MLB 2022 Uniform/Logo Changes

[OnWis97]

47 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

Or not let Ms. Dan Snyder run/ruin the asylum. 

 

The more I look at the Guardians identity, the more I get kind of a DC Comics vibe from their primary logo--which isn't a bad thing by any means. I DO like that they G logo stands apart from all the others in MLB (and from most of the rest of major pro sports primary logos) in style & structure. I wonder if they might've pressed a bit more into either the classical Greco-Roman art vibe some, but I'm cool with what they have now.

 

As for WTF, well...that's exactly where I am with their identity: W...T...F??? Their primary W is actually very solid for what it is and what it needs to do. The rest of it, however? Aside from the burgundy and saffron/sunflower/cornbread/maize/call-it-whatever-you-want shade of yellow, the whole rest of it need to find its way out an antimatter container, ejected out the nearest airlock, and detonated with a photon torpedo.

My beef with the "G" is twofold:

1.  This cannot be separated from my OCD, but I don't like seeing a patch on the right sleeve while the left sleeve is blank. 
2. Even though you cannot see it, the logo certainly implies that there's a backwards G on the other side. This seems like something that should have killed the logo during its creation.

[FiddySicks]

The Guardians brand still irks me a bit. I don’t necessarily hate it, and have warmed up to a lot of it, but it still just feels too close to the old Indians brand, which I can understand what some may like that, but I personally don’t. I wish they had given themselves just a bit more of a separation from the past. I think the biggest issue I have is keeping the colors. They had the perfect opportunity to get away from the overused navy and red, and  really stand out from the crowd a bit. I think played it too safe, and IMO the whole thing ends up feeling kind of uninspired and derivative. I get the argument that they’ve always had those colors, but they were kind of forced to make a drastic change, and it somewhat feels half assed, in a sense. Not necessarily the worst, but could’ve been much better. 

[Sec19Row53]

2 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

The Guardians brand still irks me a bit. I don’t necessarily hate it, and have warmed up to a lot of it, but it still just feels too close to the old Indians brand, which I can understand what some may like that, but I personally don’t. I wish they had given themselves just a bit more of a separation from the past. I think the biggest issue I have is keeping the colors. They had the perfect opportunity to get away from the overused navy and red, and  really stand out from the crowd a bit. I think played it too safe, and IMO the whole thing ends up feeling kind of uninspired and derivative. I get the argument that they’ve always had those colors, but they were kind of forced to make a drastic change, and it somewhat feels half assed, in a sense. 

Many people here feel those colors are overused. Many people are likely right. But why should any one team that has used those colors for-freaking-ever feel inclined to change them just because other teams are also using them? That makes no sense to me from the perspective of the team.

[Krudler]

I can tell you if I was a lifelong Indians fan, I'd be bummed if my team did a total 180 and completely abandoned the history and identity.

[FiddySicks]

I mean, that’s basically what they had to do anyway. Why not go all the way with it? Just a personal opinion. I think I would always feel conflicted with that still having such a similar feel. I’m more of a cut it loose if it’s not working kinda person, though. 

[OnWis97]

10 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Many people here feel those colors are overused. Many people are likely right. But why should any one team that has used those colors for-freaking-ever feel inclined to change them just because other teams are also using them? That makes no sense to me from the perspective of the team.

I agree. As a Twins fan, I'm nervous...it's rumored the Twins are kind of abandoning blue and going red/gold. I suppose that's one less team with that color scheme...but it's going to be unsettling for a while (if true).

I guess the White Sox used to have that scheme and totally changed it and it's worked out pretty well.  But I'm not excited at the prospect of my team doing it and I don't blame Cleveland fans if they weren't either.

[gosioux76]

35 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I agree. As a Twins fan, I'm nervous...it's rumored the Twins are kind of abandoning blue and going red/gold. I suppose that's one less team with that color scheme...but it's going to be unsettling for a while (if true).

 

SOURCE: Twins excited for 'cleaner' refresh of uniforms, more

Quote

The main colors of the Twins' brand -- the core red, white and blue -- will not change, Morse said. 

 

[OnWis97]

^^
That's good news...I don't quite recall where I read the red/gold stuff.

I will remain nervous, but now also hopeful because there's plenty to clean up.

