Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[gosioux76]

7 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

Sounds like my dad. He's been a fan of the Cleveland Indians for 60 years and he's a smart, thoughtful, open-minded, forward thinking man who calmly explained to a 7 year old me why people were protesting Chief Wahoo the first time we went to Jacob's Field in 1994*. He's evolved his own politics over the years as well as his stance on the logo/name over the years and has known for a while that this day would eventually come. He's not one of these boors who can't be an adult about it, but at the same time this thing he's had a relationship with since he was a little kid is gone and although he knows it's for the best I think he's having a harder time coming around than he thought. He had the Browns and they were taken from him and now he's losing the Indians too and I think he's also sad that he** never got to see either one win the championship proper. 

 

*for anyone claiming the protests are new, they aren't.

**he is the only person I've ever met who is a Bengals, Browns, Reds, and Indians fan. 

Sounds to me like your dad is a reasonable and rational person. His response is completely understandable. I felt the same way about UND's move away from Fighting Sioux. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Chiefs logo would be so easy to modify too. The KC contrasted a white background doesn't need to be in an arrowhead shape. I did this in Paint:

 

 

Is it really that far removed from the KC we instantly recognize?

[-Akronite-]

5 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I don't want to be one of those who guy's who is automatically resistant to change. Generally, I'm cool with blowing things up and trying for something better, and there's certainly no better opportunity to do so than during a wholesale name change.

 

But doesn't it seem like every team that changes its color scheme eventually just goes back to it at some point? I look back at the Pistons in teal or the Sabres in black and red and think of those as experimental college years. Your freshman roommate's decision to shave his head might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but eventually he realized the crew cut looked right all along.  Like that. 

 

I get that navy and red aren't to Cleveland what pinstripes are to the Yankees, but I can't help but think that any change would end up as another short-lived experiment.  It wasn't long ago that the Brewers added forest green into their color scheme.  

 

This is a good point regardless of my personal feeling that a color upgrade would've been great. It's rare that an old or historically successful team would suddenly swap color schemes, and the franchises that do (like the Cavs, Hawks, & Jazz in the NBA) are the same kinds that will switch things up again when the team hits the skids and they need a refresh. Bringing back a retro or classic look is a favorite in marketing, especially sports marketing.

[SFGiants58]

9 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I don't want to be one of those who guy's who is automatically resistant to change. Generally, I'm cool with blowing things up and trying for something better, and there's certainly no better opportunity to do so than during a wholesale name change.

 

But doesn't it seem like every team that changes its color scheme eventually goes back to it at some point? I look back at the Pistons in teal or the Sabres in black and red and think of those as experimental college years. Your freshman roommate's decision to shave his head might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but eventually he realized the crew cut looked right all along.  Like that. 

 

I get that navy and red aren't to Cleveland what pinstripes are to the Yankees, but I can't help but think that any change would end up as another short-lived experiment.  It wasn't long ago that the Brewers added forest green into their color scheme.  

Even the Wizards went back to blue (well, navy)/red and became the Bullets in all but name. If the Guardians had changed colors, we’d be counting down to them becoming the “Indians in all but name.” Cleveland decided to skip the complete reset to avoid the issue.

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Blackhawks can just slap on new logos akin to this:

 

 

Sure, it’s close to the head logo, but it’s more akin to a literal black hawk.

 

Leaning into the "Hawk" part of their name is probably the most logical course of action for the Blackhawks. But this logo is still heavily steeped in Native American imagery, especially with the feathers. While it's a step in the right direction, it's only a half measure towards a solution. 

[gosioux76]

10 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Even the Wizards went back to blue (well, navy)/red and became the Bullets in all but name. If the Guardians had changed colors, we’d be counting down to them becoming the “Indians in all but name.” Cleveland decided to skip the complete reset to avoid the issue.

The list of examples is pretty sizable, but I guess, to be fair, there are also a few examples of color changes that stuck around. The Mariners and Sacramento Kings are two I can think of off the top of my head that have settled nicely into new colors after making a big switch. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that it can succeed. It just seems like it fails more often than it doesn't. 

