Teams that need a complete overhaul

[-kj]

Timberwolves- Back to royal blue and kelly green with the original logo as the primary and current howling wolf alternate remaining.

Ick. No. Why do people keep pretending that original logo and jersey set was something other that absolutely awful?

Whatever color scheme, the current secondary howlin wolf logo should be the primary. Best logo they've had.

Now this I can get behind.

[Lights Out]

The only change the T-Wolves need to make is to bring these back:

There was honestly nothing wrong with them... the current uniforms are a bland, ugly downgraded version.

[SCL]

I wasn't saying go back to the original Wolves jerseys or font but going back to a great color combo with an improved version of their first logo and a color revised howling wolf.

[OnWis97]

On 6/16/2012 at 11:42 AM, Lights Out said:

The only change the T-Wolves need to make is to bring these back:

 

There was honestly nothing wrong with them... the current uniforms are a bland, ugly downgraded version.

 

I would be for that if they would move green more to the forefront. It bothered me that green was always relegated to the trim. Move green to at least the outlines of the wordmark/numbers. More green less (or no) black. I never liked that number font. But I'd take it with more green.

[McCall]

The only change the T-Wolves need to make is to bring these back:

There was honestly nothing wrong with them... the current uniforms are a bland, ugly downgraded version.

I would be for that if they would move green more to the forefront. It bothered me that green was always relegated to the trim. Move green to at least the outlines of the wordmark/numbers. More green less (or no) black. I never liked that number font. But I'd take it with more green.

Minus the subtraction of green, the updates to that set were better (better number font, collar, etc.). I guess include more green on it and you'd be good.

[CrazyAnna]

And the Mariners' look is becoming more and more iconic.

Very true. I don't love or hate them.

[McCall]

I wouldn't call the Mariners look "iconic". That's a very exclusive designation. Really, the aforementioned Cards, Yanks, Tigers and Dodgers are deemed iconic. Braves are nearing that status, though still on the outside (their status may actually frozen until they stop screwing with it). Mariners a great look that doesn't need to be changed, just small things like bringing the alt cap to the home cap and bringing back the 1999 navy alts to replace the current ones, and then it'll be on it's way to "untouchable" status someday. Not iconic, but definitely in no need of an overhaul.

[OnWis97]

On 6/16/2012 at 2:23 PM, McCall said:

On 6/16/2012 at 1:48 PM, OnWis97 said:

On 6/16/2012 at 11:42 AM, Lights Out said:

The only change the T-Wolves need to make is to bring these back:

There was honestly nothing wrong with them... the current uniforms are a bland, ugly downgraded version.

 

I would be for that if they would move green more to the forefront. It bothered me that green was always relegated to the trim. Move green to at least the outlines of the wordmark/numbers. More green less (or no) black. I never liked that number font. But I'd take it with more green.

 

Minus the subtraction of green, the updates to that set were better (better number font, collar, etc.). I guess include more green on it and you'd be good.

 

That would work I agree that the toned-down number font is an improvement. And I always hated the tree collar.

[tBBP]

I wouldn't call the Mariners look "iconic". That's a very exclusive designation. Really, the aforementioned Cards, Yanks, Tigers and Dodgers are deemed iconic. Braves are nearing that status, though still on the outside (their status may actually frozen until they stop screwing with it). Mariners a great look that doesn't need to be changed, just small things like bringing the alt cap to the home cap and bringing back the 1999 navy alts to replace the current ones, and then it'll be on it's way to "untouchable" status someday. Not iconic, but definitely in no need of an overhaul.

The Braves were already there...until, like you said, they started screwing with it?first by ditching the vertical-arch NOBs, then by introducing the navy-on-navy alt jersey and cap. If they ever manage to correct those two missteps, they'll be right back in there.

Far as "iconic" and "untouchable" go, both those are also subjective?though I think if there's any tangible universally-agreed-upon viewpoint regarding iconic baseball uniforms, they'd center on the Yankees', Tigers' homes, Cardinals homes, and Dodgers. That said, none of them are untouchable...nothing anywhere is. We've seen many instances over the years of uniforms/logos being tweaked up to freshen and bring them forward to the current day?the Toronto Blue Jays and Arizona Cardinals (logo) are perfect examples of that. Now, we all know few outside the Creamery dissect fine lines and bezier curves the way we do up in here, and as such may never notice (and/or obsess over) the various little "idiosyncracies", for lack of better phrasing, but I'm sure I ain't the only one who'd like to see the Yankees' NY touched up (and even unified), same with the Tigers. And I personally wish the Cardinals would at least introduce an alternate with that "St. Louis" script?it's too good to continue to go unused. Reason I bring all this up is this: little details like that can keep a person from thinking one look or another is "classic", "iconic", "untouchable", or whatever other buzzword one wishes to apply. McCall, you said it yourself in regards to the details you'd like to see tweaked up about the Mariners' set.

