Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did the Braves move twice?

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

  • dwj21792
    replied
    Originally posted by The Dude View Post
    So because Milwaukee fans aren't as supportive during losing times, they automatically don't deserve a team? Guess that means yankee fans don't deserve a team either.

    Yankee's losing seasons?
    1925-5th out of 8th in attendance
    1965-2nd out of 10th
    1966-5th out of 10th
    1967-5th out of 10th
    1989-8th out of 14th
    1990-9th out of 14th
    1991-11th out of 14th
    1992-11th out of 14th
    The Yankees finished 6th in 65 and 10th in 66. I always wondered how the younger generation of Yankees fans would respond to lean years like the late 60s when I first became a fan. It wasn't easy especially when first the Red Sox in 67, then the Mets of all teams in 69. But we persevered and it paid off in the late 70s. Same with the teams in the late 80s and early 90s.
    Some cities are fickle when it comes to sports teams. San Diego is like that. The true fan will support a team regardless of record . That's why I have great respect for Cubs fans .

    Leave a comment:


  • sunsox
    replied
    "Why did the Braves move twice?" Twice, so far! I'm sure the next isn't far away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chief Knockahoma
    replied
    Originally posted by six4three View Post
    I'd tend to agree.

    Boston is a great baseball town as well, but they couldn't support two teams. Multiple teams isn't a requirement.

    Boston was one 10 game Sox winning streak in July 1967 of becoming a Zero team city. They were a couple of weeks away fom Yawkey selling them to a San Diego group but teh streak happened, Fenway started to get filled and Red Sox nation was born.

    Leave a comment:


  • aqib
    replied
    Originally posted by MSUlaxer27 View Post
    You can have an odd number of teams in each league...three 5 team divisions. Dbacks join the NL west. Detroit goes from ALE to ALC. KC goes from ALC to ALW. Devil Rays join the ALE.

    You play everyone in your division 18 times. You play every other team in your league 9 times. Viola - 162 game schedule. no Interleague and Milwaukee doesn't change leagues.

    Although this assumes that Bud "had no idea" about the roid problem and wasn't looking forward to 18 sellouts when the Cubs and Cards came to town.

    Or better, yet, there was no reason to bring in Tampa or Arizona...but that would be too curmudgeonly
    Yeah but then someone would be inactive at all times. You would have 14 teams locked in series and one team off for 3-4 days.

    Leave a comment:


  • MSUlaxer27
    replied
    Originally posted by aqib View Post
    Selig still owned the team at the time (albeit in a trust that his daughter ran) and they had tried numerous realignment proposals and nothing was passing. There were many radical proposals including blowing up the two leagues and litterally starting over. Something had to happen since both the Rays and Dbacks were coming in and it would have meant an odd number of teams in each league. Moving the Brewers over was the simple compromise.
    You can have an odd number of teams in each league...three 5 team divisions. Dbacks join the NL west. Detroit goes from ALE to ALC. KC goes from ALC to ALW. Devil Rays join the ALE.

    You play everyone in your division 18 times. You play every other team in your league 9 times. Viola - 162 game schedule. no Interleague and Milwaukee doesn't change leagues.

    Although this assumes that Bud "had no idea" about the roid problem and wasn't looking forward to 18 sellouts when the Cubs and Cards came to town.

    Or better, yet, there was no reason to bring in Tampa or Arizona...but that would be too curmudgeonly

    Leave a comment:


  • MSUlaxer27
    replied
    Originally posted by six4three View Post
    The Royals had first choice - I'll never know why they didn't move to the NL and exploit the rivalry with St. Louis.
    They still had delusions of 1985 in their head.

    Leave a comment:


  • six4three
    replied
    The Royals had first choice - I'll never know why they didn't move to the NL and exploit the rivalry with St. Louis.

    Leave a comment:


  • aqib
    replied
    Originally posted by six4three View Post
    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.
    Selig still owned the team at the time (albeit in a trust that his daughter ran) and they had tried numerous realignment proposals and nothing was passing. There were many radical proposals including blowing up the two leagues and litterally starting over. Something had to happen since both the Rays and Dbacks were coming in and it would have meant an odd number of teams in each league. Moving the Brewers over was the simple compromise.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBSptfn
    replied
    Seattle

    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.
    If Seattle would have built that proposed stadium on Puget Sound in the mid 60's that was talked about in the Ballparks section, maybe they would have gotten the A's instead of Oakland, or they would have been able to keep their expansion team when they got it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iron Jaw
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • six4three
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaliforniaCajun
    replied
    Brewers move to the National League

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

    Leave a comment:


  • swilcott
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rheinleahy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrBear
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X