New Ottawa Senators Logo.... With Heart

Roger Clemente · November 26, 2005

Who cares that Toronto hasn't won since 1967. Ottawa hasn't won since 1927. The official adoption of the previous Ottawa Senators team history (ultimate proof: retiring number 8) means you also adopt their streak of not winning a Stanley Cup. (And no, being absent from the league for 60-odd years is no excuse. The other original six teams managed to survive, why couldn't the Senators?)
What do u mean it's not an excuse we're third right after the leafs for most cups in ottawa and if you ask me thats a pretty good excuse

:blink: What the :censored: does having 11 Stanley Cups have to do with being absent from the league for 60+ years?

If you actually read what I typed, you'd see that I said being out of the league for 60+ years is no excuse as to why the Senators have not won the Cup in 78 years. Every other Original Six era team survived the depression, there's no reason the Senators couldn't. (And any legitimate excuse you can find as to why they didn't survive will NOT make the Senators look better in any light by any means.)

Okay Sens fans, here are you're options:

1. Adopt the old Senators history "Browns-or-Alouettes-style", including their Stanley Cup victories and their current 78-year drought.

OR

2. Take nothing from the old Senators, not even their Stanley Cups and the fact that Toronto officially has 13 more Cups that you, but take solace in the fact their your drought is only a measly 13 years.

(The fact that the Senators have that banner in their locker room saying "11-Time Stanley Cup Champions" in the current font with the current logo, AND the fact that they've hung Stanley Cup banners for those years in banners resembling their red swoosh uniforms, AND the fact that they retired the number 8 for the old Senators superstar Frank Finnegan makes me believe they have gone for option one.)

You can't pick and choose which elements of their history that you want to make yourself look better against an opponent who, in any competition that has had any major significance as far as progress goes, just plain 0WNZ you! You want the 11 Cups? You're taking the 78-year drought with it! NO EXCEPTIONS!

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

sean69 · November 26, 2005

WORD!!!!

Neon_Matrix · November 26, 2005

Who cares that Toronto hasn't won since 1967. Ottawa hasn't won since 1927. The official adoption of the previous Ottawa Senators team history (ultimate proof: retiring number 8) means you also adopt their streak of not winning a Stanley Cup. (And no, being absent from the league for 60-odd years is no excuse. The other original six teams managed to survive, why couldn't the Senators?)
What do u mean it's not an excuse we're third right after the leafs for most cups in ottawa and if you ask me thats a pretty good excuse
What the :censored: does having 11 Stanley Cups have to do with being absent from the league for 60+ years?
If you actually read what I typed, you'd see that I said being out of the league for 60+ years is no excuse as to why the Senators have not won the Cup in 78 years. Every other Original Six era team survived the depression, there's no reason the Senators couldn't. (And any legitimate excuse you can find as to why they didn't survive will NOT make the Senators look better in any light by any means.)
Okay Sens fans, here are you're options:
1. Adopt the old Senators history "Browns-or-Alouettes-style", including their Stanley Cup victories and their current 78-year drought.
OR
2. Take nothing from the old Senators, not even their Stanley Cups and the fact that Toronto officially has 13 more Cups that you, but take solace in the fact their your drought is only a measly 13 years.
(The fact that the Senators have that banner in their locker room saying "11-Time Stanley Cup Champions" in the current font with the current logo, AND the fact that they've hung Stanley Cup banners for those years in banners resembling their red swoosh uniforms, AND the fact that they retired the number 8 for the old Senators superstar Frank Finnegan makes me believe they have gone for option one.)
You can't pick and choose which elements of their history that you want to make yourself look better against an opponent who, in any competition that has had any major significance as far as progress goes, just plain 0WNZ you! You want the 11 Cups? You're taking the 78-year drought with it! NO EXCEPTIONS!
--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

I dont think they are legally allowed to do what they are currently doing. The NEW Sens are a NEW franchise, bought from the NHL, one that was NEVER anything previously. How does this allow them to suddenly take the rights and history from a defunct one that they have no ties to other then borrowing the name from them?

In this case, the Washington Nationals can take all the records and such from the previous Washington MLB teams.

This just doesn't make any sense, otherwise wouldnt this entitle the Leafs to having 14 cup wins since a previous team in Toronto won one, and Montral would have a few more from the other Montreal teams?

I think the NHL has to do something about if a TEAM or CITY can take claim for previous teams victories and incorporate them into their own. In that case, Toronto has 14 cups, Ottawa 11, Detroit 11 or 12, and Montreal 3443543. I really don't think what Ottawa has done is truely leagal...

IceCap · November 26, 2005

I really don't think what Ottawa has done is truely leagal...

how strangely fitting for ottawa....

Shane Does Art · November 26, 2005

I really don't think what Ottawa has done is truely leagal...
how strangely fitting for ottawa....

WHat do you mean fitting, there's not much crime in ottawa compared to the toronto area ( no offence )

IceCap · November 26, 2005

I really don't think what Ottawa has done is truely leagal...
how strangely fitting for ottawa....
WHat do you mean fitting, there's not much crime in ottawa compared to the toronto area ( no offence )

it was jab at politicians, ottawa being the capital and all.

