Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[panthers_2012]

1 hour ago, hormone said:

I went to the game today and the street vendors are on fire. They’ve already got guardians gear on their Hanes tees and pushing wahoo gear cause you “won’t be able to get this anywhere anymore”

Because people are stupid. People just assume that since "Indians" is going away, you won't get anymore gear. They've already announced that once the Guardians name goes into effect, the Indians great, along with Chief Wahoo, will go into a heritage collection. Knowing people in Cleveland, they'll still buy Chief Wahoo items.

 

I'll admit, I didn't buy anything that had the block C on it. I hated it with a burning passion (just a bland logo). But I can't remember the last time I bought something that had the Chief on it. I only bought stuff that had the script Indians on it. 

57 minutes ago, the admiral said:

How do you think that will go? The intelligentsia that gets the wheels rolling on this stuff pretty much banks on the bovine nature of the general public to go along with it: there is new stuff, therefore I must buy the new stuff, they say the team is called this now, so I must call it that. What if lots of people stockpile Indians stuff and keep wearing it to the games? What do you do? not let them in?

I don't think the Guardians will turn people away for wearing Indians/Chief Wahoo gear.

I know this year they banned people wearing headdresses and face painting from entering the stadium, and I would assume that will carry over into the coming years. It'll be like when a team changes their name and/or colors. As the years go on, the Indians gear will get smaller within the ballpark and the Guardians gear will grow. And there will be people who strictly buy Indians, and those people can't let go of the past and embrace the new name.

 

Now, I'm excited for the new gear. I'm looking forward to grabbing a few shirts. 

 

And I do agree with you. It is a bovine nature, and it's sad. But my thought: if you're offended by the INDIANS changing their name and only support the team by buying Indians great, IMO, you're not a fan of the team, you're a fan of the racist name. 

[infrared41]

34 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

There you go: a trade-in promotion where you'd get free Guardians swag in exchange for handing over your old Indians gear to be burned in effigy, to be promoted as Cleveland Uniform Bonfire II: This Time It's Actually Good. The proposal to gather up all the Indians hats and jerseys and send them away fell apart when someone pointed out that the landfill was in Oklahoma.

 

The problem with older trade-ins is they don't have any bluebook value. My Indians jerseys might get me a Guardians t-shirt and a keychain. I'm better off selling the stuff privately and using the cash to make a bigger downpayment for new Guardians gear.

[The_Admiral]

4 minutes ago, panthers_2012 said:

I don't think the Guardians will turn people away for wearing Indians/Chief Wahoo gear.

I know this year they banned people wearing headdresses and face painting from entering the stadium, and I would assume that will carry over into the coming years. It'll be like when a team changes their name and/or colors. As the years go on, the Indians gear will get smaller within the ballpark and the Guardians gear will grow. And there will be people who strictly buy Indians, and those people can't let go of the past and embrace the new name.

 

Now, I'm excited for the new gear. I'm looking forward to grabbing a few shirts. 

 

And I do agree with you. It is a bovine nature, and it's sad. But my thought: if you're offended by the INDIANS changing their name and only support the team by buying Indians great, IMO, you're not a fan of the team, you're a fan of the racist name. 

Banning headdresses and face paint is always the right move. There's no place for that; it's foolish. But I'm willing to believe that a handful of people will keep buying/wearing Indians stuff because that's what they grew up with and came to embrace as their team, not out of sheer racism but just because they don't like having change imposed upon them and it makes them push back. Someone wants to wear a Lindor jersey forever, who am I to stop them?

[SFGiants58]

Only stop them if they’ve got a Mel Hall jersey, for obvious reasons. 
 

 

TL;DR: Mel Hall was basically the most vile person to play in MLB for a consistent period of time. 

[-Akronite-]

A number of fans have stockpiled Wahoo gear and I'm sure will collect Indians memorabilia. As long as they aren't being an ass, putting on red-face, etc. this will be a non-issue for the most part.

 

The franchise has been pretty clear about things, the Indians moniker will not be erased from history. Old jerseys and such will be welcome indefinitely, I'm sure.

[Gothamite]

There’s always a percentage of people who want to push back against any expansion of rights, be it out of fear of losing their cultural supremacy or just to flaunt their “political incorrectness.”   So long as they manage to refrain from redface, I doubt they’ll make much of an impact. 

