Quebec Jersey

[Vapor 0]

Anybody have more info on these jerseys? Were these supposed to be used before they moved to Denver?

[Drewhunz 3]

No team should wear a red X ;)

[Vapor 0]

works for me, but:

http://www.sportslogos.net/images/Hockey/N...vxu8bmqvogo.gif

[Chadd 916]

Link doesn't work either.

[Fletch 219]

Vapor are you talking about the one with the Wolf on it? I remember that design....

EDIT - here they are:

[Hidious 0]

Off topic but i'm not sure i understand how we can't have a team in Quebec city where everyone eats hockey but Nashville, Anaheim, Pheonix, etc can compete with poor attendances...

The reason must be obvious...?

[Viking 1]

The info is as follows:

- They had that jersey design ready to go, but the switch was planned for the year they moved to Colorado, so they never happened.

- Good god, those were awful. I don't know what NHL teams' obsession is with "ferocious" logos. They all want these ferocious animal logos, and they all look completely stupid. Think of all the best hockey jerseys ever - I bet nothing you think of is a picture of a ferocious animal - you probably think of something like the Blackhawks, Bruins, and Canadiens. What you likely didn't think of were the Predators, Buffaslugs, or the Wild.

... And they even failed at the ferocious logo - that wolf looks like a wuss - I could beat it up, so it would never have a chance in a fight against an angry Buffaslug!

[Larry54 243]

Actually, it isn't a wolf. Nordique is the french word for a sled dog like a husky or malamute. So at least this logo would have been more relevant to the team's name than the original logo (unless someone can explain to me some less-than-obvious meaning of the old logo). And BTW I wouldn't mess with a real sled dog while it's feeding!

[Viking 1]

The old logo was an 'N.' 'N' for 'Nordiques.' Not that that's a complicated concept, but neither is 'C' for 'Canadiens' or 'B' for 'Bruins.' And if that thing is supposed to be a dog, then it's a wussy and stupid looking DOG, rather than a wussy and stupid looking wolf.

[jjtt99 0]

Off topic but i'm not sure i understand how we can't have a team in Quebec city where everyone eats hockey but Nashville, Anaheim, Pheonix, etc can compete with poor attendances...

The reason must be obvious...?

Quebec and Winnipeg lost their franchises during a time the Canadian dollar was very weak against the US dollar. Most (if not all nowadays) players are paid in US, so imagine your revenues in Canadian, but the bulk of your expenses are in US during a time when $1 Canadian = $0.60 US. The smaller cities of Quebec and Winnipeg just couldn't keep up.

Larger cities like Toronto and Montreal had enough corporate support. At that time Vancouver was sold to a US owner who was buddies with the Canadian owner who couldn't afford to keep it. Calgary was bailed out when Alberta struck oil. Edmonton barely hung on.

Now with the salary cap and a much stronger Canadian dollar against the US, our teams are financially viable again so that's why questions like Winnipeg and Quebec are resurfacing, but I wouldn't count on it.

Edit: Some trivia here, the last Canadian team to win the Stanley Cup was the Habs in 1993. THis was a symptom of the problem.

[Hidious 0]

Thanks jjtt99! Well explained.

[jjtt99 0]

No problem Hidious. One other part of the business to keep in mind is that player salaries are based on the regular season. So, technically, during the playoffs players are no longer paid so all the revenues go to the team without salaries coming off.

A deep playoff run is very profitable for teams so the problem would compound. For example, the Nordiques could not afford to put a good team together to make the playoffs. On the other hand Detroit could pay high salaries and consequently have a deep (and profitable) playoff run so they could better afford higher salaries next year.

The salary cap works to equalize the playing field.

[Viking 1]

For example, the Nordiques could not afford to put a good team together to make the playoffs.

They made the playoffs two of the last three years they were in Quebec, and finished first in their division in the last year. They had clearly put a good team together, they won the Stanley Cup the next year.

[mack 44]

Wow, my old Corebeam avatar. Too bad they had to go and become purple.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

Holy hell, you're right

[Chadd 916]

For example, the Nordiques could not afford to put a good team together to make the playoffs.

They made the playoffs two of the last three years they were in Quebec, and finished first in their division in the last year. They had clearly put a good team together, they won the Stanley Cup the next year.

Didn't they win the President's trophy the one year?

[jjtt99 0]

It doesn't look like they won the President's trophy. But we know Wikipedia is 100% correct all the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents'_Trophy

Yes, the Nordiques where building a good team before the moved to Colorado, but they couldn't afford to keep it, which takes up back to the earlier point. It's economic driven. It's a business.

I think it's great Canadian teams were in the Stanley cup finals the last two years. Yes I biased, but I think we're due.

My priority list for Stanley Cup winners:

1. Canucks (that's where I live)

2. Any Canadian team (ugh, even the Leafs, but that doesn't look likey)

3. A West Coast team

[Chadd 916]

It doesn't look like they won the President's trophy. But we know Wikipedia is 100% correct all the time either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents'_Trophy

Yes, the Nordiques where building a good team before the moved to Colorado, but they couldn't afford to keep it, which takes up back to the earlier point. It's economic driven. It's a business.

I think it's great Canadian teams were in the Stanley cup finals the last two years. Yes I biased, but I think we're due.

My priority list for Stanley Cup winners:

1. Canucks (that's where I live)

2. Any Canadian team (ugh, even the Leafs, but that doesn't look likey)

3. A West Coast team

sorry, just the best in the east in 94-95, finished 3 points behind Detroit overall. I just remember the #8 Rangers beating the #1 Nords.

[Vapor 0]

Stephane Fisetwho?

[chk hrd 164]

Off topic but i'm not sure i understand how we can't have a team in Quebec city where everyone eats hockey but Nashville, Anaheim, Pheonix, etc can compete with poor attendances...

The reason must be obvious...?

Quebec would also need a new arena. We were just there for the PeeWee tourney and it would need alot of work for an NHL team.

[RadioGaGa 162]

Off topic but i'm not sure i understand how we can't have a team in Quebec city where everyone eats hockey but Nashville, Anaheim, Pheonix, etc can compete with poor attendances...

The reason must be obvious...?

Quebec would also need a new arena. We were just there for the PeeWee tourney and it would need alot of work for an NHL team.

It was a very similar situation to Pittsburgh wasn't it:

A talented, young team....poised for greatness (maybe a little dramatic...but what the hell)...in need of a new building, with great debate as to who should pay for the building?

In the end...they left town.

[mack 44]

The one thing I remember from that Nords/Rangers series was Sakic glancing Kovalev on the back and the subsequent spasming that Kovalev did on the ice. A sign of the douchebaggery to come.

[epstud74 24]

Sakic, Forsberg, Nolan, Rucinsky, Sundin, Duchese, Wendel Clark, Kamensky,Krupp, Lefevbre, Ricci...nice lineup..

[mack 44]

Sundin never played with Clark or Forsberg.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I love the video from the '93 playoffs (I think)...Pierre Page is going down the bench tearing all of them a new one...

Sakic...Sundin (who he is REALLY mad at)...Nolan...Foote. It's a pretty good collection of guys...really early in their careers.