Mings Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 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. I think that was a condition of Modell moving to Baltimore, that he had to leave the franchise history behind, especially since almost as soon as he announced the move, the NFL awarded a franchise to Cleveland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyRock Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I really think they should just use "Established 2005". The Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers started their histories AFTER they moved. The same should be with the Nationals, if at all. New York Jets |3-3| First, AFC EastNew York Mets |74-88| Fourth, NL EastNew York Islanders|34-37-11| Fifth, Atlantic DivisionNew Orleans Hornets |21-45| Third, Southwest Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I really think they should just use "Established 2005". The Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers started their histories AFTER they moved. The same should be with the Nationals, if at all. You're exactly right. So where did those years in Washington go? They're in Washington to be continued by the Nationals. However "Established 1901" would be more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_cynic Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 This could arguable be off the subject but what's the population of the Washington D.C. area? Utah Jazz Retired Number's#1 - Frank Layden - #7 Pete Maravich - #12 John Stockton - #14 Jeff Hornacek - #35 Darrell Griffith - #53 Mark EatonRetired Number's To Come#00 The Bear (Best Mascot In NBA) - #4 Adrian Dantley - #32 Karl "The Mailman" Malone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The only question I have about the jersey patch is will it always have "Established 1905" on it or will it only be used for the first season? If it is only for the first season...This could arguable be off the subject but what's the population of the Washington D.C. area?The population of the District of Columbia, as of 2003 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, is 563,384. "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...
the_cynic Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The only question I have about the jersey patch is will it always have "Established 1905" on it or will it only be used for the first season? If it is only for the first season...This could arguable be off the subject but what's the population of the Washington D.C. area?The population of the District of Columbia, as of 2003 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, is 563,384. So why has this city always had some many pro teams? Is it just because it's the "Nations Capital" or what? Seems like they get brownie points for that! Utah Jazz Retired Number's#1 - Frank Layden - #7 Pete Maravich - #12 John Stockton - #14 Jeff Hornacek - #35 Darrell Griffith - #53 Mark EatonRetired Number's To Come#00 The Bear (Best Mascot In NBA) - #4 Adrian Dantley - #32 Karl "The Mailman" Malone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 So why has this city always had some many pro teams? Is it just because it's the "Nations Capital" or what? Seems like they get brownie points for that!Well, the numbers for the District of Columbia alone are misleading. I should have mentioned that the population of the District of Columbia metropolitan area, as of 2003 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, is 5,090,435. This area includes DC as well as portions of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. "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...
DEAD! Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 The only question I have about the jersey patch is will it always have "Established 1905" on it or will it only be used for the first season? If it is only for the first season...This could arguable be off the subject but what's the population of the Washington D.C. area?The population of the District of Columbia, as of 2003 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, is 563,384. So why has this city always had some many pro teams? Is it just because it's the "Nations Capital" or what? Seems like they get brownie points for that! You also have to consider the size of the city in terms of area and surrounding population. I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 I really think they should just use "Established 2005". The Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers started their histories AFTER they moved. The same should be with the Nationals, if at all. You're exactly right. So where did those years in Washington go? They're in Washington to be continued by the Nationals. However "Established 1901" would be more accurate. No, my buddy.1901 is the year of the establishing of many AL teams. That Washington Nationals is a team born in 1969 as the Montreal Expos in... the NL.You can find illustrious history of Washington teams playing in the NL before being dropped out of the National League in 1899.So... what damn happened in 1905???Why not just 1969 or 2005 and we are all happy??? It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 So... what damn happened in 1905??? The name Washington Nationals was used from 1905-1955. That's where 1905 came from. Again, I prefer "Established 1901".So for whom did Walter Johnson win 417 games? Not for Minnesota.Who won the 1924 World Series? Not Minnesota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 True but this is a new franchise, though I think they shoudl honor the past by putting up a plaque with JOhnson's name somewhere displayed prometly. 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...
Gothamite Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Or retire a couple old Senators/Nationals numbers. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 True but this is a new franchise No, no it's not. It is a team that played in Montreal from '69 until 2004 and is still owned by MLB. The franchise itself is the same. This is the case with every team that ever moved, save for the Baltimore Ravens and Carolina Hurricanes. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 So... what damn happened in 1905??? The name Washington Nationals was used from 1905-1955. That's where 1905 came from. Again, I prefer "Established 1901". You got the right answer! THANKS.Now, with that data in hand... I still didn't like "1905" in the logo. I prefer 2005 or the year in the XIX century when the first Washington pro team started to play in a major league. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampman Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Maybe its a Y2K bug. Hmm--you mean they took it from a source that just said '05? 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...
Swiss Posted January 15, 2005 Author Share Posted January 15, 2005 Yeah man. You finally got the joke. It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Retiring Numbers will be tricky they should honoir teh Expos numbers too, but truthfully there are not many numbers to retire. Most of the best players from Washington played before numbers. 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...
teenchy Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 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." This topic came up again in a different thread re someone's Nats concept so I'm giving it a bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 the current washington nationals team was established in 1969. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.