SPRINGFIELD Cardinals New Sunday Logo

[STL FANATIC]

As far as this logo, I like it. Reminds me of the old '80s swinging bird St. Louis used.

You're referring to SluggerBird, and the bird in this logo actually is the St. Louis Cardinals updated version of that logo. It's been around for a few years, but it's not used much. Mostly now that it's smiling so much it's used as a kids logo and what not.

[McCall]

As far as this logo, I like it. Reminds me of the old '80s swinging bird St. Louis used.

You're referring to SluggerBird, and the bird in this logo actually is the St. Louis Cardinals updated version of that logo. It's been around for a few years, but it's not used much. Mostly now that it's smiling so much it's used as a kids logo and what not.

Yeah, the fact that it's smiling is the only thing that gets me. If it weren't, it would be perfect for St. Louis. But this works for a Minor League team, cuz they tend to be more into branding they're games as family events. But I do like that it's more of a Cardinals logo, which helps link the teams, which is why they focused more on the "S-Bird" logo this past season instead of so much on the primary logo, the "2 Bird on Bat" logo. That's what Matt Gifford, the Springfield Cardinals GM, told me. We used the primary logo, uh, primarily, in the Inaugural Season to help establish ourselves as the Springfield Cardinals. They felt we did that and so this past season, wanted to keep that, yet also start to help make it feel more like the Cardinals.

[Guest]

I don't have a problem with smiling likenesses in baseball. It's a fun game. Football, okay, but baseball?

[STL FANATIC]

I think the problem I have with the smile in that logo (for major league uses -- it DOES work perfect in the minors) is that it is so obvious. Its predecessor did not smile nearly and was a pretty dang good logo, in my opinion. The old logo had more of a smirk.

I always see the old SluggerBird and want to see it updated, and then I remember that it is updated, but not quite how I would have done it.

http://www.sportslogos.net/images/Baseball/NL/STL_1332.gif

[McCall]

Yeah, if they had done a version where he's more straight-faced, or even got kinda of a "meaner" or more "competitive" look on his face, it would be a great version for St. Louis to use.

[Gothamite]

I like the (stirrups showing), but I'm not a big fan of instituting a dress code that strictly for the major league team.

I am.

That's what a uniform is. It isn't the place for personal expression.

You wear a uniform to be part of a team.

[ZoDogg34]

I loved the old sluggerbird logo. It's best usage was on the Starter dugout jackets the Cardinals used to wear:

On the topic of Cardinals minor league logos, the Memphis Redbirds are planning on making a uniform change for their upcoming 10th anniversary season.

My hope is that they will change the wordmark to a cursive "Memphis" and include the birds on the bat, similar to what Springfield has done.

Here's the Memphis 10th year logo:

Notice they made the beak of the Cardinal yellow. Previously it has been red on all Memphis logos.

[STL FANATIC]

That's kinda exciting to hear Zo.

They've always stayed some what connected, but I've always thought Memphis could have tied themselves a little bit closer to the Cardinals than they do.

The red beak always bothered me a little. (The Cardinals logo is sometimes depicted with a red beak too, mostly in the news media, and that bothers me even more. Especially because yellow remains in the bat, so it is not a matter of a simpler pallete. It's not that the actual bird doesn't sometimes have a red beak, it is just that a yellow beak makes the logo stronger and indeed IS the logo.) The switch to yellow hopefully means there's a positive change coming.

[Guest]

I threw this together in March. Poorly.

[STL FANATIC]

That's a pretty good representation, but I'm not sure I like that overlap. Looks a little awkward.

I think maybe if just the little hook on the front of the M went behind the bat, or maybe just the first vertical line of the M. I think it looks weird to have the weave though.

Still, thanks for posting and I wouldn't mind seeing something like that. I also wouldn't mind if they put Redbirds there. I know Springfield uses Springfield and not Cardinals, but since Memphis isn't actually the Cardinals, I think they could establish their identity without using the city name. Plus, you might get more fans from St. Louis buying that merchandise, though St. Louis fans are pretty good about wearing Memphis and Springfield (and other affiliates that tie their identity to the Cards) merchandise already.

I like the (stirrups showing), but I'm not a big fan of instituting a dress code that strictly for the major league team.

I am.

That's what a uniform is. It isn't the place for personal expression.

You wear a uniform to be part of a team.

That's all well and good, but if Albert Pujols feels more comfortable with his pant legs covering his socks, I see no reason to force him to wear them other wise. The players at the major league level contribute a great deal to the franchise, so why force something trivial on them that will make them uncomfortable and quite possibly affect their performance (maybe that sounds weak, but routine seems pretty important and a change like that can throw a guy off).

Don't get me wrong. Some guys take that freedom to an extreme, and there should be limits on what they can do. But I wouldn't get too strict on it.

[ZoDogg34]

That's a pretty good representation, but I'm not sure I like that overlap. Looks a little awkward.

I think maybe if just the little hook on the front of the M went behind the bat, or maybe just the first vertical line of the M. I think it looks weird to have the weave though.

