NHL Anti-Thread: Bad Business Decision Aggregator

[OnWis97]

I'm not totally on board with hanging franchise history vs. city history on whether the name changes. For example, the primary reason the Giants and Dodgers kept their names while the two former Washington Senators teams did not is that  Minnesota Senators or Dallas (Texas) Senators would be a ridiculous name.  So I absolutely do not agree with:

 

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

 The Dodgers are the Brooklyn Dodgers, but the Twins were not the Senators.

 

The difference is pretty much cosmetic. The action was the same. 

[LMU]

The whole thing's a mess.  The Cleveland deal really screwed up everything because it would be much cleaner to separate continuity of ownership vs. sale to new owner who packs the moving van.

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Add 'moves' into this and I agree. The New York Jets ARE the New York Titans. There is only one NFL Washington Franchise, not 3. Same with Cleveland's recent name change. One franchise.

 

Definitely.

 

35 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

 

This gets into a grey area (well, a green area) with the Minnesota North Stars/Dallas Stars. They moved and changed their name, but they didn't really change their name, and they didn't change their visual identity upon moving, but they did change it in advance of a predicted move. What a mess. Norm Green sucks.

 

That's a very rare situation, and I could see it work both ways, but having "stars" and "north stars" in the same league sounds like some CFL nonsense.  

 

27 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I'm not totally on board with hanging franchise history vs. city history on whether the name changes. For example, the primary reason the Giants and Dodgers kept their names while the two former Washington Senators teams did not is that  Minnesota Senators or Dallas (Texas) Senators would be a ridiculous name.  So I absolutely do not agree with:

 

The difference is pretty much cosmetic. The action was the same. 

 

I guess we just disagree.  I couldn't give two s about the Syracuse Nationals or anyone that played for them, and I'm not sure why anyone in Minnesota would care about anything that happened in DC, but I'm not there, so maybe it's just different.

 

And I could easily argue that Los Angeles Dodgers (like LA Lakers and Utah Jazz) are ridiculous names, but still tie the teams back to their former homes, and as a fan, I think I'd care about the lineage of the Dodgers TEAM (separating the term "team" from "franchise".)

[SFGiants58]

40 minutes ago, BBTV said:

And I could easily argue that Los Angeles Dodgers (like LA Lakers and Utah Jazz) are ridiculous names, but still tie the teams back to their former homes, and as a fan, I think I'd care about the lineage of the Dodgers TEAM (separating the term "team" from "franchise".)

Once again, the Giants and Dodgers’ names make more sense if they swapped locations.

[OnWis97]

52 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Definitely.

 

 

That's a very rare situation, and I could see it work both ways, but having "stars" and "north stars" in the same league sounds like some CFL nonsense.  

 

 

I guess we just disagree.  I couldn't give two s about the Syracuse Nationals or anyone that played for them, and I'm not sure why anyone in Minnesota would care about anything that happened in DC, but I'm not there, so maybe it's just different.

 

And I could easily argue that Los Angeles Dodgers (like LA Lakers and Utah Jazz) are ridiculous names, but still tie the teams back to their former homes, and as a fan, I think I'd care about the lineage of the Dodgers TEAM (separating the term "team" from "franchise".)

I don't care what happened in Washington...and I would not care if the name had been retained. I would not care about the Brooklyn Dodgers if I was an LA Dodgers fan, either. So while I, a Twins fan, don't reminisce about the 1924 World Series, I, a baseball fan, do like the history of the game and if we're going to keep franchises intact, it doesn't really make sense to me that a name change would be a key factor in that.  

That all sod, we're getting near an argument this board had several years ago about team records/histories and I'm not sure we need to open it here. I fall on the nerdier side of the argument.

 

 

[ManillaToad]

Speaking of Senators, the NHL Senators should officially be given the records of the original Ottawa Senators

[spartacat_12]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

That's a very rare situation, and I could see it work both ways, but having "stars" and "north stars" in the same league sounds like some CFL nonsense.  

