# What should the new DC baseball team be named?



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

What is your favorite? If you answer "other" post your suggestion!


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

I voted for other because I didn't like any of the choices that were there:
Senators - What about Representatives? And the Judicial and Executive branches have no representation at all
Nationals - Just sounds cheesy. And MLB is international so the idea of national doesn't apply always.
Grays - Sounds dingy and they can't make up their minds.
Monuments - Lets name the team after large rigid structures that don't move. Nothing says "quick" like the name "monument"
Generals - Lets offend the peace-loving hippie activists...or just anyone who is oppose to war and/or the military. Do we really need more military spending? 

Surely DC has something in the area worth of being named after that doesn't have to do with politics.


----------



## BuckeyeChris (Apr 20, 2004)

How about the Washington Revolution? The leftys ought to be able to get behind that one.  

My other suggestion would be the Spin, it's apropos considering Washington is the capital of political spin.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I think Senators is appropriate but don't see it happening. Interstingly I have not heard anything out of the Rangers as to their willingness to sell or relinquish the name. Locally it has gotten tied up in DC politics. 

As for Generals given the association with a perpetually losing basketball team I don't see it. But who knows.


I just want baseball. The team name is secondary. But I feel sorry for the fans in Montreal.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

If anybody does not know the "Grays" would be a name in tribute to the old "Homestead Grays" from Homestead Pennsylvania which were the most successful ***** League team. 

The Nationals, a lot of people think, is a little catchy, would likely be referred to as the "Nats" and would only really work if they stayed in the National League. 

The Generals, would be a tribute to General Washington, and or the Generals of the United States Military. 

The Senators is the name of the old baseball team in DC. The name is still retained by the Texas Rangers and would have to be somehow acquired from them. 

The Monuments is a name that has been thrown around because DC is full of monuments. 

Personally, I'm still a little up in the air over the name. I am really leaning towards the Grays as my favorite with Nationals or Senators a close second.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

cdru said:


> Surely DC has something in the area worth of being named after that doesn't have to do with politics.


How about something named after 'ol Mayor Brown? Something like the "Crackheads"


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

My fave nicknames.....

DC Busters (as in fili-busters)

DC Green Sox (a tribute to all the bagmen, er lobbyists)


----------



## emathis (Mar 19, 2003)

The Washington Clowns


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The "Generals" could be a tribute to the basketball team that always lost to the Globetrotters.

The "Grays"? Hmmm.. COuld work if you got all the little space aliens as mascots  Think of the merchandising!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

The Carpetbaggers


----------



## navy8ball (Mar 23, 2002)

the patriots


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

How about the "Deadbeats" since they're requiring the government to shell out over $500M to build them a stadium before they will come to D.C. Why does the government have to pay for a stadium, why can't they pay for it themselves?


----------



## Steveox (Apr 21, 2004)

It Begins with a W Wolves!!
And i favor washington wolves wear this jersey and with this letter W on the hat and Jersey


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Muggers


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> How about the "Deadbeats" since they're requiring the government to shell out over $500M to build them a stadium before they will come to D.C. Why does the government have to pay for a stadium, why can't they pay for it themselves?


If you want a car, you have to shell out the money as well. DC wants a baseball team, they can shell out the cash, if they don't want the team, they don't have to. Nobody is "forcing" them to do anything.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

SAEMike said:


> If you want a car, you have to shell out the money as well. DC wants a baseball team, they can shell out the cash, if they don't want the team, they don't have to. Nobody is "forcing" them to do anything.


Why can't the team buy their own stadium? It isn't like they're a non-profit organization!

It is sickening how cities have allowed themselves to be browbeaten by these prima-donna sports teams with sullen, overpaid, felonious athletes who couldn't care less about any "civic duty" to their city.

Imagine the extraordinary good D.C. could do for multitudes of people with $500 million. Imagine the extra police officers that could hire.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Why can't the team buy their own stadium? It isn't like they're a non-profit organization!
> 
> It is sickening how cities have allowed themselves to be browbeaten by these prima-donna sports teams with sullen, overpaid, felonious athletes who couldn't care less about any "civic duty" to their city.
> 
> Imagine the extraordinary good D.C. could do for multitudes of people with $500 million. Imagine the extra police officers that could hire.


That is an issue for the citizens of DC. Not you. Deal with it, and move on. The corporation of Major League Baseball put a requirement of any city who wanted a team to build a stadium. Certain cities agreed to that stipulation. This is how business works.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

SAEMike said:


> That is an issue for the citizens of DC. Not you. Deal with it, and move on. The corporation of Major League Baseball put a requirement of any city who wanted a team to build a stadium. Certain cities agreed to that stipulation. This is how business works.


It doesn't mean I have to like it and it doesn't mean I cannot voice my opinion against it. This is still a free country and I can and will make my opinions known whenever and whereever I choose, contrary to the desires of people like you who would rather silence anyone with a differing opinion.

