TNT44

What would have happened if the Washington Senators didn't move to Minnesota?

Recommended Posts

I think they could have pulled it off. They did succeed in getting the "open" classification (which is this nether region between AAA and Majors) in the 1950s.

I still don't think so, MLB had the anti-trust exemption and surely would have used it. I mean if the government allows you to have a legal monopoly your going to do it. Nobody's stopping them from running other leagues out of business. MLB has never had any reason to get rid of it. Back in '98(?) for the Curt Flood Act they had a chance to get rid of it, but made sure to only lift the exemption for player labor relations. I highly doubt the league would have let any kind of competition start up.

Let me clarify-they could have "salami-sliced" their way to de facto Major League status (add a player here, another player there, add an upper deck here, etc.), at which point the anti-trust exemption may have been applied to them, or it would have been too late for the NL or AL to do anything anyway.

Ultimately, the only way to quash the PCL would be to set up your own teams there. If you can't get existing teams to move there (which we are premising) then you're in a world of hurt in that regard. Expansion would be a much more iffy proposition-you haven't added new franchises for 50 years, and an expansion team would have to struggle with travel costs and not have the pre-existing brand and name recognition (and potential for on-field success) on the West Coast of the Dodgers or the Giants. (Watch expansion team suck or watch local PCL team win with better players...you make the call for Joe fan.)

PCL would also have been helped because back then the NL and AL were two independent leagues and still pretty much functioning independent of each other. It's not like it was a united 16-team monolith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it was interesting to read all of those near-moves. I can think of a few more:

* 1990s - Pirates threatened to move to Ft. Lauterdale, just as the White Sox and Giants had done. I don't remember the exact year, but it was late in Leyland's stint there. I remember reading several stories about Leyland being distraught after the final game of one season, believing that the team had played its last game in Pittsburgh.

* 1978 - Oilman Marvin Davis nearly buys the A's, intending to move them to Denver.

* 1974 - "Washington Nat'l Lea." Anyone who collected baseball cards during that time recognises that one! The Padres were set to move to Washington -- apparantly so set that Topps printed some cards of each Padres player with the team name "San Diego Padres", and some with the name "Washington Nat'l Lea." (By the way, the 1974 set was the best-looking Topps set ever, apart from the mid 50s. This was the set with the "banners" on the top and bottom showing the team name, and those cool "TRADED" cards that had the faux-newspaper look. Thanks to those cards, I still remember that the Yankees traded Lindy McDaniel to get Lou Piniella.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to hijack the topic, but I think someone making 2 comments about 18 years apart hardly makes someone a notorious racists. Heaven help us all if everything we ever said is held against us by people 20 or 40 years later.

As for whether it's fair to call Cal a "notorious racist," that's easy to establish. Was he a racist? Yes. Is his racism notorious, in that it is well-known and widely counted against his reputation? Yes. Ergo he is a notorious racist. QED.

Well please establish that he was one, just don't say he is one without giving some examples. We know of his quotes what else was there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to hijack the topic, but I think someone making 2 comments about 18 years apart hardly makes someone a notorious racists. Heaven help us all if everything we ever said is held against us by people 20 or 40 years later.

There's not a lot of ambiguity to "I moved my baseball team to Minnesota to get away from all those poor black people," though. That's worth notoriety to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it was interesting to read all of those near-moves. I can think of a few more:

* 1990s - Pirates threatened to move to Ft. Lauderdale, just as the White Sox and Giants had done.

I am not disputing your claim that the Pirates were threatening a move to Ft. Lauderdale, but the White Sox and the Giants were planning on moving to The Suncoast Dome in St. Petersburg in very highly publicized and drawn out situations before staying in their respective cities with new ballparks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never realized the Giants almost moved to Minneapolis, that's pretty cool. Things would be wayyy different, that's for sure. I'd be wearin Willie Mays stuff now instead of Killebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvin Griffith may have been racist, but that sure didn't prevent him from getting good African American and Latino players.

Granted, some of the Latino players were very white, like Camilo Pascual. But look at others, such as Tony Oliva, Rod Carew, Zoilo Versalles, etc.

The same can't be said of many other teams. I'm specifically thinking of the Red Sox and Yankees.

But that's really beside the point of this whole discussion. This is speculation about if the Giants had moved to Minnesota. What then? And this has been a great post.

