CC97 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Plus, after having and losing the Senators twice I think it was wise not to test the Baseball Gods again. Actually, the first Senators team that Washington lost was technically the Washington Nationals. Senators was simply an alternative nickname that ended up being utilized more and more often over the history of the franchise. The name was officially changed from Nationals to Senators in the mid 1950s.I'm glad it's Nationals, that was what I was hoping for all along. --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 You're right, Chris. After the 1899 season, the National League's Washington Senators folded. In an effort to avoid confusion with the defunct NL team, the American League franchise that began play in Washington, DC in 1901 adopted the Nationals name. Despite Washington Nationals being the official name of the franchise from 1901 to 1955, fans never took to the name and often referred to the club as the Senators. Finally, in 1956, the club officially adopted the Senators name. They used it for five seasons, until the club relocated to Minnesota in time for the 1961 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilbert Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I like the Nationals. Twice is enough for the Senators. Never even cared for the Grays( imagine Reds vs Grays, almost sounds like an intrasquad scrimmage)The Monuments is just stupid. I could imagine the logo being The Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, Capitol building, and others being together out of a script. Signature intentionally left blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bludevl21 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 There's an article on ESPN.com right concering a possible hangup in the plan to move the Expos to D.C. Also included is this In another development, baseball spokesman Rich Levin said reports in Friday's editions of The Washington Times and USA Today that the Expos would be renamed the Nationals were premature. Levin said other names, such as the Senators, remain under consideration and that baseball still was conducting focus groups.Here's the link:ESPN Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 ***BlueDevl posted it a few seconds before me.**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 There's an article on ESPN.com right concering a possible hangup in the plan to move the Expos to D.C. Also included is this In another development, baseball spokesman Rich Levin said reports in Friday's editions of The Washington Times and USA Today that the Expos would be renamed the Nationals were premature. Levin said other names, such as the Senators, remain under consideration and that baseball still was conducting focus groups.Here's the link:ESPN Article The move still isn't official, which is why I haven't made the change on my site yet. It'll probably happen, but still not official... I was surprised to see teams listing Washington as an opponent in 2005. --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrbaseball Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I'd like to see them as the D.C. Nationals instead of Washington Nationals, just for some difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack76 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 On the Atlanta Braves' Web site, the 2005 schedule is up, and the Expos are referred to as "D.C." whereas everyone else is "SF" "SD" "PIT"...so "D.C." might be the name after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 On the Atlanta Braves' Web site, the 2005 schedule is up, and the Expos are referred to as "D.C." whereas everyone else is "SF" "SD" "PIT"...so "D.C." might be the name after all. But then again on the Jays schedule it lists them as "Washington" and on another schedule it lists them as simply "Expos" --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesCraven Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Funny, the Phillies' web site lists them as "EXP" for some odd reason. BTW, what's their mascot if they become the Nats, a frickin' bug? "I better go take a long walk off a short pier or something."Some people on this bolard have told me to do just that.My "Ron Mexico" alias is "Jon Tobago". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 The Pilots announced a move to Milwaukee for the 1970 season on APRIL 1, 1970... so they competed as the Pilots in spring training and the Brewers during the regular season. This was Bud Selig's doing too.The season was starting on April 7, 1970 and in that time they came up with the team name, logo, and uniforms and had everything made in time for the season... of course the uniforms were practically the Pilots uniforms with a new name across the front.See for yourself!I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar happen with the Expos for 2005. --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar happen with the Expos for 2005. I think MLB and the Expos have the resources and money (not to mention marketing foresight) to do a better job than the cut-and-paste job the Pilots-Brewers did in 1970. I doubt very much that the Nationals (or whatevers) will have the Expos font, a block letter cap logo, etc, that looks like they just changed the Expos unis. But I could be wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winghaz Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 The Senators may have been dogs (both the franchises that moved to Minnesota and Texas), but that script W that you associate with Frank Howard and Ted Williams remains one of the coolest baseball cap logos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Despite Washington Nationals being the official name of the franchise from 1901 to 1955, fans never took to the name and often referred to the club as the Senators. Finally, in 1956, the club officially adopted the Senators name. You are right. "Senators" is the popular but not official nickname."Nats" was a contraction of Senators and Nationals.Personally I like "Nationals", it sounds nice.winghaz, I agree with you. I've got a 1963-67 Washington Nats' cap. I'm always in love with that cap. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I'm betting there will be a DC logo of some kind. A alternate hat or sleve patch. Something for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampman Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I cant believe no one came up withDC Comics... come on people its perfect.... lol If they weren't going for my DC Cabs idea, they aren't going for the DC Comics. You know--I can't believe I didn't think of that one--oh well, I haven't bought a comic in eons--maybe that's why...and survival 79 quoted survival 79--becuase they're the same guy!Somebody check the IP! Comic Sans walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve your type here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I'd like to see them as the D.C. Nationals instead of Washington Nationals, just for some difference.I really like that idea, but MLB would probably think that sounded too MLS.and survival 79 quoted survival 79--becuase they're the same guy!Somebody check the IP! You caught me! "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyon81 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I guess I always thought of a funny rule that I like to apply which usually determines if I like the name or not. If you were on the team, could you say, I am a "Saint, Cowboy, Charger, Cub, etc"You cant really say "Im a National, Wild, Heat, etc. Well, I guess you could say "I play for the ---" I guess I just like teams when there nickname implies they are a group of something, basically, not MLS nicknames. I didnt hear anybody say: Washington/D.C. "Politicians""Poli" meaning many "Tics" meaning blood sucking insects Play RBI Baseball 2K9 @ http://league.rbicentral.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Despite Washington Nationals being the official name of the franchise from 1901 to 1955, fans never took to the name and often referred to the club as the Senators. Finally, in 1956, the club officially adopted the Senators name. You are right. "Senators" is the popular but not official nickname."Nats" was a contraction of Senators and Nationals.Personally I like "Nationals", it sounds nice.winghaz, I agree with you. I've got a 1963-67 Washington Nats' cap. I'm always in love with that cap. See my post regarding this a few posts up --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puckcool22 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 on yahoo! mlb it says that nationals is not the official name as they are still deciding and researching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.