CubsFan4Life

New name for the Minnesota Wild?

Recommended Posts

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!

What about the Minnesota Spirit though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well, to be fair, the San Jose Sharks should have the rights to claim part of the Stars history pre-1991 since they are a de facto spin off from the North Stars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well, to be fair, the San Jose Sharks should have the rights to claim part of the Stars history pre-1991 since they are a de facto spin off from the North Stars...

My understanding is that the Sharks are essentially the Golden Seals/Barons part of the merger that got spun off again. But I've only read that on these boards, so I'm not sure how the league views the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Correction on this part. The "Stars" jersey appeared for the last two years in Minnesota, but the team was called the North Stars during those years. Green did not dump "North" until the move.

Your Wizards/Bullets analogy is correct...the "new North Stars" would retain the "Wild" history.

But I don't think the T-Wolves comparison is that silly. The Browns have a three year "layoff". The Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans history is a mess. The Seattle Sonics history, which currently belongs to the Thunder, will almost certainly be shifted to the new Sonics after what promises to be more than a decade.

We keep "Franchise" rather than "City" history (at least we used to) because our sports are so based on history. Thank god We did not abandon the St. Louis Browns history (to wait for the next St. Louis AL team, I guess) and consider the Orioles an "expansion team." Also, that franchise started in 1901 as the Milwaukee Brewers. Milwaukee Brewers: 1901, 1970 - to present. MLB franchise/location history is easy to follow and I'll take their way (and the NHL) over what looks to be the NFL and NBA precedent any day.

The Ravens don't but should own those old titles. Unless I am to believe they were an expansion team that happened to have a bunch of players that played for the Browns (who were in year 1 of a 3-year layoff) the previous year. I need an aspirin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Sharks are essentially the Golden Seals/Barons part of the merger that got spun off again. But I've only read that on these boards, so I'm not sure how the league views the whole thing.

The league sees the Sharks as a 1991 expansion team, as they should. This whole "de-merger" story is false, but it does have its merits. There is factual evidence in the transfer of ownership and several North Stars players going to San Jose, but the Sharks are still a traditional expansion franchise. The "de-merger" story is also a convenient narrative for some Sharks fans to put a greater historical weight behind the franchise (essentially saying that they're more than just a 1990's expansion team).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the de-merger theory because it means we have all of the "Next Six" teams around in some form. The Gunds selling their share of the North Stars to get a franchise in the San Francisco Bay area and the fact that they took a percentage of the North Stars players sort of helps the theory as well. The NHL does consider the Sharks a 1991 expansion team, but it's clear from the franchise's beginnings that the league didn't treat it as a normal expansion situation.

It's sort of a grey area historically, but I like to go along with it. Even if the league won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can get behind the Sharks being a part of the "next six" as long as they keep their name, colours and logos relatively the same. The Seals never had a good logo, or uniform for that matter, while the sharks came pretty damn close to perfection on their first try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Wild to become the North Stars, it requires one thing that just isn't going to happen: Dallas to change their name or to give the okay for it to happen. Even then, all of the history dating back to the original North Stars will remain with Dallas. They did not abandon any of the history when they left for Dallas. There were no deals like in Cleveland when the Browns left. Sorry, but there isn't really a time traveling Delorean we can hop into and tell Norm Green to abandon the North Stars history or better yet, change the name.

Yes, the Wizards retained all of the history of the Bullets when the name changed. But, they never left Washington. They never said we are putting all of the history behind them and moving forward as an entirely new franchise. That is completely different than what the situation would be for Minnesota/Dallas.

I'm fine with changing the Wild name, but it's time to move on from renaming them to the North Stars. And yeah, change the name, change the logo. That fantastic logo will be associated with the Wild name, in the same way the Flames A patch is still recognized as the Atlanta Flame's logo.

So, seeing as changing the Wild name topic has come up, along with the Canucks logo talk in the NHL thread, how long before the teams should wear white at home come up? These seem to be the 3 topics that pop up every so often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Correction on this part. The "Stars" jersey appeared for the last two years in Minnesota, but the team was called the North Stars during those years. Green did not dump "North" until the move.

Your Wizards/Bullets analogy is correct...the "new North Stars" would retain the "Wild" history.

But I don't think the T-Wolves comparison is that silly. The Browns have a three year "layoff". The Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans history is a mess. The Seattle Sonics history, which currently belongs to the Thunder, will almost certainly be shifted to the new Sonics after what promises to be more than a decade.

