Minnesota Twins New Identity

[ptay]

4 minutes ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

Not a fan of any of this. While ditching the mustard was a huge upgrade, everything else is a fail. All they had to do was go back to the  dome era uni's and all would have been right.

 

 

Has any MLB team ever brought back the exact version of an older uni without any significant changes?

Padres, Orioles, Blue Jays have throwback uniforms with modern scripts/elements/logos.

[VampyrRabbit]

21 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Also found the use of 1901 interesting on this shirt. My recollection in the past is that basically all merchandise used 1961 as the founding date of the Twins. as opposed to 1901 as the founding date of the franchise as the Senators. Might signal that the organization is going to more actively promote that part of the Twins' history, perhaps we see Washington throwback uniforms and apparel at some point.

 

Which, overall, is a bit odd, considering how much of the rebrand is on the Twins being a Minnesota team (Twin Cities jersey notwithstanding). M star merch was heavily represented in the store, felt like more than the TC. The messaging seems a bit confused.

It's also odd because of the phrase "First in War, First in Peace, last in the American League". The team sucked.

[seasaltvanilla]

Senators were in the American League.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

22 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

 

Also found the use of 1901 interesting on this shirt. 

 

Wow, this is great! I love the acknowledgment of franchise continuity! 

 

22 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Might signal that the organization is going to more actively promote that part of the Twins' history, perhaps we see Washington throwback uniforms and apparel at some point.

 

That would be so wonderful.

 

And it wouldn't be the first time. Here's Tom Kelly in a Senators uniform, alongside Art Howe sporting a Philadelphia A's uniform.

 

 

The existence of the small "1901" note on that shirt fills me with respect for the people behind this uniform change. It suggests that they actually understand the greatness of baseball history.

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

5 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

What's the point of the new M logo when the old one was already perfect and matched the Twins script?

 

Because they don't have the old Twins script anymore. They opted for a straight ascending script rather than an arched ascending script, which means the M mark doesn't jibe with the scheme.

They got around that because the new M* logo does have the same font as the new arched MINNESOTA letters.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, ptay said:

 

 

Has any MLB team ever brought back the exact version of an older uni without any significant changes?

Padres, Orioles, Blue Jays have throwback uniforms with modern scripts/elements/logos.

 

Mets current home/road unis are almost an exact copy of their 60s unis.

 

Red Sox road is nearly an exact copy of the 90s/2000s road…remember they had that road jersey in 2009 that had navy letters instead of red w/navy outlines. 

 

[BadSeed84]

27 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

Because they don't have the old Twins script anymore. They opted for a straight ascending script rather than an arched ascending script, which means the M mark doesn't jibe with the scheme.

They got around that because the new M* logo does have the same font as the new arched MINNESOTA letters.

 

Well if they kept the same Minnesota script or something similar, they could've done this.

 

 

Or to match the no outlines simple look they are going for.

 

[Kg54mvp]

22 minutes ago, BadSeed84 said:

 

Well if they kept the same Minnesota script or something similar, they could've done this.

 

 

Or to match the no outlines simple look they are going for.

 

oh baby, both of those are so much nicer.

 

much more character too! I wish the away wordmark was cursive like the home.

[seasaltvanilla]

38 minutes ago, BadSeed84 said:

 

Well if they kept the same Minnesota script or something similar, they could've done this.

 

 

Or to match the no outlines simple look they are going for.

 

 

Could have done that anyway. The font of the TC cap and the uniforms match. The font of the M cap and Twins script match. Another yin and yang.

[B-mer]

I’m crying foul (pun intended)! They stole my logo!

im kidding, I know it’s not that original of a concept. I feel like the Twins could have done a little more with theirs, but it’s ok. 

[chcarlson23]

As a Twins fan, and someone who grew up and lives in the Twin Cities, this rebrand is a bit different as they say. I do really like the updated home jersey. But I’m super disappointed that they didn’t go with pinstripes at home. If the idea was to nail down an all time Twins aesthetic, pinstripes at home should have been the way to go. That being said, it’s a classy looking jersey, and has good elements to it.
 

I really like the updated TC logo, although I’ll miss the little serifs on the T that I drew a lot as a kid But it was an update that I didn’t realize the TC needed! I also don’t mind the single color script and numbers. They definitely work. 
 

I loved the previous road jersey and wordmark, so I’m disappointed about the change, especially to road pinstripes. However, the arched Minnesota looks great, and the pinstripes are actually silver/dark grey rather than navy, so I think it looks much much better than the Metrodome era pinstripes. And the sleeve and pants striping is nice as well. 
 

The navy alt is also fairly nice. And I like that it can be paired with both the home and the road. 
 

The Twin Cities alternate is a little too on the nose. I also hate that it doesn’t have red. The cream and navy feels more on par for a Cubs throwback rather than the Twins. And I’m disappointed that the Minnie and Paul logo is being replaced by a flag patch. 
 

