Not the Minnesota Wild?

[Lee.]

If any restaurant website needed a full menu with descriptions, it's this.

I mean sure, it ain't no Pepe Le Pow, but still...

[The_Admiral]

My dad used to go to Paul Bunyan's on summer vacations way up north. There was a sign that said "no food leaves unless it's under your belt," so he and his cousin smuggled donuts down their pants.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

I remember when they were going to announce the team name (back around 1999). I recall the list and was praying for "Northern Lights". I remember saying ANYTHING but "Wild" or "Freeze".

The "Wild" name sucks as much now as it did back then.

Saying all that at least they got one of the coolest logos ever. (I'm talking about the large bear head on the white jersey, NOT the crappy ringed one on the Christmas red jersey).

[illwauk]

That said, there wasn't any need to not re-use the North Stars name; Dallas could remain the Stars; again, two similar yet not identical names like these in a 30-team league could fly.

Exactly... if the Reds and Red Sox have co-existed all this time (or even the Red Sox and White Sox in the same league) without any problems, why should there be any problems with Stars and North Stars.

[lich0037]

These logos were created for this article only. They were NOT created back in the late 1990?s for the team. They were created by local Minneapolis design agency Shinebox.

I applaud their creativity and for thinking out of the ?box.? But, I think we all can agree that these jerseys would never fly in the NHL. They remind me of the minors.

[IceCap]

That said, there wasn't any need to not re-use the North Stars name; Dallas could remain the Stars; again, two similar yet not identical names like these in a 30-team league could fly.

Exactly... if the Reds and Red Sox have co-existed all this time (or even the Red Sox and White Sox in the same league) without any problems, why should there be any problems with Stars and North Stars.

Different sports and, more importantly, different sets of circumstances.

[tubby34]

That said, there wasn't any need to not re-use the North Stars name; Dallas could remain the Stars; again, two similar yet not identical names like these in a 30-team league could fly.

Exactly... if the Reds and Red Sox have co-existed all this time (or even the Red Sox and White Sox in the same league) without any problems, why should there be any problems with Stars and North Stars.

Different sports and, more importantly, different sets of circumstances.

I wish the league would have thought ahead and decided to make the Stars leave the name behind---

Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns

New York Yankees and Baltimore Orioles

Minnesota Twins/Texas Rangers and Washington Senators (To An Extent)

Milwaukee Brewers and the St. Louis Browns

Are good examples of starting new and leaving the old idenity behind for another franchise to reclaim and resurrect their heritage.

[illwauk]

That said, there wasn't any need to not re-use the North Stars name; Dallas could remain the Stars; again, two similar yet not identical names like these in a 30-team league could fly.

Exactly... if the Reds and Red Sox have co-existed all this time (or even the Red Sox and White Sox in the same league) without any problems, why should there be any problems with Stars and North Stars.

Different sports and, more importantly, different sets of circumstances.

Seeing as how the Reds name is derived from Red Stockings which they were using long before Boston, or how the original Chicago White Stockings are the Cubs and not the White Sox, I'd say that baseball has it even more convoluted.

I wish the league would have thought ahead and decided to make the Stars leave the name behind---

Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns

New York Yankees and Baltimore Orioles

Minnesota Twins/Texas Rangers and Washington Senators (To An Extent)

Milwaukee Brewers and the St. Louis Browns

Are good examples of starting new and leaving the old idenity behind for another franchise to reclaim and resurrect their heritage.

If you ask me, this is exactly how it should be. Not just for the sake of the fans who get burned by greedy ownership, but so the fans in the next city aren't bombarded with stuff they care nothing about. Does anyone in Atlanta really give a damn about the Braves 1957 World Series win?

[IceCap]

That said, there wasn't any need to not re-use the North Stars name; Dallas could remain the Stars; again, two similar yet not identical names like these in a 30-team league could fly.

Exactly... if the Reds and Red Sox have co-existed all this time (or even the Red Sox and White Sox in the same league) without any problems, why should there be any problems with Stars and North Stars.

Different sports and, more importantly, different sets of circumstances.

Seeing as how the Reds name is derived from Red Stockings which they were using long before Boston, or how the original Chicago White Stockings are the Cubs and not the White Sox, I'd say that baseball has it even more convoluted.

That's just it though, the similar names among baseball teams would never happen if these teams were formed today. They all came about during a time when people thought of team nicknames and team branding in very different terms then we do today. They only continue to exist out of tradition. Trust me, you won't see MLB expansion teams with the name "Whites" or "Blue Sox."