Finally...just because one's opinion may go against the grain of a presumed widely-held opinion doesn't mean you gotta blast off on her/him about it. A page or two back you straight tee'd off on BrandMooreArt regarding his opinion of the Cardinals' uniform set, among other sets. Now was that necessary? Understand I ain't trying to dogpile on you here, I just thought it was out of line to rip into the guy just for sharing his own subjective opinion. You're a cool cat, and I know you're better than that, man...that's all I'm saying.

Back on topic...on the subject of overhauls, short of the primary head logo, anyone care to tell me how the Jacksonville Jaguars' look hasn't been brought up yet? I mean sure, (most of us believe) they're overhauling for 2013, and man do I hope it's good, because that current set just ain't doing it. The teal-flake helmet thing was a great idea in theory, but pairing it up with flate-matte black pants just looked out of place. That number font is in no way an improvement over their last one, which, considering the shapes and serifs of some of the digits, actually half-connoted a cat's claw, paw, or tail, and was distinctive. And finally, the lack of gold is jarring?well thay and the Jekyll-and-Hyde pairing of teal-and-white "home" sets and largely black-heavy road set with subtle hints of teal.

[rmackman]

Please... everything about OKC's "identity" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) reeks of "we just hastily and corruptly stole this team from Seattle, better throw together a logo and some uniforms." The color scheme's resemblance to the flag has to be a coincidence, as the scheme they chose is a rushed amalgamation of all the most boring mid-2000's NBA trends: double blue, orange, and yellow to further muddle things. They look like a high-budget AAU team at best. What's sad is that the franchise actually had a unique, ownable identity at one point, but that's all gone now.

I don't get the love for those uniforms. The name SuperSonics has a certain futuristic flair to it that was undercut by the adoption of a faux-old time basketball logo and wordmark. The S/ball was the only salvageable thing from the Sonics' last Seattle-based identity.

As underhanded as the move from Seattle to Oklahoma City was, I think it's time we all stopped letting our rage over the loss of the Sonics cloud our judgment of the Thunder. And not just in regards to the uniform and logos.

At least they didn't do something like this to really piss off the Seattle fans:

[rmackman]

As far as overhauls go, Phoenix needs to ditch this crap:

It's the worst look they've EVER had.

These two were way better:

[McCall]

I wouldn't call the Mariners look "iconic". That's a very exclusive designation. Really, the aforementioned Cards, Yanks, Tigers and Dodgers are deemed iconic. Braves are nearing that status, though still on the outside (their status may actually frozen until they stop screwing with it). Mariners a great look that doesn't need to be changed, just small things like bringing the alt cap to the home cap and bringing back the 1999 navy alts to replace the current ones, and then it'll be on it's way to "untouchable" status someday. Not iconic, but definitely in no need of an overhaul.

Far as "iconic" and "untouchable" go, both those are also subjective?though I think if there's any tangible universally-agreed-upon viewpoint regarding iconic baseball uniforms, they'd center on the Yankees', Tigers' homes, Cardinals homes, and Dodgers. That said, none of them are untouchable...nothing anywhere is. We've seen many instances over the years of uniforms/logos being tweaked up to freshen and bring them forward to the current day?the Toronto Blue Jays and Arizona Cardinals (logo) are perfect examples of that. Now, we all know few outside the Creamery dissect fine lines and bezier curves the way we do up in here, and as such may never notice (and/or obsess over) the various little "idiosyncracies", for lack of better phrasing, but I'm sure I ain't the only one who'd like to see the Yankees' NY touched up (and even unified), same with the Tigers. And I personally wish the Cardinals would at least introduce an alternate with that "St. Louis" script?it's too good to continue to go unused. Reason I bring all this up is this: little details like that can keep a person from thinking one look or another is "classic", "iconic", "untouchable", or whatever other buzzword one wishes to apply. McCall, you said it yourself in regards to the details you'd like to see tweaked up about the Mariners' set.

I think "iconic" is very accurate and things that are iconic can be touched up. Me, personally, prefer the Yankees in mismatching NYs. Part of the timeless classicness of their homes. The Cardinals, it's the birds-on-the-bat. They've gone through some different "uniforms" with it. The 40's piping, striping on the pullovers and now, once again, the plain "template", which IMO has become iconic as well, the current "plain" Cardinals uniforms that is. I believe they're done with the "outside birds-on-the-bat" aspects of their uniforms. Adding St. Louis to the roads would be cool, but not necessary to maintain, nor remove them from, iconic status. The Tigers, I believe, are with the Yankees in that the mismatching Ds are part of the charm. The roads just need to ditch the white trimming and that's all. Would they themselves be iconic? Probably not, but they wouldn't need to be changed. The Dodgers homes themselves are iconic, but the red numbers themselves are iconic in their own right. Almost like two seperate iconic features that happen to be part of the same team's set.

