NHL changes 2019-20

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but this is adorable:

 

 

Only $5 too!

 

 

[ebod39]

They nailed Phil Pritchard's hair

 

[Cosmic]

9 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

That's all SO complicated, though. I'm pretty well versed in sports lineage, and even I get lost on the whole Seals/Barons/North Stars/Sharks line. You can't reasonably expect a casual fan to make that sort of a connection. Also, I know of absolutely nobody in the Bay Area who's a Sharks fan who considers them anything other than brand new when they began as the Sharks. 

 

You're link between the St. Louis Eagles and the Blues is a good point, though. I was going to add them into that mix originally (Because what a HUGE mess that would've been), but I thought that would've been more complicated than most would assume. I didn't even know the original Sens played a season in St. Louis until I read that earlier today. I wanted to bring up examples that I had heard here before. 

While I admit it feels strange to me to think of the Sharks as a ‘67 expansion team, I think the connection is also too strong to ignore. The Gunds are the throughline that make it especially compelling. They had a majority stake in the Seals before they moved, then they owned the Barons, then they were majority owners of the merged North Stars, then when they started the Sharks, they took so many of the North Stars’ players with them that the North Stars participated in the expansion draft after having been in the league for 25 years. It’s hard to consider the Sharks a normal expansion team when so much of the roster was taken from a single team. If they started that way in the modern internet era, I think people would be more aware of that fact.

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

That's all SO complicated, though. I'm pretty well versed in sports lineage, and even I get lost on the whole Seals/Barons/North Stars/Sharks line. You can't reasonably expect a casual fan to make that sort of a connection.

 

It's not that complicated. The Gunds owned the Barons. Then as the Stars and Barons were both going broke, the Gunds assumed ownership of a merged organization after a draft that dispersed the ass end of the roster to the rest of the league while the good halves of both teams continued as the MNS. Then they sold the Stars at the same time that they received an expansion franchise, and effectively reversed the dispersal draft with an expansion draft that entitled the Gund-owned franchise to 50% of the Stars' roster. So the Barons essentially ran alongside/within the North Stars from 1978-1991 and then spun back off. 

 

The only reason the connection isn't made is because the Oakland/Cleveland organization was so historically and hilariously incompetent that the San Jose Sharks are absolutely right to disavow any lineage. All the Seals/Barons ever did was wear white skates, trade the first overall pick that would become Guy Lafleur to the Habs for a pack of smokes, and fail to make payroll in the middle of a field halfway to Akron. Otherwise, it's simple: the dudes who had an NHL team in the Bay wanted to move their team back there but they couldn't so they made a new one out of half of it (and then the rest of the team moved to Dallas anyway).

 

EDIT: I replied on Page 39 without knowing Cosmic beat me to it on Page 40. Not trying to talk over you good buddy

[FiddySicks]

That’s the most OITGDNHL thing I’ve ever heard. What do you mean it’s not that complicated? My goodness. 

[AHcreative]

While we're on the subject: Doesn't it bother anyone else that the current Winnipeg Jets have unofficially adopted the history of the original Jets? I understand the nostalgia factor but it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

And maybe it's just that I was born in the early 90s so I don't have any memories of the original Jets, or, that I'm ignorant to the whole concept. But how is it that Winnipeg is allowed to use the old Jets' logos and uniforms for the Heritage classic? Technically, shouldn't Arizona hold the rights to the history? I don't understand how old Jet greats like Teemu Selane and Dale Hawerchuck played in the alumni game, in reality, having never played for the franchise. I understand that the Thrashers history is less than glamourous and that it would feel wrong for the Coyotes to try to cash in on the original Jets' history but that's just the way it is. 

 

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is: Couldn't the Jets do a Ravens/Browns-esque deal where they could officially adopt the history of the original team? Instead we're kinda left in this weird situation wherein everyone basically agrees that the Coyotes and Thrashers were mistakes but no one wants to talk about it. 

[SFGiants58]

It’s not complicated, but it is OITGDNHL-worthy. 

 

All I wish is that the de-merger didn’t include sending the “Cleveland Barons” name to the Sharks. We could have avoided this minor-league affiliate:

 

 

...and had the “Dallas Barons” or a Cleveland expansion team with the name Barons. 

