Failed expansion teams you wanted to see.

[JackieMoon]

I really wanted to see the Memphis Hound Dogs. I know there is a lot of questions with their actual name. But, I think they could have made a killing of their brand.

[Cosmic]

I really wanted to see the Memphis Hound Dogs. I know there is a lot of questions with their actual name. But, I think they could have made a killing of their brand.

You might be right about the branding being a hit. I know the motivational speeches write themselves.

[illwauk]

Not really expansion, but I was reading up on history about the Brooklyn Dodgers and found some interesting things...

The Washington Senators were targeted to move to Los Angeles before the Dodgers

The New York Giants wanted to originally move to Minneapolis

Dodgers owner, Walter O'Malley was told he could not move to California unless another team moved with him

What if...

The Senators moved to Los Angeles and became let's say... Los Angeles Angels!

The Giants moved to Minneapolis and kept the name or went with Twins

The Dodgers fled Brooklyn because a new Stadium wasn't going to be built (as planned) and moved to either Tampa Bay or Washington DC

Now you have the newly formed Los Angeles Angels (4 years before actual establishment ('58 opposed to '61)

Minnesota Giants/Twins

Tampa Bay Dodgers/Sun Rays? Or Washington Nationals WAY before Montreal relocated

Didn't the St. Louis Browns also consider a move to LA?

If we're including relocations, I'd love to have been born into a world where the St. Louis Browns returned to Milwaukee, their original home, as Bill Veeck intended.

[Gothamite]

That would have been interesting.

Bill Veeck, back in the city where he got his start as an owner? Outstanding.

[Mac the Knife]

To answer the question though, yes. The Browns had AL approval to move to Los Angeles for 1942.

The vote was taken at an AL meeting on December (I believe) 5, 1941. Two days later it was rendered moot, and they obviously never made the move.

[The_Admiral]

TSN used to broadcast Habs games across Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and eastern Ontario. I'm sure that'll continue with Rogers. So you know...it's whatever.

TSN still has the English-language rights to the Canadiens in Eastern Canada, if I'm not mistaken. It's the French games that are paradoxically part of the national deal with Rogers (subcontracted to TVA).

[DnBronc]

To answer the question though, yes. The Browns had AL approval to move to Los Angeles for 1942.

The vote was taken at an AL meeting on December (I believe) 5, 1941. Two days later it was rendered moot, and they obviously never made the move.

I thought that the meeting was supposed to be on Dec. 8th, but was cancelled because of Pearl Harbor.

Also, I don't think that the move was all that imminent because of logistics, like quality of airplanes.

[rams80]

To answer the question though, yes. The Browns had AL approval to move to Los Angeles for 1942.

The vote was taken at an AL meeting on December (I believe) 5, 1941. Two days later it was rendered moot, and they obviously never made the move.

I thought that the meeting was supposed to be on Dec. 8th, but was cancelled because of Pearl Harbor.

Also, I don't think that the move was all that imminent because of logistics, like quality of airplanes.

There are these things called trains that were used to get teams place to place. Perhaps you may have heard of them.

[Mac the Knife]

No, the meeting was held and the vote taken. The Browns had received the approval to move. It just never came across. And from a logistics perspective, a team probably could've moved out to the west coast as early as 1930; but the problem would've been having eastern teams come west for what amounted to 5-day road trips. It would've been cost-prohibitive, which is why it ultimately didn't occur until 1958 (when a trip west could be justified due to playing two series, one in Los Angeles and the other in San Francisco).

[Brian in Boston]

My understanding is that the meeting in question was, indeed, scheduled for December 8,.1941 in Chicago. In fact, it took place on that date.

While the Browns' owner - Donald Barnes - had previously canvassed his fellow franchise-holders and received every indication that his request to relocate from St. Louis to the West Coast would be approved, the issue never came to a vote in Chicago.

Rather, in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the country's entry into a state of war with Japan, team owners and league officers officially "tabled" the matter indefinitely.

Why? There were concerns over safety, as well as potential wartime restrictions on both rail and air travel. In short, it was determined that the state of crisis the nation faced took immediate precedence over the concerns of a single professional baseball franchise-owner. So, rather than rush into a decision, as well as seem callously insensitive to the state of national affairs, said decision was put off... never to be revisited, at least insofar as the Browns moving to the City of Angels was concerned.

