squamfan

2020-2021 NHL Changes

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:


It’s clunky as hell? If we don’t like “Vegas Golden Knights,” how are we defending “Minnesota Northern Lights” as a viable name? It’s also a weird colloquial term. Auroras is a much better name for a team.

If it was Minnesota Auroras that would basically an inverse of the town of Aurora, Minnesota. Kinda cool for residents of Aurora. This got me wondering if this ever happened before. Cool fact: there is a Ranger, TX. I’m guessing there are more examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 4:37 AM, Bayne said:

Not trying to be contrarian, but I find a lot of these reverse retros to be kind of tacky.

The RR jerseys just look like exactly what they are - quick, money grabs that look rushed together and unrefined.

 

Some of the designs fit this description but overall, I find them refreshing after 13 years of the extremely underwhelming alternates of the Reebok and Adidas eras.  They remind me of a time when teams actually took risks instead of just going with a straight-throwback or using the third-jersey-program as an excuse to bandwagon on the latest trend.  Hopefully teams will be given the option of promoting their RR to alternate status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:


It’s already the color scheme of the state’s big high school powerhouse team, Edina.

 

spacer.png

"The Minnesota State Hockey Tournament is that special time of year when the northern schools hate the Metro, the public schools hate the privates, and everybody hates Edina."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.png

😍 These Kings RR's are perfect, oh my lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA badly needs to go back to forum blue and yellow full time.  Looks so much better than black and silver. 

Share this post


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

Auroras IS nice.

 

Regarding the comparison to "Vegas Golden Knights" though...since when did I say I didn't like it? I have a lot of problems with Vegas' team, but the name isn't one of them. In fact I'd prefer it if they went with "Las Vegas Golden Knights." So "Minnesota Northern Lights" isn't so bad in that context 😉

 

tl;dr, don't assume "if you don't like X why do you like Y?" because I may not dislike X 😜


I used “we” not to imply that you individually hold that opinion, but that most people do, as it is objectively and consistently the most criticized piece of that brand, at least until the gold jersey everyone asked for actually came out. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NMkL3y0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nash61 said:

NMkL3y0.png

Alright, my turn to be the contrarian lol. Something about the logo leaves me wanting more. I don't like the white numbers on the sleeves either. I mean, it's a great jersey, sure. Could have been better. Not sure how, though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, nash61 said:

NMkL3y0.png

Now that I see it on ice, it does look a bit blue and purple.  I like it better with the '90s logo than the old crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Alright, my turn to be the contrarian lol. Something about the logo leaves me wanting more. I don't like the white numbers on the sleeves either. I mean, it's a great jersey, sure. Could have been better. Not sure how, though

 

For sure the logo could be better - it's another one of those nostalgia things where an inferior logo gets the approval just because people have a memory of it. I think it looks ok though. The white sleeve numbers - yeah, not great. But overall, wow do those jerseys look awesome. This to me is one of the small handful of RR jerseys that really works and should probably be the Kings' full time look.

Share this post


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

"Kraken" is plural.

 

It's not really intended to be plural though is it? The team is named after the mythical Kraken. A singular creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Avalanche - Avs.

 

Kraken -Kraks

 

Wild - ???????

 

Northern Lights is no different than North Stars, Flames, Red Wings, Flyers, Blue Jackets, etc.

 

 

Just because the Wild can't have a nickname doesn't mean anything. You're missing my point. Northern Lights would just be a really odd thing to call an NHL team. Even if you shorten it to a knickname which seems to be your eligibility criteria: Lights. Flick the lights off for me.

Share this post


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


I used “we” not to imply that you individually hold that opinion, but that most people do, as it is objectively and consistently the most criticized piece of that brand, at least until the gold jersey everyone asked for actually came out. 😂

 

The Reverse Retro for Vegas is their best jersey, IMO.

 

1 hour ago, nash61 said:

NMkL3y0.png

 

Double-layer numbers would improve the look, or separating the white and yellow-gold stripes with smaller purple stripes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


It’s already the color scheme of the state’s big high school powerhouse team, Edina.

 

spacer.png

The last reason the Wild should change colors to kelly green and gold would be to “honor” Edina. The only people who would want to honor Edina for something is someone from Edina. Everyone else pretty much hates Edina here in Minnesota. 

