BJ Sands

NHL changes 2019-20

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

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 generally my opinion on the matter; active franchise records should stick with the franchise wherever it goes, fully defunct franchise records should stick to location and be applied to a new team in that city should it come (Ottawa 1.0's records, for example, would be transferred to Ottawa 2.0), and team logos and jerseys are generally best designated to their location specifically in the case of a move.

 

So in this case; Arizona gets WHA/NHL 1.0 Winnipeg's records and retired numbers, while the Thrashers/Jets 2.0 get the 1.0 Jets' logos and jerseys.

 

Fans in Arizona didn't grow up watching the Jets and being massive fans of the team, so the Coyotes throwing back to a era where they were in a totally different market, especially since there's currently a team named the Winnipeg Jets, would be pointless. Winnipeg throwing back to the WHA/NHL 1.0 Jets makes sense since it's the same city and team name. Arizona doing so would be at best headscratch-inducing, since they're appealing to a market not their own with jerseys of a team that has nothing to do with their current identity.

 

(Side note: this is why I don't like how both the Coyotes and the Jets both get the old Jets jerseys in EA's games; the Coyotes never even throw back to their time as the Jets to begin with aside from the banners, so why even let players dress the Coyotes as the Jets when we have a Jets team in the game?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt like the history of a sports team should belong to a city and its fans, and that team revokes itself of the right to claim that history when it moves, since none of the new fans care that the Expos almost won in '94, they just care that MLB is back in DC. I'd prefer if names stayed with cities as well (it rings especially true coming from a Hornets fan), and a new team can reclaim that past team's history, not as, say, a continuation of the franchise, but a continuation of the sport in the city, giving that new team claim to any previous history from the city. For example, the Browns wouldn't technically be able to claim they're the same team as the original Browns, but they claim any history from the original Browns' time in Cleveland. I'm not bullish on retroactively applying this thought process, since it's hard to really separate the New York and San Francisco Giants, but I'd like it if this was the method used going forward. Officially not the same team, but able to claim any history/championships/retired numbers made in the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

This is generally my opinion on the matter; active franchise records should stick with the franchise wherever it goes, fully defunct franchise records should stick to location and be applied to a new team in that city should it come (Ottawa 1.0's records, for example, would be transferred to Ottawa 2.0), and team logos and jerseys are generally best designated to their location specifically in the case of a move.

 

So in this case; Arizona gets WHA/NHL 1.0 Winnipeg's records and retired numbers, while the Thrashers/Jets 2.0 get the 1.0 Jets' logos and jerseys.

 

Fans in Arizona didn't grow up watching the Jets and being massive fans of the team, so the Coyotes throwing back to a era where they were in a totally different market, especially since there's currently a team named the Winnipeg Jets, would be pointless. Winnipeg throwing back to the WHA/NHL 1.0 Jets makes sense since it's the same city and team name. Arizona doing so would be at best headscratch-inducing, since they're appealing to a market not their own with jerseys of a team that has nothing to do with their current identity.

 

(Side note: this is why I don't like how both the Coyotes and the Jets both get the old Jets jerseys in EA's games; the Coyotes never even throw back to their time as the Jets to begin with aside from the banners, so why even let players dress the Coyotes as the Jets when we have a Jets team in the game?)

You still play EAs joke of a NHL game?  LMAO!!  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Fitzy0220 said:

You still play EAs joke of a NHL game?  LMAO!!  
 

What NHL game do you play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Fitzy0220 said:

You still play EAs joke of a NHL game?  LMAO!! 

Ah yeah, let me boot up the PS4 NHL 2K game and play that instead-oh wait 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, the admiral said:

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.

 

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.

Thanks for the info. I was genuinely curious as to how it all worked out.

 

I'm not trying to say that the Jets should strictly adopt the Thrashers history, as per the last line in my post where I stated that the Thrashers and Coyotes were, for all intents and purposes, mistakes. Again, not trying to bully or police, I was actually just wanting to know how everything resolved between the franchises. Believe me, I'd hate to see Selanne in a Coyotes sweater, as I'm sure everyone would. 

 

10 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

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!"

This, this I could get behind. Joking aside, that was sorta the point of my post; the fact that multiple franchises hold records for multiple teams (in any sport) has always seemed weird to me. 

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

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.

Not necessarily. It's moreso that the Jets used to exist as an original franchise, moved, and then were resurrected from another team.

 

That's why I mentioned the Ravens/Browns ordeal. Take the Baltimore Orioles for example, when they moved from St. Louis, they didn't keep the Browns moniker (jeez, if Baltimore ever gets another NBA team, they should just call themselves the Browns. It's not like in the modern era a team would be allowed to be called the "Bullets" anyway, but I'm trailing off...) yet the Orioles still hold the history of the Browns. I'd even like to see them do some retro-inspired uniforms from the days in St. Louis. 

