St Louis Cardinals rebrand

[Turkleton]

This is my first attempt at a rebrand, normally I design football (soccer) kits, but I wanted to have a go at doing the whole thing.

Didnt pick the Cards for any reason really, and I dont know if this will be considered any good, but any C&C would be appreciated.

My main reasons for each aspect of each design is basically because I like it. Wanted a more aggresive approach to the logos, and Im not sure how well a black road uniform will be recieved....

[Ben5]

I'm just going to look at the concept and not think about what team it is. You have three different cardinal head logos. Do you really need that many? And in the first, the black under the bill reminds me of a rooster. Personally, I don't like pinstripes, especially red ones (they look pink from far away). On the road hat, you use an "ST" logo that we have not seen before.

[BB61]

I'm not sold on the concept as a whole. It looks more like a "beer league" softball strip than for the St. Louis Cardinals. I'll put that off to the side, like Ben did, as I continue.

I like the first and third logos, but really, you'd have to eliminate one of them and replace it with something that is different than a cardinal head.

I'm not a fan of the bulky rooster at all. It doesn't say baseball, and it's way, way too cartoonish, even for a logo.

The uniforms themselves are okay, but the pinstripes on the home are inconsistant. They need to be down the front where the buttons are, too. It looks a bit too 1920's the way you have it now.

Not a terrible first effort for baseball, and the artwork on its own stands out pretty well. But there's room for improvement, which will only come with practice.

-- The To$$er

[DDR]

Yeah, there's definitely a nice style you have going here. It just needs a lot of refinement. As previous posts have indicated, it does look more like a rooster than a cardinal. I'm also not a fan of the jacked cardinal, for the same "too cartoony" reason. If you're going to go with multiple variations on the same logo, it might work better if you had a full bodied cardinal and then a cropped off version of the head from that same cardinal. Not saying that's the way to take this, but it provides some cohesion throughout the brand. I'm not a big fan of different "views" of the same object as a primary, and then secondary logo. And, taking a cue from the previous posts, I've tried to help you out objectively, but just know that this design doesn't fit the St. Louis Cardinals.

[Turkleton]

Thanks fellas, all that did help and ive changed things about a bit...

The Road hat logo was a throwaway from before on account of it not fitting in with the bulky logo, due to it being a bit 'cutesy'. Im going to do some more rebrands as well, which will hopefully get more praise. Im not the BIGGEST baseball fan but I dont want to be doing the same old stuff all the time so I wanted to try my hand at the baseball branding.

Hope u like the changes....

[SunnydaleSpike]

Obviously this wouldn't work for a team as steeped in history as the St.Louis Cardinals, but with a couple of tweaks this could make a very nice package for the AAA Memphis Redbirds.

[McCall]

Ohhhh No... Did you dare remove the birds-on-the-bat? That is a big no-no when it comes to the Cardinals, my friend. The only time in history that they removed them, since their inital inception, was for the 1956 and 57 seasons. There was such an outrage amongst fans that they returned them to the jerseys in 1958 and fired the guy who made the decision to remove them.

Plus, to be honest, that Cardinal head on the update looks more like a chicken. And the initials should always be StL... And no black.

We also don't have Barry Bonds so there's no need for the juiced up bird.

[patsox]

He called it a rebrand for a reason, McCall

[Epiphanic]

The second interation is an improvment. But this looks minor league, that's not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't have that "major league" feel.

The primary logo is solid. I think you could even nix the background circle and have the logo stand on it's own. However, it doesn't look like a cardinal to me. It's like a cardinal-rooster mutant.

The 'SL' hat isnt' working. It's too plain. The White hat with the black uniforms is a big no. Maybe with a red alternate, but not with black.

I'm ambivalent about the "bridge-style" wordmark. It looks okay and could work, but it's not St. Louis.

SunnydaleSpike hit a good idea that this would be a pretty good concept for the Memphis Redbirds. This design fits a minor league team much better than a major league team like the Cardinals.

[sideshowbob]

I don't think it would work for St. Louis, but it is a nice logo in my opinion and would work well for a minor league team.