There is a good point about the Dodgers needing a National League team to move with them to the West Coast. So here's a thought: Maybe Walter O'Malley would have talked Horace Stoneham into moving Giants to San Francisco instead of Minnesota (which basically he did) but then talked Calvin Griffith into moving the Senators to Minnesota (which, for all we know about the behind-the-scenes moves, he might have done). And there we are, back at square one.

But I'm still curious about how many homers Willie Mays would have hit had he played home games at Metropolitan Stadium. I think he would have passed Babe Ruth before Hank Aaron did, and it would have been a battle between the two for the record. And imagine how sweet that would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not defending anything Cal said, but at the same time when he first made that statement in the early 60s, American society was still in the early part of the civil rights movement (my guess is that his comment did not recieve alot of negative press). Now when he repeated his statement in the late 70s he should have know better, and I think he did recieve negative press as our society had changed. However I am not a big fan of using today's standards to past judgement on what people said in a different era.

I guess I need to know how we are defining racists now because I don't think a few ill concieved statements should make one a racist, because I am sure most of us have somewhere in our life made comments we are not proud of yet I am sure none of us would call ourselves racists. I just think we should be careful when using terms such as racists, because we do not know what was in the man's or anyone heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they'd be the Seattle White Sox and Chicago A's.

But seriously, the Royals would come in to replace the A's, and the Brewers would come in to replace the Braves in lieu of the Pilots. The Mariners expansion team would've gone to Tampa Bay, and Oakland wouldn't have gotten a team.

Haha, I speak as if I know for a fact.

Then fast foward to 1998 and Oakland gets the Devil Rays. (lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it was interesting to read all of those near-moves. I can think of a few more:

* 1990s - Pirates threatened to move to Ft. Lauderdale, just as the White Sox and Giants had done.

I am not disputing your claim that the Pirates were threatening a move to Ft. Lauderdale, but the White Sox and the Giants were planning on moving to The Suncoast Dome in St. Petersburg in very highly publicized and drawn out situations before staying in their respective cities with new ballparks.

So Fla, you are correct that, unlike the move plans of the Giants and White Sox, in which those teams' front offices publicly acknowleded the preparations, the Pirates situation never went beyond the rumour phase. But I recall that it was pretty widely assumed that the rumours were true, and that even Jim Leyland believed them.

I mentioned that I remembered reading stories about Leyland's being distraught when he thought the Pirates had played their last game in Pittsburgh. Unfortunately I couldn't find much to support this assertion, but I did find this, written by then-Penn State student Nick Zulovich in a university publication in October 1996, right after Leyland resigned from the Pirates.

"Leyland gave 11 years of his heart and soul to the Pirates organization. At the end of the 1995 season, he was brought to tears when it was rumored the club was moving out of Pittsburgh."

So, even if the plans to move the Pirates never got as far as those involving the other teams we have mentioned, I would suggest that, if Leyland thought that the possibility of a move was real, then maybe those plans were a little farther along than most in the public realised.

Logo-related sidebar: When the Giants were mulling their move to St. Pete, wasn't it discussed/rumoured that one of the possible names they could use was "South Florida Giants"? This, of course, would have allowed them to keep the "SF" logo! (Similarly, Real Salt Lake of MLS are having trouble getting a new stadium built. There are rumours that owner Dave Checketts might move the team to St. Louis, where he already owns the Blues, and keep the RSL logo.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on the A's on Wiki:

Almost from the minute the ink dried on his purchase of the Athletics, Finley began shopping the Athletics to other cities despite his promises that the A?s would remain in Kansas City. Soon after the lease-burning stunt, it was discovered that what actually burned was a blank boilerplate commercial lease available at any stationery store. The actual lease was still in force?including the escape clause. Finley later admitted he had no intention of rewriting the lease, that the whole thing was a publicity stunt.

On September 18, 1962, after less than two full years of ownership, Finley asked the A.L. owners for permission to move the Athletics to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. His request was denied by a 9?1 vote. In January, 1964, he signed an agreement to move the A?s to Louisville, promising to change the team's name to the "Kentucky Athletics" (See NY Times 1/7/1964, pg. 29). (Other names suggested for the team were the "Kentucky Colonels" and the "Louisville Sluggers.") By another 9?1 vote his request was denied. Six weeks later, by the same 9?1 margin, the A.L. owners denied Finley's request to move the team to Oakland.

