Bill0813

Report: Cleveland Indians to Drop Name

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Finally, no one should ever praise the Denver Broncos for the sartorial felony that they committed in 1996, when they trashed a strong, classic look in favour of a ridiculous design that wound up having a profoundly destructive influence throughout the sports world. That Broncos uniform was a  superspreader of bad design.

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds like yelling at a cloud. If it wasn't the Denver Broncos, another tea would have gone all in on striping/swooshes/whatever. You can't stop progress. You can mock it, but you can't stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Broncos would have won those three Super Bowls in the Orange Crush jerseys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with keeping the trident on the caps, as clever as it is, is that downwards-pointing tridents are bad luck, and my god, is that the last thing the Mariners need. Their current identity has held up surprising well for a '90s brand made with Nintendo at the helm but it's time for a refresh. I think quite a bit of the current brand can be saved, the main thing to change is brightening the teal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I'd be 100 percent on board with just this minor change. @the admiral said it best -- the current Mariners are completely tired, and are born of this world:

92325457ac9f02bbb8baed48f9450dda.jpg

 


Completely off topic and totally unnecessary to this conversation, but this was my very first car. Color and all. Got it just a few months after finding this weird forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FiddySicks said:


This was my very first car. Color and all. 


Was it on the Firestone recall tires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think it was originally on Firestones. It was awhile after the recall (I think), but I do remember my dad kind of insisting that I swap them out for BFGs. That was more due to needing heavy duty snow tires and him having a “tire guy” who was a vendor for BF Goodrich, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

And I disagree on the trident. 

 

220px-Ruppert_Jones_1978.jpg

 

That cap logo should rightfully have lasted a hundred years. It is as good a cap logo as that of the Cubs.

 

And the wordmark is gorgeous, too, as are the colours.

 

Still, I do like the current colour scheme; and the team has proven that the trident works with that palette.

 

205294_marist370288-780x622.jpg

 

The compass rose should be a sleeve patch. But on the cap belongs the trident and nothing else.

 

I'll add that the question of a design's merits is down purely to aesthetics. It has nothing to do with a team's performance while wearing that design. The classic example are the winless Tampa Bay Bucs, who were clad in one of history's all-time great uniforms, which they were still wearing when they made it to within one game of the Super Bowl.

 

Sometimes a team manages to hit its height while wearing its best-looking uniform (1987/1991 Twins; 1984 Padres; 2002/2003 Nets). But that does not justify the fallacy of citing successful seasons to defend a uniform, or, conversely, of citing unsuccessful seasons to reject a uniform.

 

Finally, no one should ever praise the Denver Broncos for the sartorial felony that they committed in 1996, when they trashed a strong, classic look in favour of a ridiculous design that wound up having a profoundly destructive influence throughout the sports world. That Broncos uniform was a  superspreader of bad design.

 

Normally I'd say a monogram should represent the city and not the nickname, but there's no denying the trident is superior to the S. It works even better in silver IMO.

 

ff_2729901alt2_full.jpg&w=900

 

7 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


Well, keep the “Halo A,” color scheme, and ditch the rest. 
 

My basic idea for the Mariners has been around since 2017, when I made a thing.

 

l1kmkWP.png

 

This is great! I don't think the Mariners even need to change the scheme much, just emphasize the teal and it'll breathe some life into their look.

 

The problem with the current S is that it basically sucks. The problem with replacing the S is that the Kraken already outdid whatever they could manage. So I vote trident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised to see the large number of people here hoping for a Mariners overhaul. The insignia, colors, and wordmark all work for me, though I'd probably correct the double outline. Nothing screams staid at all about their identity to me and it feels as fresh today as it did during the Kingdome days. I like the way they balance the navy and northwest green. Despite how much I like colors that are teal-ish, I have trouble imagining them leaning into the green much more than they do now. The Mariners have a look that I find to be distinctive while also very suitable for a major league team. I'm not super enthused about replacing the S insignia with a trident M but admittedly that's largely because emphasizing the first letter of the nickname on a hat is one of my design peeves.

 

Although the Mariners have been extraordinarily non-competitive since the early 00s, I don't discern a need for them to rebrand. A new identity hardly seems imperative for them, considering that several of the very best players in MLB over the past 30 years have worn their current uniform set. While they don't have a championship or any playoff appearances since 2001, there's still enough to celebrate there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I'm sorry, but this sounds like yelling at a cloud. If it wasn't the Denver Broncos, another tea would have gone all in on striping/swooshes/whatever. You can't stop progress. You can mock it, but you can't stop it.

 

True, you can't stop progress, but you can apply the term to something that doesn't deserve it. Which is what you've done here, IMO.