Neon_Matrix · November 26, 2005

I really don't think what Ottawa has done is truely leagal...
how strangely fitting for ottawa....
WHat do you mean fitting, there's not much crime in ottawa compared to the toronto area ( no offence )
it was jab at politicians, ottawa being the capital and all.

Toronto isnt too bad with crime and whatnot...now Peterborough on the other hand... and can't forget the damn Dirty 'Shwa...

CC97 · November 27, 2005

and can't forget the damn Dirty 'Shwa...

so very very dirty...

Neon_Matrix · November 27, 2005

and can't forget the damn Dirty 'Shwa...
so very very dirty...

And soon to be filled with alot of unemployed people... RIP GM Plant...

EagleFan344 · November 27, 2005

I hate to admit it, but Ottawa OWNS this year.

friarcanuck · November 27, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.

The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.

The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.

the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.

In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.

As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:

Montreal Canadiens 24

Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)

Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)

Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)

Neon_Matrix · November 27, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.
The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.
The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.
the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.
In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.
As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:
Montreal Canadiens 24
Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)
Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)
Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)

Your argument is kinda contridictory. You claim that what Ottawa is doing is bad, yet at the same time your accepting their stupid attempt at claiming a dead franchises accomplishments. Toronoto has every right to honor the St. Pats and Arena's because they are the same franchise, Detroit can claim an 11th cup because their previous incarnation of their team won one in Victoria. Ottawa, a completely NEW franchise cannot claim the previous success of a team that has the same name as them AND happens to be in the same city. If this is the case, Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta can claim the history of the teams who were previously there, BECAUSE they just happen to be in the same city. Whether a franchise has moved or was disband, the history moves or dies with that franchise. I will not accept the "11" Stanley Cups the Sens have because THEY have no won them, some other team did.

CC97 · November 27, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.
The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.
The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.
the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.
In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.
As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:
Montreal Canadiens 24
Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)
Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)
Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)
Your argument is kinda contridictory. You claim that what Ottawa is doing is bad, yet at the same time your accepting their stupid attempt at claiming a dead franchises accomplishments. Toronoto has every right to honor the St. Pats and Arena's because they are the same franchise, Detroit can claim an 11th cup because their previous incarnation of their team won one in Victoria. Ottawa, a completely NEW franchise cannot claim the previous success of a team that has the same name as them AND happens to be in the same city. If this is the case, Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta can claim the history of the teams who were previously there, BECAUSE they just happen to be in the same city. Whether a franchise has moved or was disband, the history moves or dies with that franchise. I will not accept the "11" Stanley Cups the Sens have because THEY have no won them, some other team did.

technically the leafs/st pats and arenas are two seperate franchises, same players though.

there's no way you can include the silver seven cups with the current senators, do the canucks recognise vancouver's cup? i don't see a toronto blueshirts cup banner hanging at the ACC, nor do i see montreal AAA banners at the bell centre.

FiddySicks · November 27, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.
The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.
The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.
the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.
In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.
As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:
Montreal Canadiens 24
Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)
Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)
Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)
Your argument is kinda contridictory. You claim that what Ottawa is doing is bad, yet at the same time your accepting their stupid attempt at claiming a dead franchises accomplishments. Toronoto has every right to honor the St. Pats and Arena's because they are the same franchise, Detroit can claim an 11th cup because their previous incarnation of their team won one in Victoria. Ottawa, a completely NEW franchise cannot claim the previous success of a team that has the same name as them AND happens to be in the same city. If this is the case, Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta can claim the history of the teams who were previously there, BECAUSE they just happen to be in the same city. Whether a franchise has moved or was disband, the history moves or dies with that franchise. I will not accept the "11" Stanley Cups the Sens have because THEY have no won them, some other team did.
technically the leafs/st pats and arenas are two seperate franchises, same players though.
there's no way you can include the silver seven cups with the current senators, do the canucks recognise vancouver's cup? i don't see a toronto blueshirts cup banner hanging at the ACC, nor do i see montreal AAA banners at the bell centre.

In that case they havent EVER won a Cup. theyve only been around since 1993. Even though they have the same name, they are a totally different franchise. They havent been a drought for a cup for 60 plus years, they have only been around for less than 15 years. The St. Louis Cardinals dont say tghat theyve been around since 1902 because of the St. Louis Browns

