Habs?

[IceCap]

sorry for the double post, but i did a quick search of "stanley cup banners" on yahoo, and this image came up:

as you can see the leafs clearly have a banner celebrating the arenas 1917-1918 cup win, in effect stating their heratige starts with the arenas, who won the cup in their first season. i've been to the acc, and i can honestly tell you that the 1918 banner for the arenas is the earliest one. there is no banner for the toronro blueshirts cup win.

[CJR]

I've never seen any official recognition of the Blueshirts' Cup as tied to the Leafs, and I'm not saying there should be. I know I've seen it somewhere, probably on a fan site or something.

It does raise an interesting question, though. What's more important, a de facto link between the teams or a de jure link? As far as all the legalities go, no NHL franchise existed before 1917, which means that the current Montreal Canadiens cannot claim that 24th Cup. It also means that the Leafs can't claim the Arenas' Cup.

If we say that the "spirit" of the team is more important and that the NHA's Canadiens are the same as the NHL's, or that the Arenas are the same as the Leafs, then does that mean that the Red Wings can claim the Victoria Cougars' Cup?

I'm not going to try to get everyone to agree, my opinion is that it's probably best decided on a case-by-case basis. The Arenas may not legally be the same team as the Leafs but the Leafs wouldn't exist without them.

Its the same kind of debate as you get about whether San Jose is expansion or the reborn Cleveland Barons. Offically they're expansion, but they only exist because the Barons merged with the Stars.

Long story short, actual history isn't always the same as the celebrated history, nor should it be in some cases.

[IceCap]

If we say that the "spirit" of the team is more important and that the NHA's Canadiens are the same as the NHL's, or that the Arenas are the same as the Leafs, then does that mean that the Red Wings can claim the Victoria Cougars' Cup?

sure, if the red wings have lineage that dates back to the victoria cougars. if they do, then they have every right to claim the cougars cup win.

as for the whole "actual history vs spirirt of the team" debate, i think spirit wins out. lets face it. technically as you pointed out the montreal canadiens of today only excisted as an nhl team as of 1917. this however, makes little sence. the canadiens that came into the nhl in 1917 are the exact same canadiens that were formed in 1909 as a member of the canadian hockey association (the leauge that became the nha). in 2009 the canadiens are celebrating their 100th birthday. unlike the muddy history of the leafs, the habs hisyory is very clear cut. there is a direct line from the 1909 canadiens to the 2005 canadiens.

the leafs are slightly more difficult because of the arenas folding midway through the 1918-1919 seaon. however the arenas did infact reorganize under a different name, the st. pats, who changed their name to the maple leafs. as muddy as the history might be, the arenas team that formed during the nhl's first season are in fact the toronto maple leafs, in spirit at least. the way i see it the leafs of 2005 are the same team as the arenas of 1917. which means the leafs should celebrate their 100th year in 2017, which i think they will, seeing as the club recongnizes the arenas as the beggining of the team's history.

as for any fan sites that claim the blueshirts are the same team as the maple leafs, they're worng. plain and simple. they are probablly trying to make the claim so they can add an other cup to the leafs list. now i love the leafs as much as anyone, but i'm not going to claim they have cups that the team never actually won. i'm still waiting for cup # 14.

what's this about the san jose sharks and the cleveland barons? i never knew there was any connection there.

[Neon_Matrix]

If we say that the "spirit" of the team is more important and that the NHA's Canadiens are the same as the NHL's, or that the Arenas are the same as the Leafs, then does that mean that the Red Wings can claim the Victoria Cougars' Cup?

sure, if the red wings have lineage that dates back to the victoria cougars. if they do, then they have every right to claim the cougars cup win.

as for the whole "actual history vs spirirt of the team" debate, i think spirit wins out. lets face it. technically as you pointed out the montreal canadiens of today only excisted as an nhl team as of 1917. this however, makes little sence. the canadiens that came into the nhl in 1917 are the exact same canadiens that were formed in 1909 as a member of the canadian hockey association (the leauge that became the nha). in 2009 the canadiens are celebrating their 100th birthday. unlike the muddy history of the leafs, the habs hisyory is very clear cut. there is a direct line from the 1909 canadiens to the 2005 canadiens.

