Rumors of Nats Changes

[BallWonk]

It's probably nothing, but in the last month, as the new regime has taken over the Nationals organization, I've been hearing increasing talk (from folks who know someone, not from the someones themselves, so this is firmly in the realm of purest rumor) that the new owners intend adopt the Senators name in 2008 and possibly make uniform changes (in particular, new cap logos) in 2007.

Two questions:

1. Anyone else hearing anything from good sources?

2. If the Nats were to make a minor change, like a new cap logo for home or away, is that something the team would be allowed to do between now and, say, December, for next season?

[RickV]

I don't have any info, but it doesn't make much sense to make changes for 2007 if you're going to turn around and change the team name to Senators in 2008, which presumably calls for more changes to the uni's.

[IceCap]

I doubt it. The franchise has established themselves as the Nations.

[Max Power]

It's probably nothing, but in the last month, as the new regime has taken over the Nationals organization, I've been hearing increasing talk (from folks who know someone, not from the someones themselves, so this is firmly in the realm of purest rumor) that the new owners intend adopt the Senators name in 2008 and possibly make uniform changes (in particular, new cap logos) in 2007.

Two questions:

1. Anyone else hearing anything from good sources?

2. If the Nats were to make a minor change, like a new cap logo for home or away, is that something the team would be allowed to do between now and, say, December, for next season?

Don't the Texas Rangers still own the rights to the name "Washington Senators?" Though I'm sure those rights could be had for the right price.

I don't really understand why they would want to be the Senators anyway. I get the historical significance, but not one but TWO Senators teams failed in DC and didn't look good doing it. Besides, DC doesn't actually have any US Senators of their own. Isn't that a pretty touchy subject there?

I'm not a big fan of the name Nationals, but I don't think Senators is the answer either.

[Survival79]

2. If the Nats were to make a minor change, like a new cap logo for home or away, is that something the team would be allowed to do between now and, say, December, for next season?

MLB requires notice by May 31 of the preceding season for any changes. However, the team could have asked for (and received) an extension...

[charliec107]

Stan Kasten was on Sportstalk 980 today and said that the ownership group i staying with the curly W. The only chnage he mentoned was that the Lerners might do more with red, white, and blue together rather than red/white and blue/gray.

[Swiss]

I love the curly W.

Hope they will change the nickname, I always love the old fashioned Senators script.

[steiny_ramone]

Why didn't they just call them the Senators in the first place?

[HurricaneDavid]

I doubt it. The franchise has established themselves as the Nations.

Uhhhhh yeah, you got it.

[BallWonk]

Stan Kasten was on Sportstalk 980 today and said that the ownership group i staying with the curly W.  The only chnage he mentoned was that the Lerners might do more with red, white, and blue together rather than red/white and blue/gray.

Thanks. That puts the kibosh on the story I'd heard that seemed most likely to be reliable, and it puts the rest of what I've heard in better perspective.

And, while sticking with the curly W is a huge mistake, it's a relief to know that the rumors I'd heard about a Senators switch are so much Baby Boomer wish fulfillment and not the real deal.

Still doesn't explain what was going on with that white-and-gold on blue block W cap that was shown here a few months back. Man, that was a beautiful cap. Even if the curly W wasn't a badly drawn reminder of a horrible team that broke its fans' hearts, that gold-bevelled block W would be the superior cap logo.

[Krona]

Stan Kasten was on Sportstalk 980 today and said that the ownership group i staying with the curly W.  The only chnage he mentoned was that the Lerners might do more with red, white, and blue together rather than red/white and blue/gray.

Thanks. That puts the kibosh on the story I'd heard that seemed most likely to be reliable, and it puts the rest of what I've heard in better perspective.

And, while sticking with the curly W is a huge mistake, it's a relief to know that the rumors I'd heard about a Senators switch are so much Baby Boomer wish fulfillment and not the real deal.

Still doesn't explain what was going on with that white-and-gold on blue block W cap that was shown here a few months back. Man, that was a beautiful cap. Even if the curly W wasn't a badly drawn reminder of a horrible team that broke its fans' hearts, that gold-bevelled block W would be the superior cap logo.

any pics of the block w hat?

[Gothamite]

You can see the block W hat in the first post of this thread. It's not my photobucket account, so I'm not confortable reposting it here.

