Jump to content

Washington Nationals - Est. 1905?


Anubis2051

Recommended Posts

So MLB shop is selling this tshirt.

pMLB2-14544320dt.jpg

Now, I know the original senators were born in 1905, but it doesn't seam right to claim a team's founding date a full 100 years before the team started playing in the city. There is zero continuity between the Senators and the Nationals. At best, the Nationals should be able to claim 1969 as their founding date. Why does MLB allow this? Don't the Twins own the right to the 1905 founding date? How about the Rangers? Isn't that disrespectful not only to the first two Senators teams, but to the Expos as well?

Anubis.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the whole "1905" is downright absurd.

The "Washington Nationals" that were founded in 1905 later became the Minnesota Twins, therefore, there's no continuity between the two corporate identities.

Also, there were several pre-1900 teams known as the "Washington Nationals".

Finally, from D.C. Sports Bog: MLB approved the use of multiple origination dates for this franchise that can be used for marketing purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senators officially changed their name to Nationals in 1905, though the Senators name stuck throughout the remainder of their tenure in DC. If you look at that shirt as a throwback than the shirt itself is actually correct. I do not believe that it is an insult to the Twins or Rangers but a recognition of the game's history in Washington. After all their are pennants with the teams AL Championships flying by the scoreboard at Nationals Park. True the current club has no historical claim to them, but the city does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senators officially changed their name to Nationals in 1905, though the Senators name stuck throughout the remainder of their tenure in DC. If you look at that shirt as a throwback than the shirt itself is actually correct. I do not believe that it is an insult to the Twins or Rangers but a recognition of the game's history in Washington. After all their are pennants with the teams AL Championships flying by the scoreboard at Nationals Park. True the current club has no historical claim to them, but the city does.

So it's a Twins throwback t-shirt that just happens to be the same name as a current franchise. Look for more of this when you see the Bobcats selling Charlotte Hornets 1988 t-shirts, even though they are technically Pelicans throwbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when teams do this. See: Senators, Ottawa. I can't rationally explain it but this bothers me way more than it should.

Because manufacturing history to "fit in" is silly. I categorize this with the Rays "fauxbacks" of a couple years ago -- though they never specifically claimed to be a different team.

Actually maybe a better example would be MLB teams honoring Negro League teams (good gesture, but it's still false representation). Same with the Raptors wearing "Toronto Huskies" uniforms (going back to '97) or the Heat wearing the Miami Floridians uniforms.

All about marketing, marketing, and more marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Twins stuff I see uses Est. 1961. I don't think any of us here take into account any of the Senators history besides Killerbrew and the other players we got from that franchise. The history, as far as I'm concerned, should stay in the city. Not always though. The Lakers should have the MPLS stuff. I think it comes down to if you change the identity with the move, ya kinda start fresh.

Just my opinion on the matter.

Oh crap, did I just dig up that pile of worms again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Twins stuff I see uses Est. 1961. I don't think any of us here take into account any of the Senators history besides Killerbrew and the other players we got from that franchise. The history, as far as I'm concerned, should stay in the city. Not always though. The Lakers should have the MPLS stuff. I think it comes down to if you change the identity with the move, ya kinda start fresh.

Just my opinion on the matter.

Oh crap, did I just dig up that pile of worms again?

how about this?

  • team & owner skip town to greener pastures despite strong fan support - team history stays in city
  • team and owner are run out of town due to lack of fan support/gross mismagement or other shenanigans - team history goes with ownership or ceases to exist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... the Nats are sort of MLB's version of the Packers and Cardinals.

$T2eC16J,!y8E9s2figHYBQ7wzP%28vN!~~60_35.JPG$%28KGrHqZHJD!E+UH,UMIpBQW5GyUNOw~~60_35.JPG

That should be 1919 and 1899, respectively.

The Packers were independent from 1919 to 1920. They joined the NFL in 1921. So the shirt is refering to that.

noutep2-med.gifnmst2-med.gifnmst1-med.gifnonmex-med.gif

Go Aggies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the Twins own the right to the 1905 founding date?

Would the Twins care to sue for custody of the 1924 and 1933 flags flying over Nationals Park?

We don't care, the Senators belong to Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when teams do this. See: Senators, Ottawa. I can't rationally explain it but this bothers me way more than it should.

Because manufacturing history to "fit in" is silly. I categorize this with the Rays "fauxbacks" of a couple years ago -- though they never specifically claimed to be a different team.

