NHL 2017-18

[mafiaman]

On 2/24/2018 at 1:50 AM, chcarlson23 said:

There's a lot of collars in the NHL that would be much better if they made minor tweaks and used the full collar. 

You spelled "major" wrong.  

[Morgan33]

Maybe the upcoming alternates will provide additional collar options for the Adizero template going forward.  That's really the best we can hope for since there's no getting around how awful they look.  Even the Oilers and Devils iterations look terrible.  The Devils signature, triple-striped collars were attractive and distinctive, now they're stuck with the same click-and-fill iteration of every other team.

 

[M4One]

On 2/20/2018 at 2:30 PM, NYYNYR said:

Would Seattle actually be a red-based team?

 

https://www.nhlseattle.com/

 

Originally I said there's probably nothing to it, but I've change my mind.  Red seems to be the colour the group is using as part of their bid.  Maybe it's just a placeholder for when they actually get a team, but maybe it's not so random afterall.  Everyone seems to believe the team should go with blue and green to match with the rest of the Seattle teams, but that would also be the same scheme of the team that would be their biggest rivals, the Canucks.  Red would stand out in the market and not clash against the Canucks.

 

[TBGKon]

1 minute ago, M4One said:

 

Originally I said there's probably nothing to it, but I've change my mind.  Red seems to be the colour the group is using as part of their bid.  Maybe it's just a placeholder for when they actually get a team, but maybe it's not so random afterall.  Everyone seems to believe the team should go with blue and green to match with the rest of the Seattle teams, but that would also be the same scheme of the team that would be their biggest rivals, the Canucks.  Red would stand out in the market and not clash against the Canucks.

True, but if they take the Seahawks colors in reverse with lime green primary with blue secondary might work...and the lime green wouldnt clash with Vancouver.

[WSU151]

32 minutes ago, M4One said:

 

Originally I said there's probably nothing to it, but I've change my mind.  Red seems to be the colour the group is using as part of their bid.  Maybe it's just a placeholder for when they actually get a team, but maybe it's not so random afterall.  Everyone seems to believe the team should go with blue and green to match with the rest of the Seattle teams, but that would also be the same scheme of the team that would be their biggest rivals, the Canucks.  Red would stand out in the market and not clash against the Canucks.

 

 

Maybe go with Wine and Pine as an (admittedly) odd homage to the Sonics. (edit: yeah, probably too close to the Wild)

[bowld]

 

Would this color scheme be too similar to Minn? 

[bowld]

They also have this flag on top of the space needle. 

 

[Jer15]

You have to laugh a little bit. I mean, when Jim Balsillie tried to sell deposits without owning a team the NHL was pissed.

Oak View Group does it and they are praised.  

[Chromatic]

I've said it before and I'll say it again here. Seattle needs to go with green and gold. It's the perfect opportunity for it. It fits Seattle well, will match the eventual co-tenant in their building when Seattle inevitably gets the Sonics back, and no team has worn it since Dallas rebranded. It won't clash with the Canucks or any other NHL team for that matter.

[DrAwesomeberry]

1 hour ago, mr.negative15 said:

You have to laugh a little bit. I mean, when Jim Balsillie tried to sell deposits without owning a team the NHL was pissed.

Oak View Group does it and they are praised.  

There's a difference between selling deposits for an expansion team with the league's approval, and selling deposits for an existing team you're planning on relocating without the league's approval. 

[OMMF]

2 hours ago, M4One said:

 

Originally I said there's probably nothing to it, but I've change my mind.  Red seems to be the colour the group is using as part of their bid.  Maybe it's just a placeholder for when they actually get a team, but maybe it's not so random afterall.  Everyone seems to believe the team should go with blue and green to match with the rest of the Seattle teams, but that would also be the same scheme of the team that would be their biggest rivals, the Canucks.  Red would stand out in the market and not clash against the Canucks.

 

3

 

This logo has nothing to do with the ownership group trying to bring a team to the city. This is the logo of an individual who started an effort a few years ago to get a team to Seattle. This should definitely not be used as an indication of anything.

[Jer15]

1 hour ago, DrAwesomeberry said:

There's a difference between selling deposits for an expansion team with the league's approval, and selling deposits for an existing team you're planning on relocating without the league's approval. 

Yes, yes.  I’m aware. 

I still find humor in the situations though especially considering the circumstances around Del Biaggio and the fact that both plans involved major renovations on old arenas.  

[KittSmith_95]

I'm fin with them going with a rich red colour as long as we get a good secondary colour next to it. 

[Morgan33]

3 hours ago, bowld said:

Would this color scheme be too similar to Minn? 

 

I don't see it being a problem if they use a different (lighter?) green and keep vintage white far away.

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, DrAwesomeberry said:

There's a difference between selling deposits for an expansion team with the league's approval, and selling deposits for an existing team you're planning on relocating without the league's approval. 

If the relocation target had been Seattle or Las Vegas, no one would have cared.

[VancouverFan69]

Seattle just doesn't strike me as a city to be the home of a red-coloured team. When the Sonics wore that rusty red as an alternate in the late 90's, it looked so off-side. The Sounders wore an earth-tone red in the USL/APSL for a while and they looked very odd. The only team name from the list of choices that I see as a red team is Sockeyes. 

[TBGKon]

16 hours ago, DrAwesomeberry said:

There's a difference between selling deposits for an expansion team with the league's approval, and selling deposits for an existing team you're planning on relocating without the league's approval. 

That and im not sure if they wanted a team in Hamilton, in Toronto's backyard

[IceCap]

52 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

That and im not sure if they wanted a team in Hamilton, in Toronto's backyard

Vancouver’s backyard is totes cool though  

[TBGKon]

6 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Vancouver’s backyard is totes cool though  

True, but i dont see those two cities as overlapping as Hamilton is to Toronto.  

 

Yes, you're right, but theyre a little more distanced as individual cities. 

[Chromatic]

46 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

True, but i dont see those two cities as overlapping as Hamilton is to Toronto.  

 

Yes, you're right, but theyre a little more distanced as individual cities. 

Vancouver-Seattle is like a much more friendly version of Edmonton-Calgary, though that may change since they're soon to be hockey rivals. I'm happy Seattle is getting a team (so long as they don't wear blue and green), the battle of cascadia, or whatever it ends up being called, should be a fun rivalry.