Bettman meeting with Ryan Smith, owner of Utah Jazz and Real Salt Lake (upd: Smith asks NHL to open expansion process)

[Yukon Joe]

I suspect the "logic" goes like this:

Poster is a hockey fan.
Poster hates the name "Kraken"
Therefore, all hockey fans hate the name "Kraken"

So yeah - that was the point I was trying to make, but more subtle...

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Team names should be unique. Kraken works nicely.

NHL teams names that should be jettisoned would include:
Panthers
Jets
Rangers
Senators

Except the Rangers will be the next franchise to celebrate a century of operation after MTL/BOS.... since the franchise was awarded in 1926 and is an O-6

 

[Yukon Joe]

I live here. The hockey fans here that already existed, many were hoping for Metropolitans. Others wanted something new but despised the Kraken suggestion and thought it was stupid. When it first started gaining traction, you could see that tons of people that were excited about "Kraken" weren't from Seattle, The Great State of Washington, or hockey fans.

I personally don't mind it, definitely not my favorite but is what it is. I would have liked Metropolitans or some of the other suggestions more. My biggest issue was always that it was more Northern Atlantic mythology and we aren't exactly close to the Northern Atlantic over here.

I understand the history, but Metropolitans is a lame name - you'd wind up being the Mets. It would be like arguing that when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg the team should be called the Victorias, because the Winnipeg Victorias won the Stanley Cup three times - most recently in 1902.

To be honest Jets is kind of a lame name on it's own too, but it had too much recent history and emotional connection to fans to be ignored.

Team names should be unique. Kraken works nicely.

NHL teams names that should be jettisoned would include:
Panthers
Jets
Rangers
Senators

The Panthers name was lame when it was selected but at this point it has too much history. The other names have even more history behind them.

 

[Reaser]

I understand the history, but Metropolitans is a lame name - you'd wind up being the Mets. It would be like arguing that when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg the team should be called the Victorias, because the Winnipeg Victorias won the Stanley Cup three times - most recently in 1902.

To be honest Jets is kind of a lame name on it's own too, but it had too much recent history and emotional connection to fans to be ignored.

The Panthers name was lame when it was selected but at this point it has too much history. The other names have even more history behind them.

Yup, the only argument for Metropolitans was the "first American city to win the Stanley Cup and were called the Metropolitans when it happened."

Also not big on names that don't end in s. Especially when you can't shorten them, i.e. Avalanche to Avs or Lightning to Bolts.

Regardless, I have my Eberle sweater/jersey with the inaugural season patch & my Kraken winter classic sweater/jersey and I'm happy with them.

 

[rojac]

I understand the history, but Metropolitans is a lame name - you'd wind up being the Mets. It would be like arguing that when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg the team should be called the Victorias, because the Winnipeg Victorias won the Stanley Cup three times - most recently in 1902.

To be honest Jets is kind of a lame name on it's own too, but it had too much recent history and emotional connection to fans to be ignored.



The Panthers name was lame when it was selected but at this point it has too much history. The other names have even more history behind them.

What's lame about the Panthers name? There is an actual species of panther called the Florida panther.

 

[Brodie]

See, I would argue that if the league were to bring in teams with a lot of really boring names it will reinforce the perception of the NHL as a conservative league existing mostly for old white men.

But I won't - precisely because the league has been more innovative in picking names. The last several expansion teams have all had fairly unique names. Kraken - definitely. Golden Knights - well Knights would have been super-traditional, but by bringing in sparkly gold into their name and uniform makes it unique. Wild is unique. Thrashers - being named after a bird is super-traditional. Blue Jackets - unique.

I don't think having "interesting" names for the sake of it is very important. My general rule of thumb is that I'd rather have "boring" names that will still sound reasonable in 100 years than interesting ones which already elicit eyerolls a few decades down the line

I would rather be MLB and have a bunch of relatively generic sounding names that have the staying power to become strong brands than be MLS 1.0 and have teams whose branding is so intimately tied to what is en vogue at that specific moment that 90% of them have had to start from the ground up in under 20 years. You can think Iron Maiden album cover aesthetics and 80s monster movie names are cool as hell, but you will eventually die and the interest in those things will fade and yet the team will still be the KRAKEN or the YETI.

 

[Brodie]

Which made a ton of sense for Seattle being that we have the Pacific ocean over here ...

Though, they did try to retrofit a Kraken narrative -we found a big octopus over here!- as the Kraken story. But, to me, it never made sense. Was just something that grew on social networks by non-sports/hockey fans who thought it was "cool" along with everyone that liked making the "they can call the arena the crack house" comment and voila, team was named Kraken.

