THAT needs to be our main Jersey.

[IBatch]

28 minutes ago, The Lock said:

First of all, that's not the original stick-in-the-rink logo. Show that specific logo and see if you see the C in that. The one you posted doesn't really count as the point kilgore was making was about where we started, not a modern version of the C.

 

And, for the record, I didn't even know there was a C in it for at least a year after I originally saw the logo and it's still not obvious to me to this day.

Funny but designers actually like the simplicity of it and the negative space forming the C.   But it's hard to see because it' like a rectangle (rink) with round edges lol (not really but i can see why it's a bit confusing given it's not super obvious like the Habs ... can you see the H in theirs?)  ... Best one for sure is the Whalers ... those guys(gals) deserve a prize as far as making something look cool with negative space ...

[Baggins]

21 minutes ago, The Lock said:

First of all, that's not the original stick-in-the-rink logo. Show that specific logo and see if you see the C in that. The one you posted doesn't really count as the point kilgore was making was about where we started, not a modern version of the C.

 

And, for the record, I didn't even know there was a C in it for at least a year after I originally saw the logo and it's still not obvious to me to this day.

I was in high school when the Nucks joined the league. I got the hockey stick making the central part forming an abstract C. It wasn't until the second season somebody told it was a stick in a hockey rink forming a C. I said, knowing that doesn't change it being a stupid looking logo. So bland and utterly boring.

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Funny but designers actually like the simplicity of it and the negative space forming the C.   But it's hard to see because it' like a rectangle (rink) with round edges lol (not really but i can see why it's a bit confusing given it's not super obvious like the Habs ... can you see the H in theirs?)  ... Best one for sure is the Whalers ... those guys(gals) deserve a prize as far as making something look cool with negative space ...

I think this really then shows how much of a disconnect there can be between a designer and the general public. It's one thing to say something is art, but it's really up to the public to determine how popular it is or whether or not it even makes sense. This is especially the case when it's supposed to used to market a brand. You ESPECIALLY want it to be palatable by the general problem. lol

Edited June 6, 2022 by The Lock

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yeah nothing has ever come close to as bad as the Messier years and the forced exodus of the actual Canucks roster.  I figure that's what the Roman Empire must have been like under Commodus or Nero.

Overly dramatic as you could say there was a forced exodus under Emporer Burke as well. I get the Messier hate but I think the divide that came had far more to do with Keenan than Messier himself. It was Keenan going after Linden that really divided the room, Messier is guilty by association, but I really do think it's was Keenan that divided the room. Now I was shocked at the time Linden was traded but blamed Keenan far more than Messier. That said I'm not bitter about Linden getting moved at all. That trade was a major factor in this team being very good for over a decade and Linden returned later to boot. Get over it already. I was over the trade it after Bertuzzi's first game here. That doesn't mean I didn't feel warm fuzzies when Keenan was fired. At that point I wanted Messier, Bure and Mogilny gone as well. 

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

I was in high school when the Nucks joined the league. I got the hockey stick making the central part forming an abstract C. It wasn't until the second season somebody told it was a stick in a hockey rink forming a C. I said, knowing that doesn't change it being a stupid looking logo. So bland and utterly boring.

Yeah, it's one thing for a symbol to be simple, it's another thing to have it be simple and actually look good. The original 6 logos are simple and look good (minus maybe Chicago and Detroit on the simple factor). The original stick-in-the-rink is simple.... but it just doesn't look good.

Edited June 6, 2022 by The Lock

[Kevin Biestra]

35 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Overly dramatic as you could say there was a forced exodus under Emporer Burke as well. I get the Messier hate but I think the divide that came had far more to do with Keenan than Messier himself. It was Keenan going after Linden that really divided the room, Messier is guilty by association, but I really do think it's was Keenan that divided the room. Now I was shocked at the time Linden was traded but blamed Keenan far more than Messier. That said I'm not bitter about Linden getting moved at all. That trade was a major factor in this team being very good for over a decade and Linden returned later to boot. Get over it already. I was over the trade it after Bertuzzi's first game here. That doesn't mean I didn't feel warm fuzzies when Keenan was fired. At that point I wanted Messier, Bure and Mogilny gone as well. 