Actually maybe a better example would be MLB teams honoring Negro League teams (good gesture, but it's still false representation). Same with the Raptors wearing "Toronto Huskies" uniforms (going back to '97) or the Heat wearing the Miami Floridians uniforms.

All about marketing, marketing, and more marketing.

I don't think the Brewers or Royals or Mariners or Padres or any of the other multitude of teams that have worn minor league or Negro League throwbacks have claimed they have any ties to those teams, it's just a way to honor the city's sports legacy. What the Nats are doing is totally different. They are trying to claim the lineage of the original Nats/Sens, the AL team that moved to MIN and still exists. The Nats came into existence in Montreal in 1969, and moved to DC in 2005. I don't remember MLB saying anything about leaving Montreal's history behind or allowing them to reclaim the Nats/Sens (although the move to DC did seem to center around the revival of the curly W logo).

Most Twins stuff I see uses Est. 1961. I don't think any of us here take into account any of the Senators history besides Killerbrew and the other players we got from that franchise. The history, as far as I'm concerned, should stay in the city. Not always though. The Lakers should have the MPLS stuff. I think it comes down to if you change the identity with the move, ya kinda start fresh.

Just my opinion on the matter.

Oh crap, did I just dig up that pile of worms again?

It comes up once a year anyway (usually in regards to the the Browns/Ravens), so might as well get it out of the way here now.

Don't the Twins own the right to the 1905 founding date?

Would the Twins care to sue for custody of the 1924 and 1933 flags flying over Nationals Park?

We don't care, the Senators belong to Washington.

I doubt the flags flying over Nationals Park are the actual original AL Pennants, but the Twins would have every right to "claim" them. If they haven't been flying those pennants at the Met/Metrodome/Target Field, then they probably aren't going to come calling now.

Go Astros!

Go Texans!

Go Rockets!

Go Javelinas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate when teams do this. See: Senators, Ottawa. I can't rationally explain it but this bothers me way more than it should.

Because manufacturing history to "fit in" is silly. I categorize this with the Rays "fauxbacks" of a couple years ago -- though they never specifically claimed to be a different team.

Actually maybe a better example would be MLB teams honoring Negro League teams (good gesture, but it's still false representation). Same with the Raptors wearing "Toronto Huskies" uniforms (going back to '97) or the Heat wearing the Miami Floridians uniforms.

All about marketing, marketing, and more marketing.

I don't think the Brewers or Royals or Mariners or Padres or any of the other multitude of teams that have worn minor league or Negro League throwbacks have claimed they have any ties to those teams, it's just a way to honor the city's sports legacy. What the Nats are doing is totally different. They are trying to claim the lineage of the original Nats/Sens, the AL team that moved to MIN and still exists. The Nats came into existence in Montreal in 1969, and moved to DC in 2005. I don't remember MLB saying anything about leaving Montreal's history behind or allowing them to reclaim the Nats/Sens (although the move to DC did seem to center around the revival of the curly W logo).

Most Twins stuff I see uses Est. 1961. I don't think any of us here take into account any of the Senators history besides Killerbrew and the other players we got from that franchise. The history, as far as I'm concerned, should stay in the city. Not always though. The Lakers should have the MPLS stuff. I think it comes down to if you change the identity with the move, ya kinda start fresh.

Just my opinion on the matter.

Oh crap, did I just dig up that pile of worms again?

It comes up once a year anyway (usually in regards to the the Browns/Ravens), so might as well get it out of the way here now.

Don't the Twins own the right to the 1905 founding date?

Would the Twins care to sue for custody of the 1924 and 1933 flags flying over Nationals Park?

We don't care, the Senators belong to Washington.

I doubt the flags flying over Nationals Park are the actual original AL Pennants, but the Twins would have every right to "claim" them. If they haven't been flying those pennants at the Met/Metrodome/Target Field, then they probably aren't going to come calling now.

Yeah I was speaking as a Twins fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

So, if the city can claim those pennants, then the Phillies should fly the pennants that the A's earned while in Philly.  This is why Washington D.C. Is a "wanna be" MLB city.  Their real history started in Montreal in 1969, and they should embrace that since they had some really good players (Carter, Staub, Dawson, Cromartie, Raines, Rogers, Pedro) come thru there.   I always felt bad for DC since the original Senators moved right before they became good, and because it happened again a decade later, but flying championship flags another still existing franchise earned is just stupid.   The Browns/Ravens thing is different - the Browns agreed to leave their history in Cleveland, making the Ravens an actual expansion team.  Shame Irsay didn't have the same class when he moved the Colts out of town in the middle of the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.