Jump to content

Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians


Bill0813

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:


The “boring Block C with no outline” was a constant criticism from my research. It wasn’t nearly as loved, even for its historical significance. Tweaking it would’ve been cool, but replacing it with the new font was probably the best choice. I rather like the new font and how it blends the deco stylings of the statues with a block font. 

 

People are stupid.  It's because people weren't educated on it and people are hypocrites.  "Oh we gotta keep Chief Wahoo and Indians because of the history..." ok well the most historic logo is the block C... so do you care about history or protecting your closeted bigotry?  That is always my issue.

 

Every baseball team NEEDS a strong, stand alone monogram logo.  Every team in the Majors has one, and almost throughout all of minor league baseball as well.  They could have modified it a LITTLE to mirror the Guardians statues.  But it didnt need to be redone.  It was fine where it was and was a classic element of good baseball uniforms.

 

I hope they rebrand in 2 years... because this logo package is one of the worst in recent memory.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything worse.  The Tampa Bay Bucs had that terrible number font, but at least their logos were good.  This is just a total disaster all around, EXCEPT for the name.

 

And keeping the R/W/B color scheme is just, what a total blunder.  The seats, outfield walls, and the FRIGGIN' BRIDGE itself all our dark green.  One of Cleveland's nicknames was The Forest City... how do you not add green?  The rest of the bridge is like a sand color... would make the perfect tertiary color/away uniform color.  Just blunder after blunder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:


That’s an interesting data point. 
 

I thought the plain red on blue was something fairy unique but it just goes to show that your own preferences don’t necessarily line up with the fan base. 

I also think it's one of those things where like:

  1. I felt like the block C got a lot of traction early on, but it's also been long-disliked by the group of people who didn't see an issue with the previous branding, and is a bit of a symbol of ... everything that's led to this change that they perceive as wrong?
  2. For people who don't think that way, eventually the block C becoming the only real thing in the club's branding made it, well, boring? I was very happy with the block C as a cap logo and think it works great in a lot of applications, especially on the home jerseys, but when it's all your brand is, it over-saturates things and becomes more than just a cap logo. It's this thing that's just faux-classic and doesn't standalone in the same way that most of baseball's iconic monograms can, and I think it just got played into the ground without a real primary logo to supplement it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear to me that the objective here was to come up with something completely new without being a jarring, seismic change.

 

So they picked a name with the same number of syllables that also allowed for a similar-styled script and primary logo, albeit in an adjusted font.

 

If that was truly the goal, then it's hard to argue that they didn't nail it. I was just hoping for something bigger. But I'm not a Cleveland fan, though. Maybe this comes as a relief to them. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

“Spiders” had a lot of negative stuff towards it. What better way to piss off fans than by changing your name to the historically worst team ever? Especially only a season after you traded your franchise’s biggest star since Grady Sizemore or even Albert Belle? Bad optics.

 

I’d prefer Spiders, but the name has some bad optics for a team in a bad position.

 

Guardians did feel the "safest" which is why people outside of Cleveland seem especially disappointed.

 

That said, the whole "Spiders were the worst team ever" thing never made sense to me. Like, who cares? It was literally over a hundred years ago and only baseball nerds seem to know or give a crap. But it's a moot point now.

 

19 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:


The “boring Block C with no outline” was a constant criticism from my research. It wasn’t nearly as loved, even for its historical significance. Tweaking it would’ve been cool, but replacing it with the new font was probably the best choice. I rather like the new font and how it blends the deco stylings of the statues with a block font. 

 

Most people either hated the C or wanted a real logo to go with it. 

 

It's still new to me, but I REALLY dislike the new monogram and feel like they managed to downgrade from one of the more boring/generic logos in sports. I mean, at least it was classy. I don't even want to get a cap with this cartoony bendy guy on it. Maybe a home jersey though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bbush24 said:

The logos feel...rushed

spacer.png

 

 

Nice that they looked to a fellow rust belt city for inspiration. Anyone else the flying  G as a reimagining of these two put together? But with a G instead of an R?

 

9048_rochester_red_wings-primary-1981.pn

 

20131103094527.png

 

Fwiw, I like the name, and I like it more than Spiders. Good job Cleveland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well, wait until the Dolans sell. Then you can play coloring book with a team whose fans get told “you need to change your colors!” all the damn time.

 

Play coloring book with the Rangers or Angels instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of the name, but I guess it was right up there out of the choices. 

 

I like the C. It kind of gives off a shield vibe.

 

Word marks are cool. Enough of a difference while still paying homage to the original identity. 

 

But WHAT THE HECK is that flying ball logo supposed to be? It looks like a beer league logo honestly.

 

Also, isn't it kind of weird changing names in the middle of the season? Does this take effect immediately? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

To me this seems like a major cop out, and if I was a fan of the team I'd be bummed. They clearly wanted to keep the three-syllable, ending in "ians" just to make things easy. The font is still reminiscent to the one they currently have, which is part of the problem in the first place.

Maybe I'm being cynical but this seems very half-a**ed to me. The fans deserve a full rebrand. This is a team that should've changed their identity at least a half century ago

 

Except you're not a fan, so I don't know how you can speak to what they wanted or deserved. The goal here was clearly to create as smooth a transition to the new brand as possible, not to blow up 100+ years of brand equity and start from scratch. The colour scheme & font/wordmarks were never the issue, even if they've always been a bit generic.

 

I figured Spiders was a lock, and it was my top choice, but Guardians was the next best option in my books. They still suffer from having a fairly generic look, which could have been avoided by going with Spiders, but if they determined that's what the fans wanted, who am I to question it?

 

4 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Nice work on getting Tom Hanks to do the voiceover too. 

 

The marketing team showed some restraint by not forcing a "no crying in baseball" reference anywhere in the narration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, bbush24 said:

The logos feel...rushed

spacer.png

 

I'm liking the layout here! Guardians wordmark reminds me of Milwaukee brands wordmark. The G-ball reminds me of a 1980's heavy metal logo and the C and Cleveland wordmark are both a nice look. I think these will simply replace the wordmarks and boring C logo with no real uniform changes, but I'd like to see a change in uniform piping and maybe a use of racing stripes that they used from 1989(?)-1993. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the name, and the connection it has to the city. I agree with others who say the colors just don't match the name. I like the Green and tan idea. Maybe include some of the bridge steelwork elements in the designs. From someone who hasn't done design for years, it feels like they decided to shoehorn a new name into the old identity making just enough alterations to say the designs are new.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

 

Nice work on getting Tom Hanks to do the voiceover too. 

 

Tom Hanks is a longtime Indians fan and he has some connections to Cleveland. I guess he used to act in Cleveland before he was famous.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.