Bmac

NHL 2017-18

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Is it bad that I like the =0= jerseys more than these? I think this Senators logo on these jerseys in the photo without the wordmark is the best Senators logo but I just love the barberpole striping, the beige instead of white and the =0= so boring logo on the front. I just think they look so good together and I'm sure a lot of people will think I'm nuts and that's okay but I love the heritage look. 

 

I don’t like the vintage white, but other than that, I agree that the heritage jerseys are so much better than these. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're about the same. I was never crazy about the original Sens sweaters but liked the crest ("Ottawa Senators" getting Bill 101ed out of the primary was actually a minor improvement), and the heritage ones are okay but have a terrible crest. Even the far-and-away best sweater design had a terrible crest and ugly Serpentine numbers. They've never nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm in the minority about this but I've never liked the heritage jerseys. They aren't the same franchise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ark said:

DQikRKKXcAE33Et.jpg:large

 

WHY isn't this their primary jersey?

 

Beautiful sweaters.  This design with a lace-up and the updated 2D centurion would look amazing.  Wouldn't even really matter which shoulder patch they used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CRichardson said:

I know I'm in the minority about this but I've never liked the heritage jerseys. They aren't the same franchise!

 

I think the NHL said they were a reactivation. It's all just ceremony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does it really matter, if a new club wants to pick up the visual heritage of an old one?  I’ve never understood the objections to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And does it really matter, if a new club wants to pick up the visual heritage of an old one?  I’ve never understood the objections to that. 

especially since it is a continuation of the hockey heritage of the city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And does it really matter, if a new club wants to pick up the visual heritage of an old one?  I’ve never understood the objections to that. 

I tend to get agitated about it if the old team is still around in some form. 

The old Senators are gone though. They moved to St. Louis for a season and then folded. 

 

So really, if the new Senators want to honour the old team? Sure. They’re not stealing an active team’s history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DiePerske said:

especially since it is a continuation of the hockey heritage of the city

 

Yeah, I don’t see anything wrong with that.  Baseball clubs have been doing that for a hundred and thirty years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gothamite said:
2 hours ago, DiePerske said:

especially since it is a continuation of the hockey heritage of the city

 

Yeah, I don’t see anything wrong with that.  Baseball clubs have been doing that for a hundred and thirty years

 

Not really. New teams have taken the names of defunct previous franchises; but never have they claimed to be those franchises. When the St. Louis Browns became the Baltimore Orioles, the new team did not claim to be the same one that had been the dominant National League team of the 1890s or the one that had competed in the American League before moving to New York in 1903.

 

Likewise, the 1970 Milwaukee Brewers, the relocated Seattle Pilots, claimed no connection to the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers.

 

(The team that came the closest to blurring this line has been the Washington Nationals, who suggested with their early "Established 1905" logo a connection with the American League team usually called the Washington Senators.)

 

This also did not happen in the NFL, even where it would have been very easy. The Baltimore Colts joined the NFL from the AAFC in 1950, and then folded after that season. In 1953, the NFL created a new expansion team, also called the Baltimore Colts. But this new team was always recognised as an entity separate from the 1950 Colts.

 

So there really is no precedent in the major sports for a new team to decide that it is the reincarnation of an older one.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that the new team cannot wear uniforms that are in the tradition of the older team. But it's not too much to ask that the record book not be messed with. If the Ottawa Senators win a Stanley Cup, it will be their first.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

And does it really matter, if a new club wants to pick up the visual heritage of an old one?  I’ve never understood the objections to that. 

 

You're right, it doesn't matter.  They already picked the visual heritage of the original team in 1992 with the name, colour scheme and striping loosely based off the original barberpoles.  The issue is that they created a much more interesting logo than a Times New Roman 'O' and added a new colour to separate them from all the other Red, White and Black teams.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Of course, this doesn't mean that the new team cannot wear uniforms that are in the tradition of the older team.

 

Which is what we were talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Not really. New teams have taken the names of defunct previous franchises; but never have they claimed to be those franchises. When the St. Louis Browns became the Baltimore Orioles, the new team did not claim to be the same one that had been the dominant National League team of the 1890s or the one that had competed in the American League before moving to New York in 1903.

 

Likewise, the 1970 Milwaukee Brewers, the relocated Seattle Pilots, claimed no connection to the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers.