These requests came as no surprise, as rumors of impending moves to these cities, as well as to Atlanta, Milwaukee, New Orleans, San Diego and Seattle?all of which Finley had considered as new homes for the Athletics?had long been afloat. He also threatened to move the A's to a "cow pasture" in Peculiar, Missouri, complete with temporary grandstands. Not surprisingly, attendance tailed off. Finally, American League President Joe Cronin persuaded Finley to sign a four-year lease with Municipal Stadium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Athletics

In more recent times Bob DuPuy floated the idea in 2001 of contracting the Marlins and Angels (because Disney wanted to sell), having John Henry buy the A's (because the owners wanted to sell), moving them to Anaheim, and finally importing the Marlins roster.

Cesarano:

I'm not sure your Pirates to FTL rumor (atleast the time period) is correct. South Fla was awarded the Marlins in June of 1991.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not defending anything Cal said, but at the same time when he first made that statement in the early 60s, American society was still in the early part of the civil rights movement (my guess is that his comment did not recieve alot of negative press). Now when he repeated his statement in the late 70s he should have know better, and I think he did recieve negative press as our society had changed. However I am not a big fan of using today's standards to past judgement on what people said in a different era.

I guess I need to know how we are defining racists now because I don't think a few ill concieved statements should make one a racist, because I am sure most of us have somewhere in our life made comments we are not proud of yet I am sure none of us would call ourselves racists. I just think we should be careful when using terms such as racists, because we do not know what was in the man's or anyone heart.

As a sociology major, I don't even know where to start with this... :cursing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why not start at the begining and enlighten me ?

so far no one has provided any additonal examples to prove he was a racist except for the two statements he made 18 years apart. Where is the evidence, it is simple to throw out a statement but why not provide support for it?

the truth is not one of us would like to called a racist yet some of us have no problem with labeling others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Fla -

Great info there. I just thought I would add a few things about the Sox. The AL didn't want DeBartolo because he had ties to organized gambling.

Also, as you said, then Governor Jim Thompson had a huge role in getting the new park built. He said the White Sox wouldn't leave on his watch. The Sox had announced that they would be moving to TB unless the stadium deal got done in Illinois, and they thought their move was assured right until the end. The Sox never came closer to moving than in June of 88.

The deadline for passing the stadium bill was June 30, 1988 (any legislation passed after that date would require a 3/5 majority - which would never happen since downstaters didn't want it). The bill passed the state senate at 11:35 pm on June 30, and went on to the house. Thompson called in every favor he ever had to get the votes. At 11:59, the bill was a few votes short. Then something funny happened...

The speaker of the house let the holder of the gavel know that the day wouldn't change until he wanted it to. Therefore, the clock was unplugged at 11:59, and the negotiating went on. Four minutes later (still 11:59), the votes were secured. Since it had "officially" passed before midnight, it was still June 30, and the bill passed with a simple majority. The Sox were saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Fla -

Great info there. I just thought I would add a few things about the Sox. The AL didn't want DeBartolo because he had ties to organized gambling.

Also, as you said, then Governor Jim Thompson had a huge role in getting the new park built. He said the White Sox wouldn't leave on his watch. The Sox had announced that they would be moving to TB unless the stadium deal got done in Illinois, and they thought their move was assured right until the end. The Sox never came closer to moving than in June of 88.

The deadline for passing the stadium bill was June 30, 1988 (any legislation passed after that date would require a 3/5 majority - which would never happen since downstaters didn't want it). The bill passed the state senate at 11:35 pm on June 30, and went on to the house. Thompson called in every favor he ever had to get the votes. At 11:59, the bill was a few votes short. Then something funny happened...

The speaker of the house let the holder of the gavel know that the day wouldn't change until he wanted it to. Therefore, the clock was unplugged at 11:59, and the negotiating went on. Four minutes later (still 11:59), the votes were secured. Since it had "officially" passed before midnight, it was still June 30, and the bill passed with a simple majority. The Sox were saved.

Illinois politics at their finest...(yes, I know this isn't a unique tactic).

Of course it kind of sucked when the luxury box revolution hit in the early 90s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did part of the struggle to retain the Sox have to do with most of the legislature being supporters of the Cardinals and Cubs and thus unwilling to devote public funds to the White Sox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that had there not been a revolution in Cuba, the Washington Senators would have moved to Havana :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did part of the struggle to retain the Sox have to do with most of the legislature being supporters of the Cardinals and Cubs and thus unwilling to devote public funds to the White Sox?

I'm sure that helped/hurt.

It's best to think of the White Sox as a small market team, or even the last of the "neighborhood" teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.