The Six

It's finally Brian Hayward's time to shine as the premier voice of hockey in Southern California!

Very lame burns.

I see the Gawker case as being similar to the Donald Sterling exile. Did he deserve to be banned from the NBA? Yes. Was the way that it happened fair? No. Sterling was allowed to be a terrible owner and person for decades, but it only became an issue when the public heard a tape. You shouldn't be able to take someone's team away from them like that. Gawker probably deserved to be cast off into the abyss, but not by drowning in legal fees defending themselves. I'm sure there are tons of small businesses that are forced into bankruptcy because they can't afford lawyers, and we never hear about them.

Stephen A. Smith is garbage. Kellerman is not.

I agree, but it's still the best logo they've ever had which is probably why it gets so much (baffling) love. The Canucks need to blow it all up and start from scratch again. But since that logo is so (unbelievably) beloved I don't see them ever being able to escape it. I never understood the "boring" argument. It's no less "exciting" than the Habs, Leafs, Packers, Steelers, 9ers, and most other logos considered untouchable classics. They just have enough history behind them to make them see the logos with rose coloured glasses. While the Canucks certainly don't have the same degree of prestige as those teams, but the logo has a level of rapport around BC that is unmatched, especially considering the identity crisis the team has gone through. Its a point of consistency thats been with the team throughout most of its history in one form or another. The problem isn't really that it's boring. It's that it doesn't really relate to the team at all. Says nothing about Vancouver or Canucks. It's a generic logo that could be used for pretty much any team in the league (And no, that's still not a real "C"). It would actually be a great logo for a hockey league, because it's a nice, simple design. For a team, though? It could be anybody..

You know what's wrong with the Eagles? The green. Not that it looks bad, but it doesn't fit the city. It's too pleasant of a color. Seeing Philly meatheads tailgating wearing pretty green hats and shirts just doesn't mesh well. They need orange and black like the Flyers, or plain red and blue like the Sixers. The Phillies' cream alternates don't work either, for the same reason.

The words you choose affect the theme of your sentence, though.

It's a separate region for sure, but "literally a world away" is a bit over the top.

No. Move the Rays to the Marlins' stadium. Move the Marlins to Saskatoon. Or Portland.

I get the Minnesota thing, but going from North Stars to just Stars is kinda lame. It's like the New Orleans Jazz becoming the Utah Notes. You just went from a name that reflected the location, to being as generic as possible. "Hey, our team used to be a reference to Polaris, and our team's location in a northern state, but what should we call ourselves now?" "How about Stars?" "A reference to...every star?" "Yes." "Cool!"

No kudos to the Orioles for that thing. Ever. I'm sick of stars. It might be the most overused design in sports, next to the alternate logo roundel in hockey. Who would have thought that something 9 year old girls sketch in their notebooks for fun would make for such a popular design aspect for big, tough sports teams? The Astros, Blue Jackets, Capitals, a team in Dallas so bereft of originality they had to call themselves the Stars...I'm done with them.

Eh, I don't know if all of these choices work. Blockbuster, sure, right now they're pretty much done, but they had a good, relevant run. WCW was number 1 for a couple years with that logo. I think of "failure" more as something that never had any success.

I don't like teams using different versions of the same logo. Mainly the two maple leaf logos Toronto has on their jerseys.

Great jersey.

I'd take pretty much any Angels identity over the current one. I like that old alternate California logo they had on the sleeves. Now their uniform is a lesson in redundancy with the same "A" logo featured about 18 times between the hat, jersey, and sleeves. The lowercase "a" logo was pretty cool, too.

It doesn't matter that they look like other teams, especially teams in the same city. People talk about how cool it is how the Pittsburgh teams all wear the same colors, so the Kings mimicking the Lakers or Raiders shouldn't be a problem. It's just that some of those looks haven't been good. The gold jersey is great, and the '98 set worked, as well. They've just gone the Dallas route of ditching unique for boring.

These were really good looks. I like the unorthodox "Los Angeles" across the bottom, and the use of color is great. It's too bad the Kings and Ducks both currently have the worst looks in their history now.

Well firstly I wouldn't consider the Islanders' logo classic at all, but anyway, I do have a problem with that jersey. I love the design and overall look, I just don't get the logo. They're not the Buffalo Buffaloes. We get it, your city is named after an animal, why does the logo have to be that animal, especially when the name of the team is different? The other logos you mentioned at least represent the city and team name. (Though they're better than the Buffalo Bills, naming the team after the guy who slaughtered thousands of those animals. I think I've said this before.)

There's nothing special about the Yankees' uniforms. They're old and won a bunch of championships. That's all. The home whites are OK, but the road grays are not very good.

This is absolutely hideous and frightening.

I actually like this and am surprised at all the hate it gets.

It's interesting how the history of a team affects the way people think of their identity. To me the Montreal Canadiens' logo is an uninspiring C with an H in it. I understand the importance of the team, but I don't think that necessarily automatically makes everything associated with them great. I don't hate the logo or anything, but I certainly wouldn't consider it close to one of the best. I think sometimes people are too influenced by the gravity of a team's history to make a fair judgement on the way they look.

?

This is hideous. For the longest time I thought the island was just a splotch, like a Rorschach inkblot. I agree about the 90s NBA looks. Better than what they're wearing now. The Pistons went from a nice unique look to a logo that's two words in front of a basketball. Downgrading by oversimplifying isn't good. The Clippers should do an update of their boat logo, too, instead of the generic thing they have now. At least then more people would know what a clipper is.