Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did the Braves move twice?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Veeck's not casting himself as a saint - he never argues that moving by itself is a bad thing.

    I disagree with the notion that moving the Browns is worse - so long as there was a baseball presence staying in St. Louis it can't possibly be worse.

    St. Louis couldn't support two teams. The American League knew it, which is why they moved the team even without Veeck.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by six4three View Post
      Veeck's not casting himself as a saint - he never argues that moving by itself is a bad thing.

      I disagree with the notion that moving the Browns is worse - so long as there was a baseball presence staying in St. Louis it can't possibly be worse.

      St. Louis couldn't support two teams. The American League knew it, which is why they moved the team even without Veeck.
      I can't deny the move of the Browns was a good move since it put a team in a larger city that had been itching to get a team for years and who in all reality should still have had a presence in the majors then...

      However the attempted force-out of the Cardinals by Veeck in favor of his much weaker Browns removes all credibility from any commentary on moves. It was a financial move by him but for the good of the game and baseball in St. Louis it was a big mistake.
      Best posts ever:
      Originally posted by nymdan
      Too... much... math... head... hurts...
      Originally posted by RuthMayBond
      I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by aqib View Post
        Yeah some moves made sense. The Philly A's, Boston Braves, and St Louis Browns all made sense since those cities can't support two teams (Boston is possibly a big enough market on paper but I don't think enough people would be willing to dump the Sox). Although it would have been better if the A's went to Baltimore then the Browns could have gone to KC and it would still be driving distance of whatever fan base existed for those teams. Seattle Pilots, KC A's, and Milwaukee Braves didn't make sense as history showed since all three were replaced within a decade.

        The Giants/Dodgers double move also didn't make sense. The Dodgers should have found a way to stay, leaving NYC as a two team town. Although I think it can be a 3 team town again, I am in the minority on that one.
        Seattle and KC got their second teams by threatening lawsuits and having their state Congressional delegation start poking into MLB's anti-trust exemption. Milwaukee got their second team because Allan "worst commissioner ever" Selig stole it from Seattle. I think if MLB had a "choice" they wouldn't have expanded into Seattle (again) or KC, nor returned to Milwaukee.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
          Seattle and KC got their second teams by threatening lawsuits and having their state Congressional delegation start poking into MLB's anti-trust exemption. Milwaukee got their second team because Allan "worst commissioner ever" Selig stole it from Seattle. I think if MLB had a "choice" they wouldn't have expanded into Seattle (again) or KC, nor returned to Milwaukee.
          Once the Mariners started fielding competitivve teams Seattle has turned into a pretty good baseball town. Milwaukee has been pretty good supporting the Brewers and KC is debatable at this point.

          Comment


          • #80
            Seattle has long been on the minds of Major League Baseball - even as far back as the 1950s it was on the radar. Shortly after the Dodgers and Giants moved west, there was talk about adding a Seattle team.

            Milwaukee was a natural choice for relocation, after the White Sox played games there in 1968 and 1969 and outdrew their Chicago home games by some obscene margin.

            KC I don't know. Hard to say, since they've been so bad for so long. And I hestitate to hold them responisble for anything Finley did.
            Last edited by six4three; 07-14-2008, 10:14 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by six4three View Post
              Seattle has long been on the minds of Major League Baseball - even as far back as the 1950s it was on the radar. Shortly after the Dodgers and Giants moved west, there was talk about adding a Seattle team.

              Milwaukee was a natural choice for relocation, after the White Sox played games there in 1968 and 1969 and outdrew their Chicago home games by some obscene margin.

              KC I don't know. Hard to say, since they've been so bad for so long. And I hestitate to hold them responisble for anything Finley did.
              Not to turn this into a thread on all relocations since this is a Braves board, but KC did draw over 2 million consistently before Kauffman died. It was only 92 when they were in the running for some of the top free agents in the game. They got David Cone that year and were close to getting Joe Carter, a couple of years earlier they got Mark Davis when he was the reigning Cy Young award winner.

              Comment


              • #82
                Sure sounds good.

                On the other hand, very few teams can't draw when they're winning.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by aqib View Post
                  Not to turn this into a thread on all relocations since this is a Braves board, but KC did draw over 2 million consistently before Kauffman died. It was only 92 when they were in the running for some of the top free agents in the game. They got David Cone that year and were close to getting Joe Carter, a couple of years earlier they got Mark Davis when he was the reigning Cy Young award winner.
                  Their lowest years they were still drawing better than some other teams, only when they hit rock bottom did their attendance put them in last place in the league but it was still better than teams like Tampa, Florida, and Montreal/Washington. Their average the last 15 years is up around 1.4-1.5 million per year with a couple of years up over 1.6 million and a year of 1.7 million so it's pretty decent attendance really.
                  Best posts ever:
                  Originally posted by nymdan
                  Too... much... math... head... hurts...
                  Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                  I understand, I lost all my marbles years ago

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by six4three View Post
                    Sure sounds good.