So next time you ***** and moan about something, shall we tell you to "deal with it and move on"?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

HappyGoLucky said:


> It is sickening how cities have allowed themselves to be browbeaten by these prima-donna sports teams with sullen, overpaid, felonious athletes who couldn't care less about any "civic duty" to their city.


What do the athletes have to do with this? It's a deal between a team's owners and the city/district/whatever. The athletes have as much input in this deal as the umpires or ticket-takers.

For more about stadium financing in general and the Washington situation in particular, check out www.fieldofschemes.com


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

carload said:


> What do the athletes have to do with this? It's a deal between a team's owners and the city/district/whatever. The athletes have as much input in this deal as the umpires or ticket-takers.


My response was a gripe on the entire sports team scenario, which does include the athletes. Your criticism, however, is misplaced as I never stated nor implied that the athletes have anything to do with the stadium deal itself. 
Read more slowly, perhaps, and you can comprehend the structure of the sentence better, notice the bold I have added to better illustrate to the uninformed the primary subject. The athletes are mentioned as a part (note the word "with") of that subject but should not be inferred as the sole subject:

"It is sickening how cities have allowed themselves to be browbeaten by *these prima-donna sports teams* with sullen, overpaid, felonious athletes who couldn't care less about any "civic duty" to their city."


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

(shrug) I could argue that it's an agreement with the teams _which buy thousands of baseballs a year_ ..., or with the teams _that employ or approve washed-up homer announcers_ ..., and my clause would be as relevant as the clause in your sentence. Which is to say, not at all.

As an editor, I like to remove unnecessary clauses. As a debater, I like to remove clauses that obfuscate primary issues. My proposed argument would imply that the price of baseballs or a team's announcers had something to do with the stadium deal. Which they don't.

Some folks (not necessarily you) erroneously suggest that players' salaries are the root of all money problems in sports. (In fact, salaries are driven by league-wide revenues.) If we're in agreement that the players are not a factor in this stadium deal, then let's move forward and continue discussing whether the residents of DC really want to pay that much in taxes so they can get a major league baseball team. Maybe they do.


----------



## Paladin (Jun 20, 2004)

How about "The Great Satans". :raspberry !Devil_lol


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

carload said:


> ... continue discussing whether the residents of DC really want to pay that much in taxes so they can get a major league baseball team. Maybe they do.


Perhaps they do, but should they? When their school systems are failing, typically from a lack of qualified teachers and crumbling buildings, imagine how many new teachers and buildings could be obtained with $500M? Imagine how many new police officers and fire fighters could be hired with just a fraction of that money?

Sadly, most cities are having to lay off vital employees, cut back on police and fire departments, close schools, crowd more and more students into already overcrowded classrooms... all because they can't afford it. But they somehow can afford a $500M stadium for a sports team that doesn't give one flip about their city or their problems, they're only out to make a buck.

What does that say about our society?


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

HGL: We're hiring in lightly-taxed New Hampshire.

The city next door just spent over $140M on building a new high school and completely renovating the old one. Our smaller town (pop < 20,000) spent some $26M on a new elementary school and renovations to our middle school.

Just north of here, we've built the new Verizon Arena where the Manchester Monarchs play (and an Arena2 team). The new baseball stadium for the 2004 Eastern League (AA) Champion New Hampshire Fisher Cats is under construction. All while Manchester's schools get needed maintenance. (Though the teachers are complaining that the school board wants to return a $1.6M surplus to the taxpayers)

Though I don't have the numbers, cops and firefighters are being hired occasionally here and I know dispatchers are wanted in surrounding towns. All this in the middle of the just-ended recession.

Nashua has spent some big bucks refurbishing every public park and playground and putting signage *everywhere* directing you to any of the city's attractions.

It *can* be done. You *can* keep taxes low, provide services *and* build new things. (And our schools produce graduates that are constantly in the top 5% of all states when it comes to things like literacy scores, etc)


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

djlong said:


> HGL: We're hiring in lightly-taxed New Hampshire.
> 
> The city next door just spent over $140M on building a new high school and completely renovating the old one. Our smaller town (pop < 20,000) spent some $26M on a new elementary school and renovations to our middle school.
> 
> ...


That's wonderful. Sadly, your example doesn't play in most of the major cities across the country. Atlanta has more students crowded into temporary "trailers" than into traditional school buildings. There is a shortage of over 2000 teachers because they can't squeeze any more money out of the budget. They had to reduce police officers hours to prevent paying overtime because the budget can't support it, they've laid off jailers and other support personnel, making the jails increasingly unsafe and overcrowded.

Sadly, D.C. faces similar problems. But somehow they can pay $500M for a new stadium for a sports team. Why couldn't they have raised that $500M for schools, teachers, police, etc.? Why are our priorities so f**ked up?


