AHL teams that could keep their identity if promoted to the NHL?

[IceCap]

Am I the only one that thinks the Rochester logo is awful? Silly tilted crest, poor blue wordmark placed directly across red and white stripes without any buffer... it's not only uninspired and cliche, but it's illegible.

The logo could use some tweaking, but the name/overall identity is a keeper.

[DustDevil61]

I don't want to morph the thread or be much of a homer, but if I use defunct AHL teams, the Utah Grizzlies' latest identity (before they went red and what the current Grizzlies franchise pretty much uses in the ECHL) could certainly qualify. The Manitoba Moose's colors most closely resemble the Grizz, but I feel as though it could be a good look.

Other current AHL teams that would fit (and potentially legitimate NHL cities); not considering uniforms but rather color scheme and/or logo:

--Norfolk Admirals

--Chicago Wolves (especially love the color scheme)

--OKC Barons (colors would need to change)

--Houston Aeros

--Hamilton Bulldogs (would be better off with different color scheme)

--Rochester Americans

[nash61]

I don't want to morph the thread or be much of a homer, but if I use defunct AHL teams, the Utah Grizzlies' latest identity (before they went red and what the current Grizzlies franchise pretty much uses in the ECHL) could certainly qualify. The Manitoba Moose's colors most closely resemble the Grizz, but I feel as though it could be a good look.

Other current AHL teams that would fit (and potentially legitimate NHL cities); not considering uniforms but rather color scheme and/or logo:

--Norfolk Admirals

--Chicago Wolves (especially love the color scheme)

--OKC Barons (colors would need to change)

--Houston Aeros

--Hamilton Bulldogs (would be better off with different color scheme)

--Rochester Americans

Remember that the Oilers are going full retro this year.

[Discrim]

I'll be real, the Milwaukee Admirals could not enter the NHL as they currently are. If they insisted on keeping the dead admiral theme, the full admiral would work far better as the main crest than just the skull IMO, but even then, they'd need to tweak it to something that, frankly, didn't look as stupid. The bone anchors on the shoulders would be the only thing left unchanged. Most major junior crests would fare better in the NHL than the Ads' current fare.

If, however, an NHL Admirals team actually wanted to look the part, the old skating admiral would need to make a comeback. Either as it was or in modified form, that would be what I'd want to see, I don't care what anybody says

[GeorgesL]

You have to consider the Chicago Wolves - the logo needs work (drop the stick and puck and it's on par with the Predators and Panthers) but the uniforms and the colors are solid. And lets not forget that the Wolves continually outdrew the Blackhawks when they were in their rebuilding years. But even if you take viability out of the equation and just look at the identity, I'd rank the Wolves ahead of the Moose (but just behind Milwaukee, Houston, and Charlotte)

I agree, the Wolves should make the jump to the NHL with all the success they have had over the years. Sure the arena is small, but should Chicago support 2 NHL teams? It would be stupid enough not to!

[rams80]

You have to consider the Chicago Wolves - the logo needs work (drop the stick and puck and it's on par with the Predators and Panthers) but the uniforms and the colors are solid. And lets not forget that the Wolves continually outdrew the Blackhawks when they were in their rebuilding years. But even if you take viability out of the equation and just look at the identity, I'd rank the Wolves ahead of the Moose (but just behind Milwaukee, Houston, and Charlotte)

I agree, the Wolves should make the jump to the NHL with all the success they have had over the years. Sure the arena is small, but should Chicago support 2 NHL teams? It would be stupid enough not to!

No, Chicago can't support two NHL teams. Sorry.

[a3uge]

For the people insisting the Admirals identity cannot translate into an NHL team: The name can certainly crossover, but the logo probably could not. Remember that the only reason for ditching the classic 'Admiral' look was because there was another team already called the 'Admirals'. Instead of a red-white-blue (or similar) set that involved a captain, they wanted to distance themselves from Norfolk into something different. What they got works really well for an AHL team, especially given the situation they were put in. This isn't necessarily bad... it's just the card they were dealt.

I also don't think people on here throw around 'minor league' like it's some terrible millstone. The only reason why current NHL teams aren't considered as 'minor league' logos.... is because they're NHL logos. I could see the Predators, Flames, and Blue Jackets logos being used in a minor league setting, as well as an NHL setting. I think the majority of these logos could have been introduced as NHL logos at some point and not have an overwhelming 'minor league' stigma. We just see these as minor league logos because... well... they're minor league logos.

