Top 30 Logos: 30-21

What I did here is took the best logo from each franchise's history (yes, Montreal counts for Washington) and ranked them.  Not much to it, really.

• Note 1: First and foremost, thanks so much to Chris Creamer's sportslogos.net.  This is one of the best and most fascinating sports websites, and if you've never visited it... you should.  Right now.
• Note 2: There's no real methodology to these.  If I thought the logo was boring, I ranked it low.  If I was particularly taken with it for any reason, I ranked it high.  Cheesy cartoons from the 1970s?  High.  Native Americans?  Low.  "Clever" logos?  High.  Logos that don't really do anything other than say the team's name?  Low.

30. Tampa Bay Rays, primary, 2008-present
Is there anything more boring than this logo?  The two things that are good about this one are the light blue shadow around the diamond and the ray of light in the middle of the "R".  That's still not anything that can rescue this from the bottom of these rankings, however.  The dark blue is very standard, and the lettering is nothing special (is the bottom of the "R" supposed to be like a tail? it's too subtle to be commended, if so).  A very weak effort for a team with such great color/logo potential, though they still have time.

29/28. Cleveland Indians, primary, 1980-present / Atlanta Braves, primary, 1972-1986
I... hrrm.  Okay, so I've never had a huge problem with the Native American logos.  They always seemed more playful than offensive, though that may be because I grew up in the sanitized, post-Chief Knockahoma era.  Anyway, the point is that these are clearly offensive on some level, and that shouldn't be tolerated.  I give the edge to the Braves' logo, if only because it has such close associations to Hank Aaron, but really.  Even if these weren't offensive, they'd still be very boring, and that's quite the logo sin.

27. Chicago White Sox, alternate, 1976-1990
There's really nothing to this logo.  The picture is weird, I suppose, but how is it unique to the White Sox?  (Answer: it isn't.)  This is just a dull logo for what was, by all accounts, a dull team.

26. Arizona Diamondbacks, primary, 1998-2006
I have fond memories of this logo based on the 2001 World Series, but it's clearly problematic.  I give a huge thumbs up to the color scheme, but the gold on purple is very tough to read.  Also, it's just an A.  There's nothing special about it, save for the line running along the left side.  Meh.

25. Kansas City Royals, primary, 2002-present
This is a typical "nice try, but still boring" logo.  On the one hand, the crown over the logo is both obvious and nice.  On the other hand, there's nothing interesting about this.  The "KC" and "Royals" aren't well integrated--they're even in a different typeface, I believe.  I'm not sure how this one can be improved.  Their alternate that eliminates the "Royals" part isn't bad, but at that level it's a bit barebones.  Who knows, I'm not a graphic designer.

24. Oakland Athletics, primary, 1968-1982
On the one hand, I love the colors and the hokiness of this.  On the other hand, it's a bit on the busy side, no?  I mean, why does it say  "The Swingin' A's" but then have a picture of cleats?  For that matter, why have the cleats at all?  I chose this to represent this franchise because I love the green on yellow, but there's just too much going on.

23. Cincinnati Reds, primary, 1972-1992
Who is that man?  Is it Mr. Redlegs?  No, he has a fun moustache.  Is it Mr. Met?  No, that can't be.  No, it's, umm... Mr. Red.  According to Wikipedia, he existed in sleeve patch form in the 1950s, only to then disappear until this logo.  Anyway, much as I love fun cartoons his appearance here is a bit random.  He's not an iconic mascot (heck, he's not even the most well-known mascot on his own team), and just distracts from everything else.  That said, all of the other Reds logos are pretty boring, and this one reminds me of the Big Red Machine.  I do like how this is their only logo to actually spell out Cincinnati though.

22. California Angels, primary, 1986-1992
Again, I like it, but... meh.  There's not that much to like, ya know?  The California in the background is nice, but makes this logo a bit busy.  Three layers might be one too many.  That said, it's a fairly simple logo, and I've always been a fan of the the "A" with the halo.

