CubsFan4Life

New name for the Minnesota Wild?

Recommended Posts

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

I can understand wanting a 'Texas Flag' connection but those colours are just so tired and overused. When you have colours that are wholly unique to the league, with championship history behind them, they shouldn't be ditched for ones worn by 4 other teams... Success wasn't limited to the 1999 Stanley Cup team either; were talking multiple 100 point seasons, the greatest American player to play the game, Finals and Conference Finals appearances... The list goes on and on...

Besides the new Minnesota franchise had 12-plus years to claim those classic Northstars colours while the Stars were stuck in 'darken-everything-to-black purgatory.' Unfortunately for the Wild, the Stars beat them to the punch in 2013 and improved their identity significantly. At this point it's probably best the Wild just embrace Forest Green, Red, Gold and Wheat. Not only is it unique but really attractive in its own right.

As for the Stars, props to them for resurrecting a great identity. Even without athletic gold, it's still one of the best looks in the league.

gUGL2wz.jpg

.I went to many Sabres games at the old Aud in Buffalo as a kid more times than I can count, and I saw the North Stars many times and their sweaters, and their overall uniform set looked nothing like the Dallas Stars new look. Forget the yellow or gold, that is a totally different shade of green that the North Stars wore while still based in Bloomington, MN.

I would hardly call Dallas' new uniform set a 'resurrection'. I also wasn't aware that Dallas has the monopoly of wearing uniforms in the 'green' color scheme. It's that logo I always liked when they were the North Stars along with the nickname. If they brought back the North Stars name, colors, and uniforms similar to the late 60s, and 70s to the Minnesota Wild, they would look nothing like Dallas' new look, which by the way, I really do like that new shade of green on the newer set.

Try looking at how close Tampa Bay looks to the Maple Leafs, or in baseball how identical the LA Dodgers and KC Royals look. Those are the ones that are on total collision courses.

I still view it that if they can have the Red Sox and Reds in MLB, and the Red Sox and White Sox who both play in the AL, there should be no issue with having Stars and North Stars in the NHL.

Here is why it wouldn't make any sense for the Wild to become the North Stars, with the same color, logos, and uniform scheme:

mike-modano-nhl-columbus-blue-jackets-da

Dallas isn't giving up their history. And it is undoubtedly the history of the franchise. As is their right, as they are same entity. It wouldn't make any sense for Minnesota to look like a team that used to play there when that team still actively exists and is in the same conference and division as them.

Most fans in Dallas likely have zero clue who Masterson, Goldsworthy, and Broten were or are...

Oh the horror of having a team called North Stars and one called Stars. Almost like having a team called the Jets now called the Coyotes and one called the Thrashers now called the Jets. How can we even stand it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there aren't two teams currently named the Jets, nor are the new Jets pretending to be the old team and claiming their history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either that or "Those North Stars jerseys we used to wear are popular and look pretty nice, let's look a bit like that!"

853e53fef8b6e34b.jpg

Thank you. The St Patricks Day uniform argument is so tired. As if similar looking uniforms have never existed before... Real NHL uniforms at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Lights should have been the choice. Either that or Voyageurs (Whats the difference between Voyagers?) although I don't like the fur trade connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Lights should have been the choice. Either that or Voyageurs (Whats the difference between Voyagers?) although I don't like the fur trade connection.

Elaborations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is why it wouldn't make any sense for the Wild to become the North Stars, with the same color, logos, and uniform scheme:

mike-modano-nhl-columbus-blue-jackets-da

Dallas isn't giving up their history. And it is undoubtedly the history of the franchise. As is their right, as they are same entity. It wouldn't make any sense for Minnesota to look like a team that used to play there when that team still actively exists and is in the same conference and division as them.

Oh okay, so because the Dallas Stars put up banners of Minnesota players who never played in Dallas that makes your case correct .... grrrrrrr

.

I've read all the arguments for and against ... with both having raised some good points.

To me the bottom line is the history in the city a club was based along with those players and their successes. Masterson, Goldsworthy, and Broten are part of Minnesota hockey history, NOT Dallas'.