[jkrdevil]

Why didn't they just call them the Senators in the first place?

MLB wanted to but the DC didn't want it to be named the Senators because DC doesn't have their own Senators (They fail to realize that DC is a federal district controlled by the federal government and it's not a state. States are made up of more than 1 city). In order to help get the Stadium through MLB named the team Nationals. The Stadium issue appears dead so the new owners will probably rename the team the Senators as MLB originally wanted to do.

The Rangers own the rights to the name but getting them won't be a problem. I've said since day 1 that I thought a new owner would change the name to Senators.

[pflava]

Block "W" hat > "W"algreens hat

The Nats do need a bit of an overhaul to their uniforms, because they didn't get it right to begin with.

[The_Admiral]

Like I said in that other thread, why would you change your name to Senators? The Senators were a pile of crap. It'd be like if the Devil Rays moved to Portland, Tampa Bay got a new expansion team, and then named it the Devil Rays AGAIN.

[New_Member]

Why didn't they just call them the Senators in the first place?

MLB wanted to but the DC didn't want it to be named the Senators because DC doesn't have their own Senators (They fail to realize that DC is a federal district controlled by the federal government and it's not a state. States are made up of more than 1 city). In order to help get the Stadium through MLB named the team Nationals. The Stadium issue appears dead so the new owners will probably rename the team the Senators as MLB originally wanted to do.

The Rangers own the rights to the name but getting them won't be a problem. I've said since day 1 that I thought a new owner would change the name to Senators.

While this in not the topic of this thread, I am curious why you say "States are made up of more than 1 city". Is this an unfounded declaration of yours, or is this a fact based on US law?

I can't see any logic that explains why over 500,000 American citizens should be politically marginalized. How about Americans in Wyoming, should we deprive them of statehood too? There are more people living in tiny DC than Wyoming.

Keep the Nationals name. It's not the best name, but its good in its shortened version, Nats, and it has good history considering the old Senators(es) were called the Nats as well.

[The_Admiral]

While this in not the topic of this thread, I am curious why you say "States are made up of more than 1 city". Is this an unfounded declaration of yours, or is this a fact based on US law?

I can't see any logic that explains why over 500,000 American citizens should be politically marginalized. How about Americans in Wyoming, should we deprive them of statehood too? There are more people living in tiny DC than Wyoming.

You can't make one city its own state, as then one state is suddenly more important than the other fifty.

[Gothamite]

You can't make one city its own state, as then one state is suddenly more important than the other fifty.

Why not? I'm not sure what you mean by "more important."

New York has considered seceding from New York State in the past. We don't have much in common with the upstate, and the city gets far less money back from the Feds as it pays in taxes. Who knows, it could still happen one day.

I don't know that it's always a good idea to have a state made up of only one city, but there's no legal reason a city could not do it.

[New_Member]

While this in not the topic of this thread, I am curious why you say "States are made up of more than 1 city". Is this an unfounded declaration of yours, or is this a fact based on US law?

I can't see any logic that explains why over 500,000 American citizens should be politically marginalized. How about Americans in Wyoming, should we deprive them of statehood too? There are more people living in tiny DC than Wyoming.

You can't make one city its own state, as then one state is suddenly more important than the other fifty.

Why, how does the right the be represented in Congress make you more important?

To buy that arguement, one would have to throw out the entire two house compromise our founding fathers came to during the Constitutional Convention. Sure, each citizen of a small state like Alaska or Wyoming has more power in the Senate than a citizen of California or Texas, but we accept that lack of "fairness". Surely such inequality is preferable to barring citizens from the voting franchise.

Who considers Wyoming the most important state, just because its the smallest in population, but has full statehood? Who considers Rhode Island most important because its the smallest in size? However, DC is clearly LESS important than each of the other states, which is clearly unfair. Washingtonians are Americans. They should be given the same rights as other Americans.

[ElwoodCuse]

New York has considered seceding from New York State in the past. We don't have much in common with the upstate, and the city gets far less money back from the Feds as it pays in taxes. Who knows, it could still happen one day.

I guarantee you this will never happen.

"Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

--Article IV of the Constitution

Anyway, what happened to those guys who claimed they owned the trademark for "Washington Nationals"? Did they settle or lose or what?