[ryanlion13]

The Cardinals are not a team you rebrand. You might tweek what they have, but you don't rebrand them. I'm sorry but this is hideous. We've had enough black/red sets. I disagree that this would even be good for a minor league team. This looks like a softball set at best and the name should be changed to the C**k$. They look like 'roided up Rooster.

It isn't even like the Cardinals logo hasn't been redesigned over the years. Look at the history. The shape of the bird and the color of the bat have chaned throughout time. The only time there was a problem, the only time fans almost took to the streets in a riot was in the 50's when they tried a jersey with just Cardinals and no Birds on the Bat. One season that lasted and fans were angry.

If you want to go out and "rebrand" and tweek team jerseys thats all fine and good, but shouldn't we have some repect for team history if they have it? I see this as akin to taking the CH of a Montreal hockey jersey or rescripting the Yankees logo.

And Red pinstripes? The Cardinals burned that look before they won their first title. Go to Cincinnati with that stuff.

[Turkleton]

Thanks again guys

Can someone give me some clarification on the Major / Minor league look. Seems a pretty popular opinion that my first crack at this would suit a minors team, but how do I make it major league? What makes that look?

McCall....Patsox#1 summed up my answer really! The bird isnt on the bat because this is my perception of a Cardinals rebrand, its fantasy. Although I see the point u are trying to make....maybe from now on I should consider how it would be recieved in a real world situation. Also, u mentioned the juiced up bird, AFTER I had removed it....

Im working on a Giants and an Athletics concept next, so before I get too deep into those, tips on making it look major league would be good.

RyanLion...just read your post.

Ive already said, I appreciate C&C but ive also said that im not a big baseball fan. Im trying something new because...why not? U came across there as TELLING me what I can and cant do....others gave me opinions that I could work with to improve what Im doing.

If u wanna suggest stuff, im all for that but I can just hear the bass in your voice as Im reading that

[ryanlion13]

I know, you're right. That was heavy handed. As a homer I had a very visceral reaction and kind of went off. I'm sorry. Let me try again taking out emotion, however I'm still going to be a bit critical:

Ok - I think you do need to settle on a Cardinal logo. One head or body. I'd prefer one of the ones that isn't muscled up. Some logos and names work with "brute" logos. Some don't. I could see a rebranded Raiders logo of a muscled up pirate/footballer because Raiders is a tough name. The name Cardinals is a more elegant logo and lends itself to classical style logos, or to some sort of speedy looking logo. The image of a fast moving bird would be perfect to take a new route. BUt a brute Cardinal is as silly as the tattooed Blue Jay from the late 90's. They rebranded with a faster bird by the way.

Also, black or red jerseys as aways or alts are well over done. I'd suggest sticking with grey or taking a different route. Maybe try to incorporate their years as a light blue team from the 70's/80's or how about navy?

I'd suggest re-working the cap initials. Maybe just some interlocked SL. That was the original usage but would still work as a rebrand since it hasn't been used in forever. And try something unique with the script and the number font. Something fast looking.

I do think you have good motivation and a rebranding from the traditional may be interesting but here is where I am going to be harsh again. I think the look is very unpolished, which I understand because you just started. But unlike a few other people have said here I don't think it's Triple A worthy yet. I was too harsh when I said it was a softball jersey but on reflection I still think it's at best double A. And you're working with a team in the majors. I think you should take that a lot of people are saying it isn't major league ready to heart. Push yourself and take a little nod from the Blue Jays if your are going to step out of the Cardinals history. A faster bird, one logo, maybe a darker red, use of navy over black, unique number and script font. Those are my suggestions.

[DDR]

Talk about a Major League backoff, Rhino. If you're going to go off on a concept like that, at least have the balls to stick to your initial statement. In addition, this concept doesn't warrant that kind of abuse. It's a fine start to a good design. Does it work for St. Louis? No. Degrading it as a "softball set?" That's bush league, son. "Change the name to Cocks?" A cunning barb from an equally cunning linguist. "'Roided up rooster." An astute observation the first three times somebody mentioned it in this very thread. If you're going to be an , at least be entertaining. Free TCR.

