Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[infrared41]

2 minutes ago, selgy said:

But do we really think that many if any mainstream sports fans will know this? 

 

Absolutely. I'd bet more sports fans know about the Richmond Spiders than don't know about them. 

[selgy]

1 minute ago, _J_ said:

Yes. Honestly, just accept you're wrong on this part.

 

You can think Spiders sounds minor league without slapping a perfectly fine college through the window.

I don't think Spiders sounds minor league at all and think it would be a fine replacement for the Cleveland franchise. 
 

[selgy]

2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Absolutely. I'd bet more sports fans know about the Richmond Spiders than don't know about them. 

You may be correct. I would be surprised. 

Either way I would like to see the name continue and not be discredited because it is viewed a collegiate and or minor league mascot/name. 

[infrared41]

6 minutes ago, selgy said:

You may be correct. I would be surprised. 

 

It's not like Richmond is some directional NAIA school. They're D-1 in basketball and they play in the Atlantic 10 Conference. I'd bet that the Spiders are as well known as most Mid-Majors.

[DEAD!]

I am sure if Cleveland goes with Spiders, their biggest enemy will be rain delays.

 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Spiders does sound minor league.   That is because it is not a name that has largely been used in professional sports in the last century.   It also kinda sounds like an attempt to be edgy and dangerous.

 

Is any of that reasonable?   No.   But it's what our brains do.   Raptors was an attempt to cash in on Jurassic Park.   Now they've existed for decades, have a championship, and just kinda sound normal.   But Bears, Lions, Tigers, Hornets, Cardinals, and even Blue Jays sound normal and major league to us because they've existed in the professional world for decades if not about a century.   Knickerbockers is kinda a super silly name, but when you exist that long, it just becomes normal.   The large majority of options will seem really weird because the Cleveland Indians have existed for the entirety of all of our lives.

 

I'm not the largest fan of Spiders because I'm worried about them going too goofy and Brandiose.   The Brandiose style has given us some great identities in the minor leagues, but I'd rather they stay down there.  If I could be assured they wouldn't, I do think it's a very fun throwback.

 

Given the Guardian statues, I do think The Cleveland Guardians would be a really cool way to go.

 

Fitting but sadly would never happen: The Cleveland Lakers.

 

Some kind of dog breed would cross-promote well with the Browns.   There was once a football team named the Cleveland Bulldogs.

 

Here's my out-of-the-box idea.   Call back to the infamous burning of the Cuyahoga River.   Go with a name based on fire.   It would be an identity that would be splashy, attention-catching, can use the current uniform aesthetic (which is already super red focused), fits the local culture of self-deprecation humor, and calls back to the theme song of the famous movie about Cleveland's baseball team.   The Cleveland Flames, the Cleveland Blazes, the Cleveland Burns, the Cleveland Flares, something like that.   There HAS to be a fire-based word that hasn't been used yet.   The Cleveland Infernos would save them on lettering.

 

 

But by far my choice is Blues.   A couple weeks to a month ago I mentioned my argument in the main thread, but most of them have been said by others here.   It was used by three different iterations of Cleveland Baseball, including the Spiders.   It plays well off of the Browns and Reds.   Heck, you could have them primarily wear blue socks and market them as being nicknamed "The Blue Sox" to play off of Chicago.   It harkens to the city's music ties.   It works with their current color scheme.   It befits a charter franchise.   The Cleveland Blues is the way to go.

[Cujo]

2 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Spiders does sound minor league.

 

And?

 

[29texan]

12 hours ago, O.C.D said:

My biggest issue with Spiders is that to me it sounds generic/interchangeable. In that way I could see someone saying the name sounds Minor League.

 

Love it or Hate it the name Cleveland Indians is/was iconic.

 

 

And "Indians" isnt generic and interchangeable? 

 

I can name 5 nearby high schools schools off the top of my head that have "Indians" as a mascot...

 

I think it's a little ridiculous to claim "Spiders" as a minor league type of name when the Cleveland MLB team had it as a name before. 

[CS85]

I don't think naming your franchise after the burning pollution-filled river is good optics.  I think this will be a much more subtle change than is expected.  Same colors, more or less same uniforms.  That's my anticipation, anyway.

 

Citizens of Cleveland is probably what they'll do, only it won't say "Citizens" anywhere on their uniforms, and we'll have jerked around this spider idea enough to be disappointed.  Citizens is safe, it's dull, it's inert.  It's a compromise that has no seasoning whatsoever, which means it'll go through every committee without a problem.

[gosioux76]

11 hours ago, selgy said:

You may be correct. I would be surprised. 

Either way I would like to see the name continue and not be discredited because it is viewed a collegiate and or minor league mascot/name. 

 

Frankly, I think many more people are aware of the Richmond Spiders precisely because the name is unique.

 

Some argue Spiders is "generic," while others willingly embrace "Blues" — in my mind, about as generic as you can get — as an alternative. Others contend it's a turn-off because people are afraid of spiders, as if nobody's afraid of real life bears or snakes or, as someone else mentioned, birds. Some contend it's a name affiliated with losing, as if that's something unfamiliar in the city of Cleveland. 

 

The truth is, none of those things will matter once the club comes out with a new brand. Fans, no matter how devoted they were to Indians, will still flock to merchandise with the new logo. The fact that a professional sports team made Kraken work has led me to believe that the name doesn't matter if the team has strong branding and iconography. 

