Yukon Joe
Registered User
I suspect the "logic" goes like this:
Poster is a hockey fan.
Poster hates the name "Kraken"
Therefore, all hockey fans hate the name "Kraken"
So yeah - that was the point I was trying to make, but more subtle...
I suspect the "logic" goes like this:
Poster is a hockey fan.
Poster hates the name "Kraken"
Therefore, all hockey fans hate the name "Kraken"
Except the Rangers will be the next franchise to celebrate a century of operation after MTL/BOS.... since the franchise was awarded in 1926 and is an O-6Team names should be unique. Kraken works nicely.
NHL teams names that should be jettisoned would include:
Panthers
Jets
Rangers
Senators
I live here. The hockey fans here that already existed, many were hoping for Metropolitans. Others wanted something new but despised the Kraken suggestion and thought it was stupid. When it first started gaining traction, you could see that tons of people that were excited about "Kraken" weren't from Seattle, The Great State of Washington, or hockey fans.
I personally don't mind it, definitely not my favorite but is what it is. I would have liked Metropolitans or some of the other suggestions more. My biggest issue was always that it was more Northern Atlantic mythology and we aren't exactly close to the Northern Atlantic over here.
Team names should be unique. Kraken works nicely.
NHL teams names that should be jettisoned would include:
Panthers
Jets
Rangers
Senators
I understand the history, but Metropolitans is a lame name - you'd wind up being the Mets. It would be like arguing that when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg the team should be called the Victorias, because the Winnipeg Victorias won the Stanley Cup three times - most recently in 1902.
To be honest Jets is kind of a lame name on it's own too, but it had too much recent history and emotional connection to fans to be ignored.
The Panthers name was lame when it was selected but at this point it has too much history. The other names have even more history behind them.
What's lame about the Panthers name? There is an actual species of panther called the Florida panther.I understand the history, but Metropolitans is a lame name - you'd wind up being the Mets. It would be like arguing that when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg the team should be called the Victorias, because the Winnipeg Victorias won the Stanley Cup three times - most recently in 1902.
To be honest Jets is kind of a lame name on it's own too, but it had too much recent history and emotional connection to fans to be ignored.
The Panthers name was lame when it was selected but at this point it has too much history. The other names have even more history behind them.
I don't think having "interesting" names for the sake of it is very important. My general rule of thumb is that I'd rather have "boring" names that will still sound reasonable in 100 years than interesting ones which already elicit eyerolls a few decades down the lineSee, I would argue that if the league were to bring in teams with a lot of really boring names it will reinforce the perception of the NHL as a conservative league existing mostly for old white men.
But I won't - precisely because the league has been more innovative in picking names. The last several expansion teams have all had fairly unique names. Kraken - definitely. Golden Knights - well Knights would have been super-traditional, but by bringing in sparkly gold into their name and uniform makes it unique. Wild is unique. Thrashers - being named after a bird is super-traditional. Blue Jackets - unique.
Yes, exactly this. These branding decisions are being made to please vocal groups on social media who have narrow interests in what sounds either cool, funny, or both. It's why you see about 100x as many people saying "lmao Salt Lake Soakers!" than any other name. Random people, even fans, are not really interested in or knowledgeable about building lasting brands. As someone said previously, if you left it up to randos in 1994, the Avs already mediocre name would probably actually be the Rocky Mtn Xtreme.Which made a ton of sense for Seattle being that we have the Pacific ocean over here ...
Though, they did try to retrofit a Kraken narrative -we found a big octopus over here!- as the Kraken story. But, to me, it never made sense. Was just something that grew on social networks by non-sports/hockey fans who thought it was "cool" along with everyone that liked making the "they can call the arena the crack house" comment and voila, team was named Kraken.
I think it's notable that the NFL and MLB seemingly do not allow such names... none of their 80s or 90s expansion teams fell into that trap while most NBA and NHL teams did... and they also have, by far, the strongest brand identities in sports. Colorado Rockies may be boring but it's going to hold up a lot better than the Kolorado Rox or whatever ultra 90s idea a hockey team would've been suckered into by chasing plaudits from 12 year oldsAlso not big on names that don't end in s. Especially when you can't shorten them, i.e. Avalanche to Avs or Lightning to Bolts.