[Ridleylash]

1 hour ago, Heitert said:

And maybe it's just that I'm ignorant to the whole concept but, how is it that Winnipeg is allowed to use the old Jets' logos and uniforms for the Heritage classic? Technically, shouldn't Arizona hold the rights to the history. I don't understand how old Jet greats like Teemu Selane and Dale Hawerchuck played in the alumni game, in reality, having never played for the franchise. I understand that the Thrashers history is less than glamourous and that it would feel wrong for the Coyotes to try to cash in on the original Jets' history but that's just the way it is. 

For the logos and such, I imagine the Coyotes probably just gave all that over to True North for use with the current Jets organization, since it's not like they were ever going to use that stuff for anything anyways; so why let it rot when you have a new Winnipeg team coming in that could definitely use said imagery for throwbacks?

 

Remember, this is the same league that's fine with saying that an expansion team from the 1990's has the history of a team from the 1910-30's. I think it's location that matters to them more then franchise continuity (so Winnipeg 2.0 gets the stuff of Winnipeg 1.0, Ottawa 2.0 gets the stuff of Ottawa 1.0, etc.). After all, what do people in Phoenix care if their team wears throwbacks to a city that's over a thousand miles away from them? Winnipeggers wouldn't have been very happy about another city using their uniforms either, even if the franchise was technically the same one.

 

It'd be like Colorado wearing Nordiques throwbacks as a third; yes, it's the same franchise, but I doubt people in Denver really care that their team was once in Québec City under a different name with an entirely different look, and Québécois people would not be happy to see a franchise in Denver using their team as a costume to sell more merchandise.

 

For all intents and purposes, when a franchise relocates it is essentially a new franchise in everything but the on-ice group.

[The_Admiral]

 

1 hour ago, Heitert said:

But how is it that Winnipeg is allowed to use the old Jets' logos and uniforms for the Heritage classic? Technically, shouldn't Arizona hold the rights to the history?

The league had held the Jets' intellectual property for vintage merchandise purposes. TNSE asked if they could have it and the league said yes. (Funny how the NHL had such a moment of clarity and magnanimity when the Canadian dollar was at par or close to it.) The Coyotes still have the season-by-season record books, but all the 1972-1996 logos and uniforms belong to the current Jets. (The media-guide workaround is to refer to 1979-1996-lacuna-2011-pres as "Winnipeg NHL history.") The league now holds the Thrashers' intellectual property for vintage merchandise purposes. 

 

1 hour ago, Heitert said:

I don't understand how old Jet greats like Teemu Selane and Dale Hawerchuck played in the alumni game, in reality, having never played for the franchise.

Oh jumping Jesus on a pogo stick this is the Ryan Lambert "YOUR BEST PLAYER IS ILYA KOVALCHUK WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" bullying again. It's a promotional stunt; how do you police an old-timers' game? Old North Stars played in Minnesota's game; it'd be silly to do anything else.

[FiddySicks]

Maybe they should just give the Thrashers history to the Coyotes and call it a day. 

 

"Here you go Phoenix. Now you can honor TWO franchises nobody wants!" 

[andrewharrington]

1 hour ago, Heitert said:

While we're on the subject: Doesn't it bother anyone else that the current Winnipeg Jets have unofficially adopted the history of the original Jets? I understand the nostalgia factor but it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

And maybe it's just that I was born in the early 90s so I don't have any memories of the original Jets, or, that I'm ignorant to the whole concept. But how is it that Winnipeg is allowed to use the old Jets' logos and uniforms for the Heritage classic? Technically, shouldn't Arizona hold the rights to the history? I don't understand how old Jet greats like Teemu Selane and Dale Hawerchuck played in the alumni game, in reality, having never played for the franchise. I understand that the Thrashers history is less than glamourous and that it would feel wrong for the Coyotes to try to cash in on the original Jets' history but that's just the way it is. 

 

I guess what I'm really trying to get at is: Couldn't the Jets do a Ravens/Browns-esque deal where they could officially adopt the history of the original team? Instead we're kinda left in this weird situation wherein everyone basically agrees that the Coyotes and Thrashers were mistakes but no one wants to talk about it. 

 

It clearly bothers some people, but not me. Everything you’ve pointed out here supports leaving the branding and history behind if you decide to change the franchise name when you move.

 

People from Winnipeg supported those teams, went to those games, cheered for those logos and uniforms, idolized Hawerchuck and Selanne, etc.

