New name for the Minnesota Wild?

[Josh.0]

Wild Minnesota?

Sounds more like a NatGeo documentary, but does sound kinda cool.

[altosax29b]

Wild Minnesota?

Sounds more like a NatGeo documentary, but does sound kinda cool.

The Fighting Wild Minnesota United H.C. Hockey Club of America.

[cityhockeyfever]

I thought this was news until I read the thread starter's opening comment. Completely misleading.

[fillmont]

Wild Minnesota?

Sounds more like a NatGeo documentary, but does sound kinda cool.

Not NatGeo, but Team Discovery Channel!

[habsfan1]

The Minneapolis Wild of St-Paul

[ARTnSocal]

.

Back during the 2011/2012 season the Wild wanted to wear North Stars uniforms for a game in honor of the history of Minnesota hockey, but Dallas made a big stink about it and forbid them to do so. I thought it was odd since the NHL owns both the name and logo.

According to social-media, Minnesota hockey fans overwhelmingly want to change the name back to North Stars along with the logo and uniforms.

If MLB has the Red Sox and White Sox, I fail to comprehend why there cannot be a team known as the North Stars and one simply the 'Stars' .. Norm Green already changed the name, logo, and uniforms before they moved to Dallas. Makes no sense to me. Although I'm a Sabres fan I love tradition and would love it if they were able to be the North Stars again. I always loved their logo and uniforms and as a kid seeing Gump in the net as the last goalie without a facemask.

In Mike Modano's final season with Dallas back in April 2010, Dallas played Minnesota in St Paul in the season-finale and he came out donning a North Stars jersey and saluting the crowd during the 3-stars awards during in post-game. He got the 1st star award. Was an awesome moment, he got a great reception and standing ovation!

[cubsfan2015]

Twin Cities Wild

or

The Minnesota St. Paul Minneapolis Twin Cities Wild Hockey Club HC of the NHL Est. 2000

[SHaMROCK]

Star-eyed River Bears!

I totally legit LOLed at this one... Well done sir!

[fillmont]

.

If MLB has the Red Sox and White Sox, I fail to comprehend why there cannot be a team known as the North Stars and one simply the 'Stars' .. Norm Green already changed the name, logo, and uniforms before they moved to Dallas. Makes no sense to me. Although I'm a Sabres fan I love tradition and would love it if they were able to be the North Stars again. I always loved their logo and uniforms and as a kid seeing Gump in the net as the last goalie without a facemask.

The difference here is that the Stars have made no secret that they are a direct continuation of the North Stars. Even when the logo changed, it changed in Minnesota first, and was an evolution (or devolution, depending on your point of view) of the original logo. Even though they started out mostly black in Dallas, and the green got darker, it never left as a main color in the team's scheme. With the new logo and uniform, it's even clearer that they are the same Kelly Green team with a slanted star logo.

As far as I know, the Red and White Sox were never the same team - similarly named, but one wasn't an offshoot or descendant of the other.

[sportzfan]

.If MLB has the Red Sox and White Sox, I fail to comprehend why there cannot be a team known as the North Stars and one simply the 'Stars' .. Norm Green already changed the name, logo, and uniforms before they moved to Dallas. Makes no sense to me. Although I'm a Sabres fan I love tradition and would love it if they were able to be the North Stars again. I always loved their logo and uniforms and as a kid seeing Gump in the net as the last goalie without a facemask.

The difference here is that the Stars have made no secret that they are a direct continuation of the North Stars. Even when the logo changed, it changed in Minnesota first, and was an evolution (or devolution, depending on your point of view) of the original logo. Even though they started out mostly black in Dallas, and the green got darker, it never left as a main color in the team's scheme. With the new logo and uniform, it's even clearer that they are the same Kelly Green team with a slanted star logo.

As far as I know, the Red and White Sox were never the same team - similarly named, but one wasn't an offshoot or descendant of the other.

But the Reds were originally the Red Stockings until the Boston Red Stocking (Sox) took there name so they switched their name to Reds to Not have the same name. So that's another example of two teams having the same name in the mlb and it still working, so it could work for other sports. I don't believe the Wild should change to North Stars though because they have close to 20 years of the current identity, and it's good enough to not go away.

[fillmont]

.If MLB has the Red Sox and White Sox, I fail to comprehend why there cannot be a team known as the North Stars and one simply the 'Stars' .. Norm Green already changed the name, logo, and uniforms before they moved to Dallas. Makes no sense to me. Although I'm a Sabres fan I love tradition and would love it if they were able to be the North Stars again. I always loved their logo and uniforms and as a kid seeing Gump in the net as the last goalie without a facemask.

