Owned

[Guest Edgy DC]

Final Nationals sale finalized finally.

[Willets Point]

Who owns them? What are their chances of building a contender that will rival the Mets for divisional races for decades to come?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Oopsie. My link wasn't working. It's fixed now.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I hope they rename the team.

[Guest Edgy DC]

�Por que?

[soupcan]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I hope they rename the team.

I bet they rename the GM.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Edgy DC wrote: �Por que?

Hate the name Nationals. It's already the name of the league.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Solid provenance to that name. Change it, and the odds of something far worse --- with ugly provenance, based on Gen Y market research --- is a strong possiblity.

Peronally, I think new teams should just go nameless the first few years --- call them the Washingtons --- until a nickname evolves to the point of officialdom.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I remember they were tossing around the name Greys. I liked that. Or Grey Sox. You know, I'd even prefer "Devil Senators" to Nationals.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Edgy DC wrote: Solid provenance to that name. Change it, and the odds of something far worse --- with ugly provenance, based on Gen Y market research --- is a strong possiblity.

The Washington Xtremes?

[Guest Edgy DC]

With the Grays listed as arguably a better name*, would you take embrace the announcement of a name change knowing that there's a 50% chance that they could be named the Grays and a 50% chance that they could be named the XTremes?


* and that's hardly going to be a given, assuming that taking the name from a negro league team can well be sold as a tribute, but also come across as cultural neo-colonialism.

[Guest cooby]

Horrors, what if they called them the Xtreme (singular) instead?

[Guest Edgy DC]

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Edgy DC wrote: With the Grays listed as arguably a better name*, would you take embrace the announcement of a name change knowing that there's a 50% chance that they could be named the Grays and a 50% chance that they could be named the XTremes?

No, I don't think I'd take that risk.

I wouldn't mind if they were called the Supremes, though. The Senators had their time in the sun, maybe it's time to give some props to the judicial branch.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

And while we're at it, I've long thought that there was an unfortunate mixup when two expansion teams were named in 1969. Were it up to me, the Montreal team would have been the Royals, and the Kansas City team would have been the Monarchs.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I just found a pretty cool site that lists names of historical minor league teams. The longest running name of an "organized" team in Kansas City is the Blues, 1904 through 1954. The Cowboys played in 1902 and 1903.

http://www.ballparkwatch.com/league_histories.htm

Of course, Washington doesn't have any minor league history to draw upon, and it's been pretty much decided that they won't dust off the name Senators.

If Portland ever gets a team, they should call it the Beavers:

]Portland Beavers, 1905-1972, 1978-1993, 2002-present Portland Browns, 1903-1904 Portland Giants, 1905

For Las Vegas, I'd stick with the Stars:

]Las Vegas 51s, 2000-present Las Vegas Stars, 1983-1999

And I wonder if they even considered calling the Mariners the Raniers?

]Seattle Angels, 1965-1968 Seattle Indians, 1922-1932, 1934-1937 Seattle Rainiers, 1920-1921, 1933, 1938-1964 Seattle Siwashes, 1903-1906

And yet another reason to rue the westward move of the Giants and Dodgers. If an expansion team had been placed in San Francisco, they probably would have been called the Seals, which I think is a great name.

]San Francisco Seals, 1903-1957

[soupcan]

I was rooting for Miami Marlins and Denver Bears when the Marlins and the Rockies came to be.

How much cooler is Denver Bears than Colorado Rockies?

So much.

[Willets Point]

I for one am against state/region naming. Name 'em for the city they play in! And just one city please Angels!

[Elster88]

soupcan wrote: I was rooting for Miami Marlins and Denver Bears when the Marlins and the Rockies came to be. How much cooler is Denver Bears than Colorado Rockies? So much.

Nope. No bears allowed in Denver. I like the way Chicago has Bears and Cubs.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

soupcan wrote: I was rooting for Miami Marlins and Denver Bears when the Marlins and the Rockies came to be.

Me too. What's even worse is that they took the name of a defunct NHL team. (Those Colorado Rockies are now the New Jersey Devils, I think.)

[soupcan]

Elster88 wrote: Nope. No bears allowed in Denver. I like the way Chicago has Bears and Cubs.

Denver Bears were a minor league team.

[stevejrogers]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: ="soupcan"]I was rooting for Miami Marlins and Denver Bears when the Marlins and the Rockies came to be. Me too. What's even worse is that they took the name of a defunct NHL team. (Those Colorado Rockies are now the New Jersey Devils, I think.)

Yup

[stevejrogers]

Edgy DC wrote: Solid provenance to that name. Change it, and the odds of something far worse --- with ugly provenance, based on Gen Y market research --- is a strong possiblity. Peronally, I think new teams should just go nameless the first few years --- call them the Washingtons --- until a nickname evolves to the point of officialdom.

Good point. Done wonders to Washington allready. Caved to anti-gun lobbyists and you got the WIZARDS! Heh, Sports headline and ESPN Sportscenter copy writers will have a field day with an Orlando-Washington East Conference Final. Through in some Harry Potter or Gandalf references (or whatever magic/fantasy adventure movie is the current IT at the moment)

[Theoldmole]

If they're going to take the name of a defunct hockey team, how about the Screaming Eagles?

[DocTee]

Collective singular names suck: Heat, Magic and all the rest. I think the Stanford Cardinal got that craze started.

Major League Soccer once had the Burn and the Wiz.

Sounds like something a urologist should be consulted for.

[Elster88]

The Jazz was a good singular nickname....until the team moved to Utah.

I don't have a problem with most of those, if they make sense with the city. It's hot in Miami. The Magic Kingdom is in Orlando.

[soupcan]

Elster88 wrote: The Jazz was a good singular nickname....until the team moved to Utah. I don't have a problem with most of those, if they make sense with the city. It's hot in Miami. The Magic Kingdom is in Orlando.

I can live with a team moving locales and keeping their name. But if the original name is based upon their original locale then why wouldn't they change it?

Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland Athletics is fine. Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams - no problemo.

Utah Jazz makes no sense nor does Los Angeles Dodgers or Lakers or Arizona Cardinals. Salt Lake is known for it's jazz clubs and all the well known jazz musicians that originated from that area? Really? Many trolleys to dodge or lakes to canoe in L.A.?

Bright red cardinals are indigenous to arid desert climates? Who knew?

[Elster88]

At least they had the red car thing in LA. Or at least that's what I learned from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

[Frayed Knot]

Not only is jazz not native to Utah but I think it's illegal there.



I think it was the WFL (World Football League - one of the NFL wannabe competitors) who decided they'd be unique and go with (mostly) singular names.



So now that Bud bought the ex-'Pos for ~$120mil and is selling them for something on the order of $450mil I think maybe it's time for the other owners to quit bitching about having to keep them afloat for these past 5 years.
Can you say Windfall?

[soupcan]

="Frayed Knot"]I think it was the WFL (World Football League - one of the NFL wannabe competitors) who decided they'd be unique and go with (mostly) singular names.

That's right! I distinctly remember a team in the WFL called the 'Sun'. I think it was the California Sun.


ON EDIT:



The Southern California Sun