Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

The thing you have to remember now is that unless the NBA expands, Seattle won't get another NBA team.  I think the Kings were the last team in danger of moving...I don't think there are any other ones left.

I wouldn't put it past the NBA to expand through.

[VancouverFan69]

On 4/15/2017 at 3:34 PM, TRoyConcepts said:

 

It's original exact for the fact that it's not. It's the name of an old team located in Seattle. 

 

What is with people wanting the relive the past? What is this nostalgia trip everyone is on? Can we not just get something new?

 

Just look at this beautiful logo....

 

[nash61]

On April 15, 2017 at 10:05 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

This is one of the dumber things I've read on these boards, and I lived through the Tnak era.  

 

My first thought of "metros" is a subway system, followed by a big city and the hustle and bustle of people walking around said city.  I had to seriously think for a while to figure out what you meant.  I think that 1) it's not in any way a controversial or derogatory term, and 2) unless you're a 14-year-old kid you wouldn't even think of it.  

 

They just can't go to double-OT

 

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Just look at this beautiful logo....

 

It's not beautiful. The chest detailing is a little iffy, the lines weights are hilariously inconsistent, and it can't be reproduced at a smaller size without losing a lot of detail. It would need significant clean-up, enough to justify a ground-up redesign. Besides, there are better-rendered logos in the same style:

 

 

 

Just because it was designed in the 1960's/70's doesn't automatically make a logo better. If the NHL Seattle team was to revive an old name, Metropolitans (a name associated with a Stanley Cup) and Thunderbirds (the name of Seattle's minor-league hockey team since the 1980's) would have preference over the Totems.

 

When team names have been revived for NHL expansion, it's because they have some historical significance. The original Senators won multiple Stanley Cups, and were a cornerstone of the pre-Great Depression NHL. The Jets and Nordiques both have long histories of NHL play that's well within living memory (both teams relocating in the mid-1990's). The Canucks and the Seals were extant minor league teams that got "promoted" to the NHL. The Totems were just another WHL team that died in 1970's as part of a failed expansion bid, and they've been largely forgotten by history. Let them stay obscure.

 

Something new would be best for the NHL in Seattle, but reviving the Metropolitans as the "Metros" would also be a fine course of action.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

19 hours ago, wildwing64 said:

They could probably get away with a Seahawks-esque navy and lime colour scheme. If done right, that could work well without looking too similar to the Canucks.

 

Yeah, plus the way the Canucks change schemes more than most people change their underwear, they'll be wearing something different by then anyways. 

[Chromatic]

1 hour ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Yeah, plus the way the Canucks change schemes more than most people change their underwear, they'll be wearing something different by then anyways. 

They've changed schemes 3 times, and one of those was back to their original colours. I don't think they'll be changing colour schemes again any time soon. 

 

Normally I'd think Seattle having a blue green colour scheme would be a good idea, but when their immediate geographic rivals wear the same thing it's building a very poor brand.

 

Not to mention since the Stars rebrand, there aren't any teams in the NHL wearing green and gold, which would be perfect for Seattle.

[Sport]

Seattle Pilots

 

https://www.behance.net/gallery/15056263/Seattle-Pilots-

 

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

7 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

They've changed schemes 3 times, and one of those was back to their original colours. I don't think they'll be changing colour schemes again any time soon. 

 

Normally I'd think Seattle having a blue green colour scheme would be a good idea, but when their immediate geographic rivals wear the same thing it's building a very poor brand.

 

Not to mention since the Stars rebrand, there aren't any teams in the NHL wearing green and gold, which would be perfect for Seattle.

 

4 times. The yellow and black V unis to the flying skate were different enough to classify it as a change. 

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

6 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Seattle Pilots

 

https://www.behance.net/gallery/15056263/Seattle-Pilots-

 

 

I'm down with that. 

[Chromatic]

2 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

4 times. The yellow and black V unis to the flying skate were different enough to classify it as a change. 

That's not a colour

scheme change.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Just now, Chromatic said:

That's not a colour

scheme change.

 

Ok pardon my wording. Major uniform changes. Original set --> Giant V ---> flying skate ---> RWB Orca ---> GWB Orca.

[T-ROY]

 

On 4/16/2017 at 10:50 AM, rams80 said:

 

/Glances at Canada with Jets, Senators, and hypothetical Nordiques.

 

I dunno, you tell me.

 

@Ice_Cap seems to be much more capable of answering this so I'll ask him instead.

 

On 4/16/2017 at 11:41 AM, Ice_Cap said:

TNSE was throwing around "Moose," "Falcons," and "Polar Bears" when they moved the Thrashers to Winnipeg. Hell, they were even going to call the team "Manitoba" instead.

Fans really wanted "Winnipeg Jets" though. 

 

With the Senators? I was too young to follow the 1992 expansion as it happened but I get the sense that no other name was considered. Ottawa was getting a NHL team back? Ok. They were going to be the Senators. 

 

And if QC gets a team again? It's gonna be the Nordiques.