With the Stars, they moved to Dallas in 1993 and the Wild began play in 2000, with the team being granted in the late 90s. This all happened well beyond the point that near-identical team names stopped being acceptable. Not only that, but the Stars have been very specific in maintaining the fact that their team is a continuation of the North Stars.

Heck, the Dallas Stars logo is almost the same logo the team used during their last few seasons in Minnesota. The use of similar colours and logos by the Dallas Stars has made it clear that the team is embracing their history as the North Stars.

I wish the league would have thought ahead and decided to make the Stars leave the name behind---

Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns

New York Yankees and Baltimore Orioles

Minnesota Twins/Texas Rangers and Washington Senators (To An Extent)

Milwaukee Brewers and the St. Louis Browns

Are good examples of starting new and leaving the old idenity behind for another franchise to reclaim and resurrect their heritage.

If you ask me, this is exactly how it should be. Not just for the sake of the fans who get burned by greedy ownership, but so the fans in the next city aren't bombarded with stuff they care nothing about. Does anyone in Atlanta really give a damn about the Braves 1957 World Series win?

Sorry, I disagree. A team's identity, its history, its legacy belongs to the legal entity that is the team. These things, ultimately, do not belong to the fans or community.

Furthermore continuation has to be taken into account. Regardless of what the NFL says on the matter, the 1996-97 Baltimore Ravens were the same team as the 1995-1996 Cleveland Browns.

No, I think most Atlanta Braves fans don't care about the team's 1957 World Series win, but that win never the less belongs to the team, not the city of Milwaukee.

[Axis_of_Weasel]

white bears???

[illwauk]

Heck, the Dallas Stars logo is almost the same logo the team used during their last few seasons in Minnesota. The use of similar colours and logos by the Dallas Stars has made it clear that the team is embracing their history as the North Stars.

The re-brand from the North Stars final two seasons in Minnesota was created specifically to disassociate themselves with anything "northern." The Dallas Stars have never worn anything similar to the classic North Stars identity that stayed more/less the same for 23 the years prior. Even the shades of green and gold they've been wearing in Dallas are distinctively different from what they used in Minnesota.

Sorry, I disagree. A team's identity, its history, its legacy belongs to the legal entity that is the team. These things, ultimately, do not belong to the fans or community.

Furthermore continuation has to be taken into account. Regardless of what the NFL says on the matter, the 1996-97 Baltimore Ravens were the same team as the 1995-1996 Cleveland Browns.

No, I think most Atlanta Braves fans don't care about the team's 1957 World Series win, but that win never the less belongs to the team, not the city of Milwaukee.

I think you're confusing brand history with legacy. With as often as these teams change players, coaches, administrators and even owners, the only thing that really ties it all together at the end of the day is the their presence in the community. Call me an idealist, but you can't buy a legacy and Bill Goldsworthy was never a Dallas Star. Besides, doesn't the league itself own the team brands which are then leased out the owners who actually just own the rights to operate a franchise in that market?

[SCL]

Heck, the Dallas Stars logo is almost the same logo the team used during their last few seasons in Minnesota. The use of similar colours and logos by the Dallas Stars has made it clear that the team is embracing their history as the North Stars.

Do you know why the logo change was made? Read up on the history of the Northstars and Norm Green. Think Seattle Sonics and Clay Bennett only worse when you consider that Green took the name and kept it, when he knew fully well hockey would return to Minnesota. I forgive you for your ignorance because you need to do some more studying and become informed before throwing out such strong opinions.

[Viper]

The "Minnesota Freeze" nickname was eventually taken after all... by the local Aussie-rules football team.

"Blue Ox" was likely doomed from the get-go, seeing that the NHL already had the Blues, Blue Jackets and "Broadway Blueshirts".

[spyboy1]

Those names, including "Wild", were all horrible, horrible names. Voyageurs being the worst of the bunch. White Bears was the only one of the lot I could have lived with, but what really, really sucked was that they did not want to have a name any other team already had, disqualifying the best possible name, Lumberjacks, which was in use at the time by the Cleveland IHL team at the time.

Now we're stuck with "Wild" and the Lumberjacks are no more. What a wasted opportunity that was.

Now, that having been said, they certainly hit a homerun with the Wild logo. Yes, way too many people cannot let the red and green Christmas association go, but the logo is outstanding.