Yes, exactly this. These branding decisions are being made to please vocal groups on social media who have narrow interests in what sounds either cool, funny, or both. It's why you see about 100x as many people saying "lmao Salt Lake Soakers!" than any other name. Random people, even fans, are not really interested in or knowledgeable about building lasting brands. As someone said previously, if you left it up to randos in 1994, the Avs already mediocre name would probably actually be the Rocky Mtn Xtreme.

ETA: Florida Panthers is one of the best names in sports. It is much better than the Carolina Panthers, which is what I suspect you're arguing against (eg. just picking a popular college/high school mascot).

 

[Brodie]

Also not big on names that don't end in s. Especially when you can't shorten them, i.e. Avalanche to Avs or Lightning to Bolts.

I think it's notable that the NFL and MLB seemingly do not allow such names... none of their 80s or 90s expansion teams fell into that trap while most NBA and NHL teams did... and they also have, by far, the strongest brand identities in sports. Colorado Rockies may be boring but it's going to hold up a lot better than the Kolorado Rox or whatever ultra 90s idea a hockey team would've been suckered into by chasing plaudits from 12 year olds

 

[Reaser]

So yeah - that was the point I was trying to make, but more subtle...

You were incorrect, as well. It wasn't all that subtle and it was widely mistaken. This is the BoH section, at least supposed to be different from the main forum where people just say things.

FWIW the Seattle Times (not exactly popular with everyone here but is "here") poll had Sockeyes as the winner, with Totems runner-up and Metropolitans & Steelheads were the other semifinalists.

Anecdotal: My section at Seattle Thunderbirds games (both pre & post NHL to Seattle being announced) Kraken wasn't mentioned until someone saw it on twitter and it was unanimously disliked up through it being a realistic option and ultimately being chosen.

Twitter: As Kraken picked up steam the suggestions for were largely from outside Seattle & from non-hockey fans. Literally, "I'm not a hockey fan but Seattle Kraken sounds dope." Can source that exact comment if needed because again, BoH section, unlike those that don't know what they're talking about and just post inane and asinine replies based on no actual information.

It was also like that at the very beginning. People from Australia, Canada, other U.S. cities, tons of "don't like hockey but" or general non-sports and/or non-hockey fans but thought "Kraken" sounded "cool" or would make a good logo (or art.)

As Kraken picked up on social networks you would see plenty in favor outside Seattle while most against were from Seattle. Then as it picked up more and more there was more Seattle people starting to like "Kraken" (though again, a lot of "I don't like hockey but" comments) and it was seemingly (twitter replies so not exact percentages here) roughly 50/50 for/against. And so on.

If you also live here (you don't, but maybe visited?) and followed it from beginning and were at hockey games in the area and know many beer leaguers in the area and heard all their opinions also, and you saw and heard different which you seemingly did with your confidence in your reply to me, I'd love to see your information on it. Perhaps you had a different experience than I had.

 

[DustyDangler]

Yes, exactly this. These branding decisions are being made to please vocal groups on social media who have narrow interests in what sounds either cool, funny, or both. It's why you see about 100x as many people saying "lmao Salt Lake Soakers!" than any other name. Random people, even fans, are not really interested in or knowledgeable about building lasting brands. As someone said previously, if you left it up to randos in 1994, the Avs already mediocre name would probably actually be the Rocky Mtn Xtreme.

ETA: Florida Panthers is one of the best names in sports. It is much better than the Carolina Panthers, which is what I suspect you're arguing against (eg. just picking a popular college/high school mascot).

First should get dibs so Florida > Carolina

Florida Panthers 1993 Carolina Panthers 1995
Winnipeg Jets 1972 New York Jets 1959
Ottawa Senators 1992 Washington Senators 1961
New York Rangers 1926 Texas Rangers 1961

 

[Headshot77]

Every team has a terrible name. We should just go to the soccer style of Utah HC

 

[Tawnos]

Every team has a terrible name. We should just go to the soccer style of Utah HC

And make their logo Delicate Arch with a goalie in front of it

 

[KevFu]

I’d been told that soda was prohibited… until LDS bought a soda company.

You heard what I heard; I heard it was they invested in Coke stock, and or bought the bottling company in Salt Lake? Something along those lines.

The Lakers moved to LA from Minnesota (land of 10,000 lakes) and the Jazz moved to Utah from New Orleans. Both teams kept their name during the move, hence why they don't necessarily jive where they landed. I will also note that there are no Grizzlies in Memphis either, outside of their zoo.

Well, in major metro areas there just aren't any truly wild animals roaming around. Sure, I can hear Coyotes at night, but I'm like 30 miles from a major metro area where everything east of me is "God's Country" (As in, God knows those people are living there but the rest of us ain't never gonna visit).

