Sign in to follow this  
BallWonk

Rumors of Nats Changes

Recommended Posts

Pittsburgh doesn't have pirates, should they be forced to have their name changed?

The Red Sox do not actually wear red sox for that matter.

Yes they do, they have since 2003. OK, technically they wear red SOCKS

The White Sox do not wear white socks. Theirs are black.

No, the Red Sox wear Red Stirrups, not red sox.

No. I am not sure about every player, but the huge majority of the players today with the high socks look actually wear high socks, not stirrups. Very few players wear high stirrups anymore - Mark Prior is the only one that comes to mind (Zito changed from stirrups to socks). Uniwatch talked about it recently. Stirrups are out of style.

Therefore, the players are wearing solid red socks, not red stirrups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Like Baltimore, Cleveland and the Browns? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHO CARES THE SENATORS WERE A WORTHLESS TEAM ANYWAY

:rolleyes:

They won three pennants and a championship. More than my team can say. More than many teams can say, for that matter.

I was referring to the second version of the Senators, which did a whole lot of nothing.

All the more reason to get rid of the Walgreens "W" then.

The name isn't the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the script "W" cap. It evokes the tradition of the old Senators, yet still looks good. To be honest, I like the home and road uniforms alot. I like the fact that the red is home and the blue (cap) is away. Reminds me a bit of how the Cardinals do it.

Keep the Nationals name. There is nothing wrong with it.

I think I am the only one here that can't stand the red alt with the "DC" on it and matching "DC" cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the script "W" cap. It evokes the tradition of the old Senators, yet still looks good.

The expansion Senators only. Not the good team. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Walgreens "W" but the DC logo is only meh. The unis themselves aren't terrible, but the "Nationals" wordmark is just too damn big.

ps the Dork-In-Chief in the White House prolly thinks the Nats are his team 'cause his name's on the hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the script "W" cap.  It evokes the tradition of the old Senators, yet still looks good.

The expansion Senators only. Not the good team. :P

Even then, people are using a different language than English when they call something that only existed for a couple of years a "tradition." The Senators wore the curly W from 1963 to 1971, a total of nine years. Add to which the fact that during that time the team's best finish was 4th place in a six-team division -- twice in those nine years the Senators finished in 10th place out of 10, and three more times they finished in 8th or 9th place -- and that attendance over that same span rose from 10th place out of 10 in the AL to 11th place out of 12, even if you grant that the word "tradition" applies to a logo used for only nine years, by no reasonable definition is it a tradition worth honoring. The curly W is a "tradition" worth evoking sort of like how surgery without anaesthesia is a medical "tradition."

The very fact that people associate "Senators" with the expansion team of curly-W infamy, and not the much-superior but still historically terrible AL founding franchise, is reason why the current team should not adopt that name and should switch to the block W. Anyway, the very first baseball team ever organized in Washington was the Nationals. Not even Cincinnati can point to a more traditional name than one that was first used in 1859.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose the name change to be the Washington EX-Expos.

Their logo could be the old Montreal "elb" or "emb" or whatever those letters were, with the red circular "Ghostbusters" symbol through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only thing I can tolerate about that franchise is the W logo on the hats.

The rest? Horribly amateurish, right down to the stupid DC secondary logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all weekend during their sweep of the Cubs, the Nationals pushed the "Paint the town red" theme during their "grand re-opening" put on by the new owners. Red DC caps and red alt jerseys every game. You'd think if the new ownership was so in love with the W they'd have them wear the red W caps with the red alts. They match as well with the red jerseys as they do with the homes (and it would solve the triple DC overkill effect.... slightly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd compromise and use the W cap for Sundays (along with a complete Senators-style uniform with 'Washington' on the chest). Keep it around for historical purposes but don't push it as the main cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHO CARES THE SENATORS WERE A WORTHLESS TEAM ANYWAY

:rolleyes:

They won three pennants and a championship. More than my team can say. More than many teams can say, for that matter.

Well, not exactly.

TECHNICALLY, the official team name in Washington from 1905 until 1958 (or so) was the Washington Nationals. Everyone called them the Senators, since before 1905 they were the Sens, plus the fact they didn't play in the NATIONAL league. So really they won their pennants and championships as the Washington Nationals officially. In the late 50s (possibly early 60s) right before moving to Minnesota, the team decided, since everyone called them the Senators anyway, to officially change the name (hence having a logo that actually says "Senators". Whe nthe expansion franchise moved in, they kept the name.

So really, there is only about 20 years of history with the name "Senators", and about 50 with the name "Nationals". Combining this with the fact the new DC club plays in the NL, and Nationals was an obvious choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do like the name "Senators" a whole lot more than "Nationals", I'd be furious if the new ownership group did go ahead and changed the name. They would completley alienate their new fan base. Take me for example. I live, go to school, and work all in northern Virginia, about 20 miles out of D.C. And around here, the Nationals are big. I work in retail, and you see everyday people walking around with ballcaps, t-shirts, jerseys on all proudly displaying "Nationals". I have bought 3 hats, two jerseys, and 5 t-shirts all saying Nationals for me and my family. Now if they change, I'd be so angry that I dropped so much cash into them, I'd just buy the MLB TV package so I can see my Reds and go back to ignoring the Nats. But I'd rather not. I like the team, I love the ballpark. I enjoy watching the games on MASN every night and talking about them the next day. But a name change is the last thing they want. It would ruin the brand they have worked so hard to introduce. Just my $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a addition, I believe I saw more than a couple fans wearing what looked like Nationals jerseys on Sunday, but actually said "Nat Pack." I saw red and white versions. So it looks like they are embracing the "Nats" (not that they wouldn't keep calling them that even if they switched to Senators.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only baseball jerseys I ever seriously considered purchasing were Vlad Guerrero's 27 for the Expos and Scott Brosius' 18 with the Yankees. As it is, I'm glad I bought neither. I only bring this up to say that the Nationals could fit in just as easily with any current minor league team. There's not much that's timeless about the team's logo or it's uniform. It's very clean and uncluttered yes, but only for 2005 and will probably look out of place in 2012. I guess we'll wait and see.

The hat, however, is very much timeless and I might eventually get around to purchasing one. (The blue road cap, of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the fans of DC want the old Senators identity back too:

"First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League."

The scuttle was that MLB had a contingency plan to re-identify the Nats if the "those guys" who sued had won. I think the rumor was a new name and a push to identify them as the "DC" whatever-it-was (I don't think it would have been the Senators). The plan was to keep the colors the same though. But "those guys" lost, so it's moot.

I wish they'd push the blue more, but if the new owners plan on emphasizing red, white, and blue, that's cool too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a addition, I believe I saw more than a couple fans wearing what looked like Nationals jerseys on Sunday, but actually said "Nat Pack." I saw red and white versions. So it looks like they are embracing the "Nats" (not that they wouldn't keep calling them that even if they switched to Senators.)

The "Nat Pack" works for the team. They're the kids who handle the between-innings contests and giveaways and who shoot t-shirts into the audience from that golf cart.

What I'd like to see, aside from switching to a block W cap logo with gold beveling, is an alt uni in the style of the famous Grays jersey with the thick blue stripes and the oversized tahoma-style "Grays" script, but saying "Nats" instead.

Other uniform-related changes the new owners need to make: Screech needs a new jersey; his '05 home white shirt is completely filthy (and it says 05 on the back). Also, the bat boys need jerseys that say BB on the back instead of 06.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this