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

[smith03]

that the universal perception of him is somehow wrong?

please explain to me how this is an universal perception of the man?

Ah yes prove someone is not a racist, wow Gothamite , man I used to have a lot of respect for you

You are the one who made the statement he was a racist I think it is up to you to prove it , perhaps to some you have. I just hope in future if you make a statement accussing someone of something like be a racist that you provide justification for that opinion at the time you make the claim

[DG_ThenNowForever]

He sounds like a racist to me. He moved a professional baseball franchise from our nation's capital -- where baseball SHOULD be -- to a Nordic area of the country because DC was too black. I don't see how that could be construed any other way.

All this talk about "notorious" makes me think of this:

Isn't that lil' fella adorable?

[rams80]

At this point, are we arguing over "notorious" or "racist"?

An excellent question.

I'm not sure we can dispute either the "notoriety" or the "racism"...

Can we get back to alternate baseball history though? Maybe we can create a timeline where Griffith is not a racist.

[leopard88]

Can we get back to alternate baseball history though? Maybe we can create a timeline where Griffith is not a racist.

In that case, the Senators move to Atlanta, since he is no longer offended by the presence of a sizable black population. They adopt the longstanding Crackers name (just because). After that, the Braves move to Washington to complete the circle from Boston (Braves and Redskins, together again). The Orioles have less power to object at the time, since it is a National League team moving. Minnesota and Dallas eventually receive expansion franchises. Everything else falls into place as it has in the years since.

[Gothamite]

that the universal perception of him is somehow wrong?

please explain to me how this is an universal perception of the man?

Ah yes prove someone is not a racist, wow Gothamite , man I used to have a lot of respect for you

You are the one who made the statement he was a racist I think it is up to you to prove it , perhaps to some you have. I just hope in future if you make a statement accussing someone of something like be a racist that you provide justification for that opinion at the time you make the claim

I'm sorry, but the facts of his case are not in question.

The controversy over his quotes is well-documented, and widely reported. It was featured in his Associated Press obituary. That's about as "univeral" as you can get.

If you want to dispute this perception, then yes. I do think the reasonable burden is on you.

But I am happy to drop this line of conversation and get back to the "What if"s. I only raised it as part of an on-point discussion.

[timparry]

Back to the What-Ifs...

Had Portland ever been considered for an expansion franchise or a relocation before the Expos moved to D.C.? It seems to me like Civic Stadium would have been a good stop-gap stadium based on its size. Granted, nowhere near as huge as Mile High in Denver was, but formidable for MLB...

[So_Fla]

I seem to recall the state of Florida outline and perhaps a star in the Tampa Bay area made a sort of cursive "F"?

Exactly on the caps. The front of the shirt had the word "Florida" in green with the state for the "F" and "White Sox in gold in the tail. Much like the Sox's 1967-1975 road uniforms.

The Mariners just had the Sunshine Skyway with a baseball soaring over it saying Tampa Bay on the top and Mariners under it.

[FrankCostanza]

Between the years of 1954 and 1976, a number of teams were rumoured to be relocating to Toronto.

-Philadelphia Athletics (ended up going to Kansas City, then Oakland)

-Detroit Tigers (stayed in Detroit)

-Washington Senators (moved to Minnesota)

-St. Louis Browns (moved to Baltimore)

-the ill-fated Continental League was going to place a team in Toronto

-Cleveland Indians (stayed in Cleveland)

-Baltimore Orioles (stayed in Baltimore)

-San Francisco Giants (stayed in San Fran)

In 1977 after over 20 years of trying the Blue Jays took that field.

[BaltimoreFan]

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.

I've never seen those rules before until just now. After reading I'm still not too sure the PCL could have pulled it off. You say that the NL and AL were two independent leagues, which in a sense was true. But the leagues were still brought together under Major League Baseball. It is my understanding that those rules to become a "major league" makes you a big time league (no longer considered a minor league), but doesn't make you apart of MLB. Instead you are in competition with MLB. MLB is an organization not a status (for example the NFL would be a major league, when the USFL gained major league status, if it did, it didn't become a part of the NFL). So IMO, MLB would have quashed any league's chances of obtaining those requirments.