[bosrs1]

26 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

The list of examples is pretty sizable, but I guess, to be fair, there are also a few examples of color changes that stuck around. The Mariners and Sacramento Kings are two I can think of off the top of my head that have settled nicely into new colors after making a big switch. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that it can succeed. It just seems like it fails more often than it doesn't. 

 

I mean arguably the Padres stuck around. They wore Navy Blue for 30 years. 

[coco1997]

2 hours ago, chakfu said:

 

I would REALLY like to see a concept with forest green added to the current palette. I've prattled elsewhere in the thread but as a dark understated color I think it could complement navy without being too big a departure from tradition.

 

I feel like the team's tradition and history are important but are not so strong that it can't be evolved.  I hate the tradition of falling short, then rebuilding "one brick lower" instead of higher.  I like the idea of adding a new color with the new name if it can be subtle like forest green..

 

How about a forest green and sandstone scheme?

 

[gosioux76]

6 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I mean arguably the Padres stuck around. They wore Navy Blue for 30 years. 

True, but they seemed to do so while willfully ignoring the pleas to return to brown and gold. 

[bosrs1]

16 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

True, but they seemed to do so while willfully ignoring the pleas to return to brown and gold. 

 

Only for the last handful of years. Until they removed all but Navy and White there brown calls were pretty niche. When they went full bore on boring then they got some life to them. 

[DTConcepts]

Forgive me for not scrolling through all 60+ pages of this thread, but I noticed someone bring up the Blackhawks. I wanted to add my take to everyone else's.

 

The Indians name deserved to be retired. (Washington Football Team) even moreso. Those two names use caricatures of Native Americans, one with a derogatory, literally false descriptor, and the other with a literal slur. There's no question about that. Blackhawks, however, isn't derogatory, at least not in the same sense. It's named after a particularly important Native American turned army icon. The logo, on the other hand, is up for debate, since it's also literally a caricature, but that's neither here nor there. The name itself is fine, and can easily align with a potential hawk-focused redesign.

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

The Chiefs logo would be so easy to modify too. The KC contrasted a white background doesn't need to be in an arrowhead shape. I did this in Paint:

 

 

Is it really that far removed from the KC we instantly recognize?

 

Why a cloud?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 hours ago, MNtwins3 said:

I'm a sucker for scripts with the city/location name on the road jerseys, but this one never did it for me. It just looks off for some reason

Maybe because the L is just a straight line, rather than a loop, as it should be in a cursive script. Compare the Orioles' wordmark.

 

I think the new road wordmark is much better than this script.

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

 

 

he is the only person I've ever met who is a Bengals, Browns, Reds, and Indians fan. 

 

He's gotta be from Columbus, right?

[spartacat_12]

This might be a naïve take, but I think once the WFT announces their new name then we will be done with rebrands of teams using Native American/First Nations names/logos/etc. The major offenders have all been dealt with now, so I think outrage fatigue will set in and the voices calling for more changes will get quieter & quieter.

 

The Seminoles are pretty much the last NCAA team left using this kind of brand, and if they haven't changed now it isn't going to happen. The Blackhawks, Braves, and Chiefs names are in no way disrespectful, and they've eliminated any sort of caricatures from their logo set. The Blackhawks in particular have one of the most beloved brands in pro sports. 

[gosioux76]

15 minutes ago, DTConcepts said:

Forgive me for not scrolling through all 60+ pages of this thread, but I noticed someone bring up the Blackhawks. I wanted to add my take to everyone else's.

 

The Indians name deserved to be retired. (Washington Football Team) even moreso. Those two names use caricatures of Native Americans, one with a derogatory, literally false descriptor, and the other with a literal slur. There's no question about that. Blackhawks, however, isn't derogatory, at least not in the same sense. It's named after a particularly important Native American turned army icon. The logo, on the other hand, is up for debate, since it's also literally a caricature, but that's neither here nor there. The name itself is fine, and can easily align with a potential hawk-focused redesign.