 

Personally, I don't know how anybody can look past Spiders as the obvious choice. I think it's rare -- and particularly important in baseball -- to find a name that could've existed a hundred years ago, yet is still unique and avoids being gimmicky or a novelty. The Cleveland Rocks should be the name of a 1990s NBA expansion team. 

 

But hey, we've all got opinions, amiright? 

[KJTALBOT]

Many people have a strong aversion to spiders. I doubt they will choose it. Not warm and fuzzy.

[selgy]

5 minutes ago, KJTALBOT said:

Many people have a strong aversion to spiders. I doubt they will choose it. Not warm and fuzzy.

I know someone who has a tremendous (it is almost irrational) fear of bears and they are a Cubs fan. 

I have never read or heard once in my life someone say that they weren't an Arizona fan because their mascot was a snake. 

Etc. 

Does that mean that spiders will be selected. Who knows. But to throw it out for those reasons would be weird. Ask Disney how a dirty mouse worked out for him.  

[gosioux76]

22 minutes ago, KJTALBOT said:

Many people have a strong aversion to spiders. I doubt they will choose it. Not warm and fuzzy.

 

Out of curiosity, why would "warm and fuzzy" even rank as a qualifying trait for a sports brand. Being too warm and fuzzy would be a disqualifier for anything that isn't a low-level minor league baseball team. 

[O.C.D]

1 hour ago, 29texan said:

 

 

And "Indians" isnt generic and interchangeable? 

 

I can name 5 nearby high schools schools off the top of my head that have "Indians" as a mascot...

 

I think it's a little ridiculous to claim "Spiders" as a minor league type of name when the Cleveland MLB team had it as a name before. 

What makes Spiders generic and interchangeable is it's lack of specificity. It would be akin to a sports team named Dogs or Cats. Birds, etc.

 

Indians refers to a specific type of person, a unique ethnicity within human beings (in which exists group with even more specificity and ethnic diversity)

 

I was laughing yesterday thinking "A lot of people want to add Rock to the new name, why not call them the Rock Spiders?"

 

 

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, KJTALBOT said:

Many people have a strong aversion to spiders. I doubt they will choose it. Not warm and fuzzy.

 

Many people have a strong aversion to real spiders. We're talking about a spider logo here. Anyone who is just as afraid of a spider logo on a hat as they are of an actual spider has bigger issues than just arachnophobia to deal with. As I said earlier, I have an irrational fear of birds, but that's never stopped me from going to watch the Clevelands play the Orioles or Blue Jays at Progressive Field. It's not like I freak out every time I wear my Orioles hat. The argument that Spiders is a bad name because people are afraid of spiders is a little silly.

 

You know some other things that aren't "warm and fuzzy?" Rattlesnakes, manta rays, mountains, athletics, marlins, and blue jays. Especially blue jays. They're mean little bastards.

[AnPheitseog]

3 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

to watch the Clevelands play

There we have it, I oddly like how bad I know it would be.

 

The Cleveland Clevelands. I LOVE it.

 

 

(Yes, I know and respect the intent of what you did, and that I am pulling it out of context.)

[WSU151]

36 minutes ago, KJTALBOT said:

Many people have a strong aversion to spiders. I doubt they will choose it. Not warm and fuzzy.

 

Spider-man clothing with a spider on it is no different than the laundry of a baseball team named Spiders. 

 

Marvel and Disney are cashing in on stuff like this:

 

 

 

[gosioux76]

4 minutes ago, O.C.D said:

What makes Spiders generic and interchangeable is it's lack of specificity. It would be akin to a sports team named Dogs or Cats. Birds, etc.

 

Indians refers to a specific type of person, a unique ethnicity within human beings (in which exists group with even more specificity and ethnic diversity)

 

I was laughing yesterday thinking "A lot of people want to add Rock to the new name, why not call them the Rock Spiders?"

 

 

 

I don't get this argument. You're suggesting it would be better if it were a specific kind of spider? Is Spiders really any more generic than, say, Bears or Reds? Penguins, like Spiders, is its own genre of creature, yet nobody would consider it to be generic because the team isn't called the Emperor Penguins. 

 

I just don't see how a name that's so little used in pro sports, but with so much visual potential, can be described as "generic." 

[infrared41]

13 minutes ago, _J_ said:

The Cleveland Clevelands. I LOVE it.

 

[OnWis97]

The problem is the name has to be:

• dignified
• unique
• major league
• timeless
• "not generic"

That's really tricky.  That's why I hold less value on unique. I'd rather repeat another name of a big league team than be unique to a fault. I'd rather the Minnesota NHL team be the Eagles, Tigers, or Bulls than Wild. No question.

 

I think Spiders works OK.  It's unique in big-league sports. I think it's major league (because to me "minor league" is either two-word or cheesier like Lugnuts or River Monsters). I think it has the opportunity to be timeless (i.e., in 20 years it will be just as part of the culture as the Marlins and won't be jarring like Wild or too modern like Heat). I don't think it's "generic" (a term I use rarely for things like Marauders). Dignified? I can see the argument that it's not and I think trying to make a mean/intimidating logo would impact that.  They'll need subtle imagery.

 

Otherwise, I am OK with things that others might find non-unique or generic. I can live with Blues,* Americans, etc.

 

MOD EDIT: Let's not fly too close to the sun.