Master Index of Archived Threads


History Help

DocTee Jun 24 2009 04:20 PM

OK... While driving earlier this week, a radio report told of the collision of two Washington DC trains. My daughter asked why they were called METROS. I explained that they served the greater WDC metropolitan area. She then asked why the Mets were not called the Metros. I told here that the 1962 expansion brethren were the Astros, and MLB may not have wanted two new teams with such similiar names, but actually, I have no clue. I mean, Metros is probably more accurate, no? SJR? JCL?? FAFIF???

Willets Point Jun 24 2009 06:24 PM

All I know is that the American Association team of the 1880's was called the New York Metropolitans and the "Mets" for short and that nickname was passed down to our Mets. The Metropolitan Opera and Metropolitan Life Insurance are also called "Met" for short so I don't think it's out of the ordinary.

Kong76 Jun 24 2009 06:29 PM

I had a bunch of .pdf's from the early 60's from the NYT's that I just don't know what happened to. If anyone has access, I probably do as a home delivery subscriber but I haven't been on in awhile ... I'm picturing a pretty good piece announcing the team name and explaining all of the choices that were considered, etc. If no one posts it, I'll find it over the weekend.

Edgy DC Jun 24 2009 06:41 PM

="Willets Point":yd5zin62]All I know is that the American Association team of the 1880's was called the New York Metropolitans and the "Mets" for short and that nickname was passed down to our Mets. The Metropolitan Opera and Metropolitan Life Insurance are also called "Met" for short so I don't think it's out of the ordinary.[/quote:yd5zin62] Metopollitan Museum of Art also. Met is also a common abbreviation for Metropolitan in Britain. themetfairy Jun 24 2009 06:49 PM It's not the Times, but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Metropolitans:304j43ef]Wikipedia[/url:304j43ef] has an article on the subject. Kong76 Jun 24 2009 06:54 PM Stuff like this I should remember will just bug me until the weekend. Paraphrasing from Golenbock's Amazin' ... Joan Payson wanted to call her new team the Meadowlarks. Instead of ruling she let the team hold a contest between Meadowlarks, Continentals, Jets, Skyliners, Burros, Skyscrapers, Rebels NYBs, Avengers, and Mets. The name of the owning corporation was always New York Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc. Trying not to quote too much, when Payson drew the name she said she liked it and it was Mets. It also says that someone said out loud, "Okay, lets go Mets." I guess that's believable. soupcan Jun 24 2009 08:51 PM Can you imagine if they were the Burros (I believe they were going to spell it 'Boros' which is the common local shorthand for 'Boroughs'), or the freakin' Skyliners? You think 'New York Mess' is bad on a newspaper backpage? How do you think 'New York Jack-ASSES' or 'New York CRY-liners' ('Eyeliners'?) woud have been? *shiver* 'Avengers' might have been cool. DocTee Jun 25 2009 09:21 AM Thanks for all the help-- please don't waste your weekend looking for old pdfs on my behalf! I knew the connection between Mets and the Metropolitan Baseball Club (both 1880s and the 20th century corporation) but was confused why Metros was not the preferred shorter version. WP and Edgy, and Golenbock's anecdote, seem to answer that. Thanks again, EDIT: I know the houston franchise was the Colt .45s but wanted to see if SJR would take the bait or see if he had learned from Swan's NHL Playoffs lesson! Benjamin Grimm Jun 25 2009 09:49 AM ="soupcan"]'Avengers' might have been cool. The fans could have shouted "Avengers Assemble!" NYB's would have been awful. If I was voting back then I think I might have gone with Meadowlarks. Or maybe Mets, if I wanted to honor the 19th Century team. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 25 2009 10:28 AM I could have rooted for Larks. (If we'd done "Continentals," would Shea have served cham-pa-nyeh?) Kong76 Jun 25 2009 07:41 PM Tee: please don't waste your weekend looking for old pdfs on my behalf! <<< I might have and that's why I looked it up. Got lucky with the first book. Amazin', if I recall correctly, was slammed as having a lot of details in it that were questionable to a bunch of readers about some stuff. What I posted is basically what I remember from the NYT's article which is where he probably got it.