Wait a second, does this mean Seattle Slew isn’t even in the running? What a bunch of horse-puckey.
(Sorry, had to get that out of the way. Now back to your regularly scheduled blog.)
As speculation grows that Seattle will become the NHL’s next franchise, the oddsmaker Bodog has come up with a list of the most likely nicknames for the league’s potential 32nd team. Here’s a look at the could-be monikers, with the odds for each as well as THN’s take.
THN says: Really? Emeralds is the odds-on favorite? Is it because Vegas played the gold card? Hey, nothing says hockey like a precious gemstone. OK, yes, it’s a reference to Seattle’s nickname “The Emerald City.” But we don’t call them the New York Big Apples or the Chicago Windy Cities, do we? Save it for The Wizard of Oz’s hockey team.
THN says: That’s more like it. It sounds cool, it’s unique, it’s a salute to the Pacific Northwest’s indigenous peoples and, not to mention, you should be able to come up with an amazing jersey design with a totem pole as the inspiration.
THN says: Is it an acknowledgement of Mount Rainier, the highest mountain in Washington state (and considered one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world), or a comment on the weather in Seattle? Either way, nah.
THN says: Pretty good, even if it might be tough to tell who’s who when they face off against the forest-green Minnesota Wild. There’s certainly no shortage of trees in this part of the world. Where do you think all those hockey sticks come from, anyway? Or used to come from, like, 30 years ago.
THN says: Great name, even if the Seattle coastline isn’t exactly swimming in mythic giant squid. Then again, where is, right? That’s why those tricky buggers are so mythic — you almost never see them until it’s too late, and then you can’t confirm their existence to anyone because you’re fish food. Bottom line, if you want to release the Kraken as the team’s nickname, we’re on board. Because, well, we wouldn’t want to overboard.
THN says: If it wasn’t good enough for Vegas, where it feels more appropriate, it’s not good enough for Seattle. It was an ECHL nickname and let’s leave it that way (stick tap to the Richmond Renegades, 1990-2003).
THN says: Adorably ferocious or ferociously adorable? Either way, it feels on-brand with what the NHL is going for. But for whatever reason — too generic, maybe — it leaves me wanting.
THN says: You know what, Seattle, I think you want to avoid any reference to a Phoenix in your nickname. Unless, of course, it turns out that Seattle doesn’t join the NHL as an expansion team but rather becomes a relocation destination for a certain struggling desert-bound team.
THN says: There’s a connection to some NHL history here, with the early 1920s Victoria Cougars and late 1920s Detroit Cougars previously using the name. And it’s a wide-eyed, back-away-slowly nod to all the big cats prowling around the (E)vergreens at the foot of Mount Rainier(s). I like it better than when I heard “Florida Panthers” for the first time, but I’m not completely sold.
THN says: It’s good, but it’s not Patriots-level good, you know what I mean? (Note to self: Don’t read the comments.)
THN says: It’s better than Sea Lions, and if the Seattle ownership group pays the NHL’s reported expansion fee of $650 million, it better work out better than it did the first time the league tried out the Seals nickname.
THN says: So, we’re just straight-up trolling Hartford now?
THN says: Personally, I like The Salmon of Seattle. But I could be talked into Sockeyes. Especially if you’re talking dinner options.