Uniforms can be untouchable without being iconic. It's almost like steps. Becoming untouchable essentially means they don't need to be change (drastically, at least), but to be "iconic", they truly need to be woven into the fabric of baseball history, like the four teams mentioned. That's why I'm still reluctant to include the Braves into iconic status, though I love them and think they'll get there. Though if someone said they were, I wouldn't argue. The Braves are at the close postition to where it's stictly opinion as to whether they are or aren't yet. I guess I'm just a little strict with my baseball uniform status designations than I may be with other sports since baseball is my favorite.

However, reading back over these statements, yours and mine, and thinking back to the Braves days in Milwaukee and use of the tomahawk then, I'm beginning to rethink the Braves status. I look at them, and I want to say they're iconic, but for some reason I just can't. But maybe I'll change my mind soon and elevate them. I don't know if it was the 70's/80's period of no tomahawk that's making me reluctant or what. But they're tricky. I'd put the Cubs homes at that same level with the Braves. Borderline iconic, IMO. Neither of which I would argue with someone who claimed they were.

Finally...just because one's opinion may go against the grain of a presumed widely-held opinion doesn't mean you gotta blast off on her/him about it. A page or two back you straight tee'd off on BrandMooreArt regarding his opinion of the Cardinals' uniform set, among other sets. Now was that necessary? Understand I ain't trying to dogpile on you here, I just thought it was out of line to rip into the guy just for sharing his own subjective opinion. You're a cool cat, and I know you're better than that, man...that's all I'm saying.

Buc, you're one of my favorite posters around here, so I don't take it personally, but let me clarify. I didn't really tee off on BrandMooreArt. I, like others, were definitely shocked and taken aback by his list of teams in need of an overhaul. And he's definitely entitled to his opinion, I'd be the first to defend that, but it doesn't mean it's immune to response, discussion and disagreement. Listing the Cardinals, Dodgers and Giants, just to name a few key ones, is a very, I guess "controversial" would be a good word, for this particular topic. Because of the historical significance of these teams' identities, it's a big deal when someone says they need to go. And we're free to disagree and question that. We don't have sit here and not say anything simply because it's his opinion. And as I mentioned in my response to him, I respect him a great deal here and that's why I said there must've been something up with him because I just thought it was such a surprise. Doesn't mean I think any less of him (although... I kid), just that there was something he believes that was rather surprising to me and caught me off-guard.

[BigBubba]

I think Boston's home would have to at least have some consideration for "iconic" status.

[McCall]

I think Boston's home would have to at least have some consideration for "iconic" status.

Umm, close to it. Maybe after the Braves and Cubs (homes), they'd come in next. When you think Red Sox, they're home uniforms aren't really one of the main things you think about. You think Fenway, the Curse, the Green Monster. You don't think their home uniforms. With the Yankees you think 27 World Titles, Yankee Stadium (pre-bastardization, I mean renovation), legendary players and rivalry with the Red Sox, those last two (legends, rivalry) also are associated with the Sawx. But also with the Yankees, you think of the pinstripes. The Cardinals, you think players, championships, baseball town and the birds on the bat. The Dodgers you think of, again, players, Brooklyn to LA and the red numbers. Tigers, the homes with the Old English D in addition to other things. But unlike these four, with the Red Sox, you just don't think of their home uniforms. I guess that's one of my "requirements" for iconic status. With all the other historical aspects of the franchise, the uniforms are one of those included, and are known to even those outside the realm of baseball fans. Some who may only watch football or hockey or basketball and may only watch baseball casually or not at all, would probably know exactly what you're talking about when you mention the "Yankees pinstripes" or the "Birds on the Bat" or the "Dodgers red numbers" and the "Old English D" of the Tigers.

[tBBP]

I wouldn't call the Mariners look "iconic". That's a very exclusive designation. Really, the aforementioned Cards, Yanks, Tigers and Dodgers are deemed iconic. Braves are nearing that status, though still on the outside (their status may actually frozen until they stop screwing with it). Mariners a great look that doesn't need to be changed, just small things like bringing the alt cap to the home cap and bringing back the 1999 navy alts to replace the current ones, and then it'll be on it's way to "untouchable" status someday. Not iconic, but definitely in no need of an overhaul.

