Franchise Four

[JCA-CrystalCity]

So MLB, using the term "franchise" to mean the baseball entity that relocated here and was renamed the "Nationals," is having a contest for the 4 most "impactful" players in franchise history.  here is a link to a thread on that topic.
http://www.wnff.net/index.php?topic=32400.new#new
Let's not argue the definition of "franchise" here.  Rather, who would be the 4 most "impactful" players since 2005 for the Nationals?

Let's take nominations over the next week, then we can throw on a poll.  I will see if there is a way to allow you to vote for 4 players.

"Impactful" is however you want to phrase it.  We can let the voting run for a month.  nominate away.

EDITOR'S NOTE: COMBINED THREAD

still interested in nominees focused on the post-2004 period since the official MLB contest is dominated by the players who played for this member of the National League before it moved to DC.

In addition to the 10 I put up, there are nominations for Stras, Guzman, Nick Johnson, Gio, Clip, Lannan, and Pudge.

Just a few names -
1 & 2) Livo and Zim, for being the most watchable guys for most of this time. 
3) Desi, for his leadership first, for being a product of the development system that has stocked the team, and for his performance (both the bitter and the sweet). 
4) Dunn for that bat.
5)Harper, for representing the contending Nats era. 
6)Jordan Zimmermann, whose emergence coincides with the rise of the franchise. 
7) Chad Cordero, for 2005 and for representing the chew'em up and spit'em out career paths of the first Nats.  Also the hang on to them too long rather than trade at peak philosophy of Bowden.
8 ) Alfonso Soriano - 40 / 40.  One year, but what a year. 
9) Mike Bascik - representing ineptitude in an eternal way.
10) erth, whose signing represented a commitment to build a contender; Game 4 HR; mentoring and attitude.

I think this covers the entire period.

[welch]

Nick Johnson .408

I always liked Nick Johnson, although Yost carried his OBP across 14 seasons with the Nats. Career OBP of .394 over 18 seasons. Led AL in walks six times, including 1956: had 151 walks. Because of injuries, Nick only had about five complete seasons...832 games over ten seasons. Yost played in 2,109 games during 18 seasons, including partial seasons at the beginning and end of his career.

[HalfSmokes]

Phil Woods discussing this now- not exactly pro expos players being on the list

[Tokeydog]

Brad Wilkerson

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Now that you mention it... very hard to leave Larry Walker off. I'd be tempted to replace Raines with him.

Do the other 5 Expos fans out there agree with you?

[spidernat]

Brad Wilkerson

  he played 1 year in Washington.

[_sturt_]

Do the other 5 Expos fans out there agree with you?

Some people are uniters, some are dividers. That's all I've got to say about that.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

I'm glad the other 5 Expos fans in existence united around you.

[whytev]

I've been a fan since 1991 (or thereabouts)... so I'll give my Mt Rushmore in the time I've been a fan:

Vladimir Guerrero (just about the only reason to watch the Expos in the latter years)
Pedro Martinez (only Cy Young winner)
Ryan Zimmerman (first draft pick by the Nationals and a great one at that)
Felipe Alou (if you can put managers on it)
and if not...
Moises Alou (because he's Felipe's son... and he was really good)

Alou was my favourite player, but he doesn't deserve to be on this list.  Walker was much better.

You're too young and so am I, but Carter probably deserves that spot.  Pedro, Zim, Carter, and Guerrero is pretty solid.

[whytev]

If just Nationals it is tough

Zimmerman
Desmond
Clippard
Livo or Z'nn?

Zim obviously. Desmond pretty easy. I think Clippard is in there. Then either Z'nn or Livo.

Just Nationals, you have to go with Zimmerman, Harper, Werth, and Zimmermann.

[whytev]

Were any of those Expos with the franchise in 1994? Vladi was not up yet.  Was El Presidente still there?  Carter's is more associated with the mid-80s Mets, Hawk as much with the Cubs, so I don't know. I'd go Rogers, Vladi, Rock, and

That shrug has to be Pedro...and yes he was there in 1994.

[UMDNats]

A bunch of guys who never played for the Nationals are definitely the core members of the Nationals!


Honestly the fact that we treat the Expos history as our own is the dumbest thing we do. I honestly could not care less about the Expos. They aren't the Nationals. They're Montreal's team.

[whytev]

A bunch of guys who never played for the Nationals are definitely the core members of the Nationals!


Honestly the fact that we treat the Expos history as our own is the dumbest thing we do.

I guarantee you nobody on the Dodgers board or the Braves board is bellyaching about this.  Why are we?  Because the city AND the name changed, not just the city.

[mitlen]

I guarantee you nobody on the Dodgers board or the Braves board is bellyaching about this.  Why are we?  Because the city AND the name changed, not just the city.

Maybe because it's been 50 and 60 years  ....  there were no boards.    I don't disagree with you.    But it's still "fresh" to some folks.

[UMDNats]

What if MLB moves a team to Montreal (stupid IMO)? Do we just take down all the Expos crap we have around?

[whytev]

What if MLB moves a team to Montreal (stupid IMO)? Do we just take down all the Expos crap we have around?

The retired numbers stay with us. What else is up?

[whytev]

The retired numbers stay with us. What else is up?

And I agree Montréal getting a new team is a terrible idea.

[UMDNats]

The retired numbers stay with us. What else is up?

Why would they stay with us?

We have a bunch of Expos in our Ring of Honor crap.

[whytev]

Why would they stay with us?

We have a bunch of Expos in our Ring of Honor crap.

Yes or no question: Do you believe Jackie Robinson should have his number retired with the Los Angeles Dodgers?

[UMDNats]

Yes or no question: Do you believe Jackie Robinson should have his number retired with the Los Angeles Dodgers?

Isn't 42 retired by everyone in baseball?

Semantics!

That one is a little different for me - they kept the team name and the jerseys and everything. I'm not sure. I'd probably say no.

[whytev]

Isn't 42 retired by everyone in baseball?

Semantics!

That one is a little different for me - they kept the team name and the jerseys and everything. I'm not sure. I'd probably say no.

If it is the name then Wizards fans should be obsessed with the Bullets years not counting. Bet they aren't.

If it's the city then Raiders fans would have had to turf their history a couple times.

A franchise is an entity with its own continuity. You don't have to acknowledge that part of it, but don't get annoyed that others do.

And there are more Expos on the list because they have 3.5x more time to work with.

No Pedro is dumb though.

[UMDNats]

I feel no attachment to the Expos at all. We have DC baseball history. Just work with that!

[whytev]

I feel no attachment to the Expos at all. We have DC baseball history. Just work with that!

You're entitled to what you feel.

Dredging up previous Washington history is a big reminder that MLB let the city lose the same team twice in a decade, which might be a sore point for a lot of old timers.  In a way, I can understand why they are avoiding that.

[_sturt_]

Though not related to the original topic, seems the discussion has developed in a way that this is relevant...

[whytev]

Though not related to the original topic, seems the discussion has developed in a way that this is relevant...

(Image removed from quote.)

Here is the thing...I started watching the Nationals because they were the Expos, but obviously if they hadn't given me anything to love in the first ten years, I might have stopped.

A lot of people start liking a team because of where they live, what team their dad liked, what team was hot the year they started paying attention, or what channel on T.V. they get (I'm the last one).  Others because they fell in love with a certain player and got into the rest of the team after.  Nobody's reasons are wrong.