 

7 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

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?

 

It does make more sense to me now with everyone's input. I guess "bothered" wasn't quite the right word to use in my opening question. Honestly, yes, I would have liked the team to have chosen a different nickname after the intent to move was finalized. But I don't hate that they went with "Jets." Like I said, I never grew up watching the Jets, nor do I remember anything about them other than what I've seen on highlight film. So, for me, the idea of a completely new brand in the NHL had my interest when I heard that the Thrashers were relocating. 

 

4 hours 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)

...

Absolutely! And this was pretty much what I was trying to get at. Now that I know the Jets do officially own the rights to certain aspects of the original team, it makes more sense to me. In my ideal situation, based on the fact the the 2011 Winnipeg NHL team was going to be named the Jets, they would have immediately absorbed the history of the old Jets franchise, essentially making the Coyotes an "expansion team" much like the how the NFL handled the Ravens and Browns situation. 

 

________

 

Thanks for the info everyone. 

[insert themoreyouknow.gif here] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Roger Clemente said:

What NHL game do you play?

NHL Hitz 2002.

 

"HE'S ON FIRE!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most (not all) franchises should follow the Ravens relocation model. Where the new city gets the old teams infrastructure, for lack of a better term, but the "team" itself doesn't move. Teams like the Dodgers/Giants are an exception, but its definitely ideal for teams like the Coyotes or Stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Records should stay with the franchise (even if the new team changes names)  as there is no guarantee that the jilted city will ever get a new team.

 

The Winnipeg Jets 2.0 are the descendants of the Atlanta Thrashers and have their history.  However, that shouldn't prevent them from celebrating those who played for the original Jets, as they certainly mean more to Winnipeg than they do Glendale.  And, that sort of means it's okay for them to dress up in vintage Jets gear.  

 

At first, I thought the Ravens/Browns example was okay, in part because it had been agreed to at the time of the relocation, but I'm not so sure anymore.  After all, it was the new Browns that went through an expansion draft and not the "expansion" Baltimore Ravens, who keep the players with the move.  If not for the lawsuits to keep the Browns, that deal would have never happened.  Cleveland might have gotten a team again, but it would clearly be as an expansion team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours 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)

...

 

You say disgusting, I say correct!

 

Franchise continuity should beat out city continuity every time, even if the team rebranded upon moving. Of course, you could say "Cleveland NFL history" (like the Wild, Jets MK II, and the Nationals) records to establish continuity between the now-Ravens and the expansion Browns, but the lawsuits prevented that. The relocated team should be able to market their pre-relocation/rebrand history however they want (celebrate it, ignore it, etc.).

 

Sometimes I wish that the NFL "retired" the Browns' name like they did for the Oilers. The Bengals should have insisted that their owners' family name not be the sobriquet of a divisional rival. "Retiring" old names and identities isn't such a bad course of action sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Sometimes I wish that the NFL "retired" the Browns' name like they did for the Oilers. The Bengals should have insisted that their owners' family name not be the sobriquet of a divisional rival. "Retiring" old names and identities isn't such a bad course of action sometimes.

 

Once he left maybe, but after so much time it becomes a temper tantrum. As a Browns fan this is 1.0 of the framework that Ohio sports fans used to keep and protect our teams. The Crew is Version 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Heitert said:

It does make more sense to me now with everyone's input. I guess "bothered" wasn't quite the right word to use in my opening question. Honestly, yes, I would have liked the team to have chosen a different nickname after the intent to move was finalized. But I don't hate that they went with "Jets." Like I said, I never grew up watching the Jets, nor do I remember anything about them other than what I've seen on highlight film. So, for me, the idea of a completely new brand in the NHL had my interest when I heard that the Thrashers were relocating.

 

It couldn't have been anything else. It meant too much to too many people. I still don't love the way the brand turned out, but it was a cool moment when they were indeed announced as the Winnipeg Jets after weeks of dreading the Manitoba Polar Bears or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, walkerws said:

 

Once he left maybe, but after so much time it becomes a temper tantrum.

 

Or a logical action. Retiring the name would have prevented so much trouble down the line, much like how the CFL unofficially retired the “Rough Riders” name. The RedBlacks don’t claim the Rough Riders’ records, but they assimilated much of the Riders’ identity. The Cleveland expansion team should have done that.

 

No “keep the history in the city” crap. Just honor “Cleveland NFL history” and be happy with that.

 

26 minutes ago, walkerws said:

As a Browns fan this is 1.0 of the framework that Ohio sports fans used to keep and protect our teams. The Crew is Version 2. 

 

Good for you guys. 

 

I still think that the Ravens should have the old Browns’ records. The Houston Dynamo should have the old Quakes’ history, the Pelicans should have the original Charlotte Hornets’ season-by-season data, and the Nationals should retain the Expos’ records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

You say disgusting, I say correct!

