Sources told the Times that Nationals is a near lock, ahead of Grays, historical name of the Negro League team in Washington, and Senators, following a process that involved focus groups, marketing executives and polling data.
The team logo and uniform designs also are nearing completion, sources told the Times. Team colors will be red, white and blue, of course, although there's no indication which will be the primary color.
The clear aim is to put caps, shirts and other merchandise on sale for holiday shopping, which begins in less than three weeks.
-----------------------
This only works if they rename one of the AL Teams the Americans - even though that's technically the same meaning as 'Yankees' :)
Nationals....eh I don't like it. I don't think that Senators is really great either, but at least it has the historical significance to go with it. They ought to be pretty cool looking with the red, white, and blue though.
Personally, I'm convinced that there's something in the air causing mass insanity when I find myself agreeing with Marion Freaking Barry about anything but, GO MARION.
Tim
People who say they don't "play politics" merely play politics badly. -- David Drake
Originally posted by BigSteveNationals....eh I don't like it. I don't think that Senators is really great either, but at least it has the historical significance to go with it. They ought to be pretty cool looking with the red, white, and blue though.
I believe that the original Senators were once known as the "Nationals" prior to 1957 or so. So there's some history there, as well. I've never been able to figure out an exact date for the name change.
As far as franchise records go... will Expos records carry over into the new Nationals, or will they start fresh? (Similar to the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens switch, where they started over). Original Senators records are part of Twins history, and 60's/70's Senators records are now part of the Rangers.
Since there won't be another Expos franchise, I have to believe that the Expos records will apply to the Nationals.
From what I've read elsewhere, the first incarnation of the Nationals officially became the Senators in 1955 or 56, although they were informally and popularly known as the Senators long before that.
Baseball-reference.com doesn't list the Twins as ever being the Washington Nationals. It says Washington Senators from 1901 to 1960. So I guess that is incorrect, and I have nothing to add to that part of the discussion.
Anyway, as for the records, I think they wouldbe new records. My take on it is, anytime a team changes city AND nickname (Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals), they are a 'new' team. If the team only changes one or the other (St Louis Cardinals to Phoenix Cardinals or Washington Bullets to Washington Wizards), I would view it as the same franchise and records.
Originally posted by BigSteveBaseball-reference.com doesn't list the Twins as ever being the Washington Nationals. It says Washington Senators from 1901 to 1960. So I guess that is incorrect, and I have nothing to add to that part of the discussion.
They were both, technically. You can see that tby these 1905 uniforms...
It wasn't until 1959 that they put Senators on their uniforms...
Originally posted by GrimisAnd remember, they could still be the Virginia Nationals before the end of this...
When the DC City Council fucks this up and MLB moves them to Arlington or Alexandria, they will probably still be known as the DC team, just the stadium. (See: Landover Redskins and the Cap Centre Bullets/Capitals)
And now, for a limited time only, it rhymes with "door hinge!"
Originally posted by ZeruelWhen the DC City Council fucks this up and MLB moves them to Arlington or Alexandria, they will probably still be known as the DC team, just the stadium. (See: Landover Redskins and the Cap Centre Bullets/Capitals)
I think that depends on ownership. If the Collins group buys the team, and the stadium gets built in Fairfax County, then they will be the Virginia Nationals/Fury/Whatever...