We keep "Franchise" rather than "City" history (at least we used to) because our sports are so based on history. Thank god We did not abandon the St. Louis Browns history (to wait for the next St. Louis AL team, I guess) and consider the Orioles an "expansion team." Also, that franchise started in 1901 as the Milwaukee Brewers. Milwaukee Brewers: 1901, 1970 - to present. MLB franchise/location history is easy to follow and I'll take their way (and the NHL) over what looks to be the NFL and NBA precedent any day.

The Ravens don't but should own those old titles. Unless I am to believe they were an expansion team that happened to have a bunch of players that played for the Browns (who were in year 1 of a 3-year layoff) the previous year. I need an aspirin.

The Ravens don't own those titles because as part of the agreement in the move was that Cleveland would keep all the history of the Browns until another franchise came. It was predetermined before the move, which is why it makes sense that the Ravens act like an expansion team, but why it doesn't make sense for the Dallas Stars to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No. Their history dates back to 1967, as the Minnesota North Stars. They didn't just leave everything behind, they took it with them to Dallas. Their logo and uniforms were basically identical before and after the relocation. Even their current branding is essentially a modern take on the North Stars.

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.

We're also talking about an expansion team that was born 4 or 7 years after the Stars left town for Dallas in 1993.

Why is my comparison desperate when you bring up the headache-inducing Browns/Ravens thing, which was the result of a legal battle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who saw this thread and thought of something FAR more likely to happen should the fans get behind it?

The Houston Texans should make a deal with the Tennessee Titans (like the former Bobcats did with the NOLA Pelicans) and change their name to the Houston Oilers, picking up all the history from 1960-1996 (in addition to their current Texans history), with the Titans' history starting in 1997 (with the Tennessee Oilers' first season).

Now that Bud Adams has passed on, I think their two daughters would be more willing to make a deal with the Texans should they propose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Correction on this part. The "Stars" jersey appeared for the last two years in Minnesota, but the team was called the North Stars during those years. Green did not dump "North" until the move.

Your Wizards/Bullets analogy is correct...the "new North Stars" would retain the "Wild" history.

But I don't think the T-Wolves comparison is that silly. The Browns have a three year "layoff". The Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans history is a mess. The Seattle Sonics history, which currently belongs to the Thunder, will almost certainly be shifted to the new Sonics after what promises to be more than a decade.

We keep "Franchise" rather than "City" history (at least we used to) because our sports are so based on history. Thank god We did not abandon the St. Louis Browns history (to wait for the next St. Louis AL team, I guess) and consider the Orioles an "expansion team." Also, that franchise started in 1901 as the Milwaukee Brewers. Milwaukee Brewers: 1901, 1970 - to present. MLB franchise/location history is easy to follow and I'll take their way (and the NHL) over what looks to be the NFL and NBA precedent any day.

The Ravens don't but should own those old titles. Unless I am to believe they were an expansion team that happened to have a bunch of players that played for the Browns (who were in year 1 of a 3-year layoff) the previous year. I need an aspirin.

The Ravens don't own those titles because as part of the agreement in the move was that Cleveland would keep all the history of the Browns until another franchise came. It was predetermined before the move, which is why it makes sense that the Ravens act like an expansion team, but why it doesn't make sense for the Dallas Stars to do the same.

I am aware of that. But it does not mean I like it.

And one could argue that your statement about the Stars does not have to be correct. A Minnesota/Dallas name/history swap would really not be that different from what just happened in the NBA in Charlotte/New Orleans. Again, I am not advocating it, as it's a giant mess. But it's been done. The only differences are that the Dallas Stars have been around longer than the NO Hornets were and they've had more success. (Another difference is the level to which the fan base has embraced the Wild vs. the Bobcats). But the mental gymnastics we'd all have to do would be identical.

The Ravens/Cleveland thing was definitely cleaner, but I still don't like it.

Regarding the Wild, I think it's been pretty well established that "North Stars" could never be on the table. So would I embrace a name change? Maybe. I'd get used to it, but it really better be a name that we could embrace forever. Teams that do not relocate should not be making a habit of changing their names.

I don't think it's ever going to happen, though.

Why is "Wild" so bad? In a sense, it's just like "Heat." "Heat" is also a bad name but I think "Wild" is worse because it's less obvious. We know what they were going for with "Heat." When I first heard the "Wild" name, I did not immediately think of "the outdoors." I thought of "crazy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I come at this issue from a fans perspective, not a legal or technical one. The simply reality is when the puck was first dropped in Dallas, everything changed, regardless of what happened with the logo, colors, or nickname. The overwhelming majority of Dallas Stars fans could care less about the Minnesota era, since they didn't experience those times. There's a microscopic number of former Minnesota fans in the Dallas area, and those fans are decreasing. When the Stars won their first Cup in 1999, many fans in Minnesota had already cut the cord.