the leafs are slightly more difficult because of the arenas folding midway through the 1918-1919 seaon. however the arenas did infact reorganize under a different name, the st. pats, who changed their name to the maple leafs. as muddy as the history might be, the arenas team that formed during the nhl's first season are in fact the toronto maple leafs, in spirit at least. the way i see it the leafs of 2005 are the same team as the arenas of 1917. which means the leafs should celebrate their 100th year in 2017, which i think they will, seeing as the club recongnizes the arenas as the beggining of the team's history.

as for any fan sites that claim the blueshirts are the same team as the maple leafs, they're worng. plain and simple. they are probablly trying to make the claim so they can add an other cup to the leafs list. now i love the leafs as much as anyone, but i'm not going to claim they have cups that the team never actually won. i'm still waiting for cup # 14.

what's this about the san jose sharks and the cleveland barons? i never knew there was any connection there.

I see the Leafs as being formed in 1917, and the Sens 1993.

Ok, think of this. Would you count any wins the that the previous Boston baseball team had as Red Sox ones even though that franchise moved?

[IceCap]

If we say that the "spirit" of the team is more important and that the NHA's Canadiens are the same as the NHL's, or that the Arenas are the same as the Leafs, then does that mean that the Red Wings can claim the Victoria Cougars' Cup?

sure, if the red wings have lineage that dates back to the victoria cougars. if they do, then they have every right to claim the cougars cup win.

as for the whole "actual history vs spirirt of the team" debate, i think spirit wins out. lets face it. technically as you pointed out the montreal canadiens of today only excisted as an nhl team as of 1917. this however, makes little sence. the canadiens that came into the nhl in 1917 are the exact same canadiens that were formed in 1909 as a member of the canadian hockey association (the leauge that became the nha). in 2009 the canadiens are celebrating their 100th birthday. unlike the muddy history of the leafs, the habs hisyory is very clear cut. there is a direct line from the 1909 canadiens to the 2005 canadiens.

the leafs are slightly more difficult because of the arenas folding midway through the 1918-1919 seaon. however the arenas did infact reorganize under a different name, the st. pats, who changed their name to the maple leafs. as muddy as the history might be, the arenas team that formed during the nhl's first season are in fact the toronto maple leafs, in spirit at least. the way i see it the leafs of 2005 are the same team as the arenas of 1917. which means the leafs should celebrate their 100th year in 2017, which i think they will, seeing as the club recongnizes the arenas as the beggining of the team's history.

as for any fan sites that claim the blueshirts are the same team as the maple leafs, they're worng. plain and simple. they are probablly trying to make the claim so they can add an other cup to the leafs list. now i love the leafs as much as anyone, but i'm not going to claim they have cups that the team never actually won. i'm still waiting for cup # 14.

what's this about the san jose sharks and the cleveland barons? i never knew there was any connection there.

I see the Leafs as being formed in 1917, and the Sens 1993.

Ok, think of this. Would you count any wins the that the previous Boston baseball team had as Red Sox ones even though that franchise moved?

yeah, sens fans are weird like that. but already have a topic to bash them about it

[Neon_Matrix]

If we say that the "spirit" of the team is more important and that the NHA's Canadiens are the same as the NHL's, or that the Arenas are the same as the Leafs, then does that mean that the Red Wings can claim the Victoria Cougars' Cup?

sure, if the red wings have lineage that dates back to the victoria cougars. if they do, then they have every right to claim the cougars cup win.

as for the whole "actual history vs spirirt of the team" debate, i think spirit wins out. lets face it. technically as you pointed out the montreal canadiens of today only excisted as an nhl team as of 1917. this however, makes little sence. the canadiens that came into the nhl in 1917 are the exact same canadiens that were formed in 1909 as a member of the canadian hockey association (the leauge that became the nha). in 2009 the canadiens are celebrating their 100th birthday. unlike the muddy history of the leafs, the habs hisyory is very clear cut. there is a direct line from the 1909 canadiens to the 2005 canadiens.

