Why can't NHL give Jets their history back?

[BKIslandersFan]

For those who pay attention to NFL and or NBA, you know they were in similar situation where cities that lost a team got one back, Cleveland and Charlotte. Granted via expansion, rather than relocation. They both were given back their history from teams that resulted from relocation (Ravens and Pelicans, respectively).

Now why can't NHL do that? They clearly view this Jets as continuation of Thrashers. Is there a legal reason? I can't imagine that being the case.

It isn't like Atlanta Thrashers had much history to keep.

Click to read more...

 

[yukoner88]

NHL kinda has haven't they? They were able to use a jersey based on the original WHA in the heritage classic.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

NHL kinda has haven't they? They were able to use a jersey based on the original WHA in the heritage classic.

Every time they mention Jets history (2018 Jets) they use Thrashers history.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Because the Coyotes are still around and were playing Shane Doan thru last season,drafted by the Winnipeg Jets(initial team) in 1995 and played on the last initial Jets team in 1995-96 and the first Coyotes team in 1996-97.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

This has been the case with every relocated franchise as far as I can remember. Dallas, Carolina, Phoenix, Colorado, Calgary, New Jersey all retaining the history of their former cities as well.

 

[Megahab]

I think I'm in the minority but when Winnipeg got a team back, I was hoping they wouldn't use the Jets name just because it's not the same lineage.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Because the Coyotes are still around and were playing Shane Doan thru last season,drafted by the Winnipeg Jets(initial team) in 1995 and played on the last initial Jets team in 1995-96 and the first Coyotes team in 1996-97.

...So? Like I said, see Cleveland Browns and Charlotte Hornets.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[mouser]

For those who pay attention to NFL and or NBA, you know they were in similar situation where cities that lost a team got one back, Cleveland and Charlotte. Granted via expansion, rather than relocation. They both were given back their history from teams that resulted from relocation (Ravens and Pelicans, respectively).

Now why can't NHL do that? They clearly view this Jets as continuation of Thrashers. Is there a legal reason? I can't imagine that being the case.

It isn't like Atlanta Thrashers had much history to keep.

Because it was completely stupid for the NFL to pretend that the Browns didn't move to Baltimore.

Why didn't the Baltimore Ravens "reclaim" the Baltimore Colts history after moving there from Cleveland? Does it matter if the relocated team name is the same? Should the Ottawa Senators be able to reclaim the "history" of the previous version that left Ottawa many decades beforehand for St Louis?

It's Franchise history.

 

[Canucks1096]

That doesn't make any sense because the Jets team has nothing to do with the former Jets.

I guess Vancouver Canucks can have Stanley cup banners at Rogers Arena because Millionaires won the cup before. It's always been my dream to have the Canucks win the cup so I guess my dream came true

 

[Terry Yake]

because the current jets are the result of the thrashers relocating? while the coyotes are the result of the original jets relocating

its pretty simple. relocating doesn't erase a franchise's history

 

[The Panther]

I think the whole "franchise history"-of-moved-teams thing is a farce, perpetuated by prideful owners and (more recently) the Bettman-era "no-franchises-have-ever-failed!" philosophy.

Franchises are simply not important in any sense except the NHL's revenue stream, which is of zero relevance to the average fan. The real team is of course the then-contemporary players and the local fanbase that supports it.

Thus, the way I see it, the current "Winnipeg Jets" are the same as the 1980s/90s' Winnipeg Jets, which are the same as the 1970s' Winnipeg Jets. The Atlanta Thrashers (which failed miserably) are a completely different thing, having no significance whatsoever to Winnipeg.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Here's why.

You don't get to claim that 2011-12 is your inaugural season and your inaugural game, then go back after the fact and claim a bunch more history. Can't have it both ways.

If I had my way, the second these patches were released then everything the Thrashers did would have remained behind.

Again, see Charlotte Hornets.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think history can't be given back; it is what it is. If you're Keith Tkachuk, the Phoenix Coyotes are going to feel like your Winnipeg Jets. If you're a fan in Winnipeg, it's more of a disconnect to see Picasso Dog on the ice 1000 miles away and feel the same as you did. No more awkward pauses with people you don't know at parties followed by "See that game last night?" and the immediate bonding experience over the hometown team.

But if an altered version comes back to Winnipeg? Even if Shane Doan is still out there feeling like he's the last Jet, there's going to be a healing feeling for the fans. Different plane, but same respect for what was: be it players, moments, and shared experiences as a city.


...but I still hate Art Modell for ruining my life.

 

[bobholly39]

You can't have it both ways.

The only way to have Winnipeg Jets use "franchise history" would have been to severe the link when they moved. ie - Coyotes quit claiming past Winnipeg as part of their history. And before you claim this is preferable - if that had happened - every Winnipeg fan would have been outraged at the time.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

For those who pay attention to NFL and or NBA, you know they were in similar situation where cities that lost a team got one back, Cleveland and Charlotte. Granted via expansion, rather than relocation. They both were given back their history from teams that resulted from relocation (Ravens and Pelicans, respectively).

Now why can't NHL do that? They clearly view this Jets as continuation of Thrashers. Is there a legal reason? I can't imagine that being the case.

It isn't like Atlanta Thrashers had much history to keep.

isnt always the case in the NBA. The Timberwolves didnt get the Lakers Minneapolis history.

and your 'granted...' is the key point. The Browns and Hornets got their history back because they were expansion teams. The Jets 2.0 were a relocation, the franchise's history is what it is.

If Jets 2.0 were an expansion team, no doubt they'd have the 1.0 history.

and ftr, the Hornets went 10 years as the Bobcats when Charlotte got their expansion team before getting the Hornets name back in 2014

 

[Eisen]

I think the whole "franchise history"-of-moved-teams thing is a farce, perpetuated by prideful owners and (more recently) the Bettman-era "no-franchises-have-ever-failed!" philosophy.