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is "Wild" so bad? In a sense, it's just like "Heat." "Heat" is also a bad name but I think "Wild" is worse because it's less obvious. We know what they were going for with "Heat." When I first heard the "Wild" name, I did not immediately think of "the outdoors." I thought of "crazy."

Yeah that's the thing. It all boils down to how you interpret it. The "wild and crazy" angle likely wasn't intentional, but coming up with that name in a wild and crazy era doesn't help their case. And when you look at the name that way it really doesn't go well with the uniforms, which are anything but wild in that sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I come at this issue from a fans perspective, not a legal or technical one. The simply reality is when the puck was first dropped in Dallas, everything changed, regardless of what happened with the logo, colors, or nickname. The overwhelming majority of Dallas Stars fans could care less about the Minnesota era, since they didn't experience those times. There's a microscopic number of former Minnesota fans in the Dallas area, and those fans are decreasing. When the Stars won their first Cup in 1999, many fans in Minnesota had already cut the cord.

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Except one plays football, and the other plays baseball, and one wears blue red and white, and the other is black and orange. That is one of the worst comparisons possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame the fans who cared more about high school hockey then they did the pro game.

What are you talking about? The North Stars packed that building game in and game out. Take a look at thier attendance figures here

As you can see they were able to fill a 15,000+ building on a regular basis!!!
It's not like they averaged 2,000+ empty seats a game thier last 2 seasons.
Seriously the only time they sold out all thier home games was the 1971/72 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame the fans who cared more about high school hockey then they did the pro game.

What are you talking about? The North Stars packed that building game in and game out. Take a look at thier attendance figures here

As you can see they were able to fill a 15,000+ building on a regular basis!!!
It's not like they averaged 2,000+ empty seats a game thier last 2 seasons.
Seriously the only time they sold out all thier home games was the 1971/72 season.

You're right. It was more Norm Green wanting to skip town. If Green REALLY wanted to stay in Minnesota, he would have worked out a deal at Target Center. They were in talks but they eventually broke down over the relatively small issue of revenue from in-arena advertisements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame the fans who cared more about high school hockey then they did the pro game.

What are you talking about? The North Stars packed that building game in and game out. Take a look at thier attendance figures here

As you can see they were able to fill a 15,000+ building on a regular basis!!!
It's not like they averaged 2,000+ empty seats a game thier last 2 seasons.
Seriously the only time they sold out all thier home games was the 1971/72 season.

You're right. It was more Norm Green wanting to skip town. If Green REALLY wanted to stay in Minnesota, he would have worked out a deal at Target Center. They were in talks but they eventually broke down over the relatively small issue of revenue from in-arena advertisements.

I was being sarcastic in my post. The North Stars were drawing flies throughout thier entire history. Only 6,000 fans showed up for thier home opener against the Red Wings in October 1992.

As for the deal with the Target Center, the Timberwolves wanted to cut off revenue from the North Stars biggest sponsers. (Coke and McDonalds). Thats not a small issue.

It was also what killed Richard Burke and Steven Gluckstern from moving the Jets to Minnesota in 1996. They couldn't get a feasable lease deal done with the Timberwolves wanting to cut off revenue streams from the club. Burke and Gluckstern moved the Jets to Phoenix as a "Plan B". But believe me that wasnt their first choice. With no plans for a new building in St.Paul at that point and an impossible money making lease offer at the Target Center they went to a desert instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stars should never give up their identity for the below reason alone. As much as I loved the original North Stars identity, I'm thankful the franchise had their moment in a green jersey.

bdtvUDz.jpg

Besides, look what happened the two times the team tried to make a break from their past. Sure the (awful) 2007 re-brand retained the colour scheme, but besides that, none of the design decisions had historical precedent and the uniforms were rightly panned. So was the ludicrous decision to change the colours all together, which was very close to happening. Thank god Mike Modano stepped in and influenced the team to deliver the uniforms the fan-base actually wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains the Dallas Stars are different from the Minnesota North Stars just like the SF Giants are different than the NY Giants. Sports franchises are unique from other business entities in this way. The location plays a key role in the identity of the team.

Except one plays football, and the other plays baseball, and one wears blue red and white, and the other is black and orange. That is one of the worst comparisons possible.

You're, apparently, somehow not aware that the San Francisco Giants were once the New York Giants. I'm pretty sure that no sane human being would have tried to compare a football and a baseball team as having the same lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.