2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

It is true but it's also very convoluted, which is why it's easier to just refer to the Sharks as a 1991 expansion team.  Thinking of the Sharks as a second-six team just doesn't feel right.  Especially considering the fact they wear teal and have always used a very modern looking logo set.

The Seals wore Teal during their final stretch in the Bay Area fwiw. And the Sharks' first set was pretty traditional. As was the one before the current one. 

 

I like it. It's cool that the "Next Six" can all be accounted for. Even if you need to take the long way around.

[Cosmic]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

It is true but it's also very convoluted, which is why it's easier to just refer to the Sharks as a 1991 expansion team.  Thinking of the Sharks as a second-six team just doesn't feel right.  Especially considering the fact they wear teal and have always used a very modern looking logo set.

It's convoluted, but it's also real.  How many expansion teams get to poach players from a single team to such an extent that an existing team in the league participates in the "expansion" draft?  A 1967 expansion team picked players in an "expansion" draft in 1991; it's not your normal state of affairs.

[Morgan33]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Seals wore Teal during their final stretch in the Bay Area fwiw. And the Sharks' first set was pretty traditional. As was the one before the current one. 

 

I like it. It's cool that the "Next Six" can all be accounted for. Even if you need to take the long way around.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

It's convoluted, but it's also real.  How many expansion teams get to poach players from a single team to such an extent that an existing team in the league participates in the "expansion" draft?  A 1967 expansion team picked players in an "expansion" draft in 1991; it's not your normal state of affairs.

 

 

 

The Sharks striping configuration was certainly traditional but that was the case with every team in 1991, as the 'angular' trend of the 90's was still a few years away.  It could be argued that the Sharks ushered in the trends of the 1990's as they were the first team to use teal (and stick with it) and adopt a ferocious, cartoon-based logo.  It's definitely cool that the team can be accounted for but I certainly wouldn't call the San Jose Sharks a second-six team.  Maybe if they went directly from being the Seals to the Sharks, it'd be different but the team didn't exist as its own entity for 12 years...  That's 3 years longer than the Seals were even around.  The connection is there but it's convoluted and flimsy at best.  I'm certainly glad the Sharks aren't participating in the 50-year anniversary celebrations.  

[dont care]

What does design have to do with whether one franchise can be considered apart of another's history. The thunder look nothing like the Seattle supersonics of old, but no one can tell me they aren't the same franchise.

[IceCap]

5 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

 

The Sharks striping configuration was certainly traditional but that was the case with every team in 1991, as the 'angular' trend of the 90's was still a few years away.  It could be argued that the Sharks ushered in the trends of the 1990's as they were the first team to use teal (and stick with it) and adopt a ferocious, cartoon-based logo.  It's definitely cool that the team can be accounted for but I certainly wouldn't call the San Jose Sharks a second-six team.  Maybe if they went directly from being the Seals to the Sharks, it'd be different but the team didn't exist as its own entity for 12 years...  That's 3 years longer than the Seals were even around.  The connection is there but it's convoluted and flimsy at best.  

Don't mistake "not straightforward" with "flimsy."

Follow the chain of events. The Gunds merged their franchise with the North Stars and then they got it back and took a portion of the Stars' roster with them. 

You may not like to call the Sharks a Next Six team but the assertion that they definitely aren't ignores the very unique circumstances of their birth as a franchise. 

 

As far as modern uniforms go? The striping was traditional. "Well modern striping wasn't a thing yet!" doesn't change the fact that they didn't use it. Fact is most of the Sharks' uniform sets have been traditional. 

 

I'm certainly glad the Sharks aren't participating in the 50-year anniversary celebrations.

And yet they're giving away Seals 50th anniversary shirts. Which is more of an acknowledgement of the event than the Stars are giving. And they're definitely a Next Six team. 

[habsfan1]

Who's entitled to wear Seal related throwbacks?? The Sharks?

[SFGiants58]

3 minutes ago, habsfan1 said:

Who's entitled to wear Seal related throwbacks?? The Sharks?

 

I'm pretty sure the NHL owns the trademarks on the logos, as they do for most defunct teams. I know that the league owned the trademarks on the Jets' logos (until the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg) and that the league recently gained ownership of the Whalers' trademarks.

