Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

[Corvus]

12 hours ago, DPHF said:

 

Make it Squids and it's a deal. 

 

Seattle Cephalopods

[Wings]

Seattle Lampreys

 

But Lampreys are freaky & look like they belong in a horror movie. Probably wouldn't work. 

[Walk-Off]

Just to be clear, as popular choices for nicknames for a Seattle NHL team go, I think that Sockeyes is, at worst, a lesser evil than Kraken.  However, I regard Emeralds, Metropolitans, Pilots, and maybe even Evergreens as better choices than either Sockeyes or Kraken.  Furthermore, the only genuinely plausible justification that I can see for the team being named the Seattle Kraken is a desire for an association with a menacing creature (even if it is fictional) for the sake of (for lack of a more accurate term) challenging the Canucks' C-shaped orca emblem and the name and logo of the Sharks.

 

With that said, I wonder about the extent to which the people in charge of the Seattle NHL franchise are considering any not-so-obvious inspiration for the team's nickname.  For example, have bones or fossils of any predatory animal from the Ice Age ever been found in the ground underneath Seattle?  The Nashville Predators' primary logo was inspired by a saber-toothed cat's skull that was excavated during the construction of a downtown Nashville skyscraper in the 1970s.  So, while Nashville has cornered the saber-toothed cat motif in the NHL, have the remains of, say, an American lion (Panthera atrox) ever been extracted from the ground in or near Seattle?  If the answer is "yes," then that could give a very different meaning to a "Seattle Sea Lions" identity. 

[Bayne]

Honestly who cares if your teams' name is the prey of another teams' name. If anything that would make the reverse more appealing to me, if they beat the predator. I love the underdog tag, and if you establish that from the get-go against your rival opponents then I think that's pretty cool. Plus Sockeyes just sounds good.

[SFGiants58]

4 hours ago, Wings said:

Seattle Lampreys

 

But Lampreys are freaky & look like they belong in a horror movie. Probably wouldn't work. 

 

 

Yikes. Maybe Brandiose can make it cute?

 

I stand by Sockeyes, but I'd also like Pilots, Stags, or Steelheads. Metropolitans and Evergreens/Pines are also good, while Totems is 100% off-limits because MOD EDIT and Kraken is just stupid. I'd prefer Kraken to Totems, because MOD EDIT.

[Wings]

I would love Seattle Breakers but I think it's bland & generic for most people's taste. 

 

[sky1324]

I'm a Seattle Emeralds guy myself, but I'd also be down for Metropolitans, Evergreens, or Cascades. Just not the Kraken.

[docrocket]

Lampreys suck.

[Bayne]

6 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

I'm a Seattle Emeralds guy myself, but I'd also be down for Metropolitans, Evergreens, or Cascades. Just not the Kraken.

 

Those all sound weird to me. Metropolitans I could get used to, but the others sound like gated communities.

[WBGMike]

6 hours ago, docrocket said:

Lampreys suck.

 

 

I see what you did there!

 

[Ridleylash]

Emeralds doesn't exactly strike me as a very good name. Emeralds are gemstones, they kinda don't do anything but sit there and look pretty; not the kind of image you want in a game as movement-heavy as hockey. Same with Evergreens; you don't want a team named after a tree since that's basically like calling your entire team the Seattle Pylons; trees don't do a lot of moving. Both open yourself to a litany of mockery.

 

Plus, would you want to be the NHL team who's mascot is a sentient tree?  

 

Metropolitans likely won't fly due to the Metropolitan Division, and Cascades sounds...a bit soft, IMO. It's decent, but it doesn't quite have that "it-factor" a team name should probably strive for these days. "Seattle Cascades" doesn't...it's not snappy, y'know? Brands should ultimately strive for snappiness and nailing that "it" factor.

 

Kraken is roller-hockey level trash, and I'm not surprised they've basically eliminated it from contention already. Nothing would ever justify that name for an NHL franchise.

Totems is also obviously off-limits due to cultural reasons; I can't see them naming them the Totems with the issues currently looming on Native imagery in sports logos, especially when totem poles weren't endemic to Washington in the first place.

 

Sockeyes makes the most amount of sense; if they keep on a Native-styled logo, it makes way more sense to use something that has historically held great significance to the Natives of the region over something not even endemic to Washington. Plus, they can use marketing speak to spin the identity as "showing how courageous and dedicated our players will be, like sockeyes moving against the tide" or something.

