orangefaniniowa

Seattle NBA Brand Discussion

189 posts in this topic

On 4/30/2017 at 11:30 AM, Ice_Cap said:

Unpopular opinion. This logo sucks. It's a super generic typeface with a city skyline in a basketball. "SuperSonics" conveys speed, but the logo is so static. 

 

The 1967-70 logo is the best the team ever had across two cities, and it's not even close. 

ztmj6x7hdosw8gu49wa64doag.gif

 

Now that is a good logo that accurately conveys the team name and namesake (supersonic jet airplanes). The skyline logo is dull and was rendered inaccurate within a decade of its adoption due to several waves of new construction.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That logo would be in need of some serious modernizing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RichO said:

 

Except they had the same ownership, same manager, 22 of the same players, and basically the same uniforms from the last NY season to the first SF season.

 

Moves happen. Teams fold, expansions happen. Nothing is permanent. Histories belong to both the organization that moved, and the places they occupied. How that gets handled is all up to the teams and leagues involved.

True. They had the same ownership, players, colors. Yes, they were the Giants....but in San Francisco. Even you said it, "the last NY season to the first SF season." So there is a point in the Giants franchises history where there was move...a big one...to a new city, with new fans, a new stadium, a new time zone. I'm not saying that the SF Giants chuck the NY Giants history in the waste bin, but that was the past (their past to be specific), but they are now the San Francisco Giants (the club formally known as the New York Giants).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Viola73 said:

True. They had the same ownership, players, colors. Yes, they were the Giants....but in San Francisco. Even you said it, "the last NY season to the first SF season." So there is a point in the Giants franchises history where there was move...a big one...to a new city, with new fans, a new stadium, a new time zone. I'm not saying that the SF Giants chuck the NY Giants history in the waste bin, but that was the past (their past to be specific), but they are now the San Francisco Giants (the club formally known as the New York Giants).

Then what are you saying?  Nothing in the above paragraph is in disagreement with anything any of us (people like Ferdinand and myself) have been saying.  

 

I think we all get that the team moved and that how they address their past history is sort of strange and up in the air.  But it's not really about what the Giants do, but more about what MLB (or, at the time, the NL) does.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

What about the Angels? They moved, changed their name, do you consider the original Los Angeles Angels (MLB) to now be defunct? Or is there a minimum distance involved in a move which makes it OK?

With every change the Angels made there was paperwork that needed to be filled out and letterhead that needed to be changed. These may be small things compared to the Giants move across the great nation of America, but the records will show the years the Angles were the Los Angeles, California, of Anaheim, Los Angeles of Sacramento, etc. You get the point. But it's still a part of the Angels history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Then what are you saying?  Nothing in the above paragraph is in disagreement with anything any of us (people like Ferdinand and myself) have been saying.  

 

I think we all get that the team moved and that how they address their past history is sort of strange and up in the air.  But it's not really about what the Giants do, but more about what MLB (or, at the time, the NL) does.

Yes, yes, yes. I agree that when the Giants moved to SF that the history of the NY Giants went with them. What I got from Ferdinand was that the Giants was an entity and that to separate the histories between NY and SF was an abomination in this new era of post truth...yadda, yadda, yadda. I was saying yes you could separate the two but also keep them together as the franchise continued to be the Giants but in a different city...if that makes sense. It does to me. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Viola73 said:

Yes, yes, yes. I agree that when the Giants moved to SF that the history of the NY Giants went with them. What I got from Ferdinand was that the Giants was an entity and that to separate the histories between NY and SF was an abomination in this new era of post truth...yadda, yadda, yadda. I was saying yes you could separate the two but also keep them together as the franchise continued to be the Giants but in a different city...if that makes sense. It does to me. :) 

It seems a bit like splitting hairs.  I tend to agree, though (though I agree with Ferdinand's definition of "entity" more than yours).  As you say, the Giants history from NY went with them.  And I don't think anyone disputes that one could view the two piece of the franchise's history separately.    So in the case of the Giants, I'd say we're all in agreement even if our language is coming from different angles (though I suspect we may fall out of agreement when talking about Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans/Hornets, Browns/Ravens/Browns, or the future Sonics).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the whole Browns/Ravens thing, I was thinking had the players from the 1995 Browns been put up in a dispersal draft and they had an expansion draft for the Ravens and the Browns resumed play in 1999 as they actually did, would you consider that a legit continuation of the Browns franchise, also imagine if the move had happened a year later and Ray Lewis and Jonathan Ogden had played as rookies in Cleveland kind of like Kevin Durant playing his rookie year in Seattle and Russell Westbrook wearing a Sonics hat and holding a Sonics jersey on draft night.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

That logo would be in need of some serious modernizing.

Only a couple tweaks away from being a roundel ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best concepts I've seen blends the skyline logo with the jet logo. Phenomenal. 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

ztmj6x7hdosw8gu49wa64doag.gif

 

Now that is a good logo that accurately conveys the team name and namesake (supersonic jet airplanes). The skyline logo is dull and was rendered inaccurate within a decade of its adoption due to several waves of new construction.

