Maulbert wrote:

chris98251 wrote:


vs

Seriously, that octopus isn't very intimidating. You act like there's an obvious difference. There isn't. Also, how is a kracken even vaguely tied to Seattle's culture? At least sockeye salmon have a geographical tie to the PNW.

chris98251 wrote:

Maulbert wrote:

chris98251 wrote:


vs

Seriously, that octopus isn't very intimidating. You act like there's an obvious difference. There isn't. Also, how is a kracken even vaguely tied to Seattle's culture? At least sockeye salmon have a geographical tie to the PNW.

Obviously you have no idea, they are intelligent adaptable and can do a lot of amazing things as well are the biggest in the world and are off our coast, not that it's regional or anything, Sockeye spawn here and then migrate. the Octopus lives here.

Bobblehead wrote:Breakers.

Bobblehead wrote:Breakers.

Maulbert wrote:

chris98251 wrote:


vs

Seriously, that octopus isn't very intimidating. You act like there's an obvious difference. There isn't. Also, how is a kracken even vaguely tied to Seattle's culture? At least sockeye salmon have a geographical tie to the PNW.

Chapow wrote:
Not sure why some people think team names/logos/mascots should try to be intimidating. It's not like anyone is ever going to be legitimately intimidated by a scary sounding team name or a scary looking logo anyway.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Chapow wrote:
Not sure why some people think team names/logos/mascots should try to be intimidating. It's not like anyone is ever going to be legitimately intimidated by a scary sounding team name or a scary looking logo anyway.

Yep, which is why it's gonna be Totems or Steelheads.

Both regionally appropriate, both have some alliteration next to "Seattle" to sounds cool when they roll off your tongue.

Kraken? Cheesy. Metropolitans? Antiquated. Sockeyes? Lesser of the two fish names vs Steelhead.

I'd put money on Totems.

chris98251 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Chapow wrote:
Not sure why some people think team names/logos/mascots should try to be intimidating. It's not like anyone is ever going to be legitimately intimidated by a scary sounding team name or a scary looking logo anyway.

Yep, which is why it's gonna be Totems or Steelheads.

Both regionally appropriate, both have some alliteration next to "Seattle" to sounds cool when they roll off your tongue.

Kraken? Cheesy. Metropolitans? Antiquated. Sockeyes? Lesser of the two fish names vs Steelhead.

I'd put money on Totems.

So the Seattle Head is fine then with you

DJrmb wrote:I'm not necessarily for or against "Totems". However, I would say that I don't think the mascot matters too much. I mean the Sonics mascot was a Sasquatch, and the Mariners use a moose... So idk if a "Totems" mascot has to be anything specific?

I'm crossing my fingers and really hoping not to have to root for a fish, but I guess if it had to be one Steelhead >>> Sockeye. I'm partially convinced some people just want the fish so they could throw salmon on the ice...

I'd definitely like to see something more tied to the area and the history which is why originally I liked suggestions like the Pilots, Aviators, or Admirals. It's also why I get the push-back on Kraken, because I too see that more of an Atlantic Ocean or Caribbean thing Even though I get the Pacific Octopus ties.

One thing I don't think I've seen yet is something paying tribute to the Klondike gold rush that rapidly increased Seattle and the area. The Seattle Rush seems like sort of a cool, catchy team name but maybe that's just too similar to the 49ers for people around here to stomach?

Bobblehead wrote:

DJrmb wrote:I'm not necessarily for or against "Totems". However, I would say that I don't think the mascot matters too much. I mean the Sonics mascot was a Sasquatch, and the Mariners use a moose... So idk if a "Totems" mascot has to be anything specific?

I'm crossing my fingers and really hoping not to have to root for a fish, but I guess if it had to be one Steelhead >>> Sockeye. I'm partially convinced some people just want the fish so they could throw salmon on the ice...

I'd definitely like to see something more tied to the area and the history which is why originally I liked suggestions like the Pilots, Aviators, or Admirals. It's also why I get the push-back on Kraken, because I too see that more of an Atlantic Ocean or Caribbean thing Even though I get the Pacific Octopus ties.

One thing I don't think I've seen yet is something paying tribute to the Klondike gold rush that rapidly increased Seattle and the area. The Seattle Rush seems like sort of a cool, catchy team name but maybe that's just too similar to the 49ers for people around here to stomach?

Really, we are worried about offending the 49er fans that live up here?

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Weird idea just popped into my head, though: could come out with the franchise as the Metropolitans their inaugural season, with the caveat that they would have a name change in a year. That would give us the cooler, more modern logo and name, but give us an instant throwback jersey, not only back to the original team, but to the very first season of the new team. In thirty years, that would be a fantastic thing to have as a part of the franchise.

In fact, I'd definitely be on board with the team being the Metropolitans the inaugural year, followed by the Steelheads or Sasquatch starting in year two. That, to me, would be the perfect setup for the franchise for the long run.

