NHL’s New Seattle Kraken Announce Name & Logos

[andrewharrington]

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Red Sox/White Sox is grandfathered in, so the Stars/North Stars idea is a terrible one. Dallas will never change their name, because they won a :censored:ing Cup with the name.
 

I’d go with Minnesota Northern Lights, Minnesota North Lights, or (if we want to keep the logo), Minnesota Ursus (Latin name for bears). The Wild will probably never win the Cup anytime soon, so it can be done by new owners or whoever. That’s the benefit of being mediocre-to-terrible for your entire existence.

I don’t think “Minnesota Northern Lights” works, like, at all. It’s far too long, far too clunky, and there’s just no... imagination or allure to it. I think you’ve got to dig deeper for this concept to work. How about “Auroras?” It’s not the cleanest transition from “Minnesota,” but it’s got what “Northern Lights” lacks and has potential. Or maybe “Winds,” since the auroras are caused by solar wind and the specific term “aurora borealis” is derived from Aurora (Roman goddess of the dawn) and Boreas (Greek god of the north wind and bringer of winter).

 

Or, there’s always that fantastic suggestion from @GFB: “Gemini,” which would allow the identity to dip into both stars and twins.

 

[chcarlson23]

I mean I have grown up with the name Minnesota Wild, and so I don’t really mind it. It seems a little odd, but pretty embraced by everyone in the Twin Cities. I honestly have not heard anyone say anything about the name in Minnesota. The only place seems to be online... I mean it is also 23 years old, so at this point no one cares anymore, but I have no idea about when it first came out. 

[pepis21]

Part of me loves everything about Kraken identy (maybe not a big fan of name) and part of me don't like that jerseys have pretty similar design to Vegas and "S" logo look like something from Create-A-Team in any NHL game. I'm confused which part of me I should trust.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

OK, here's a dumb idea. What if they had TWO characters: some sort of fisherman caricature, the other an unseen set of eyeballs (maybe a hint of tentacle) that appears in hidden corners of the arena, but is never caught.  Every time the eyeballs show up, the fisherman either scatters or runs toward it to catch it.  It's like a live-action cartoon playing out in every game. 

 

So their mascot is either a predator of their namesake, or its prey?  I could get into that... it kinda has a Roadrunner vs Wile E Coyote aspect to it.

[gosioux76]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

So their mascot is either a predator of their namesake, or its prey?  I could get into that... it kinda has a Roadrunner vs Wile E Coyote aspect to it.

That's right. And it could change. It's the prey for the first two periods, then gets angry and goes after it in the third. A neat little sub-narrative. It would be a cool novelty, plus it gives the team two characters to market. 

[Ridleylash]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

OK, here's a dumb idea. What if they had TWO characters: some sort of fisherman caricature, the other an unseen set of eyeballs (maybe a hint of tentacle) that appears in hidden corners of the arena, but is never caught.  Every time the eyeballs show up, the fisherman either scatters or runs toward it to catch it.  It's like a live-action cartoon playing out in every game. 

So basically just Nyisles.

[gosioux76]

7 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

So basically just Nyisles.

Sure, if that guy had an arch nemesis in the building. 

[Guest darkpiranha]

8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

That’s kinda what I mean, though.  
 

I understand the lure of inertia, and how we can all become inured to bad branding.  But still, every year that goes by is another lost opportunity to fix this.  Gods forbid they win a championship, which will cement the name like nothing else can. 

 

The United States is the last holdout against name inertia.  For decades, I was a militant hardliner that a sports team MUST use the "Cityname Plural Mascots" template.  I was so militant about it that I didn't even realize that most soccer teams didn't even HAVE mascots like we do here.  I just assumed that whatever Liverpool's mascot was was just being accidentally left off of whatever news report I saw.  Names like the Miami Heat, Utah Jazz, etc, just drove me NUTS because they didn't fall neatly into the Cityname Plural Mascots formula.   But then almost a decade ago I decided I'd learn about soccer and its leagues and structures, and it drove me NUTS that teams were just Real Madrid or Juventus or Wolves or FC Barcelona.  But... after a year or so, all that just faded away.  The inertia won out, like it always does.  It's just what they are called.  The people that whine about these names, like I used to, are such a tiny squeak in the grand field of sports names.  I get it.  It's super fun right now to be indignant about the Kraken name.  It's super fun to troll people who are indignant about the name, KNOWING that at least for the next decade, we'll be able to smugly say, "Told you so" and they'll have to endure it.   The team will trot out pre-designed marketing plans and coordinated celebrations, but in a few years, the fans will have developed their own, and the teams own in-progress lore will spawn its own, and Kraken will seem as natural as can be.  And yes, the Wild need to start winning for that team name to grow any real national roots.  The reason why the Dallas Cowboys is such an iconic team and brand is that they are successful enough for other fanbases to actively HATE.  No one hates the Wild.  Wild fans like or mildly love their team, but there's no one out there who makes a point of going to whoever the Wild's rival is and posting smack on their message boards.  Because no one hates the Wild.  Remember how quickly the Avalanche developed their own hatred from Detroit fans?  

 

This will all sort itself out.  Go Kraken.

[sportsfan7]

10 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Going with "Minnesota Saints"(return to the WHA name without the "Fighting" part) would make a lot of sense. After all, the team does play in Saint Paul. They can even use the North Stars' old kelly green and yellow-gold. Whether or not the NFL Saints would want to share their trademarked name is another story. Then again, Winnipeg & NY Jets.

