The Reds have had some really cool logos in their minor league affiliates in the past. In my mind, probably the best among these were the Mudcats and prior to that the Lookouts (for 20 years). Both of those were cool because they were unique and even fit with "C" theme for Cincinnati. So, I started looking at the current logos to see which are good and which aren't. And here is how they rank:
The Good:
A+
The Dragon logo might be a little too much for an MLB team, but it is perfect for them. Perhaps the best logo in the minor league which goes along with perhaps the best run minor league park.
The secondary / hat logo is also well above average. It's not overstated or silly and you know exactly what you are looking at when you look at it.
B
This is a solid logo with a clever mixing of the "M" with horseshoes.
The Average:
What can I say about the Tortugas? Several quips come to mind. 1) I know you were desperate for a new logo when you went from the Cubs hegemony to a Reds team, but you didn't have to choose the first one that came to mind. 2) Turtle in Spanish is still Turtle. 3) Hey, it's Tippy! If I draw him do I get a free drawing course? 4) The Durham Bulls did it first and better.
It's a generic, not so good, not so bad logo. It's a little Hannah-Barbara-ish, but if I lived in Florida and went to games I'd probably buy a hat. I'm not going to order one to wear here in Virginia.
The Bad:
The old bat logo was a solid logo that was cool. The secondary L logo they used wasn't and the color scheme was definitely dated, but . . .
They downgraded pretty hard. The shift to red and blue as team colors is fairly generic. However, the best logo out of the whole batch is the one to the right and it's a step down. The dual bats is okay, but the crude drawing isn't all that impressive. I guess it's supposed to look old-timesy, but it just doesn't get there.
The animated bats look like every evil animated character that Hannah-Barbara ever drew. These are the "kid friendly" logos and I would be worried that they would scare my kids. Not quite an absolute fail, but close.
Ditto above
And then there's the girl's softball team uniform cursive name. 'nuff said.
Look, Louisville probably needs a new logo/mascot. They could adopt an older, traditional Kentucky mascot with a new spin: Colonels. I'd suggest not using the old plantation owner type of logo, but instead actually take the military rank. A colonel in the military wears an eagle as rank insignia. It would also work better with the red, white, and blue color scheme (I know it's technically red and blue, but white will always be in there as well).
F
There's really no way to white wash this one. That symbol to the left is the primary hat logo. The colors are muddled and the logo is so bad you can't tell what it is until you are standing two feet from the guy wearing the hat. Even then, the first time I saw it I had to stare for a bit to figure it out. Beyond that, there's nothing impressive, attractive, or inspiring about this monstrocity.
D-
The best thing that can be said about this is that it's not as bad as the primary hat logo. The color scheme is still really bad and the fish is atrocious.
C
It's better than the two above, but the hook bent into a "P" still doesn't lend itself to easy recognition on a hat.
If the Louisville team probably needs a new logo/mascot then the Pensacola team is desperate for one. New colors. New mascot. New everything. I'm sure they paid somebody to create this ugly icomprehensibleness. They should get their money back. It looks like someone got stuck back in the days when purple was still considered a good color for a logo and then had a mandate from an owner who is a fanatic fisherman to include fishing in the logo. Definitely one of the very worst logos in all of baseballdom.
The Good:
Dayton Dragons
The Dragon logo might be a little too much for an MLB team, but it is perfect for them. Perhaps the best logo in the minor league which goes along with perhaps the best run minor league park.
A
The secondary / hat logo is also well above average. It's not overstated or silly and you know exactly what you are looking at when you look at it.
Billings Mustangs
A
This is the old-fashioned circle type logo done well.
This is a solid logo with a clever mixing of the "M" with horseshoes.
B-
Everybody seems to have to have a kiddie logo nowadays. Would I prefer this trend didn't exist? Of course. However, this may be the best it gets. It's not too childish and at least it doesn't look like a Hannah-Barbara cartoon.
Daytona Tortugas
C+
What can I say about the Tortugas? Several quips come to mind. 1) I know you were desperate for a new logo when you went from the Cubs hegemony to a Reds team, but you didn't have to choose the first one that came to mind. 2) Turtle in Spanish is still Turtle. 3) Hey, it's Tippy! If I draw him do I get a free drawing course? 4) The Durham Bulls did it first and better.
It's a generic, not so good, not so bad logo. It's a little Hannah-Barbara-ish, but if I lived in Florida and went to games I'd probably buy a hat. I'm not going to order one to wear here in Virginia.
The Bad:
Louisville Bats
B+
The old bat logo was a solid logo that was cool. The secondary L logo they used wasn't and the color scheme was definitely dated, but . . .
B
They downgraded pretty hard. The shift to red and blue as team colors is fairly generic. However, the best logo out of the whole batch is the one to the right and it's a step down. The dual bats is okay, but the crude drawing isn't all that impressive. I guess it's supposed to look old-timesy, but it just doesn't get there.
D-
The animated bats look like every evil animated character that Hannah-Barbara ever drew. These are the "kid friendly" logos and I would be worried that they would scare my kids. Not quite an absolute fail, but close.
D-
Ditto above
C-
And then there's the girl's softball team uniform cursive name. 'nuff said.
Look, Louisville probably needs a new logo/mascot. They could adopt an older, traditional Kentucky mascot with a new spin: Colonels. I'd suggest not using the old plantation owner type of logo, but instead actually take the military rank. A colonel in the military wears an eagle as rank insignia. It would also work better with the red, white, and blue color scheme (I know it's technically red and blue, but white will always be in there as well).
Pensacola Blue Wahoos
There's really no way to white wash this one. That symbol to the left is the primary hat logo. The colors are muddled and the logo is so bad you can't tell what it is until you are standing two feet from the guy wearing the hat. Even then, the first time I saw it I had to stare for a bit to figure it out. Beyond that, there's nothing impressive, attractive, or inspiring about this monstrocity.
The best thing that can be said about this is that it's not as bad as the primary hat logo. The color scheme is still really bad and the fish is atrocious.
It's better than the two above, but the hook bent into a "P" still doesn't lend itself to easy recognition on a hat.
If the Louisville team probably needs a new logo/mascot then the Pensacola team is desperate for one. New colors. New mascot. New everything. I'm sure they paid somebody to create this ugly icomprehensibleness. They should get their money back. It looks like someone got stuck back in the days when purple was still considered a good color for a logo and then had a mandate from an owner who is a fanatic fisherman to include fishing in the logo. Definitely one of the very worst logos in all of baseballdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.