                    On the other hand, very few teams can't draw when they're winning.
                    Like the Florida Marlins? Prepare for a PeteU invasion soon.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Many of the above arguments are true:

                      1. Attendance falling - probably inevitable after the ridiculously high numbers of the first few years. One thing about Wisconsin fans-they develop a great loyalty to players. (We're seeing this with Brett Favre; there are a lot of Packer fans who believe the general manager is trying to dump Favre just to put his own stamp on the team). And by the early 60s, Spahn (who had been there for years), Burdette and some of the others were going or gone.

                      2. The Lombardi-Packers success factor has a bit to do with it, but it's not a major factor.

                      3. TV - a big factor. Perini was anti-TV and didn't show any games at all. When the new owners took over, the market's limitations revealed themselves.

                      4. The Twins arrival - Prior to 1961, the Braves were the westernmost team for much of the upper Midwest. When the Twins arrived, not only did Milwaukee lose the Minnesota audience but the Dakotas as well.

                      5. A factor that's unstated here. In the late 50s, Perini barred fans from bringing in their own food and drink; that had been a Milwaukee tradition. It's common practice now but wasn't then, and it honked off a LOT of Milwaukee people. They stayed away.

                      6. The Chicago ownership. If you want to have success in Milwaukee, the LAST thing you do is have ties to Chicago.

                      ---

                      Oh, and one thing I didn't see mentioned on the Bill Veeck part of the thread. In St. Louis, he was confident he could use his promotions and bb knowledge to draw fans away from the Cardinals...until Anheuser-Busch bought the team. Knowing he couldn't top their spending, he looked to move.
                      "Shake it off. That's part of the game, you know. Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and a shot in the mask." - Bob Uecker.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Rheinleahy

                        Great discussion;

                        When KC is mentioned as a "debatable" MLB town are we talking about, roughly, the end of the reserve clause days thru their '85 title, or this current era when there's apparently no money for some teams to keep players that an organization developes.

                        From their '69 inception well into the '80's, the Royals were a great organization,and this region buzzed. (I have lived in Omaha my whole life) I remember during the CB radio craze truckers on I-29 talking about the games as they listened to Denny Matthews and Fred White; Before the net, I think the Omaha Royals' franchise office was the biggest ticket outlet for the KC Royals outside of KC.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Rome Colonel: Thanks for the correct info about Yanks and Indians attendance. I discovered that, also, and corrected my sentence.
                          A note to all, also, when the Milwaukee Braves' great Hank Aaron hit #711 playing down in Georgia, the attendance was 1,362.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Brewers move to the National League

                            What that prompted in any way by jilted Braves fans rejection of an American League replacement?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Well, not really. I don't think that there were many baseball fans in Milwaukee who stayed away from County Stadium because the Brewers played in the junior circuit.

                              The move to the National League was widely acknowledged at the time as a financial boon to whatever team made the switch. Which is why it was surprising that the Royals turned down the opportunity.

                              But yes, the Brewers did enjoy playing up the NL connection in 1998.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Rheinleahy View Post
                                Great discussion;

                                When KC is mentioned as a "debatable" MLB town are we talking about, roughly, the end of the reserve clause days thru their '85 title, or this current era when there's apparently no money for some teams to keep players that an organization developes.

                                From their '69 inception well into the '80's, the Royals were a great organization,and this region buzzed. (I have lived in Omaha my whole life) I remember during the CB radio craze truckers on I-29 talking about the games as they listened to Denny Matthews and Fred White; Before the net, I think the Omaha Royals' franchise office was the biggest ticket outlet for the KC Royals outside of KC.
                                They sure had more success financially (and on the field) than the A's did in KC. Playing in the old Municipal Stadium didn't help the A's, nor did never producing a season that even reached .500 ball. But they had some good youngsters in their system on the verge of busting out. As they would find out when they moved to Oakland. Ironically, the A's had a +.500 season their very first year in Oakland with much of the talent that would create World Series winners in the 70's. I presume, had they stayed in KC, they would have had similar success. And really, KC is a better baseball town than Oakland - sharing the Bay area with the Giants has never been a good thing.

                                The Royals became competitive very quick. They made excellent draft choices and some key trades during the Reserve Clause era. They would be the primary Western division rival of the Oakland A's for much of the 70's.

                                The Royals were actually a good role model for a Reserve Clause era expansion team.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X