[panthers_2012]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Banning headdresses and face paint is always the right move. There's no place for that; it's foolish. But I'm willing to believe that a handful of people will keep buying/wearing Indians stuff because that's what they grew up with and came to embrace as their team, not out of sheer racism but just because they don't like having change imposed upon them and it makes them push back. Someone wants to wear a Lindor jersey forever, who am I to stop them?

I agree. I think they also banned the big Chief Wahoo cardboard cutouts, but I'm not sure on that (I didn't like those). I think only a handful of people will be the racist problem. I just want a good team, but that ain't happening anytime soon....

 

Man, that Lindor trade still hurts

[CLEstones]

On 7/23/2021 at 11:41 AM, IceCap said:

So by your own admission locals want to maintain as much as the visible history as possible with the rebrand. It seems like your position- they they go with green and move on from red, white, and blue- is a minority opinion. 

 

And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that given the passions around this rebrand and why they had to do it maintaining as much of a connection to the old identity as possible is smart from a branding perspective. People want the team to still be familiar despite the change. So it's smart to give it to them. 

 

The Edmonton Elks are still green and gold and the Washington Soccer Workforce will still be burgundy and gold when they finally settle on a rebrand. All for the same reasons. 

 

And there's no reason they shouldn't. The colours were never the problem with these old identities. 

 

-PS re: the "Forest City" thing...the city I went to uni in, London, Ontario, is also nicknamed the Forest City. It hardly seems like a uniquely Cleveland thing.

 

I think it can be argued if it was smart or not.  Having an identity so closely mirror the old isn't always the best decision.  It seems like they tried to do a cheap copy of the old identity.  I think the initial backlash would have been harsher, but in the end, all this does is keep people holding on.  I cant tell you how many people this weekend said "well they are keeping the colors and the scripts/fonts are basically the same, they shoulda just kept the old stuff."

 

RE: Forest City - It's very rare if any city really has a truly unique nickname.  The USA has about 14 different Queen City's... and they all lay claim to it.  Not only was Forest City a nickname for Cleveland, but one of the original baseball teams was called the Cleveland Forest Citys in the 1870s.  So, the excuse/reasons to come up with a fresh look and unique color pallet was more than abundant.

 

Again, my position is that coming up with a unique color pallet and logo package would have done more to sway public opinion than trying to loosely grasp at the past.  Looking around town, we have breweries, marathons, tshirt shops, amateur teams, clubs... all gravitate towards the Guardians architecture and all have infinitely better logo packages than what the Cleveland Baseball Team came up with.

[CLEstones]

On 7/23/2021 at 11:25 AM, 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.

 

 

I totally reject the notion that changing your colors or logos means you're throwing away your history.

[Gothamite]

15 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

I totally reject the notion that changing your colors or logos means you're throwing away your history.

So do I. 

[The_Admiral]

I don't. Remember the news story here a month or so ago about how the Fox-owned Dodgers considered changing to purple to match the Lakers and sell a '90s color? What would that be but throwing away history?

 

  

7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

There’s always a percentage of people who want to push back against any expansion of rights, be it out of fear of losing their cultural supremacy or just to flaunt their “political incorrectness.”   So long as they manage to refrain from redface, I doubt they’ll make much of an impact. 

This isn't really civil rights, it's just changing the way billionaires make money on merchandise. The same people make the same money, they're just doing so more politely with the approval of people who are well-positioned within institutions. No one's rights expanded.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

I think it can be argued if it was smart or not.  Having an identity so closely mirror the old isn't always the best decision.  It seems like they tried to do a cheap copy of the old identity.  I think the initial backlash would have been harsher, but in the end, all this does is keep people holding on.  I cant tell you how many people this weekend said "well they are keeping the colors and the scripts/fonts are basically the same, they shoulda just kept the old stuff."

 

RE: Forest City - It's very rare if any city really has a truly unique nickname.  The USA has about 14 different Queen City's... and they all lay claim to it.  Not only was Forest City a nickname for Cleveland, but one of the original baseball teams was called the Cleveland Forest Citys in the 1870s.  So, the excuse/reasons to come up with a fresh look and unique color pallet was more than abundant.

