New name for the Minnesota Wild?

[hawk36]

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.

My point is the franchise and city make a whole. Trying to say the franchise alone, without the city, made the history isn't correct. It takes both. The Dallas Stars are not the Minnesota North Stars, can't be.

[SFGiants58]

I do feel the Minnesota Wild need to make some changes, but not to the name. What we should be talking about are various ways in which the red sweater can meet its overdue end, and how to place red on a forest green version of the road sweater.

[Morgan33]

I do feel the Minnesota Wild need to make some changes, but not to the name. What we should be talking about are various ways in which the red sweater can meet its overdue end, and how to place red on a forest green version of the road sweater.

Couldn't agree more. The original red jersey was great when it was an alternate, but as with most designs, RBK completely butchered it. The bear head also needs to be on the home jersey. Best logo in the league.

[C's]

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.

The history of a relocated team should always go to the league and remain dormant until a new team is placed in that city. No one in Dallas/Raleigh/Winnipeg gives a good f-ck about anything that happened on the ice in Minnesota/Hartford/Atlanta.

[sportzfan]

It's the same franchise, it's the same team, just in a different location. The history should stay with the team that earned the history they had not the city where it just so happened to take place.

[ColeJ]

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.

The history of a relocated team should always go to the league and remain dormant until a new team is placed in that city. No one in Dallas/Raleigh/Winnipeg gives a good f-ck about anything that happened on the ice in Minnesota/Hartford/Atlanta.

i ask for the second time in this thread, what are you basing this opinion on?

do you know a lot of stars fans, or attend a lot of stars games? do you have a good understanding of the stars fan base from some other source?

i'm in dallas... and i'm a big dallas stars fan. i own multiple north stars jerseys/hats, and wear them interchangeably with dallas stars stuff. i'm not alone... a sizable portion of the stars fanbase wears north stars stuff in the stands every night, and they sell quite well in the pro-shop. stars fans consider the stars franchise to be one entity that stretches back to the 1967 expansion. people wear dino ciccarelli jerseys to stars/predators games... just because you arbitrarily decided that people in dallas SHOULDN'T care about the minnesota north stars doesn't mean that they DON'T care about them. it is quite the opposite, despite your profane assertion that we don't care.

i can't argue that people in winnipeg care about the thrashers, or that people in new jersey care about the rockies... i'm not familiar enough with the fanbase to argue that they're anything like the stars, though i assume they aren't...

but that is likely due to how the team introduced itself to the new city. some teams come in and completely rebrand everything, treat their team like an expansion team, and even unretire numbers. other teams do not. the stars treated relocation the same way the san francisco giants, los angeles dodgers, indianapolis colts, arizona cardinals, etc treated their relocation... some teams opt for the phoenix coyotes, new orleans pelicans, baltimore ravens, washington nationals mentality.

i think a lot of it has to do with the sense of entitlement of the new city. winnipeg, for example, seems like a fanbase that is almost "too good" to celebrate the history of the atlanta thrashers... the nationals play up the history of DC baseball and ignore the quebecois legacy of the expos... the stars fanbase, on the other hand, feel fortunate to have inherited one of the most iconic and beloved NHL franchises of the modern era. everything that "traditional hockey fans" love about the north stars is exactly what texas hockey fans love about the north stars. why distance yourself from that greatness, when you have every right to embrace it?

i'm glad the stars honor and respect their heritage the way they do.

and after over 20 years of celebrating the legacy that we inherited, don't hold your breath for us to throw it away now just to fit your narrative.

[ColeJ]

and to those arguing that "victory green" is anything but a direct reference to north stars green, do some research. ask colorwerx to compare the stars green in 1967 to the stars green in 2015. then compare detroit's reds in the same years, and montreal's red/blue in the same years. if the stars aren't wearing, give or take, the same shade of green in both eras in your eyes, then where is the outrage for those original six teams dulling down their colors over the same span of time?

[C's]

So Dallas is full of hipsters. What else is new? We both know that not a single one of them/you gave a crap about the Minnesota North Stars while they were the Minnesota North Stars, save maybe their final couple of years when relocation talks started rumbling. What is the fact that you guys like to wear throwbacks ironically supposed to convince me of?

I never said teams couldn't take nicknames with them to new cities either.