 

Supersonics, like Astros, Rockets, and Jets, is a name that beyond just the literal interpretation of the name, calls up the time they were created. So with the Sonics, you aren't just calling up images of the fastest jets, you're invoking a late 60s vision of what's cutting edge. That's what this old logo gives you. Sure, it's dated, but with those 60s names, you're trading in a funky kind of nostalgia for the a vision of the future from 50 years ago, so the best version of the Sonics would play heavily on that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RichO said:

Supersonics, like Astros, Rockets, and Jets, is a name that beyond just the literal interpretation of the name, calls up the time they were created. So with the Sonics, you aren't just calling up images of the fastest jets, you're invoking a late 60s vision of what's cutting edge. That's what this old logo gives you. Sure, it's dated, but with those 60s names, you're trading in a funky kind of nostalgia for the a vision of the future from 50 years ago, so the best version of the Sonics would play heavily on that.

 

It occurred to me only a couple of weeks ago, after decades of interest in team names and such, that "SuperSonics" is not only one of those 60s-era futuristic names.  In alluding specifically to sound, the name plays on the two meanings of the word "sound": audible vibrations, and the body of water.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

ztmj6x7hdosw8gu49wa64doag.gif

 

Now that is a good logo that accurately conveys the team name and namesake (supersonic jet airplanes). The skyline logo is dull and was rendered inaccurate within a decade of its adoption due to several waves of new construction.

 

20 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

That logo would be in need of some serious modernizing.

Care to give this one a try? @ren69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

No, facts aren't subjective. Ferdinand is right. You're substituting a fantasy in place of clear-as-day facts. 

There's a lot of subjective stuff we can ageee to disagree on. The clarity of the historical records in these cases, however, aren't subjective.

Sorry, it's not as black and white as you'd have it be. We all wish that it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Sorry, it's not as black and white as you'd have it be. We all wish that it were.

The definition of facts are things that are indisputably the case. Yet you are still trying to dispute them. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

One of the best concepts I've seen blends the skyline logo with the jet logo. Phenomenal. 

 

 

 

Cool concept, @SFGiants58.  The logo is pretty awesome.  The fonts could be improved, I think.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, @SFGiants58 that is nice.  I agree with WSU on the font.  It's not terrible but it's not great (though I really don't like the Red Sox numbers).

 

The primary logo is really sharp, though I wonder whether it's too detailed; remember, they want embroidered logos on golf shirts.  The Space Needle may need simplification.  The 1980s-inspired stripe through he jersey may be a bit too boxy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Wow, @SFGiants58 that is nice.  I agree with WSU on the font.  It's not terrible but it's not great (though I really don't like the Red Sox numbers).

 

The primary logo is really sharp, though I wonder whether it's too detailed; remember, they want embroidered logos on golf shirts.  The Space Needle may need simplification.  The 1980s-inspired stripe through he jersey may be a bit too boxy.

 

There's an update further down the page, if you're curious:

 

 

I still stand by that logo and design. However, I realize that the details on the plane might be hard to render as an embroidered patch, and that I could have done a better job rendering the "arch" template. I also stand by the kelly/yellow color scheme instead of the forest/yellow one, as the kelly would be a bit more in keeping with the team's "glory years" and kelly is still underused in the Big Four (even in a league with the Celtics).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 6:04 PM, OnWis97 said:

It seems a bit like splitting hairs.  I tend to agree, though (though I agree with Ferdinand's definition of "entity" more than yours).  As you say, the Giants history from NY went with them.  And I don't think anyone disputes that one could view the two piece of the franchise's history separately.    So in the case of the Giants, I'd say we're all in agreement even if our language is coming from different angles (though I suspect we may fall out of agreement when talking about Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans/Hornets, Browns/Ravens/Browns, or the future Sonics).

Yes, the New York Giants and San Francisco Giants will always be different entities, regardless of what items ownership brought with them from New York. No one is suggesting fans of the San Francisco Giants have to ignore what happened in New York nearly 60 years ago, but just be realistic about it. If you're a Willie Mays fan, certainly appreciate his time in New York, but it would be weird to place the same value on a player like Mel Ott. And understand the accomplishments as the SF Giants happened as the SF Giants, it's how history works. Sports franchises are vastly different than other business franchises in so many ways, so we can't take the same approach with them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Gold Pinstripes said:

Yes, the New York Giants and San Francisco Giants will always be different entities, regardless of what items ownership brought with them from New York. No one is suggesting fans of the San Francisco Giants have to ignore what happened in New York nearly 60 years ago, but just be realistic about it. If you're a Willie Mays fan, certainly appreciate his time in New York, but it would be weird to place the same value on a player like Mel Ott. And understand the accomplishments as the SF Giants happened as the SF Giants, it's how history works. Sports franchises are vastly different than other business franchises in so many ways, so we can't take the same approach with them.  

 

And that's the problem.

 

There is one organization. That organization moved. The Sonics moved and made some choices about how that organization wants to handle its identity and Seattle roots. If another franchise is either created or moves in and embraces the name and honors the history, it's still a different organization. Same as Browns1 and Browns2. This weird mental gymnastic to deny the fact that teams move makes no sense and is divorced from actual observable reality.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now