The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
I think you may have just proved my point. With the exception of the Giants most of those franchises that share a name are very low on the branding totem pole. Personally I had never heard of most of those teams or knew they existed for most of their existence and I probably know most other team names from these leagues. The teams I did not recognize very well from your list include Tex, Hou, Sac, Ari. There are college teams from those towns that I recognize far more and I have almost no exposure to them.
Keep in mind that the NHL is much lower on the perverbial totem pole in the US compared to the NFL, MLB, and NBA. None of the those teams are marquee franchises, but they're still well known by the average sports fan.
Arizona Cardinals - the franchise has existed since 1920, even if it's been relocated 3 times.
Texas Rangers - follow MLB at all? They've represented the American League in the World Series the last two seaons and are sitting on top of the AL West once again. I bet that if you go anywhere in the US (with the exception of the New York area) and ask where the Rangers play, you'd probably hear Texas before New York.
Sacromento Kings - when the LA Kings were on their playoff run, some Los Angeles media outlets incorrectly showed the Sacromento Kings logo instead for the LA Kings logo. While an isolated incodent, who's more recognized in LA, let alone the rest of the US?
Houston Oilers - have to be an NFL historian for this one as they relocated to eventually become the Tennesee Titans in 1996 after existing for more than 30 years. As a side note, in the 1990's the NHL almost had their version of the Houston Oilers
As side note for duplicate names, do the Colorado Rockies count? They never coexisted at the same time, however they were an NHL team (now the NJ Devils) in the late 1970's before becoming a baseball team in the 1990's.
The teams I did not recognize very well from your list include Tex, Hou, Sac, Ari. There are college teams from those towns that I recognize far more and I have almost no exposure to them.
I bet the Texas Rangers have more name recognition in the states than the NY Rangers do.
Metropolitans wins hands down for me. Both name has Seattle history with it. Totems maybe more recent. But i agree that it sounds like a soccer name more than hockey imo or a minor league baseball team name
Neither are inherantly bad names, however my preference would be a rebrand with the organization honouring the past Metropolitans & Totems. I have mixed feelings about having to always go back to the historical name; for example in the 1967 expansion you didn't see the second coming of the Pittsburgh Pirates, Philadelphia Quakers, and St Louis Eagles, or subsiquent returns of the Colorado Rockies, New York Americans, or Atlanta Flames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by derriko
Seattle pilots is number one for me...
What about the Seattle Aviators? I found this logo by "humanot", and while origionally created as a concept for the Vancouver Canucks, this logo could be modified (i.e. removed the Canucks ice & stick from the eyes the "V"), however it's a little beyond my artistic abilities . I don't believe the Canucks are using it as an official logo. I changed the colours from Canucks blue to Metropolitans/Totems green.
As a reference to the old Metropolitans, the an alternate logo with pilots wings could have an old Metropolitans S in it.
Does that mean the Ogopogo in Kelowna doesn't exist either ?
...Nuclears' mistaken. Ogopogo, "Big Blue" & Bigfoot, the Jersey Devil, Mothman,
Memphre', they all exist. Cryptozoological Sciences still in its very formative years.
Believe. The Truth is Out There.
Keep in mind that the NHL is much lower on the perverbial totem pole in the US compared to the NFL, MLB, and NBA. None of the those teams are marquee franchises, but they're still well known by the average sports fan.
Arizona Cardinals - the franchise has existed since 1920, even if it's been relocated 3 times.
Texas Rangers - follow MLB at all? They've represented the American League in the World Series the last two seaons and are sitting on top of the AL West once again. I bet that if you go anywhere in the US (with the exception of the New York area) and ask where the Rangers play, you'd probably hear Texas before New York.
Sacromento Kings - when the LA Kings were on their playoff run, some Los Angeles media outlets incorrectly showed the Sacromento Kings logo instead for the LA Kings logo. While an isolated incodent, who's more recognized in LA, let alone the rest of the US?
