NHL changes 2019-20

[seasaltvanilla]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

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...

...I'd argue it's because the teams see no reason to change them because of tradition...

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

...Acknowledging the pre-relocation past can make your franchise feel more storied, which is important for any emotional connection...

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

So the emotional connection is good except when it's inconvenient. The fans opinions matter except when they don't. Anything to support corporate entities, because that's why people watch sports.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Unpopular owner doesn't really apply here.

Not the point I was making, I used the Marlins because their ownership is well known, but it applies to any team. People aren't fans of the New York Yankees LLC, they are fans of the idea of the New York Yankees and the specific players.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

History belongs to the teams, with the "city history" only applying in marketing.

All professional sports is marketing. Literally the point of the exact sentence you quoted.

 

When you dissect arguments piece by piece you miss the forest for the trees.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

The record books should remain intact and relocated teams should be free to honor their pre-move history however they want. 

I didn't say they couldn't. I said the hypervigilance about new franchises in cities paying tribute to old franchises ignores the basic reasons why people feel fandom towards teams in the first place. I don't have a problem with the Twins honoring Walter Johnson. I think it makes more sense for Washington to do so and don't have a problem if the Nationals have Walter Johnson Day. It's good marketing.

[Glover]

I'm honestly surprised how many people are siding with the franchise keeping the records/colors/name/etc. Especially after some of the backlash the Hurricanes received for wearing Whalers jerseys.

[IceCap]

13 minutes ago, selby56 said:

I'm honestly surprised how many people are siding with the franchise keeping the records/colors/name/etc. This is the same message board that ripped apart the Hurricanes for wearing Whalers jerseys, right? 

Um, you're mistaken if you think everyone ripped apart the Hurricanes for that. Try not to lump a diverse community into one strawman position. 

[Glover]

16 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Um, you're mistaken if you think everyone ripped apart the Hurricanes for that. Try not to lump a diverse community into one strawman position. 

Fixed it.

[SFGiants58]

29 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

So the emotional connection is good except when it's inconvenient. The fans opinions matter except when they don't.

 

Yes.

 

29 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Anything to support corporate entities, because that's why people watch sports.

 

They watch it for the emotional connection to the team that plays in their city, which happens to be a corporate entity.

 

29 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Not the point I was making, I used the Marlins because their ownership is well known, but it applies to any team. People aren't fans of the New York Yankees LLC, they are fans of the idea of the New York Yankees and the specific players.

 

That idea is represented by said LLC. 

 

29 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

All professional sports is marketing. Literally the point of the exact sentence you quoted.

 

Ok, sorry about that.

 

29 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

When you dissect arguments piece by piece you miss the forest for the trees.

 

I prefer to see it as "close reading," forming an interpretation based around what was said. I got the whole point, one with which I have a slight disagreement.

 

29 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

I didn't say they couldn't. I said the hypervigilance about new franchises in cities paying tribute to old franchises ignores the basic reasons why people feel fandom towards teams in the first place. I don't have a problem with the Twins honoring Walter Johnson. I think it makes more sense for Washington to do so and don't have a problem if the Nationals have Walter Johnson Day. It's good marketing.

 

While it is good marketing to honor "city history," it can lead to situations like the Browns, Hornets, and Quakes. Of course, the Hornets were due to the NBA's stupid policy of attaching franchise records to the trademarks for vintage logos (something none of the other Big Four leagues perform) and the Browns were the result of a special arrangement that shouldn't have happened. Just let the team move, get the guarantee of an expansion team, and start a new history with an expansion franchise. None of this "suspended operations" or "franchise certificate" crap.

 

I like the occasional hypervigilance to acknowledge relocated teams' pasts. It discourages playing around with the record books. 

 

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Um, you're mistaken if you think everyone ripped apart the Hurricanes for that. Try not to lump a diverse community into one strawman position. 

 

A bunch of us had differing opinions. My opinion was that the Whalers should be left far in the past, because the Hurricanes have far surpassed any of the Whalers' accomplishments.

 

 

When there's no replacement team, generally try to not do a throwback, especially if you've won a title in your new location. The Avs shouldn't wear Nordiques jerseys, the Devils should eschew the Scouts and Rockies, and the Orioles (outside of one throwback game) should continue ignoring the Browns. 

[IceCap]

I was fine with the Whalers thing honestly. It's part of the team history and, lack of a Cup aside, people still love the Whalers. They're leaving money on the table if they don't wear them. As they are a business? And businesses exist to make money? Yeah. It made a lot of sense to wear those uniforms.

 

3 hours 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.