Maulbert wrote:

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Weird idea just popped into my head, though: could come out with the franchise as the Metropolitans their inaugural season, with the caveat that they would have a name change in a year. That would give us the cooler, more modern logo and name, but give us an instant throwback jersey, not only back to the original team, but to the very first season of the new team. In thirty years, that would be a fantastic thing to have as a part of the franchise.

In fact, I'd definitely be on board with the team being the Metropolitans the inaugural year, followed by the Steelheads or Sasquatch starting in year two. That, to me, would be the perfect setup for the franchise for the long run.

That is the worst idea in a sea of bad ideas.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:

Maulbert wrote:

Seahawk Sailor wrote:Weird idea just popped into my head, though: could come out with the franchise as the Metropolitans their inaugural season, with the caveat that they would have a name change in a year. That would give us the cooler, more modern logo and name, but give us an instant throwback jersey, not only back to the original team, but to the very first season of the new team. In thirty years, that would be a fantastic thing to have as a part of the franchise.

In fact, I'd definitely be on board with the team being the Metropolitans the inaugural year, followed by the Steelheads or Sasquatch starting in year two. That, to me, would be the perfect setup for the franchise for the long run.

That is the worst idea in a sea of bad ideas.

Why? Lots of franchises have throwback jerseys and logos completely different than their current ones--Colorado Aves/Nordiques, Tennessee Titans/Oilers, Washington Bullets/Wizards, Carolina Hurricanes/Whalers, New Orleans Pelicans/Hornets, Arizona Coyotes/Jets, and (dare I say it... ) Oklahoma City Thunder/Sonics.

Some of the current iterations of logos have no correlation with the cities they're in because they didn't change when they moved--Utah Jazz, L.A. Dodgers, Indianapolis Colts, Los Angeles Lakers, Arizona Cardinals, etc.

This would be taking a throwback name/logo--the Seattle Metropolitans, which isn't very suitable to the city, but which does have the history, and updating it with a current name/logo. This would allow us to hearken back to those original days with our throwbacks, but not be stuck with the name Metropolitans. To me, that's a good thing.

Maulbert wrote:Throwbacks are fine, and if they want, they can throwback to those god-awful Seattle Metropolitans jerseys from 1919. I was referring to your year one name idea. It's terrible. No professional franchise would do that. I completely fouls up the reason for branding. People will buy throwback jerseys, but if they knew a new name was coming in the second year, what idiot would drop $200 on a game authentic jersey with the dumber name on it that didn't win the naming contest?

And Metropolitans will never not be a stupid name.

Chapow wrote:

Maulbert wrote:

chris98251 wrote:


vs

Seriously, that octopus isn't very intimidating. You act like there's an obvious difference. There isn't. Also, how is a kracken even vaguely tied to Seattle's culture? At least sockeye salmon have a geographical tie to the PNW.

That salmon isn't very intimidating either. Neither is a Totem. Or a Metropolitan. Or a Red Wing. Or a Flyer. Or a Maple Leaf. Or a Penguin. Etc.

Not sure why some people think team names/logos/mascots should try to be intimidating. It's not like anyone is ever going to be legitimately intimidated by a scary sounding team name or a scary looking logo anyway.

mrt144 wrote:

Chapow wrote:

Maulbert wrote:

chris98251 wrote:


vs

Seriously, that octopus isn't very intimidating. You act like there's an obvious difference. There isn't. Also, how is a kracken even vaguely tied to Seattle's culture? At least sockeye salmon have a geographical tie to the PNW.

That salmon isn't very intimidating either. Neither is a Totem. Or a Metropolitan. Or a Red Wing. Or a Flyer. Or a Maple Leaf. Or a Penguin. Etc.

Not sure why some people think team names/logos/mascots should try to be intimidating. It's not like anyone is ever going to be legitimately intimidated by a scary sounding team name or a scary looking logo anyway.

Hence:

CPHawk wrote:The Sea Wolves is still the best idea IMHO. Tell the little rugby team thanks for the name. And what better way to ignite a rivalry, than taking their logo, which has zero to do with their name?

Thepeelsessions wrote:So what's the deal with the team name? I swear I heard Danny, Dave, and Moore say (only a couple weeks ago) that the Sockeyes has been made official, and this was only a few days after they interviewed Leiweke. I can't find anything to confirm this, and I know what I heard. And I doubt they would report it if it wasn't true. All I know is I really like both the Sockeyes and the Steelheads way more then Kraken. Kraken is terrible. It's Atlantic Ocean origin has nothing to do with the Pacific Northwest, and it's singular. Not a fan of singular team names. Plus, the very first thing that comes to mind when I hear ”Kraken", is Greg Hardy.

Fittingly, the final two rounds were nail-biters. It was the Sockeyes that emerged victorious in each, climbing the metaphorical fish ladder to the winner’s pedestal. Sorry, Team #NoFishNames. As for the local ultimate frisbee team of the same moniker? Much respect to the three-time national champs. But we did check the trademark registry, which didn’t return any hits.

