Swiss Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 That was shown from a patch website:Why 1905 and not 2005??? It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjteggy05 Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Correct me if I'm wrong someone....but I believe, the Washington Senators were officially the Washington Nationals until sometime around 1950. Senators up until that time had just been a nickname, and it ended up sticking, kinda like how the New York Highlanders became the Yankees in the early 20th Century, so I'm assuming this would be what the patch is referring to, the fact the the Washington Nationals were established in 1905 originally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 You could be right... but the original Nats (AL) born in 1901 among the Pilgrims (later Red Sox), Tigers, White Sox, Browns (now Orioles), Orioles (now Yankees), A's and Indians.So they must to say "Established 1901".But... now the Nats are in the NL! So they must to say "Established 1890" (kinda year).And the Expos were established in 1969... So... what happened in 1905??? Or that was an error of the sewing? It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleclock Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Not to mention that the Minnesota Twins officially hold the rights to the Washington Nationals/Senators history, and the Texas Rangers hold the rights to the second Washington Senators history. They can't all claim to be the same entity, especially since the current team wanted to be called the Senators and the Rangers went and told them fat chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 They can't all claim to be the same entity, especially since the current team wanted to be called the Senators and the Rangers went and told them fat chance. Your right they can't claim the same entity. However, I think the reason why they are called the Nationals and not the Senators is because the DC mayor didn't want the team to be called the Senators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenchy Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Correct me if I'm wrong someone....but I believe, the Washington Senators were officially the Washington Nationals until sometime around 1950. Senators up until that time had just been a nickname, and it ended up sticking, kinda like how the New York Highlanders became the Yankees in the early 20th Century, so I'm assuming this would be what the patch is referring to, the fact the the Washington Nationals were established in 1905 originally You're pretty much on target. The original Washington AL franchise was known as "Senators" from 1901-04. It was renamed "Nationals" in 1905 in an effort to lose the stigma associated with the first Washington NL franchise (called the "Senators"). The name remained Nationals until 1956 when Calvin Griffith changed it back to "Senators," which it remained through 1960 and the relocation of the franchise to Minnesota. When the franchise reverted to the "Senators" nickname, it adopted the logo which you see in my avatar, which I'll insert in larger form below:Sportswriters and the general public continued to call the team the Senators though "Nats," being short, fit better in headlines.The logo, which features a top-hatted, frock-coated, cigar-smoking senator in a pitcher's wind-up, the Washington Monument in the distance below his left foot, was designed by Zang Auerbach, Red's brother.This patch is odd IMO. It's as if the franchise is trying to connect itself to the original Washington AL franchise, in which case it should more accurately read "Established 1901." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 ...It was renamed "Nationals" in 1905... So basically the nickname was originally "established in 1905" -- and that's what they're celebrating with the patch? Hmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleclock Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Regardless of the history of baseball in Washington, I find it kind of sad and unusual that the franchise would just go on and shed away all traces of their roots in Montreal and replace them with notions that the franchise was established a century ago and not in the 1960s. If the Nationals were an expansion team and not a relocation, perhaps maybe it would be more appropriate to tie in their history with the 1905 Nationals/Senators/Whatevers. But it's almost as if by creating this patch, they are trying to forget that Montreal's misfortune is the primary reason they will have baseball next season, or that the previous two Washington clubs had similar misfortunes. You'd think Washington of all cities would understand the sadness of losing a ballclub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 You could be right... but the original Nats (AL) born in 1901 among the Pilgrims (later Red Sox), Tigers, White Sox, Browns (now Orioles), Orioles (now Yankees), A's and Indians.So they must to say "Established 1901".But... now the Nats are in the NL! So they must to say "Established 1890" (kinda year).And the Expos were established in 1969... So... what happened in 1905??? Or that was an error of the sewing? definately not an error on the sewing cause chris just posted that logo on his site On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharky99MB Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is getting really confused.....stick with est. 2005... geez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 i like the name nationals better than senators. as for the 1905, it really should be when the franchise was first founded, which was the expos whenever it was. General Magus ZealLeader of the Mystics of Medina.The forums most hated member ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 No, Magus, read that Teenchy had said.The fact of the first time of the nickname "Nationals" in 1905 would make sense... but at the same time that didn't make sense... because it was renamed in 1905, not established in 1905. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is dump it should just say est 2005. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeseHusker Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Considering what a mess the whole thing is, maybe they should just drop the "established" altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is dump it should just say est 2005. Better yet "EST. MMV", seriously. I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruColor Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 We already covered this...why a second thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 This is lame. I would think the Twins would not want them to do that. But I don't like when teams' histories don't stay within that franchise. I think the Nationals won a World Series in the 1920s. Are they going to have a banner there next year? It's like the Cleveland Browns. I always thought that the Browns history belonged with the Ravens. But all history is property of the new Browns. The Ravens' franchise won those Pre-Super Bowl era NFL titles. The Browns are a 1990s expansion franchise. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 I agree with you, NJTank.Quadival, I like your suggestion. Very classy and... short.Pantone, I didn't notice any original thread. Sorry! It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj32 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 We already covered this...why a second thread? I thought the same thing, but then I looked back and saw that it was buried in a 15-page thread dealing with the Nationals jersey unveiling, the cancellation of the jersey unveiling, the debate in the DC city council, etc... I don't blame somebody for starting a new thread because it would be difficult to find the old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Maybe its a Y2K bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.