Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[OnWis97]

What other names were being considered? All I've seen are Spiders and Avengers.  Guardians is definitely better than the latter.

[seasaltvanilla]

It's strange how the Twins and Guardians always get picked on to change colors from RWB when they're two of the oldest franchises in the majors.  Pick on someone else.

 

I think the font could be a little thicker and sturdier, but overall a good, if not great, rebrand. I like the G-ball logo a lot more knowing it's supposed to mimic a split-finger grip.

[WarOnMorons]

1 hour ago, bbush24 said:

The logos feel...rushed

 

I'm assuming the bottom left is the cap logo. I really like that, as well as the Cleveland wordmark.... for a team called the Indians!

 

Is it just me or does the bottom row not synch with the top row at all? Looks like two completely different franchises.

[RyanMcD29]

I like the cap logo and wordmark but that flying G baseball looks... geez, outdated from day 1.  And not in a "this will be dated 2020s" outdated, I mean outdated from the past already.

 

I also do like they stuck with the navy and red. There's quite a lot of UFUS (unique for unique's sake) that was being thrown around with the exclamations of "there's too much navy and red" and "not like Cleveland has won anything in so long anyway so why bother keeping that look around" and "own up to purple and call it your own." 1. Cleveland has had navy and red way longer than a lot of other teams that have it and it looks good. Not their fault the Angels and Minnesota adopted it long after they did. 2. If you want a purple team, let's get the Rockies to finally commit to using purple as the primary already

[-Akronite-]

3 minutes ago, bbush24 said:

 

 

Odd logo placement, but yeah the team is gonna look about the same. 

 

Hilarious that with a big rebrand they still created a similar but not identical C for the Cleveland wordmark.

[bosrs1]

31 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

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?

 

 

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

 

Yeah my inclination was also toward Spiders. But the Cleveland message boards I've visited today seemed anecdotally to be heavily against Spiders and are generally satisfied with Guardians. I think the fact Spiders was the name of a different Cleveland team held sway. 

[seasaltvanilla]

1 minute ago, RyanMcD29 said:

Not their fault the Angels and Minnesota adopted it long after they did

 

Washington Senators were established the same year (1901) that Cleveland was.

[lahaye7]

1 hour ago, Chicageaux said:

The Cleveland Indians are now the Cleveland Guardians

 

 

 

They had to get an Oscar winner to do the narration? They couldn't get Dennis Haysbert

as Pedro Cerrano to do it? But seriously, I figured Guardians was the safest choice. I do not like the Guardians font nor the winged logo. They do feel rushed. 

[RyanMcD29]

1 minute ago, seasaltvanilla said:

 

Washington Senators were established the same year (1901) that Cleveland was.

Yeah after I made that comment I realized they kept the Senators lineage going. Either way, Cleveland shouldn't have changed their colors just because other teams have navy and red and I'm glad they kept them

[MJWalker45]

40 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

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? 

An updated Wild Thing logo? 

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, lahaye7 said:

They had to get an Oscar winner to do the narration? They couldn't get Dennis Haysbert

as Pedro Cerrano to do it? But seriously, I figured Guardians was the safest choice. I do not like the Guardians font nor the winged logo. They do feel rushed. 

If only they were sponsored by All state . . . 

[IceCap]

They didn't go with Spiders. 

Cowards. 

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

I like the winged G. It adds a little bit of camp and retroness to an otherwise plain (albeit not as plain as it's predecessor) set. I can see t-shirts with it "faded" selling well

[SCalderwood]

32 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

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.

 

Yeah, but it's hard to picture Cleveland baseball without thinking of red, navy, and white. They are trying to make this somewhat of a seamless transition and not throw away their 100+ year history.

 

When the Bullets changed to the Wizards in 1997 ( NBA), they ended up looking like a completely different franchise... the Wizards basically looked like an expansion team and it seemed like they were almost trying to completely ditch their entire franchise history.  I think Cleveland is trying to avoid this.  When we see the Guardians on the field next year, they won't look like a completely different franchise... they'll look like an updated version of the Indians.  I think that's what they are going for, kind of like the Washington Football Team.

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

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? 

 

 

I agree with everything you said about the logo package. 

 

I don't think this change takes effect immediately... I think it begins next season.