 

Ferdy's line "The super spreader of bad design" is both hilarious and painfully accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Broncos’ current set is a classic and the Broncos should never regress back to the old design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Broncos’ current set is a classic and the Broncos should never regress back to the old design. 

I like how you hid your true word for this set in between superfluous uses of cl and ic  😂

 

I think it's dated. I'd like it better if they had some orange in the road set. I understand that certain teams have a differing use of color home vs road (the Giants come to mind), but I'm just not a fan of this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

True, you can't stop progress, but you can apply the term to something that doesn't deserve it. Which is what you've done here, IMO.

 

Ferdy's line "The super spreader of bad design" is both hilarious and painfully accurate.

 

Like most things, it's really a matter of opinion.

 

I couldn't believe my eyes in 1997 when I saw those Broncos for the first time. They looked like they were from the future and the rest of the league immediately looked out of date, with the possible exception of the Jaguars, Panthers and Ravens.

 

The Broncos were probably the most revolutionary step in sports design; certainly at that point and probably ever. Or at least the biggest change in sports design since teams discovered teal in the late 80s/early 90s.

 

I agree that without the Broncos we wouldn't have clunkers that still exist today like the Arizona Cardinals or the Favre-era Vikings, but there are plenty of cool designs that have launched because of those Broncos (Seahawks, Vick Falcons, Titans, a millions college teams, etc.).

 

I know some people (not saying you specifically, but some) will never accept a football uniform that veers from the Packers/Chiefs/Bills -- and I myself think those teams generally look the best -- but there is a place for modern uniform design, and I think you can trace that to the Broncos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Like most things, it's really a matter of opinion.

 

I couldn't believe my eyes in 1997 when I saw those Broncos for the first time. They looked like they were from the future and the rest of the league immediately looked out of date, with the possible exception of the Jaguars, Panthers and Ravens.

 

The Broncos were probably the most revolutionary step in sports design; certainly at that point and probably ever. Or at least the biggest change in sports design since teams discovered teal in the late 80s/early 90s.

 

I agree that without the Broncos we wouldn't have clunkers that still exist today like the Arizona Cardinals or the Favre-era Vikings, but there are plenty of cool designs that have launched because of those Broncos (Seahawks, Vick Falcons, Titans, a millions college teams, etc.).

 

I know some people (not saying you specifically, but some) will never accept a football uniform that veers from the Packers/Chiefs/Bills -- and I myself think those teams generally look the best -- but there is a place for modern uniform design, and I think you can trace that to the Broncos.

 

I would probably agree that the Broncos version of both the side panels and the curving truncated stripe are as good as the design/style ever got. Especially at home, that bold orange swoosh (hmmm...) that moved from navy to white was extremely visually arresting, no question. My issues with it, in retrospect, are these three;

 

One, it created a waterfall of bad design ideas, as every team that partially copied it while putting on their own twist made it worse and worse. True, that isn't the Broncos fault, but I have to say if Nike (it was their original design) had instead sold it to some team other than a classic NFL team destined to win Super Bowls in it, it wouldn't have had the same staying power. That's why the super spreader comment was so spot on.

 

Two, it replaced a classic with much more personal and unique color scheme. That weird light blue helmet that didn't quite match the other blues? The top heavy color distribution? I know, as you say, it's all personal opinion, but that kind of mismatched old school design (see the New York Giants) is something I'm a sucker for every time.

 

And three, again, personal opinion, but I feel that uniform has way outlived it's expiration date, especially now that they've (rightfully) attempted to reclaim orange as their true primary. It's been tired for at least a decade. It's just time to move on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

I would probably agree that the Broncos version of both the side panels and the curving truncated stripe are as good as the design/style ever got. Especially at home, that bold orange swoosh (hmmm...) that moved from navy to white was extremely visually arresting, no question. My issues with it, in retrospect, are these three;

 

One, it created a waterfall of bad design ideas, as every team that partially copied it while putting on their own twist made it worse and worse. True, that isn't the Broncos fault, but I have to say if Nike (it was their original design) had instead sold it to some team other than a classic NFL team destined to win Super Bowls in it, it wouldn't have had the same staying power. That's why the super spreader comment was so spot on.

 

Two, it replaced a classic with much more personal and unique color scheme. That weird light blue helmet that didn't quite match the other blues? The top heavy color distribution? I know, as you say, it's all personal opinion, but that kind of mismatched old school design (see the New York Giants) is something I'm a sucker for every time.

 

And three, again, personal opinion, but I feel that uniform has way outlived it's expiration date, especially now that they've (rightfully) attempted to reclaim orange as their true primary. It's been tired for at least a decade. It's just time to move on.