There are a number of ways it could have done this. One is to move existing teams into the area. Which is what happened with the Dodgers and Giants. I think stoppind the PCL was one of the main reasons MLB allowed the move. I don't think its a coincidence that they moved just as the PCL was gaining steam. Another way is to put expansion teams in the area. Thinking this over it might be a hard like you said, cost wise. As for fan support, I'm not so sure. Baseball was pretty popular in those days so I personally think fans would perfer to see an MLB team, even if it sucks. If it were to suck, MLB could always "plant" good players to attract fans. A better option would be to obtain some of the PCL franchises. Take the most finanacially stable teams and add them to either the AL or NL.

I just highly doubt MLB would let any league come into competition with them. They've stopped two rival leagues in their history, so why I have no doubt they could have stopped the PCL.

[Bronxmet]

The Indians tried to move to New Orleans circa 1985 (evident by the removal of Block C caps in favor of the Chief Wahoo caps and Cleveland was absent from the unis until 1989 in case of a franchise shift)

However, moving rumors were stopped after the Jacobs brothers bought the team.

[illwauk]

that the universal perception of him is somehow wrong?

please explain to me how this is an universal perception of the man?

Ah yes prove someone is not a racist, wow Gothamite , man I used to have a lot of respect for you

You are the one who made the statement he was a racist I think it is up to you to prove it , perhaps to some you have. I just hope in future if you make a statement accussing someone of something like be a racist that you provide justification for that opinion at the time you make the claim

It's becoming pretty obvious that nothing anyone can say, no matter how obvious or indicting, will get you to believe that Griffith was a racist. It also seems like you have some underlying reason(s) for wanting to believe he's not one which is also clouding your judgement.

And please don't hand me that line about being "a man of his time." If you aren't progressive enough to think for yourself rather than just accept whatever "the times" tell you, then you're every bit as much a part of the problem of "those times."

[Gothamite]

Thank you for the backup, illwauk, but I think we should just let that one go.

Between the years of 1954 and 1976, a number of teams were rumoured to be relocating to Toronto.

-Philadelphia Athletics (ended up going to Kansas City, then Oakland)

-Detroit Tigers (stayed in Detroit)

-Washington Senators (moved to Minnesota)

-St. Louis Browns (moved to Baltimore)

-the ill-fated Continental League was going to place a team in Toronto

-Cleveland Indians (stayed in Cleveland)

-Baltimore Orioles (stayed in Baltimore)

-San Francisco Giants (stayed in San Fran)

In 1977 after over 20 years of trying the Blue Jays took that field.

How many of those were serious threats, and how much unsubstantiated rumor? I haven't heard about some of them.

When, in particular, were the Browns rumored to be heading there? I know that they considered a switch to LA in the 1940s, and Bill Veeck tried to move them back to Milwaukee in 1953 just weeks before Perini relocated the Braves, but Toronto's a new one on me.

[rams80]

I've never seen those rules before until just now. After reading I'm still not too sure the PCL could have pulled it off. You say that the NL and AL were two independent leagues, which in a sense was true. But the leagues were still brought together under Major League Baseball. It is my understanding that those rules to become a "major league" makes you a big time league (no longer considered a minor league), but doesn't make you apart of MLB. Instead you are in competition with MLB. MLB is an organization not a status (for example the NFL would be a major league, when the USFL gained major league status, if it did, it didn't become a part of the NFL). So IMO, MLB would have quashed any league's chances of obtaining those requirments.

I think that "MLB" was a weak enough organization at the top back then that you could use the diffences in leagues to your advantage. Think of it as a weak alliance as opposed to a unified organization. The philosophical and fanbase differences between the two could have worked to your advantage (back then there were such things as "NL" fans and "AL" fans-the Mets exist in the NL in large part because New York had a "NL" fanbase that needed servicing.

