Both nicknames sound weird and unnatural.

They aren't great

I agree they aren't great, but it seems like any "new" name, be it a rebrand or an expansion team, sounds unnatural at first.

I thought the Blue Jackets and the Wild sounded strange when the NHL expanded in 2000. Same with the Kraken and Golden Knights a few years back.

(03-31-2022 08:42 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  I agree they aren't great, but it seems like any "new" name, be it a rebrand or an expansion team, sounds unnatural at first.

I thought the Blue Jackets and the Wild sounded strange when the NHL expanded in 2000. Same with the Kraken and Golden Knights a few years back.

There are MLS names that I think are great, mainly because of their association with the area. The Sound, Timbers, DC United, Whitecaps, Union and Crew. I think the Knights are fine (they could drop the Golden) and Kraken works for Seattle. I know there is some associated history with Blue Jackets and Ohio but I not versed in it.

Commanders isn't so bad. I just think they need a different color scheme to go with the military esque name. Guardiams makes zero sense to me.

At least Commanders and Guardians are unique in that they're unused in the Major 4 leagues. The worst thing would've been a generic animal name already used.

They're certainly not classics though.

(04-01-2022 10:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Commanders isn't so bad. I just think they need a different color scheme to go with the military esque name. Guardiams makes zero sense to me.

Guardians has something to do with the architectural design of the city’s bridges. Still despise the name. Should’ve been the Spiders if not the Indians.

I like Guardians.

Kraken is worst name in recent expansion teams. Knights should drop the Golden. I like all of the MLS ones (tho I think all of the newer teams have just been using generic City FC which is dumb)

Speaking of the Commanders

https://twitter.com/FOS/status/151041535...7eevQ&s=19

(04-02-2022 11:54 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I like Guardians.

Kraken is worst name in recent expansion teams. Knights should drop the Golden. I like all of the MLS ones (tho I think all of the newer teams have just been using generic City FC which is dumb)

It's all trademarks and money. They want to sell jerseys, shirts, hats, etc. with the team name and logo and want a unique name so that no one can legally rip off their name and no one can claim they already own the rights to the name.

So, Golden Knights instead of Knights. Kraken and Guardians because no other team was using those names. Same with the MLS teams that are FC ____ or ___ FC or ____ United. LAFC and NYCFC were probably chosen to jab at their local rivals whose stadiums are not in "the city".

(04-01-2022 11:25 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 10:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Commanders isn't so bad. I just think they need a different color scheme to go with the military esque name. Guardiams makes zero sense to me.

Guardians has something to do with the architectural design of the city’s bridges. Still despise the name. Should’ve been the Spiders if not the Indians.

100000%. Spiders would be a big hit in apparel sales too with a cool logo. Missed opportunity.

(04-03-2022 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  So, Golden Knights instead of Knights. Kraken and Guardians because no other team was using those names. Same with the MLS teams that are FC ____ or ___ FC or ____ United. LAFC and NYCFC were probably chosen to jab at their local rivals whose stadiums are not in "the city".

New York City FC is part owned by Manchester City. Teams owned by Manchester City will have City in their name whenever possible. Their goal is to own a team on each continent with "City" in the name (not sure that applies to Antarctica, but that was how the goal was stated).

Anyone notice the last five letters Guardians and Indians? Think that was done intentionally? I do.

6 months later and Commanders still sounds like a Spring league team name and not an NFL team name.

(06-01-2022 12:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Anyone notice the last five letters Guardians and Indians? Think that was done intentionally? I do.

I noticed that too. Guardians has actually grown on me as a name. I think the main reason I did not like it at first was I felt they missed a golden opportunity to change the name to the Cleveland Spiders. They could have sold a ton of t-shirts and merchandise with the Spiders name and logo. It would have been tremendously popular I believe. So the main thing I hated about the Guardians is that it's not the Spiders.

But as far as 2nd choices go, it's not bad. A little boring, won't sell a lot of t-shirts, but no worries that it might be controversial. It's not racist. There is no bad history. They represent something good and the idea of being good. It's honorable. Someone who protects and looks over you. They could have done a lot worse.

I think they nailed it with the Commanders. A very good choice. Sticks with the military theme like past Washington teams. But original enough not to be confused with past teams.

Agree that the color scheme does match the name exactly. But maybe they can change that 20 years down the road as fans eventually forget the old Redskins name.

People will get over the Redskins name, especially if/when Snyder is booted out of the league and the franchise becomes relevant again. Miami switched from Redskins in the 90s and you don't have very many people clinging to it anymore. They could've been more creative than Commanders, but it's not like North Dakota switching to something as generic as Fighting Hawks.

Guardians is pretty solid imo. The logo is a bit cheesy, but overall it was a decent rebrand.

(04-03-2022 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:54 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I like Guardians.

Kraken is worst name in recent expansion teams. Knights should drop the Golden. I like all of the MLS ones (tho I think all of the newer teams have just been using generic City FC which is dumb)

It's all trademarks and money. They want to sell jerseys, shirts, hats, etc. with the team name and logo and want a unique name so that no one can legally rip off their name and no one can claim they already own the rights to the name.

So, Golden Knights instead of Knights. Kraken and Guardians because no other team was using those names. Same with the MLS teams that are FC ____ or ___ FC or ____ United. LAFC and NYCFC were probably chosen to jab at their local rivals whose stadiums are not in "the city".

The owner of the Golden Knights is a West Point Grad. He wanted the name to be "Black Knights" like West Point, but the Army said no. He went with the other Army color - Gold, and still used the Knights.

(08-01-2022 06:59 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-03-2022 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-02-2022 11:54 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I like Guardians.

Kraken is worst name in recent expansion teams. Knights should drop the Golden. I like all of the MLS ones (tho I think all of the newer teams have just been using generic City FC which is dumb)

It's all trademarks and money. They want to sell jerseys, shirts, hats, etc. with the team name and logo and want a unique name so that no one can legally rip off their name and no one can claim they already own the rights to the name.

So, Golden Knights instead of Knights. Kraken and Guardians because no other team was using those names. Same with the MLS teams that are FC ____ or ___ FC or ____ United. LAFC and NYCFC were probably chosen to jab at their local rivals whose stadiums are not in "the city".

The owner of the Golden Knights is a West Point Grad. He wanted the name to be "Black Knights" like West Point, but the Army said no. He went with the other Army color - Gold, and still used the Knights.

Odd considering Army has moved away from Black Knights nickname.