 

Franchise continuity should beat out city continuity every time, even if the team rebranded upon moving. Of course, you could say "Cleveland NFL history" (like the Wild, Jets MK II, and the Nationals) records to establish continuity between the now-Ravens and the expansion Browns, but the lawsuits prevented that. The relocated team should be able to market their pre-relocation/rebrand history however they want (celebrate it, ignore it, etc.).

 

Sometimes I wish that the NFL "retired" the Browns' name like they did for the Oilers. The Bengals should have insisted that their owners' family name not be the sobriquet of a divisional rival. "Retiring" old names and identities isn't such a bad course of action sometimes.

 

To each their own, I guess. To me, it’s a lot cleaner and makes a lot more sense that every stat in the Browns record book was recorded by a Browns player in a Browns uniform, and every stat in the Ravens record book was recorded by a Ravens player in a Ravens uniform.

 

I always imagine trying to explain these situations to a kid, and that’s why I think separating histories by brand works better. The “franchise” is just a corporation. The brand is what the fans connect with and support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, walkerws said:

 

Once he left maybe, but after so much time it becomes a temper tantrum. As a Browns fan this is 1.0 of the framework that Ohio sports fans used to keep and protect our teams. The Crew is Version 2. 

Cleveland isn't so special. 

 

10 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I always imagine trying to explain these situations to a kid, and that’s why I think separating histories by brand works better. The “franchise” is just a corporation. The brand is what the fans connect with and support.

That's kind of a "sentiment over reality" kind of thing isn't it though?

 

The Ravens team that began play in 1996 was very clearly the Browns teams that finished up the 1995 season. Yeah, new coaching staff, roster turnover consistent with an average NFL offseason, but the Ravens were very much the old Browns. It seems silly to insist that it wasn't a continuation of the team Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar played for. Just like it's silly to insist they played for the same team whose first draft pick (in an expansion draft no less) was Tim :censored:ing Couch. Kosar, Brown, and co. never played for the team that begun play in 1999. They just didn't 🤷‍♂️

 

The whole "the brand should stay with the fans!" schtick never landed with me because it ignores, well, most of sports history. The Dodgers, Giants, Flames, Colts, Raiders (multiple times), A's, and loads more teams all succeeded in establishing themselves carrying over their identities and record books to their new locales. Hell, look at the Cardinals. From Chicago, to St. Louis, to Arizona. And it's the brand- not the fans- that has remained consistent. 

 

I don't really have a problem with the current NFL team in Cleveland being the Browns. Nor do I have a problem with them honouring the legacy of the old Browns team. 

Pretending they're the same though? Nah. That's positively Orwellian. Rewriting history to a preferred narrative because reality wasn't to your liking.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expansion Browns basically ruined the name and identity anyway. They may be getting better, but the “Factory of Sadness” has really given the expansion team a foul stench. 

 

The ‘99 team should have adopted the old team’s color scheme, logoless orange helmet with a brown/white/brown stripe, and a name starting with “B.” Aside from that, they should have been an entirely new club. 

 

I don’t have this same standard for the Senators or Jets, because neither team succeeded in pretending to be the old club in their city. 

 

30 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I always imagine trying to explain these situations to a kid, and that’s why I think separating histories by brand works better. The “franchise” is just a corporation. The brand is what the fans connect with and support.

 

Well, I’d rather teach them about how Modell moved the team, the people made efforts to gain an expansion franchise, and said expansion club was a disaster for most of their existence. It’d be useful for telling them why this section of Cleveland NFL history is so troubled compared to those Jim Brown, Otto Graham, Bernie Kosar, and early ‘80s teams.

Share this post


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

The whole "the brand should stay with the fans!" schtick never landed with me because it ignores, well, most of sports history.

 

And the "we must preserve the corporate history of sports franchises at all costs" shtick doesn't land with me because it ignores the fundamental emotional connection fans make with their teams. The whole of sports branding is based on the idea of getting fans to connect on a personal, emotional level with the team. People aren't fans of Derek Jeter's baseball franchise which right now happens to play in Miami, they are fans of the Marlins as a representation of Miami. People lambasted the Golden Knights for the forced West Point connection instead of a Vegas or Nevada connection. Utah Jazz and LA Dodgers are nonsensical names and would never be used for a new franchise started today. All the speculation about the Seattle franchise name is what will fit best with the city and its culture. Poor and inconsistent designs (Yankees NY logos, Cowboys mismatch, Patriots, Tigers home/away mismatch) are kept because of the emotional connection people made to the team when they wore those designs. But when it comes to relocation suddenly none of that matters because we have to respect the corporate entities involved and if you don't you have disgraced against God.

