What's in a Name?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by JoeDaSchmoe

So, we've got ourselves a little conundrum now that the Expos are coming to DC. What are they going to be called? No one wants to keep the name Expos, and that has nothing to do with Washington anyway, so it's as good as gone. There are already plenty of people debating this issue, so, heck hR might as well join in.

The biggest movement (apparently) is to go back to Washington's last two baseball teams and name them the Senators. There are a few problems with that. The first two attempts didn't go so well, for starters. The Rangers still technically own the rights to "Washington Senators," according to MLB's lawyers. And, as Mayor Williams pointed out, it seems strange for the team to be called the Senators when Washington has been refused representation in the Senate time and time again.

So what else is there? Michael Wilbon supports the Grays, harkening back to the old Negro League team that played in DC. Problem is, they weren't the Washington Grays, they were the Homestead Grays. Homestead is a small area in Pennsylvania, and the Grays split their time between there, Washington, and Pittsburgh. The other issue is that the team's colors will almost certainly be red, white, and blue, making "Grays" more than a little misleading.

Going back even further, DC's baseball club in the early part of the century was named the Nationals. Personally, I like that more than Senators or Grays, but it does face a unique problem: People will almost instantly shorten the name to "Nats," which sounds just like "gnats." I don't know about you, but I'm not a big fan of tiny bugs.

Beyond those three, there are other, less talked about name ideas. The Washington Monuments is good for a few laughs, but not very realistic. The Washington Generals is a bit better, but just doesn't seem very baseball-ish, and would probably go better with a team colored green. The Washington Congressmen would give some love to the other house, but sounds pretty bad.

Personally, I think the Washington Revolutionaries has kind of a nice ring to it. A bit long, yes, but very American. Maybe DC Revolutionaries, or Washington Revolution, or something like that. The Washington Old Glory is pretty patriotic as well. The Washington Colonials might work. I wish New England didn't have the Patriots, because that would probably be the instant winner if its football cousin weren't already so famous.

What do y'all think about what the name should be? Any other bright ideas out there?

Joe, that is as good a post as I have read in a long time.

I like your names, but for marekting purposes, I would shorten them:

Washington Revolution
Washington Glory
Washington Union (my choice!)

[Carmelo]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

The Grays stinks. What the hell's a Gray? They came from Pittsburgh (Homestead actually) and did not play all of their home games in D.C. Luckily the new owners make the call on the name so Williams attempt to politicize the name Senators can go by the wayside.

I'm guessing you like the name senators even though it makes no sense at all. We don't have senators. Maybe they should be called the shadow senators.

[RedskinsDave]

Last I checked there are 100 Senators in Washington.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Easy Dave.

[Minnesota Mike]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Last I checked there are 100 Senators in Washington.

They may be IN Washington, but none of them represent, or are from Washington.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Mike

They may be IN Washington, but none of them represent, or are from Washington.

Isn't that a job for Representatives?

[Carmelo]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Last I checked there are 100 Senators in Washington.

Come on dave, that makes it even worse. You know that those senators don't have a damn thing to do with us... Or I'm sorry, ME! Those senators don't do a damn thing to represent the district. But we as residents definitely get taxed for it though. BS dave, bs. Might as well name us the Washington k..... no wait, we've already got the wizards! nevermind.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

I don't know why I'm getting props for a post that does nothing more than sum up a debate about names, but, hey, why complain?

I've heard a couple rumors that they'll keep Expos until someone buys the team, meaning that they could very well be the Washington Expos next season. Say it ain't so....

[Evilsockm]

How about the Wasahington Obelisks?

Makes for a cool mascot, anyway.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

How about the Washington Yeah-I-Was-Born-And-Raised-Here-Sorry-Your-Town-Sucked-And-You-Had-To-Move-Here-So-Quitcherbitchins.

A-freaking-men, brother!

[Spence]

Dave's excellent suggestion aside, I am on record for Washington Nationals. The name Senators was always being shortened to 'Nats anyway and with the Nationals you could still do that. Plus, it sidesteps that whole "Senators will be a three-time loser" chitchat that we could all do without.

Washington Nationals.

Got a nice ring to it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by Spence

Dave's excellent suggestion aside, I am on record for Washington Nationals. The name Senators was always being shortened to 'Nats anyway and with the Nationals you could still do that. Plus, it sidesteps that whole "Senators will be a three-time loser" chitchat that we could all do without.

Washington Nationals.

Got a nice ring to it.

Especially since they will still be in the National League!

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Wait, wait, ISF and Spence.... agreeing?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by JoeDaSchmoe

Wait, wait, ISF and Spence.... agreeing?

Typically we do quite a lot of that outside of the Potomac. Wouldn't you agree Spence?

[TheBigGame]

the dumb route to go would be to make them the blue sox! get it...red, white and blue sox...ha....guess that wasnt funny. but i think for now theyre just gonna stick with the expos and make them the washington expos, but i hope not cause that doesnt sound too good.