More Franchise Altering Cup Run? 1991 North Stars or 1993/95 Quebec Nordiques?

[WingsFan95]

I find it very sim-like to have two instances in a short period of endangered teams nearly winning a Cup (I know people will argue against 95 Nords more) and moving shortly afterwards.

On the other side of the coin you have the inevitability factor and how things went down. Both teams were financially struggling and in a small market where the owner was actively looking to move/sell. How much does a title move the needle? Even if it does buy time, how much?

Well first of all, the 91 North Stars didn't lose that many players to San Jose in case some feel that's a factor and they actually had a decent sequel in 92 where they narrowly lost a game 6 at home up 3-2 against Detroit. Funny enough Russ Courtnall had his best season at age 27 in 93 for Minnesota. The Nords meanwhile were upset by the Rangers in the opening round but Games 3-4 were razor close and arguably decided the series. Could they get past New Jersey? Even more could they beat Detroit in the Final? So this is why I present the (in my opinion) possibly most talented and capable Nords team in 1993. They lost to the eventual champs in the first round after winning the first game in OT. I can't help but thinking especially given it's Montreal they absolutely win it all assuming the Islanders still take out the juggernaut Pens. And considering Sundin was only shipped after the disappointing 94 campaign I'm inclined to believe this is the bigger deal and may extend the team until at least 1997 if not to this day if they maintain contention.

The precedent we haven't seen set in the modern era is a Cup winning team moving so it does make you wonder although I think Minnesota is the closest to an inevitability. It's also amazing to think with the closeness of the 95 referendum in Canada on Quebec sovereignty if the Nords winning and again beating the Habs to do it moves that 0.5% needle any bit for nationalistic pride.

So yeah reading this you may only see the Nords winning but the big caveat is it's still Quebec City and the dollar is horrific while Minnesota is still America and the owner ended up selling the team not long after the move so an Oilers type 1998 situation is entirely plausible.

Click to read more...

 

[McGarnagle]

Minnesota is more likely to find a way to stay with a cup IMO. Norm Green would be getting more cash flow out of it, and possibly could've sold the franchise for more value to local interests and if he really wanted to go south buy into one of the expansion groups. The state of Minnesota may have been more pliable to build a new publicly funded arena as well if they have a cup winner.

Quebec, the cup maybe buys them another year. But economics of the time and Aubut's business failures would never sustain NHL hockey in the market. I do think cups in 93/95 would have massively increased the odds of them getting a team back later in the 2000s though.

But here's the real franchise altering cup run: even though there's no guarantee that Quebec makes it past 96 or 97 if they win a cup, if they beat the rangers and New Jersey in 95, it's the Devils who would be in Nashville.

 

[Fenway]

The 1991 North Stars did see a bump in attendance the following season but not enough for owner Norm Green.

The Met Center was a generic no frills arena

Met Center - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NORTH STARS’ MOVE TO DALLAS FINALIZED

The Minnesota North Stars, unable to turn a profit in eight years and facing dwindling community support, will play in Dallas beginning next season. North Stars owner Norman Green and the Dallas Ci…

www.chicagotribune.com

The 1995 Nords are way more complicated. Attendance was not a problem but the Canadian dollar was very weak in the mid 90's and that strangled the team's bottom line.

Truth is the Canadiens were in financial trouble as well as building the new Centre Molson became far more expensive than ownership expected. What people forget is the Nords had solid TV ratings in Montreal and as noted above that pesky referendum issue.

IF the Nords had won the Cup in 1995 I have no idea how things would have played out.

 

[WingsFan95]

There's something to be said about moving a Champion though ain't there? You don't exactly see it in other sports either. The Seattle SuperSonics and Cleveland Browns are actually the only examples and in both cases the relocation happened decades after. That's the big difference between winning it all and "just" making the Final (Sonics were 12 years removed from a Final and a period of contention).

It's also not unheard of for an outside group to end up keeping the team as opposed to relocation if there is an established revenue stream with potential growth. The exchange rate actually got worse at the turn of the century so the team has to survive into 2004. If they actually won both 93 & 95 I think you can concretely figure out another way and they exist to this day. If they only win in 93 and then start losing players because they can't afford them then given the league situation they might relocate in the 99-01 period to somewhere that's not Denver. There's also the very real Ottawa question. In the 95-98 era with the Whale-Nords-Jets moves the Senators largely survived due to being fresh with a new stadium and the cost effectiveness at the time. However we've seen with the Thrashers most recently how quickly things can sour. So it's entirely possible with a much more successful Nords team it's the Sens who end up relocating.

Of course the other what if with the Nords is that bizarre Whalers upset in 1986.