[troy_3223]

You have to consider the Chicago Wolves - the logo needs work (drop the stick and puck and it's on par with the Predators and Panthers) but the uniforms and the colors are solid. And lets not forget that the Wolves continually outdrew the Blackhawks when they were in their rebuilding years. But even if you take viability out of the equation and just look at the identity, I'd rank the Wolves ahead of the Moose (but just behind Milwaukee, Houston, and Charlotte)

I agree, the Wolves should make the jump to the NHL with all the success they have had over the years. Sure the arena is small, but should Chicago support 2 NHL teams? It would be stupid enough not to!

No, Chicago can't support two NHL teams. Sorry.

It wouldn't be the first time the NHL considered putting a second team in Chicago, and the only reason there's not currently two teams there is a situation in the early years of the league very similar to Jim Basilie and Hamilton. not that anyone's proposing anything like that right now. And any argument I can think of against a second team in Chicago could be convincingly made against the Islanders.

And if New York is the benchmark for a region being able to support two teams, Chicago and Southern Ontario would be at least equally bad markets for two teams, i.e., they can support two teams so long as both teams are competitive.

A second Chicago team would probably do marginally better than the Islanders, or Blue Jackets (admittedly, there's a good reason those two teams are usually mentioned as the next to go after Atlanta)

[The_Admiral]

Count me as someone who really wouldnt mind if a Milwaukee NHL club decided not to call itself the Admirals. Milwaukee has never been known for its overflowing naval presence and it would be the perfect opportunity to adopt an idenity that was more relevant to the area.

How would you feel about Voyageurs?

[rams80]

You have to consider the Chicago Wolves - the logo needs work (drop the stick and puck and it's on par with the Predators and Panthers) but the uniforms and the colors are solid. And lets not forget that the Wolves continually outdrew the Blackhawks when they were in their rebuilding years. But even if you take viability out of the equation and just look at the identity, I'd rank the Wolves ahead of the Moose (but just behind Milwaukee, Houston, and Charlotte)

I agree, the Wolves should make the jump to the NHL with all the success they have had over the years. Sure the arena is small, but should Chicago support 2 NHL teams? It would be stupid enough not to!

No, Chicago can't support two NHL teams. Sorry.

It wouldn't be the first time the NHL considered putting a second team in Chicago, and the only reason there's not currently two teams there is a situation in the early years of the league very similar to Jim Basilie and Hamilton. not that anyone's proposing anything like that right now. And any argument I can think of against a second team in Chicago could be convincingly made against the Islanders.

And if New York is the benchmark for a region being able to support two teams, Chicago and Southern Ontario would be at least equally bad markets for two teams, i.e., they can support two teams so long as both teams are competitive.

A second Chicago team would probably do marginally better than the Islanders, or Blue Jackets (admittedly, there's a good reason those two teams are usually mentioned as the next to go after Atlanta)

In order for a second team to survive, you need to have enough local anti-Blackhawks sentiment to make a go of it, since that would be your primary audience. That sentiment just isn't there...at least in numbers to be viable at the NHL level. Now, back in their mid 90s to mid 00s heyday there was plenty of anti-Bill Wirtz sentiment that the Wolves could and did tap, but now that Wirtz is dead that group has returned to the Blackhawks.

And also those two are mentioned because everybody forgets Florida even exists nowadays.

[jephweiser]

I vote for the Rockford IceHogs

[mmejia]

The Houston Aeros would work if it reverted back to one of it's original identities - the identities prior to their affiliation with the Minnesota Wild.

Currently the Aeros look like Minny Light:

Prior to this look, they had a few different looks, all well executed identities with strong local ties. Something based on any of these logos/unis would make for a solid NHL identity. The green could stay, but the Christmas plus beige scheme would have to be abandoned. I'd love to see an identity based on either green/blue or light blue/navy (Gordie Howe era in the 70's) with heavy use of air force imagery, with maybe a modern twist of using aeronautic technology as their theme.

That said, it will never happen. There is only one place for an NHL team to play in Houston and that is the Toyota Center. There is only one man who can give the green light on this, and that is Rockets owner Leslie Alexander and he has zero interest in bringing an NHL team to Houston. I personally don't think an NHL team would work here, anyway, but that's a different topic for a different forum.

[Blitz]

IMO, there are only 3 active AHL teams, and 1 defunct team that have a suitable brand for the NHL....

Active

Rochester Americans

OKC Barons (or KC Barons?)

Hamilton Bulldogs

Defunct

Quebec Citadelles

The Moose was close, as were the Bears but just missed the cut due to cartoony-ness. Same with Houston(puck) & Norfolk(puck cannons...).