 

The only ones with an iffy trademark status are the Minnesota North Stars (because of the logos shared by the Dallas Stars) and the Atlanta Flames (since the alternate captains' insignia is the Atlanta Flames' crest). I'm guessing that this trademark issue might be part of what has kept the Dallas Stars from acknowledging their "Second Six" status in the form of a patch.

[Morgan33]

On October 30, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Don't mistake "not straightforward" with "flimsy."

Follow the chain of events. The Gunds merged their franchise with the North Stars and then they got it back and took a portion of the Stars' roster with them. 

You may not like to call the Sharks a Next Six team but the assertion that they definitely aren't ignores the very unique circumstances of their birth as a franchise. 

3

3

6

 

Yeah but the Seals/Barons team was still essentially idle for 12 years.  It's hard to treat the Sharks as that same franchise with such an extensive gap of inactivity.  Can you really call the Sharks a 50-year-old franchise when 12 of those years belonged entirely to a different second-six rival?

 

Quote

As far as modern uniforms go? The striping was traditional. "Well modern striping wasn't a thing yet!" doesn't change the fact that they didn't use it. Fact is most of the Sharks' uniform sets have been traditional. 

 

 

 

 

Half of their uniforms have been traditional... If you disregard the colours and logos.   I don't count the current uniforms due to the lack of hem stripes and the weird manner in which they distribute the orange on their sleeves.

 

Quote

And yet they're giving away Seals 50th anniversary shirts. Which is more of an acknowledgement of the event than the Stars are giving. And they're definitely a Next Six team.

 

 

 

Well, the Stars should definitely be participating in those celebrations.  Here's where we agree.

[Ark]

Flyers vs. Penguins

 

 

 

Great matchup.

[Cosmic]

22 hours ago, Morgo said:

Yeah but the Seals/Barons team was still essentially idle for 12 years.  It's hard to treat the Sharks as that same franchise with such an extensive gap of inactivity.  Can you really call the Sharks a 50-year-old franchise when 12 of those years belonged entirely to a different second-six rival?

I won't call the Sharks a 50YO franchise with the same righteousness that I'll call the Ravens the old Browns, but you can draw the line.  You don't have to cheat at all to do it.  The Seals/Barons franchise merged with the North Stars franchise.  They didn't disappear for those 12 years; it was a true merger.  The owners of the Barons became the majority owners of the new North Stars.  The North Stars took the Barons' old division spot.  The rosters merged.

 

If the Sharks were a by-the-numbers expansion team, I would probably consider the line broken without much thought or ambiguity.  It doesn't even really matter that they took the Sharks to the same area that the Seals left.  The same owners that merged the Barons with the North Stars started a new team, and they got to take a bunch of North Stars players with them.  It was essentially an un-merger.

 

[Rollins Man]

1 hour ago, Ark said:

Flyers vs. Penguins

 

 

 

Great matchup.

could have been better if they were wearing the lindros era jerseys.

[Bmac]

I recall the Seals and Barons uniforms being options for the Stars in older NHL video games, so I guess that's wear the league stands on the issue.

[charger77]

10 hours ago, Ark said:

Flyers vs. Penguins

 

 

 

Great matchup.

 

Can't wait until next year when they play without a billion patches on their jerseys. 

[Gold Pinstripes]

On 10/30/2016 at 8:57 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Don't mistake "not straightforward" with "flimsy."

Follow the chain of events. The Gunds merged their franchise with the North Stars and then they got it back and took a portion of the Stars' roster with them. 

You may not like to call the Sharks a Next Six team but the assertion that they definitely aren't ignores the very unique circumstances of their birth as a franchise. 

 

As far as modern uniforms go? The striping was traditional. "Well modern striping wasn't a thing yet!" doesn't change the fact that they didn't use it. Fact is most of the Sharks' uniform sets have been traditional. 