I don't give a crap about respecting corporate entities. What I value is historical accuracy. If Team A moves to Locale X then the team moved. Everything that is the team moved. The corporate structure, the equipment, and (most importantly) the players. That's why I prefer to say that Bernie Kosar's records should belong to the Ravens. If you trace the lineage of players on the current Browns back it ends in 1999. If you trace the lineage of players on the Ravens back you eventually get to Kosar's Browns.

 

1 hour ago, seasaltvanilla said:

I don't have a problem with the Twins honoring Walter Johnson. I think it makes more sense for Washington to do so and don't have a problem if the Nationals have Walter Johnson Day. It's good marketing.

Why can't they both? Let's take this back to the NHL. Bobby Hull and Dale Hawerchuk never once played for the Phoenix/Arizona Coyotes, yet their numbers are retired by the team to honour their tenure as part of the original Winnipeg Jets. The current Jets, who are the old Thrashers, also honour Hull and Hawerchuk as legends of Winnipeg's WHA/NHL history. I don't see why this is a problem. The records stay with the original team, but the new team also honours them. Seems like an ideal compromise.

[Fitzy0220]

20 hours ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

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

LOL

[seasaltvanilla]

23 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Ok, sorry about that.

I appreciate you being willing to concede a mistake. Thank you. Sorry if I've come across as terse.

 

I'll be honest that I don't really feel like going down this rabbit hole back and forth again, I'm willing to leave it at agree to disagree, but I appreciate that you've made considered and good faith arguments.

[-Akronite-]

I understand the argument that a franchise can legally own a team's history, name, colors, etc. but that all feels cynical and pointless to me.

 

A billionaire owner doesn't lay claim to the big, emotional moments. They don't own the thousands of fans that come together, united in the team's goal, to cheer on their favorite players. They don't own the joy of victory and they certainly don't own the despair of defeat. The fans, and the city they call home, are the reason any of this matters. Professional sports isn't a big business without the fans. It isn't a cultural phenomenon without the fans. And to take them out of the equation may be technically accurate but I feel like it misses the whole point.

 

I love sports for a lot of reasons, but the thing that makes me emotionally invested is that I have a team. They represent my city or my state or my school, and in a way, me. It's stupid and actually quite trivial except for the meaning we choose to give it. 

 

This is of course an attempt at explaining while I'll ALWAYS feel that a team and their accomplishments will ALWAYS truly belong to the city. Nobody in Atlanta gives a that the St. Louis Hawks won a title 70 years ago. Nobody in OKC brags about those old Sonics teams. Indianapolis fans don't brag about Johnny Unitas. What's the point of honoring continuity if that continuity is meaningless? 

 

I know the arguments that it's confusing to compare stats between different franchises in the same city, and it can be handled better in media analysis, but I'm not switching sides on this. I'd much rather compare a Nick Chubb to Jim Brown than completely disconnect Cleveland Browns history from... Cleveland Browns history. And it'd be stupid to measure the best Ravens against the greatest players in Browns history because how does that make sense? Ah, whatever, you get my point.

EDIT: As for throwbacks, I think it should be determined by geography. For instance, many teams wear Negro League throwbacks even though they aren't the same franchise. So why not let the Texans wear an Oilers throwback? Works for me. One special case would be the Dodgers, mostly due to the legacy of Jackie Robinson. Personally, I feel that by leaving Brooklyn the team abandoned his legacy in a way, but it's hard to detach his iconic image from the word "Dodgers."

[pepis21]

20 hours ago, Roger Clemente said:

What NHL game do you play?

 

NHL 2004 with rebuilt mod

[-Akronite-]

34 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Why can't they both? Let's take this back to the NHL. Bobby Hull and Dale Hawerchuk never once played for the Phoenix/Arizona Coyotes, yet their numbers are retired by the team to honour their tenure as part of the original Winnipeg Jets. The current Jets, who are the old Thrashers, also honour Hull and Hawerchuk as legends of Winnipeg's WHA/NHL history. I don't see why this is a problem. The records stay with the original team, but the new team also honours them. Seems like an ideal compromise.

 

I'm not with you on all the records and stuff but I am fine with a franchise honoring it's roots so long as they don't monopolize it. They should both be free to honor a player that is part of franchise and city sports history.

[IceCap]

23 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

This is of course an attempt at explaining while I'll ALWAYS feel that a team and their accomplishments will ALWAYS truly belong to the city. Nobody in Atlanta gives a that the St. Louis Hawks won a title 70 years ago. Nobody in OKC brags about those old Sonics teams. Indianapolis fans don't brag about Johnny Unitas. What's the point of honoring continuity if that continuity is meaningless? 