 

And sure the Kelly green and gold looks great, but it should honestly be a third jersey and that’s it. The Wild’s recolored logo isn’t as good as the original colors, and the forest green and red works well with the forest and wilderness theme of the logo. 
 

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, name aside, the Wild have fantastic branding, and it would be a shame to waste it for pretending to be the North Stars, even though they are not. A North Stars third is great for the Wild, but it doesn’t need to be the primary look. 
 

And sure the Wild have been mediocre for most of their existence, but the North Stars were too. They had a couple surprise Cup runs, but not much more than that. So it honestly would be a mediocre hockey team pretending to be an old mediocre hockey team. If they wanted to pick a good team to pretend to be, they should have picked the Fighting Saints or the Gophers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bayne said:

 

It's not really intended to be plural though is it? The team is named after the mythical Kraken. A singular creature.

There is no "mythical Kraken" as a singular creature. The "kraken" was a type of monster from Norwegian folklore. A sort of giant fish so big it could be mistaken for an island, and whose maw caused whirlpools. It's not a singular beast like the Hebrew Leviathan or the Greek Typhon. The kraken is merely held to be one of the many creatures of the deep Vikings imaged existed out in the sea. There's nothing in the literature or folklore that holds that the kraken is a singular beast. It's very much just a type of monstrous animal. You can have a singular kraken or multiple kraken.

 

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I used “we” not to imply that you individually hold that opinion, but that most people do, as it is objectively and consistently the most criticized piece of that brand, at least until the gold jersey everyone asked for actually came out. 😂

Who're "most people?" I'm sorry, but it seems like you tried to construct a strawman to get a "gotcha" point in an internet argument with me. Fact is I've never said the Golden Knights' name was "clunky," and I don't even hold that view🤷‍♂️ So perhaps "if you don't like X then you can't like Y" isn't the best argument to take here.

Not saying you need to like the name "Northern Lights," but come on. Don't construct enemies to tear down if you wanna debate that name's merits.

Share this post


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

Who're "most people?" I'm sorry, but it seems like you tried to construct a strawman to get a "gotcha" point in an internet argument with me. Fact is I've never said the Golden Knights' name was "clunky," and I don't even hold that view🤷‍♂️ So perhaps "if you don't like X then you can't like Y" isn't the best argument to take here.

Not saying you need to like the name "Northern Lights," but come on. Don't construct enemies to tear down if you wanna debate that name's merits.

 

Not to jump in on andrew's argument here, but how is that constructing a strawman? I'd say at least 80% of people didn't like Golden Knights at the time. Less now have an issue with it obviously, but it's still valid.

Share this post


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

 

Not to jump in on andrew's argument here, but how is that constructing a strawman? I'd say at least 80% of people didn't like Golden Knights at the time. Less now have an issue with it obviously, but it's still valid.

Not to do the thing you're going to do?

Well my point is that if you're going to argue with me over something I said, then argue my point. Don't construct an opinion I never held or said. Out of everyone who expressed support for the name "Northern Lights" @andrewharrington decided to respond to me. So I'm not interested in arguing for positions I never took.

 

 

Share this post


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

Not to do the thing you're going to do?

Well my point is that if you're going to argue with me over something I said, then argue my point. Don't construct an opinion I never held or said. Out of everyone who expressed support for the name "Northern Lights" @andrewharrington decided to respond to me. So I'm not interested in arguing for positions I never took.

 

 

 

I don't think @andrewharrington is massively at fault for drawing a comparison between the name Golden Knights (which was widely disapproved of at the time, and still is by many) and the name Northern Lights lol. He speaking in general terms, not about your opinion specifically. That's the more constructive way to look at this. 

Share this post


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

There is no "mythical Kraken" as a singular creature. The "kraken" was a type of monster from Norwegian folklore. A sort of giant fish so big it could be mistaken for an island, and whose maw caused whirlpools. It's not a singular beast like the Hebrew Leviathan or the Greek Typhon. The kraken is merely held to be one of the many creatures of the deep Vikings imaged existed out in the sea. There's nothing in the literature or folklore that holds that the kraken is a singular beast. It's very much just a type of monstrous animal. You can have a singular kraken or multiple kraken.

 

Ok thanks. Seems to me that 'Kraken' is almost just as ambiguous as 'Wild' is.

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.