Houston Oilers - have to be an NFL historian for this one as they relocated to eventually become the Tennesee Titans in 1996 after existing for more than 30 years. As a side note, in the 1990's the NHL almost had their version of the Houston Oilers
As side note for duplicate names, do the Colorado Rockies count? They never coexisted at the same time, however they were an NHL team (now the NJ Devils) in the late 1970's before becoming a baseball team in the 1990's.
Yes, the NHL is lower on the Totem pole in the US and that's why it's important for a new NHL team to forge a distinctive brand. You have to think about the casual fan that doesn't know know the difference between the LA Kings and the Sacramento Kings.
It's difficult enough as it is to build an NHL brand in the US. Competing with one of the most iconic and well known brands in baseball and using a redundant Seattle theme would be silly. There are so many other choices for names out there with better branding potential. Why use something that is unique to NY? There is nothing special about the name Seattle Mets. It has very little brand recognition as is. The casual observer and most people in Seattle have no idea about the history of the Seattle Metropolitans and few probably care but they have probably heard of the NY Mets. These are people you need to think of.
I like how we've got multiple pages of name arguments going for a team that doesn't exist.
If the NHL/PA negotiations included "creation of jobs by adding expansion teams in Seattle and Quebec" are we happy with this?
The arena got approved by Seattle which was more harder hurdle than getting it approved from King County baring any issue that results in the arena not happening, it will get built. I see no reason that Hansen won't be successful in getting a NBA team.
Once shovel meets ground its inevitable we will get a NHL team. So i don't see what's wrong with discussing what the NHL team name could be.
The arena got approved by Seattle which was more harder hurdle than getting it approved from King County baring any issue that results in the arena not happening, it will get built. I see no reason that Hansen won't be successful in getting a NBA team.
Once shovel meets ground its inevitable we will get a NHL team. So i don't see what's wrong with discussing what the NHL team name could be.
Its my opinion. The only reason why we don't have a team NOW is cause there IS NO NHL ready arena for long term use. NHL knows there are groups that want to bring a team in to Seattle but there is no building to host them long term.
Look at Winnipeg they built the arena sure it took a while but they did eventually get a team. The thing is with Seattle they are going after for both NBA and NHL. Hansen is focusing on the NBA while someone will will focus on the NHL.
Like i said Hansen will get a NBA team thus the arena will be built which will lead to more discussions with the NHL regarding expansion or more likely relocation of a team to Seattle.
Last edited by gstommylee: 09-27-2012 at 02:43 PM.
I would prefer a established roster, but in the end I just want a team to call my own.
I don't see an expansion being that bad it depends on who the general manager is. If we get a Adrian Hanuer (Sounders current GM) like GM for our hockey team that knows how to build a roster i think the team could do well its first few years in their existence.
I don't see an expansion being that bad it depends on who the general manager is. If we get a Adrian Hanuer (Sounders current GM) like GM for our hockey team that knows how to build a roster i think the team could do well its first few years in their existence.
I just don't know how those expansion drafts work. Like you can get other team's B rated players.
I just don't know how those expansion drafts work. Like you can get other team's B rated players.
Expansion draft is simple. I'll be using Vancouver Whitecaps and Portland Timbers MLS expansion draft as an example.
Each MLS team can protect 11 players leaving everyone else exposed unless they have a contract status that leaves them automatically protected.
Portland and Vancouver can take 10 players from the list and once a team gets two players picked they can no longer lose a player. They take turns picking a player until both have 10 players taken from the draft then the draft is over.
Though i do not know if this is the same with NHL expansion draft but in MLS you are allowed to trade with another team to get even more players in condition that they don't don't pick a player from their team in the expansion draft. Give up a weaker player to protect stronger players that are exposed.
Expansion draft is simple. I'll be using Vancouver Whitecaps and Portland Timbers MLS expansion draft as an example.
Each MLS team can protect 11 players leaving everyone else exposed unless they have a contract status that leaves them automatically protected.
