The Washington Nationals #1

I want very much to be a Washington Nationals fan.

But here we are, halfway through spring training, and I have not seen or heard a game, and do not have the ability to name even one member of the team. I do know that Frank Robinson is the manager. But that is not very much to know, considering all of the hype of baseball coming back to Washington after more than thirty years.

Of course, when I first moved to Washington, in October 1969, the Senators were still here (or rather, they were back). Then they left. I was never a Senators fan, probably did not even know who the manager was, never went to a game. In 1972, when the Senators left, I think I was too excited about the coming of Metro to notice they were leaving. In fact, no one noticed, as I recall. We all learned about the next spring, when the section of the sports page dealing with the Senators was left blank.

And in the interim, I have continued follow baseball, after a fashion. That is, when the Cardinals were doing well, I followed baseball. When they weren't, I paid no attention whatsoever.

But now I have a new home team, and I would like to support my new home team. What's my problem?

First, because I never paid attention to the Expos, I had no idea who was on the Expos roster. I didn't even pay attention to the Expos last year, when it was perfectly clear that there was somewhat of a chance, possibly, more or less, depending on the day, that they would move to Washington.

Why is that? There were a number of reasons. First, because it was not clear they were coming, why waste my energy on a team that could have landed in Las Vegas, or Portland, or Newport News, or San Juan.

Now I never took San Juan seriously. If the team didn't play well in French, why would Spanish be an improvement. Besides, history shows that young Caribbean men become baseball players to come north, not to stay home. I also didn't take Newport News (or was it Norfolk, or Portsmouth, or Virginia Beach, or Chesapeake?) seriously. We get in a war, and the entire fan base is shipped to Tripoli. And I knew they would never go to Portland. One scheduler screw-up, sending the team to Maine instead of Oregon (or is it Oregon instead of Maine?), and the league would never recover.

In fact, however, I thought Las Vegas was a better market than Washington. A large and growing local population, and untold numbers of visitors from the home city of every visiting team. Games would never get rained out. And there are plenty of places to go after the game, after all. I thought the only thing that would be confusing would be the schedule changes necessitated by another team in the Pacific time zone. And I even considered the possible names of a Vegas team. The Las Vegas Slots. The Las Vegas Crupiers (this would build on their French Canadian heritage; they could be called "The Cru"). The Las Vegas Showgirls.

And then I did not want to be gleeful about taking the team from Montreal. I remember when the Browns were hi-jacked to Baltimore. It was awful, and made worse by the ecstacy shown by Baltimoreans and their lack of concern of the feelings of Browns' fans (OK, so there were just five or six of them, but that should have made it easier for Baltimore to make nice.). In fact, the relocation of the Browns to Baltimore have permanently tainted that city. What if Washington turned into another Baltimore? (You gotta admit it's a weird place. A city whose primary fame comes from its crab cakes, and whose Jewish population contains the highest percentage of orthodox in the country.)

And then, there's the question of the team's name. I think that the Nationals were just the wrong choice.

Here you gotta give it to Baltimore. They really know their names. The Baltimore Orioles - the state bird. The Baltimore Colts - Pimlico. The Baltimore Ravens - Edgar Allan Poe. Even the old Baltimore Bullets (name another city that you are as likely to get shot at).

But the Washington Nationals? OK, so they didn't want to use the Senators again (but even the curse of the Bambino has been broken!). In fact, "Senators" is a great sounding word. It connotes power, the upper body, stability evidenced by six year terms. They could have done worse. In fact, come to think of it, they did.

"Nationals" is a bad-sounding word. I do not think an "sh" sound belongs in a team name. Think about it. The St. Louis Carshinals. The New York Yanshees. The Boston Red Shox. The Los Angeles Doshers. "Sh" does not work. But that is just the start.

What are we trying to get across by calling the team the Nationals? It is a National team, and not a local team? No, and in fact this sends the wrong message. Is it because it is in the National League? I don't think so. The name lacks meaning. At least, it lacks discernable meaning.

And its nickname will be the Nats. That is really awful. It doesn't sound right, for one thing, and it will one day be spelled not n-a-t-s, but g-n-a-t-s. Who is gonna be afraid of a bunch of Gnats? And, isn't the concept of Gnats shagging flies in the outfield a little mind blowing?

Or, putting the dreaded "sh" sound together with the silent "g", we have the Washington Gnashers: "Here they are, folks, the Washington Nationals, gnashing their teeth".