So yeah - that was the point I was trying to make, but more subtle...
First should get dibs so Florida > CarolinaYes, exactly this. These branding decisions are being made to please vocal groups on social media who have narrow interests in what sounds either cool, funny, or both. It's why you see about 100x as many people saying "lmao Salt Lake Soakers!" than any other name. Random people, even fans, are not really interested in or knowledgeable about building lasting brands. As someone said previously, if you left it up to randos in 1994, the Avs already mediocre name would probably actually be the Rocky Mtn Xtreme.
ETA: Florida Panthers is one of the best names in sports. It is much better than the Carolina Panthers, which is what I suspect you're arguing against (eg. just picking a popular college/high school mascot).
Every team has a terrible name. We should just go to the soccer style of Utah HC
I’d been told that soda was prohibited… until LDS bought a soda company.
The Lakers moved to LA from Minnesota (land of 10,000 lakes) and the Jazz moved to Utah from New Orleans. Both teams kept their name during the move, hence why they don't necessarily jive where they landed. I will also note that there are no Grizzlies in Memphis either, outside of their zoo.
I think it's notable that the NFL and MLB seemingly do not allow such names...
You were incorrect, as well. It wasn't all that subtle and it was widely mistaken. This is the BoH section, at least supposed to be different from the main forum where people just say things.
no. it was a subspecies based on 1890's identification...but it's actually just a North American Cougar.What's lame about the Panthers name? There is an actual species of panther called the Florida panther.
Here's the thing dude - you're the one "saying things", not me.
What you, personally, saw on social media, or what you, personally, talked to people is not statistically useful in any way. It's anecdotal.
I have no idea if it was non-Seattle, non-hockey fans who supported the name of the Kraken or not. But the thing is - neither do you.
except from all indications Grizzlies exist in UT already as the ECHL Team have committed to staying in Maverik Center independent of what moniker SEG comes up with....Let's hope that the name & logo are cooler than the state of Utah it self last thing the NHL. needs is team named the Mormons or even worse the Osmonds can you just see that logo Donnie Osmonds goofy face on that jersey it would not exactly strike fear into there opponents in fact it just want to beat them up even more so my opinion go with something like.
Raptors
Eagles
Elks
Grizzlies
Personally I would go with Raptors .
I don't think having "interesting" names for the sake of it is very important. My general rule of thumb is that I'd rather have "boring" names that will still sound reasonable in 100 years than interesting ones which already elicit eyerolls a few decades down the line
I would rather be MLB and have a bunch of relatively generic sounding names that have the staying power to become strong brands than be MLS 1.0 and have teams whose branding is so intimately tied to what is en vogue at that specific moment that 90% of them have had to start from the ground up in under 20 years. You can think Iron Maiden album cover aesthetics and 80s monster movie names are cool as hell, but you will eventually die and the interest in those things will fade and yet the team will still be the KRAKEN or the YETI.
First should get dibs so Florida > Carolina
Florida Panthers 1993Carolina Panthers 1995New York Jets 1959
Winnipeg Jets 1972
Ottawa Senators 1992Washington Senators 1961
New York Rangers 1926Texas Rangers 1961
Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean there's a rule preventing it. MLB's four 90s expansion teams picked Marlins, Rockies, Devil Rays and Diamondbacks because they were appropriate to their markets.
See I totally disagree.
The thing is any name that lasts 100 years is going to sound great - it sounds great because of the history attached to it. I mean - Red Socks or White Socks are terrible, terrible names, but the teams would be insane to change them because they have so much history.
I've made this argument many, many times. Most of the Big Four nicknames ARE TERRIBLE, and it's only because they've been terrible for our entire lives that they don't sound lame or weird to us, we just accept them as normal.
Smith is asking Twitter for a name last week, and they need one by like the end of July.
I actually like this logo.
I actually like this logo.