Over at Distinguished Senators, Ryan says he's not worried about pending lawsuits or the details over the financing package for the District's new stadium, but rather that it's time to start talking about the baseball team that he presumes will be playing here next season.
And I have to admit, despite my grave reservations about how this stadium is going to be paid for, that I'll be moving on as well. For good or ill, the political leadership in Washington has decided to tie the plan to redevelop Southeast Washington, D.C. to the hip of Major League Baseball. And that plan is going forward no matter what I, or anybody else, has to say about it at this point.
So what's the next logical step in this debate? For me, I think it's time to start talking about other details of the deal, ones that will help determine whether or not this team will be successful both on the field and at the box office. And the first step in that process has to be picking the right name.
And when it comes to that name, there are really only three choices: Nationals -- the more or less original name of Washington's first baseball team; Senators -- a name that evolved from the first and more or less became the team's official moniker in the late 1950s; and Grays -- derived from the Homestead Grays, a Negro League team originally based in Pennsylvania outside Pittsburgh, but that also called Washington home at the old Griffith Stadium from the late 1930s-1950.
There's only one problem with both the Nationals and the Senators: those teams lost. And in the style of the Chicago voter -- early and often, with the only moment of glory coming 80 years ago, when Walter Johnson led the Senators (or the Nationals depending on who you talk to) to their one and only World Series title.
Granted, it's a piece of Washington sports history, and I would hope that whoever is running the Washington's new team come next April has the good sense to include a tribute to that team, as well as the expansion incarnation that followed in their wake in 1961.
But there is that third alternative, one that I've already seconded after discovering it elsewhere: the Grays.
And here's why.
I grew up as a fan of the New York Mets. And if you know something about the history of the team, you know that the Mets only exist because both the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants absconded for the West Coast after the 1957 season -- a decision that left wounds in fans that exist to this day.
So when the Mets first took the field in 1962, there was something of an expectation that many of their fans would be those folks who had been "disenfranchised" when the Dodgers and Giants left town. That's something that was reflected in the Mets uniform, which was a conciously combined design elements from both of New York's former National League residents.
The script orange NY on the cap was just about an exact copy of what had appeared on the Giants cap while they were in town, as was the style of the lettering that appeared on the team's road uniforms, while the fabric was a shade of blue not terribly far removed from the color the Dodgers wore on the road.
Later on, the Mets reinforced that connection with New York's National League roots, with their Oldtimers Day. Long before the team had any history of its own, it made sure to bring back those heroes from Ebbits Field and the Polo Grounds.
Safe to say, the meme caught on, and has been an integral part of the Mets identity from the beginning (and it didn't hurt that the manager of their first World Series winner was an all-time Dodger great). So much so, that in 1997, when President Clinton went to a ballpark to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut in the Major Leagues, he didn't go to the Bronx, and he didn't go to Los Angeles. He came to Queens, where National League baseball still lives (albeit in hopefully temporary misery).
After all, we're Mets fans, and we guard those memories, thank you very much.
And here in Washington, we have that very same chance, to make the history of the Negro Leagues, and their place in Baseball history, and American history, all our own.
Let's fast forward to Opening Day 2005, when the Grays take the field at RFK for the first time against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Think of the images of Josh Gibson and Buck Leonard silk screened on the outfield wall. Think of the flags celebrating nine Negro League Championships flying across the stadium.
(Think about millions of dollars in sales of throwback jerseys -- cha-ching!)
Think about having a chance to honor those men for their excellence, and engage in some truth telling about our country -- a story that as far as I'm concerned, only makes our nation stronger in the telling.
In the end, I guess there's only once choice. It's the Grays, or it's nothing at all.
Now we just have to figure out what to do with Youpi.
Eric, I can’t remember reading too many positive pieces about the Mets just taking two teams and trying to combine them into one instead of developing their own identity (other than how you just spoke of it). It always seemed like a quick “c’mon over here angry fans” solution; and in the long run you need to be your own team. Luckily the Mets quickly won a championship and were able to make an identity of their own quickly. Without that, I’d probably say “go revamp it all”, even now. But with 69, and even 86, there’s some decent history there.
Anyway, that being said, I don’t think that’s the same mentality about possibly using the name “Grays”, and that certainly could work over using the name of failed teams that moved away and definitely gives you some positive marketing to work upon. As long as it’s not something comic-y, I’m fine with it.
They’ll draw E. In 1971, not many C.U.,GWU, AU, Georgetown and Maryland kids and recent grads were driving over to RFK. No Metro then (and no rich suburbs in No. Va. and Montg. Co.). Camden pulled 3.5 mil when it was new. And if the Tony Williams/Dan Patrick nickname goes (wow, idea creator Chris Rehling’s site has gone from 400-odd signatures to almost 1,000 since the press announcement), kids will be rocking the gear. Piazza, Bonds, Pujols, Sammy- it’ll work.
Sold.
But I have a fourth suggestion. I was pretty broken up when my favorite Japanese hockey team, the Kokudo Bunnies, folded.
But a friend of mine who moved back to Japan recommended the Nippon Ham Fighters baseball team. I think they could use a DC affiliate, the Washington Ham Fighers.
I think John McCain, and other opponents of wasteful government pork barrel spending like myself, would appreciate the name.
‘Grays’ is the way to go. Mr. Rehling convinced me a while back as well.
Not only is it a winning tradition, but the Negro Leagues connection is truly the deal-sealer. D.C. is Chocolate City, baby. If you want hometown fans–and particularly the black fans that MLB has been so concerned about losing–it’s a dead-cert lock.
If MLB (or even just the ownership) built an integrated Negro Leagues Museum, like the Packers have done by letting the Packers Hall of Fame move into the new Lambeau? I think you’d have Black America’s Team. Even dedicated fans of existing franchises would have a new second favorite team, I suspect.
Heck, you could sell a bazillion jerseys just by having the visiting teams wear their local Negro League franchise’s jersey when they came to town. Talk about the coolest alternate jersey ever! (And maybe they’d donate a percentage of the revenue [jersey or even gate!] to the retired Negro Leaguers, many of whom are quite elderly and sick could really use the money. Talk about your platinum-plated PR move…)
I’m so in the tank for this. Obviously. Wish I weren’t closer to Lambeau than Anacostia, so I could pitch in somehow. : )
The problems with the Grays are twofold. Yes, you acknowledge a part of baseball history that has only recently been getting more attention, but there’s an obvious nod to political correctness in the Grays that’s somewhat distasteful. Also, giving the District’s significance during the Civil War as a fortified citidel defending against northward thrusts, perhaps a nickname shared by the Confederate Army may not be the best choice.
Besides, Gray is just bland. Why not the Washington Beige?
“An obvious nod to political correctness…that’s somewhat distateful”? Oh, come on, get over yourself. That black baseball players were not allowed to compete in major league baseball for 60 years was an injustice. The best Negro League players were on the same level as the top white players of the time, and they had to deal with harsher playing conditions and less financial security. Honoring what they were able to accomplish isn’t being revisionist, it’s examining history honestly.
Civil War? That’s a canard, like saying that the Cincinnati Reds keep alive the memory of Josef Stalin. Or that the Minnesota Vikings is derogatory to the Irish, since Ireland was raped and pillaged by the sea-going Scandinavians.
I have no idea what the actual origin of the nickname was, but I’d bet that a bunch of black steelworkers in 1910 Pennsylvania weren’t trying to keep alive the memory of Robert E. Lee. I strongly suspect that they were named after the color of their uniform. (Like the Reds, Red Sox, White Sox, etc.)
And political correctness? No way. I mean, you might consider it a little bit of pandering to a local ethnic group (