I did not care for the other debated choice, the Grays (the name of the old Negro league team), any better, again because the name just does not have the right ring to it. What a colorful team Washington has: the Grays. (Can I ask a follow up question? Sure. Ok. In the olden days, why did they call a black team, the Grays? Were they trying to hide something? "Our town is post-racial. No blacks. No whites. No young people, either. Just us grays.")

If they wanted to stick with a Congressional name, and were afraid of the Senators, I think they could have used Congress-speak, and named the team after "the other body". The Washington Other Bodies, informally called the Wobs, the Wobbies, the Wobos, or even better, the Washington Wobbers.

My own favorite was the Potomacs. The Macs. The Big Macs. I thought that they could get some corporate sponsorship out of that one.

Or how about a one-word name (the first in the league), the Washingtonians, a/k/a the Tonys. Wouldn't you think Mayor Williams would have gone for that one? I can see the logo now: a sillouette of Tony Williams in black with a red, white and blue bow tie.

Or, if we support regional ecumenicism, why not drop the name Washington altogether, and call the team the Beltway Bandits? (If Anaheim can have the Mighty Ducks, we can have the Banditos, si?)

I just don't think that Washington knows how to do names. The Redskins is an OK name. The Washington Redskins sounds pretty good. I know that there is a recurring debate (amonst the same 4 or 5 people) about whether the name is politically correct. (And how about the Cleveland Indians? Or the whole state of Indiana, for crying out loud?)

But I do not think that a Redskin refers to an American Indian. I have met some American Indians, but none of them have red skins (except when they stay out in the sun too long, which come to think of it, many of them might). Their skin is more ruddy than red. If the team were named the Washington Ruddyskins, I can see that there would be some question as to propriety, but Redskins just does not bother me (except that there is a good argument that a team's name should be more Atkins-friendly).

And look at basketball. When they had to change the name of the Bullets (I also never understoood why that change was needed), they went to the Wizards. That was just terrible. The thing about wizards is that they wear wizard hats. A wizard without a wizard hat is no t a wizard. But if the average player is eight feet tall, why does he have to wear a wizard's hat? A wizard's hat has only one purpose. To make a short wizard look tall. There are no short Wizards.

I thought it was obvious that the basketball team should have been named the Washington Monuments. No question. I heard that that name had been under discussion, but not chosen, because it was "not available". It was owned by someone else.

Huh? How can the name Washington Monuments be owned by someone? Do you believe that? I hadn't realized that a name like that could be owned. But now that I have found that out, I am going right into action. I have decided to get trademark protection for the name "The National Gallery of Art". I am going to use it (perhaps even rename this blog). In any event, the royalties are going to keep me solvent during my retirement. Why didn't I think of this sooner?

Another problem is that the Nationals have no owner. They are owned by (ta-da) Major League Baseball. They have been moved here, and now MLB is first searching for someone to buy the team. And that could be anyone. They could wind up owned by the Gotti family. "The Washington Mafiosi". Or by the von Trapp singers. "The Washington Yodelers". Or even by Martha Stewart. "The Washington Lifestyles"

Teams are identified with their owners. There are owners like Abe Pollin, whom everyone loves and their are owners like Dan Snyder and Peter Angelos, whom everyone hates. And then there are even owners like Ted Leonsis, whom everyone thought they loved, until one day everyone realized that they hated him. But until there is an owner that you can deify or satanize, you just can't become a fan of a team.

And finally, there is television. As of now, the owner (i.e., Major League Baseball) has not worked out a television contract for the Gnats. So, spring training is not being seen on local TV. Maybe there will be something in place by the season opener (30 days away), but then again maybe not. We know of nothing in the immediate offing.

My point of reference here are the Washington Capitals. I used to follow the Caps religiously, but this year, if you haven't noticed, there is no television contract for the Caps. Consequently, I have not watched one game. It is as if the season had been called off.

I don't think I am alone in my predicament. I do think (and know you will agree) that I have thought out the reasons better than most.

In the meantime, in a weak moment of patriotic fervor, my office has purchased four seats for each game. We asked our staff of 25 or so to select dates. Maybe there is one family (with a rabid baseball fan as a son) who has expressed interest in the Nats as Nats. Other than that, people want to get tickets to see the Cardinals, the Yankees, the Mets and the Pirates when they come to town. If the team had an owner, a better name, and a television contract, I think things would be different.

I really want to be a fan of the Washington Nationals. But I am not finding it to be easy.