Orioles Related Photos/Memorabilia

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

The Expos/Nationals actually wanted to call themselves "The Senators" when they first arrived from Montreal in 2005, but they could not because that name is currently owned by the Texas Rangers franchise.

 

o

I never heard that, but why the heck would they want it?    Do the Orioles control the rights to another baseball team naming itself the Browns?

[OFFNY]

18 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

The Expos/Nationals actually wanted to call themselves "The Senators" when they first arrived from Montreal in 2005, but they could not because that name is currently owned by the Texas Rangers franchise.

o

 

 

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

I never heard that, but why the heck would they want it? Do the Orioles control the rights to another baseball team naming itself the Browns?

 

o

 

I don't know. I imagine that they do since it is the same franchise, recognized with the same records since 1901.

 

o

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

I don't know. I imagine that they do since it is the same franchise, recognized with the same records since 1901.

 

o

But it isn't!    The original Washington team, also called the Senators, are now the Minnesota Twins.    The Senators franchise that is now the Rangers was an expansion team put in DC when the original team left after the 1960 season.    If they want to keep their "records" from the 1961-71 period, fine, but I find it hard to believe they get any real benefit from keeping the "Senators" name.

In any event, as I indicated, there was fairly strong sentiment here that the new team shouldn't be called the Senators, even if it had been possible (which, apparently, it wasn't).     The Senators franchises were bad and abandoned the city twice, so there wasn't a ton of nostalgia for that name.     

[OFFNY]

27 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

But it isn't! The original Washington team, also called the Senators, are now the Minnesota Twins. The Senators franchise that is now the Rangers was an expansion team put in DC when the original team left after the 1960 season. If they want to keep their "records" from the 1961-71 period, fine, but I find it hard to believe they get any real benefit from keeping the "Senators" name.

In any event, as I indicated, there was fairly strong sentiment here that the new team shouldn't be called the Senators, even if it had been possible (which, apparently, it wasn't). The Senators franchises were bad and abandoned the city twice, so there wasn't a ton of nostalgia for that name.  

  

o

 

Yes it is, Frank. 

What happened was that when the original Senators moved to Minnesota, they kept the franchise records dating back to 1901, but they DID NOT keep the ownership of the name "Senators", because that went to expansion Washington team in 1961.

 

And that is why the Texas Rangers currently own the name "The Senators" ....... because it belonged to the expansion Senators that officially were born in 1961, although as I stated, Walter Johnson and company and their 3 AL Pennants in 1924, 1925, and 1933 are still in (and part of) the Twins' franchise record books.

 

It would have been easier and less confusing if the 1961 Washington expansion team had named themselves something like "The Governors", and that way the Twins would own BOTH the franchise records AND the name "The Senators" ...... but that is not what happened.

 

o

[OFFNY]

34 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Yes it is, Frank. 

What happened was that when the original Senators moved to Minnesota, they kept the franchise records dating back to 1901, but they DID NOT keep the ownership of the name "Senators", because that went to expansion Washington team in 1961.

 

And that is why the Texas Rangers currently own the name "The Senators" ....... because it belonged to the expansion Senators that officially were born in 1961, although as I stated, Walter Johnson and company and their 3 AL Pennants in 1924, 1925, and 1933 are still in (and part of) the Twins' franchise record books.

 

It would have been easier and less confusing if the 1961 Washington expansion team had named themselves something like "The Governors", and that way the Twins would own BOTH the franchise records AND the name "The Senators" ...... but that is not what happened.

 

o

o

 

This is a USA TODAY article from November of 2004, which stated that the Rangers still owned the rights to the name "The Senators", and why the current Washington team (the Nationals) was not permitted to use it when they arrived from Montreal.

 

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/expos/2004-11-19-nats-nickname_x.htm

 

o

[TonySoprano]

On 7/27/2017 at 6:48 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

This is a USA TODAY article from November of 2004, which stated that the Rangers still owned the rights to the name "The Senators", and why the current Washington team (the Nationals) was not permitted to use it when they arrived from Montreal.

 

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/expos/2004-11-19-nats-nickname_x.htm

 

o

Actually, in the article you cited, all it said was "Senators was also the preference of commissioner Bud Selig, even though the Rangers still hold the rights to the name."  They were not prohibited from using it, and I'm certain Bud could've worked it out.  Instead, it was the idiot mayor who shot down the idea of using the name, which, as a former Senators fan myself, really ticks me off.  