 

Would it be that much crazier than the Red Sox & White Sox?

 

Also it seems like there's a  difference between a relocation like the Stars (where ownership moved the team and kept control in the new city), and one like the Thrashers/Coyotes (where the team was sold to someone who moved them). 

 

3 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

Speaking of Senators, the NHL Senators should officially be given the records of the original Ottawa Senators

 

As a Sens fan, I have no interest in pretending that an expansion team established in 1991 is the same franchise as one that relocated to St. Louis in the '30s before folding. I'm a huge nerd who was into reading about the city's hockey history when I was a kid, and I don't have a problem with all the homages to the old team, but they should be their own thing. I'd even like to see the old Stanley Cup banners consolidated onto one banner.

 

Should the Kraken get to pretend they won the Stanley Cup in 1917?

[ManillaToad]

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

As a Sens fan, I have no interest in pretending that an expansion team established in 1991 is the same franchise as one that relocated to St. Louis in the '30s before folding. I'm a huge nerd who was into reading about the city's hockey history when I was a kid, and I don't have a problem with all the homages to the old team, but they should be their own thing. I'd even like to see the old Stanley Cup banners consolidated onto one banner.

 

 

 

The Sens aren't the original Sens just as much as the Jets aren't the original Jets. I don't see why Winnipeg should be given retconned history but not Ottawa just because one left too long ago for us to have nostalgia for it.

 

Quote

Should the Kraken get to pretend they won the Stanley Cup in 1917?

 

Sure if they LARP hard enough like Ottawa and the fans clamor for it like in Winnipeg. You have to put in the work if you want a  retcon.

The entire argument for the Jets (and the Hornets, and eventually the Sonics 2.0) inheriting records from a former franchise is that the city and the current team want it, and nobody else is making a claim. I don't see how it's different for the Sens just because the original franchise was from an older era.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I fall on the nerdier side of the argument.

 

This is where I've done a full 180.  I was 1,000,000% against the Cleveland deal and all other made up fake nonsense.  They can say the new Browns are the old Browns all they want, but the old Browns are the Ravens, and I don't care what the record books say.

 

Then I thought about how I'd feel if the Eagles moved and were replaced by the "new Eagles" in a few years, and as a fan, I would not be able to separate the new team from the old team.  They're both the Philadelphia Eagles, and I don't care what the record books say.

 

So I've gone from fully caring about preserving the "lineage" - and I get that's important to some people (like you), and that's cool - to simply not really caring at all.   I think it would be impossible for a fan to recognize someone who rushed for 5k yards as the team's all-time leading rusher, when that same fan literally watched someone run for 10k yards in the same uniform.

 

But again, I understand both sides of the argument.

[Cosmic]

On 7/12/2024 at 5:41 PM, BBTV said:

 

This is where I've done a full 180.  I was 1,000,000% against the Cleveland deal and all other made up fake nonsense.  They can say the new Browns are the old Browns all they want, but the old Browns are the Ravens, and I don't care what the record books say.

 

Then I thought about how I'd feel if the Eagles moved and were replaced by the "new Eagles" in a few years, and as a fan, I would not be able to separate the new team from the old team.  They're both the Philadelphia Eagles, and I don't care what the record books say.

 

So I've gone from fully caring about preserving the "lineage" - and I get that's important to some people (like you), and that's cool - to simply not really caring at all.   I think it would be impossible for a fan to recognize someone who rushed for 5k yards as the team's all-time leading rusher, when that same fan literally watched someone run for 10k yards in the same uniform.

 

But again, I understand both sides of the argument.

I have zero problem with the Kraken hanging a banner for the Metropolitans, or the new Jets retiring Dale Hawerchuck's number or anything like that. I think there should be more room in sports fandom for celebrating city history in addition to team history. I just don't like steamrolling objective truth to get there. The idea of "awarding" history is something I don't think I'll ever come around to. The Jets should be able to say Teemu Selanne has the single-season goal record for the "Jets" without begging the NHL for permission or pretending the team was just taking a 15-year nap. 