 

(The team that came the closest to blurring this line has been the Washington Nationals, who suggested with their early "Established 1905" logo a connection with the American League team usually called the Washington Senators.)

 

This also did not happen in the NFL, even where it would have been very easy. The Baltimore Colts joined the NFL from the AAFC in 1950, and then folded after that season. In 1953, the NFL created a new expansion team, also called the Baltimore Colts. But this new team was always recognised as an entity separate from the 1950 Colts.

 

So there really is no precedent in the major sports for a new team to decide that it is the reincarnation of an older one.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that the new team cannot wear uniforms that are in the tradition of the older team. But it's not too much to ask that the record book not be messed with. If the Ottawa Senators win a Stanley Cup, it will be their first.

 

 

 

Aren't the current Cleveland Browns considered the same as the original Browns?  The CFL does consider every single version of the Alouettes to be the same franchise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, M4One said:

Aren't the current Cleveland Browns considered the same as the original Browns?  

 

They are, and that is what he objects to.  

 

I dont agree with him on this one - I consider the modern LA Rams are the same as the original Cleveland Rams even though the franchise took a hiatus from playing, so I have to be consistent with the Browns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gothamite said:
11 hours ago, M4One said:

Aren't the current Cleveland Browns considered the same as the original Browns?  

 

They are, and that is what he objects to.  

 

I dont agree with him on this one - I consider the modern LA Rams are the same as the original Cleveland Rams even though the franchise took a hiatus from playing, so I have to be consistent with the Browns.

 

Hold on, there. A team taking one year off and then coming back is not the same thing as an expansion team assuming the history of another team that had previously been in that city. 

 

In other words: a strict (and grossly misapplied) consistency would have you using the Rams' example as a means of justifying the Ottawa Senators' claim, on the dubious theory that there's no difference between a forced one-year hiatus undertaken by an ownership group during World War II, and a 58-year gap between the folding of one entity and the establishment of another; it has no bearing at all on the Cleveland Browns' claim of appropriation of another existing team's history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come now. That’s just silly.   

 

Unless you can provide any evidence that the NHL intended the Senators to return after a set amount of time, there’s no comparison.  For both the Rams and Browns, the suspension of play was a limited duration, announced contemporaneously, and the team began play again at the first opportunity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia says

Quote

NHL President Gil Stein took part, presenting Bruce Firestone with a "certificate of reinstatement" to commemorate Ottawa's return to the NHL after 58 years. (The certificate does not mean that the original franchise was restored. The NHL lists 1991 for the franchise founding date, which is the date of the final franchise payment, in their official publications.)

Well, that's precisely the kind of the clarity we come to Wikipedia for. They were reinstated! But not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Browns? I object to the new team claiming to be a continuation of the old one due to the fact that the innaguaral Ravens team was basically the old Browns team, at least as far as player personnel and ownership went. It was clearly the same franchise, one that the 1999 expansion Browns had no real lineage with. 

 

I admit that I don’t know much about the Rams’ hiatus, but unless it was a case where ownership and personnel picked up and continued playing somewhere else under a new name? I have no objection to the pre and post-hiatus Rams sharing a lineage. For the reasons @Gothamite mentioned. 

 

With the Senators? Franchise lineage is a moot point because the NHL has consistently refused the current Senators’ request to merge their records with those of the original Senators. 

 

So no one here is trying to argue the 1992-present Ottawa Senators are the same team as the 1883-1934 Senators. They aren’t the same team, and no one is pretending they are. 

 

That being said? The current Sens have every right to use the iconography associated with the original Sens.

 

9 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Wikipedia says

Well, that's precisely the kind of the clarity we come to Wikipedia for. They were reinstated! But not.

That’s also the level of competenence expected from the NHL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, M4One said:

 

Aren't the current Cleveland Browns considered the same as the original Browns?  The CFL does consider every single version of the Alouettes to be the same franchise.  

 

The NFL's work around to that fiasco was that the original Browns were 'deactivated' and the Ravens were an expansion team.  Part of Modell's deal with the NFL was that the history of the Browns had to stay in Cleveland.  At least in this case the old and new Browns are truly the same franchise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I admit that I don’t know much about the Rams’ hiatus

 

Wartime hiatus, same reason we had the Steagles and Card-Pitt.

Share this post


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