the leafs are slightly more difficult because of the arenas folding midway through the 1918-1919 seaon. however the arenas did infact reorganize under a different name, the st. pats, who changed their name to the maple leafs. as muddy as the history might be, the arenas team that formed during the nhl's first season are in fact the toronto maple leafs, in spirit at least. the way i see it the leafs of 2005 are the same team as the arenas of 1917. which means the leafs should celebrate their 100th year in 2017, which i think they will, seeing as the club recongnizes the arenas as the beggining of the team's history.

as for any fan sites that claim the blueshirts are the same team as the maple leafs, they're worng. plain and simple. they are probablly trying to make the claim so they can add an other cup to the leafs list. now i love the leafs as much as anyone, but i'm not going to claim they have cups that the team never actually won. i'm still waiting for cup # 14.

what's this about the san jose sharks and the cleveland barons? i never knew there was any connection there.

I see the Leafs as being formed in 1917, and the Sens 1993.

Ok, think of this. Would you count any wins the that the previous Boston baseball team had as Red Sox ones even though that franchise moved?

yeah, sens fans are weird like that. but already have a topic to bash them about it

You can never have too many Sens bashing topics. I mean, my avatar spells my pure hatred for them and their muppet of a captain and grandpa of a goaltender...

[CC97]

If we say that the "spirit" of the team is more important and that the NHA's Canadiens are the same as the NHL's, or that the Arenas are the same as the Leafs, then does that mean that the Red Wings can claim the Victoria Cougars' Cup?

sure, if the red wings have lineage that dates back to the victoria cougars. if they do, then they have every right to claim the cougars cup win.

as for the whole "actual history vs spirirt of the team" debate, i think spirit wins out. lets face it. technically as you pointed out the montreal canadiens of today only excisted as an nhl team as of 1917. this however, makes little sence. the canadiens that came into the nhl in 1917 are the exact same canadiens that were formed in 1909 as a member of the canadian hockey association (the leauge that became the nha). in 2009 the canadiens are celebrating their 100th birthday. unlike the muddy history of the leafs, the habs hisyory is very clear cut. there is a direct line from the 1909 canadiens to the 2005 canadiens.

the leafs are slightly more difficult because of the arenas folding midway through the 1918-1919 seaon. however the arenas did infact reorganize under a different name, the st. pats, who changed their name to the maple leafs. as muddy as the history might be, the arenas team that formed during the nhl's first season are in fact the toronto maple leafs, in spirit at least. the way i see it the leafs of 2005 are the same team as the arenas of 1917. which means the leafs should celebrate their 100th year in 2017, which i think they will, seeing as the club recongnizes the arenas as the beggining of the team's history.

as for any fan sites that claim the blueshirts are the same team as the maple leafs, they're worng. plain and simple. they are probablly trying to make the claim so they can add an other cup to the leafs list. now i love the leafs as much as anyone, but i'm not going to claim they have cups that the team never actually won. i'm still waiting for cup # 14.

what's this about the san jose sharks and the cleveland barons? i never knew there was any connection there.

the arenas -> st pats link is the same as the blueshirts -> arenas link... same players, different franchises. the leafs just choose to only recognise the arenas and not the blueshirts.

you contradicted yourself big time in that post... either the maple leafs franchise has 12 cups or 14 cups, I ain't accepting this 13 crap.

[CJR]

what's this about the san jose sharks and the cleveland barons? i never knew there was any connection there.

I hate to post after Chris since I don't want his point to get lost so if you skipped straight to this post, go back up one, I'll wait.

Okay.

The expansion into San Jose was done very oddly. At the time, the Gunds owned the Minnesota North Stars. They had previously owned the California Golden Seals, who moved to become the Cleveland Barons, who merged with the North Stars.

The Gunds wanted to go back to the Bay Area but the NHL didn't want them to move the North Stars, so they granted the Gunds an expansion team. In order to avoid the required bidding process, they said that the Gunds were owed a team since they gave up the Barons franchise in the merger. This, combined with the fact that some Minnesota players went to San Jose and both teams took part in the expansion draft, leads a lot of people to think that the franchise in San Jose is the resurrected Barons franchise.

The Sharks are not the resurrected Barons legally, but every now and then someone brings it up 'cause it sure seems like they are. One of those "in spirit" things perhaps.