 

I don't have to get over it.  I have never seen a more disgraceful treatment of a roster in all of my years of watching sports.  I have never before or since seen a team eaten apart from inside like that.  It wasn't just Linden.  It was McLean, Odjick, Babych...

 

As to how the blame should be apportioned between Keenan and Messier...I don't know.  50/50 is fine with me.

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Funny but designers actually like the simplicity of it and the negative space forming the C.   But it's hard to see because it' like a rectangle (rink) with round edges lol (not really but i can see why it's a bit confusing given it's not super obvious like the Habs ... can you see the H in theirs?)  ... Best one for sure is the Whalers ... those guys(gals) deserve a prize as far as making something look cool with negative space ...

There's a difference between simple and utterly boring and abstract. I think the current Orca is pretty simple and no where near as busy or hard on the eyes like the skate logo. Plus the C is more obvious..The Blackhawks logo is anything but bland or boring and is iconic. The Whalers logo was good because it is visually simple but very creative at the same time with both a W and the whate tail for the name and the two forming an H for where the team played. Simple, visually pleasing, and obvious.  

 

The funny thing about the H within Montreals C is most, particularly out west here, thought the H was for Habs rather than Hockey. I followed the NHL for more than 20 years before finding that out. Of course that was long before internet was around to easily look these things up. But growing up hearing everybody calling them "The Habs" it was an easy assumption the H was for Habs and it made sense. That logo is iconic because it's been used for over a century with just minor tweeks. Being the winningest team of the O6 era doesn't hurt either. Those O6 logos are iconic because of how long they've been in use without major change.

[Bell]

7 minutes ago, Baggins said:

There's a difference between simple and utterly boring and abstract. I think the current Orca is pretty simple and no where near as busy or hard on the eyes like the skate logo. Plus the C is more obvious..The Blackhawks logo is anything but bland or boring and is iconic. The Whalers logo was good because it is visually simple but very creative at the same time with both a W and the whate tail for the name and the two forming an H for where the team played. Simple, visually pleasing, and obvious.  

 

The funny thing about the H within Montreals C is most, particularly out west here, thought the H was for Habs rather than Hockey. I followed the NHL for more than 20 years before finding that out. Of course that was long before internet was around to easily look these things up. But growing up hearing everybody calling them "The Habs" it was an easy assumption the H was for Habs and it made sense. That logo is iconic because it's been used for over a century with just minor tweeks. Being the winningest team of the O6 era doesn't hurt either. Those O6 logos are iconic because of how long they've been in use without major change.

Hawks jersey is the best

[Tiger-Hearted]

9 hours ago, IBatch said:

That's pretty bad-ass.   Not sure about the C does come across as a bit too close to the Habs C ... but it is what it is... I'm ok with just leaving them as is and bringing back the Skate often.   Would really like to see the White Skate on away games ... used to be our home jersey and to me they were the best uniforms we've ever had ... TVs weren't so good back then - the black ones were hard to see the names/numbers at times (try watching on a 20 inch tube with rabbit ears 15 feet away on a couch lol...couldn't see the puck much either lol)...

The Johnny Canuck C/Orca C does have an obtuse point on the closed end as a opposed to the completely rounded Habs CH. Also, the CH open end has a serif on the top. JC with his hockey stick would also be the eye-catcher in the logo. I would also add white V's to the sleeve stripes.

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I don't have to get over it.  I have never seen a more disgraceful treatment of a roster in all of my years of watching sports.  I have never before or since seen a team eaten apart from inside like that.  It wasn't just Linden.  It was McLean, Odjick, Babych...

 

As to how the blame should be apportioned between Keenan and Messier...I don't know.  50/50 is fine with me.

Try on the big boy pants. Even liked players get traded. 

 

Maclean wasn't as good after the 94 run. After 94/95 his S% wasn't even among the top 20 starters in the league. He only had one .900 S% season after 94/95. Babych was slow as molasses at that point. Good positionally but it was time to move on and he didn't play much after being traded. And Brashear was a better heavy weight and better hockey player than Gino. It's not a case of not liking any of them. It's just part of the game. There's always a point to move on and the team certainly needed change.

[DS4quality]

Did you know the H in Montréal jersey doesn't stand for Habs?