----------



## Paladin (Jun 20, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Sadly, D.C. faces similar problems. But somehow they can pay $500M for a new stadium for a sports team. Why couldn't they have raised that $500M for schools, teachers, police, etc.? Why are our priorities so f**ked up?


You have to spend money to make money. More tax revenue will be brought in because of the stadium.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

"It *can* be done. You *can* keep taxes low, provide services *and* build new things. (And our schools produce graduates that are constantly in the top 5% of all states when it comes to things like literacy scores, etc)"

DJ,
I hate to hijack this thread to talk about state taxes, so I will start another on this subject in potpurri.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

RichW - Be my guest.. I was afraid that I was drifting too close to Potpourri territory. I'd be happy to continue THAT aspect of the discussion there.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

SAEMike said:


> What is your favorite? If you answer "other" post your suggestion!


Voted other too...how about the Washington Bureaucrats...
or the Washington Doubletalkers....
or the Washington Taxstealers? :lol:

Oh...thought you wanted a "fitting" name...


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I watched the Washington Senators play in Griffith Stadium. Let's not use that name again. All the choices are good, but none are really jazzy. Keep in mind that changing the teams name is not necessarily going to change the team or improve their play. In keeping with the long tradition of team moves, keep the team name and change the locale.

I suggest the *Washington Expos*

or the D.C. DoLittles. :lol:


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The Legislooters!


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

HappyGoLucky said:


> Why can't the team buy their own stadium? It isn't like they're a non-profit organization!
> 
> It is sickening how cities have allowed themselves to be browbeaten by these prima-donna sports teams with sullen, overpaid, felonious athletes who couldn't care less about any "civic duty" to their city.
> 
> Imagine the extraordinary good D.C. could do for multitudes of people with $500 million. Imagine the extra police officers that could hire.


Exceptionally well stated.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Capmeister said:


> Exceptionally well stated.


Thank you. Your opinion does't seem to jibe with that of many of your cohorts, however.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I kinda agree with Nick. Simply call the team the Washington Expos, since the team still gets to keep the Expos history, but update the ball caps and uniforms by:

a) making them red, and
b) turning the M logo on the cap upside down and making it white.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The real meat of the debate is the $440M one-time shot of what that money 'could do' versus what having multimillionair ballplayers paying taxes in that city could do over the long term.

You have to factor in the impact of the construction jobs over the three years they say it will take to build, plus the $14M in renovations they're doing to RFK. People DO get paid and DO pay taxes on that money.

Then you have the player salaries, the owners, the office staff and the concessionaires - and their impact. COmpound that with the impact (which nobody can forecast at the moment) of the new stadium in the area as far as OTHER new development now that Anacostia will become a 'destination'.

Frequently, these benefits are overstated - and the opponents always trumpet that. But the benefits ARE there. The question is - just how much?

And who owns the stadium in the end? The city (one would hope).

And what about naming rights? That alone could bring in 8 figures a year - and who gets that money? The city (if they retain ownership of the stadium) or the team owners?

There's a LOT to be discussed as far as how all this will impact the public.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

djlong said:


> The real meat of the debate is the $440M one-time shot of what that money 'could do' versus what having multimillionair ballplayers paying taxes in that city could do over the long term.
> 
> You have to factor in the impact of the construction jobs over the three years they say it will take to build, plus the $14M in renovations they're doing to RFK. People DO get paid and DO pay taxes on that money.


I don't disagree, but whatever else DC could spend $440M on (maybe school renovations or new subway lines) would also involve more folks on some payroll in town. Folks who hate taxes would suggest that the saved $440M would result in better business conditions, meaning more folks working in the general economy. At any rate, I don't see a lot more jobs resulting from a stadium vs. other options.

About naming rights, ESPN's Darren Rovell wrote that the team owners get "complete ownership of stadium naming rights", not to mention all the game-day revenue from a municipal parking garage. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1891073

Ultimately, DC's residents should be able to choose how they want to spend their money. If they go crazy about fresh milk and local honey, they can build a farm and subsidize its operation. If they'd rather have the chance to see major league baseball without driving to Camden Yards, they can build a stadium and subsidize its operation. As long as proponents are honest about the costs, it's up to the people to decide.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

Washington D.C. Scandals


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

How about the Bullets? That name's not being used any longer! Sure, that name has gone the way of the dodo due to it's "violent" interpretation, but think of the promotions you could use to get people in the stands. "Come watch the Bullets fly...free ammo with every home run!"

HappyGoLucky - taxpayers footing the bill for stadiums has been the norm for some time now. Owners had no problem finding politicians who were more than happy to raise taxes in order to build them beautiful new stadiums. Of course the excuse is that the team brings in lots of tax revenue, which may or may not be true. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out the party affiliation of each mayor that pushed for such stadium initiatives?

Anyway, I'd vote "other" to the poll, but I honestly can't think of a good name on my own.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Happy has a problem with Democracy. The people supported building the stadium.


----------

