Proposed names for the Washington Nationals?

[New_Member]

Nah, it was a bad name then and it's a bad name now.

It was the official name of the 20th century team, but the fans hated it enough to call them the Senators regardless.

Nationals was a compromise name, to serve the political and financial interests of various constituencies, which never results in the right answer.

It's a bad name (although their fans almost never call them the Nationals) but it's still much better than the other two options. Senators failed twice, and Grays is a terrible name. I understand wanting to honor a Negro League team, but sorry, with a name that terrible no thanks.

I don't recall opinion being as stark as Gothamite suggests. Yes, there were those who supported the Grays (as I did) or Senators, but it wasn't like no one wanted the Nationals. My perception in fact was that Nationals was the most popular, then Grays, then Senators.

[RedSox44]

I was always partial to Monuments myself, but Nationals is good.

[DeFrank]

I was always partial to Monuments myself, but Nationals is good.

Interesting fact...

There's only one monument in Washington. The washington monument. The rest are memorials.

[RedSox44]

I was always partial to Monuments myself, but Nationals is good.

Interesting fact...

There's only one monument in Washington. The washington monument. The rest are memorials.

I just thought it sounded cool in 2005 when I was ten. In fact, I still think it sounds cool.

[winghaz]

What? Washington Expos wasn't considered?

Oh, wait, this isn't the NBA.

[Gothamite]

Senators failed twice,

in fairness, the first time was because the final owner of the team didn't like black people all that much...

[pmoehrin]

Senators failed twice,

in fairness, the first time was because the final owner of the team didn't like black people all that much...

Could say the same thing about pretty much every AL owner.

Make a list of all the great NL black players in the late 50's and early 60's. Compare that to all the great AL black players of the same time period.

How do you explain teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Tigers missing out on guys like Aaron, Mays, Banks, Marichal, Maury Wills, McCovey by saying anything other then the people in the front offices in most of if not every AL team were bigots.

[spyboy1]

I'm not a fan of the name Nationals much at all. Exactly what is a "National"? Someone who lives in the nation? That's pretty damn dull. I agree that Washington Eagles would have been a much finer choice. If you have an issue with the Philadelphia Eagles being too close, then Washington Americans would have been better than Nationals. The only reason I tolerate it, is because it's a historical name that was used previously.

[Gothamite]

Senators failed twice,

in fairness, the first time was because the final owner of the team didn't like black people all that much...

Could say the same thing about pretty much every AL owner.

Make a list of all the great NL black players in the late 50's and early 60's. Compare that to all the great AL black players of the same time period.

How do you explain teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Tigers missing out on guys like Aaron, Mays, Banks, Marichal, Maury Wills, McCovey by saying anything other then the people in the front offices in most of if not every AL team were bigots.

Simple - sone were indeed racists, the rest were cowards. So afraid of being labeled "radicals" that they were retrograde. There's a difference between cowardice, not wanting to upset racist elements in your fanbase, and being a flaming racist yourself.

But Griffith told a group in Minnesota that the deciding factor on moving from Washington was the pronounced lack of black people in the Twin Cities. He saw a whiter fanbase as a benefit to his club.

And no, you couldn't say about any other owner. He was a very special case. Other teams might have worried what would happen if they put black players in uniform, but Griffith didn't want black fans to come through the turnstiles.

[TampaBayEverybodyLovesRays]

I'm not a fan of the name Nationals much at all. Exactly what is a "National"? Someone who lives in the nation? That's pretty damn dull. I agree that Washington Eagles would have been a much finer choice. If you have an issue with the Philadelphia Eagles being too close, then Washington Americans would have been better than Nationals. The only reason I tolerate it, is because it's a historical name that was used previously.

I might be in the minority, but I kind of like abstract names. Same could be said for Astros/Dodgers/Reds/Mets/Expos/Athletics

[NJTank]

Nah, it was a bad name then and it's a bad name now.

It was the official name of the 20th century team, but the fans hated it enough to call them the Senators regardless.

Nationals was a compromise name, to serve the political and financial interests of various constituencies, which never results in the right answer.

It's a bad name (although their fans almost never call them the Nationals) but it's still much better than the other two options. Senators failed twice, and Grays is a terrible name. I understand wanting to honor a Negro League team, but sorry, with a name that terrible no thanks.

There were some good Negro League Names. Newark Eagles and Kansas City Monarchs. Homestead Grays was not one of the good ones.