[BertaNuck]

2 hours ago, DS4quality said:

Did you know the H in Montréal jersey doesn't stand for Habs?

How many people actually know what CCM stands for 

[Kevin Biestra]

11 hours ago, Baggins said:

Try on the big boy pants. Even liked players get traded. 

 

Maclean wasn't as good after the 94 run. After 94/95 his S% wasn't even among the top 20 starters in the league. He only had one .900 S% season after 94/95. Babych was slow as molasses at that point. Good positionally but it was time to move on and he didn't play much after being traded. And Brashear was a better heavy weight and better hockey player than Gino. It's not a case of not liking any of them. It's just part of the game. There's always a point to move on and the team certainly needed change.

 

I have seen everybody get traded over the years and had little problem with it and certainly no problem decades later.  Tony Tanti, Richard Brodeur, Curt Fraser, Garth Butcher, Barry Pederson, Cam Neely, Patrik Sundstrom, Kevin Bieksa, Todd Bertuzzi, Alex Burrows, Roberto Luongo, Dennis Ververgaert, Don Lever, etc., etc.  I have watched the team move on from Harold Snepsts, Stan Smyl, Markus Naslund, Thomas Gradin, Doug Lidster, Ron Sedlbauer, Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Rick Lanz, Doug Halward, Kevin McCarthy, Petri Skriko, Tiger Williams, etc., etc.

 

I have never seen a roster get driven out of their own locker room like in the Messier-Keenan years at any other point in my life.

 

And Babych had plenty of good hockey left.  His career only ended when the Flyers or Kings doctors screwed up his foot.

 

Also, you say the team certainly needed change.  But it wasn't in dire need of change before the arrival of Messier.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, The Lock said:

I think this really then shows how much of a disconnect there can be between a designer and the general public. It's one thing to say something is art, but it's really up to the public to determine how popular it is or whether or not it even makes sense. This is especially the case when it's supposed to used to market a brand. You ESPECIALLY want it to be palatable by the general problem. lol

 Absolutely.   The one that got me was designers that evaluated for THN to rank the best hockey (all not just NHL) uniforms slagged on Buffalo's ... to me the Sabres had one of the coolest logos.   They sure loved the Whalers though and rightly so.   And felt that SJ was the best uniform of them all (ahead of Swedens, Habs, etc etc) explaining why the shark was so cool ... to me it's a cartoon shark instead of a cartoon Duck with a mask on - both cheesy...also why i don't ever want to see Mr.  Logger man on ours.  

Edited June 7, 2022 by IBatch

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, Baggins said:

There's a difference between simple and utterly boring and abstract. I think the current Orca is pretty simple and no where near as busy or hard on the eyes like the skate logo. Plus the C is more obvious..The Blackhawks logo is anything but bland or boring and is iconic. The Whalers logo was good because it is visually simple but very creative at the same time with both a W and the whate tail for the name and the two forming an H for where the team played. Simple, visually pleasing, and obvious.  

 

The funny thing about the H within Montreals C is most, particularly out west here, thought the H was for Habs rather than Hockey. I followed the NHL for more than 20 years before finding that out. Of course that was long before internet was around to easily look these things up. But growing up hearing everybody calling them "The Habs" it was an easy assumption the H was for Habs and it made sense. That logo is iconic because it's been used for over a century with just minor tweeks. Being the winningest team of the O6 era doesn't hurt either. Those O6 logos are iconic because of how long they've been in use without major change.

Good post Baggins.   Liked what you said about change at the end...going to a Habs game is fun - in their building, because of all the history.    You could spend a couple hours just walking the bowls and reading about the history (have plaques about guys in Morenz and before era right up to recent retirees)... the fans are very engaged too, fun to watch their "Joy of Life"  which is very important to them, and the Habs for sure are one of if not their biggest treasures.   You'd have to spend ten minutes and hurt your neck looking up at all their banners ... not much room up in those rafters  ... even as a avid Canucks fan (and no other team since i was a kid ) it's hard not to appreciate or respect their culture and history.    The statues out front ...  their hero's are larger then life for sure.     We can never compete with that.   I think the numbers we retired were deserved though ... 