 

Fans in central Arizona couldn’t care less about any of it. That’s why it doesn’t make much sense for them to hold onto the old Jets’ trademarks or celebrate the original team, and why it doesn’t make much sense for Jets alumni to play in Coyotes alumni games.

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

People from Winnipeg supported those teams, went to those games, cheered for those logos and uniforms, idolized Hawerchuck and Selanne, etc.

 

Fans in central Arizona couldn’t care less about any of it. That’s why it doesn’t make much sense for them to hold onto the old Jets’ trademarks or celebrate the original team, and why it doesn’t make much sense for Jets alumni to play in Coyotes alumni games.

Well...kind of, kind of not. The Coyotes did do the playoff White Out for a while (I can't remember if they still did it last time they were in the playoffs, but they certainly did at one point) and they still honour all the old Jets retired numbers. They even made a big show of un-retiring Bobby Hull's number when Brett played for them for a season. 

 

Honestly, I think the Jets/Coyotes dynamic is the ideal way to handle these things, and represents a good compromise for everyone who thinks relocation should work one way or the other. 

The original Jets are the Coyotes, and they hold the record books. The new Jets have the Thrashers records, but they own the original Jets' IP to do stuff like throwbacks and Old Timers games for the fans who clearly have nostalgia for the original Jets team. The record books remain intact, and people get to indulge in some nostalgia. 

 

Which is why I can't agree with @Heitert on this one. The new Jets aren't the old Jets, and the records are clear on that. So if that's the case, why not let them honour Winnipeg's WHA/NHL history as they see fit? 

 

[MDGP]

4 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Remember, this is the same league that's fine with saying that an expansion team from the 1990's has the history of a team from the 1910-30’s.

 

That isn’t true. Ottawa petitioned to be considered a continuation of the original Senators and the league denied it. The Senators hanging a banner for the original’s championships and wearing jerseys inspired by the original isn’t the same as the league giving them the rights to the history. 

 

The Senators situation is amazingly more akin in this case to the Nets hanging a Biggie banner and wearing Coogi inspired jerseys than the Jets situation.

[chcarlson23]

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

The media-guide workaround is to refer to 1979-1996-lacuna-2011-pres as "Winnipeg NHL history."

This is what the Wild have been doing as well. “The only Minnesota player to do x, which is from 1967-1993; 2000-Present”

 

However the Wild have never pretended to be the OG Stars. (Like the Sens have pretended to be the OG Sens) They’ve just done the North Stars as Alumni

[andrewharrington]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well...kind of, kind of not. The Coyotes did do the playoff White Out for a while (I can't remember if they still did it last time they were in the playoffs, but they certainly did at one point) and they still honour all the old Jets retired numbers. They even made a big show of un-retiring Bobby Hull's number when Brett played for them for a season. 

 

Honestly, I think the Jets/Coyotes dynamic is the ideal way to handle these things, and represents a good compromise for everyone who thinks relocation should work one way or the other. 

The original Jets are the Coyotes, and they hold the record books. The new Jets have the Thrashers records, but they own the original Jets' IP to do stuff like throwbacks and Old Timers games for the fans who clearly have nostalgia for the original Jets team. The record books remain intact, and people get to indulge in some nostalgia. 

 

Which is why I can't agree with @Heitert on this one. The new Jets aren't the old Jets, and the records are clear on that. So if that's the case, why not let them honour Winnipeg's WHA/NHL history as they see fit? 

 

 

Certainly a step in the right direction, but it’s still a bit nonsensical that Hawerchuck and Selanne hold records in the Coyotes’ books (and numbers in the rafters) despite never playing for them.

 

It’s positively disgusting to think that the Ravens’ record book could have looked like this:

 

Baltimore Ravens Career Passing Leaders

 

1. Joe Flacco (38,245)

2. Brian Sipe (23,713)

3. Otto Graham (23,584)

4. Bernie Kosar (21,904)

...

[Cosmic]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Certainly a step in the right direction, but it’s still a bit nonsensical that Hawerchuck and Selanne hold records in the Coyotes’ books (and numbers in the rafters) despite never playing for them.

 

It’s positively disgusting to think that the Ravens’ record book could have looked like this:

 

Baltimore Ravens Career Passing Leaders

 

1. Joe Flacco (38,245)

2. Brian Sipe (23,713)

3. Otto Graham (23,584)

4. Bernie Kosar (21,904)

...

