Toronto206

Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

If you breakdown a lot of these reported candidates, it becomes pretty clear why they wouldn't be chosen. Evergreens, Rainiers, Metropolitans, Emeralds, and Sockeyes are all super antiquated sounding and lack a lot of national recognition or appeal. It feels like they may have functioned as a fine name for an Original 6 team, but in 2020? Way too niche or uninspiring. Can you imagine trying to rally people around the Evergreens? It's just not a great sell. 

 

Sea Lions is decent, but not super enthralling. I would be alright with it but it doesn't quite flow as well as it should.  

 

All of this considered, I really do think Kraken would be the smartest move, especially for a new team. Even for those who don't like the name, it's provoking way more of our attention and emotion than any of the other candidates because of how singular it is. It's a cool mythical creature that is super unique but still recognizable in our culture. The potential for cool branding is huge and I really hope that the new franchise takes advantage of that moving forward. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, henburg said:

All of this considered, I really do think Kraken would be the smartest move, especially for a new team. Even for those who don't like the name, it's provoking way more of our attention and emotion than any of the other candidates because of how singular it is.

The problem is that it risks sounding dated in a few years. It's not really smart to chase short term notoriety at the expense of the long-term viability of the brand. This is a team that, ideally, will be around in a hundred years. Is naming them after a meme that's already dead by 2020 really the best way forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IceCap said:

The problem is that it risks sounding dated in a few years. It's not really smart to chase short term notoriety at the expense of the long-term viability of the brand. This is a team that, ideally, will be around in a hundred years. Is naming them after a meme that's already dead by 2020 really the best way forward?

 

That's a fair point I suppose, but is it really only known as a meme? I don't necessarily think of it that way, although I can't speak for everyone. Being a feature of folklore grants it some permanence IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, henburg said:

 

That's a fair point I suppose, but is it really only known as a meme? I don't necessarily think of it that way, although I can't speak for everyone. Being a feature of folklore grants it some permanence IMO. 

Yeah, but as stated earlier the original folklore came from the Norse in the North Atlantic and referred to what sounds like a giant whale or fish. Giant squids didn't become associated with it until the 18th century. And even then we're talking mostly about sailors' tales in the Atlantic. 

 

It's been pointed out that there is a large population of Scandinavian descent in the Seattle area justifying an old Norse name (ala Minnesota Vikings) but still. The name "Kraken" in the Pacific Northwest, using a squid as a logo, just seems like it's a few times removed from the folklore origins to have any real meaning. 

Also it kind of treads on part of the Red Wings' schtick.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, henburg said:

Can you imagine trying to rally people around the Evergreens?

 

Sure I can. It's the Evergreen State, therefore the Evergreen Hockey Club. Go Greens. Marketing a big grey blob that goes ORP ORP ORP, now that's a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Sockeyes’ doesn’t sound antiquated at all. And either way, I’d rather a ‘dated’ name like Evergreens or Emeralds than something gimmicky or “futuristic” like Kraken or Wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I still think the Winnipeg Jets' mascot should be a walrus named Pinniped Jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Sockeyes was by far the best, trailed by Emeralds, Evergreens and Sea lions, any other considerations should’ve been dropped back when Seattle was being seriously considered for a franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Yeah, but as stated earlier the original folklore came from the Norse in the North Atlantic and referred to what sounds like a giant whale or fish. Giant squids didn't become associated with it until the 18th century. And even then we're talking mostly about sailors' tales in the Atlantic. 

 

It's been pointed out that there is a large population of Scandinavian descent in the Seattle area justifying an old Norse name (ala Minnesota Vikings) but still. The name "Kraken" in the Pacific Northwest, using a squid as a logo, just seems like it's a few times removed from the folklore origins to have any real meaning. 

Also it kind of treads on part of the Red Wings' schtick.  

 

The 18th century is plenty old enough, in fact the New Jersey Devils name comes from an 18th century legend as well. Granted the local tie-in is stronger in that case, but the Scandinavian presence is strong enough to justify it in my mind. The PNW region also shares some similarities with Scandinavia itself so it doesn't feel out of place to me in that regard. 

 

As far as the Redwings are concerned, I don't think it steps on their toes too badly. If they incorporated the octopus heavily in their branding I could see where you're coming from, but I don't feel that it's status as a fan prop disqualifies another team from using another mascot in the same biological family. 

 

28 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Sure I can. It's the Evergreen State, therefore the Evergreen Hockey Club. Go Greens. Marketing a big grey blob that goes ORP ORP ORP, now that's a challenge.

 

I didn't say it was unjustified, just that it's super uninspiring.

 

Evergreens is a name that gets scoffed at anywhere outside of this board, it's not even rumored as a contender for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone done a trademark search?  I've tried different names, but haven't been able to come up with anything.  Using Oak View Group, there's a few names for Palm Springs, but nothing about Seattle.

 

As for Kraken...let's hope that isn't true.  Jerry Bruckheimer was/is a Red Wings fan, so I would think he knows the importance of the octopus in Detroit, even if it's not a huge part of the Wings' branding.  If it were only him as the majority owner, I could also see that as a reasoning to maybe go with it, kinda in the same way Foley was so insistent on Golden Knights.

 

One interesting tidbit about the possibility of the name being Sockeyes.  Everyone knows that there is an author who had the trademark.  She seems willing to work it out with the team, but apparently hasn't heard from them yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M4One said:

One interesting tidbit about the possibility of the name being Sockeyes.  Everyone knows that there is an author who had the trademark.  She seems willing to work it out with the team, but apparently hasn't heard from them yet.


https://www.jamidavenport.com/for-immediate-release-jami-davenports-statement-on-seattle-sockeyes-sports-team-name/

 

based on this, it sounds like they don’t even need to reach out to her. Her trademark doesn’t cover sports franchises and she’s giving her consent and support anyways. 
 