[ColeJ]

i wear a north stars jersey ironically?

i don't think you understand what irony is. i wear a north stars jersey to celebrate the history of my favorite team.... does a 40 year old yankees fan wearing a babe ruth throwback count as "ironic" too in your eyes?

and no, i wasn't a stars fan until 1993. i'm sorry. having never been to minnesota, and being 9 when the team moved, i didn't have much chance to be introduced to the team (or sport, for that matter) until they moved to my city.

[C's]

i wear a north stars jersey ironically?

i don't think you understand what irony is. i wear a north stars jersey to celebrate the history of my favorite team.... does a 40 year old yankees fan wearing a babe ruth throwback count as "ironic" too in your eyes?

No, that's legit. Same city, memories could easily have been passed down to him, etc.

i wasn't a stars fan until 1993. i'm sorry.

Get on one knee.

[sportzfan]

i wear a north stars jersey ironically?

i don't think you understand what irony is. i wear a north stars jersey to celebrate the history of my favorite team.... does a 40 year old yankees fan wearing a babe ruth throwback count as "ironic" too in your eyes?

No, that's legit. Same city, memories could easily have been passed down to him, etc.

i wasn't a stars fan until 1993. i'm sorry.

Get on one knee.

What got into you today? Seriously everything he's said is legit about the stars fans and franchise and you simply dismiss it and mock him. I've seen accouple of other posts of yours recently and it just looks like you are in a horrible mood or simply can't take when you are proven wrong.

[MCM0313]

Minnesota Foresters

why is it that i think of Forest Gump instead of the Wilds' logo

Trying to think of something cleverly Gump-ian and also Minnesotan. I am failing.

[IceCap]

C's, you might wanna tone it down. No need to get dismissive and condescending over a difference of opinion.

[Morgan33]

Overcompensation for an argument of zero merit...

[cubsfan2015]

Since when did this get into a full blown coversation about the Stars? Get back on topic.....

[MNTwins]

Since when did this get into a full blown coversation about the Stars? Get back on topic.....

It's relevant. With Wild being such a poor nickname, people always want to change it. And the first thing that comes to everyone's mind is North Stars. It's actually brought up here in Minnesota and discussed fairly regularly. Very annoying since they certainly will not change the name any time soon.

[ARTnSocal]

Since when did this get into a full blown conversation about the Stars? Get back on topic.....

It's relevant. With Wild being such a poor nickname, people always want to change it. And the first thing that comes to everyone's mind is North Stars. It's actually brought up here in Minnesota and discussed fairly regularly. Very annoying since they certainly will not change the name any time soon.

.

If the fans and administrators of the Minnesota Wild really wanna change their name to the North Stars then I feel that the NHL and Dallas Stars should work that out with them, just like the then Tennessee Oilers got from the NFL and the NY Jets to take the 'Titans' nickname. I see no difference. Yes I know, the Titans of NY only beared that name for their first few seasons, but Dallas dropped the 'North' from the time of the franchise move.

[-kj]

Those aren't remotely the same issue.

The Wild have been called that for fifteen years now. Let it go.

[SunnyHMoon]

Not sure why people dislike the name. I happen to really like it, and I'm not even a Wild fan.

Can someone tell me why it's not a good nickname? (not trying to start an argument, just legitimately curious)

[OnWis97]

Not sure why people dislike the name. I happen to really like it, and I'm not even a Wild fan.

Can someone tell me why it's not a good nickname? (not trying to start an argument, just legitimately curious)

Well there are no facts here but for me...

1. I prefer if you can say "he's a Blue Jay" or "he's a Dolphin." So Jazz, Heat, Magic, and Wild don't work out so great.
2. Wild is even a step worse than Jazz, Heat, and Magic. We know what they are going for with those names. Jazz, of course, makes more sense for their original New Orleans home but knowing that makes it "work" for Utah as much as Heat works for Miami. Magic, I suspect, is related to the Magic Kingdom and either way doing "magical" things on the court is what it's about too. Again, bad name, but at least I "get it". "Wild" not only is not named after something that a group of players cannot be (like they can be Lions or Flyers or Reds) but do people even understand what it means? I do now, but when I first heard it (in an email from my father when I was in school out of state) I did not even get it. Wild and crazy? Sure, most people get it after it's explained, but it should not have to be. "Heat" does not have to be.
3. How are you supposed to visually depict "Wild?" Kinda reminds me of when Kirk Van Houton could not draw "dignity." OK, they did an astonishing job of that...atones for the name to a small degree.

So it's really the first two things. It's in the eye of the beholder, though. You are not wrong for liking it, but I think a lot of people don't.