 

I don't mean this is an argumentative way, but who makes the distinction over whether something is or isn't "derogatory?" Is there some clear line of demarcation I'm missing? Because we've seen a lot of sports brands built with (likely) good intentions find themselves canceled over the past decade. I'm not sure what gives the Blackhawks an exemption.  

 

 

[Sport]

23 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

He's gotta be from Columbus, right?

 

He's from Akron, but after graduating from Ohio State he worked in Cincinnati radio in the 80's and early 90's and occasionally traveled with both the Reds and Bengals on road trips, which means he was around the 88 Bengals who went to the Super Bowl and the 1990 Reds who won the World Series. Hard to be that close to teams like that and not get swept up in the excitement and not pull for the people you know who work for those teams. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

30 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Why a cloud?

 

I'm not good at paint. And I was trying to approximate the "hammered" look of the existing arrowhead.

[Brian in Boston]

If I'm being honest, I didn't see there being much chance that Cleveland's MLB team was going to change colors when they dropped the Indians name. After all, Cleveland's MLB team wasn't seeking to jettison all of its history through this rebrand. Rather, it was recognizing and choosing to distance itself from the continued day-to-day use of a divisive team name and a former team logo that was so grotesquely exaggerated in its depiction of supposed characteristics that it crossed the line from caricature to racially-insensitive symbol.

That said, Cleveland's AL franchise has taken the field representing said municipality in every season of American League competition since the circuit was recognized as a major league in 1901. If I'm not mistaken, it is one of just five MLB teams - Cleveland, Boston, Chicago and Detroit in the AL, Chicago in the National League - to have taken to the field in every season of competition in their respective leagues without relocating from their original markets. Maintaining some semblance of a tie to that legacy is important.

So, how does a franchise that's committed to changing its name and logos maintain a tie to 121 seasons of history?

Well, Navy and White have been featured in Cleveland's uniforms for each and every season of the team's tenure in the American League since the circuit's elevation to Major League status in 1901. Red first appeared in the home uniforms of the Cleveland Naps in 1904, disappeared from the franchise's set until resurfacing on the home jerseys for a single year in 1928, then joined Navy and White for an unbroken 89-year run beginning in 1933.  

All of that being said, I completely understand the decision on the part of team ownership and management to maintain a color scheme of Navy, Red and White under the Cleveland Guardians brand. Said palette is as intrinsically linked to the history, identity, and legacy  of Cleveland's MLB franchise as any other aspect of the club. As such, I'd argue that those colors need not - indeed, should not - be cast aside.    
 

[DTConcepts]

8 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I don't mean this is an argumentative way, but who makes the distinction over whether something is or isn't "derogatory?" Is there some clear line of demarcation I'm missing? Because we've seen a lot of sports brands built with (likely) good intentions find themselves canceled over the past decade. I'm not sure what gives the Blackhawks an exemption.  

 

I mean, I think it's pretty cut-and-dry. Indians is a name given to Native Americans by Christopher Columbus who falsely though he was in India. The word is associated with the genocides and slavery he caused as well as the resulting atrocities perpetrated by the US government, Canadian government, and various other colonial governments. It was used as a slur, or at least a derogatory term, during that time, and still is to this day. Not to mention that it's literally incorrect as a descriptor of who Native Americans are. (Washington Football Team) is self explanatory.

 

Blackhawks and Braves are okay because they're not derogatory in any sense. Black Hawk was a very important Native American warrior, and is recognized as such by the team's branding. Braves, again, isn't derogatory in any way, and realistically doesn't have anything to do directly with Native Americans outside the team's logos.

 

Chiefs is, in my opinion, 50/50. Not technically incorrect, not technically derogatory, and the team doesn't use any Native American imagery outside the arrowhead, but I can also see someone being upset over the name. You could argue that it's boiling Native American culture down to a stereotypical "chief" role, rather than the broad and diverse cultures unique to every tribe. Again, I think the name is fine, but could understand people wanting it changed.