 

[Crosby2010]

It was for different reasons, but the Brooklyn Dodgers won the World Series in 1955, played in it in 1956 and then moved after the 1957 season when they missed the playoffs. Most of it had to do with a new stadium to replaced the aging Ebbets Field, but that is an example of a legendary team that had JUST finally got over the hump and beat the Yankees only to move out west. Ditto the Giants moving from Harlem to San Fran the same time. Won the World Series in 1954, weren't very good from 1955-'57 and moved. Attendance was thought to be the problem though, although it was happening league wide with TV becoming another option to watch games.

That being said, I think a competitive team in Minnesota makes all the difference in the world. As for Quebec, let's say they win the Cup in 1995. There is no way they are moving the team. They would definitely have a lot of opportunity to bide their time and such when it came to finances. That Canadian dollar was bad in the 1990s though, worse than today. But the Canadian economy was good back then, hence the attendance figures being decent in Quebec. If Ottawa and Calgary and Edmonton survived during this time frame with no chance of winning the Cup (at least in Alberta) and Ottawa continually getting thumped by the Leafs in the playoffs, then why doesn't a team that would have been routinely considered a Cup contender not be able to make it, at least until 2004? Bad owner and all.

 

[MadLuke]

It is hard to say for the Nordiques, attitude around state helping changed fast during the 90s.

Salary just exploded, so it was a bit taboo to help teams significantly (the Molson center was "100%" privately funded during that era, which feel like it would be rare later on), rewatching Jerry McGuire now feel like a time capsule, people now are more angry about a CEO getting 50m one time bonus on a company that gained 30 billions under their management than an athlete making that during their career playing on the second line.

Maybe they stay, but very maybe not, they need to survive until dollar rebound and state help become normal

 

[Ishdul]

There's something to be said about moving a Champion though ain't there? You don't exactly see it in other sports either. The Seattle SuperSonics and Cleveland Browns are actually the only examples and in both cases the relocation happened decades after. That's the big difference between winning it all and "just" making the Final (Sonics were 12 years removed from a Final and a period of contention).

It's also not unheard of for an outside group to end up keeping the team as opposed to relocation if there is an established revenue stream with potential growth. The exchange rate actually got worse at the turn of the century so the team has to survive into 2004. If they actually won both 93 & 95 I think you can concretely figure out another way and they exist to this day. If they only win in 93 and then start losing players because they can't afford them then given the league situation they might relocate in the 99-01 period to somewhere that's not Denver. There's also the very real Ottawa question. In the 95-98 era with the Whale-Nords-Jets moves the Senators largely survived due to being fresh with a new stadium and the cost effectiveness at the time. However we've seen with the Thrashers most recently how quickly things can sour. So it's entirely possible with a much more successful Nords team it's the Sens who end up relocating.

Of course the other what if with the Nords is that bizarre Whalers upset in 1986.

The Rams and Raiders are championship winning teams that have both moved recently. In the Rams case it was 16 years after a Superbowl.

The Oakland A's have also indicated that they're going to move to Vegas although that's apparently looking like less of a done deal.

 

[WingsFan95]

The Rams and Raiders are championship winning teams that have both moved recently. In the Rams case it was 16 years after a Superbowl.

The Oakland A's have also indicated that they're going to move to Vegas although that's apparently looking like less of a done deal.

The question is how long the widow is afterwards. I completely forgot about the Raiders LA interlude, it was actually worse when they moved just 6 years after the 76 title, then 12 years after the 93 win.

I think at least 5-7 years seems appropriate which if the Nords won in 95 it would give them until 00-02 period.

It was for different reasons, but the Brooklyn Dodgers won the World Series in 1955, played in it in 1956 and then moved after the 1957 season when they missed the playoffs. Most of it had to do with a new stadium to replaced the aging Ebbets Field, but that is an example of a legendary team that had JUST finally got over the hump and beat the Yankees only to move out west. Ditto the Giants moving from Harlem to San Fran the same time. Won the World Series in 1954, weren't very good from 1955-'57 and moved. Attendance was thought to be the problem though, although it was happening league wide with TV becoming another option to watch games.

That being said, I think a competitive team in Minnesota makes all the difference in the world. As for Quebec, let's say they win the Cup in 1995. There is no way they are moving the team. They would definitely have a lot of opportunity to bide their time and such when it came to finances. That Canadian dollar was bad in the 1990s though, worse than today. But the Canadian economy was good back then, hence the attendance figures being decent in Quebec. If Ottawa and Calgary and Edmonton survived during this time frame with no chance of winning the Cup (at least in Alberta) and Ottawa continually getting thumped by the Leafs in the playoffs, then why doesn't a team that would have been routinely considered a Cup contender not be able to make it, at least until 2004? Bad owner and all.

Ah thank you very much. I guess it was a very different time because at least with the Dodgers moving West the money was really good no?

 

[Crosby2010]

Ah thank you very much. I guess it was a very different time because at least with the Dodgers moving West the money was really good no?