21. Florida Marlins, primary, 1993-2011
I admire the Marlins' inclusion of an actual Marlin on their logo, though I still have quite a few problems with this.  The lettering is way too small, and is barely able to be seen over the background (teal on light blue creates problems).  Also, the aforementioned marlin is just too big; you can have a fun drawing on your logo, but it shouldn't dwarf and distract from your team name.  The color scheme is too receded, though I just noticed how the baseball is lined with orange.  Anyway, this is a good logo in theory, but I think the execution is just a little bit flawed.  Hopefully they can flesh it out for the team's rebranding next year.  This alternate isn't so bad, though I didn't count it because I've never actually seen it in use (and it also looks a bit amateurish).

2011 Predictions: AL West

1. Oakland Athletics

Perhaps the most improved team from last year to this one, the A’s have scary good potential.  They completely overhauled their offense, bringing in Hideki Matsui, Josh Willingham, and David DeJesus to give them some serious punch.  Last year’s parts are all fine and dandy, but it’s this trio of players that will give the A’s the offense they need to be a real player in the hunt for October.  Their pitching, in true A’s fashion, is comprised of players who are young, unknown, and—most importantly—dominant.  Trevor Cahill, the team’s opening day starter, is looking to build on his amazing 2010 (18-8, 2.97 ERA).  The other pitchers are no slouches either, but none of them are as solid as any of the keys from the A’s rotations of yore.  If they—bolstered by a fantastic bullpen—can keep it together (and there’s no reason to think that they can’t) the A’s are a good bet to take the NL West.

Bottom line: Their foundation is a bit shaky, but this team can capitalize on an unusually weak division to take a playoff spot.

2. Texas Rangers

I am very much unconvinced of the Rangers’ ability to repeat their 2010 successes.  Their terrible offseason—losing Cliff Lee and Vladimir Guerrero, and making up for that by overpaying Adrian Beltre—did them no favors.  Seriously, their pitching is terrible for a supposedly good team.  C.J. Wilson as the ace?  If Brandon Webb could get it together they’d be all right, but his recent injury takes away any claims of pitching depth they might have been able to make.  Their offense, meanwhile, is more or less unchanged from last year, except they have to rely on Adrian Beltre (he of three good seasons out of thirteen) for power.  Fine, yes, there’s Josh Hamilton, Ian Kinsler, and Nelson Cruz—don’t get me wrong, this team can flat-out hit—but it’s not enough to elevate them above their mediocre pitching.  We are not impressed.

Bottom line: Pray that Jon Daniels makes a deadline deal for a pitcher.  Otherwise, it’s going to be hard for the Rangers to contend in strong AL West and Wild Card races.

3. Los Angeles Angels

Led by speedster Carl Crawford and ace pitcher Cliff Lee, the Angels are a sure bet to be thick in the playoff hunt.  Led by the old and overpaid Vernon Wells and Torii Hunter, the Angels are a sure bet to spend 2011 thinking “where did we go wrong?”  Their lineup, missing the improvements it needed for this season, is massively underwhelming, and way too reliant upon players who haven’t been good in a few years.  Fine, I’ll admit that Dan Haren and Jered Weaver lead a pretty good starting rotation, but it isn’t a stretch to suggest that Joel Pineiro and Ervin Santana will regress next season.  Frankly, this team just isn’t built as solidly as Angels teams of years past.

Bottom line: Instead of yet another trip to October, I expect the Angels to hobble to .500, saddled down with expensive players they can’t trade after the season.

4. Seattle Mariners

The Jack Z rebuilding process continues!  After being pegged to contend last year, the Mariners rocketed to a 61-101 record.  Oops.  While they wait for Dustin Ackley to work his way through the minor leagues, a journey that might even end at some point in 2011, the Mariners will probably have to content themselves with another bad season.  Their offense continues to be very bad, and there’s nobody besides Ichiro Suzuki who can hit (although I do expect Chone Figgins to be good again).  The pitching begins and ends with Felix Hernandez, though it should be fun to watch top prospect Michael Pineda.

Bottom line: They certainly won’t contend this year, though having Ackley and Pineda in the majors together would create some good baseball.