Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: If the Braves had never left Milwaukee...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,797

    If the Braves had never left Milwaukee...

    How much does a team's location affect their on-field product? If the Braves had still played in Milwaukee all these years, would they be playing in Miller Park, with Chipper Jones and Tom Glavine - plus Bobby Cox managing? That '95 World Series banner wouldn't look bad hanging from Miller Park.

    Arugably, some free agents may or may not have picked to play in Atlanta based on the location, but enough to make an impact?

  2. #2
    Its hard to project anything beyond the first couple of years. You wouldn't have had the Turner ownership and the GM hires that they made etc. If you assume Selig winds up as owner of the Braves eventually then you probably would have from the mid 70s onwards the Braves doing what the Brewers did,

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Trenton, NJ
    Posts
    311
    Atlanta surely would've gotten one of the 1969 expansion franchises. They might have gotten Finley, too. He was about as much a prize as winning a 1988 Yugo with an irreplaceable, rusted and busted tie rod.

    With Selig at the forefront in a Braves ownership, I do think the club would've had an artistic and financial rebound in the '70s. The Milwaukee Braves would've had time to get some good grass growing under their feet in the market, enough to build a generational tradition. Their move to Atlanta destroyed all of that. Atlanta doesn't appreciate the Braves nearly as much as Milwaukee would have.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    819
    Blog Entries
    3
    I always thought it was a shame that Henry Aaron's career was broken in two by a franchise shift. That would have been one big difference of their staying in Milwaukee.

    Even if they had won nothing more than the '69 division, County Stadium becomes "the House that Aaron built", Aaron's name becomes synonymous with Milwaukee, Milwaukee becomes the #1 Baseball Town in America and scouting/recruitment improve in the late 60s and 70s.

    E.G., if the Yankees had moved to Atlanta in 1926, Ruth wouldn't have been quite as big a name.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sparks NV
    Posts
    385
    If the BRAVES had stayed in Boston there is no telling how many homers Aaron would have hit out of BRAVES FIELD

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Lafayette, LA
    Posts
    391

    I think what happened in Milwaukee has happened in Atlanta

    Quote Originally Posted by PlayJay View Post
    Atlanta surely would've gotten one of the 1969 expansion franchises. They might have gotten Finley, too. He was about as much a prize as winning a 1988 Yugo with an irreplaceable, rusted and busted tie rod.

    With Selig at the forefront in a Braves ownership, I do think the club would've had an artistic and financial rebound in the '70s. The Milwaukee Braves would've had time to get some good grass growing under their feet in the market, enough to build a generational tradition. Their move to Atlanta destroyed all of that. Atlanta doesn't appreciate the Braves nearly as much as Milwaukee would have.
    The Braves slipped into a period of winning, but mediocre baseball in the 60s after a fabulous decade in the 50s.

    The Braves slipped into a period of winning, but mediocre baseball in the 00s after a fabulous decade in the 90s.

    Fans pretty much respond the same way to a malaise in all cities.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by PlayJay View Post
    With Selig at the forefront in a Braves ownership, I do think the club would've had an artistic and financial rebound in the '70s.
    I don't think that can be in question. Under Selig's leadership, the Brewers were recognized as one of the best-run organizations in baseball.

    The start of the Brewers' decline can be traced, with almost pinpoint precision, to September 7, 1992. Fay Vincent steps down as commissioner, Bud Selig takes the job and turns his club over to his daughter and her husband, who promptly run it into the ground.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by six4three View Post
    I don't think that can be in question. Under Selig's leadership, the Brewers were recognized as one of the best-run organizations in baseball.

    The start of the Brewers' decline can be traced, with almost pinpoint precision, to September 7, 1992. Fay Vincent steps down as commissioner, Bud Selig takes the job and turns his club over to his daughter and her husband, who promptly run it into the ground.
    Actually, that should probably read, Allan Selig and his great lakes cabal, force Vincent to resign: Selig heists the job.