Walter O'Malley, the Dodgers owner, wanted to build a new stadium and the city of Brooklyn stymied him. I am not saying O'Malley is a saint, but it is fair to remember that he isn't the true villain here in this story. He did attempt to have it built in Brooklyn first. Then he could build his stadium out in L.A. and pack a fuller house, which he did. Been there since, and L.A. has had one of the strongest teams since then, and Brooklyn inexplicably never got a team back. The Mets are in Queens.

 

[McGarnagle]

Walter O'Malley, the Dodgers owner, wanted to build a new stadium and the city of Brooklyn stymied him. I am not saying O'Malley is a saint, but it is fair to remember that he isn't the true villain here in this story. He did attempt to have it built in Brooklyn first. Then he could build his stadium out in L.A. and pack a fuller house, which he did. Been there since, and L.A. has had one of the strongest teams since then, and Brooklyn inexplicably never got a team back. The Mets are in Queens.

Robert Moses is the bad guy in the Dodgers move. O'Malley wanted to build a stadium (and had mockups of a domed stadium by Buckminster Fuller) on the site that is now the Barclay's Center. Moses would only offer the site in Flushing that became Shea Stadium, and would not compromise one bit.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

The precedent we haven't seen set in the modern era is a Cup winning team moving so it does make you wonder although I think Minnesota is the closest to an inevitability. It's also amazing to think with the closeness of the 95 referendum in Canada on Quebec sovereignty if the Nords winning and again beating the Habs to do it moves that 0.5% needle any bit for nationalistic pride.

Maybe we slightly overstate the 'modern cup-winners never relocate' principle.

What would have been an unimaginably stupid mistake would be relocating the Oilers. Any time you tried to market the sport until the end of time youd inevitably end up stating "Oh yeah, so there was Gretzky, he was the GOAT, he played the first 10 years of his career in Edmonton. The Oilers? Oh they relocated 9 years later".

It would be like the kind of thing every fan, investor, and player would learn about the league in the first 15 minutes on wikipedia, and it would project an image of instability in pro hockey that would make Garys primary role of attracting investment dollars, ownership, and media contracts a living hell.

Thats why we say theres no way on this earth Edmonton would have been moved, and the same for Montreal.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

The Sakic Forsberg core is too fun a champion, if they make it to the first cup I think they hold on through that whole era, and then by the time the shine wears off it’s Jets back to Winnipeg dollar conditions and they’re ok. The issue is though they might not get Roy with Mtl not wanting them to have NWO Hulk Hogan.

 

[WingsFan95]

Maybe we slightly overstate the 'modern cup-winners never relocate' principle.

What would have been an unimaginably stupid mistake would be relocating the Oilers. Any time you tried to market the sport until the end of time youd inevitably end up stating "Oh yeah, so there was Gretzky, he was the GOAT, he played the first 10 years of his career in Edmonton. The Oilers? Oh they relocated 9 years later".

It would be like the kind of thing every fan, investor, and player would learn about the league in the first 15 minutes on wikipedia, and it would project an image of instability in pro hockey that would make Garys primary role of attracting investment dollars, ownership, and media contracts a living hell.

Thats why we say theres no way on this earth Edmonton would have been moved, and the same for Montreal.

Well put.

I will also add more financial notes about championship runs and extended playoff contention. There is additional revenue going towards the team and although I don't know how true this is but one cited example is how in 99 Jagr pushed the Penguins past the Devils and how apparently that additional revenue got them just over bankruptcy. The entire league was dealing with issues not just on the Canadian side but making deep playoff runs does add bottom line money especially in the 90s with less sponsorships and ad revenue. That's when gate attendance mattered so much more.

If the Nords win both in 93 and 96 and at least make 2nd round exits inbetween, that alone gets them at least through the 99-00 season, but if they consistently made playoffs and 2-3 rounds I think they'd be around today. Essentially 2004 is the finish line as the total lockout does drastically change the dynamic of keeping a team.

 

[Crosby2010]

Robert Moses is the bad guy in the Dodgers move. O'Malley wanted to build a stadium (and had mockups of a domed stadium by Buckminster Fuller) on the site that is now the Barclay's Center. Moses would only offer the site in Flushing that became Shea Stadium, and would not compromise one bit.

He is the true villain, yes. Funny how that story almost never mentions him. And it is stupid too, you know, putting the Brooklyn Dodgers in Queens? I know the Mets are in Queens now, but they are "New York Mets" not Brooklyn. Never made sense to me. I still think O'Malley squeezed the last drop he could out of Brooklyn before publicly saying they are leaving, which definitely wasn't fair to the fans, so while I don't say he is the main villain I can still see why he is considered to be such.

