Talk:Washington Nationals/Archive 1

So HOW'D they get the name?

So HOW'D they get the name?

Rant

No serious person doubts the viability of Washington as a baseball market on the grounds that the city is comprised of a majority of African-Americans who are generally apathetic to baseball. For one, this African-American popultation constitutes less than 7 percent of the the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and far less of the overall economic wealth of the region. While the population of The D.C. metro area is estimated to be around 4.5 million people, the population of Washington, D.C. itself is estimated at just over 500,000 people. Its neighborning county of Fairfax in Virginia is estimated to have a population of over 1.1 million. Fairfax County is also considered to be the richest county in the United States (using median family income as a measuring tool). The fanbase for the Nationals overwhelmingly resides in Northern Virginia, as well as Southern Maryland. The whole question of viability should not be presented as a serious argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.238.203 (talk • contribs)

Don't worry buddy, everyone knows DC got the nats because Virginia doesn't have any cities with the name value to pull in a major league franchise of its own --71.163.118.20 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Expos

Can I proposed that assuming the team winds up in Washington as the Washington Nationals that the Montreal Expos page be moved to this page and the Washington D.C. Major League Baseball Franchise be merge into it and than be a re direct link. The new team will be a continuation of the Expos and not a sperate entity. The Expos will not become a "defunct" team in the way sports league use that term

Color scheme

According to the official site, the color scheme will be red, blue, and gold. Also, the original Senators (not the expansion Senators) were originally known as the Nationals, and there were other, older 'Nationals' teams as well (pre-American League).. see http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20041121&content_id=915374&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was I'll make a couple changes Acheron 21:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous...

I can't believe that you're essentially removing the entire history of the Expos just for the sake of expedient information distribution. The Expos are NOT the Nationals. Their histories are distinct and should be recognized as such.

--Michaelk 03:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I hope D.C. doesn't give up on a MLB team for a third time. --Madchester 05:15, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Agreed and seconded. The Montreal Expos are a piece of history and deserve their own page. This is an outrage to place part of Montreal's history under the heading of Washington.

The Nationals and the Expos are the same franchise. St. Louis Brown history is in the Baltimore Orioles article, etc. Kingturtle 21:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't care. Nos Amours deserves its own page. The Americans already stole the Expos from Montréal, they're not welcome to our Wikipedia page. - Flynn

Perhaps even more relevant to this discussion is the Washington Senators history in the Texas Rangers article (and actually in Minnesota Twins, for what it's worth). --timc | Talk 03:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flynn, I suggest you're letting your emotions override common sense on this one. There's a great deal of precedent for the current system, and feeling slighted over the actions of MLB isn't really relevant to that. The article is about the Nationals organization, which is the same organization as the Montréal Expos, and the article should reflect that. If this were a piece about baseball in Montréal more generically, then yes, you'd have a point, but that's not what this article, nor any other article on baseball franchises, is about. – Seancdaug 02:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

On that note I am removing the references to Washington baseball history, as they are completely irrelevant.

Of course, the Washington Senators (both the failed teams) have its own Wikipedia page, so why not Nos Amours?

Flynn

The Sporting News Baseball Record Book has a section of club-by-club records which consciously separate Brooklyn from Los Angeles, New York from San Francisco, etc. although they make it clear that the pairs of teams are continous.

Perhaps this approach could be taken here, i.e. to separate by city and specific franchise. There could be a link referring the reader to the other page which would have the complete history. That way, among other things, duplication could be avoided. Wahkeenah 02:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flynn, you actually raise a fair point about the baseball history section: much of it can (and probably should) be moved to the Washington Senators article for exactly that reason. But you are still, quite frankly, showing a degree of emotional attachment to the subject that is not appropriate. As for the Expos, I can see having something like the current Senators page, provided it clearly distinguishes itself from other MLB franchise articles (different format, etc.), and provided that it doesn't go so far as to duplicate the franchise history that belongs on the Nationals page. (In other words, I second Wahkeenah's idea :-) ) – Seancdaug 02:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Expos are the Nationals. They are the same baseball franchise, as recognized by Major League Baseball. When a team in sports (with the one exception being the Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore) moves cities, changes its name, or both, it's still the same franchise. Major League Baseball recognizes the Nationals franchise as having existed since 1969. So, no, there shouldn't be a separate page for the Montreal Expos. Their history obviously should be included in this article.Politician818 16:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Flynn, it's a shame there weren't more people in Montreal that felt as you did. People simply did not go out to the ballpark enough to justify keeping the team there. It's quite a shame. On the other hand, you could always become a Nats fan as we had become Expos fans before the team moved.... --Habap 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The sad fact, Habap, is that you are a victim of one of the most pernicious misconceptions that has been perpetrated by the media and the management of MLB. What really killed the Expos was ten years of mismanagement. The Expos poor attendance was merely a reflection of the poor management decisions of the likes of Brochu, Loria et al. (link) If you have any doubt that management is a factor, look at the sorry state of affairs that exists in Miami right now with the same Loria group in charge (link). It is a successful team on the field with absolutely no fan support, and cooked attendance figures. Fans can only support so much mismanagement. Also, for illustrative purposes, compare these: Final game attendance for the Brooklyn Dodgers before their move: 6702 retrosheet boxscore Final game attendance for the Montreal Expos before their move: 31395 retrosheet boxscore. You decide what that means. --Exshpos 14:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the Montreal ownership was incompetent and desirous of a move. Loria ended up making loads of money on the deal and is striving to ruin yet another franchise.

I would suggest, however, that a comparison between the Dodgers last game, when air travel was not available cheaply and when travelling to every baseball stadium was a rare goal, and the Expos final game, when the cheapest airline tickets cost less than two days of average wages and the typical serious baseball fan has seen games in several cities, is simply unrealistic. The 6,702 attending the last Dodgers game was about half the season average (13,354)[[1] while the 31,395 at the Expos game was triple the season average (9,369)[2] and nearly six times more than the day before (5,416) (heck, it was more than double the Opening Day crowd of 14,739.) I suspect those 31,395 were there more for the history than for the Expos.

Also, difference between these teams and the top attendance teams was not at all similar. The Milwaukee Braves had led attendance with an average of only 28,403 in 1957, while the LA Dodgers needed an average of 43,065 to finish with the highest attendance in 2004. So, the Brooklyn Dodgers were rooted by 47% as many people as the Braves, while the Expos could hear individual conversations from 22% as many people as the LA Dodgers. (Especially during those games with about 4,000 fans.)

A comparison of season averages would be far more appropriate, as would a comparison to contemporary teams. (Note that the Dodgers had finished first or second in attendance many times prior to their departure.)

The year before Loria become the managing partner in 1999, the team finished 16th in the NL in attendance. They had not been in the upper half of attendance numbers in the league since 1983. Can 20 years of poor attendance be blamed on poor owenership? Even when they finished 2nd (4 times since 1983), attendance sucked (including 2002, when they were in the midst of 7 seasons in dead last in attendance). So, either every owner for 21 years was an idiot (a possibility) or Montreal wasn't going to be able to support a team.

Thus, it's hard for me to see the support for baseball in Montreal. --Habap 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup notice

Why is there a cleanup notice on this page? The article's not perfect, but what Wikipedia article is? It seems in pretty good shape and better than many other pages for MLB teams. --Polynova 06:56, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of just needs to be tightened up, and some of the prose is questionable ("But Baltimore is not Washington, and now Washington has a team of its own again," for instance). – Seancdaug 03:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points...

First, someone took the bait on my pie-in-the-sky comment about "Baltimore is not Washington". The brutally honest truth is that there IS NO JUSTIFICATION, other than POLITICAL, for putting a team in Washington. Baltimore put Camden Yards downtown so that it would be easier for Washingtonians to get to. I know this because THEY SAID SO AT THE TIME. It never occurred to them that someone would try to put a team in D.C. again. It was always a losing proposition. It's being done now, as it was done in 1961, for ONE REASON ONLY: to KISS UP to the politicians and try to preserve baseball's precious (and undeserved) anti-trust exemption.

Second, somebody needs to read their history. NATS was ALWAYS short for "Nationals", which was ALWAYS a secondary nickname for the team. In fact, the team for decades tried to be the "Nationals" as their PRIMARY nickname rather than the "Senators", but it never quite worked. In any case, "Nats" was NEVER short for "SeNATors". The argument about the expansion team being strictly "Senators" and thus wouldn't have been called "Nationals" is false. Baseball officials in 1961 tried to pretend that there was a continuum between the two Washington teams, and that the Twins were the "expansion" team. That may sound far-fetched, but I know it's true because I remember it, because the guides of the time show it that way, AND BECAUSE THE LEADERS OF BASEBALL SAID SO at the time. I'm guessing that the writer is fairly young and is unaware of the political shenanigans that were going on in 1961. Remember, that's the same year that Roger Maris was stuck with an "asterisk" because the season was 8 games longer, a fact that Roger had nothing to do with. Baseball is a beautiful game, but too often it's run by bean-brains.

I don’t know what kind of point you are trying to make, other then a poorly worded political one, but the tone of your unsigned comment above is unwanted, unnecessary, and in my opinion unappreciated i have contacted the user about the name of the problem and am willing to open a dialog to try to explain to him where he might be wrong, where you have decide to deride this user and have not from what i seen made any attempt to try to start a meaningful dialog with the user to explain why it is wrong, other then your "RANT" above. It seems that if you don’t want to act in some civil manner about this franchise or the edits that have been made, then maybe you should not edit this article, or are you so slighted that the Expos didn’t move to Oregon and went to DC instead that you just can't keep you hands out of it. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've clearly got some serious NPOV issues with regards to this article. Its rather ludicrous to suggest that "it never occured to them that someone would try to put a team in D.C. again," as the area was a finalist during the last two expansions. DC has been looking for a new team for decades. There were attempts to get a team back into DC before the opening of Camden Yards, and they continued well after. Whether or not you agree with the idea, all of this was going on, and being talked about ad naseaum in local newspapers and radio, and it would have been next to impossible for it not to "occur" to Baltimore. I know this because, well, it's a matter of public record.

And I am fully aware of the history of baseball in Washington. Everything you say about the expansion team trying to maintain continuity is 100% correct, and you'll note I never said anything to contradict it. But it's a complete non-sequitur. The "Nats" was never an official name for the team: it was an affectionate nickname given by fans and sportswriters. "Nats" was a popular nickname precisely because it could apply equally well to both "Nationals" and "Senators." What MLB wanted, intended, or said at the time is largely irrelevant, since this is an issue of popular response.

All this being said, I've been talking with Boothy443, and he was right to point out that the wording could be clearer. I'll see if I can clear it up to everyone's satisfaction. – Seancdaug 05:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Continuing...

I was a little irked that someone kept appending that incorrect "fact" about NATS somehow being short for "SeNATors". It is NOT TRUE. I was also a little irked that someone took a shot at my attempt to be positive in justifying a team for D.C. So you all started it, I just reacted. I go by "Wahkeenah", which is a waterfall in Oregon, but I don't think MLB belongs in Oregon, either.

Who, besides politicians, were lobbying for a team in D.C.?

"Nationals" WAS, in fact, the original "official" nickname of the old A.L. team. They wore it on their uniforms in the early 1900s. They switched to the block "W" for the next 50-plus years, and the team was known interchangeably as the "Senators" or "Nationals" (or "Nats" for short). They finally gave up calling themselves the "Nationals" sometime in the late 40s or early 50s, but headline writers will do what they want to. There was never a Brooklyn team called the "Bums", either, but that was a name cartoonists and headline writers used for them.

Look, it is "true" insofar as it's the common explanation given by Washington-area fans as to why they called they team "Nats" during the 1960s, as a brief glance at Google's results for Senators and Nats indicates. As a resident of DC, I can also testify to this from personal experience. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "Nats" was ever anything more than a fan nickname. It was whatever the fans and sportswriters of the region wanted it to be, and the justification they provide is that the name "Senators" conveniently allowed for the original nickname of "Nats" to continue to be used even after the name "Nationals" was dropped. Please refrain from reverting this again until you can provide some support for your claims.

As for who was lobbying for a team: it was an annual theme amongst regional sportswriters and columnists (Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon, Thomas Boswell, etc.), there were constant complaints amongst local residents (speaking as a local resident, mind you), and both near-misses during the two expansions of the 1990s yielded a lot of popular support in the region. I'm not actually sure where you get the idea that "politicans" were lobbying for the team at all: save for Mayor Williams, I can't think of a single politican who said anything at all about it until last fall, when the Expos had already announced the move, and the financing issue was being wrangled out. – Seancdaug 06:13, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And who will be paying for the new stadium? - W.

I think you'll find that's a whole 'nother section of the article, and rather unrelated to the point at hand. Non-baseball fans didn't necessarily care if DC had a team or not. Even some baseball fans were obviously dubious regarding the need to spend public money on a new stadium. But please don't suggest that there wasn't a sizable and ongoing effort to bring baseball back to DC, because, again, it's very much a matter of public record. – Seancdaug 06:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, everybody wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it. This hits close to home here in Minneapolis, where the local teams have been trying to extort a couple of new stadiums from the taxpayers for years; and in Illinois, where I used to live, where the "Sunshine Boys" who run the White Sox succeeded in their extortion some years ago, as others have, and so on.

Did you ever actually hear a fan of the old Senators call them the "Nats", or was it just in print? Can you cite some evidence that "Nats" ever stood for "Senators" as well as the obvious "Nationals"? If you can, I'll consider backing down.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that in the middle years, the nicknames were used interchangeably:

newspaper name not given, Oct 11, 1924 - "Walter Johnson ... leading the Senators to victory".

Washington Evening Star, Oct 11, 1925 - referring to "the present fight between Nationals and Pirates" and to "Clark Griffith, President of the Nationals".

Milwaukee Journal, Oct, 1933 - "Weaver, who started for the Nationals..." and then in the same article "The Senators made a big threat..."

"The Sporting News" Baseball Guide, 1943 (and some years before and after) - "Fans, by ballot, decided their club was to be called the Nationals, instead of the Senators. The only trouble with the vote was that its result was not binding on headline writers. Therefore, the Washington club still is often called the Senators, as well as the Nats and Griffs, the latter being derived from the name of owner Clark Griffith".

You're right: the names were used interchangeably. I'm not sure where you got the impression I ever disagreed with you on that point. But the thing is, the 1960s expansion team was never called the "Nationals." So fans came up with a new justification for continuing to use the nickname "Nats." If there had not been a previous team in the area called "Nationals," it's unlikely that anyone would have used the name "Nats" to refer to the 1960s "Senators," so it is important to indicate, as I have subsequently tried to do, that the nickname was originally derived from "Nationals." But eventually the reasoning was transferred to the new "Senators." Fans who were unfamiliar with the history of the franchise's name (as many fans in the 1960s were) simply assumed "Nats" derived from "Senators," and since it's all a matter of public opinion anyway, that's what counts.

And yes, actually, I have heard fans of the Senators refer to them as Nats: my father, for one. My grandfather, for another. Most of their friends, as well. As for sources which I can actually cite: a lot of columns from the 1960s, but, AFAIK, there's not really any easily accessible online archive. Given that, by 1971, they hadn't officially been the Nationals for fifteen year (officially changed to "Senators" in 1956), and that the the name "Nats" was still commonly used, it should be apparent. There's also this post from rec.sports.baseball which illustrates my point, as does this one and this one (all from Google Groups). – Seancdaug 07:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, my position via the "Nats" nickname is not "unsubstantiated POV," nor is it incorrect. I have provided numerous citations above, and I expect I have a great deal more first-hand experience with DC-area sports fandom than you do. Your continued reversions of this section are in violation of Wikiquette. I have made one more attempt to clarify the article. I would personally appreciate it if you would please address you grievances here on the talk page in the future, rather than trying to spark a ridiculous revert war. – Seancdaug 22:24, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

All that being said, User:Kingturtle just removed the entire section, and it's probably for the best. This is, after all, a nickname, and it started out as a minor note in the section, anyway. My initial complaint was with the wording of the original, which suggested something that simply wasn't true (by the early 1970s, a good many fans with no idea of the history of the franchise's name or its traditions used the nickname "Nats"). But, in retrospect, it's not clear that the note about "Nats" needs to be in the history section to begin with, and the way things currently stand should head off any further controversy (I hope....) – Seancdaug 22:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

Can anyone verfiy if the numbers that the Expos retired, with the execption of the league wide Jackie Robinson number, were carried over to Washington? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assuming the official MLB site is correct, it looks like the Expos retired numbers are carrying over. Wahkeenah 22:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/was/history/retired_numbers.jsp

• they are carried over. it is the same franchise. all expos records are carried over. Kingturtle 22:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The numbers did not carry over as retired. For example, Ronnie Belliard is wearing the retired 10 of Andre Dawson and Rusty Staub. I also Gary Carter's 8 being worn by someone recently. One more example of the whitewashing of the Expos' history in Washington -- and one more reason to not merge the articles. Jcb10 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nationals

Your transplanted Expos are now 8-4, the reverse of the Yankees' current record. Ain't it just great? Ain't it just grand? Now that you have a mascot, an eagle called "Screech", you need a better theme song than the one titled "None at Present".

Come on, you D.C. fans, put your thinking ballcaps on!

• There aren't all that many songs with the word "National" in them. "The National Emblem March" comes to mind, but it might be hard to invent a snappy lyric for that number.
• There's a song called "Nashville Cats". A good variant on that could be "Nash'nal Bats".
• You've waited so long for a team, you could do worse than to revive "Happy Days Are Here Again". It's a sobering thought that the TV show Happy Days came and went since there was last a team in D.C.
• Given the team's early success, how about "I'm so 'D.C.' my head is spinning..."

67.4.173.181 11:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On that note I am removing the references to Washington baseball history, as they are completely irrelevant. Of course, the Washington Senators (both the failed teams) have its own Wikipedia page, so why not Nos Amours? It's also pertinent to this discussion that the NHL sections of Wiki have seperate pages for the previous incarnations of relocated franchises, e.g. there is a Hartford Whalers page, and a Quebec Nordiques page.

True. But I would advise very strongly against following the exact NHL model, as the way things are done over on, say, the Quebec Nordiques page makes it difficult to tell, at first glance, that the franchise has relocated and changed names. If we do have a seperate Expos page (and you've pretty much won me over that we should), it should not, IMO, use the standard franchise templates. – Seancdaug 03:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

This needs to merge with Montreal Expos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just as other moved franchises are one wikipage (i.e. Houston Oilers redirects to Tennessee Titans and Los Angeles Rams redirects to St. Louis Rams), these two articles (Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals) should be ONE page. These pages are about the FRANCHISE, not the cities' baseball histories. If you want to make pages on those, do it. Here are the links. Montreal baseball history, Washington, DC baseball history.