  9. #9
    No, it was closer the first time.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by six4three View Post
    No, it was closer the first time.
    If you're a Selig apologist so be it, my statement is essentially how I remember it, and some might disagree with your viewpoint.

    The full article is here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_15837588/

    The relevant paragraphs are below.

    " The current political era began with the ouster of former commissioner Fay Vincent in 1992. Vincent's firing resulted from several actions, among them his role in the 1990 labor negotiations, his proposed realignment plan and his criticism of superstation encroachment on local broadcasting markets.

    The clubs opposing Vincent were led by Selig of the Brewers, Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox, Stanton Cook of the Cubs, William Bartholomay of the Braves and Carl Pohlad of the Twins. Their primary quest -- then as now -- was to curb players' salaries.

    The 18-9-1 vote to dump Vincent was taken in Rosemont, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, at a meeting arranged by Reinsdorf. After Vincent was gone, the group installed Selig, chairman of the executive council, as acting commissioner
    ."

    It just seems kind of odd, a small group of owners whom the article suggests held a lot of power had a problem with the then commissioner, call a meeting where they give said commissioner a vote of no-confidence. No-confidence, firing; semantical difference. Immediately, after said removal, the ringleader of the group that wanted the commissioner removed is elevated to the prime position of power.

    The commissioner is charged to "act in the best interest of baseball". Brokering a deal between the owners and the union would seem to serve that purpose. Reorganizing baseball to put teams on the east coast into the eastern division would not seem that controversial (especially since a similar plan was put in place after Vincent resigned). Owners have never been happy with Flood's suit and the Messersmith/McNally decision against them (See Collusion). Vincent took the middle ground which put him directly in the path of a group of owners who "claim poverty" and wanted to break the union.

    Understandably, every commissioner after Landis serves at the pleasure of the owners, but I think it would be a mistake to suggest Vincent resigned "of his own accord".

    Looks like a coup de tat, smells like a coup de tat...I don't know maybe it actually was a coup de tat?
    Last edited by MSUlaxer27; 02-23-2010 at 09:46 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20,824
    Quote Originally Posted by pgsuperfan View Post
    If the BRAVES had stayed in Boston there is no telling how many homers Aaron would have hit out of BRAVES FIELD
    Good point. However, if the Braves stay in Milwaukee, Aaron probably doesn't break Ruth's 714 HRs.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    http://sfgiants-forum.com/forum/index.php

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by PlayJay View Post
    Atlanta doesn't appreciate the Braves nearly as much as Milwaukee would have.
    However true that may possibly be, Milwaukee wouldn't have appreciated the Braves nearly as much as the entire South East does.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by McCann Fann View Post
    However true that may possibly be, Milwaukee wouldn't have appreciated the Braves nearly as much as the entire South East does.
    That's a very hard case to make, considering how poor the Braves' support has been at times.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,829
    Atlanta doesn't support the team like it should. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have broad regional support.
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

    "The people who tell me they hate baseball or are out of baseball, they sound bitter about it. But I think that they sense what they’re missing. I think that they feel that there’s something their not in on, which is a terrible loss and I’m sorry for them." - Roger Angell

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Bawston
    Posts
    632
    They do have good regional support. I was talking to this guy on Last Fm and he besides being a Cowboys and Bulls fan, is a Braves fan.


    1903 1912 1915 1916 1918 2004 2007

  16. #16
    The Braves are kinda strange in that they have a huge fanbase outside Atlanta and apathy inside it. Almost everywhere they play you see TBS* Braves fans.

    * Dumbest thing they've ever done. I know MLB hated it, but MLB hated it for 25 years and the Braves kept doing it.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,829
    Now, we've got to be Extra Innings Package/ Peachtree/Fox Sports South fans
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

    "The people who tell me they hate baseball or are out of baseball, they sound bitter about it. But I think that they sense what they’re missing. I think that they feel that there’s something their not in on, which is a terrible loss and I’m sorry for them." - Roger Angell

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •