VitaminD Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I thought that the Nationals were going to take the Expos' history with them to D.C. when they became the Nationals. I know they wouldn't post an '81 NL East banner or anything, but I thought they intended to honor the uniform numbers retired already.Nobody's wearing #8 (Gary Carter) or #10 (Rusty Staub/Andre Dawson) yet, but Mike Stanton has been wearing Tim Raines's old #30, which was retired before the team left Canada. What is their official policy on this? "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I thought that the Nationals were going to take the Expos' history with them to D.C. when they became the Nationals. I know they wouldn't post an '81 NL East banner or anything, but I thought they intended to honor the uniform numbers retired already.Nobody's wearing #8 (Gary Carter) or #10 (Rusty Staub/Andre Dawson) yet, but Mike Stanton has been wearing Tim Raines's old #30, which was retired before the team left Canada. What is their official policy on this? Looks like they don't give a damn --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan39 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 I thought that the Nationals were going to take the Expos' history with them to D.C. when they became the Nationals. I know they wouldn't post an '81 NL East banner or anything, but I thought they intended to honor the uniform numbers retired already.Nobody's wearing #8 (Gary Carter) or #10 (Rusty Staub/Andre Dawson) yet, but Mike Stanton has been wearing Tim Raines's old #30, which was retired before the team left Canada. What is their official policy on this? Looks like they don't give a damn frankly my dear, i dont give a damn.too bad too. montreal may not have been the best team but dammit they had history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashouser27 Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Yeah that's bad. Like Stanton needed number 30.Montreal had nice tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj32 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Yeah that's bad. Like Stanton needed number 30.Montreal had nice tradition. That apparently started in 1905 according to the Nats' jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Damned Y2K Bug... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Hmm I Thought they would recongize the Expos retired numbers. I guess those died with the team last year. 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...
Survival79 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I thought that the Nationals were going to take the Expos' history with them to D.C. when they became the Nationals. I know they wouldn't post an '81 NL East banner or anything, but I thought they intended to honor the uniform numbers retired already.Nobody's wearing #8 (Gary Carter) or #10 (Rusty Staub/Andre Dawson) yet, but Mike Stanton has been wearing Tim Raines's old #30, which was retired before the team left Canada. What is their official policy on this?Washington Nationals : History : Retired Numbers "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...
NJTank Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 But then why is Stanton wearing #30Stanton 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...
AAO Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 yea thats really weird...could they have forgotten? Behance Network || ianbakar.com || Dribbble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnivore Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm sure they didn't realize it. Which is wacky, to say the least. They just signed Stanton. I guess the argument is that the number is an Expos retired jersey, not a Nationals retired jersey. Who knows though. NCFA-FCS/CBB: Minnesota A&M | RANZBA (OOTP): Auckland Warriors | USA: Front Range United | IFA: Toverit Helsinki | FOBL: Kentucky Juggernaut Minnesota A&M 2012 National Champions 2013 National Finalist, 2014 National Semi-finals 2012, 2013, 2014 Big 4 Conference Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 The Expos are dead.Raines, and for that matter Carter or Dawson, have never represented or Washington in any way, shape form, so let the Nats use old Expos numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Couldn't disagree with you more, Curty.They are a part of the lineage of that franchise, and should not be dropped from its history books. I understand not putting big banners in the outfield for these players, or big banners for Expos accomplishments, but the numbers should still be held back from new players. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 besides, according to the home page of the team's history section, they consider the expos as part of their history, and make no mention of the previous washington teams.http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp...story/index.jspwhy they wear the "Est. 1905" patch is beyond me. they were founded in 1969. their own site says so.http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp...y/timeline1.jsp 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...
gashouser27 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Maybe they are referring to the Senators to take advantage of the Washington tradition thing..Milwaukee has done the same kind of things with the Braves to some extent and the Mariners have worn Seattle Pilots unis and stuffBut all teams honor the history of the franchise after they move so it is a pretty big blunder to not honor a retired number. Especially for Stanton who I'm sure has worn different numbers..I mean the first Senators became the Twins and the expansion Senators became the Rangers and there aren't too many numbers worth retiring from either of those old Senator teams but neither team ignores that history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HatCityEnforcer Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 This isn't the first time this has happened with a team moving from one area to another and saying fluff tradition.The Hurricanes after leaving Hartford reissued the 3 retired numbers the Whalers had....seemed kinda surreal and somewhat sickening to see Glen Wesley wearing #2 when it had been in the rafters for Rick Ley since the early 80s... FANTASY TEAMSHousatonic U. Dragons (NCFA Basketball): 16-6 (8-4 Conf.)--National Runner-UpJersey State U. (NCFA Football): Inaugural Year - 2006Motor City Silverhawks (WArFL): 9-4 (3rd--National Conf.)Lehigh Valley Ironmen (WAmFL): Inaugural Season--2006New England Marauders RFC (RLI): 6-0-7 (6th place)Detroit Spirit (AA): 3-6 (T-4th--Patriot League)Brooklyn Atlantics (IBF): 10-5 (1st--Appalachian Conf.)Boston Mariners RFU (WRU): Coming Soon!New York Americans (SHL): Inaugural Season - 2006-07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Yeah that's bad. Like Stanton needed number 30.Montreal had nice tradition. That apparently started in 1905 according to the Nats' jerseys. So, where were the Nats from 1905 until 2004?In a fantasy baseball tournament???That "Est. 1905" REALLY SUCKS!!! It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitaminD Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 This isn't the first time this has happened with a team moving from one area to another and saying fluff tradition.The Hurricanes after leaving Hartford reissued the 3 retired numbers the Whalers had....seemed kinda surreal and somewhat sickening to see Glen Wesley wearing #2 when it had been in the rafters for Rick Ley since the early 80s... As awkward as it must be for a Whalers fan to see a retired number "unretired", I think the Hurricanes made a conscious decision to distance themselves from all things Whalers. Also, they were going to a market that is not a traditional hockey market, to put it mildly (although there are a ton of transplants from all over the U.S. - especially the Northeast - so there are hockey fans; they just like other teams). I don't see Karmanos as being that romantic about the Whalers, and the team was faithful to that philosophy about leaving the Whalers in Connecticut. I am not saying it's right or wrong.By contrast, the Nationals have gone to some trouble to preserve the lineage between themselves and the Expos. And as has been detailed, they list retired numbers on their own site. Mike Stanton has appeared in a handful of games now; you'd think someone could've pointed this out.Of course, the Nationals are also flaunting this "Est. 1905" nonsense as well; sort of baseball history a la carte, mixing and matching to suit their needs. "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I think Connecticut maintained the Whalers history like Cleveland did with the Browns, only with less success. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Yeah the EST 1905 has to go. 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...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.