I think what annoys me the most is that the article puts the Nats in the "now uses" group instead of the "has always used" group. Yet another jab at our Montreal heritage.
Why is that a jab? Like it or not, it IS the Nats' heritage. The other teams mentioned have "always" been that team, i.e. the Cardinals were never NOT the Cardinals. It will take a generation or two to disconnect from the Montreal roots. Heck, my father still can't get used to saying "Los Angeles Dodgers." To him, they'll always be in Brooklyn.
I have to disagree with the contention that some of the teams identified use red as thier primary color. If you don't count everything but the socks and letters, I guess Red is the color for Boston -- come on, they have been dark blue with trim and socks since the 1930s. The Angels? They did not switch to Red until 2002.
The D-Back Uniform is the Nats Uni with a sort of dried-blood color red, and a type face that looks like it belongs in the credits to a Dracula movie. Yeesh!
I am holding out hope that a future version of the Nats home uniform goes back to a cursive script for the team name (to match the "curly W" on the hat) or use the curly W as an emblem in the upper left hand corner, like the Tigers and White Sox use thier logos.
I just meant that the Washington Nationals have always worn red. The Montreal Expos did not. The Washington Nationals are not the Montreal Expos. They were created from the Montreal Expos, but they are not the Montreal Expos, or they'd be called the Montreal Expos and still be playing in Montreal. Thusly, the Washington Nationals have always worn red. It's a distinction that I feel was made unnecessarily by the writer, as if to say "The Nationals are not really a team, they're just the Expos in DC, and haven't always worn red."
That's all. I have no problem with our Montreal heritage, but it seems like a lot of people OUTSIDE the organization/fanbase like to constantly use it as fodder.
