Go with Diamondbacks instead of "D-Backs" too.

Other than that, we have a winner. Literally wearing their heart on theis sleeve. Good call.

The colors aren't frumpy.

Purple, Teal, Tourquoise ... these are old lady colors.  When you think Tourquoise (and forgive my spelling, but i'm not a spell checker, and I think we all get the point ... ), you think gawdy dressed old ladies who's idea of the Southwest is a bucking bronco gold lame cutout on a black shirt and bulky rings that engulf the hand in desert minerls.  Purple?  The red hat ladies.  This old group of ladies who get together for ... I don't know what.  Teal, not really a bad thing ... if you call it orange.  But you don't refer to a color other then by it's base name as a young man.  Your buddy can wear a pink shirt, but the minute he calls it salmon?  He's not your buddy anymore.

Now, the four primary base colors of the hats (white, grey, black and red) all appeal to young men who are more fashion concious then necessarly team biased.  This is not a bad thing, the more money they make selling the hats, the more notice the team gets, possibly on a national sale.  You know ESPN reports on that stupid statistic such as jersey or team hat sold.

Also, the DB/Heart/Snake Head logo is very cutting edge and slighly reminisent of of the kind of marketing associated with 'extreme' sports, your DC Shoe's and Birdhouse'es, and I see this becoming a top selling hat if they make it avaliable as such.  I sure as hell want a red, black, and white one.  And I wouldn't feel like a fashion victim wearing it out and about, like I do the purple.  My default baseball hat of choice is my Boston hat for that reason, it don't look bad.

With the valley sports scene currently being dominated by Edgerian James, Matt 'Who's Your Daddy?' Leinert, Amare and Marion, this will really make waves for cutting into the best kind of local advertising: the kind YOU pay the club to do for them.

I saw a set of these new logos a few weeks ago and I was not, and am still not, happy with what I saw. Of what they're doing, it feels like what they're trying to accomplish is too "modern" if you follow me. It feels like they're trying to make diamondbacks baseball "hip" and "cool". (If it were 1993 I'm sure they'd have the players in hyper colors.) What I saw doesn't feel timeless or "majestic" and I think that should be the goal of defining the identity for your baseball franchise.

What they've done ends up looking immature/childish and it comes off as second best to a AA league or high school ball. (Heck, I know a few high school sports identities I respect more then the leaked designs I saw.) Baseball is a prideful, classic sport and I'm not sure that's what they're trying to represent here.

The db logo is incredibly phallic. I couldn't agree more that there's far too much use of black as a contrasting color and more use of the Sand shade would have given everything a much more noble look.

Bottom line:  they can do better by their players and their fans, and it takes no resources away from scouting, player development, facilities managment, or front office duties to do so. As a young organization trying to broaden their fan base I think they're settling for second best.

On a personal note, it's disappointing.  I've been trying to become a full blown diamondbacks fan since '99 and I just can't do it when they make decisions like this...