[Captain Invader]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

My beef with the "G" is twofold:

1.  This cannot be separated from my OCD, but I don't like seeing a patch on the right sleeve while the left sleeve is blank. 
2. Even though you cannot see it, the logo certainly implies that there's a backwards G on the other side. This seems like something that should have killed the logo during its creation.

I like what the team did with the Guardians.  But I totally agree with point 1. above.

 

The sleeve patch on the right sleeve instead of the left drives me crazy.  I wish they would have put it on the traditional left sleeve (even though it would be 'backwards').

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, FiddySicks said:

I mean, that’s basically what they had to do anyway. Why not go all the way with it? Just a personal opinion. I think I would always feel conflicted with that still having such a similar feel. I’m more of a cut it loose if it’s not working kinda person, though. 

 

I completely understand. In general, I feel the same way, but mostly for selfish reasons. I like myself a good wholesale rebrand.

 

But what Cleveland did with the Guardians rebrand, despite its few minor flaws, was nothing short of remarkable. As much as some of us outsiders might have enjoyed a big change, the Cleveland Baseball Club needed to thread the needle between creating a rebrand with minimal disruption to its fans. That way, it satisfies its obligation to sever ties with its old name without alienating those fans who didn't want to see change at all.

 

In the end, they have an identity that's completely new, but bears enough resemblance to what it was before that it isn't jarring to the diehards. 

 

Let this marinate for a few years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the organization take some bigger swings with its brand. 

 

 

 

[ltjets21]

My only problem with the re-brand is the awful name. I do not know why these teams who switch dont just change to animals. Sure Spiders would've had some haters, but it would have had a lot more character and is easier to get people behind than a "Guardian" because of a statue on a bridge.

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

The Guardians brand still irks me a bit. I don’t necessarily hate it, and have warmed up to a lot of it, but it still just feels too close to the old Indians brand, which I can understand what some may like that, but I personally don’t. I wish they had given themselves just a bit more of a separation from the past.

But this is the old SFGiants58 argument, that they should be quick to dispose of their entire past because their past was so bad. That's a persuasive argument if you ignore pennants and won-lost records. You could do a hell of a lot worse than the last 30 years of the Indians, and most pro sports teams have.

 

The execution is poor, the name isn't great, the primary is interesting but flawed, but at least they respected their fanbase enough to maintain some continuity, which is more than we can say for Dan Snyder's wife. I think they should have just waited a little longer for Hot Floyd Summer to cool off and said "we're just gonna leave it and find the right people to buy off," which is the American way.

 

[PlayGloria]

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

But this is the old SFGiants58 argument, that they should be quick to dispose of their entire past because their past was so bad. That's a persuasive argument if you ignore pennants and won-lost records. You could do a hell of a lot worse than the last 30 years of the Indians, and most pro sports teams have.

 

The execution is poor, the name isn't great, the primary is interesting but flawed, but at least they respected their fanbase enough to maintain some continuity, which is more than we can say for Dan Snyder's wife. I think they should have just waited a little longer for Hot Floyd Summer to cool off and said "we're just gonna leave it and find the right people to buy off," which is the American way.

 

 

I always thought the best route for both Cleveland and Washington was to keep a Native American theme and most of their current branding, but shift the name and images to something that not only appeases the PC police, but honors tribes. I think it would be possible to turn what some people view as derogatory branding into a positive for everyone. I don't think I have a specific example on the top of my head, but you could lose the name Indians, change it to the name of a tribe (Apache, Cherokee, etc), and then dedicate profits of new merch to certain organizations for Native Americans. The organization could use the branding to promote education about Native American history. Instead of running from the past all of the time and acting like it didn't exist, maybe use it as a building block to something better. Maybe instead of the cartoony laughing "Indian," they could incorporate some real Native American imagery. IDK, JMO.

Also, I can't believe the Blackhawks just keep under the radar with all of this. Their logo is almost the same as Washington's old logo. It's almost comical.

 

[BBTV]

My sorta issue (meaning, it's not really an issue but just something I don't prefer) is that by keeping things so much the same, they look like knockoffs of themselves.  Like when a college, MiLB, or high school team uses some MLB team's style for their own wordmarks.