The difference here is that the Stars have made no secret that they are a direct continuation of the North Stars. Even when the logo changed, it changed in Minnesota first, and was an evolution (or devolution, depending on your point of view) of the original logo. Even though they started out mostly black in Dallas, and the green got darker, it never left as a main color in the team's scheme. With the new logo and uniform, it's even clearer that they are the same Kelly Green team with a slanted star logo.

As far as I know, the Red and White Sox were never the same team - similarly named, but one wasn't an offshoot or descendant of the other.

But the Reds were originally the Red Stockings until the Boston Red Stocking (Sox) took there name so they switched their name to Reds to Not have the same name. So that's another example of two teams having the same name in the mlb and it still working, so it could work for other sports. I don't believe the Wild should change to North Stars though because they have close to 20 years of the current identity, and it's good enough to not go away.

There are other sports with similar team names, sure. Even the NHL has the Blues and Blue Jackets. But in the case of the Minnesota North Stars, that team still exists - different name sure, but the current version respects the history it had in its previous home. It'd be like if the Mets decided to rebrand as "The OG Dodgers" or something. They can try but as much as it might pain them, they can't be the original Dodgers - they still exist in LA.

[1insaneguy]

Minnesota Rabid Chipmunks

[OnWis97]

.If MLB has the Red Sox and White Sox, I fail to comprehend why there cannot be a team known as the North Stars and one simply the 'Stars' .. Norm Green already changed the name, logo, and uniforms before they moved to Dallas. Makes no sense to me. Although I'm a Sabres fan I love tradition and would love it if they were able to be the North Stars again. I always loved their logo and uniforms and as a kid seeing Gump in the net as the last goalie without a facemask.

The difference here is that the Stars have made no secret that they are a direct continuation of the North Stars. Even when the logo changed, it changed in Minnesota first, and was an evolution (or devolution, depending on your point of view) of the original logo. Even though they started out mostly black in Dallas, and the green got darker, it never left as a main color in the team's scheme. With the new logo and uniform, it's even clearer that they are the same Kelly Green team with a slanted star logo.

As far as I know, the Red and White Sox were never the same team - similarly named, but one wasn't an offshoot or descendant of the other.

But the Reds were originally the Red Stockings until the Boston Red Stocking (Sox) took there name so they switched their name to Reds to Not have the same name. So that's another example of two teams having the same name in the mlb and it still working, so it could work for other sports. I don't believe the Wild should change to North Stars though because they have close to 20 years of the current identity, and it's good enough to not go away.

There are other sports with similar team names, sure. Even the NHL has the Blues and Blue Jackets. But in the case of the Minnesota North Stars, that team still exists - different name sure, but the current version respects the history it had in its previous home. It'd be like if the Mets decided to rebrand as "The OG Dodgers" or something. They can try but as much as it might pain them, they can't be the original Dodgers - they still exist in LA.

I grew up with the North Stars and I'd be lying if I said I was not intrigued by the idea of the current team having that name (be it at inception or even taking it on now). But the team moved to Dallas before the Cleveland Deal and the only reason they did not keep the same name is because the "North" did not fit Texas. So there is a sort of oddity to the idea of the Stars co-existing with the North Stars. So I have to agree with you on this debate. And while, as I said, "North Stars" intrigues me, I feel I have to take one for the team (the "team" being, those of us that actually like franchise recognition to stick with the franchise and not to float around waiting to stick to the next expansion team). My North Stars now play in Dallas. I don't follow them now. I simply remember the good ol' days...and I have always appreciated that the franchise does as well (retired numbers; acknowledgement of franchise history on its website).

As I said in my previous post, Wild is the worst name in the NHL and Dan Snyder can make it the worst in the "big 4". But it's done. It's been 15 years. The team is embraced despite its awful name and on-ice mediocrity. The Bobcats, it seems, needed to become the Hornets to keep the fans interested. The Wild don't need to do that. So even I am not for it.

Had it been up to me, the old team would have become the Dallas Armadillos (or whatever) and the Minnesota team would have become the North Stars (In a Winnipeg Jets, not Charlotte Hornets, situation regarding history). But that did not happen. They then fell into the trap of having to choose a name that nobody else has ever had. It was awful. I knew it then and I have not wavered one bit. But the time to change it has passed. And even if it were to be changed, I don't think "North Stars" ought to co-exist with a team that has retained half of the name.

[IceCap]

Red Sox/White Sox/Red Stockings all came about before the advent of modern sports marketing. That situation was a product of the time, when multiple teams with similar names simply weren't a problem.

Now? Marketing is a beast. There's no way one team is going to let its brand be diluted by another team with a similar name and similar colour scheme. And no, "Blues" and "Blue Jackets" isn't an example of it working. "Blue" for the Blue Jackets is a descriptor. There's no room for confusion.

With Stars and North Stars? There is a chance for confusion. Especially when you consider how consistent the Stars have been in referencing their past as the North Stars, as well as the similar colour schemes and logos that would result.