One reason I think they went with the ambiguous "Wild" name is that is allows them to completely redo the identity package when sales of the current logo slump below a certain point. Since they have not committed to a name like "Bears" or "Hawks", Wild allows them to create a bear logo. When sales of merch need a jumpstart, they can create a cougar or falcon logo, which can both be considered to fit the name "Wild". When Wild 2.0 slows in 10-15 years, then Wild 3.0 begins with a new bobcat or wolf logo, always ensuring things will never get stale.

[OnWis97]

That said, there wasn't any need to not re-use the North Stars name; Dallas could remain the Stars; again, two similar yet not identical names like these in a 30-team league could fly.

Exactly... if the Reds and Red Sox have co-existed all this time (or even the Red Sox and White Sox in the same league) without any problems, why should there be any problems with Stars and North Stars.

Different sports and, more importantly, different sets of circumstances.

I wish the league would have thought ahead and decided to make the Stars leave the name behind---

Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland Browns

New York Yankees and Baltimore Orioles

Minnesota Twins/Texas Rangers and Washington Senators (To An Extent)

Milwaukee Brewers and the St. Louis Browns

Are good examples of starting new and leaving the old idenity behind for another franchise to reclaim and resurrect their heritage.

I am OK with all of these except for Browns/Ravens. I think the "old" Brewers and Orioles were major league for about a couple of years in the pre-world series era. If teams wish to change their name and a new franchise comes into the old city for the name, I am OK with it. However, the histories should stick with the franchises. What they did in the case of the Ravens is simply phony revisionist history and it drives me nuts. They "gave" the history of one team to another team (thereby leaving it on hold for several years). Is one to believe that the "expansion" Ravens started with a roster made up primarily of Cleveland Browns from the year before, while the Browns took a few years off? The original Browns franchise should be recognized as with the Baltimore franchise, while this new Browns franchise should be recognized by to 2000 (or whenever they started).

As a former North Stars fan, I am intrigued by the idea of Dallas having taken a new name and us getting the North Stars. But even if that had happened, Neal Broten, Dino Ciccerelli, etc. never played for "this" North Stars franchise...they played for one that now resides in Dallas.

If a team relocates and wishes to change identity

[-kj]

The "Minnesota Freeze" nickname was eventually taken after all... by the local Aussie-rules football team.

I'm pretty sure I had a hand in naming that team well before it was actually a team on the field. (Still disappointed in the choice of logo, though.) I don't think I picked it up from the Wild's list of rejected names, but maybe it got planted subconsciously.

"Blue Ox" was likely doomed from the get-go, seeing that the NHL already had the Blues, Blue Jackets and "Broadway Blueshirts".

Don't forget the RHI Minnesota Blue Ox, who were always doomed from the get-go.

[IceCap]

The re-brand from the North Stars final two seasons in Minnesota was created specifically to disassociate themselves with anything "northern." The Dallas Stars have never worn anything similar to the classic North Stars identity that stayed more/less the same for 23 the years prior. Even the shades of green and gold they've been wearing in Dallas are distinctively different from what they used in Minnesota.

Even if look at the current logo as a distinctly Dallas-era design then the connection is still there. The design of the star is pretty similar to the one used on the North Stars' N LOGO. The shades of green and gold are different, but it's still green and gold. The Wild have carved out a completely unique niche for themselves by adding red to the green/gold motif, and I think it would be a shame to lose that just so they can make-believe they're the same team as a team that's actually still in the league.

Back to my main point though. Of all the teams to relocate in NHL history no team, save the Flames, has made more of an effort to connect their current identity to their past identity. Similar colours, similar logo elements, the near-exact name. They even have some North Stars banners hanging in Dallas if I remember correctly.

Again, as I feel it's important to the discussion, the similar names in baseball are only accepted because they're holdovers when similar names weren't a problem. The whole Minnesota/Dallas/Stars/Wild thing has taken place way past that period in team branding. The "well baseball does it" argument really doesn't hold up because the situation in baseball is so radically different then what you're proposing.

Sorry, I disagree. A team's identity, its history, its legacy belongs to the legal entity that is the team. These things, ultimately, do not belong to the fans or community.

Furthermore continuation has to be taken into account. Regardless of what the NFL says on the matter, the 1996-97 Baltimore Ravens were the same team as the 1995-1996 Cleveland Browns.

No, I think most Atlanta Braves fans don't care about the team's 1957 World Series win, but that win never the less belongs to the team, not the city of Milwaukee.

I think you're confusing brand history with legacy.