 

"Winnipeg NHL/WHA" history exists, and "expansion team that began as the Atlanta Thrashers" history exists, and which one you pay more attention to will depend on context. For someone in Winnipeg today, it's the former. If the nuJets move to Houston, it makes more sense for Houston fans to follow the latter. 

[Sport]

On 7/12/2024 at 5:41 PM, BBTV said:

 

This is where I've done a full 180.  I was 1,000,000% against the Cleveland deal and all other made up fake nonsense.  They can say the new Browns are the old Browns all they want, but the old Browns are the Ravens, and I don't care what the record books say.

 

Then I thought about how I'd feel if the Eagles moved and were replaced by the "new Eagles" in a few years, and as a fan, I would not be able to separate the new team from the old team.  They're both the Philadelphia Eagles, and I don't care what the record books say.

 

So I've gone from fully caring about preserving the "lineage" - and I get that's important to some people (like you), and that's cool - to simply not really caring at all.   I think it would be impossible for a fan to recognize someone who rushed for 5k yards as the team's all-time leading rusher, when that same fan literally watched someone run for 10k yards in the same uniform.

 

But again, I understand both sides of the argument.

 

I've always stood up for the Cleveland deal. That one was carried out in real time and the Ravens never played a single snap under the belief that they would be contributing to the records or lineage of the Browns franchise and it was understood at the time that the Browns would be returning. I think that distinction is important for the "spitting on history!" crowd. How's it spitting on history if it was determined before any game was played? That's just history as history happened. Maybe it broke precedent, maybe people didn't like it because they weren't aware of the deal until later, but there's no lie that the Ravens aren't the Browns because they aren't.

 

But I've even softened on retconning stuff like the Hornets/Pelicans/Bobcats deal. If Charlotte wants the original Hornets stats and records from 88-02 then who really cares? New Orleans fans don't care about Larry Johnson or Alonzo Mourning and it allows us to forget there was an NBA team called the Bobcats for ten years that everyone, especially folks in Charlotte, met with complete apathy. All it takes is like one additional line in the history books that spell out what happened and at the end of the day it's just sports history, not the Battle of Antietam.

 

In conclusion, if they want to do some wacky stuff with the Jets/Coyotes records and say the Utah Hockey Boys are a new franchise, I really could not force myself to care. 

[spartacat_12]

On 7/12/2024 at 5:06 PM, ManillaToad said:

The entire argument for the Jets (and the Hornets, and eventually the Sonics 2.0) inheriting records from a former franchise is that the city and the current team want it, and nobody else is making a claim. I don't see how it's different for the Sens just because the original franchise was from an older era.

 

I think the difference is that there are plenty of people in Winnipeg who are old enough to remember the old Jets, so there's a connection to the original players/records. We're coming up on 100 years since the original Sens last Stanley Cup, so no one is actually nostalgic for those teams. 

 

I don't have a problem with homages to former teams, whether that's through uniforms, banners honouring past achievements, or anything else (the streets around the Canadian Tire Centre are all named after players from the old franchise). I just don't want the official record books to be changed. It would be pretty silly to act like the current Sens are tied for 3rd all time in Stanley Cups.

[OnWis97]

I struggle with the likelihood that some franchises are going to be dormant and even cease to exist. I don't think MLB has had a franchise cease to exist since the 1800s. And the NFL hasn't since something like the 1940s when teams in Milwaukee, Providence, Dayton, Duluth, etc. came in for like two years at a time. NBA? Not sure but it's been a while. In the NHL I suppose it's the Barons/Seals in the late 1970s. (Though as I understand it, the Coyotes are about to cease to exist, which I assume will lead towards the same thing with the Thrashers).  Right now the Golden Knights are the quickest expansion team to win the Cup (I think). But someday that might not be true; it might be the Avalanche.