 

[McGarnagle]

He is the true villain, yes. Funny how that story almost never mentions him. And it is stupid too, you know, putting the Brooklyn Dodgers in Queens? I know the Mets are in Queens now, but they are "New York Mets" not Brooklyn. Never made sense to me. I still think O'Malley squeezed the last drop he could out of Brooklyn before publicly saying they are leaving, which definitely wasn't fair to the fans, so while I don't say he is the main villain I can still see why he is considered to be such.

They were already playing a few series a year in Jersey City to try to convince them to build a new stadium in Brooklyn by threatening to leave.

O'Malley gets a ton of hate but nobody talks about Horace Stoneham. The Roger Kahns of the world act like the Giants were swept away as passive victims in the Dodger movie, when in reality Stoneham had a foot out the door way before O'Malley and was planning to move to Minnesota where they had AAA rights. The Dodgers' move needed a second west coast team to be feasible so they got him to go to SF instead. Polo Grounds was pretty decrepit at that point and it was clear that Moses would not permit a new stadium for both teams, so it was either go across the river and be tenants of the Yankees in Yankee Stadium or leave.

I think the Giants moving was an economic necessity but the Dodgers could have remained successful if they had a new stadium with parking to accommodate the new commuter culture. But Moses pushed them out by being uncompromising on that the only stadium he'd grant permits for would be a municipal stadium in Queens with really disadvantageous rental agreement (the Mets were really boned hard by the 30-year bonds that the city imposed on them to play at Shea). So it's either stay in Brooklyn while having the screw turned on you and hamstringing your financial ability to keep the team solvent or a sunny climate city offering you a team-owned stadium built with public money. They really didn't give him much of a choice there. If Moses caved on either location or stadium ownership, the Dodgers could've stayed. His hard-line stance pushed them right to LA.

 

[Crosby2010]

They were already playing a few series a year in Jersey City to try to convince them to build a new stadium in Brooklyn by threatening to leave.

O'Malley gets a ton of hate but nobody talks about Horace Stoneham. The Roger Kahns of the world act like the Giants were swept away as passive victims in the Dodger movie, when in reality Stoneham had a foot out the door way before O'Malley and was planning to move to Minnesota where they had AAA rights. The Dodgers' move needed a second west coast team to be feasible so they got him to go to SF instead. Polo Grounds was pretty decrepit at that point and it was clear that Moses would not permit a new stadium for both teams, so it was either go across the river and be tenants of the Yankees in Yankee Stadium or leave.

I think the Giants moving was an economic necessity but the Dodgers could have remained successful if they had a new stadium with parking to accommodate the new commuter culture. But Moses pushed them out by being uncompromising on that the only stadium he'd grant permits for would be a municipal stadium in Queens with really disadvantageous rental agreement (the Mets were really boned hard by the 30-year bonds that the city imposed on them to play at Shea). So it's either stay in Brooklyn while having the screw turned on you and hamstringing your financial ability to keep the team solvent or a sunny climate city offering you a team-owned stadium built with public money. They really didn't give him much of a choice there. If Moses caved on either location or stadium ownership, the Dodgers could've stayed. His hard-line stance pushed them right to LA.

Yeah, Stoneham is often forgotten in this thing. I agree, it is almost as if people think they were kidnapped with the Dodgers at gunpoint. No, Polo Grounds had been around since 1884 or something. It was older. I can see that, although it still would have been nice if they stayed.

But I always wonder about Ebbetts Field. It was built in 1913. It wasn't really old. Only 44 years old. In comparison, Wrigley was built in 1916 and Fenway in 1912 and both are still going strong. I have to wonder how much of needing a new stadium was exaggerated by O'Malley.

 

[McGarnagle]

Yeah, Stoneham is often forgotten in this thing. I agree, it is almost as if people think they were kidnapped with the Dodgers at gunpoint. No, Polo Grounds had been around since 1884 or something. It was older. I can see that, although it still would have been nice if they stayed.

But I always wonder about Ebbetts Field. It was built in 1913. It wasn't really old. Only 44 years old. In comparison, Wrigley was built in 1916 and Fenway in 1912 and both are still going strong. I have to wonder how much of needing a new stadium was exaggerated by O'Malley.

The bigger issue with Ebbets was the lack of parking lot when fans started moving out to the suburbs after the war.

 

[LightningStorm]

The difference in these 2 hypotheticals is the North Stars winning the cup likely is franchise saving, while the Nordiques would've only delayed the inevitable. Both are hockey crazed markets, but the size difference makes all the difference here.

Minnesota winning the cup likely gets them a new arena deal, or at minimum they move into the Target Center with the Timberwolves. Minneapolis, though smaller than Dallas is still a big enough market to have supported an elite team during the Dead Puck Era with player salaries rising.

As for QC, they don't move in the summer of 1995 if they had recently won a cup, whether the season before or 1993. However, they would've quickly fallen behind in the arms race as player salaries exploded, and after losing Sakic in 1997, my best guess is they leave town sometime in the early 2000's.