NHL 2017-18

[OnWis97]

20 minutes ago, B-mer said:

I think it's funny how a lot of people dislike Minnesota's colors, but then a lot of people (maybe the same people, I don't know) want NJ to be red and green again. 

 

Not directing that at you, Cole, but your mention of the color scheme brought it out of me. 

Very few people on here want the Devils to bring green back.  (I do, but I also like the Wild's colors)

 

I'd say it's the other way; the Wild's colors are more popular than the Devils' old colors.

[Rollins Man]

9 hours ago, the admiral said:

Put the Minnesota script on home and away sweaters, move Scenery Bear to the shoulders, no more phantom yoke. Minnesota never wears the red against Chicago; the sweater may as well be retired as far as I can tell.

did you just say put one of the best modern logos on the shoulder while putting some dumb baseball looking script on the front! What's wrong with you!!

[Morgan33]

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Aesthetic conventions of the period would mean that a logo like Scenery Bear could only come out in the mid-late 1990's or early 2000's. Logos from both before and after that period have a more minimalist/simple aesthetic, often opting for one or two-color designs (with additional shades in minimum quantities) and more streamlined line work. That's part of the reason why the North Stars' logo is so beloved today.

 

New Historicism is fun!

 

It certainly couldn't have come out prior to the 90's but that logo is a shining example that not everything from that era was bad.  The creativity and execution of that logo is astounding.  Getting rid of it for a script or some approximation of a "classic logo" would be an absolute travesty.

[IceCap]

57 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

did you just say put one of the best modern logos on the shoulder while putting some dumb baseball looking script on the front! What's wrong with you!!

People like different things. 

I get where admiral is coming from. The "Wild" name is terrible, so putting the "Minnesota" script minimizes the name as much as possible. Make them more "Minnesota" than "Wild."

 

The scenery bear is brilliant, but really? It's so good that I've never disliked it. I've liked it as a standalone main crest. I've liked it in a roundel. I think it would look great as a shoulder patch. 

 

As an aside...I remember getting an inaugural season white Wild sweater because I thought it was the coolest jersey ever made at the time. 

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

It certainly couldn't have come out prior to the 90's but that logo is a shining example that not everything from that era was bad.  The creativity and execution of that logo is astounding.  Getting rid of it for a script or some approximation of a "classic logo" would be an absolute travesty.

No one is suggesting getting rid of the scenery bear. Rein it in.

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, Morgo said:

It certainly couldn't have come out prior to the 90's but that logo is a shining example that not everything from that era was bad.  The creativity and execution of that logo is astounding.  Getting rid of it for a script or some approximation of a "classic logo" would be an absolute travesty.

 

Very true. New Historicism identifies what aesthetic trends and material limitations made a logo design possible in its period, and it does not pass judgement on them. A simple logo from the late 1960's-early 1980's "golden age" can be crap (i.e. Nordiques, the Stick-in-Rink, and the Ballard Leaf), and a complex 1990's logo can be beautiful (i.e. Wild, current Blue Jackets, updated 2D Centurion, etc.).

[OnWis97]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Very true. New Historicism identifies what aesthetic trends and material limitations made a logo design possible in its period, and it does not pass judgement on them. A simple logo from the late 1960's-early 1980's "golden age" can be crap (i.e. Nordiques, the Stick-in-Rink, and the Ballard Leaf), and a complex 1990's logo can be beautiful (i.e. Wild, current Blue Jackets, updated 2D Centurion, etc.).

I have nostalgia for it, but it's pretty bad.

Thank you.  So, so bad.

I love the Ballard Leaf.  But even if you like the others better is the current one good while the Ballard is "crap?"  

 

I agree with the premise though.  Some designs from an era look very much like the era and don't really have the ability to be timeless.  The Stick-in-rink is a great example.  The Flyers logo is from a similar era but is holding up nicely.  The Wild logo looks like it will be a 90s logo that holds up.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I love the Ballard Leaf.  But even if you like the others better is the current one good while the Ballard is "crap?"  

 

I'm not big on the current Leaf, but I like it as a cleaned-up version of the classic logos. The Ballard Leaf is too blocky for my tastes, the Kabel font looks terrible, and there's no real charm to the design. All of the other leaf logos have that "charm" to them, and it doesn't.

 

The 1967 Leaf has a similar aesthetic style to the Ballard Leaf, but the execution is far better.

 

 

The font has a more endearing "roughness," the shapes aren't as blocky, and it has a "charm" to it that lets it fit with the other Original Six logos while still being more modern. The Ballard Leaf didn't have those qualities, and that's why I think it's an ugly logo. The fact that said leaf is also associated with one of the worst owners in pro sports history compounds my dislike for it.

[OnWis97]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'm not big on the current Leaf, but I like it as a cleaned-up version of the classic logos. The Ballard Leaf is too blocky for my tastes, the Kabel font looks terrible, and there's no real charm to the design. All of the other leaf logos have that "charm" to them, and it doesn't.

 

The 1967 Leaf has a similar aesthetic style to the Ballard Leaf, but the execution is far better.

 

The font has a more endearing "roughness," the shapes aren't as blocky, and it has a "charm" to it that lets it fit with the other Original Six logos while still being more modern. The Ballard Leaf didn't have those qualities, and that's why I think it's an ugly logo. The fact that said leaf is also associated with one of the worst owners in pro sports history compounds my dislike for it.