Look, we can all agree that the "North Stars" were a perfect fit in Minnesota. Don't blame the Dallas Stars for taking them away though. Blame the fans who cared more about high school hockey then they did the pro game. Blame the Timberwolves for boxing the team out of the Target Centre when they needed a new arena.

I'd even go so far to say that the Dallas Stars should be commended for continuing to respect their pre-Dallas North Stars heritage.

[Milkman14]

I think they should just go by "Minnesota" and not have a nickname! That way the fans can unofficially use whatever image and name they please!

[ARTnSocal]

.

One of the arguments against changing their name back to the 'North Stars' just because the Wild have been in existence for 15 years plus now seems weak to me. They'd never lose that history, it would just be ongoing. It's a very tricky thing on both sides of the issue, the right to retain history from when a team formerly played in a distant city.

Perfect Example: The Washington NBA team began in Baltimore as the 'Bullets' where they played under that nickname for 10 years and nearly 25 years after making the 30 mile move to our Nations Capitol where they were the Capitol Bullets the initial season. They've now been called the 'Wizards' (which I loathe) for 18 years and their Bullets and Baltimore history has not been forsaken. That includes the retired numbers of the 3 players on Baltimore. I can also think of many other examples.

The one who used the NY Mets as an example is way off. The Mets have always played in Queens (Flushing), never in Brooklyn so it was a very poor comparison. They took the Dodger Blue and Giants Orange when MLB awarded NY a baseball team about 4-5 years after the Giants and Dodgers both left. Robert Moses wouldn't let O'Malley use the land about to become vacant land in Brooklyn where and old Meat Company was shutting down in the mid 50s, and wanted a stadium built on the grounds of the '63-'64 Worlds Fair in Queens. O'Malley said "The Brooklyn Dodgers play in Brooklyn, not in Queens, and that was that. Also the Dodgers went by several nicknames, mostly 'Robins' up until the 30s, yet their prior history like playing in the 1916 and 1920 World Series belongs to them.

The nickname 'North Stars' along with team history, logo and colors should go back to Minnesota if they so choose. If the Cleveland Browns can retain all that I see no reason why Minnesota shouldn't be able to do the same while also retaining their Minnesota Wild history, etc.

Cleveland really set the precedent when the Browns split for Baltimore after the 1995 season the way their fans fought the good fight with the NFL, while Houston did nothing when the Oilers were splitting. Seattle has done the exact same thing as the Cleveland Browns, if and when they ever get another team, they own the history and Supersonics name, colors, logo. It should be that way. Their NBA title in the late 70s is Seattle history, not Oklahoma City.

[wildwing64]

So... pull the pre-Dallas Stars franchise history, which they still recognise as their own - logos, uniforms, achievements, records and everything - and merge it into the Minnesota Wild franchise history? Why would they give that up?

While we're at it, let's scrap the Timberwolves moniker and let them play Lakers dress up.

[ARTnSocal]

So... pull the pre-Dallas Stars franchise history, which they still recognise as their own - logos, uniforms, achievements, records and everything - and merge it into the Minnesota Wild franchise history? Why would they give that up?

While we're at it, let's scrap the Timberwolves moniker and let them play Lakers dress up.

The only history Dallas has started on day 1 when they moved there. They have their 1999 Stanley Cup. They didn't even retain their full nickname which Norm Green shed in the closing years before the move to Texas.

Just like the Baltimore Ravens don't and shouldn't own the 4 straight championships won in the old AAFC in '46-'49 by the Cleveland Browns, and their other NFL Championships, or Jim Brown, Otto Graham and all the other great players in Cleveland football history.

Your Timberwolves comparison regarding the Lakers is downright silly and appears desperate to me. You're taking about an expansion team that was born nearly 30 years after the Lakers left Minneapolis for LA in 1960.

[sportzfan]

I love revisionist history when it canes to sports...

[fillmont]

So... pull the pre-Dallas Stars franchise history, which they still recognise as their own - logos, uniforms, achievements, records and everything - and merge it into the Minnesota Wild franchise history? Why would they give that up?

While we're at it, let's scrap the Timberwolves moniker and let them play Lakers dress up.

The only history Dallas has started on day 1 when they moved there. They have their 1999 Stanley Cup. They didn't even retain their full nickname which Norm Green shed in the closing years before the move to Texas.

That is just factually incorrect. You may wish the move had happened like the Browns situation, but it didn't. The Stars are the North Stars and have retained their history, colors, records, and name. Yes there is variation in the name and colors, but the team started in 1967 in Minnesota and now exists in Dallas. Masterton's and Goldsworthy's numbers hang in the rafters of the AAC with their North Stars logos proudly below.

It does not matter how much this galls you. The Dallas Stars are the same team.