 

 

I don't disagree that elements of the Broncos look could use an update. I'm over the pants striping and the correlating side panels, for example. But I fear any attempt at an update will end up down a path similar to the one taken by the Patriots. That's another team that modernized 20 years ago to great effect, then changed under similar circumstances, and ended up with a mediocre hybrid of ideas that, to me, just doesn't work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

I would probably agree that the Broncos version of both the side panels and the curving truncated stripe are as good as the design/style ever got. Especially at home, that bold orange swoosh (hmmm...) that moved from navy to white was extremely visually arresting, no question. My issues with it, in retrospect, are these three;

 

One, it created a waterfall of bad design ideas, as every team that partially copied it while putting on their own twist made it worse and worse. True, that isn't the Broncos fault, but I have to say if Nike (it was their original design) had instead sold it to some team other than a classic NFL team destined to win Super Bowls in it, it wouldn't have had the same staying power. That's why the super spreader comment was so spot on.

 

Two, it replaced a classic with much more personal and unique color scheme. That weird light blue helmet that didn't quite match the other blues? The top heavy color distribution? I know, as you say, it's all personal opinion, but that kind of mismatched old school design (see the New York Giants) is something I'm a sucker for every time.

 

And three, again, personal opinion, but I feel that uniform has way outlived it's expiration date, especially now that they've (rightfully) attempted to reclaim orange as their true primary. It's been tired for at least a decade. It's just time to move on.

 

Point one: who knows? Something goofy would have happened.  It might have taken longer and it might have been different, but something goofy would have happened. Though I do agree that the fact that it was the Broncos, vs., say the Seahawks (who were not much of a franchise at the time), probably matters.

 

Point two: It makes more sense "on paper" but it totally zapped them of personality. It might be the precursor to the Mavericks going from royal/green to their borderline robotic "streamlined" look.

 

I absolutely agree with point #3. I see the uniform as the first acknowledgement that sleeves were going away. At the time, I didn't recognize it and therefore thought "this is just...boring" and was astonished by the numbers being on the shoulders when the sleeves were blank...except for the swoosh. While they were revolutionary, they also totally changed the identity of an important/established team. And, frankly, they're kind of boring. In hindsight, these were kinda destined to age badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Like most things, it's really a matter of opinion.

 

I couldn't believe my eyes in 1997 when I saw those Broncos for the first time. They looked like they were from the future and the rest of the league immediately looked out of date, with the possible exception of the Jaguars, Panthers and Ravens.

 

The Broncos were probably the most revolutionary step in sports design; certainly at that point and probably ever. Or at least the biggest change in sports design since teams discovered teal in the late 80s/early 90s.

 

I agree that without the Broncos we wouldn't have clunkers that still exist today like the Arizona Cardinals or the Favre-era Vikings, but there are plenty of cool designs that have launched because of those Broncos (Seahawks, Vick Falcons, Titans, a millions college teams, etc.).

 

I know some people (not saying you specifically, but some) will never accept a football uniform that veers from the Packers/Chiefs/Bills -- and I myself think those teams generally look the best -- but there is a place for modern uniform design, and I think you can trace that to the Broncos.

I certainly agree that this was a key sports uniform revolution.  Maybe not the most important in all of sports but probably so in the NFL in my memory. 

 

Since you're a big NBA fan, I'd be curious to hear what your reaction was to the Mavericks update from royal/kelly to the dark blue side-panelly look they went to a few years after the Broncos.  First, maybe I wonder whether the Broncos helped make this happen (indirectly, anyway) and second, did you see it as revolutionary?  I personally think these uniforms have a lot in common.  They both replaced a vivid color scheme with something a lot darker. They both set themselves apart from the rest of the league a bit. They both precipited a lot of winning (albeit the Broncos were already a key franchise while the Mavs were still kinda floundering).  They both traded some personality in their logos for horses that were bordering on metallic. They both really traded some "personality" in their entire look for some "precision" (that's not the right word...).  And in my opinion, they were both big downgrades and they both are really tired by this point.

 

Yeah, I tend to prefer Packers/Chiefs/Bills along with Spurs/Bulls/Pistons but I do think there's room for modernization (I don't even hate the Favre-era Vikes). But I think the Broncos design is just drab and boring. At least the Reebok era Cardinals and Falcons did something with the sleeves.  The Broncos were just kinda minimalist uniforms designed for modern cuts. And I think the Mavs look is even worse.  It's trying too hard to be "sleek" or something.  It's aged terribly...the Broncos logo is at least OK, even if a downgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FiddySicks said:


Completely off topic and totally unnecessary to this conversation, but this was my very first car. Color and all. Got it just a few months after finding this weird forum. 

 

I just realized that I used to have a Grand Cherokee Orvis edition, which I now realize must have been a weirdly specific ripoff of the Explorer Eddie Bauer edition. I don't even fish.

