. It is as good a cap logo as that of the Cubs.

 

And the wordmark is gorgeous, too, as are the colours.

 

Still, I do like the current colour scheme; and the team has proven that the trident works with that palette.

 

 

The compass rose should be a sleeve patch. But on the cap belongs the trident and nothing else.

 

I'll add that the question of a design's merits is down purely to aesthetics. It has nothing to do with a team's performance while wearing that design. The classic example are the winless Tampa Bay Bucs, who were clad in one of history's all-time great uniforms, which they were still wearing when they made it to within one game of the Super Bowl.

 

Sometimes a team manages to hit its height while wearing its best-looking uniform (1987/1991 Twins; 1984 Padres; 2002/2003 Nets). But that does not justify the fallacy of citing successful seasons to defend a uniform, or, conversely, of citing unsuccessful seasons to reject a uniform.

 

Finally, no one should ever praise the Denver Broncos for the sartorial felony that they committed in 1996, when they trashed a strong, classic look in favour of a ridiculous design that wound up having a profoundly destructive influence throughout the sports world. That Broncos uniform was a  superspreader of bad design.

[infrared41]

15 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Finally, no one should ever praise the Denver Broncos for the sartorial felony that they committed in 1996, when they trashed a strong, classic look in favour of a ridiculous design that wound up having a profoundly destructive influence throughout the sports world. That Broncos uniform was a  superspreader of bad design.