Baggins

If it was a true indiginous rendition it would be multi-colored. Caling it 'constipated' is an insult to Haida art as the face of the Orca is the Haida style. The Yankees logo is as boring and uncreative as you can get. It's iconic because it's been around forever (like the Habs logo), not because it's looks great or catches the eye. I get it, you like simple and boring. You like.... I like... You like.... I like... It's interesting you used the Cowboys logo as an example of a good iconic logo. Why do the Cowboys have a star as a logo? It certainly doesn't match the team name and yet you seem to like it. Weird. They're not the Dallas Stars after all. Could it be an image related to where they play? Even the Packers logo doesn't represent the team name and yet you chose than as well. Particularly weird considering you asked does a logo have to represent where the team plays and yet several of your examples of 'good logos' do exactly that. Clearly we have very different taste when it come to team logos. You believe I have "poor taste" simply because it doesn't match your boring simple taste. Neither is actually wrong, it's simply different taste. Considering your love of bland I'm actually half surprised you love the abstract C of the SiR. It is simple and bland, but it is also abstract and not easily recognized as a C at first glance. I decided to read up on what makes a "good logo" for a sports team and it asks the question what image do you want to project. It also recommended staying away from "current fads" as they can appear outdated rather quickly. The image needs to be able to stand the test of time. This is why so many go with bland and boring, but obviously it doesn't have to be considering the Raiders and Vikings logos. Both have more interesting images that have stood up to the test of time. Haida art has obviously withstood the test of time. The C shape is obviously for thew team name. The question is what does the Orca image represent? The Orca is the apex hunter of the oceans. They are very intelligent, work as a team to hunt, and are feared by even the great white shark and whales largest than themselves. Did you know that great white sharks will even abondon their hunting ground if Orca's arrive? Intelligent, feared, and team work. Would those be good qualities to project in an image for a team sport? They will even intentionally delay a kill to teach their young how to hunt as a team. They practice their young. There's a pod residing permanently off our coast and the Orca has historical ties toi the city. Where the team plays. Is representing that in your logo, as the Cowboys, Packer, and Yankees did, important to identity? Another thing recommended regarding team logos is adlusting or adding to your logo over time, and this is fine, but changing it completely should involve a great deal of consideration because you are completely changing your identity and recognition. A complete change should be well thought out regarding what image you want to project as an identity. One other interesting side note regarding choosing a logo was this tidbit:- sports teams typically have a mascot and that should also be considered when choosing, or changing your team identity. A good reason to go simple and boring is it's easily tweeked over time without completely changing the identity. It's a safe choice as opposed to an interesting choice. The bottom line is we have different taste. Neither is right or wrong. How a logo becomes iconic is time. It becomes iconic by becoming recognizable to the masses. The Yankees logo is recognizable to even non-baseball fans. It's recognizable around the world. and that's what actually makes it iconic. Constantly changing logos does nothing to accomplish that. Which is why change just for the sake of change is just a bad idea. Edit: Btw, what did you think of the Seahawks logo when they came into the league with the PNW colors for their uni?

Likely one of the most underrated players on the team. So many only look at points to decide a players contribution and worth.

Talk about "can't reason with"!! That bold part says it all about you and your nonsense. If you like the Orca you're not a hockey fan. (said with a big childish pout)

Whose "good logo" design, yours? What part of the Orca design is bad?

Something often becomes iconic simply by being around forever. It's older than me, and I'm old. It's ok but another logo I wouldn't go out of my way for. It's not a particularly interesting logo. Neither utterly boring nor particularly great. I liked both the Red Wings and Bruins logos the most back in the original six days but thought the wings had the best logo. Overall I liked the Bruins uni/logo the most. I've never liked wearing red. Don't know what it is but to me red doesn't look right on me. What I like about the Orca C is it's neither boring nor over the top. I really like the style and that it represents where the team plays. It's just a great logo to me.

I've never been overly critical of Petey. He's young and still learning and maturing. But none of that really matters. What matters is what each of them currrently are. Not really sure what your problem with Miller is, but currently he's the best forward on the team. He does it all and does it consistently. When Petey gets to that point, he might actually be the better player. As much as I like him. he's certainly not twice the player Miller is currently. So give it up.