Well, yeah, a beloved team was ripped away from Cleveland, so it should hurt a little.

 

If they were named the Baltimore Browns, I don't think you'd question the history. If the Browns stayed in Cleveland, but renamed themselves the Cleveland Xtreme, I don't think you'd question the history. I don't see the difference when the team moves and changes its name at the same time.

 

There's merit in keeping these "Minnesota NHL" type records for local fans, but I think team continuity is usually paramount for the overall league picture.

[Fitzy0220]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well...kind of, kind of not. The Coyotes did do the playoff White Out for a while (I can't remember if they still did it last time they were in the playoffs, but they certainly did at one point) and they still honour all the old Jets retired numbers. They even made a big show of un-retiring Bobby Hull's number when Brett played for them for a season. 

 

Honestly, I think the Jets/Coyotes dynamic is the ideal way to handle these things, and represents a good compromise for everyone who thinks relocation should work one way or the other. 

The original Jets are the Coyotes, and they hold the record books. The new Jets have the Thrashers records, but they own the original Jets' IP to do stuff like throwbacks and Old Timers games for the fans who clearly have nostalgia for the original Jets team. The record books remain intact, and people get to indulge in some nostalgia. 

 

Which is why I can't agree with @Heitert on this one. The new Jets aren't the old Jets, and the records are clear on that. So if that's the case, why not let them honour Winnipeg's WHA/NHL history as they see fit? 

 

This is why I wish that if / when relocation happens, the old city retains the Record Books, Color Scheme. Team Name and the Relocated Team must create a whole new Name. Color Scheme, Record Book. Think the Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore but the city of Cleveland being allowed to keep the Browns history.

I was a big North Stars fan (Neal Broten, Dino Ciccarelli (at that time I wished he was a Penguin) and Mike Modano), as much as I am happy Minnesota got another NHL Franchise, I'm sorry, the WILD name is just Meh in my opinion. I had CCM Replicas of both (the '90/'91 season) North Stars uniforms

[IceCap]

6 minutes ago, Fitzy0220 said:

I had CCM Replicas of both (the '90/'91 season) North Stars uniforms

Yay? I prefer records to stay with teams even if they move.

 

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Certainly a step in the right direction

I don't see it like that. I see it as a compromise between your camp and the other side.

[andrewharrington]

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

Well, yeah, a beloved team was ripped away from Cleveland, so it should hurt a little.

 

If they were named the Baltimore Browns, I don't think you'd question the history. If the Browns stayed in Cleveland, but renamed themselves the Cleveland Xtreme, I don't think you'd question the history. I don't see the difference when the team moves and changes its name at the same time.

 

There's merit in keeping these "Minnesota NHL" type records for local fans, but I think team continuity is usually paramount for the overall league picture.

 

If they had become the Baltimore Browns, I would have begrudgingly accepted the transfer of the records, and whatever team that did come to Cleveland would be a fresh new entity deserving of a fresh new record book. If they had stayed and changed their name, it would have felt like a different team and I would have no issue closing the Browns’ record book and opening a new one for the new team.

 

The thing that would have made the least sense is having all Cleveland’s greatest players, stats, moments, and accomplishments credited to a team not called the Browns (and in a different city), while the Browns return with no credit for the history and brand they created in Cleveland.

 

I guess I just see the relocation and changing of a team’s name as the biggest possible interruption in continuity that there is, so I have no issue with record books following that logic.

 

Something is wrong (not to mention unnecessarily convoluted and confusing) when (hypothetically) Larry Johnson and Alonzo Mourning are in the Pelicans’ record books but not in the Hornets’ record books. Anything done to correct these situations gets a thumbs up from me.

[The_Admiral]

No, they are in the Hornets' record books. The league retconned everything so that the Charlotte Hornets fell asleep in 2002, woke back up in 2004 doing business as the Bobcats, and then changed their name back to the Hornets in whatever year that was, god, I don't know, all the years run together for me nowadays. The Pelicans are now a franchise that started in 2002 and was originally called the Hornets for some reason. It's the kind of mess that actually makes me wish Adam Silver had been running the league 15ish years ago so that he could have woke-choked George Shinn out of the league for bad p.r. and obviated a whole bunch of franchise moves and magical thinking that left the league worse off.