[ryanlion13]

Talk about a Major League backoff, Rhino. If you're going to go off on a concept like that, at least have the balls to stick to your initial statement. In addition, this concept doesn't warrant that kind of abuse. It's a fine start to a good design. Does it work for St. Louis? No. Degrading it as a "softball set?" That's bush league, son. "Change the name to Cocks?" A cunning barb from an equally cunning linguist. "'Roided up rooster." An astute observation the first three times somebody mentioned it in this very thread. If you're going to be an , at least be entertaining. Free TCR.

Well I'm not going to take abuse from an Obama guy. I saw the first set and had a very negative homer reaction. I hate red/black combos and I hate red pinstripes and I'm not a fan of rebranding classic franchises. I replied like a dick and I realized it so I apologised. Then I gave some legitimate criticism and suggested a few ways to take the idea to the majors while everyone is telling him it's only a minor league set. On reflection I think he has a direction and can create an interesting concept.

How conflicted is your reply? First you tell me to stick to my guns if I give as harsh a response as I did, and then you follow that up by basically calling me a dick. Pick one. Either I should stick to my harshness or I'm a dick and I should apologise and revise my statement (which I did). Don't sit there and tell me I'm mean and then tell me I shouldn't back off if I decide I'm mean.

Oh yeah - Romney '08!

[jman077]

I think this actually looks very nice. Its clear you put time and effort into these. I really like both Scripts, and the jerseys just look really nice.

But, in the end, they don't look major league. Sorry. They just look like they should be for a minor league team. If you were to adjust the concept and redo the wordmark for a minor league city, I think it'd be a top-notch concept.

[DDR]

How conflicted is my response? It's not. I think the way you went off on the concept was ridiculous, unprovoked and unacceptable. But, I would have respected you more if you stuck to your guns instead of issuing a half assed apology and backpedaling. And, no comment on the "not going to take abuse from an Obama guy."

[ryanlion13]

How conflicted is my response? It's not. I think the way you went off on the concept was ridiculous, unprovoked and unacceptable. But, I would have respected you more if you stuck to your guns instead of issuing a half assed apology and backpedaling. And, no comment on the "not going to take abuse from an Obama guy."

Here's the thing. I realize my response was unprovoked and unacceptable. It was just mean. I didn't give a half assed apology. I explained where I was coming from and that it was wrong and then went on to explain my beefs with the design and gave actually critical points in which he could make it better. I'd didn't back pedal. I calmed down from my initial response. I still have things about the design I don't like and I still don't think that people should rebrand well established teams, but thats my opinion and others want to do it. The idea here is to critique and I was a dick and offered my critique. Continuing to knock on me because I was mean after I sincerely apologized and then knocking on me for apologizing is just silly. I made a mistake and I tried to make up for it. You just want to rip me on both sides. On one side I'm a dick and the other I'm a putty tat. Make up your mind.

[Epiphanic]

Turkleton, I think the whole "not a major league look" sentiment is coming from the vibe this concept gives off. I don't know what makes it "major league" or "minor league" specifically, it's just the intangible feeling I got when I saw this concept.

Just a comment on "rebranding" existing teams. Dramatically changing the identity of any team will evoke some "fear" of the change. (Fear isn't the right word, but I can't think of a more appropriate one). This is moreso when you rebrand teams with rich histories and are considered "classic." In that light if you would have adverstised this as a concept for a team named the Cardinals, I guarantee that you would have recieved a warmer reception.

The logo is solid stuff, and I think it is a great centerpiece of what could be a great concept. I think the wordmark needs to be changed. If you can design a wordmark that fits better with the logo, it will be infinitely better.

[BB61]

I agree that it is an improvement, and I'm glad that you were able to refine it to something decent. But I also agree that it's more minor league than anything. Still, I understand that it's a rebrand, it would be good on any "Cardinals" team except St. Louis.

One last thing... white hats are... um... weird looking. That may look better in black.