Washington Nationals?

[billroper]

The Washington Times reports that the newly-moved Expos are likely to play next year as the Washington Nationals.

Good.

Comments

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

Heh. At least its not the "Washington Generals." ;-)

[poltr1]

I thought they were going to use the name "Washington Senators", which played in town until 1971, when they went south and became the Texas Rangers, if my memory serves me correctly.

What happened? Did someone not like the political connotations?

[billroper]

The rights to the Senators name are still held by the owner of the Texas Rangers. And at least one person observed that Washington DC doesn't have any senators of its own...

[gorgeousgary]

DC's mayor objected to "Senators" on those grounds.

Meanwhile, they published a schedule today, and I should be able to make both the Cubs and Giants series when they come to town. I'm looking forward to going to the Cubs with a Chicago-born friend and the Giants with a San Francisco-born cousin.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

'Nationals' isn't much of a name for a team, but it could be worse. Some smartass could decide to apply the law that changed the name of the airport a few years ago, and they'd be the Washington Reagans.

Personally, I think it's a total crock that any of the business interests involved (incorporated teams, their owners, the league, etc.) are allowed any control of the name. The name should belong solely to the city that gets stuck with the bill when they decide they want a new stadium because the old one's ash trays are full.

[madfilkentist]

The "crock" is that the sports teams stick the cities with their bills. Let them pay their own way like any other business. Socialism is a poor excuse for more socialism.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I agree that the real problem is that the sports teams should pay for their own stadiums -- but given that they stick the cities with the bill, the cities should have the rights to the name.