Portland and Vancouver can take 10 players from the list and once a team gets two players picked they can no longer lose a player. They take turns picking a player until both have 10 players taken from the draft then the draft is over.
Though i do not know if this is the same with NHL expansion draft but in MLS you are allowed to trade with another team to get even more players in condition that they don't don't pick a player from their team in the expansion draft. Give up a weaker player to protect stronger players that are exposed.
Last NHL expansion draft has seen 2/4 teams fail to win a playoff game 12+ years later...
26 of the 28 teams existing in the league at the time of the draft were each allowed to protect either one goaltender, five defensemen, and nine forwards or two goaltenders, three defensemen, and seven forwards. The Atlanta Thrashers and Nashville Predators had their entire rosters protected, as they were the two newest franchises in the league, only being in existence for one and two years respectively.
For teams protecting only one goaltender, there was no experience requirement for those left unprotected. For teams protecting two goaltenders, each goaltender left unprotected must have appeared in either 10 NHL games in the 1999–2000 season or 25 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. A goaltender had to be in net for at least 31 minutes in each game for the game to be counted against these totals.
At least one defenceman left unprotected by each team had to have appeared in at least 40 games in the 1999–2000 season or 70 games in the 1998–99 season and 1999–2000 seasons combined. At least two forwards left unprotected by each team had to have met the same requirements.
Not mentioned, but anybody under 21 and 1st and 2nd year pros were ineligible. The rosters would not be pretty. A lot of teams would probably unprotect expiring UFA's but there'd be little point in an expansion team wasting a selection of them if they are have decent knowing that they likely will not want to play for an expansion team.
Hard to say what an expansion team would look like, but for quality, a relocated team is always better...but if I'd gotten the choice, I would have went with expansion as it gives the franchise a clean slate to start to build, clean history, and doesn't take anybody's team.
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
Perhaps the most intriguing notion for Vancouver sports fans in light of the Seattle arena announcement is the possibility that an NHL franchise could soon be on its way as well, giving the Canucks and their fans something they haven't had since entering the NHL: a true regional rival. The Calgary Flames, the Canucks' closest division rival, are roughly 12 hours away by car.
The Canucks certainly don't need the existence of a regional rival to fill their building - they already own the longest active sellout streak in the NHL and have capped their season ticket base at 17,000 - but having another NHL team in the region would give their own fans plenty of opportunity to invade the opposing arena in a similar fashion as soccer fans from Seattle have done in Vancouver whenever the Sounders travel up the interstate to play at BC Place.
A second NHL team in the region - although preferably one that doesn't involve a relocated Edmonton Oilers' franchise, as has been speculated in recent days - also would give many of the underserved hockey fans in the area, specifically those who either aren't able to access Canucks tickets due to their scarcity and cost, the opportunity to watch NHL hockey just down the road at likely a much less price point.
Of course, there's still a long way to go before a professional basketball or hockey team can potentially call the new arena home, but that hasn't stopped Seattle's neighbors to the north, who are perhaps even keener than Seattle residents themselves for the new arena, from laying claim to it as their home away from home.
It may be Seattle's arena, but there would no doubt be a heavy Vancouver flavor to it once the doors are open.
Not mentioned, but anybody under 21 and 1st and 2nd year pros were ineligible. The rosters would not be pretty. A lot of teams would probably unprotect expiring UFA's but there'd be little point in an expansion team wasting a selection of them if they are have decent knowing that they likely will not want to play for an expansion team.
Hard to say what an expansion team would look like, but for quality, a relocated team is always better...but if I'd gotten the choice, I would have went with expansion as it gives the franchise a clean slate to start to build, clean history, and doesn't take anybody's team.
It also depends on who is making the choices in which players to take. Get some people that know what they are doing and Seattle could do pretty good in a couple years.
. I don't believe the Canucks are using it as an official logo. I changed the colours from Canucks blue to Metropolitans/Totems green.
?