 

As an aside .... OTT actually also hung their "cup wins" from the 20's or whenever that was lol.   Kind of embarrassed for them.   Wouldn't be much different if we hung the Millionaires one would it?   Most middle aged folks i know are still Leaf fans too (live near OTT)... so i suppose OTT had to do something to legitimize themselves competing against their big brother 3 hours down the road.   And bigger brother 2.5 the other way.  

 

Edit:  I think we need to stick to the orca.   Not my favourite, and well isn't the majorities either, although i expect over time that will change.   But do think our 3rd should be the black skate (and would love to see the White Skate even more).   It rocks.    Habs, Detroit, CHI, NYR, Leafs, Boston ... of those the first 3 did a great job ... the rest decent.   But for sure are all iconic. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by IBatch

[Kevin Biestra]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

As an aside .... OTT actually also hung their "cup wins" from the 20's or whenever that was lol.   Kind of embarrassed for them.   Wouldn't be much different if we hung the Millionaires one would it?   Most middle aged folks i know are still Leaf fans too (live near OTT)... so i suppose OTT had to do something to legitimize themselves competing against their big brother 3 hours down the road.   And bigger brother 2.5 the other way.  

 

Edit:  I think we need to stick to the orca.   Not my favourite, and well isn't the majorities either, although i expect over time that will change.   But do think our 3rd should be the black skate (and would love to see the White Skate even more).   It rocks.    Habs, Detroit, CHI, NYR, Leafs, Boston ... of those the first 3 did a great job ... the rest decent.   But for sure are all iconic. 

 

Don't disagree with you too often but not only am I not really embarrassed for Ottawa, but I would consider a banner in the rafters for the Vancouver Millionaires cup win.  Not as an attempt to piggyback on them but just to honor the accomplishment of that team.  It is a great achievement and where else would it be honored or how else would new generations be inspired to learn about that team or those players.

 

And while I certainly can accept the Orca...I am ready to go back to the 94 jerseys permanently at the drop of a hat.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[Jester13]

20 hours ago, Baggins said:

There's a difference between simple and utterly boring and abstract. I think the current Orca is pretty simple and no where near as busy or hard on the eyes like the skate logo. Plus the C is more obvious..The Blackhawks logo is anything but bland or boring and is iconic. The Whalers logo was good because it is visually simple but very creative at the same time with both a W and the whate tail for the name and the two forming an H for where the team played. Simple, visually pleasing, and obvious.  

 

The funny thing about the H within Montreals C is most, particularly out west here, thought the H was for Habs rather than Hockey. I followed the NHL for more than 20 years before finding that out. Of course that was long before internet was around to easily look these things up. But growing up hearing everybody calling them "The Habs" it was an easy assumption the H was for Habs and it made sense. That logo is iconic because it's been used for over a century with just minor tweeks. Being the winningest team of the O6 era doesn't hurt either. Those O6 logos are iconic because of how long they've been in use without major change.

 

18 hours ago, DS4quality said:

Did you know the H in Montréal jersey doesn't stand for Habs?

The H stands for Habs like an orca stands for Canucks  

[Baggins]

8 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I have seen everybody get traded over the years and had little problem with it and certainly no problem decades later.  Tony Tanti, Richard Brodeur, Curt Fraser, Garth Butcher, Barry Pederson, Cam Neely, Patrik Sundstrom, Kevin Bieksa, Todd Bertuzzi, Alex Burrows, Roberto Luongo, Dennis Ververgaert, Don Lever, etc., etc.  I have watched the team move on from Harold Snepsts, Stan Smyl, Markus Naslund, Thomas Gradin, Doug Lidster, Ron Sedlbauer, Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Rick Lanz, Doug Halward, Kevin McCarthy, Petri Skriko, Tiger Williams, etc., etc.

 

I have never seen a roster get driven out of their own locker room like in the Messier-Keenan years at any other point in my life.

 

And Babych had plenty of good hockey left.  His career only ended when the Flyers or Kings doctors screwed up his foot.

 

Also, you say the team certainly needed change.  But it wasn't in dire need of change before the arrival of Messier.