There are a number of ways it could have done this. One is to move existing teams into the area. Which is what happened with the Dodgers and Giants. I think stoppind the PCL was one of the main reasons MLB allowed the move. I don't think its a coincidence that they moved just as the PCL was gaining steam. Another way is to put expansion teams in the area. Thinking this over it might be a hard like you said, cost wise. As for fan support, I'm not so sure. Baseball was pretty popular in those days so I personally think fans would perfer to see an MLB team, even if it sucks. If it were to suck, MLB could always "plant" good players to attract fans. A better option would be to obtain some of the PCL franchises. Take the most finanacially stable teams and add them to either the AL or NL.

I'm not disputing that Dodgers' and Giants' move was intended to help remove the PCL "threat". I am saying that you would need at least two teams, preferably in the same league (the independence of the NL and AL makes realignment an iffy proposition as well), to have a chance of succeeding. Ergo if the Giants didn't want to move there, then you have a problem.

The PCL teams had also been in town long enough to establish roots, and if we are supposing that they are slowly moving to major league status by adding big ticket players here and there, they should be able to maintain local hometown support. I would also like to inquire about whether or not leagues would be willing to "stack" expansion teams even if it was necessary for their success. Certainly the early on-field failure of the Senators, Mets, Astros (and to a lesser extent Angels) indicates to me that baseball didn't find a pressing need to have the expansion teams win.

Even when leagues are in direct competition (ie. NFL-AFL war, NBA-ABA war, NHL-WHA war) the established teams usually prefer to have the expansion clubs try to muddle through with rejects and incompetents.

I just highly doubt MLB would let any league come into competition with them. They've stopped two rival leagues in their history, so why I have no doubt they could have stopped the PCL.

Federal and Continental, right?

Federal went head-to-head with them in the same markets and lost. Continental never got off the ground, so we don't know how it would have worked out.

Anyway, just for :censored:s and giggles, I got the 1960 US Census data, and tried to figure out how a major league PCL would look like.

Denver Bears (ex. Hollywood Stars) (metro pop. 929,383)

Los Angeles Angels (metro pop. 6,742,696)

Phoenix Suns (ex. Sacramento Solons) (metro pop. 663,510)

Portland Beavers (metro pop. 821,897)

San Diego Padres (metro pop. 1,033,011)

San Francisco Seals (metro pop. 2,783,359)

Seattle Rainiers (metro pop. 1,107,213)

Vancouver Mounties (since I'm sort of lazy, I'm gonna credit them with a metro pop. of 1,000,000-our Canadian posters can correct me.)

I had a pool of 4 markets for relocation of Sacramento and Hollywood, and awarded teams to the largest two back then (the other ones were Salt Lake City and Honolulu)

Observations-holding on to the Bay Area and LA are crucial to this move's success. (MLB's move here really hurt). San Fran actually includes Oakland in the metro pop (don't blame me-blame the US census bureau). Also, they're just over 15 million back then total. (15,081,069). Granted it will go up soon, but something else to bear in mind.

[neo_prankster]

The Indians tried to move to New Orleans circa 1985 (evident by the removal of Block C caps in favor of the Chief Wahoo caps and Cleveland was absent from the unis until 1989 in case of a franchise shift)

However, moving rumors were stopped after the Jacobs brothers bought the team.

Didn't the Indians purposefully put together a losing team in order to move to Miami back in '89?

[FrankCostanza]

Thank you for the backup, illwauk, but I think we should just let that one go.

Between the years of 1954 and 1976, a number of teams were rumoured to be relocating to Toronto.

-Philadelphia Athletics (ended up going to Kansas City, then Oakland)

-Detroit Tigers (stayed in Detroit)

-Washington Senators (moved to Minnesota)

-St. Louis Browns (moved to Baltimore)

-the ill-fated Continental League was going to place a team in Toronto

-Cleveland Indians (stayed in Cleveland)

-Baltimore Orioles (stayed in Baltimore)

-San Francisco Giants (stayed in San Fran)

In 1977 after over 20 years of trying the Blue Jays took that field.