I think I like the Ballard Leaf for the same reasons you don't.  

 

I realize it's not a favorite here.  But I have a hard time with the idea that it belongs with the Nordiques and stick-in-rink...it's not a terribly "60s/70s" design...just an update that happened to occur there.   If you like the previous logo, it just seems hard to call that Ballard Leaf "crap."  

[BrianLion]

11 hours ago, B-mer said:

I think it's funny how a lot of people dislike Minnesota's colors, but then a lot of people (maybe the same people, I don't know) want NJ to be red and green again. 

 

Not directing that at you, Cole, but your mention of the color scheme brought it out of me. 

 

The Devils bright red and green is wholly more interesting than the shades used by the Wild, which is almost more brick and hunter green. This isnt exactly apples to apples.   Compare:

 

 

 

 

[ColeJ]

I don't love the Devil's retro colors myself... but I admit they're more appealing than the Wild's for a few reason.

 

As stated above, the Devil's look more vibrant... but I also don't like the additional colors the Wild use. Give me bright red, green, and white over dark green, dark red, gold, and wheat all at once.

 

Too many colors and the wheat/gold/vintage white detract from the red/green color scheme.

 

Plus, the only reason it sorta works for the Devil's (again, not as well as their current scheme, but better than the Wild's) is because that bright red, green, and white combo evokes the whole hole-in-the-wall Italian restaurant motif that really fits New Jersey in my mind.

 

Stereotyping, maybe... but it works in my mind.

 

The gold makes it feel gaudy to me.

[Sport]

 

The only thing I didn't like about these was the sock stripes. They were sort of close to the stripes on the sleeves, but they got the proportions wrong.

 

Should've never switched to the red alternate. I don't get why they chose to be a primarily red jersey team when the league already has what 9 teams who wear red jerseys? Not even counting the Coyotes. They were one of 2 teams wearing green. That decision makes no sense to me. 

[wildwing64]

On 4/3/2017 at 3:38 PM, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

I heard a rumor that the Ducks are changing to these uniforms next year.

 

Might as well. How is that any different than the Disney Duck on their third jersey?

 

For starters, there's a lot of text spelling the team's name out. A bit like that lousy, soulless wordmark they replaced the mask with.

 

So, are you suggesting this as an improvement? You have a weird taste in logos 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I think I like the Ballard Leaf for the same reasons you don't.  

 

I realize it's not a favorite here.  But I have a hard time with the idea that it belongs with the Nordiques and stick-in-rink...it's not a terribly "60s/70s" design...just an update that happened to occur there.   If you like the previous logo, it just seems hard to call that Ballard Leaf "crap."  

It's far too blocky and "modern" for an Original Six team. 

It's associated with the longest stretch of futility in NHL history. 

Tied to that? It's associated with one of the worst owners in NHL history. 

 

If you like it? Cool, but I really don't get the attitude of "I like it, I can't see why others think it's bad!"

[wildwing64]

The Ballard Leaf is a simple design and it worked well for them. But the new logo is the kind of thing that (almost) makes me want to own a Leafs jersey.

[Fresno St. Alum]

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'm not big on the current Leaf, but I like it as a cleaned-up version of the classic logos. The Ballard Leaf is too blocky for my tastes, the Kabel font looks terrible, and there's no real charm to the design. All of the other leaf logos have that "charm" to them, and it doesn't.

 

The 1967 Leaf has a similar aesthetic style to the Ballard Leaf, but the execution is far better.

 

 

The font has a more endearing "roughness," the shapes aren't as blocky, and it has a "charm" to it that lets it fit with the other Original Six logos while still being more modern. The Ballard Leaf didn't have those qualities, and that's why I think it's an ugly logo. The fact that said leaf is also associated with one of the worst owners in pro sports history compounds my dislike for it.

I like the Maplejuana Leafs new logo. I like the vein detail in the new one. 

[Point1]

I'm not sure how popular this opinion is but this is a top-10 jersey in the NHL.

 

 

My opinion on the stuff in this thread...

 

1. The Devils look good in green but they look better in black.

2. I love the WIld's colour scheme, moreso when red is the third colour.

3. The Wild's inaugural jerseys are great except the socks, the off-colour pants, and the number font.

4. I think the Wilds' new home jersey will be green with the red and wheat hem strip from the inaugural jersey on the arms.

5. The new leaf is by far the best logo the Leafs have ever had. The Ballard leaf is pretty crummy and the 1967 leaf looks too much like they just took the Canadian flag leaf and pasted a 60s font on it.

 

[Morgan33]

7 minutes ago, Point1 said:

4. I think the Wilds' new home jersey will be green with the red and wheat hem strip from the inaugural jersey on the arms.

 

That would be a great look.  A reverse of the white jersey, sans wheat, would also be a good option.

[IceCap]

38 minutes ago, Point1 said:

...the 1967 leaf looks too much like they just took the Canadian flag leaf and pasted a 60s font on it.

That's because that's exactly what they did

[Morgan33]

15 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

No one is suggesting getting rid of the scenery bear. Rein it in.

 

If the Avalanche logo isn't safe, neither is the scenery bear.  Both of are instant, modern classics in this guys opinion.