Toronto206

Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Wings said:

Snot Otters

Seattle Snot Otters would still be better than Seattle Kraken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

I've always despised the Kraken name; people talk mad crap about Sockeyes, but nothing screams "beer league tryhard cool name" of the proposed candidates harder than a team named the "Seattle Kraken". It's almost roller hockey-esque.

 

Seattle Kraken does sound like a new MiLB team in the PCL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jmac11281 said:

Seattle Kraken does sound like a new MiLB team in the PCL.

 

More like Roller Hockey International. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

After reading the comments on that tweet, I can't believe how many people want Kraken as the name. That may be the worst name of all.

Kraken reeks of a middle aged man trying really hard to be hip and cool with the kids these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Seattle Squid? Local, alliterative, all the same logo/uniform possibilities as Kraken, without the stupid gimmicky name. Name the mascot Kraken for all I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, king_mahalo said:

How about Seattle Squid? Local, alliterative, all the same logo/uniform possibilities as Kraken, without the stupid gimmicky name. Name the mascot Kraken for all I care.

 

Make it Squids and it's a deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 7:09 PM, spartacat_12 said:

So the team has officially narrowed it down to 5 names:

 

 

 

 

First, I am concerned that the team's ownership and management are placing a list of finalists for the nickname in a capsule that is set to stay closed for more than forty-two years as little more than an excuse to refuse to comment on exactly which nicknames received serious consideration once the franchise's official nickname is revealed and, therefore, to pressure the public into accepting a possibly mediocre nickname for the team.  Second, many of the ways that various Twitter users have replied to the time capsule tweet not only have conspired with the news about the time capsule to reinforce my cynicism with regard to what Seattle's upcoming NHL team might be named, but also have added to my dim view of how those most likely to cheer for a Seattle NHL club are perceiving at least some of the most expected nicknames for the team.  Among those replies, what stand out in my mind the most are two apparently contradicting objections to a Seattle Sockeyes identity and how those objections may relate to the overall Sockeyes-versus-Kraken debate.

 

People in one camp seem to dislike Sockeyes as a Seattle NHL franchise's nickname because, among other things, the particular kind of animal depicted in the Vancouver Canucks' emblem is known to eat sockeye salmon.  Personally, I wonder if (a) most of these people favor the more faddish, more gimmicky, more cartoonishly minor-league choice of Kraken as the team's nickname; (b) such people are likewise the majority of those who want Kraken to be the team's nickname; and (c) such people prefer a Seattle Kraken identity mainly due to a yearning for a name that "strikes fear in the hearts of opponents" and are hoping and imagining that those playing for a team with such a nickname will be "Krak-ing" the teeth and bones of opposing players regularly during games.  People in a different group, meanwhile, seem to be uncomfortable with Sockeyes as a nickname because they regard that name's potential to be associated with the phrase "Sock 'em in the eye(s)!" as cruel and even childish.  Well, I, for one, hope that people in this other group are not so hypocritical as to want the team to be called the Kraken, let alone out of a desire for an aggressive and intimidating nickname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

People in one camp seem to dislike Sockeyes as a Seattle NHL franchise's nickname because, among other things, the particular kind of animal depicted in the Vancouver Canucks' emblem is known to eat sockeye salmon.

Don't forget that their other most immediate rival, the Sharks, also have a mascot that eats salmon.

 

I don't think that should preclude the team from having the name, but it will make for some extremely low hanging fruit as far as banter and headlines go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chromatic, I agree that a prey-animal-based nickname for a team whose closest rival, and especially whose two nearest nemeses, use nicknames and/or logos that reference predatory animals (particularly if the predators are known to eat the nickname-inspiring prey specifically) could create a discomforting situation for a fan.

 

Also, I share your opinion that a nickname of Sockeyes could make a Seattle NHL team an easy target for insults from fans (even the team's own fans if the play is too lousy and victories are too rare) and mockery from the media.  However, I think that Kraken as a nickname for the team could provoke its own easily conceived set of snide remarks and cruel gestures from fans and reporters alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just keep thinking that they could avoid this whole thing by going with Metros as a modern interpretation of the Cup Winners. Be like the Senators (but don’t pretend to be the same franchise)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Pharos04 said:

I just keep thinking that they could avoid this whole thing by going with Metros as a modern interpretation of the Cup Winners. Be like the Senators (but don’t pretend to be the same franchise)

Metropolitans would be my first choice. I like Totems but I understand why they would stay away from that one. I think the Sockeyes is decent, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chromatic said:

Don't forget that their other most immediate rival, the Sharks, also have a mascot that eats salmon.

 

I don't think that should preclude the team from having the name, but it will make for some extremely low hanging fruit as far as banter and headlines go.

I keep bringing this point up, but people chiding "Sockeyes" for being lame and unthreatening really have no ground to stand on when we have teams named the "Penguins", "Blues", "Maple Leafs" and "Ducks". None of those are scary names, so why should Seattle have to be the "Kraken" for their branding to be viewed as a success?

 

I can't remember any time in my life I've ran in abject horror and fear from a penguin or a maple leaf. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

People in a different group, meanwhile, seem to be uncomfortable with Sockeyes as a nickname because they regard that name's potential to be associated with the phrase "Sock 'em in the eye(s)!" as cruel and even childish.  

 

How many people are in this particular group? 10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

People in a different group, meanwhile, seem to be uncomfortable with Sockeyes as a nickname because they regard that name's potential to be associated with the phrase "Sock 'em in the eye(s)!" as cruel and even childish.

 

29 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

How many people are in this particular group? 10?

 

Speaking of uncomfortable, wait until those 10 people hear the team's cheer.

 

Quote

Raa raa ree! Kick 'em in the knee!

 

Raa raa rass! Kick 'em in the other knee!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that led me to coming around to actually accepting "Sockeyes" as a name after thinking it was stupid for a long time was when I threw them in a list with all the other Pacific Division teams and realized it doesn't look odd or stand out like a sore thumb like I thought it would:

 

Edmonton Oilers
Vegas Golden Knights
Vancouver Canucks
Seattle Sockeyes
Anaheim Ducks
Calgary Flames
Los Angeles Kings
San Jose Sharks

 

"Metropiltans" on the other hand does does stick out like a sore thumb to me.  Kind of like Golden Knights does.  That said, I'm still firmly in the "Seattle Emeralds" camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

I keep bringing this point up, but people chiding "Sockeyes" for being lame and unthreatening really have no ground to stand on when we have teams named the "Penguins", "Blues", "Maple Leafs" and "Ducks". None of those are scary names, so why should Seattle have to be the "Kraken" for their branding to be viewed as a success?

 

I can't remember any time in my life I've ran in abject horror and fear from a penguin or a maple leaf. 😛

You're absolutely correct. The notion of a team being directly associated with its icon is antiquated. These are brands in much the same way as Starbucks and Amazon are brands. 

 

You've never heard anybody consider the Bears as being inferior to the Vikings because a Viking would have likely killed a bear for food. I mean, hell, look at baseball: the Red Sox? Padres?? 

 

Even in hockey: It's not like Bruins fans had an edge on St. Louis during the Stanley Cup because they could mock the inferiority of blues music.

 

It's just a silly argument against a name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.