How many of those were serious threats, and how much unsubstantiated rumor? I haven't heard about some of them.

When, in particular, were the Browns rumored to be heading there? I know that they considered a switch to LA in the 1940s, and Bill Veeck tried to move them back to Milwaukee in 1953 just weeks before Perini relocated the Braves, but Toronto's a new one on me.

The A's came close in 1954, when Jack Kent Cooke came close to buying them. He decided not to purchase the team when the city didn't promise him a new ballpark.

In 1956, when Walter Briggs put the Tigers up for sale Cooke bid $5.6 million, the second highest bid but Mr. Briggs accepted a bid for less money because he wanted to team to stay in the Motor City.

The Sens and Browns used threats of moving but obviously never did. I assume the Indians and Orioles did the same thing.

In 1976, the Giants came thisclose to moving to Toronto until the mayor of 'Frisco stepped stepped in at the last minute to save the franchise. All these proposed moves are mentioned in the first couple of chapters of Stephen Brunt's book, Diamond Dreams: 20 Years of Blue Jays Baseball.

[winghaz]

In combining two threads: We know the Giants wouldn't have worn "GIGANTES" on their uniforms had they moved to Minnesota.

[smith03]

It's becoming pretty obvious that nothing anyone can say, no matter how obvious or indicting, will get you to believe that Griffith was a racist. It also seems like you have some underlying reason(s) for wanting to believe he's not one which is also clouding your judgement.

And please don't hand me that line about being "a man of his time." If you aren't progressive enough to think for yourself rather than just accept whatever "the times" tell you, then you're every bit as much a part of the problem of "those times

I had plan not to write anymore on the topic, but since mister Socialogy major decided to write something I decided to reply.

There is no underlineing reason. I just wanted and still want to know why people think he is a "racist". I need more than 2 statements made 18 years apart to define someone as a racist. People have been willing to jump on the bandwagon calling him a racist, yet most of thoses people did not or could not provide a reason why. I don't think calling someone a racist is something that should be thrown around lightly. I never met the man. I just think that someone should provide evidence before making a statement. You by the way haven't provide any. If you are the definition of what a progressive person is, than I am glad I am not one.

[DEAD!]

In combining two threads: We know the Giants wouldn't have worn "GIGANTES" on their uniforms had they moved to Minnesota.

How about GIGANTEN?

[rams80]

It's becoming pretty obvious that nothing anyone can say, no matter how obvious or indicting, will get you to believe that Griffith was a racist. It also seems like you have some underlying reason(s) for wanting to believe he's not one which is also clouding your judgement.

And please don't hand me that line about being "a man of his time." If you aren't progressive enough to think for yourself rather than just accept whatever "the times" tell you, then you're every bit as much a part of the problem of "those times

I had plan not to write anymore on the topic, but since mister Socialogy major decided to write something I decided to reply.

There is no underlineing reason. I just wanted and still want to know why people think he is a "racist". I need more than 2 statements made 18 years apart to define someone as a racist. People have been willing to jump on the bandwagon calling him a racist, yet most of thoses people did not or could not provide a reason why. I don't think calling someone a racist is something that should be thrown around lightly. I never met the man. I just think that someone should provide evidence before making a statement. You by the way haven't provide any. If you are the definition of what a progressive person is, than I am glad I am not one.

I think the fact that he felt comfortable enough to say..."I'll tell you why we came to Minnesota. It was when we found out you only had 15,000 blacks here. Black people don't go to ballgames, but they'll fill up a rassling ring and put up such a chant it'll scare you to death. We came here because you've got good, hardworking white people here." in a public setting attended by the media in 1978 is a pretty big smoking gun when you want to call someone a racist.