The name Totems renewed the argument over appropriating indigenous culture as nicknames and mascots for sports teams. Yet, with its history as a professional Seattle hockey franchise from 1958-75, Totems drew the third-most reader submissions in our call-out and advanced all the way to the finals, receiving the second-most overall votes and upsetting the top-seeded Metropolitans in the Final Four (51%-49%).

Then there were the early ousters. Sasquatch, Freeze, Grunge. And the one first-round upset — a classic 5 over 4, advancing the Steelheads over the mythological Kraken.

All that remains is a full vote at the NHL board of governor’s meetings Dec. 3-4 in Georgia.

If that approval comes, when could the real team name be decided on? “I think it’s probably going to be spring,” NHL Seattle CEO Tod Leiweke told 710 ESPN on Monday. “This isn’t another mathematical decision. This is one of those emotional decisions where everyone has an opinion.”

We focused less on the logo and color scheme than the name, but Leiweke says he knows they are equal parts of a team’s soul. But don’t necessarily expect a traditional blue-green Seattle logo.

“The colors are really important,” Leiweke said. But, citing the Vancouver Canucks, added, “We might be forced to think outside the box a little bit.”

If Washington state IT systems worker Pamela Bowerman has her way, Seattle's potential new NHL hockey franchise team won't ever be called the Seattle Sockeyes.

That's because the Seattle Sockeyes hockey team already exists — that is, in Bowerman's own bestselling world of romance novels that are so steamy they'd melt the ice at any hockey rink.

Bowerman, who uses the pen name "Jami Davenport" for her fiction, has filed an application with the U.S Patent and Trademark Office to become the registered owner of the Seattle Sockeyes hockey name.

The writer filed her application on Dec. 21, a few weeks after the NHL invited Seattle's Oak View Group to make a pitch for an NHL expansion franchise.

Bowerman is the second person in the state of Washington to file a trademark application to protect a potential professional hockey team name.

A Microsoft attorney also has moved to trademark the "Seattle Steelheads," another of several names being bandied about as a possible moniker for the region's new NHL hockey franchise.

Attorney Craig Farris filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the name on Dec. 12, public records show.

KitsapGuy wrote:https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/hockey/sockeyes-or-totems-announcing-the-winner-of-our-unofficial-tournament-to-name-seattles-nhl-team/

All that remains is a full vote at the NHL board of governor’s meetings Dec. 3-4 in Georgia.

If that approval comes, when could the real team name be decided on? “I think it’s probably going to be spring,” NHL Seattle CEO Tod Leiweke told 710 ESPN on Monday. “This isn’t another mathematical decision. This is one of those emotional decisions where everyone has an opinion.”

We focused less on the logo and color scheme than the name, but Leiweke says he knows they are equal parts of a team’s soul. But don’t necessarily expect a traditional blue-green Seattle logo.

“The colors are really important,” Leiweke said. But, citing the Vancouver Canucks, added, “We might be forced to think outside the box a little bit.”

grizbob wrote:Couldn't give 2 $h!t about hockey in Seattle and what their name is.

Am I going to be able to watch the Sonics play again?

Sgt. Largent wrote:

grizbob wrote:Couldn't give 2 $h!t about hockey in Seattle and what their name is.

Am I going to be able to watch the Sonics play again?

That's the thing though, without the insane money, power and influence of the Oakview Groups desire to get a pro hockey team, you don't get the chance of getting the Sonics back down the road.

So yes, you should give two $h!t about hockey, because it's what's going to get you the Sonics back.

chris98251 wrote:Sockeyes and Steelhead, fish that swim back to die, Kraken a beast that has legendary status and mythical, in this case 8 arms working together to achieve a task. I know that stuff can go over some peoples head but I figure maybe a explanation would help. Not only that is we have the worlds biggest Octopus here in the Pacific.


That and Sockeye to me is like the Cardinals or the Blue Jays a truly threatening species.

In fact maybe we should be called the GoldFinch's it is the State Bird.

grizbob wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

grizbob wrote:Couldn't give 2 $h!t about hockey in Seattle and what their name is.

Am I going to be able to watch the Sonics play again?

That's the thing though, without the insane money, power and influence of the Oakview Groups desire to get a pro hockey team, you don't get the chance of getting the Sonics back down the road.

So yes, you should give two $h!t about hockey, because it's what's going to get you the Sonics back.

Well OK, what about the Chinooks?

KitsapGuy wrote:

Sports Hernia wrote:

KitsapGuy wrote:

$&@%!

Ruminator wrote:Totally fine by me to play on the road for a month or so if that gets Seattle hockey in full swing by 2021. We'll then have slightly more than average home games for the rest of the season. Still seems a little risky -- what if there's a setback in renovations and it isn't ready when they expect it will be? They might say OK you say it'll be ready 4 weeks into the season but we're going to make it 6 or 8 (before you can start hosting home games) just in case. Then that would start to suck.