I'm glad Cleveland retained the rights to their pre-Baltimore history from 1946-1995 .... I doubt any ex-Cleveland Browns player would want their name on a banner or wall at the Baltimore Ravens Stadium. I don't seem to ever recall Jim Brown attending a Ravens home game while sitting in their luxury suites like he does in Cleveland with the new Browns.

P.S. Mike Modano's banner should have both logos on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In football/soccer style:

United Hockey Club of Real Minnesota Sporting Club Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

I can understand wanting a 'Texas Flag' connection but those colours are just so tired and overused. When you have colours that are wholly unique to the league, with championship history behind them, they shouldn't be ditched for ones worn by 4 other teams... Success wasn't limited to the 1999 Stanley Cup team either; were talking multiple 100 point seasons, the greatest American player to play the game, Finals and Conference Finals appearances... The list goes on and on...

Besides the new Minnesota franchise had 12-plus years to claim those classic Northstars colours while the Stars were stuck in 'darken-everything-to-black purgatory.' Unfortunately for the Wild, the Stars beat them to the punch in 2013 and improved their identity significantly. At this point it's probably best the Wild just embrace Forest Green, Red, Gold and Wheat. Not only is it unique but really attractive in its own right.

As for the Stars, props to them for resurrecting a great identity. Even without athletic gold, it's still one of the best looks in the league.

gUGL2wz.jpg

.I went to many Sabres games at the old Aud in Buffalo as a kid more times than I can count, and I saw the North Stars many times and their sweaters, and their overall uniform set looked nothing like the Dallas Stars new look. Forget the yellow or gold, that is a totally different shade of green that the North Stars wore while still based in Bloomington, MN.

I would hardly call Dallas' new uniform set a 'resurrection'. I also wasn't aware that Dallas has the monopoly of wearing uniforms in the 'green' color scheme. It's that logo I always liked when they were the North Stars along with the nickname. If they brought back the North Stars name, colors, and uniforms similar to the late 60s, and 70s to the Minnesota Wild, they would look nothing like Dallas' new look, which by the way, I really do like that new shade of green on the newer set.

Try looking at how close Tampa Bay looks to the Maple Leafs, or in baseball how identical the LA Dodgers and KC Royals look. Those are the ones that are on total collision courses.

I still view it that if they can have the Red Sox and Reds in MLB, and the Red Sox and White Sox who both play in the AL, there should be no issue with having Stars and North Stars in the NHL.

Here is why it wouldn't make any sense for the Wild to become the North Stars, with the same color, logos, and uniform scheme:

mike-modano-nhl-columbus-blue-jackets-da

Dallas isn't giving up their history. And it is undoubtedly the history of the franchise. As is their right, as they are same entity. It wouldn't make any sense for Minnesota to look like a team that used to play there when that team still actively exists and is in the same conference and division as them.

Most fans in Dallas likely have zero clue who Masterson, Goldsworthy, and Broten were or are...

what exactly are you basing this on? a stereotype of clueless southerners, or what?

broten PLAYED for dallas, and masterton and goldy were part of the stars "this is what hockey is" education 20+ years ago.

indianapolis colts fans know who johnny unitas was, too. it's not just ravens fans who get to be part of that club... get over yourself. we're only a couple years away from the stars having been in DALLAS for longer than they ever were in minnesota... and we're probably even closer (if not already over the line) to having more people buy tickets to DALLAS stars games than ever attended minnesota north stars games.

if the stars ever decided to pretend they weren't the north stars, they would have done it 20+ years ago... but they did the opposite. they've honored and respected the history of the franchise that we were lucky enough to inherit.

minnesota has the wild now... they should appreciate them more than they ever did the stars.

some people's obsession with the wild becoming the north stars just feels bizarre to me. is it common practice to ask your second wife to wear your first wife's clothes, and let you call her by your first wife's name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everything go back to people wives? These aren't wives they are hockey teams, they simply can not be compared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, the analogy makes sense. the relationship between a team and a city is very similar to a marriage. they rely on one another for success, and in a perfect world, they'd stay together forever... but when they don't work out, teams and cities move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, Cole, I took that comment (the one about your fans not knowing the retired North Star numbers) not as a shot at Dallas fans but as another way to point out that fans don't care about the old city (i.e., he'd have said the same thing about Titans fans and Warren Moon). I almost jumped in with a "well Broten moved with the team to Dallas and played there for a while." Regarding the other two, I grew up with the North Stars and those two guys are before my time. So I'd wager most Dallas fans are not too familiar. Casual North Stars fans my age were not (and I am 41).