 

No one is saying that the current Nationals are the same team or franchise as the 1901 Senators. But Walter Johnson never played in Minnesota. There are more people in the District of Columbia that remember watching Johnson play than there are in Minnesota. The memories and emotional connection to Johnson are in Washington. Yes, Johnson played for the franchise that is now the Minnesota Twins. But on every facet except the boring legalese it makes far more sense that the Nationals remember and honor Johnson than the Twins. That's not re-writing history; telling Minnesotans who were watching the Saints and Millers play that actually they should feel a personal connection to men who played in a city 1000 miles away is re-writing history. For the vast majority of sports fans, the team represents the city, not the other way around. 

 

You can be Spock and argue that this makes no logical sense, but without an emotional connection there's no reason to support one group of disparate men brought together for financial reasons playing in a specific geographic location over another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

 

And the "we must preserve the corporate history of sports franchises at all costs" shtick doesn't land with me because it ignores the fundamental emotional connection fans make with their teams. The whole of sports branding is based on the idea of getting fans to connect on a personal, emotional level with the team.

 

Ok, I can see the logic there.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

People aren't fans of Derek Jeter's baseball franchise which right now happens to play in Miami, they are fans of the Marlins as a representation of Miami. 

 

Unpopular owner doesn't really apply here.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

 

People lambasted the Golden Knights for the forced West Point connection instead of a Vegas or Nevada connection.

 

Sure, but that's more a reaction to military fetishism than it is lambasting a lack of a local connection. Besides, the team color scheme and most aspects of branding adapted well to Las Vegas.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Utah Jazz and LA Dodgers are nonsensical names and would never be used for a new franchise started today.

 

They also have brand equity, and in the case of the Dodgers, a storied history in Brooklyn. So, logical reasons.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

All the speculation about the Seattle franchise name is what will fit best with the city and its culture.

 

Because they're a new team and want to land on a brand that can generate enough cash. Branding locally is a good way to do this.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Poor and inconsistent designs (Yankees NY logos, Cowboys mismatch, Patriots, Tigers home/away mismatch) are kept because of the emotional connection people made to the team when they wore those designs.

 

I'd argue it's because the teams see no reason to change them because of tradition, a lack of impetus to fix up identity inconsistencies (still making money off of those looks), and stubbornness of the ownership. It's got nothing to do with the fans.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

But when it comes to relocation suddenly none of that matters because we have to respect the corporate entities involved and if you don't you have disgraced against God.

 

As we should respect the histories of these companies that produce these emotional connections.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

No one is saying that the current Nationals are the same team or franchise as the 1901 Senators. But Walter Johnson never played in Minnesota. There are more people in the District of Columbia that remember watching Johnson play than there are in Minnesota. The memories and emotional connection to Johnson are in Washington. Yes, Johnson played for the franchise that is now the Minnesota Twins. But on every facet except the boring legalese it makes far more sense that the Nationals remember and honor Johnson than the Twins. That's not re-writing history; telling Minnesotans who were watching the Saints and Millers play that actually they should feel a personal connection to men who played in a city 1000 miles away is re-writing history.

 

Sure, separate it into city history and franchise history. Look at the Giants, Dodgers, A's, Braves, Lakers, and Stars. They honor their pre-relocation past all the damn time. The Giants and Dodgers proudly display their pre-California accomplishments, the A's repeatedly throw back to the Philadelphia team (once to Kansas City), the Braves will frequently honor and homage their Boston and Milwaukee days, the Lakers prominently show off the Minneapolis championships and George Mikan's jersey, and the Stars still have the North Stars' retired numbers. Acknowledging the pre-relocation past can make your franchise feel more storied, which is important for any emotional connection.

 

It's not re-writing history. It's acknowledging club history and that the team wasn't originally yours.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

For the vast majority of sports fans, the team represents the city, not the other way around. 

 

Sure, but the record books don't care what the fans think.

 

7 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

You can be Spock and argue that this makes no logical sense, but without an emotional connection there's no reason to support one group of disparate men brought together for financial reasons playing in a specific geographic location over another.

 

History belongs to the teams, with the "city history" only applying in marketing. The record books should remain intact and relocated teams should be free to honor their pre-move history however they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't do the Browns/Ravens argument again except to say that nothing was ever re-written with regards to the Cleveland deal and that's why I have absolutely zero problems with the Ravens operating as a new franchise established in 1996 while the Browns maintain their lineage back to the 40's. It was all defined in real-time and because everyone who mattered understood this then there's no pretending the Ravens aren't the Browns because they're not. There's no pretending the Browns are the Browns because they are. 

 

The Browns franchise went dormant for the 1996-1998 years (while franchisees worked to restaff, mind you. It's not like nothing was happening with them), the Ravens franchise started play in 1996 with a roster of mostly former Browns, the Browns franchise started playing again in 1999. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.