My biggest gripe is the M cap. It’s not good at all… It feels like a social media account that covers Minnesota sports, went ahead and made a generic Minnesota sports cap logo. Like one that’s meant to be sold in all the varying team colors to represent Minnesota. But honestly it just doesn’t feel like the Twins, which is the most disappointing part. I’d much rather see it on a city connect jersey, and have it stay out of the main set. 
 

And I understand the whole idea that the M should represent Minnesota for the Minnesota Twins, rather than a TC logo, but the TC has been a logo for the Twins since day one, and represents the franchise much much better than either of the M logos here. And on top of that, the TC logo is better designed than either of the M logos the Twins have. It’s almost like the White Sox and their Sox monogram. They could use a C for Chicago, and they have before, but the Sox works so much better and fits for the franchise. I hope that the TC logo becomes the primary for both the road fairly quickly. 

[maz]

It doesn't look bad, but it is still awfully boring. For me, it's an example of the recent twin (no pun intended) trends of:

1. Something getting "fixed" when it wasn't really "broken" to begin with.

2. Oversimplification out of a desire to be "sleek" and "modern" and fear of being "overdesigned" - usually resulting in a brand being a character-less reflection of itself.

 

A little bit of "overdesign" and slight flaws are okay sometimes. Come to think of it, for some reason, it "feels right" for a baseball team to be that way.

 

TL;DR - Looks good, but still a boring, unnecessary, lateral-at-best move.

 

EDIT: And I wholeheartedly agree with those who say the TC monogram needs to be on every cap.

[WSU151]

11 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

And I understand the whole idea that the M should represent Minnesota for the Minnesota Twins, rather than a TC logo, but the TC has been a logo for the Twins since day one, and represents the franchise much much better than either of the M logos here. And on top of that, the TC logo is better designed than either of the M logos the Twins have. 

 

Either of the M logos? There is more than one M logo? Are you including the M flag as an M logo? 

[McCall]

11 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Either of the M logos? There is more than one M logo? Are you including the M flag as an M logo? 

I'm assuming he means the new one and the Metrodome M.

[pepis21]

I like numbers font and Minnesota wordmark. Both might works well for Timberwolves.

[BBTV]

15 hours ago, B-mer said:

I’m crying foul (pun intended)! They stole my logo!

im kidding, I know it’s not that original of a concept. I feel like the Twins could have done a little more with theirs, but it’s ok. 

 

was this for a Wild concept?  It would make for an amazing crest (or shoulder patch) for them.  Nice work.

[LMU]

The ONLY issue I have with the M cap is that it’s a contradiction when the TC logo was designed as a full primary.  I’m not a fan of teams with too much of a difference between home and road caps (Cardinals navy and whatever Oakland keeps throwing out come to mind) but when the cap logo’s your primary logo slapping a completely different logo on the away cap just waters down the brand.

[gosioux76]

14 minutes ago, LMU said:

The ONLY issue I have with the M cap is that it’s a contradiction when the TC logo was designed as a full primary.  I’m not a fan of teams with too much of a difference between home and road caps (Cardinals navy and whatever Oakland keeps throwing out come to mind) but when the cap logo’s your primary logo slapping a completely different logo on the away cap just waters down the brand.

 

I kind of agree with you. 

 

The Twins did this in the early 2000s when there was a clamoring for a return of the TC after a decade with only the original "M" hat. At that time, it sort of worked to have the TC at home and the "M" on the road, where they still wore the "Minnesota" road jerseys. 

 

But this new "M" hat feels really jarring to me. It could be just that it's new and hasn't been around long enough to feel like it belongs with the Twins, but at the moment I'd prefer it be relegated to a secondary mark, worn on the sleeves or on a BP hat. 

 

(All that said: I'll still buy one, like I buy almost every new Twins cap.)

[coco1997]

I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else gripe that the set has THREE solid navy-colored caps. I really think the home cap should have had a red crown or red bill to create some variation. 

[OnWis97]

On 11/20/2022 at 5:41 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Wow, this is great! I love the acknowledgment of franchise continuity! 

 

 

That would be so wonderful.

 

And it wouldn't be the first time. Here's Tom Kelly in a Senators uniform, alongside Art Howe sporting a Philadelphia A's uniform.

 

 

 

The existence of the small "1901" note on that shirt fills me with respect for the people behind this uniform change. It suggests that they actually understand the greatness of baseball history.

 

Either this past season for in 2021, the Twins added one world series champs flag and two AL champs flags for the Senators from the 1920s. I'm not exactly sure what led to this as I'm not aware of any specific effort beyond this to embrace that history. But as someone who is in the "history of the franchise" camp, I appreciated seeing this. I am sure at any given game, there are ten others that also appreciate it, ten who think it's silly to "claim that championship for Minnesota" (which isn't what that is), and thousands who don't even realize it's there.

 

In any case, I think it's great and it's not because my heart wells up with joy when I think about Walter Johnson and the 1924 Senators. It's because these are things that happened to the franchise. The biggest difference between the Twins and the Dodgers and Giants is the name change. But those teams acknowledge their history and so should the Twins.

 

I might even get a t-shirt with the 1901 on it. Then if someone asks me why it's there, I'll start talking like Grandpa Simpson under the lemon tree.