 

Again, my position is that coming up with a unique color pallet and logo package would have done more to sway public opinion than trying to loosely grasp at the past.  Looking around town, we have breweries, marathons, tshirt shops, amateur teams, clubs... all gravitate towards the Guardians architecture and all have infinitely better logo packages than what the Cleveland Baseball Team came up with.

 

I don't know about the Forrest City thing, but I agree that keeping the same colors and overall look could encourage people to keep wearing their Indians gear, keep the same traditions, and basically treat this as a formality and not a real change.  Of course the team can do a lot to change that by integrating more of the new identity... well, everywhere (IDK, build gigantic guardian statues in the out field... in play!)  But in general, a full switch to something brand new would probably have made the transition a little more painful at first, but more successful in the long run.

 

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

I totally reject the notion that changing your colors or logos means you're throwing away your history.

 

Yep, for the most part, me too.  Again, it's how the team handles it.  I don't think that the Guardians or WFT are throwing away any bit of their history - even if WFT changes its colors and nickname to something completely absurd.

[CLEstones]

27 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I don't know about the Forrest City thing, but I agree that keeping the same colors and overall look could encourage people to keep wearing their Indians gear, keep the same traditions, and basically treat this as a formality and not a real change.  Of course the team can do a lot to change that by integrating more of the new identity... well, everywhere (IDK, build gigantic guardian statues in the out field... in play!)  But in general, a full switch to something brand new would probably have made the transition a little more painful at first, but more successful in the long run.

 

 

Totally agree.

 

Honestly, the number of people who said "ILL NEVER WEAR GUARDIANS! I ONLY ROOT FOR THE INDIANS!" or "IM GOING TO MAKE A SHIRT THAT SAYS 'IM GOING TO WATCH THE INDIANS AT THE JAKE,'" this weekend was more than I would have guessed.

 

It seems the rebrand was incredibly rushed (looks at the logo package) and short-sighted.  I can already pin a few people in our social groups who will be stubborn for years about calling the team the Indians and telling their kids to call them the Indians (but they already have issues of telling their young, impressionable children lies and making them regurgitate it).

 

I will say, I think getting rid of the block C was a mistake.  I think they should have maximized that font and used it on the CLEVELAND jerseys, rather than just a non-serif font that doesn't match the block C.  The Block C has a ton of historical context and would be a great way to tie the entire cycle of the identity together.

 

I might be more willing to let go of the block C if the new C was somewhat palatable, but it is sooooo bad.  It looks like they tried to use the cave man C logo as inspiration?  Honestly, they took the worst aspects of all the identities over the years and smashed them into one.

 

Like you said, if the franchise really wanted to distance themselves from it, a new color pallet would have also been the most beneficial.  I would be willing to be the majority of people continue to wear Indians gear, since its the same colors, and boycot Guardians gear.

 

Again, it just seems like so many missed opportunities.  The bridge is forest green, the stadium walls and seats are forest green, one of the original pro baseball teams in Cleveland was the Cleveland Forest Citys.  There is just so many connections to forest green and could be a unique color, especially if Oakland continues to push kelly green.

 

Not only that, the rest of the bridge is sand/beige... would be a great complimentary color, would be perfect for an alternate uniform color or in lieu of gray away uniforms.  The Guardian statues have so many beautiful architectural aspects, including "baseball seams" going down their cloaks.  The logo package could have been some of the best in sports... now it's in the running for worst.

[SFGiants58]

Sure the block C has “history” and so does the color scheme, but is that history worth much of anything? This club was one of the most historically-irrelevant franchises in Big Four sports, next to the Arizona Cardinals, Florida Panthers, and Sacramento Kings.

[SCalderwood]

 

3 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

I totally reject the notion that changing your colors or logos means you're throwing away your history.

 

 

Maybe "throwing away" is too strong of a way to put it, but completely changing team colors is definitely a way of saying "we're starting over."

 

For whatever reason, the Guardians didn't want to drastically change their look.  They kept the same colors, and even their wordmarks and cap logo maintain the same overall "vibe" as the current Indians set.  They're not going to look that different, uniform-wise, on the field next year.  From far away, the changes are barely going to be noticeable to casual fans.  So, the organization clearly likes their current aesthetic and does not want to deviate too far from it.  I don't blame them.  I've always thought that the Indians looked great, at least for the 30 years that I have been watching baseball. 