 

 

It was a team bleeding money with declining attendance. A team with both Mogilny and Bure that couldn't make the playoffs. Which is why Quinn was fired. It seriously needed change. I believed at the time there was a problem in the room even before Messier arrived and Keenan took over. He just made it worse by going after Linden. I don't think Linden and Bure liked each other. Nor do I think Bure and Mogilny liked each other. Bure was definitely team Keenan as he recommended hiring him in Florida when their coach was fired. So yes, the team needed change. I did wonder which side Quinn would have fallen on had he stuck around another year. 

 

Babych was past his best before date. He was slow before the broken foot in Philly.

 

At team with two 50 goal scorers that can't make the playoffs needs change. I just think they put the wrong guy in charge of the change. 

[Kevin Biestra]

27 minutes ago, Baggins said:

It was a team bleeding money with declining attendance. A team with both Mogilny and Bure that couldn't make the playoffs. Which is why Quinn was fired. It seriously needed change. I believed at the time there was a problem in the room even before Messier arrived and Keenan took over. He just made it worse by going after Linden. I don't think Linden and Bure liked each other. Nor do I think Bure and Mogilny liked each other. Bure was definitely team Keenan as he recommended hiring him in Florida when their coach was fired. So yes, the team needed change. I did wonder which side Quinn would have fallen on had he stuck around another year. 

 

Babych was past his best before date. He was slow before the broken foot in Philly.

 

At team with two 50 goal scorers that can't make the playoffs needs change. I just think they put the wrong guy in charge of the change. 

 

There were two seasons with Bure and Mogilny before Messier was brought in.  In the first one, Bure played 15 games.  They still made the playoffs and had a decent series against the eventual champs Colorado.  This was with no Bure at all.

 

The next season they made the big mistake of letting Cliff Ronning go.  The opposite of needing change...they made detrimental change when they should have held fast.  They missed the playoffs by one spot.  Bure missed a quarter of the season and also had an off year.  Babych was very good, 2nd on the team in D scoring and just barely behind Lumme.  The team had a developing Naslund on his way up.  They missed the playoffs by one spot with the worst Bure had ever played and losing Ronning.  All they had to do was keep Ronning and they would have been in the playoffs.  Instead they miss by one spot, Messier is brought in over the summer, and the rest is history.

 

Your points about players not liking each other may be valid but Linden and Bure had always coexisted and it worked out like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.  It was the US vs. Canadian dollars in Bure's contract that seemed to be the issue that really soured him on everything.

 

Anyway you are saying they were in desperate need of change.  I think if they just keep Ronning and stay the course they would have been in pretty decent shape.  They had new talent ascending in Naslund, Walker and Aucoin.  I think it was looking pretty good.

 

And that's not mentioning that coaching wasn't helping matters during these two seasons.  One year was Rick Ley and the other was rookie Tom Renney.

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Kevin Biestra

[Baggins]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

There were two seasons with Bure and Mogilny before Messier was brought in.  In the first one, Bure played 15 games.  They still made the playoffs and had a decent series against the eventual champs Colorado.  This was with no Bure at all.

 

The next season they made the big mistake of letting Cliff Ronning go.  The opposite of needing change...they made detrimental change when they should have held fast.  They missed the playoffs by one spot.  Bure missed a quarter of the season and also had an off year.  Babych was very good, 2nd on the team in D scoring and just barely behind Lumme.  The team had a developing Naslund on his way up.  They missed the playoffs by one spot with the worst Bure had ever played and losing Ronning.  All they had to do was keep Ronning and they would have been in the playoffs.  Instead they miss by one spot, Messier is brought in over the summer, and the rest is history.

 

Your points about players not liking each other may be valid but Linden and Bure had always coexisted and it worked out like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.  It was the US vs. Canadian dollars in Bure's contract that seemed to be the issue that really soured him on everything.

 

Anyway you are saying they were in desperate need of change.  I think if they just keep Ronning and stay the course they would have been in pretty decent shape.  They had new talent ascending in Naslund, Walker and Aucoin.  I think it was looking pretty good.

 

 

I agree letting Ronning walk was a mistake. But at the point of big change big change was needed. As to Babych friends and I often joked about how slow he was. He was still good defensively in the zone but the he was constantly left behind transitioning from O-zone back to D-zone. He was slow. Loved him in his prime but as I said, he was past his best before date. It was time to move on from him.