 

I guess it's different enough that maybe it's not that bad, but I'm in the camp that they should have broken further away.  But I'm not their target market so if the fans like it then that's cool.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, PlayGloria said:

 

I always thought the best route for both Cleveland and Washington was to keep a Native American theme and most of their current branding, but shift the name and images to something that not only appeases the PC police, but honors tribes. I think it would be possible to turn what some people view as derogatory branding into a positive for everyone. I don't think I have a specific example on the top of my head, but you could lose the name Indians, change it to the name of a tribe (Apache, Cherokee, etc), and then dedicate profits of new merch to certain organizations for Native Americans. The organization could use the branding to promote education about Native American history. Instead of running from the past all of the time and acting like it didn't exist, maybe use it as a building block to something better. Maybe instead of the cartoony laughing "Indian," they could incorporate some real Native American imagery. IDK, JMO.

Also, I can't believe the Blackhawks just keep under the radar with all of this. Their logo is almost the same as Washington's old logo. It's almost comical.

 

 

EDIT: this wasn't going to be a argumentative post by any means, but still probably flying too close to the ban on discussion of this nature.

[-Akronite-]

My biggest issue with the rebrand remains the monogram. Hated it when they released it, but now I think it's just fine. As a fan of the team I have little to no interest in buying a new ballcap, which is a problem. It fits with the branding, but pales next to the iconic logos around the league.

 

The G-ball has grown on me, even tho I still feel like they need to dig deeper into the art deco.

[CitizenTino]

I would like the G logo 100x more if they simplified it by getting rid of the baseball and background G. Maybe Northeast Ohio-based Goodyear would have taken issue with it looking too similar to their winged foot logo?

[Carolingian Steamroller]

6 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

My biggest issue with the rebrand remains the monogram. Hated it when they released it, but now I think it's just fine. As a fan of the team I have little to no interest in buying a new ballcap, which is a problem. It fits with the branding, but pales next to the iconic logos around the league.

 

The G-ball has grown on me, even tho I still feel like they need to dig deeper into the art deco.

 

The monogram has grown on me though I think if they put some variant the winged "G" (maybe without the ball), they'd have a cash machine.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:08 PM, PlayGloria said:

 

I always thought the best route for both Cleveland and Washington was to keep a Native American theme and most of their current branding, but shift the name and images to something that not only appeases the PC police, but honors tribes. I think it would be possible to turn what some people view as derogatory branding into a positive for everyone. I don't think I have a specific example on the top of my head, but you could lose the name Indians, change it to the name of a tribe (Apache, Cherokee, etc), and then dedicate profits of new merch to certain organizations for Native Americans. The organization could use the branding to promote education about Native American history. Instead of running from the past all of the time and acting like it didn't exist, maybe use it as a building block to something better. Maybe instead of the cartoony laughing "Indian," they could incorporate some real Native American imagery. IDK, JMO.

Also, I can't believe the Blackhawks just keep under the radar with all of this. Their logo is almost the same as Washington's old logo. It's almost comical.

 

 

That's really tricky. You have to get the right groups lined up and run it past them. For example, getting the Navajo nation to sign off on a brand identity with a team a thousand miles away in a different state is just making this messier.

The Blackhawks have not been forgotten about and a lot of 'Hawks fans accept that its only a matter of time before the logo changes. Then again, there's a lot of good bird head logos floating around out there so for them it will be an easy transition.

I think where the Guardians did well was leaning into familiar aesthetics. Not just the base uniforms which remained effectively unchanged but tapping into the old "Caveman" aesthetic from the 70's, the script Cleveland sign, and the baseball logo being reminiscent of the movie Major League. I expected the number font and arched "CLEVELAND" to be irksome but they've wound up looking good (or at least not distracting). Maybe they can put the headspoon back on the jersey? My only gripe is that I miss the red undershirts at home but that's specific to me and predates the name change.

So thumbs up Cleveland, you done good.

[M59]

Quoting myself from when the Guardians' identity / uniform set  was revealed:
"I have to say that the "Guardians" font reminds me of the Kinston Indians...like, a lot reminds me of the Kinston Indians. I don't like it when teams use script at home and block on the road (or vice versa). And I really, really wish the plague of custom number fonts would end. MLB block is perfectly fine, and the teams using it should continue to. Except for the first point, I'm sure that MLB would say "the youths" who don't care about MLB disagree..."

After a year of these uniforms being in use, the block font has grown on me (except for the NOBs). Still hate the numbers. Would probably drop the "Guardians" script and go block on the homes.