 

Anyway the Mariners are fine as long as they don't put the Roman font on their alts again. Fix the outlines and brighten the teal a little bit, but otherwise it's a modern classic. I don't think a Seahawks lime green works in baseball, and the blue/yellow/cream alternate is nauseating. It looks like a dingy jersey forgotten in an attic for a decade. It should come with moth holes in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ferdinand Cesarano While the Orange Crush look for the Broncos was a classic, it's largely associated with their Super Bowl losses.

 

Getting back to Cleveland, I have the feeling that by having the Block C on his plaque in Cooperstown, Jim Thome was trying to absolve himself from complicity towards the continued use of Chief Wahoo during his tenure in Cleveland.

 

1*zUvDlI1qLJb1GWe4Wwi46Q.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I certainly agree that this was a key sports uniform revolution.  Maybe not the most important in all of sports but probably so in the NFL in my memory. 

 

Since you're a big NBA fan, I'd be curious to hear what your reaction was to the Mavericks update from royal/kelly to the dark blue side-panelly look they went to a few years after the Broncos.  First, maybe I wonder whether the Broncos helped make this happen (indirectly, anyway) and second, did you see it as revolutionary?  I personally think these uniforms have a lot in common.  They both replaced a vivid color scheme with something a lot darker. They both set themselves apart from the rest of the league a bit. They both precipited a lot of winning (albeit the Broncos were already a key franchise while the Mavs were still kinda floundering).  They both traded some personality in their logos for horses that were bordering on metallic. They both really traded some "personality" in their entire look for some "precision" (that's not the right word...).  And in my opinion, they were both big downgrades and they both are really tired by this point.

 

Yeah, I tend to prefer Packers/Chiefs/Bills along with Spurs/Bulls/Pistons but I do think there's room for modernization (I don't even hate the Favre-era Vikes). But I think the Broncos design is just drab and boring. At least the Reebok era Cardinals and Falcons did something with the sleeves.  The Broncos were just kinda minimalist uniforms designed for modern cuts. And I think the Mavs look is even worse.  It's trying too hard to be "sleek" or something.  It's aged terribly...the Broncos logo is at least OK, even if a downgrade.

 

To be clear, I'm not a huge fan of the Denver Broncos look and I don't think it should be preserved in amber. I'm just saying that it's unfair to call it a "superspreader of bad design" (or however it was phrased) because it was in fact a modernization of expectations of what a football uniform could be. I think it deserves a medal for that, rather that 25-years-later derision. "Actually, the 1997 Denver Broncos were ugly" isn't really a galaxy-brained thought; you can not like it of course, but I do think you have to appreciate it for what it was.

 

The Lakers went side panels before the Mavs, and while that wasn't as big a jump from the classic showtime look to what the Mavs did, it probably mattered a whole lot more given the stature of the franchise. And, like the Broncos and to a lesser extent the Mavs, the Lakers immediately won big in new uniforms so the switch to the new template is looked upon far more fondly than if they had lost (I bet the Warriors would be onto something dramatically new had they not won three titles in the hockey-style center crest).

 

And I agree that the Mavs look is boring now, but I don't think it was boring then. These are the pre-redesign Mavs:

front.jpg

 

While, yes, they had green, it was only barely there. Swapping out a look that was dated at the time -- it looks staid even next to those Nets uniforms, to say nothing of how it compared to the then-Rockets, Blazers, Lakers, Warriors, etc -- was critical for a losing team, even if the horse motif is kind of corny. It signaled a willingness for a then-bland franchise to do something different to stand out and compete in a more modern NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

While the Orange Crush look for the Broncos was a classic, it's largely associated with their Super Bowl losses.

This line has been used repeatedly on this board to dismiss the validity of one look over another, or a team's name (not to reignite the whole Cleveland Spiders debate.) 

 

But — and this is a serious question — are there really that many cases where a team's look is directly associated with failure?

 

I understand that the Broncos lost four Super Bowls in the Orange Crush uniforms, but to dismiss them entirely based on that logic is to assume that nobody can associate anything but misery to that look. And that's just not true. Those Broncos teams were incredibly successful, and undoubtedly a joy to watch for fans of that era. Sure, they fell short in the big game, but they got there, on the regular.

 

Similarly, I wouldn't dismiss the Bills' red helmets as symbols of failure. And the Vikings lost four Super Bowls in their classic uniforms, but I wouldn't complain were they to suddenly go full retro. 

 

Admittedly, I've bought into the superstitious uniform business over the years. I was 11 and living in Minnesota when the Twins unveiled their 1987 overhaul and went on to win two World Series trophies. But even then, I knew that the uniforms had nothing to do with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.