Still, thanks for posting and I wouldn't mind seeing something like that. I also wouldn't mind if they put Redbirds there. I know Springfield uses Springfield and not Cardinals, but since Memphis isn't actually the Cardinals, I think they could establish their identity without using the city name. Plus, you might get more fans from St. Louis buying that merchandise, though St. Louis fans are pretty good about wearing Memphis and Springfield (and other affiliates that tie their identity to the Cards) merchandise already.

I like the Memphis look currently. It gives them thier own identity.

If they go to "Redbirds" on the front, their unis would look just like the old Louisville Redbirds, and I believe Memphis wants to keep its own identity.

They do currently have "Redbirds" on their BP / Alternate tops, but without the birds on bat logo

On a side note:

Does anyone know if Springfield uses "chain stitching" on their game jerseys? I know Memphis does, but not on their BP tops

[STL FANATIC]

The Redbirds current "Redbirds" script is a basic font though and does not match that of the Cardinals.

Either way, I don't mind if they don't use the Birds on the Bat, but I'd like them to tie their identity a little closer to the Cardinals.

[ZoDogg34]

The Redbirds current "Redbirds" script is a basic font though and does not match that of the Cardinals.

Either way, I don't mind if they don't use the Birds on the Bat, but I'd like them to tie their identity a little closer to the Cardinals.

True, their script is different, but look at the Louisville Redbirds script on the schedule, and the script on the jersey. They used two different scripts, one for their logo, and another, more Cardinal-like, script for their jerseys...

But that's irrelevant.

I would also like to see them tie their identity closer to the big club, that's why I said that I'd like to see the Memphis with the birds on the bat in the first place.

I just hope they don't change their hats because I'd have to get new home, road, and alternate hats and I already am needing this new Springfield Sunday hat...I really don't want to spend over $100 on minor league hats this year. LOL

[Gothamite]

I like the (stirrups showing), but I'm not a big fan of instituting a dress code that strictly for the major league team.

I am.

That's what a uniform is. It isn't the place for personal expression.

You wear a uniform to be part of a team.

That's all well and good, but if Albert Pujols feels more comfortable with his pant legs covering his socks, I see no reason to force him to wear them other wise. The players at the major league level contribute a great deal to the franchise, so why force something trivial on them that will make them uncomfortable and quite possibly affect their performance (maybe that sounds weak, but routine seems pretty important and a change like that can throw a guy off).

Don't get me wrong. Some guys take that freedom to an extreme, and there should be limits on what they can do. But I wouldn't get too strict on it.

What if Pujols feels more comfortable without sleeves? Or wearing his cap backwards because the visor bothers him? What if he decides that red is a more powerful color, helps him hit, and insists on wearing the home cap during road games?

Uniform is uniform. We're talking about players wanting to change the uniform for their own personal style. That defeats the whole point of a uniform.

I know you don't consider the socks an essential part of the uniform, but I disagree. They're part of the team colors.

They're at the very least as essential as the color of the undershirt or belt, and we wouldn't let some players go without if they liked the sansabelt look better.

[STL FANATIC]

Players often wear mismatching undershirt colors.

No hat or no sleeves isn't really an option. It's not something easily adjustable, and all players become comfortable with them because it's a standard thing.

However, players do wear their caps at different angles with different curves, and players do wear their sleeves at different lengths (via jersey) size. Players also button up their jerseys to different levels.

All of those things are easily adjustable, deal with comfort level, and don't ruin the uniform (I know -- my opinion).

[Gothamite]

And I respect it.

I just don't share it.

Agree to disagree.

[STL FANATIC]

And I respect it.

I just don't share it.

Agree to disagree.

Definitely.

I'll just reiterate. We both agree (I think) that they would look darn good if the whole team did show their socks.

[Cokeologist]

The red beak always bothered me a little. (The Cardinals logo is sometimes depicted with a red beak too, mostly in the news media, and that bothers me even more. Especially because yellow remains in the bat, so it is not a matter of a simpler pallete. It's not that the actual bird doesn't sometimes have a red beak, it is just that a yellow beak makes the logo stronger and indeed IS the logo.) The switch to yellow hopefully means there's a positive change coming.

Actually, when the StL Cardinals updated their logos in 1998, the cardinal beaks were red on all of the logos and the jerseys. As I recall at the time the press release commented that red beaks were a more accurate depiction of an actual cardinal. They officially changed back to yellow beaks in 1999 after complaints from the fans.

[ZoDogg34]

The red beak always bothered me a little. (The Cardinals logo is sometimes depicted with a red beak too, mostly in the news media, and that bothers me even more. Especially because yellow remains in the bat, so it is not a matter of a simpler pallete. It's not that the actual bird doesn't sometimes have a red beak, it is just that a yellow beak makes the logo stronger and indeed IS the logo.) The switch to yellow hopefully means there's a positive change coming.

Actually, when the StL Cardinals updated their logos in 1998, the cardinal beaks were red on all of the logos and the jerseys. As I recall at the time the press release commented that red beaks were a more accurate depiction of an actual cardinal. They officially changed back to yellow beaks in 1999 after complaints from the fans.

I think his point was that when the Cardinals switched to yellow beaks the Memphis Redbirds should have switched as well, a point that I fully agree with. If they are going to use the same bird, it should have the same beak.