/threadjack

After futher though, I decided to hash out the timeline for that fictional major PCL. The lineup is what its set at in 1963. The PCL is still officially under the "Open" Classification it has held since 1952, but it has been considered to be a de facto major league by most observers since 1961. There has been fairly substantial lobbying by the PCL in recent months to gain official classification as a "major league", as well as substantially altering the National Agreement (although the PCL has been establishing affiliations with farm teams since 1959). The most promising solution seems to be one where the Continent is divided into competitive spheres of influence-the PCL goes no further east than Denver, the NL and AL have the rest of the continent to themselves. There are also proposals for a true World Series which either involve a playoff format where the defending champion league gets a bye while the other two champions fight it out, or a double round robin where each league champion plays at each other's home park, with a 5 game championship series between the top two.

Other sidebars/butterflies.

With 24 major league-level teams (8 years ahead of OTL), there has been substantial talent dilution; expansion is currently on the back burner for the forseeable future. The CL never was proposed in this timeline, either. The Senators did move to Minnesota, while the Giants moved to Washington to replace them. Atlanta, Toronto/Buffalo, Louisville, Houston, and Dallas-Fort Worth are all lobbying to either have teams move there or be considered if expansion does happen far in the future. (The PCL is eyeing Salt Lake City and Honolulu).

I'm not sure what this would mean for future sports teams in the affected markets, although I'm not sure Phoenix will land a NBA team as early as it did, and I'm not sure if the Trailblazers will ever materialize in Portland. Sonics might happen in Seattle still, while the San Diego Rockets may not start up. The AFL was born early enough that it shouldn't be too affected.

[BaltimoreFan]

I think that "MLB" was a weak enough organization at the top back then that you could use the diffences in leagues to your advantage. Think of it as a weak alliance as opposed to a unified organization. The philosophical and fanbase differences between the two could have worked to your advantage (back then there were such things as "NL" fans and "AL" fans-the Mets exist in the NL in large part because New York had a "NL" fanbase that needed servicing.

I still think you may be underestimating the power of MLB. Yes the two leagues were seperate in the eyes of the fans. But I don't think they were so much in the eyes of the owners. The AL and NL basically formed as a truce between the owners to stop "stealing" each others players. Owners have always been looking to make a profit. Surely a rival league would cut into many team's proftis. So when it comes down to it I would expect the owners of both leagues to team up to try and stop the PCL if it even attempted to become a major league.

I would expect no matter what they would have just relocated teams. Now the whole AL/NL thing does create a small problem. But the Giants and Dodgers played each other 22 times. I'm not sure what the travel costs were back then, so I'm not sure if the teams could have afforded the extra travel time (or maybe if the other owners pitch in some of the money). Although I did notice that when LA and SF played each other in the '50s they played the series back to back. If they had to go NL/NL, then maybe the Milwaukee Braves move to San Fransico. They moved to Atlanta only 8 years later, maybe the Giants move delays the Cali move by a couple of year. Or maybe the league decides on two completely different teams who knows.

I would also like to inquire about whether or not leagues would be willing to "stack" expansion teams even if it was necessary for their success. Certainly the early on-field failure of the Senators, Mets, Astros (and to a lesser extent Angels) indicates to me that baseball didn't find a pressing need to have the expansion teams win.

I'm not 100% sure that expansion teams would be stacked either. However as you mentioned many of these PCL teams had roots. I would be surprised if some existing owners made deals to give star players to the expansion teams. Also back then the reserve clause was in effect, so teams could just buy (or sell at a "discounted" price star players. Another option be to give the expansion clubs to existing owners. They would then be able to use their current team as a "farm club" for the west coast expansion team. I've heard there is a new book coming out explaining that the New York Yankees may have done this with the Kansas City Athletics around the same time period.

I've been taking a Sports Economics course, where I've been learning about this stuff. The biggest thing I've learned is to never underestimate the power of the owners. To them the game is just a business. Given the anti-trust exemption they had nothing holding them back from getting what they've wanted. The PCL does give an interesting scenerio since it had existed for a while and in a place far removed from the existing MLB. However I still think the owners would have found a way to control it. Actually I think it is better to answer the orginal question by saying that if the Washington Senators hadn't move to Minnesota, not too much would have changed. Because IMO the Dodgers and Giants would have still wound up in California to stop the impending threat of the PCL.