Franchises are simply not important in any sense except the NHL's revenue stream, which is of zero relevance to the average fan. The real team is of course the then-contemporary players and the local fanbase that supports it.

Thus, the way I see it, the current "Winnipeg Jets" are the same as the 1980s/90s' Winnipeg Jets, which are the same as the 1970s' Winnipeg Jets. The Atlanta Thrashers (which failed miserably) are a completely different thing, having no significance whatsoever to Winnipeg.

I agree with that, except for the little tidbit about Atlanta. The way I see it, they were given little chance to succeed. The results are the same, though.

 

[Doctor No]

And before you claim this is preferable - if that had happened - every Winnipeg fan would have been outraged at the time.

At the time the Seattle Supersonics were stolen and dropped in Oklahoma, I wanted the history of the Sonics to stay with the team in Seattle. I still want this today.

Every single time I see ESPN tweet some nonsense like "Russell Westbrook is the first OKC player since Gary Payton to do so-and-so", I let them hear it. Gary Payton never played for your dumbass team, and I hope that Seattle gets an expansion team and wins a title before you ever do.

Rant over.

 

[Albatros]

I think I'm in the minority but when Winnipeg got a team back, I was hoping they wouldn't use the Jets name just because it's not the same lineage.

Maybe in theory, but in reality it would either have been the Winnipeg Thrashers like Calgary, or something stupid like the Winnipeg Wild similar to Minnesota.

 

[Whalers Fan]

Even if they "officially" got their history back, it would still be a fake history, since this Winnipeg franchise is not the same as the previous one which still exists in Phoenix. I don't think many NFL fans take the whole "Cleveland Browns" history thing seriously, even though the NFL record books say the expansion team and the original team are the same franchise. To me, and probably most fans outside of Cleveland, the original Browns are now playing in Baltimore and have won two Super Bowls. It was the same ownership, front office and players from Cleveland that won that first Ravens Super Bowl. Meanwhile, the "new" Cleveland Browns just went 0-16 and are one of the worst franchises in sports.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[Killion]

At the time the Seattle Supersonics were stolen and dropped in Oklahoma, I wanted the history of the Sonics to stay with the team in Seattle. I still want this today.

Every single time I see ESPN tweet some nonsense like "Russell Westbrook is the first OKC player since Gary Payton to do so-and-so", I let them hear it. Gary Payton never played for your dumbass team, and I hope that Seattle gets an expansion team and wins a title before you ever do.

Rant over.

.... I wouldnt fret, try as the Leagues might try to pack up the history of a Relocated or even Contracted/Defunct team, that that history goes with, the history lives on in the hearts & minds, the memories of the fans & players, coaches & executives, everyone & everything they touched. The good people of Cleveland could have cared less about the Seals, Calgary the Flames history in Atlanta even though the name itself was retained, no one in Jersey cared about the Rockies & certainly the people in Denver didnt have any affinity, no relationship with the former KC Scouts nor towards the Nordiques & that franchises history through the WHA & NHL . Beyond a small display tucked away in a dark corner of Gila River Arena in Glendale Arizona, no interest in what happened in Winnipeg between 1972 & 1996. And why in any & all cases should there be?

Totally irrelevant to the fans in the clubs new home town. The teams there, its their turn to dream, to watch things unfold, creating their own memories. When a team moves, no one can take that away from a city, region. Its not exportable. Completely intangible. The Leagues dont own it, we the people do. These leagues, the teams themselves, many have even botched the closing of their historical homes, buildings in opening new ones just blocks or even a few miles away. Toronto for example. Memories & dreams... they can sometimes die hard, die hard with a vengeance as was the case for the people of Quebec when the Avalanche won the Cup. Simply put, clubs history is not portable. Not from city-city, building-building within a city...

... as for the Jets, theyve already reclaimed their history, happened naturally... they physically as well hung banners honoring their WHA years etc. Jets Hall of Fame & so on. And good for them, absolutely applaud that. If it was me I wouldnt have even asked the league nor the Coyotes for permission. Indeed, Arizona would Im sure show all kinds of class & have zero problem with Winnipeg doing that, honoring Jets players & team accomplishments circa 1979 through 96. What the fans in Arizona care about is their history, from 1996-2018 as should be the case. So ya. Just do it. You get a team back, Ottawa, wherever, go for it. Let the League try & blow those candles out, crash the party. Who the Hell do they think they are? The bald faced arrogance, overarching.... best stop before I go full rant...

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I agree that the Winnipeg Jets are the Winnipeg hockey team and not the Atlanta Thrashers. The Coyotes are not the Jets and it would be pretty weird to expect Atlanta fans to have any view (other than bitterness) toward the new Jets or Winnipeg fans to feel any fondness toward the Coyotes. There have always been a small set of hardcore fans who 'followed' teams when they moved - i.e. people who love the organization itself rather than the fact it's the pro club in their city - but it's certainly a small enough minority to discount it.

As an example, you rarely if ever see Montreal Expos gear at Nats games and I'm not aware of any contingent of former Expos fans among Nats fans. At the same time it's quite common to see Washington Senators gear at Nats games - and in fact the Nats sell it themselves - even though of course the 1st Senators are now the Twins and the 2nd Senators incarnation the Texas Rangers. Meanwhile I highly doubt many in Minnesota or Texas give a damn about the Washington roots of their team.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Jets 2.0 do celebrate the history of Jets 1.0 anyways.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Nobody "owns" history. Organizations may have their own "official" histories, it's just the story they want to present to the public. You don't have to buy it.

Both Jets teams and both Browns teams are part of the same histories of their respective home towns, regardless of how each league officially designates them. Difference is Winnipeg fans seem to accept reality.