Far as "iconic" and "untouchable" go, both those are also subjective?though I think if there's any tangible universally-agreed-upon viewpoint regarding iconic baseball uniforms, they'd center on the Yankees', Tigers' homes, Cardinals homes, and Dodgers. That said, none of them are untouchable...nothing anywhere is. We've seen many instances over the years of uniforms/logos being tweaked up to freshen and bring them forward to the current day?the Toronto Blue Jays and Arizona Cardinals (logo) are perfect examples of that. Now, we all know few outside the Creamery dissect fine lines and bezier curves the way we do up in here, and as such may never notice (and/or obsess over) the various little "idiosyncracies", for lack of better phrasing, but I'm sure I ain't the only one who'd like to see the Yankees' NY touched up (and even unified), same with the Tigers. And I personally wish the Cardinals would at least introduce an alternate with that "St. Louis" script?it's too good to continue to go unused. Reason I bring all this up is this: little details like that can keep a person from thinking one look or another is "classic", "iconic", "untouchable", or whatever other buzzword one wishes to apply. McCall, you said it yourself in regards to the details you'd like to see tweaked up about the Mariners' set.

I think "iconic" is very accurate and things that are iconic can be touched up. Me, personally, prefer the Yankees in mismatching NYs. Part of the timeless classicness of their homes. The Cardinals, it's the birds-on-the-bat. They've gone through some different "uniforms" with it. The 40's piping, striping on the pullovers and now, once again, the plain "template", which IMO has become iconic as well, the current "plain" Cardinals uniforms that is. I believe they're done with the "outside birds-on-the-bat" aspects of their uniforms. Adding St. Louis to the roads would be cool, but not necessary to maintain, nor remove them from, iconic status. The Tigers, I believe, are with the Yankees in that the mismatching Ds are part of the charm. The roads just need to ditch the white trimming and that's all. Would they themselves be iconic? Probably not, but they wouldn't need to be changed. The Dodgers homes themselves are iconic, but the red numbers themselves are iconic in their own right. Almost like two seperate iconic features that happen to be part of the same team's set.

Uniforms can be untouchable without being iconic. It's almost like steps. Becoming untouchable essentially means they don't need to be change (drastically, at least), but to be "iconic", they truly need to be woven into the fabric of baseball history, like the four teams mentioned. That's why I'm still reluctant to include the Braves into iconic status, though I love them and think they'll get there. Though if someone said they were, I wouldn't argue. The Braves are at the close postition to where it's stictly opinion as to whether they are or aren't yet. I guess I'm just a little strict with my baseball uniform status designations than I may be with other sports since baseball is my favorite.

However, reading back over these statements, yours and mine, and thinking back to the Braves days in Milwaukee and use of the tomahawk then, I'm beginning to rethink the Braves status. I look at them, and I want to say they're iconic, but for some reason I just can't. But maybe I'll change my mind soon and elevate them. I don't know if it was the 70's/80's period of no tomahawk that's making me reluctant or what. But they're tricky. I'd put the Cubs homes at that same level with the Braves. Borderline iconic, IMO. Neither of which I would argue with someone who claimed they were.

Finally...just because one's opinion may go against the grain of a presumed widely-held opinion doesn't mean you gotta blast off on her/him about it. A page or two back you straight tee'd off on BrandMooreArt regarding his opinion of the Cardinals' uniform set, among other sets. Now was that necessary? Understand I ain't trying to dogpile on you here, I just thought it was out of line to rip into the guy just for sharing his own subjective opinion. You're a cool cat, and I know you're better than that, man...that's all I'm saying.

Buc, you're one of my favorite posters around here, so I don't take it personally, but let me clarify. I didn't really tee off on BrandMooreArt. I, like others, were definitely shocked and taken aback by his list of teams in need of an overhaul. And he's definitely entitled to his opinion, I'd be the first to defend that, but it doesn't mean it's immune to response, discussion and disagreement. Listing the Cardinals, Dodgers and Giants, just to name a few key ones, is a very, I guess "controversial" would be a good word, for this particular topic. Because of the historical significance of these teams' identities, it's a big deal when someone says they need to go. And we're free to disagree and question that. We don't have sit here and not say anything simply because it's his opinion. And as I mentioned in my response to him, I respect him a great deal here and that's why I said there must've been something up with him because I just thought it was such a surprise. Doesn't mean I think any less of him (although... I kid), just that there was something he believes that was rather surprising to me and caught me off-guard.

Fair enough points all around, Matt. (And to make it clear, I get where you were coming from, now.) And you are definitely right about the word "controversial"...that's damn near the perfect word to tag this discussion with.

For the record, I wouldn't recommend full-scale overhauls, or even major tweaks, for any of those teams mentioned...just a few minor ones.