There was a Reddit post where someone said "every team should be the animal that market has the most of." And someone replied with a list of the "correct" nicknames for all 30 MLB teams.

It was 29 teams named Ants and the San Francisco Gi-Ants.

I think it's notable that the NFL and MLB seemingly do not allow such names...

Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean there's a rule preventing it. MLB's four 90s expansion teams picked Marlins, Rockies, Devil Rays and Diamondbacks because they were appropriate to their markets.

 

[Yukon Joe]

You were incorrect, as well. It wasn't all that subtle and it was widely mistaken. This is the BoH section, at least supposed to be different from the main forum where people just say things.

Here's the thing dude - you're the one "saying things", not me.

What you, personally, saw on social media, or what you, personally, talked to people is not statistically useful in any way. It's anecdotal.

I have no idea if it was non-Seattle, non-hockey fans who supported the name of the Kraken or not. But the thing is - neither do you.

So I've never been to Seattle - would love to visit. I am a hockey fan. Lots of people I talked to thought the name was cool. But that experience is as meaningless as yours.

I'm assuming the ownership group must have done some marketing research within Seattle about the name, and not just relied on social media mentions, in coming to the name. But I'll admit that's just an assumption of mine. But yeah maybe it was just minority owner Bruckheimer (producer of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies)* who sold the ownership group on the name by himself.


*Reaser I'm sure you know that, but others might now so I mentioned it

 

[hammer42]

Let's hope that the name & logo are cooler than the state of Utah it self last thing the NHL. needs is team named the Mormons or even worse the Osmonds can you just see that logo Donnie Osmonds goofy face on that jersey it would not exactly strike fear into there opponents in fact it just want to beat them up even more so my opinion go with something like.

Raptors
Eagles
Elks
Grizzlies

Personally I would go with Raptors .

 

[Skidooboy]

What's lame about the Panthers name? There is an actual species of panther called the Florida panther.

no. it was a subspecies based on 1890's identification...but it's actually just a North American Cougar.

but yeah the name is fine.

 

[Reaser]

Here's the thing dude - you're the one "saying things", not me.

What you, personally, saw on social media, or what you, personally, talked to people is not statistically useful in any way. It's anecdotal.

I have no idea if it was non-Seattle, non-hockey fans who supported the name of the Kraken or not. But the thing is - neither do you.

I literally said it was anecdotal. Though, yes, you can see where people are from (if they list it) in twitter replies and when people literally say, "I'm not a hockey fan but .." it's fair to presume that they are in fact, not hockey fans. I followed it, you didn't. I shared.

Also provided results of the Seattle Times poll. That's actual information.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Let's hope that the name & logo are cooler than the state of Utah it self last thing the NHL. needs is team named the Mormons or even worse the Osmonds can you just see that logo Donnie Osmonds goofy face on that jersey it would not exactly strike fear into there opponents in fact it just want to beat them up even more so my opinion go with something like.

Raptors
Eagles
Elks
Grizzlies

Personally I would go with Raptors .

except from all indications Grizzlies exist in UT already as the ECHL Team have committed to staying in Maverik Center independent of what moniker SEG comes up with....

 

[Yukon Joe]

I don't think having "interesting" names for the sake of it is very important. My general rule of thumb is that I'd rather have "boring" names that will still sound reasonable in 100 years than interesting ones which already elicit eyerolls a few decades down the line

I would rather be MLB and have a bunch of relatively generic sounding names that have the staying power to become strong brands than be MLS 1.0 and have teams whose branding is so intimately tied to what is en vogue at that specific moment that 90% of them have had to start from the ground up in under 20 years. You can think Iron Maiden album cover aesthetics and 80s monster movie names are cool as hell, but you will eventually die and the interest in those things will fade and yet the team will still be the KRAKEN or the YETI.

See I totally disagree.

The thing is any name that lasts 100 years is going to sound great - it sounds great because of the history attached to it. I mean - Red Socks or White Socks are terrible, terrible names, but the teams would be insane to change them because they have so much history.

There's a whole timeline to trendy names. At first it's cool, then 10+ years out it looks dated. Then 20-30 years out it becomes cool again. I think you saw this with Anaheim - Mighty Ducks was awesome, but then it started to feel dated. Then the team rebranded with the much more boring name "Ducks", and without the hokey but cool duckbill goalie mask logo. Now after 30 years of Anaheim I bet you fans would love to return to the Mighty Ducks look.

So anyways - if you pick a boring team name, it will be boring forever. I'm sorry Florida Panthers is a boring name. If you pick an edgy name - yes it might go through periods where it sounds dated, but it will always be memorable, and given enough time people will love it again.


That being said I don't like Utah Yeti. But then again I was the one saying "Utah Buzz" to rhyme with the Utah Jazz. But even more so it's not up to me.