These two pages belong to ONE and THE SAME franchise. They need to be merged, for Wikipedia's sake. --Zpb52 06:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

There has already been extensive, and I mean extensive, discussion of this issue. A vote was held (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos) and it was decided to keep the two articles seperate for now, by a considerable margin. Peregrine981 13:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The "vote" on this reminds me of when some state legislature somewhere voted to set the value of Pi (the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter) to "exactly 3.14". Never mind actual reality, they wanted to define what reality is.

Here's a question for all of you who wanted the Nats to have their own page, divorced from the Expos: Why do you have the Washington Senators on the same page as the Minnesota Twins? Why do you have the St. Louis Browns on the same page as the Baltimore Orioles? Why do you list obscure stuff on the Chicago White Sox page about them starting in St. Paul? The answer to my own question is continuity: They are the same franchise.

If you look at the Nats roster you see many names (including the manager) who were on the Expos last year. What this all amounts to is just a further "dissing" of the city of Montreal. In effect, you want to pretend that this Washington team that you're so giddy about just fell out of the sky, and to not be burdened with the sometimes-ugly truth of how this team came to be in D.C.

There is another factor here, though... the nickname change is very significant in the public perception of things. When the Browns, Senators #1, Pilots, Senators #2 and Expos changed their names, they effectively divorced themselves from their previous cities. By contrast, there is an implied continuity with teams like the Braves, Dodgers, Giants and A's.

So I think that you all should consider separate pages (with links, of course) for all the teams that moved and also changed their nicknames... or else keep them all together. Taking an inconsistent approach with the Nats, just because you want to deny their Expos heritage, is dishonest. Wahkeenah 17:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well said Wahkeenah, well said indeed. A franchise might move, but a team's legacy will always remain. For example, I consider the Quebec Nordiques and the Colorado Avalanche as two seperate entities, even though they are the same franchise. And that's the way I view the Expos and the Nationals. Dknights411 19:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I may have pointed out before, The Sporting News Baseball Record Book lists sets of records by franchises within separate cities. For example, a separate section on the Brooklyn Dodgers and the L.A. Dodgers, although with full reference to the fact they are the same franchise. Years ago they lumped them together. I like the separation better, because although it's the same franchise, the fan base is different. As a business, they are the same team. But from the fans' standpoint (or do they count for anything?), the teams are different. That is the issue at hand with the Nats. The Expos essentially have an encapsulated history that runs from 1969 through 2004 and that's the end of it. To D.C. fans, this is a new team, and while the older Senators' teams still exist in other cities, they no longer exist in D.C. For a comparison, a fan of the old New York Giants might care that the Giants' franchise season home run record is held by Barry Bonds, but he might also like to know that the New York Giants' record was set by Johnny Mize, who hit 51 in 1947, and tied by Willie Mays in 1955. Mays had also set the crossbar on the San Francisco Giants record with 52 in 1965, until Bonds hit his steroid-induced 73 in 2001. But Mays and Mize still hold the New York Giants' record... and always will. Wahkeenah 20:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Franchise history contradictions surfacing

The Nationals have issued the number 30 to Mike Stanton. This number was retired by the Expos franchise. This is one more example of how the Washington team does not intend to honour their franchise history. This page could need a serious re-write soon, as there now stands a contradiction in the article.--Exshpos 17:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the Montreal numbers were in Metric. :\ Wahkeenah 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Expos-Nationals Cleanup

I just excised a bunch of Expos-related information that exists, in more detailed form, in the Expos article itself. The balance I have tried to strike is one that remains respectful of the team's history but focuses on the franchise as it exists in Washington and how it came to arrive there. With judicious links back to Expos-related information, of course. I think I've got it right but I am happy to see what other people think. The Expos entry is full of good Expos info; it seems silly to duplicate it (especially the lengthy "not to be forgotten" section) in this article. Anyway, that's my take. Jsnell 00:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You might be treading on dangerous AstroTurf, because there was a heated debate about this topic some months ago, around the time the season got under way. The dilemma, in general, is that teams that change their nicknames (Browns-Orioles, Senators-Twins, Pilots-Brewers, Senators-Rangers, Expos-Nats) are essentially divorcing their past, while there is more of an implied continuum with teams that retain their nicknames (Giants, Dodgers, Braves, Athletics). But what a team wants to do for marketing reasons, and what the facts are, may be two different things. Anyway, as Bela Lugosi said, "Bevare!" d:) Wahkeenah 00:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• This is a tough one because the Nats seem to want to keep some aspects of the past, but not others. Generally my opinion is that over time this article needs to evolve into one that's really about the Washington era of the club, with links in appropriate places to the Montréal era -- whereas Montreal Expos is about the detailed history of the club through 2004, but not beyond. In my mind the article as currently constructed still reads a bit too much like a Montreal Expos article that's been modified into something about the Washington Nationals, rather than a Washington Nationals article. I've tried to rectify some of that but I am more than happy to hear other people's dissenting (or even supporting!) opinions. Jsnell 02:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Earth Flag