 

Now, if the Timberwolves move to Seattle, that franchise will cease to exist. I believe the Sonics still exist as part of the Thunder but once Seattle gets a team, the Thunder will pass that history on and if that team is a relocation, some other franchise will just die. (I also don't like it with an expansion team but at least we won't erase anyone.)

 

I don't think it's going to happen with the A's because unlike Seattle/NBA, Vegas doesn't have someone to move history to. 

 

I believe the Browns moved paused operations in about 1996. I got on this board in 2004 and it was from this board that I even learned that these Browns were considered the old Browns...I thought the new team just got the name and (lack of?) logos. OK, I probably should have known that but I guess I just assumed because such a thing had never happened. And that really kind of changed the entire culture. Well, actually, it made it inconsistent. Nobody wants the Vegas Raiders to be a new team with a new name and leave the history behind.  But if Jaguars move, I'd suspect it would happen, particularly if they moved to, say San Diego (If the Chargers would play ball, anyway). 

 

I like sports for the history and maybe if we'd done it this way for the last hundred years, I'd be more on board but if the Ravens history does not include Jim Brown while the Colts history does include Johnny Unitas, then we're just making it all up as we go.

[The_Admiral]

Time for the Sharks to admit that they have the lineage of the Seals, who merged into and back out of the North Stars under Gund ownership, now that they're finally doing those neat teal/yellow throwbacks. 1991 Campbell Conference co-champions!

[kolob]

2 hours ago, Sport said:

In conclusion, if they want to do some wacky stuff with the Jets/Coyotes records and say the Utah Hockey Boys are a new franchise, I really could not force myself to care. 

 

Utah Hockey Boys? Has SEG trademarked that one yet?

[kolob]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Now, if the Timberwolves move to Seattle, that franchise will cease to exist. I believe the Sonics still exist as part of the Thunder but once Seattle gets a team, the Thunder will pass that history on and if that team is a relocation, some other franchise will just die. (I also don't like it with an expansion team but at least we won't erase anyone.)

 

To throw a wrench in all of that, if the Kings moved to Seattle, what would have that done to the Kings history? Not that the franchise did much outside of an early-50s championship. But, they've been around (now) for 100 years. Would that go *POOF* as well?

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Right now the Golden Knights are the quickest expansion team to win the Cup (I think). But someday that might not be true; it might be the Avalanche.

 

This is something I hadn't considered, but would be weird (I assume the situation is that a team moves or there's expansion to QC and they retroactively deem the Avs an expansion team.)

 

Doesn't change my stance that it doesn't matter, but it's a fair point for anyone that's anti-Cleveland-dealish things.

 

Despite the Ravens being officially an expansion team, I don't think there's anyone that really considers them the fastest team to win a title (technically year 5?)

 

If Utah Football Hockey Team wins the cup next year, the record books will call them the fastest expansion team to do so, but we all "know", and the history books aren't bibles like they used to be when we were kids and that's the only context you had.

[Sport]

21 minutes ago, kolob said:

 

Utah Hockey Boys? Has SEG trademarked that one yet?

 

Unironically, I think people would go nuts for the Hockey Boys. The HB's would be a hit. It's better than Yeti!

[Cosmic]

7 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

Time for the Sharks to admit that they have the lineage of the Seals, who merged into and back out of the North Stars under Gund ownership, now that they're finally doing those neat teal/yellow throwbacks. 1991 Campbell Conference co-champions!

Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying it. The Sharks took enough players from the North Stars such that the North Stars selected players in an expansion draft after having been in the league for 25 years... that's a de-merger. The continuity of ownership is the cherry on top.

[FiddySicks]

On 7/15/2024 at 9:22 AM, The_Admiral said:

Time for the Sharks to admit that they have the lineage of the Seals, who merged into and back out of the North Stars under Gund ownership, now that they're finally doing those neat teal/yellow throwbacks. 1991 Campbell Conference co-champions!

Don’t let ownership know this or they might legitimately hang another :censored:ing banner for it to go along with their Western Conference (Regular season) Champions banner.