But really, that's all the more reason to have those banners. "Dad, who are Goldsworthy, Masterson, and Broten?" "Well, Broten played here but he was really good when the team was in Minnesota. He was also on the 1980 Olympic team. I don't know much about the other guys, but let's look them up at home tomorrow." That's what it's about. I wish the Twins had Walter Johnson and Sam Rice retired "numbers" Maybe just their names with a "W" along with the other numbers (as Johnson never wore a number and Rice wore two numbers in three years after spending most of his career without; I know the SF Giants do that with NY Giants). That would have promted me as a kid to say "Dad, who are Johnson and Rice?" And my dad woulda said that Johnson was one of the all time great pitchers who pitched for the Senators long before they moved. He would not have known much about Rice is my guess, but maybe we'd have gone and figured it out. This stuff is a part of history and it's important (to whatever degree sports are important) to learn. Could Minnesota ever have the passion for Walter Johnson that it does for Harmon Killebrew? No. But at least more fans could know.

Regarding those banners; I never knew they looked like that (I'd guess they are newer given that numbers remind me of the current uniforms). And I LOVE them. I love that the North Stars logo is a part of them. Particularly for Broten, for whom they easily could have used a Dallas logo since he did play there. It recognizes where all four guys accomplished the most. And I know Modano started in Minnesota, but only for a few years (and maybe only one year with that logo) so I make no demands on using "our" logo there. The banners do a great job of recognizing history. "Dad, what is that 'N' on three of those banners?" opens up a great dialog and history lesson.

Those three guys never played for the Wild, not even if you rename them the North Stars. Dale Hawerchuck never played for these Jets. I am glad the NHL (so far) is not making us do mental gymnastics with history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. Mike Modano's banner should have both logos on it.

If so, then so should Broten's. They both played in both cities. Broten's best/most years were clearly in Minnesota and Modano's clearly in Dallas. They could use both logos, but I am OK with how they did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, the analogy makes sense. the relationship between a team and a city is very similar to a marriage. they rely on one another for success, and in a perfect world, they'd stay together forever... but when they don't work out, teams and cities move on.

I don't believe it's right to separate a city from the franchise. The "Dallas Stars" are not and never will be the "Minnesota North Stars". Just like the couple "Mike and Janet Smith" are not and never will be "Mike and Laura Smith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Oops, well blow me down, I forgot about that one full season that Broten played in Dallas, before his trade to NJ after playing in a very limited amount of games in season 2. My error 'ColeJ'. No wonder you're so passionate about this topic, you're located around 30 miles south of Dallas/Ft Worth.

Myself, as a Sabres fan I view the North Stars topic as a neutral party, I just have different ideology than you about franchise shifting thanks to the good NFL fans in Cleveland. And just to remind you, Brett Hull's skate entered the crease before the puck, video footage shows he clearly did, so that was NOT a 'good' series-clinching goal. :therock:

Now that would really bee a good topic for some good father-son chat.

They ought to put an asterisk * on their 1999 Stanley Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They ought to put an asterisk * on their 1999 Stanley Cup.

Even if they did that, they'd still have one more championship victory than the Sabres and Bills combined. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Ouch!

Still haunted by 'wide-right' in '91 and the illegal goal in '99.boohoo.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, the analogy makes sense. the relationship between a team and a city is very similar to a marriage. they rely on one another for success, and in a perfect world, they'd stay together forever... but when they don't work out, teams and cities move on.

I don't believe it's right to separate a city from the franchise. The "Dallas Stars" are not and never will be the "Minnesota North Stars". Just like the couple "Mike and Janet Smith" are not and never will be "Mike and Laura Smith".

But in his analogy, Mike is Minnesota, Janet is the North Stars/Stars, and Laura is the Wild. Mike and Janet got divorced, she moved and married Dave down south, and goes by Jane now. But Jane and Janet are the same person. And Mike would be silly to start calling Laura Janet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history should remain with the franchise when it moves because there is no guarantee the city will get a team back. The exception to that would be if the relocated team says we are a brand new club at the time of the move and not 20 years later.

Share this post


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