[Jer15]

Like nash61 mentioned, I think that the Marlies have a solid look. They could slap "Maple Leafs" on instead of "Marlies" and that'd be an amazing look.

I agree with most here, the Bulldogs have a good logo for the NHL too, maybe switch up the colours and get away from those horrible jerseys.

Beyond that the Checkers and Griffins are the other teams with great looks.

[illwauk]

Count me as someone who really wouldnt mind if a Milwaukee NHL club decided not to call itself the Admirals. Milwaukee has never been known for its overflowing naval presence and it would be the perfect opportunity to adopt an idenity that was more relevant to the area.

How would you feel about Voyageurs?

I wasn't exactly enamored with it at first, but I seem to like it the more I think of it. It seems to lend itself more to a team named after Wisconsin rather than Milwaukee (not that this is necessarily a good or bad thing), but in either case, the initials (whether "MV" or "WV") lend themselves to some pretty cool "hidden logo" possibilities (think Hartford Whalers). I'm also seeing a striping pattern inspired by Native American art a-la the original Coyotes. I may have to take a break from my baseball series and kick this one around in the ole noggin for a bit.

[Brian in Boston]

There is only one place for an NHL team to play in Houston and that is the Toyota Center. There is only one man who can give the green light on this, and that is Rockets owner Leslie Alexander and he has zero interest in bringing an NHL team to Houston.

If Leslie Alexander truly "has zero interest in bringing an NHL team to Houston" today, that marks a significant change in his attitude.

After all, in 1997, Alexander had a deal with former Edmonton Oilers owner Peter Pocklington to buy the NHL franchise for $85-million (USD) with an eye towards relocating the team to Houston once Alexander could get a new, state-of-the-art arena built in the Texas city. After the Alberta Treasury Branches placed the Oilers in receivership, Alexander offered the ATB $85-million (USD) to buy the team and relocate it to Houston, going so far as submitting a $5-million (USD) deposit. Only an 11th-hour deal put together by the Cal Nichols-led Edmonton Investors Group kept the team in the Alberta city.

Further, as recently as 2005 - following the implementation of a new NHL CBA - Alexander made it known that he was bullish on bringing a major-pro ice hockey team to Houston. In fact, he told the Houston Chronicle:

"I am trying to get a team. I am trying. I went to see the commissioner. I told him about my interest. I can't disclose teams, but I've been talking to people (in the NHL) and to investment bankers. I had conversations a month ago with an investment banking firm. I'm looking to buy a team. So people know my interest. You hear from time to time that teams might be for sale, then it changes or something else happens. But my interest is out there."

"I'm trying to do it. I would like it, obviously. Now there's an opportunity to probably break even and hope in the future that you could make money on it. I sort of know (the economics with a new CBA). There's no revelations that would change them."

[IceCap]

Seemed he could have stepped up to buy the Thrashers.

[The_Admiral]

Count me as someone who really wouldnt mind if a Milwaukee NHL club decided not to call itself the Admirals. Milwaukee has never been known for its overflowing naval presence and it would be the perfect opportunity to adopt an idenity that was more relevant to the area.

How would you feel about Voyageurs?

I wasn't exactly enamored with it at first, but I seem to like it the more I think of it. It seems to lend itself more to a team named after Wisconsin rather than Milwaukee (not that this is necessarily a good or bad thing), but in either case, the initials (whether "MV" or "WV") lend themselves to some pretty cool "hidden logo" possibilities (think Hartford Whalers). I'm also seeing a striping pattern inspired by Native American art a-la the original Coyotes. I may have to take a break from my baseball series and kick this one around in the ole noggin for a bit.

Doesn't Milwaukee/the Milwaukee area have some decent history of French exploration and fur trading and so forth?

And yeah, just put the V inside the M, there you go. It'd be a good brown/blue brown/green team.

[Brian in Boston]

Seemed he could have stepped up to buy the Thrashers.

Well, as mmejia said, he apparently has no interest in obtaining an NHL franchise now.

[Brian in Boston]

Doesn't Milwaukee/the Milwaukee area have some decent history of French exploration and fur trading and so forth?

Most definitely.

French explorer Louis Joliet and French missionary Father Jacques Marquette explored the Milwaukee area as part of their expedition of 1673 and 1674. Their party included several voyageurs - men involved in the transportation of furs and goods by canoe during the fur trade era. In fact, the majority of white men who first traveled through what is now the Greater Milwaukee area were French trappers and fur traders. A French-Canadian trader named Jacques Vieau established and maintained a fur-trading post on the site of present-day Milwaukee, and Vieau's son-in-law became the first mayor of Milwaukee.