So the District's getting a baseball team, which would be more exciting if I were a baseball fan. Now all the talk is over whether to revive the doomed "Senators" team name. But why not stick with "Expos"? What did that even mean in the Montreal context?
September 30, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Baseball!:
A reference to Expo '67 (the world's fair), which was sort of the peak of Montreal's optomism. (It did lead to a great Subway system.)
What did that even mean in the Montreal context?
Posted by: Andrew Edwards | Sep 30, 2004 10:23:36 AM
expo's referred to the world's fair or expo that was held in Montreal shortly before the inaugural season.
Posted by: willie | Sep 30, 2004 10:23:49 AM
Dammit, did I teach you nothing?
Posted by: Nicole | Sep 30, 2004 10:26:09 AM
Matt- you really didn't know what "Expos" referred to?
What's this younger generation coming to?
Posted by: wvmcl | Sep 30, 2004 10:26:40 AM
You don't have to like baseball, you just have to like beer, hot dogs, and spending the day outside. The baseball is just something to look at while you're in line.
How can one grow up in New York City, especially during an era of Yankee greatness not seen since the 50's, and not pick up an appreciation for the national pastime?
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Sep 30, 2004 10:36:04 AM
I favor the Exexpos, i.e., the DosEquisPos playing at Dos Equis Stadium. Beer here!
Posted by: ostap | Sep 30, 2004 10:38:18 AM
You're gonna have to embrace baseball if you want to be the George Will of your generation...
Posted by: Jim 7 | Sep 30, 2004 10:39:30 AM
I'll refrain from commenting on your lack of knowledge of 37 year old Montreal history or much else related to the game, which is giving me Cubs-related heartburn at the moment, and simply back the mayor's plan to use the Hempstead Grays name. I think that's cool and classy. And beats the 'Monuments'.
HOW 'BOUT THEM COWBOYS!!!!
Posted by: Jerry Jones | Sep 30, 2004 10:54:59 AM
That's Homestead Grays, actually. Homestead was actually a city near Pittsburgh -- the team began its life playing in Pittsburgh and later split its games between Pittsburgh and Washington. I assume they would be the Washington Grays. In the first game they should retire #20 for the star of the original Grays, and the greatest catcher that ever lived, Josh Gibson.
I like the Grays name, and hate the "Monuments" idea. But if we want to reflect the city today, there are other possibilities. The Neocons. The Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Elitists. The Traffic. The Fat Cats. The Insiders. The Leaked Ones. The possibilities are endless...
I'd like to see the "Washington Nationals". Or, failing that, the "Capitol Lobbyists".
Posted by: strannix | Sep 30, 2004 11:11:56 AM
How about 'Washington Whiteskins'.
Posted by: A different Matt | Sep 30, 2004 11:12:46 AM
I think they should be called the Shadowy 527s. For more suggestions and to suggest your own, I'm having a little call for entries at Hughes For America!
I like the Washington Nationals -- which was the Washington team's original name. The "Nats," as they were known, were first organized in 1859 as such, and played one of the earliest games on record against the Potomacs. See, http://www.cjis.com/historywbc.htm for the score. So the name has history, and is a fabulous monicer from days of old (cf., "Lightening", "Magic", "Shock" for current crappola naming styles that should be avoided). Plus, the Senators bolted, and should therefore only be brought back, at best, as the "Reps," which any one can see isn't nearly as good.
Posted by: Zach Tumin | Sep 30, 2004 11:15:25 AM
Personally, I vote for the "Washington Justices". Or the "Supremes."
Posted by: Elliot | Sep 30, 2004 11:18:46 AM
Don't take this the wrong way: I very much respect the historical implications of the Grays name. But in a vacuum, it sucks. How do I root for gray?
It damn well better end in an "s". I remember when the answer to a trivia question was,"White Sox, Red Sox, and Jazz". Now no new teams end in it.
Now that I mention it, what the hell is up with the Utah Jazz? I understand they were the New Orleans Jazz, but UTAH? If I recall correctly, Jazz is actually illegal in Utah, isn't it?
If we want to be accurate, the Washington No-Senators would be right.
Posted by: Njorl | Sep 30, 2004 11:25:31 AM
It's gotta be the Washington Generals! Red Klotz will be most pleased!
Posted by: Ed Tracey | Sep 30, 2004 11:25:32 AM
No historical memory or context.That's a problem with being so young.Too much memory is a problem of being so old.
The team should be named The Washington Monuments.
Posted by: Peter Mack | Sep 30, 2004 11:33:34 AM
How about Informed Sources? ...or Bureaucrats? When they play badly -- and apparently they will -- we can all put bags over our heads and become Faceless Bureaucrats.
But I really like Whiteskins too.
I like Brian U's "the Insiders."
Some other thoughts:
The "Washington Whispers" (hat tip: USN&WR)
The "Beltway Boys" (hat tip: FNC)
Either way, I can't wait to see the Dodgers come to town. Go Blue!
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Sep 30, 2004 11:46:30 AM
The schools are lousy, the drinking water is filled with bacteria, an arson ring is terrorizing the city, yet Mayor Williams and the city council can come up with $400 million for a baseball stadium that will cost some group of billionaires $5.5 million a year and bring the city...what, exactly? I like baseball as much as the next guy (more if the next guy is Matt Yglesias), but this kind of corporate welfare just stinks. As the Post pointed out this morning, the stadium deal is much more generous that any other team got recently. The only possible comparison is the sweetheart deal George Bush and his cronies got from the city of Arlington, Texas, which provided them not only with a stadium but also the land next to it that they could use for development. The free market works well if the cost of doing business is, well, free.
Posted by: Bob | Sep 30, 2004 11:47:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.