Do you wish the Nationals were known as the Senators?

[CaliforniaCajun]

I know the original Senators were officially the Nationals but were known as the Senators.

It disappointed me as a baseball fan that the familiar name wasn't given to the Washington franchise when it moved over from Montreal.

I think it is political. I remember the mayor saying something like they wouldn't be the Senators because D.C. doesn't have statehood.

[Bazookadale]

No.













( this added because No was too short)

[Padday]

Anything to try and change the fortunes and help bury the image of this hopelessly pitiful franchise. Plus, Senators has less letters and would therefore be harder to misspell.

[welch]

The team should be the Senators, and Nats for headlines. In the '50s, we called them Senators and Nationals...both...no particluar reason. When Calvin officially changed the name to "Senators", about 1956, we still chanted "Lets go, Nats!" Same with the expansio team.

[Brian McKenna]

I know the original Senators were officially the Nationals but were known as the Senators.

The original Senators were originally called the Senators.

Club is being called Senators even before Opening Day 1901.

In February 1905 The Senators ask fans to write in potential new nicknames for the club. On March 26, 1905 team president Noyes officially renames the club "Nationals." Fan Frank L. McKenna (no relation), described as an old-time fan, was the first to send in the suggestion and thus won a season pass.

On October 30, 1956 Calvin Griffith announces that the clubs official name is now Senators. The move is made to symbolically show the team's committment to DC after talk of it moving. At the same meeting the Washington club voted against an invitations from LA and "several other cities" to move the club.

[pgsuperfan]

Calvin Griffith should have never moved the Senators to Minnesota

[bryanac625]

I know the original Senators were officially the Nationals but were known as the Senators.

It disappointed me as a baseball fan that the familiar name wasn't given to the Washington franchise when it moved over from Montreal.

I think it is political. I remember the mayor saying something like they wouldn't be the Senators because D.C. doesn't have statehood.

I would prefer Senators as the team name. But at least Nationals is not a stupid name, and it is a historic name. But more importantly, I'm glad the team has a clearly defined name as opposed to being known as both the Senators and the Nationals, while wearing a tremendously bland uniform identified only by a W.

And I'd rather keep sports and politics seperate but I do understand the motivation behind not wanting to name the team Senators (although I distinctly remember former DC Mayor Anthony Williams stating that a "kids contest" would be held to decide on a name... I wonder if that ever happened). DC never had self-governing home rule until 1973, two years after the expansion Senators left for Texas. I don't know if Nationals is a name that means DC is speaking for itself, but as much as I like Senators, I think the Mayor did have a point.

[Aa3rt]

I would prefer Senators as the team name. But at least Nationals is not a stupid name, and it is a historic name. But more importantly, I'm glad the team has a clearly defined name as opposed to being known as both the Senators and the Nationals, while wearing a tremendously bland uniform identified only by a W.

Five years ago (or more) when the possible move of the Montreal Expos to Washington was first being bandied about I was very much in favor of naming the team "Senators". In retrospect, I've grown comfortable with the "Nationals" name.

Having grown up rooting for the expansion Senators in the American League (I'm barely old enough to remember the original team.) the Senators playing in the National League just wouldn't seem appropriate.

Bryan-I'd forgotten about Mayor Williams "Kid's Contest"-I also wonder what ever happened to that effort.

A short history (elaborating on what Brian McKenna has already posted): When the American League was formed in 1901, the original team was known as the Senators from 1901 through 1904. The "official" name was changed to Nationals in 1905 and used through 1955.

I can't find the quote but Clark Griffith, owner of the Washington franchise from 1920 through 1955, said something to the effect that every state had a senate and that the Nationals name was more befitting of the team that represented the nation's capital.

It wasn't until after Clark Griffith's death in 1955 that his adopted nephew Calvin bowed to popular sentiment and renamed the team Senators for the 1956 season.

More information on the team's name and nicknames in the link (check out the left side):

Washington Senators 1901-1960

[Pere]

I don't know if Nationals is a name that means DC is speaking for itself,

It's not. It wouldn't be called Senators or Nationals, or anything else that explicitly referred to federalism. A team that wanted to emphasize locality would be called something like the Anacostia Grays.

But of course, the people who actually live in "DC" don't have much money, as a group. The money is with the people who aren't from there (the people who work in "Washington").

And I wouldn't give Williams any points for making political points after the way he was taken on the deal that brought the team to town.

[PlayJay]

They ARE the Senators! Didn't they start this season with like FOUR first basemen?

[lito el jonronero]

Maybe because I am cuban and and the Washington is part of our culture through the baseball, the Senators never will have other name for us because Senators in Cuba are Bob Estalella sr, Gil Torres, Connie Marrero, Camilo Pascual, Pedro Ramos o Zoilo Versalles then as my peiople lost the folks with Castro that pùlled de professional baseball from my country never more we can forget the club made our childhood in the most beautiful game ever.

[bryanac625]

A short history (elaborating on what Brian McKenna has already posted): When the American League was formed in 1901, the original team was known as the Senators from 1901 through 1904. The "official" name was changed to Nationals in 1905 and used through 1955.[/URL]

I don't know if Nationals OR Senators (before 1956) was ever really "official."

In an era of instant identification as soon as a team adopts a name (look at the Brooklyn Nets), it is very hard to imagine a teams brand name existing without tradmark, copyright, licensing and marketing.

I feel like if someone were to have interviewed team owner Clark Griffith (1869-1955; owner 1920-1955), and asked him, "What is the name of your ballclub, sir?" I have to wonder if you would have gotten a straight answer.

31rsPAl2UqL__SL500_AA300_.jpg

[welch]

1. I wish they were the Senators. That's what I always called them...started watching about 1952.

2. However, Bob Wolff used to welcome us to our "Washington Nationals", so that must have been the name...as records suggest. However, people called them the Senators no matter what ownership did. Check the early '50s baseball cards, and some years Topps called the team the "Nationals" and some years the "Senators".

3. According to Shirley Povich's book, from 1954, the two earliest organized teams were the Potomacs and the Nationals. As best I remember (and I'm too lazy to look it up), Washingtonians began calling the team the Senators sometime in the 1880s. Even Povich did not know why.

4. Gary Sarnoff's fine book, "The Wrecking Crew of '33", calls the team the Senators on some pages and the Nationals on others. He quotes Buddy Myer as calling the team the "Griffmen". Down until 1971, they were always :"the Nats" for short...which was an easier fit for newspaper headlines. "Lets go Nats!" is a better cheer.