Just a random question, why does pitcher Matt White have a Earth flag next to his name? --Saint-Paddy 13:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Soriano

Obviously it is still up in the air, but I would argue that Soriano should be labled an outfielder on the grounds that Robinson wants him there, Bowden wants him there, Tavares wants him there, and just because he won't be "happy" getting paid millions of dollars to play in the outfield doesn't mean he is an infielder. The Manager decides who plays where not individual players.

Broadcasters

I see Charlie Slowes got rehired for 2006 -- what happened to David Shea? (I thought they were both great) Sholom 17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Name

In viewing a recent court case in which the U.S. Trademark Office awarded the name "Washington Nationals" to an apparel company in Ohio and a subsequent trial to determine damages etc. I was very surprised to learn that the official corporate name of the Nationals remains Baseball Expos LP until such time as MLB officially sells the team to a private group. So it seems that the Expos kind of live on, at least in the teams corporate name, for a while longer. MLB is supposed to sell the team later this week as I write this. Drew 02:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not supprised, their is usually a fair amout of legal workings that go into chaging the leagl name of company or similay corperate entienty. TO be honest i would not be supprised to see other clubs not just in baseball but in oother sports whose leagl name does not entirle reflect the club name. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Year established category?

There have been a few reverts about the year established category - 1969 or 2005. I think it should be 1969, as the franchise was established then, and was moved and renamed in 2005. The franchise records and thing still carry over from 1969. We could add both categories, however. Thoughts? --Awiseman 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, however ugly it might be, both categories are warranted. -- Sholom 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Parking Garage

There is a bit of controversy over the fact the MLB will not allow for a parking garage underneath the new stadium. It may be worth adding. Washington Post piece

Zidel333 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Division title in 1994?

No titles were awarded in the 1994 season. The Expos did not win the NL East that year. They only won the NL East once, in 1981. In fact, that is their only postseason appearance to date.Politician818 16:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. Some people count 1994 division titles, some don't. 128.230.13.64 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

More errors in article

Again, it's not a matter of opinion as to whether the Expos and the Nats are the same franchise. They are. Major League Baseball has decided that. It's not up to us. So with that said, it must be mentioned that Gary Carter is a hall of famer for their franchise. The Nationals have the option of unretiring jerseys, but then again, any franchise can unretire jerseys if it wants to. That doesn't make them a separate entity from the Expos. It's also incorrect to list people as recording the first hit, etc. in team history. You can say that so-and-so hit the first home run for the franchise since their move, but it's incorrect to say that these are the first accomplishments in franchise history.Politician818 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Stars

I attended the Nationals' game with the Yankees at RFK Stadium on June 17, 2006 (the comeback from 9-2 down to win 11-9). I copied down the names of the figures on the Hall of Stars banners, and was surprised to see some changes from the old "Washington Wall of Fame" that was on the mezzanine in the Redskins' years. Ted Williams' name is no longer there. And Baseball Hall-of-Famers Sam Rice and Heinie Manush aren't there. Nor is early speedster Clyde Milan, arguably their greatest offensive player in their first 20 years. But George Selkirk, their 1960s general manager whose entire playing career was spent with the Yankees, is listed. So are less-than-great players like Eddie Yost and Chuck Hinton. (Also Josh Gibson and Buck Leonard, Hall-of-Famers who played in D.C. for the Homestead Grays of the Negro Leagues.) I've adjusted the page to compensate. Vince Lombardi, who coached the Redskins for just one season (a winning season) before cancer killed him, is on the Wall, but Ted Williams, who managed the last three years of the Senators, and who WAS on the old Wall, is gone. Strange. -- Pacholeknbnj

Ownership??

The article states that ownership was decided last May. Could somebody with knowledge update the status of this? --Kevin 19:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick semi-knowlegable answer -- I think the ownership is in 3 stages. (a) Lerner group is selected by Selig; (b) MLB teams vote on it; and (c) Lerner group officially takes possession. The first two have already taken place. As for the third, today's Sunday WashPost noted: "the official takeover by the group, headed by real estate magnate Theodore Lerner and his son, Mark, will not occur for at least several more weeks." [3] -- Sholom 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

radio/tv

A list of affiliates would be useful...