This really seems to get lost in the discussion. If Seattle doesn’t pick the name Sockeyes, it’s not because of some lady and her romance novels. Seems like she is getting harshly scrutinized quite unfairly on various social media platforms. 
 

THIS is why I think the Kraken rumor is BS. The guy cited the romance novels as a roadblock in the way of them securing the trademark, but it sounds like it shouldn’t be an issue at all. Plus the reporter phrases it like this just came up recently. We’ve known about the romance novel thing for a couple years now, I’m sure the team has as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraken is a really bad name. But not because it’s from “Scandinavian Folklore”.  That’s one of the dumbest reasonings I’ve ever heard.

Share this post


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

Kraken is a really bad name. But not because it’s from “Scandinavian Folklore”.  That’s one of the dumbest reasonings I’ve ever heard.

You've been here a while, I'm sure you've heard dumber reasoning to justify dumber things 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, "Kraken" sounds like a RHI team. I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of association you'd want your NHL franchise to have. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When matching it up against other team names, Kraken doesn't hold up IMO. Take your favorite team and put it side by side with Kraken. 

 

"The Flyers are in town to face the Kraken."

"The Flyers will host the Kraken."

 

Or in visual presentation...

FLYERS VS. KRAKEN

 

It sounds terrible, even if your favorite team happens to be the Wild or Avalanche. Those are some of the weaker names and they are still much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I AINT PAYIN FER TICKETS TO SEE NO DUMBASZ TEAM NAMED AFTER FISH OR TREES!  KRACKEN IS STOOPID TOO!  SEATTLE GUNS AND BLOOD THOUGH? SHET YEAH ID SEE THAT HARKEY TEAM!”

 

”...You see gentlemen, we can’t risk giving our franchise a weak identity or we’ll lose the WCW/Meth demo.  Now let’s check feedback from our panel of 9 year olds:”

 

”i ownly wan see the hockey team if they’re like MCU?”

 

”...my proposals to you now, gentlemen:  Seattle Avengers, Seattle Marvels, Seattle Bloodguns, Seattle Fire Emojis...thoughts?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmac11281 said:

When matching it up against other team names, Kraken doesn't hold up IMO. Take your favorite team and put it side by side with Kraken. 

 

"The Flyers are in town to face the Kraken."

"The Flyers will host the Kraken."

 

Or in visual presentation...

FLYERS VS. KRAKEN

 

It sounds terrible, even if your favorite team happens to be the Wild or Avalanche. Those are some of the weaker names and they are still much better.

"Kraken VS Red Wings", "Kraken VS Maple Leafs", "Kraken VS Blue Jackets", "Kraken VS Hurricanes", "Kraken VS Sharks"...yeah, not a fan of it at all.

 

The thing that the Wild and Avalanche have that helps them is that they start soft; "wuh-ild" and "ah-vuh-lanche". It's much easier to say "The Minnesota Wild are in town to face the Toronto Maple Leafs" or "The Colorado Avalanche are hosting the Philadelphia Flyers" because they don't start harshly.

 

Kraken, however, starts hard, "Krak-en". "Wild VS Hurricanes" or "Avalanche VS Red Wings" doesn't sound like ass because "Wild"/"Avalanche" are both softer names that flow better against other teams, and "Kraken" doesn't. "The Toronto Maple Leafs are hosting the Seattle Kraken" or "The Seattle Kraken are in town to face the New York Rangers" sounds weird, to me.

 

I mean, the name sounding right out of Roller Hockey International doesn't help, either. 😛

 

8 hours ago, henburg said:

If you breakdown a lot of these reported candidates, it becomes pretty clear why they wouldn't be chosen. Evergreens, Rainiers, Metropolitans, Emeralds, and Sockeyes are all super antiquated sounding and lack a lot of national recognition or appeal. It feels like they may have functioned as a fine name for an Original 6 team, but in 2020? Way too niche or uninspiring. Can you imagine trying to rally people around the Evergreens? It's just not a great sell.

And a :censored:ty dead meme from 2009 isn't "super antiquated sounding"?

 

The end goal of a brand is ideally longevity, not capitalizing on an Internet meme that died eons ago. Why should you name a professional team for a dead meme with no local connections when you could go for any number of superior alternatives that won't be dating your team horribly from conception, won't sound really bad against any other team in the league and doesn't come off as roller hockey-level tryhard "kewl"?

 

This is why I despise the name "Kraken"; people defend it not by giving really convincing reasons it'd be the best name, but by pointing to a dead meme and stating that it'd be cool for people to be able to run it 30 million miles further into the goddamn dirt by the time the team's inaugural season opener even comes around.

 

"Release the Kraken is cool!" In 2009, yeah, but it's 2020, it's been like 10 years since "Release the Kraken" was ever a culturally relevant thing and by the time the team's even close to hitting the ice they'd be sporting a dead meme for a name that a fair amount of people dislike due to it sounding amateurish and tryhard-cool and which has very tenuous ties to the city they're actually playing in.

 

Naming the team "Kraken" would be like naming a team in Phoenix the "Phoenix Polar Bears". Are there some polar bears in Phoenix? Sure, in zoos. But is Phoenix known for polar bears? Not really.

 

Does Seattle have giant cephalopods? Sure. But are they anything close to a "kraken"? No, not really, especially since the mythological Kraken isn't ever really described as a cephalopod, more like an enormous whale or fish; which means the Sharks or Canucks, two division rivals, would then have more mythologically-accurate logos then the actual Kraken team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Checks calendar* 

 

Damnit!!! It's not April 1st!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, like the name or hate the name.... Some of y'all's reasoning is just grasping at straws though.

 

I still think it's the best NHL expansion team name in decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.