 

Maybe they think that by revealing this change now, they'll get more fans to go to games, seeing as how these are their last couple of months as existing as the Indians after a 100+ year run. It might make these next couple of months seem more special, maybe more fans will try to make it to a game.

 

[IceCap]

37 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

 

I can't believe how much more quickly this all happened in comparison to the Football Team.

 

The push to remove names that were insulting to Native communities resulted in three major North American teams having to rebrand. Edmonton football, Washington football, and Cleveland baseball. 

 

Edmonton became the Elks about a year after they dropped their old name. 

 

Cleveland announced their new name as the Guardians about a year after announcing they would move on from their old name. 

 

So why's it taking two years for the Washington Football Team to settle on a new identity? 

[MDGP]

13 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

What other names were being considered? All I've seen are Spiders and Avengers.  Guardians is definitely better than the latter.

 

They were apparently pretty adamant on having to deal with Disney's legal department.

[BC985]

I like it. I think the logo could be improved. Something like a Hermès or Mercury, a figure with wings on a helmet could look really cool. A sleeve patch of the head with a winged helmet could tie it all together. The font changes are enough for me, and the fact they didn’t try to do too much really works. 

[Krz]

I like the G baseball logo, it’s retro/funky in a good way. Not you’re typical ultra modern sleek new logo. Just wish the stiches on the ball were thicker.

[CLEstones]

2 minutes ago, SCalderwood said:

 

Yeah, but it's hard to picture Cleveland baseball without thinking of red, navy, and white. They are trying to make this somewhat of a seamless transition and not throw away their 100+ year history.

 

When the Bullets changed to the Wizards in 1997 ( NBA), they ended up looking like a completely different franchise... the Wizards basically looked like an expansion team and it seemed like they were almost trying to completely ditch their entire franchise history.  I think Cleveland is trying to avoid this.  When we see the Guardians on the field next year, they won't look like a completely different franchise... they'll look like an updated version of the Indians.  I think that's what they are going for, kind of like the Washington Football Team.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with everything you said about the logo package. 

 

I don't think this change takes effect immediately... I think it begins next season.

 

Maybe they think that by revealing this change now, they'll get more fans to go to games, seeing as how these are their last couple of months as existing as the Indians after a 100+ year run. It might make these next couple of months seem more special, maybe more fans will try to make it to a game.

 

 

 

RE: Indians.

 

That seems like trying to put a positive spin a turd sandwich.  I grew up an Indians fan.  Never missed an Opening Day until 2020.  I have 0 ties to R/W/B.  It's just another team with the same colors.

 

I've noticed locals are so tied to the "history OH THE HISTORY" of the team.  We have 2 World Series, definitely something to be proud of.  We have Bob Feller and Larry Doby... remarkable men in their own rights, and both something to truly be proud.  Other than that, we have a highly over-romanticized era in the late 90s, that resulted in just as many 1st Round Knockouts as it did Pennants, and 0 Titles... capped off by Thome leaving us in his prime - by the way, tear down his freaking statue ASAP.

 

The Indians aren't really a historic franchise.  Sure they've been around forever.  But it's not like the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Dodgers, or the Cubs.  I dont understand the mental gymnastics of like "oh were changing the name, the logos, the wordmarks... but changing the colors WHERE DOES IT END!?!?"  Like if you're going to do it, do it.  I hate when people play both side of the fence.  At least put your boys on the table and take what comes with it.

 

The Indians had such a bland identity as it was.  Now it's less bland and more 1990's clip art or Single A baseball team on Sponge Bob Square Pants night.

[IceCap]

On 3/20/2021 at 8:20 PM, the admiral said:

We're only talking about unfashionable aesthetics here, a cause which, let's not forget, the Indians already acceded to by getting rid of the logo everyone hated so much.

I still maintain the name "Indians" exists in enough of a grey zone that had they dropped Wahoo in, say, the early 90s and never looked back the name would broadly be accepted. Maybe a few rumblings here and there but the major point of contention would have gone for close to thirty years by the time the racial divisions of society became apparent in 2020. By hanging onto Wahoo as defiantly and as long as they did they soured the rest of the brand, meaning "Indians" had to go. 

 

"Indians" isn't malicious enough to be in the same category as the WTF's old name, but it's not benign like "Blackhawks" either. Whether or not it survived was dependent on how the team chose to deal with it, and they chose the worst possible path.