Deleted Section

I deleted the part about the racial problems of MLB in washington. As a native washingtonian i can say that that is not really the case -> NW

Browns-Senators

I was interested to read that the Senators waived territorial rights to allow the Browns to move to Baltimore. I'd never heard that! I think it probably needs a citation though. Also, I don't think it has much to do with the current dispute. Matuszek 06:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Matuszek, I remember reading that also. Also, my memory says Angelos also claimed legal ownership of the DC market and your recent edit seems to contradict that. Could you provide the source that led you to remove it? --Habap 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall something kind of in between. And that is this: that Angelos had no explicit territorial rights of the DC market, but that his legal argument was that he wouldn't have paid the amount of money he did to purchase the Orioles without an understanding that the DC market was his. MLB's position was that no guarantee or promise was ever made and thus Angelos should have been aware that an NL team coming to DC was a possibility (no matter how slim). I dispute the current article's wording that Angelos has a strong case. I think the reality was simply that MLB wanted to move on and award the franchise, and wanted to avoid a lawsuit. At least that's what my imperfect memory says.

Furthermore, I'm certain that teams have fewer rights regarding franchises in the other league. Now, I'm not sure if this is "veto-power" or "territorial rights that must be compensated." In other words, the old Senators did indeed have more say regarding the Browns move to Baltimore (both being AL teams) than the AL-Orioles vis-a-vis the NL-Nationals. -- Sholom 14:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sholom, my memory is similar. He claimed that he had rights, but nothing had ever been explicitly stated or written. My understanding is that all such claims by any of the teams are simply "gentlemen's agreements" in a monopoly that has typically not acted like a group of gentlemen. --Habap 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Definitive answer to the Expos/Nationals controversy

The definitive answer to the Expos/Nationals controversy is . . . that there is no definitive answer. Use whatever logic you want -- then look at past practice and you'll find a counter example. Here are some precedents: when the original Senators moved to Minnesota, the new Twins used the old Senators records (and, e.g., Walter Johnson became the winningest pitcher in the history of the franshise). And the new Senators? They used the old Senators records, too. But, on the other hand, when the new Senators moved to Texas, prior records were erased, and in the "Records" section of the Rangers guide, nothing exists prior to the 1971 move.

The Atlanta Braves? They do include the Milkwaukee and Boston Braves; and the LA Dodgers and SF Giants retained their records from Brooklyn and NY. On the other hand, look at the Orioles. All franchise records start in 1954 -- the St Louis Browns essentially doesn't exist in Orioles media guide.

There is inconsistency in other sports, too. When the Colts moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis, they brought their records with them. But when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, none of the history came with them (obviously, hard feelings and sensitivies had a role to play in that one). OTOH, the new Browns inherited the history of the old Browns, although they are clearly not the same franchise.

MLB's position is that each team has the right to determine its own records. The Expos retired numbers (8-Gary Carter, 10-Andre Dawson and Rusty Staub, 30-Tim Raines) are retired only in Montreal. The Nats' media guide? Three sections! one for the records of baseball in Washington (this would include both Senators teams, but not he Expos), one on Expos/Nationals, and one for Nationals-only.

All of the above is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003310.html

FWIW, I notice a pattern: when a franchise changes nicknames, they tend to disavow the past more frequently then when they keep there nicknames (e.g., Colts, Giants, Dodgers, Braves -- but not Browns/Ravens, or Browns/Orioles, or Rangers/Senators. Twins/Senators is an exception). -- Sholom 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I just need to add here that the Browns and Ravens are (officially) not the same franchise. The NFL made that ruling for the benefit of the diehard Browns' fans in Cleveland, who were slighted by the team's move to Baltimore. Ravens' history officially began in 1996. The current Cleveland Browns retain all of the history of the old Browns. Therefore, in that instance, the Ravens have to disavow their past; they have no right to it.Politician818 10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, teams may have the right to determine their own records, but MLB does recognize the Expos and Nats as the same franchise. The original Senators and Twins are recognized as the same, as well. MLB.com even lists the Twins as having three world championships, including the 1924 Washington Senators.Politician818 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My only quibble with what you wrote above is that the article I cite seems to imply that the NFL _advised_ the Ravens, and that it was up to the Ravens, rather than "the NFL made a ruling." So your latter point "teams may have the right", I would change to "teams _do_ have the right" to determine their own records. And so _my_ main point above is that no amount of logic will tell us whether the Expos and Nats are the same team, rather, we'll have to wait for the Nats to make that determination. (Again, what makes the Expos move to DC any different than the St Louis Browns move to Baltimore? (where records did not continue) or any different than the Senators move to the Minnesota Twins (where records did continue))? The answer, apparently, is "owners preference." -- Sholom 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Combine or refer to other mentions of Washington Nationals?

Should information from other mentions of the Washington Nationals appear in this area, although these teams have their own time in history? I'm speaking of of all of the entries listed under Washington Nationals (disambiguation). lwalt 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Same Franchise?

