Padres to D.C. Uniforms (1973)

[San Diego]

So, as some of you may know the San Diego Padres were so close to moving to Washington DC that uniforms were made, Topps cards were made, etc. Let me just say thank god this didn't happen. Here is a picture of this horrible, terrible uniforms. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/06/16/the-time-the-san-diego-padres-were-this-close-to-moving-to-d-c/

 

 

 

[Ark]

What's so terrible about them? They could use a number on the front but other than that they look like the original Washington Nationals uniforms which were pretty good.

 

 

^those

 

And that W* logo is a huge improvement over what the Nationals have now. 

 

BTW Washington Senators is a much better name than Washington Nationals. 

[Hat Boy]

The Rangers adopted that look for 1976-1980

 

[KittSmith_95]

The blue alternate in the article is bad, but the home & road look fine.

 

 

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

They look pretty good, especially for the 70's.

[MCM0313]

1 hour ago, Ark said:

What's so terrible about them? They could use a number on the front but other than that they look like the original Washington Nationals uniforms which were pretty good.

 

 

^those

 

And that W* logo is a huge improvement over what the Nationals have now. 

 

BTW Washington Senators is a much better name than Washington Nationals. 

I disagree about the 'W' logo - I love the one they have now, Walgreens resemblance or not. That said, I agree that the almost-were uniforms in the original picture are not that bad.

[MCM0313]

29 minutes ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

They look pretty good, especially for the 70's.

Agreed. Tasteful, unlike much fashion of that decade (not just in sports, either).

[MCM0313]

I had never known of that almost -move to DC. Would they have become the third incarnation of the Senators (first one in the NL), or, due to the different league, something else entirely?

[ChicagoOakland]

9 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

I had never known of that almost -move to DC. Would they have become the third incarnation of the Senators (first one in the NL), or, due to the different league, something else entirely?

 

If I remember, they would have been known as the Stars.

I wish I was a better graphic designer, because I would love to see someone tackle an alternate reality concept of how the Washington Stars identity would develop over time.

[Mitch B]

2 hours ago, Ark said:

What's so terrible about them? They could use a number on the front but other than that they look like the original Washington Nationals uniforms which were pretty good.

 

And that W* logo is a huge improvement over what the Nationals have now. 

 

BTW Washington Senators is a much better name than Washington Nationals. 

 

The blue uniforms just look like many others from the 70's.  IMO, block letters on caps/helmets, particularly Ms and Ws, look so dated and boring.  I don't understand the unpopularity today of the Nats'curly W, but then again, I grew up watching baseball when the Senators 2.0 wore a very similar cap logo, so it looks traditional to me.

 

I would also respectfully disagree on the name Nationals.  Given that the Senators 1.0 were sometimes called the Nationals, and that the latest Washington team plays in the National League, the current name seems appropriate.  IMO, the Nats have some nice ties to D.C. Baseball Past blended with the uniqueness of the current franchise.  I also like the Nats' current uniforms.  If they would add an alternate home jersey with a scripted Nationals wordmark, the Nats would be close to perfect.

 

Those are just my opinions ... that and a $1.50 might buy you the proverbial Cup of Coffee. ☕️?☕️?☕️?☕️

 

P.S. As a NY Mets fan, I'd like to see the Nats endure a losing streak real soon. ?

 

[MadmanLA]

On 6/18/2016 at 0:38 PM, ChicagoOakland said:

 

If I remember, they would have been known as the Stars.

I wish I was a better graphic designer, because I would love to see someone tackle an alternate reality concept of how the Washington Stars identity would develop over time.

 

Ironically enough, Washington, D.C. had a newspaper called "The Washington Star" that lasted until 1981, when its assets were bought out by the Post.  Back then, I don't know how well that name would have went over with the region, considering the newspaper was still around at the time.  I think MLB (or the National League, as both leagues were still operating independently within MLB) would made them go with the Senators/Nationals name, or perhaps something else.

[BrianLion]

On 6/18/2016 at 3:38 PM, ChicagoOakland said:

 

If I remember, they would have been known as the Stars.

I wish I was a better graphic designer, because I would love to see someone tackle an alternate reality concept of how the Washington Stars identity would develop over time.

 

The article linked by the OP seemed to indicate that they'd have been in fact called the "Nationals" due to the Senators previously being called Senators/Nationals interchangeably historically but the Senators now having had a bad connotation with locals after two failed attempts previously.