 

Yeah, some people will make "Suckeyes" jokes, but that's kinda standard fare for any opposing fanbase. You don't see the Ducks changing their name because of people calling them the "Anaheim Sucks", after all. Toronto isn't changing their name because people call them the "Make Me Laffs". San Jose isn't changing their name because people derisively call them the "Shorks". Derisive nicknames are inevitable, it'd happen to any name Seattle picked.

 

The Seattle Kraken can easily become the "Butt Kraken", for example. Then there's "Everpeens", "Emerdoods", "Cusscades", "Suckeyes", etc.

[BBTV]

That’s like not naming your son Bart because kids might call him Fart. It’s silly. 
 

my problem with Sockeyes is that it sounds minor-league to me because so many minor-league teams use descriptors in their names - “river dogs”, “ice cats”, etc. If “sockeye” is a type of salmon, then to me it falls into the same category. It’s not nearly as bad as others, and I wouldn’t complain much, but it just doesn’t feel like a pro name to me. I feel the same way about “golden” knights. Just Knights would be much better. 

[Ridleylash]

12 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

my problem with Sockeyes is that it sounds minor-league to me because so many minor-league teams use descriptors in their names - “river dogs”, “ice cats”, etc. If “sockeye” is a type of salmon, then to me it falls into the same category. It’s not nearly as bad as others, and I wouldn’t complain much, but it just doesn’t feel like a pro name to me. I feel the same way about “golden” knights. Just Knights would be much better. 

The difference to me is that the name isn't the "Seattle Sockeye Salmons", it's "Seattle Sockeyes". If the proposed name was "Seattle Sockeye Salmons", you'd have a decent comparison....but it isn't. And again, we have NHL teams named things like the Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers, Minnesota Wild and Anaheim Ducks; "Seattle Sockeyes" wouldn't be the most minor-leaguey team name in the NHL anyways.

 

The only reason we let those names slide is due to history, and even then a ton of people find the Wild's name to be stupid.

 

Also, IIRC "Golden Knights" was mainly a trademark thing. "Knights" was probably too generic to trademark on top of the London Knights already using it in Canada, and he couldn't use "Black Knights" due to similar resistance from the military. Plus, Nevada is the largest producer of gold in the US; so "Golden Knights" ties the identity to the state as well.

[charger77]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

That’s like not naming your son Bart because kids might call him Fart. It’s silly. 
 

 

 

So I would have been ok to name my son Maurice Lester.

[SFGiants58]

On 10/23/2019 at 9:19 PM, king_mahalo said:

How about Seattle Squid?
 

 

 

Quote

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 you’d have something. 

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Same with Evergreens; you don't want a team named after a tree since that's basically like calling your entire team the Seattle Pylons; trees don't do a lot of moving.

 

Lions Aren't Blue: Kinetic Edition

[Pharos04]

3 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Metropolitans likely won't fly due to the Metropolitan Division, and Cascades sounds...a bit soft, IMO. It's decent, but it doesn't quite have that "it-factor" a team name should probably strive for these days. "Seattle Cascades" doesn't...it's not snappy, y'know? Brands should ultimately strive for snappiness and nailing that "it" factor.

 

This is one of the reasons I used the term "Metros" rather than "Metropolitans".  It's a sleeker and more modern version of a classic name, and can tie easily into the history of the sport in the city

[JayMac]

My top 3 would probably be:

1. Metropolitans

2. Emeralds

3. Sockeyes

 

Kraken would be dead last.

[JayMac]

Just now, Pharos04 said:

 

This is one of the reasons I used the term "Metros" rather than "Metropolitans".  It's a sleeker and more modern version of a classic name, and can tie easily into the history of the sport in the city

As long as they didn't shorten it to "Mets". That name is associated with a stink that you cannot wash off. 

[Ridleylash]

9 minutes ago, Pharos04 said:

 

This is one of the reasons I used the term "Metros" rather than "Metropolitans".  It's a sleeker and more modern version of a classic name, and can tie easily into the history of the sport in the city

Even still, the issue stands; what is the Metropolitan division often shortened to? The Metro Division. It'd be too confusing to have a division named the Metro and a team named the Metros.