[OFFNY]

13 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

Actually, in the article you cited, all it said was "Senators was also the preference of commissioner Bud Selig, even though the Rangers still hold the rights to the name."  They were not prohibited from using it, and I'm certain Bud could've worked it out.  Instead, it was the idiot mayor who shot down the idea of using the name, which, as a former Senators fan myself, really ticks me off.  

o

 

Holding the rights to the name means that another team cannot use it unless that team voluntarily cedes those rights, or if they are taken to court and forced to cede the name......Hence, they have the rights to the name legally, unless other major actions are taken. Perhaps they would have ceded the rights to the name if asked to do so, perhaps MLB could have taken them to court to force the Rangers to cede the rights to the name if the Rangers did not want to, but they didn't, and so the team is now the Nationals, with their franchise records dating back to 1969.

 

o

[TonySoprano]

10 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Holding the rights to the name means that another team cannot use it unless that team voluntarily cedes those rights, or if they are taken to court and forced to cede the name......Hence, they have the rights to the name legally. Perhaps they would have ceded the rights to the name, perhaps they could have gone to court to force the Rangers to cede the rights to the name if the Rangers did not want to, but they didn't, and so the team is now the Nationals.

 

o

Do you think after MLB bought the Nationals from Loria for $120M and flipped them to the Lerners 2 years later for $450M, an agreement couldn't have been reached without the courts?  Not me.  Bud wanted them to have the name.  Unless the Rangers owners were as big jerks as the Irsays were (they wanted $25M from Art Modell for the Colts name, Art offered $5M) , this could've been done.  MLB obliged the idiot mayor, perhaps because he agreed to build a new ballpark.  I grew up around D.C. so I know there's a lot of stupid to go around in that city.  Marion Barry is just one example of that.

[OFFNY]

4 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

Do you think after MLB bought the Nationals from Loria for $120M and flipped them to the Lerners 2 years later for $450M, an agreement couldn't have been reached without the courts?  Not me.  Bud wanted them to have the name.  Unless the Rangers owners were as big jerks as the Irsays were (who wanted a ridiculous sum from Art Modell for the Colts name) , this could've been done.  MLB obliged the idiot mayor, perhaps because he agreed to build a new ballpark.  I grew up around D.C. so I know there's a lot of stupid to go around in that city.  Marion Barry is just one example of that.

o

 

No, I don't think it could have been worked out without the courts if the Rangers did not want to cede the name. And we don't know if they would have been willing to, or not.

The reality is that the Rangers still own the rights to the name as they did in 2004, and the team in DC is called the Nationals with their franchise records dating back to 1969.

 

o

[TonySoprano]

4 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

No, I don't think it could have been worked out without the courts if the Rangers did not want to cede the name. And we don't know if they would have been willing to, or not.

The reality is that the Rangers still own the rights to the name as they did in 2004, and the team in DC is called the Nationals with their franchise records dating back to 1969.

 

o

Common sense says after making a $330M profit in 2 years AND getting a new stadium, Bud would have made the Rangers an offer they couldn't refuse not to alienate the Lerners by having them get lawyers.  The Nats use the '71 Senators "walgreens" hat, and they could've gotten an extra cut for the name.  I'm sticking with my theory.  Two words, IDIOT MAYOR. Agree to disagree at this point.  I'm out.

[OFFNY]

26 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

Common sense says after making a $330M profit in 2 years AND getting a new stadium, Bud would have made the Rangers an offer they couldn't refuse not to alienate the Lerners by having them get lawyers.  The Nats use the '71 Senators "walgreens" hat, and they could've gotten an extra cut for the name.  I'm sticking with my theory.  Two words, IDIOT MAYOR. Agree to disagree at this point.  I'm out.

 

 

I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this hypothetical situation vs. the fact of what happened. You can't prove what  would have happened if the Rangers had been confronted with ceding the name any more than I can. It bothers you that they aren't named the Senators. I get that.

 

 

[OFFNY]

o

 

 

I like this Pennant.

 

 

 

 

o

[bobmc]

 

[weams]

 

[bobmc]

On 2/7/2018 at 6:23 AM, weams said:

 

I hadn't previously Heard of Jehosie - so thanks!