The Flyers logo is ok. It doesn't impress like the Red Wings but is a decent design that looks ok. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy it. The Habs logo is nothing to write home about either. It's just been around so long it's become iconic as a result. I certainly don't consider the Wild logo too busy. It's not the hot mess that Coyotes logo was. Being in the shape of an animal with a wilderness scene within it is quite creative and fits the team name and location. To me it's a good logo. Some said the Orca logo was too busy and my response was 'did you ever look at the skate logo'? Like I said to each his own. Everybody has different taste. Some like plain and boring, some even like a hot mess. You'll never get everybody to agree. Ever. No matter what it is there will those that don't like it and want it changed. So what's really the point? That's what the alt jersey should be for rather than keeping the same alt for almost 20 years. I will say this, as much as I dislike the skate logo I'd take it over the SiR as our alt. I'd prefer too busy over blaaah, and at least the alt would be more distinctly different than our primary. But I really like the idea of the Orca uni in the skate colors. I honestly think it would be a great solutuion between the skate and the Orca fans. Because I honestly think it's more about the colors than the skate logo that's actually liked. The Orca makes a C for Canucks FYI.

Because you're fan fan of his Petey's struggles can't possibly be his fault. Objectivity hasn't been your strong suit here.

When it's empty?

Put up all the logos you want. It won't change what I like. Beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. Btw, I actual like the Wilds logo. It's both creative and looks good. Coyotes not so much. It's too busy and not easy on the eyes. I don't mind the Flyers logo at all. It's interesting and guess what? Includes where the team plays. The Red Wings logo would look good with just the wing. But adding the wheel, a huge nod to where the team plays, makes it great. In the end it's really just a matter of personal taste. Even the Whalers logo includes where the team plays in it. It's quite creative how they got the W, the H, and formed a whale shape as well in their logo. That's what makes it good.

Wouldn't that be a coaching call, who plays where on the PP, rather than an individual players call? Plus whoever is low, behind the goal line, moves from one side of the net to the other depending on which side the puck is at. Sometimes it's Boeser low and somethimes it Miller. I think you're looking for reasons to justify disliking, or moving, Miller. Or perhaps your' just trying to defend Petey's lack of production early in the season. Looking at the assist totals since Miller came it appears he's anything but selfish. If anything you should put the blame on Hughes. Being a left side d-man he tends towards the left side on the PP. If Hughes has the puck on the left side low player will be on the left side. If Hughes is on the right side the down low with be on the right side. Hughes is the QB of the PP, not Miller, and he has the most control over which side the puck is on. It would also help if it didn't take Hughes three tries to get the puck in the sweet spot for Petey. When it isn't in the sweet spot Petey has to get control and usually puts it back to Hughes. More often than not Hughes heads back to the left side again. Petey "can be" as good, or better, than Miller. But he hasn't grown into that yet and saying he's twice the player is just plain exaggeration at this point. His wrist injury certainly didn't help in moving towards the player he can be either. In the end I think your Swedish roots are showing.

Always a pass on the SiR for me. Changing the colors doesn't make it any less blah boring. It's fine as a shoulder patch as a nod to our past, but hate it as a primary logo.

First I doubt there's any team out there looking to replace their entire 4th line. I doubt there's a playoff team that actually wants two of the three. When you have a truly good fourth line, and two of the three are minimum wage RFA's, the only reason to trade any of them at the deadline is you've talked to their agent and the money/term they want is simply unreasonable. If Motte wants more than 2m I'd definitely look at moving him and judge that on the return. I suspect Lam and Highmore will be pretty resonable to re-sign as both were on the verge of being the league and will want sign because they don't have the leverage as lopw level RFA's. Their only option being Europe and the KHL where they won't make more anyway. A reasonable multiyear deal should be fairly easy to attain. Key word there is 'resonable' rather than 'cheap'. At some point you need to keep what's good instead of gambling on futures. Build around what's good. It all comes down to cost versus reward. If you can build a good fourth line with all of them making less than 2m you've got a good bargain going. Then you only move them if something as good, or better, comes up on an entry level contract, or when one demands too much on their next contract. Teams often have a 4th line with a player over 2m or a 4th line that gets minimal ice time because they're just not that good. If you get cheap and good you can roll lines with confidence and you keep it as long as you can. You trade players at the deadline because you don't intend to re-sign them, not for the sake of just doing something. Do you want to help other teams win cups or build around what's good here to move towards winning the cup ourselves? Ask yourself this: how good would this team be by adding just a good shutdown 3C and solid two way top 4 RD? Think a ride side Hamhuis - decent production and solid defense? Would we look better at both even strength and PK? I don't think this team is as far away as most seem to think now that we have a coach that doesn't play them in such a passive style. If we could wipe away the Green portion of the season we'd be in a playoff spot. Add a good top 4 RD and shutdown center and we could be possibly be viewed as a contender.