 

Your point is pretty much, "I don't like their colors, so they should change them to these colors that I like better and make more sense to me."  I understand.  The forest green and beige thing... fine, whatever.  I think that could look dull, but it could look okay.  I think it would be a lateral move. I don't see it looking all that better than what they have now. 

 

I don't care about the forest green seats and walls and stuff, I don't think that a team's colors have to match their seats and walls.  I think forest green is just a nice neutral relaxing outdoorsy color that looks good in an outdoor stadium, which is why they chose that color.  The Orioles have the same thing going on at Camden Yards, and it looks good.  I'd rather they have forest green seats and walls at Camden Yards than black seats/walls or orange seats/walls.

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

I might be more willing to let go of the block C if the new C was somewhat palatable, but it is sooooo bad.  It looks like they tried to use the cave man C logo as inspiration?  Honestly, they took the worst aspects of all the identities over the years and smashed them into one.

 

You mean 'Native Carving image C'. It has no caveman connotations - it was totally a stereotypical native carving.

No, not Greek, either.

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

Totally agree.

 

Honestly, the number of people who said "ILL NEVER WEAR GUARDIANS! I ONLY ROOT FOR THE INDIANS!" or "IM GOING TO MAKE A SHIRT THAT SAYS 'IM GOING TO WATCH THE INDIANS AT THE JAKE,'" this weekend was more than I would have guessed.

 

It seems the rebrand was incredibly rushed (looks at the logo package) and short-sighted.  I can already pin a few people in our social groups who will be stubborn for years about calling the team the Indians and telling their kids to call them the Indians (but they already have issues of telling their young, impressionable children lies and making them regurgitate it).

 

I will say, I think getting rid of the block C was a mistake. 

 

Again, it just seems like so many missed opportunities.  The bridge is forest green, the stadium walls and seats are forest green, one of the original pro baseball teams in Cleveland was the Cleveland Forest Citys.  There is just so many connections to forest green and could be a unique color, especially if Oakland continues to push kelly green.

I don't. It's a simple block letter that was so plain that the only way it could have been blander is if it was the Impact letters from the Civil Rights game a few years back. It came into use, after the jerseys that you referred to and the Dolan's weren't going to make a change that could possibly go unnoticed by non uniform nerds. I think the new C that will go on the hat is an improvement over the Block C, even if the CLEVELAND wordmark need a lot of work. 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1043/1128500223_35c5d76d03_o.jpg

 

As far as everything being green, there's a lot of stadiums that have that same aesthetic.  I'm of the opinion  that changing colors would have been even worse than only changing the name and wordmarks.  And Cleveland Forest City's is an awkward name as well. 

[infrared41]

28 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Sure the block C has “history” and so does the color scheme, but is that history worth much of anything? This club was one of the most historically-irrelevant franchises in Big Four sports, next to the Arizona Cardinals, Florida Panthers, and Sacramento Kings.

 

God, I do love it when people who have probably never even been here tell us that our team's 100+ year history is basically worthless. Do go on...

[VDizzle12]

2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

Honestly, the number of people who said "ILL NEVER WEAR GUARDIANS! I ONLY ROOT FOR THE INDIANS!" or "IM GOING TO MAKE A SHIRT THAT SAYS 'IM GOING TO WATCH THE INDIANS AT THE JAKE,'" this weekend was more than I would have guessed.

 

My favorite part is, as Cleveland fans, we worship a football team that literally has a helmet for a logo and named after a color. People will get over the Guardians name and the logos will be fine. I think they are mediocre at best, but as a Cleveland fan I really have no choice. I'll be buying gear the second it hits the shelves. 

 

I saw so many politically motivated people on social media bashing the PC reasons behind changing the name. They always like to brag about how they haven't watched pro sports for years, because of the kneeling, BLM, etc. Yet they are now boycotting the Cleveland Guardians. Not sure how you can boycott something you have already been boycotting? But this is where we are.

 

 

[infrared41]

5 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

I saw so many politically motivated people on social media bashing the PC reasons behind changing the name

 

I'd almost buy their argument if the name change talk had started in the last year or two, but the reality is that the name and Wahoo have been issues longer than political correctness has been a thing.