[Gothamite]

Going

No, the meeting was held and the vote taken. The Browns had received the approval to move.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Although many modern sources indicate that the vote was never taken because of the outbreak of war, the Toldeo Blade's contemporary reporting seems to indicate otherwise. From the December 10, 1941 edition:

The effort of President Donald Barnes of the St. Louis Browns to transfer his franchise to Los Angeles, made at the major league baseball meeting in Chicago yesterday, drew very little comment. The proposal was rejected by the American League magnates and caused only a ripple on the baseball surface.

(emphasis mine)

Doesn't indicate anywhere that the meeting was called off, as we hear about now. The meeting happened, the Browns' plan was rejected, and the Browns stayed in St. Louis for another decade.

[Gothamite]

Follow-up; I found a Milwaukee Journal article that helps clarify.

The American League received a surprise proposal (at the meeting) for the transfer of the St. Louis Browns to Los Angeles, but a short discussion of the transportation and other problems involved showed the owners to be unanimously against any change and Will Harridge, the president of the league, said no formal vote had to be taken.

So there you have it - it wasn't Pearl Harbor that scrapped the vote, but because Barnes couldn't muster even a single vote in support of his move.

[Brian in Boston]

So there you have it - it wasn't Pearl Harbor that scrapped the vote, but because Barnes couldn't muster even a single vote in support of his move.

Well, in fairness, the article you cite attributes the reason "Barnes couldn't muster a single vote in support of his move" to "transportation and other problems involved". That doesn't preclude said "transportation and other problems" stemming from - or, being exacerbated by - the nation's entry into hostilities in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What I find interesting is that while the newspaper account confirms what I recall previously reading about no formal vote having been taken, it doesn't concur with accounts I've read about Barnes having previously canvassed his fellow owners.

In any event, it is interesting to speculate how the dominoes of further MLB relocation and expansion - particularly to the West Coast - may have fallen had the Browns been successful in claiming the Los Angeles marketplace first?

[Gothamite]

Transpiration seems to have been the major stumbling block. Both the cost and the length of road trips.

I don't doubt that Pearl Harbor made those concerns even stronger. But in any case the war doesn't seem to have has any effect on the meeting itself.

[Brian in Boston]

But in any case the war doesn't seem to have has any effect on the meeting itself.

Possibly, though the lack of hostilities being mentioned as a concern for the American League owners may well have been an internal decision on the part of the newspaper's editors, or a request from league officials themselves.

In the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, it would not be unusual for high-profile public institutions to want to refrain from disseminating information that could fuel panic in the general populace. At least initially, maintaining a feeling of "business as usual" - albeit, with the understanding that sacrifices would likely have to be made in the not-too-distant future - was undoubtedy the order of the day. That would be particularly true for a business - pro baseball - that ran the risk of potentially being deemed an unnecessary frivolity in wartime.

While travel and logistical concerns were likely to have been issues that impacted the owners' decision regardless, I don't know that the league - or journalists covering the league's meetings - would have credited the spectre of hostilities as being the reason for scotching the Browns' move even if that had been the reason.

[rams80]

But in any case the war doesn't seem to have has any effect on the meeting itself.

Possibly, though the lack of hostilities being mentioned as a concern for the American League owners may well have been an internal decision on the part of the newspaper's editors, or a request from league officials themselves.

In the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack, it would not be unusual for high-profile public institutions to want to refrain from disseminating information that could fuel panic in the general populace. At least initially, maintaining a feeling of "business as usual" - albeit, with the understanding that sacrifices would likely have to be made in the not-too-distant future - was undoubtedy the order of the day. That would be particularly true for a business - pro baseball - that ran the risk of potentially being deemed an unnecessary frivolity in wartime.

While travel and logistical concerns were likely to have been issues that impacted the owners' decision regardless, I don't know that the league - or journalists covering the league's meetings - would have credited the spectre of hostilities as being the reason for scotching the Browns' move even if that had been the reason.

For example, given the stupid hysteria that followed Pearl Harbor, "other problems" could include "we're worried that the Japanese are going to invade California". It's kind of hard to play baseball when your home market has been occupied by a hostile army. Granted "other problems" might also include "we think we may not be playing baseball this season anyway."

[Gothamite]

Possibly, but the owners had expressed transportation concerns as early as 1940, when the move was also floated.

In any case, we can put to bed the mistaken notion that he had been given permission to move but couldn't follow through.

[smith03]

I have always assume but have no proof had the Giants moved here they would have been the Minneapolis Giants.