I missed it. Feel free to enlighten me. To me he's a real team guy, Hits, blocks shots, and will stand up for teammates. Plus since he's been here has a commanding lead over Pettersson, Boeser, and Horvat in assists. To me he's anything but selfish.

What good is Miller? The Canucks have played 16 forwards so far this season.... 1st among all forwards in both goals and assists (a 20 pt lead) 1st among all forwards in PP points (10 pt lead) 1st among forwards in game winning goals (5) The only player with OT goals (3) Tied 2nd among all forwards in shootout goals 3rd among all forwards in hits per 60 minutes 2nd among all forwards in blocked shots per 60 minutes 2nd among all centers at faceoffs 1st among all forwards in PK time per game Has fought opponents in defense of teammates Says it like it is in interviews rather than those standard PR script answers Who wants "that guy" on their team?

I was typing up a response saying just that while you posted it. Change the colors to the skate uni and keep the Orca.

You don't think representing "where" the team play should be part of the identity? Far more teams include a reference to where the team plays than what the team plays. It's a very common element of design. The green/blue with a differnet logo is still a reference to where the team plays. Double whammy of where the team plays with the uni being PNW colors and the Orca's off our coast. That said, it's not the colors of the skate jersey I dislike. The colors actually look do good in combination imo. It's the logo I actually dislike. At the time it was in use I heard it called the flying pizza, the flying spagetti plate, and the flying hot mess. That was from Canuck fans and I couldn't disagree. It would actually look sharp to me with the Orca logo in those colors. Then at least there's still the model of where the team plays. Perhaps that's the actual answer. Keep the Orca logo and change the team colors to the black/red/yellow. A meeting in the middle of the Orca versus the skate. Because I don't hear the anybody calling the skate logo a thing of beauty, it's just the colors people really seem to love.

The ultimate irony - a close minded person calling others close minded.

So the Orca Logo pays homage to the Orca's off our coast, in a Haida style paying homage to BC natives. Makes sense to me.

This is why I think they kept the SiR as the third far too long. They should rotate the third out every 2-5 years. It would help appease the undying need for change and the I want my favorite back.crowd.

Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

Even after replying to you with "that year" you responded with "we are not a playoff team". It seemed to me I had to drive it home what was being talked about.

THAT YEAR!!! THAT YEAR!!! THAT YEAR!!! THAT YEAR!!! THAT YEAR!!! We didn't sell at that deadline because we were in the playoff picture that year!

Blah, blah, blah. Or is it wah, wah, wah? 1 - THAT year we were in the playoff mix. 2 - Playoff teams don't move their pending UFA's at the deadline and weaken their team. 3 - PERIOD. 4 - What happened before or afterwards is irrelevant. 5 - It's that year, and that year only, that's actually relevent to what was done - that year.

You can't appear repeatedly without that first appearance. Whatever contingency was in place was changed/delayed by OEL becoming available and Vancouver being one of his two preferred destinations. People tend to ignore that part. I think had that not happened Tanev would have been the top priority with Toffi second. Resigning Toffi would mean letting Jake walk or move his rights for whatever you can get. But OEL changed everything and by the time he withdrew his offer to waive his NTC all three of those guys had signed elsewhere. Had Benning been able to swing that deal and get OEL/Garland at that time Toffi likely doesn't get re-signed anyway. Until the OEL sweepstakes played out Bennings hands were kind of tied because it would change cap availability if it went through. Re-signing Marky would have been ok but would have meant moving the younger Demko. I actually preferred the idea of keeping Demko and let Marky walk. Bigger window going forward with the younger goalie and cheaper to boot. I wasn't as concerned abouit Toffi as others were, with Hogs and Pods coming into the mix. To me the only reason to re-sign Toffi was to dump Virtanen. A preference for me but not critical.