I think the question of whether or not to merge the Expos/Nationals articles depends on one thing and one thing only: Are they the same franchise with a new name, or was the Expos franchise terminated and a new Nationals franchise created by everyone affiliated with the Expos? If they're the same franchise, then it's plain and simple: combine the articles. L2K 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They're the same franchise, and MLB recognizes them as such. Whether or not the Washington Nationals disavow their Expos' history is up to them, but they are the same franchise. 76.21.45.13 06:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tocombine the two articles would be a grave mistake. I put up a reponse at to why I feel that it is so on the Expos talk page article, so you can go over there and read it. Dknights411 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Viability of the Washington baseball market

I think this section was useful during the controvery over whether there would be a team, and ownership/stadium issues were going on. But now that it's all settled, I think this is mostly outdated speculation, and perhaps should be removed. Thoughts, anyone? -- Sholom 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tagged it as OR two months ago, and nothing's happened. The front end is gross OR, and the rest is only marginally relevant. I think we can kiss it goodbye. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Current Expos/Nats Merge Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This discussion is currently underway at Talk:Montreal Expos#Current Merge Discussion (with previous merge discussions on this issue at Talk:Montreal Expos#Previous merge discussions). To avoid having two simultaneous, and possibly inconsistent, discussions taking place on both talk pages, I have archived the discussion here. Skeezix1000 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressing this subject, the Montreal Expos are the Washington Nationals. In no way, shape or form do they need to have seperate pages. I would have just gone ahead and deleted this article and merged it myself, but not being an expert on DEFUNCT Candadian baseball teams, (Note: Most DEFUNCT Teams don't need their own encyclopedia article, if you are confused, see wiktionary's definition of Defunct, here). The Kansas City Athletics, Brooklyn Dodgers, Los Angeles Raiders, and Tennessee Oilers all have one thing in common, they all link to an updated page, because, no matter your mode of thought, they don't need a page.

Either your semantics are that they are defunct and don't exist anymore (don't need their own article), or that they still exsist as another team (still, don't need their own article), in either case they should be linked to the currnet incarnation's page. I am going to fight this until the page gets merged, as long as there is an article about the Montreal Expos baseball team on Wikipedia, I will fight to wedge it in with the correct Washington Nationals page.

My Two Cents: WalterWalrus3 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to keep Expos here

Here are 15 reasons to keep the Montreal Expos article here, and not on its own:

• Washington Bullets
• Los Angeles Raiders
• Anahiem Angels
• Los Angeles Rams
• Chicago Cardinals
• Minnesota Lakers
• Philadelphia Athletics
• Kansas City Athletics
• St. Louis Browns
• Charlotte Hornets (NBA team)
• Houston Oilers
• New Orleans Jazz (NBA team)
• New York Highlanders
• Seattle Pilots
• Houston Colt .45s

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uniforms

The patch on the right sleeve of the uniforms were for the closing games at RFK Stadium. I don't believe they should be present for the official uniform picture on the article. What do you guys think? Can anyone take them off?--Some FX 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When are we going to update the pictures to include the re-designed road uni's, altered home, home extra jerseys, and the brand new road alternates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metfan722 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NatLogoUnveiling.jpg

Image:NatLogoUnveiling.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: discussion has been moved to Talk:Montreal Expos#Merge with Washington Nationals so as to have one central discussion.

This is the formal proposal for the merger of one franchise (the Expos and Nationals) into one article. The majority of the historical information would be retained in a new article (History of the Washington Nationals), as per the precedent established for all other Major League Baseball franchises. A mention to the Montreal era should certainly be given on this, the main article page, and many of the details given on this page should also be subsumed into the History page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would note the actual discussion should be on the Expos page and not the Nationals page so that people who watch list the article in question can see the discussion as the Expos page belongs to more wikiprojects than just baseball. Especially since there is a recent (ie last month) discussion there with a few objections to merging already. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to have this at both? GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as all the other re-located MLB franchise articles are merged with their former incarnations. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I would suggest that anyone choosing to weigh in should go to Talk:Montreal_Expos#Merge_with_Washington_Nationals as there is more discussion there, and a fractured debate is not beneficial. My reasons for opposition are detailed over at the Expos article. Resolute 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• This issue has been discussed umpteen times before. For some reason, on a number of occasions we have ended up with simultaneous discussions both here and on the Expos page. There should never be more than one discussion at one place at one time, otherwise we could end up with differing (and even conflicting) consensuses. As the discussion over on the Montreal Expos talk page was started first and has a few more comments, I am closing this discussion and invite interested parties to add their comments over there. Much thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

logo

why does their logo look like the walgreens logo AngelsFan2450 (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

Retired Numbers: 11 (Ryan Zimmerman)

His number is being retired as of today. 100.36.173.214 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• These changes were done. Elliswiki7 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)