 

That's why "Minnesota Wilders" makes sense. There is no such thing as a "wilder" but neither is a "laker".  The "Wilders" could still use the same highly creative bear-forest crest. I would, then, just change the red to a light orange. No team in major league sports has a forest green and orange look which would look amazing.

The Minnesota Saints will never happen as long as the St Paul Saints indy ball team is around. As someone said earlier, a laker is a type of ship.

[spartacat_12]

5 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

They could, but I don't think it'd work as well; Viktor E. Green is at least explicitly an alien, so his wacky amorphous nature makes sense from that perspective. Gritty...well, what would you make the mascot of a team as generically-named as the "Flyers"?  He at least embodies the culture around Philly sports.

 

Before they unveiled Gritty I had thought a flying squirrel would make a decent mascot for Philly. They made the right choice though.

[chcarlson23]

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

Sure, if that guy had an arch nemesis in the building. 

Honky the SUV???

[JLJ]

On 7/27/2020 at 8:38 PM, Ridleylash said:

I'll be honest; as loud a hater of the Seattle Kraken name as I had been before? The actual identity has fully converted me into a fan with just how much it shys away from actually depicting the titular creature. It evokes the imagery without...well, evoking the imagery, if that makes sense. The eye and the tentacle imply the monster that the team is named for, but they don't show it; which makes it even more intriguing.

 

In a leagues-deep sea of direct and to-the-point logos, something that focuses more on the implication of the name is a really smart move, especially with a name like this. It's also a great use of negative space. What does the Kraken lurking in those shadowy depths look like? Well, it has a tentacle and a red eye...and everything else about it is purely up to the imagination of the fans.

I was drawn to this passage here because I feel the same. The lore this logo creates, and the subtle design of it has made me come around on the name. Oddly enough I can’t say the same for the Wild. It could be argued they also took a subtle approach to a name that could have been open season for 90s cheese.
 

A fangs out, claws up beast lunging at you as it tears through a hockey stick or rink. Screams WILD. Instead they created a serene image of wilderness encased inside a bear head silhouette. It’s brilliant, but I can’t get past Wild the way I have grown to at least tolerate Kraken. I think it’s because I can get attached to a mythical sea creature more than what boils down to another word for outside.

[Chromatic]

16 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 I've always enjoyed the idea of the "Northmen" or "Norsemen" -- a corollary to the old Memphis Southmen of the long-dead WFL that ties into the region's vast Scandinavian heritage.  Admittedly, gendering a sports team or a particular ethnicity isn't the smartest idea, but it would at least work with both the N-star and the Wild logos. 

I actually quite like this idea, it really fits well for Minnesota, ties into the old identity and just plain sounds better than "Wild".

 

Unfortunately I don't think it could work for 2 reasons. First I think any new team name that could be perceived as singling out an ethnic group in any capacity is just straight up off the table now. Second, it's a direct English translation of 'Nordiques', which I could see causing some kind of kerfuffle in regards to copyright and the endless cries from Quebec about getting a team back. 

 

Regardless of if you think those are valid reasons not, I think they're enough to remove those for consideration should for some unlikely reason Minnesota decide to rename the team.

[JayMac]

9 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

Honky the SUV???

I'm pretty sure sport utility vehicles do not like to be called that

[JayMac]

10 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Before they unveiled Gritty I had thought a flying squirrel would make a decent mascot for Philly. They made the right choice though.

I would have been on board with that. 

 

I think Gritty works because he looks like a cousin of the Phanatic. 

[FiddySicks]

Here we go, amazing how a simple fix can make that logo MUCH less goofy than it currently is.

 

I’m calling them the Silly Snakes from here on out, BTW. 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

How is that LESS goofy?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

How is that LESS goofy?

 

It's a joke. And a funny one!

 

Silly Snakes hockey! WTF football! What a year!

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, JLJ said:

I was drawn to this passage here because I feel the same. The lore this logo creates, and the subtle design of it has made me come around on the name. Oddly enough I can’t say the same for the Wild. It could be argued they also took a subtle approach to a name that could have been open season for 90s cheese.
 

A fangs out, claws up beast lunging at you as it tears through a hockey stick or rink. Screams WILD. Instead they created a serene image of wilderness encased inside a bear head silhouette. It’s brilliant, but I can’t get past Wild the way I have grown to at least tolerate Kraken. I think it’s because I can get attached to a mythical sea creature more than what boils down to another word for outside.

 

This is really interesting. I never really thought about it much over the years, but you could argue that the Minnesota Wild organization hasn't adequately defined the word "Wild" for itself. 

 

I agree with your description of the primary logo as a serene setting inside a bear silhouette. That implies "Wild" as an abbreviation of "wilderness." But the original team wordmark -- with its scraggly typography -- seems to evoke "Wild" as an adjective for unrestrained or violent. They've shifted away from this in recent years, of course, but the term "Wild" is still not clearly defined. 

 

[McCall]

3 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

This is really interesting. I never really thought about it much over the years, but you could argue that the Minnesota Wild organization hasn't adequately defined the word "Wild" for itself. 

 

I agree with your description of the primary logo as a serene setting inside a bear silhouette. That implies "Wild" as an abbreviation of "wilderness." But the original team wordmark -- with its scraggly typography -- seems to evoke "Wild" as an adjective for unrestrained or violent. They've shifted away from this in recent years, of course, but the term "Wild" is still not clearly defined. 

 

i remember THAT being my initial assumption of what the name meant way back when they were first announced. Definitely thought it was a terrible 90's name. It still took a few years after they began play, and even with the bear head-wilderness logo, for me to figure out that it was for wilderness.