I think it's disingenuous to assume this is the norm, or even consensus. The Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants both do a lot to honour their pasts in New York. And from what I've heard from their fanbses? That history is meaningful. The Calgary Flames respect their origins in Atlanta enough to use the old Atlanta Flames logo as the assistant captain "A" patch. The Golden State Warriors still have Championship banners hanging from their time in Philadelphia. And they've won four since moving to the San Francisco Bay area. That Philadelphia history obviously still matters though.

As far as Unitas goes? I know that he asked to be removed from the Colts' record books when they left for Indy, but the Colts said no. So Unitas' feelings aside? The team obviously saw value in his legacy as part of their history, even if they were no longer in Baltimore. And when the Colts beat the Bears in Super Bowl XLI? A lot of hay was made out of that being the team's first title since Super Bow V.

You also have to contend with teams like the A's and Sacramento Kings who have (more or less) retained their identities across a multitude of locales, fanbases, and ownership groups. Or the strange case of the Arizona Cardinals. Where it's ownership and the brand- and not fans or big moments- that has transcended four locales from Chicago to Glendale.

 

So I don't think you can say that this stuff "ALWAYS" belongs to the city. It doesn't work like that.

[-Akronite-]

10 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I think it's disingenuous to assume this is the norm, or even consensus. The Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants both do a lot to honour their pasts in New York. And from what I've heard from their fanbses? That history is meaningful. The Calgary Flames respect their origins in Atlanta enough to use the old Atlanta Flames logo as the assistant captain "A" patch. The Golden State Warriors still have Championship banners hanging from their time in Philadelphia. And they've won four since moving to the San Francisco Bay area. That Philadelphia history obviously still matters though.

 As far as Unitas goes? I know that he asked to be removed from the Colts' record books when they left for Indy, but the Colts said no. So Unitas' feelings aside? The team obviously saw value in his legacy as part of their history, even if they were no longer in Baltimore. And when the Colts beat the Bears in Super Bowl XLI? A lot of hay was made out of that being the team's first title since Super Bow V.

 You also have to contend with teams like the A's and Sacramento Kings who have (more or less) retained their identities across a multitude of locales, fanbases, and ownership groups. Or the strange case of the Arizona Cardinals. Where it's ownership and the brand- and not fans or big moments- that has transcended four locales from Chicago to Glendale.

  

So I don't think you can say that this stuff "ALWAYS" belongs to the city. It doesn't work like that.

 

I think cases can be made for a franchise ALSO having claim on something and you make some fine examples.

 

But they still belong to the people they represented when it happened. There's no real continuity, no history that connects LA Dodgers fans to Brooklyn Dodgers fans, new fans were created once a team came to their area. There are LOTS of cases where franchises lay claim to stuff that happened in another city and for the most part I don't agree with it or at the very least don't find it as compelling/worthwhile as the claim the city/fans have.

 

If any of my teams had titles that carried over from another town? I'd disregard those accomplishments because they don't carry weight to me. But I'm also a fiercely city-loyal fan, and not every sports fan has to operate like that.

[The_Admiral]

13 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

There's no real continuity, no history that connects LA Dodgers fans to Brooklyn Dodgers fans, new fans were created once a team came to their area.

 

Congartulaitons! You've used as an example the relocation that has had the most continuity and history connecting its hometowns. 

[sky1324]

I've always felt like the team "belongs" to the city and the fans, so when they move, that "team" gets left behind, and as such, the name/logos/colors should also be left behind to break clean in the new city, while making sure that it is known that the team used to be X team that existed in X city. If that city gets a new team in the same sport, they should be free to reclaim the name/logos of the old team, as well as tapping into its history as part of "X city sport history", and that includes honoring old players and wearing old uniforms. I wouldn't go so far as to "rewrite" history to make the new franchise a continuation of the old one, as is the case for both the Browns and Hornets, but I'd also argue that those situations shouldn't have occurred in the first place. 

 

I guess my stance could be boiled down to "leave the name/logos in the city you left, but you can keep the history, and any new team is able to claim it for marketing usage, without claiming to be a continuation."

[IndoNHLFans]

 

I think the Bruins third jersey is pretty legit

 

 

[Morgan33]

Minnesota Wild logo on a black background, doesn't look half bad.

[Kg54mvp]

47 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Minnesota Wild logo on a black background, doesn't look half bad.

Heard rumors that they wanted a black jersey but it didn't look good on the TV test.

 

They do have alot of black hats that look pretty good though.

[BadSeed84]

On 8/13/2019 at 8:58 PM, Roger Clemente said:

What NHL game do you play?

 

NHL 94 for Sega Genesis.

 

[AgentColon2]

20 minutes ago, EddieJ1984 said:

 

NHL 94 for Sega Genesis.