Neon_Matrix · November 27, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.
The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.
The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.
the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.
In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.
As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:
Montreal Canadiens 24
Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)
Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)
Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)
Your argument is kinda contridictory. You claim that what Ottawa is doing is bad, yet at the same time your accepting their stupid attempt at claiming a dead franchises accomplishments. Toronoto has every right to honor the St. Pats and Arena's because they are the same franchise, Detroit can claim an 11th cup because their previous incarnation of their team won one in Victoria. Ottawa, a completely NEW franchise cannot claim the previous success of a team that has the same name as them AND happens to be in the same city. If this is the case, Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta can claim the history of the teams who were previously there, BECAUSE they just happen to be in the same city. Whether a franchise has moved or was disband, the history moves or dies with that franchise. I will not accept the "11" Stanley Cups the Sens have because THEY have no won them, some other team did.
technically the leafs/st pats and arenas are two seperate franchises, same players though.
there's no way you can include the silver seven cups with the current senators, do the canucks recognise vancouver's cup? i don't see a toronto blueshirts cup banner hanging at the ACC, nor do i see montreal AAA banners at the bell centre.
In that case they havent EVER won a Cup. theyve only been around since 1993. Even though they have the same name, they are a totally different franchise. They havent been a drought for a cup for 60 plus years, they have only been around for less than 15 years. The St. Louis Cardinals dont say tghat theyve been around since 1902 because of the St. Louis Browns

EXACTLY! Why are the Sens so desperate to prove themselve to be better then the Leafs when no matter what they do they have only been aronud since 1993 and have had NO cup wins!

This is rediculous, on the Sens website, if you go to Team and click Club History, this is what it says under Year by Year:

"A year by year in depth history of the team beginning in 1901. Complete with player career highs, milestones reached by the team, player statistics, NHL statistics and much more."

This has to be corrected, this is absolutly disgusting they do this.

Suigi · November 28, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.
The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.
The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.
the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.
In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.
As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:
Montreal Canadiens 24
Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)
Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)
Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)
Your argument is kinda contridictory. You claim that what Ottawa is doing is bad, yet at the same time your accepting their stupid attempt at claiming a dead franchises accomplishments. Toronoto has every right to honor the St. Pats and Arena's because they are the same franchise, Detroit can claim an 11th cup because their previous incarnation of their team won one in Victoria. Ottawa, a completely NEW franchise cannot claim the previous success of a team that has the same name as them AND happens to be in the same city. If this is the case, Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta can claim the history of the teams who were previously there, BECAUSE they just happen to be in the same city. Whether a franchise has moved or was disband, the history moves or dies with that franchise. I will not accept the "11" Stanley Cups the Sens have because THEY have no won them, some other team did.

I doubt the Avalanche would want to be associated with the train-wreck-on-ice that was the Colorado Rockies.

Neon_Matrix · November 28, 2005

A teams history should not be scraped because they change names or move. The current Ottawa Senators taking the history of the original Senators/Silver Seven is a bad attempt at getting legitamacy in the NHL as an expansion team, while still 'honoring' Ottawa's hockey past.
The Browns history belongs to Baltimore, not the expansion team.
The current Washington Nationals has Montreal's history, not Minnesota's or Texas'.
the current Montreal Alouettes has the Baltimore Stallions history, not the old Alouettes/Concordes history.
In theory, if the Tampa Bay Lightning decide to move Winnipeg and win the next Stanley Cup, they have two. One from Tampa and one from Winnipeg. A teams history isn't destroyed because they moved.
As for the Stanley Cup debate, the total Stanley Cup list should be as follows:
Montreal Canadiens 24
Toronto Maple Leafs 13 (11 Maple Leafs, 1 St. Patricks, 1 Arenas)
Detroit Red Wings 11 (10 Red Wings, 1 Victoria Cougars)
Ottawa Senators 11 (7 Senators, 4 Silver Seven)
Your argument is kinda contridictory. You claim that what Ottawa is doing is bad, yet at the same time your accepting their stupid attempt at claiming a dead franchises accomplishments. Toronoto has every right to honor the St. Pats and Arena's because they are the same franchise, Detroit can claim an 11th cup because their previous incarnation of their team won one in Victoria. Ottawa, a completely NEW franchise cannot claim the previous success of a team that has the same name as them AND happens to be in the same city. If this is the case, Minnesota, Colorado and Atlanta can claim the history of the teams who were previously there, BECAUSE they just happen to be in the same city. Whether a franchise has moved or was disband, the history moves or dies with that franchise. I will not accept the "11" Stanley Cups the Sens have because THEY have no won them, some other team did.
I doubt the Avalanche would want to be associated with the train-wreck-on-ice that was the Colorado Rockies.

Technically they can't since they are the New Jersey Devils, but you get what I mean.

Roger Clemente · November 28, 2005

Question: If Winnipeg was awarded an expansion team which, odd are extremely likely, they'll name the Jets, will they still retire #25 for Thomas Steen or #9 for Bobby Hull?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

CC97 · November 28, 2005

Question: If Winnipeg was awarded an expansion team which, odd are extremely likely, they'll name the Jets, will they still retire #25 for Thomas Steen or #9 for Bobby Hull?
--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

yes they would

Neon_Matrix · November 28, 2005

Question: If Winnipeg was awarded an expansion team which, odd are extremely likely, they'll name the Jets, will they still retire #25 for Thomas Steen or #9 for Bobby Hull?
--Roger "Time?" Clemente.
yes they would

How are they allowed to do that? Those 2 players would have NOTHING to do with the current organization, so why would they honor 2 players who did not do anything for that team?

Sign In

New Ottawa Senators Logo.... With Heart

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Important Information