 

 

 

And yet they're giving away Seals 50th anniversary shirts. Which is more of an acknowledgement of the event than the Stars are giving. And they're definitely a Next Six team. 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Once the Seals left the Bay area, and stopped existing as the California Seals, that is a important distinction. Those former Seals who became North Stars don't count for me. Even if you had a former Seal from the 70s playing for the Sharks in the early 90s, that's not a continuation of a team in a specific area. Anytime you have these mistakes, it feels like that team is trying to be something it isn't, like a short guy wearing elevator shoes, or a woman with a bad wig. You're really not fooling anyone, there was a huge gap of time from the mid 70s to the early 90s, when Bay area NHL hockey didn't exist. I would enjoy seeing the Sharks in a Seals throwback someday, but only the Kings, Pens, Flyers, and Blues are authentic Expansion Six teams.

[Thaumatrope]

Not sure if this is the most appropriate place for this news or not...but apparently the NHL just signed a 16 year deal with Fanatics to produce all replica jerseys as well as "champion apparel" (Stanly Cup champion t-shirts and the like). 

 

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/17890933/nhl-signs-16-year-deal-fanatics-replica-jerseys-stanley-cup-champion-apparel

 

Has the NHL ever had on ice and replica jersey's produced by two separate vendors before?

 

I stopped buying jerseys when the Reebok contract took effect...looks like I wont be buying any replica jerseys under this new contract either. Then again, 16 years is a very very long time.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

No the Sharks are not the Seals/Barons franchise. But I'll tell you what. If the league started saying "yes they are the same" it wouldn't bother me. Because that's a hell of alot closer to reality then lets say the Charlotte Hornets of today being the same entity as the Charlotte Hornets who moved to New Orleans and are now the Pelicans. Or the Cleveland Browns of today being the same entity that Art Modell moved to Baltimore.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

28 minutes ago, The Giant Pacific Octopus said:

No the Sharks are not the Seals/Barons franchise. But I'll tell you what. If the league started saying "yes they are the same" it wouldn't bother me. Because that's a hell of alot closer to reality then lets say the Charlotte Hornets of today being the same entity as the Charlotte Hornets who moved to New Orleans and are now the Pelicans. Or the Cleveland Browns of today being the same entity that Art Modell moved to Baltimore.

 

This illustrates why those of us who hate the NFL's decision with the Cleveland Browns get so worked up about that travesty.  Once that ahistorical crap has been normalised, it inevitably opens the door for more and more nonsense.

The obsession with franchise continuity is an application in the world of sports of an important philosophical and ethical principle: there is an objective reality out there; and the responsibility of all honest observers is to report this reality as it is, not as we wish it were.

[BrianLion]

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This illustrates why those of us who hate the NFL's decision with the Cleveland Browns get so worked up about that travesty.  Once that ahistorical crap has been normalised, it inevitably opens the door for more and more nonsense.

The obsession with franchise continuity is an application in the world of sports of an important philosophical and ethical principle: there is an objective reality out there; and the responsibility of all honest observers is to report this reality as it is, not as we wish it were.

 

 I find it easier to split the concepts of "franchise" and "identity."  The expansion team from 1999 is not the same franchise as the one that left for Baltimore in 1996 although they have the same identity.  Identities, at least now in the NFL, belong to cities not franchises.  Same goes for the Winnipeg Jets or Ottawa Senators.  

 

Now contrast that with the Los Angeles Dodgers or Indianapolis Colts who have continuity of both franchise and identity despite playing in a different city. 

 

The big issue is the leagues tend to mix these concepts up and mangle the histories of different franchises who may share similar identities or similar franchises who change identities, so you get situations where the current Cleveland Browns get credited for championships in the 1950's and Bobby Hull's jersey is retired by the Arizona Coyotes.  It drives me nuts. 

[hockey week]

I do think that a city has some right to the sports history that happened there, though. Maybe this plays into the identity vs franchise thing, maybe not. 

 

The city of Winnipeg should be able to celebrate the old Jets and the new Jets, even though the old Jets are in Arizona, Bobby Hull still played in Winnipeg. But he also played for the team that moved to Arizona, so it's appropriate for him to be celebrated in both places. 

Both the city AND the team have the right to celebrate their history. Winnipeg AND the former Jets can celebrate the history. Atlanta and the Flames can celebrate their history. Minnesota AND the [North] Stars can celebrate their history. 

 

I don't see the two as needing to overlap or needing to intersect...they're like skew lines. They never touch, because they're not in the same plane.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

The more I see those Bluejackets thirds the more I love them.

I don't love them as much as ointments and scented bath oils, but pretty damn close.