No, I'm not. Legacy is dependent on what happens on the field/ice. Again, the players who played on the 1996-97 Baltimore Ravens were, for the most part, players who played on the 1995-96 Cleveland Browns. The NFL's historical gymnastics not withstanding the 1995-96 Browns, who are the historic Browns, became the Baltimore Ravens.

With as often as these teams change players, coaches, administrators and even owners, the only thing that really ties it all together at the end of the day is the their presence in the community. Call me an idealist, but you can't buy a legacy and Bill Goldsworthy was never a Dallas Star.

I hate to call someone an idealist because it implies that being an idealist is a bad thing *shrug* We just disagree.

At the end of the day I think fans are just along for the ride. Bill Goldsworthy was never a Dallas Star, but the North Stars team he played on became the Dallas Stars. Everything he did while playing for the North Stars belongs to that franchise, which happens to be in Dallas now, not the fans in the Twin Cities.

For the record I'm only in favour of the Winnipeg Jets coming back if it's the Coyotes who move back. If it's any other team, or an expansion team, I would like to see them go with a new name.

Besides, doesn't the league itself own the team brands which are then leased out the owners who actually just own the rights to operate a franchise in that market?

I don't think so. The league, when it comes right down to it, is just the collection of teams themselves.

I mean the people suing the Redskins over their trademarks being racist aren't suing the NFL. They're suing the team. When the Jaguars released their first logo set the car company of the same name threatened legal action against the team, not the league.

Heck, the Dallas Stars logo is almost the same logo the team used during their last few seasons in Minnesota. The use of similar colours and logos by the Dallas Stars has made it clear that the team is embracing their history as the North Stars.

Do you know why the logo change was made? Read up on the history of the Northstars and Norm Green. Think Seattle Sonics and Clay Bennett only worse when you consider that Green took the name and kept it, when he knew fully well hockey would return to Minnesota. I forgive you for your ignorance because you need to do some more studying and become informed before throwing out such strong opinions.

A little piece of advice sparky; When I say something about a former favourite team of yours that you disagree with I'm not insulting you personally. Try not to take it as such.

Anyhow the fact remains that the team that played as the Minnesota North Stars that played from 1967 to 1993 moved to Dallas. Re-branding the Wild as the North Stars would be entirely disingenuous, considering that the real North Stars are still active in the league with a similar name and colour scheme.

[Hat Boy]

When Wild 2.0 slows in 10-15 years, then Wild 3.0 begins with a new bobcat or wolf logo, always ensuring things will never get stale.

Wild 3.0 will be a return to the bear logo. By then, it will be retro-chic.

[Morgan33]

The re-brand from the North Stars final two seasons in Minnesota was created specifically to disassociate themselves with anything "northern." The Dallas Stars have never worn anything similar to the classic North Stars identity that stayed more/less the same for 23 the years prior. Even the shades of green and gold they've been wearing in Dallas are distinctively different from what they used in Minnesota.

I love it when people make up facts to support some idealistic agenda. Unfortunatly you are wrong about all the above statements. First of all the Logo was NOT created specifically to eliminate anything "North" because they planned to move. Nothing could be further from the truth. The logo was in fact designed by Bill Mack who was a resident of Minnesota as well as a friend of Lou Nanne. The only payment he recieved for designing it was a pair of Minnesota North Stars season tickets. The idea that it was designed for Dallas before the move holds no water. Also If you put your bias aside and actually looked at the logo you would notice that Star does contain a reference to "North." The italicization of the Star makes it point a specific direction, guess what direction that is? North! Its actually alot more clever than people give credit, though it was ruined when the word "Dallas" was added to the top.

You are also wrong about the colours. During the initial redesign in Minnesota the only colour that changed was the yellow becoming metallic gold. The shade of Kelly Green remained the same and did so for the first year in Dallas as well. It was darkened to forest green in 1994 which has stayed the same since.

Do you know why the logo change was made? Read up on the history of the Northstars and Norm Green. Think Seattle Sonics and Clay Bennett only worse when you consider that Green took the name and kept it, when he knew fully well hockey would return to Minnesota. I forgive you for your ignorance because you need to do some more studying and become informed before throwing out such strong opinions.

The above applies to you as well. If you doubt anything I've said check out the book "Minnesota North Stars Memories with Lou Nanne" Oh and Ice Cap, your arguements are on point. At last we agree on something.

[Buster]

I like the Northern Lights the best out of the choices, but they made the right choice.

The worst was "White Bears" REALLY? WHITE BEARS? We do have a name for white bears.