 

[KevFu]

First should get dibs so Florida > Carolina

Florida Panthers 1993 Carolina Panthers 1995
Winnipeg Jets 1972 New York Jets 1959
Ottawa Senators 1992 Washington Senators 1961
New York Rangers 1926 Texas Rangers 1961

I think NCAA Division I should have that rule. Each school needs a unique nickname so we don't have four teams named "Tigers" in the same conference.

I'd say "oldest gets it" except in one case: Trojans. Troy gets to be the Trojans and USC has to pick a new one. Because Trojans means "people of Troy" which Troy is, and USC is not.

 

[Brodie]

Utah Raptors is a really good name. I kind of wonder if it's possible in today's world but it is an exceptionally good name and much more logical than having a team in Toronto with that name

Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean there's a rule preventing it. MLB's four 90s expansion teams picked Marlins, Rockies, Devil Rays and Diamondbacks because they were appropriate to their markets.

I think it's pretty telling that across three decades wherein three NHL teams and three NBA teams were given names non-plural names (plus the Blue Jackets were nearly named the "Columbus Justice", the Hornets were nearly named the "Charlotte Spirit", and the Raptors were almost named the "Toronto T-Rex"), zero NFL or MLB teams adopted such names. As near as I can tell, non-plural names were only even reportedly under consideration for two of those teams ("Arizona Phoenix" in MLB and "Houston Energy" in the NFL). In this same time period 7 MLS teams and 12 WNBA teams were named in this fashion.

Clearly there is something that kept them out of the NFL and MLB rather than just having other options. The Avs trademarked the name "Black Bears", the Wild had a whole host of better name ideas including Blue Ox, Northern Lights, Voyageurs, and White Bears. The Magic considered the name "Tropics". Again, clearly a reason they felt comfortable not going with the plural names

 

[KevFu]

See I totally disagree.

The thing is any name that lasts 100 years is going to sound great - it sounds great because of the history attached to it. I mean - Red Socks or White Socks are terrible, terrible names, but the teams would be insane to change them because they have so much history.

I've made this argument many, many times. Most of the Big Four nicknames ARE TERRIBLE, and it's only because they've been terrible for our entire lives that they don't sound lame or weird to us, we just accept them as normal.

The Athletics? That's horrible. But the Athletics have been in MLB for 123 years, so no one cares. And those team names happened organically, so there's charm to it.

The NL team in Philly had a P on their cap. The AL team in Philly put an A on their cap to be different. Hence Phillies and A's. The NL team tried calling themselves the Blue Jays and everyone in Philly just kept calling them the Phillies. The National League team in New York was the most successful franchise. When New York got an American League club, a sportswriter asked "Will these American Leaguers be as good as McGraw's giants of the National League?" Yankees is slang for Americans, hence the NY Yankees and NY Giants.

(The Mets is only a cool name because they "faked" that kind of origin story, naming the business the "New York Metropolitan Baseball Club," and picking the nickname Mets so it looks like it happened organically, even though by the time the Mets came about, everyone had a nickname.)


Picking your own nickname is hard, and the trademark/copyright stuff is going to take a long time. That's the biggest obstacle for Utah. Vegas took a while. They were candidates for an expansion team in 2014, did the ticket drive in spring of 2015, got awarded the team in summer of 2016 and announced their name/logo in November of 2016.

Smith is asking Twitter for a name last week, and they need one by like the end of July.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I've made this argument many, many times. Most of the Big Four nicknames ARE TERRIBLE, and it's only because they've been terrible for our entire lives that they don't sound lame or weird to us, we just accept them as normal.

And you can go on and on. Who ever thought naming a hockey team after a leaf was a good idea? Or after the country itself? or naming a football team after meat packers? Or what about just naming your team after a colour?

But whatever - none of those teams should ever change their names, because they're now iconic.

One of my favourite team nicknames is my hometown Winnipeg Blue Bombers, who was coined by a writer for the Winnipeg Tribuine newspaper (which closed 40+ years ago) in a reference to heavyweight boxing champ Joe Louis, the "Brown Bomber". Otherwise though - what the hell is a "blue bomber" anyways? "brown bomber" sure - Joe Louis was black, and he could throw bombs for punches.

Smith is asking Twitter for a name last week, and they need one by like the end of July.

Smith has been talking to the NHL for awhile, so hopefully he's been giving this some thought. A Twitter poll is a good way to drive engagement, but a terrible name to do anything meaningful.

 

[Puckrobber]

And make their logo Delicate Arch with a goalie in front of it

View attachment 852875

I actually like this logo.

 

[Tawnos]

I actually like this logo.

Thank Dall-E. I just did the prompt.