 

Seattle's a bit of a different case, because the "Metropolitans" name hasn't been used in nearly a century. Whereas the Jets and Nords left relatively recently and Ottawa had a history of minor league teams named the Senators leading up to 1992.

 

So I don't think Seattle will clamour for Metros like those cities clamoured for old names. Still? It makes sense for uni nerds like us to like it. Historical names, by definition, have more meaning than new names. So of course that's where the preference will be. 

 

 

Jets & Nordiques both make sense because it's not like anybody even wanted the teams to leave. It's not the fans fault they could no longer afford it. That's why so many people were/are hounding for the old names back. And like you said, they were only gone for 15-20 years. 

 

Senators would probably used for the reason you mentioned, but also to instill an attitude of winning. The old Sens won 6 Cups, 2 more than the Rangers in their entire lifetime. I think it's very plausible why any sports fan would want the name of such a successful franchise.

 

Seattle's Metropolitan cause makes no sense to me. This is a team that won a single Cup, 100 years ago. I highly doubt there's many people around who'd ever give a rat's ass about that team anymore. They only lasted 9 seasons as well, unlike the Jets, Nordiques and Senators who were around for much longer. The only thing interesting about the team were their jerseys, but it's not even like you have to the name the team the Metropolitans to have your look influenced by them. And when you think about what a metropolitan is, do you think about Seattle? I just feel like Seattle has much more potential for a sports nickname than the Metropolitans. I'm also just tired of every team going back to their old stuff. I've said this in a previous thread before; if every team just goes with throwbacks, in the future, there will be nothing to throwback to. I just want to see some nice new designs.

 

17 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Just look at this beautiful logo....

 

 

So you want the SAME name AND the SAME logo? Not even nice if you ask me.

 

[goalieboy82]

57 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Seattle Pilots

 

https://www.behance.net/gallery/15056263/Seattle-Pilots-

 

reword this and we have a winner:

 

[SHaMROCK]

No team is going to begin using native name/imagery in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020.  Teams with a legacy with native imagery are under constant pressure/attack to change.  TOTEMS will never happen, not even a slight consideration!!!

[IceCap]

26 minutes ago, TRoyConcepts said:

Seattle's Metropolitan cause makes no sense to me. This is a team that won a single Cup, 100 years ago.

I agree to a point. The Seattle Metropolitans wouldn't even be on anyone's radar, save for the fact that they happened to be the first American team to win the Cup. That bit of trivia is what makes the name interesting. 

[kimball]

15 minutes ago, SHaMROCK said:

No team is going to begin using native name/imagery in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020.  Teams with a legacy with native imagery are under constant pressure/attack to change.  TOTEMS will never happen, not even a slight consideration!!!

 

I don't think so -- depending on the area and imagery. If it was a red faced Indian in a feathered war bonnet -- then of course not. 

 

But, a name like a Thunderbirds or Totems with a logo like the Seahawks would hardly sniff controversy.

[M4One]

Kinda of wondering if those who are suggesting Metropolitans even watch hockey, considering there's a division in the NHL with the same name.  I don't understand the need to go back in time and pull a name that has little or no ties to an actual NHL team.  Yes, the Metros won the Stanley Cup a long time ago, but even if there wasn't a division with the same name, it's just a bad name.  Totems is the same.  And, why "promote" the Thunderbirds name, especially if the junior team might still exist in the market and unlikely to give it up?

[Morgan33]

22 minutes ago, SHaMROCK said:

No team is going to begin using native name/imagery in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020.  Teams with a legacy with native imagery are under constant pressure/attack to change.  TOTEMS will never happen, not even a slight consideration!!!

 

Well, that's just stupid.  How is the name Totems disrespectful in the slightest.

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, M4One said:

Kinda of wondering if those who are suggesting Metropolitans even watch hockey, considering there's a division in the NHL with the same name.

Baseball has a team named the "Nationals" despite having a "National League."

 

And I watch plenty of hockey, thankyouverymuch  

 

3 minutes ago, M4One said:

And, why "promote" the Thunderbirds name, especially if the junior team might still exist in the market and unlikely to give it up?

Probably because the Thunderbirds probably won't be around if Seattle gets a NHL team? The NHL has wanted Seattle for a long time now. If they finally get in? You can bet that they'll grease whatever wheels need greasing to make sure they're THE only option for hockey in the area. 

[M4One]

11 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Baseball has a team named the "Nationals" despite having a "National League."

 

And I watch plenty of hockey, thankyouverymuch  

 

Probably because the Thunderbirds probably won't be around if Seattle gets a NHL team? The NHL has wanted Seattle for a long time now. If they finally get in? You can bet that they'll grease whatever wheels need greasing to make sure they're THE only option for hockey in the area. 

 

Forgot about the Nationals, but I still think it's a bad name.  Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa all have junior teams, so I wouldn't completely rule it out that the T-Birds would stick around.  Yes, Calgary and Edmonton are owned by the Flames and Oilers, but Vancouver and Ottawa aren't.  Still, why name the new professional team after the old junior team?