Dodgers stay in Brooklyn, and National league expansion

phil5775

Okay, this subject may have been done to death, but let's discuss the aftermath. So Walter O'Malley, Robert Moses, and the city of New York work out a deal where Moses abandons his plan for a Flushing Meadows stadium, sells the land in Brooklyn to the Dodgers, and O'Malley builds his own stadium. The Giants, as rumored, end up in Minneapolis. With Los Angeles wide open, Washington Senators owner Calvin Griffith eyes the west coast and moves his team to LA to a renovated Wrigley Field. As in OTL, the American League immediately expands (under Congressional pressure) and puts a new team in DC, along with a new team in San Francisco, to create a rivalry with the Senators (perhaps now renamed the Angels).

Also, as in OTL, the National league decides to expand as well, placing a team in Houston. Where would the second team go? Obviously it wouldn't be the Mets, as it happened, because an NL New York City team already exists. Here are the possibilities the NL owners could consider:

Dallas / Fort Worth: This would be logical as it would give the NL the monopoly in Texas to counteract the AL monopoly in California. Lack of immediate MLB stadium in the area might be an obstacle.

Atlanta: Large city in the south, untapped by MLB. The major drawback would be the rigid segregation laws still in effect. MLB owners might be hesistant to risk reprisals from civil rights groups and the Kennedy administration.

Denver: A stadium used by the minor league Bears and expanded for the AFL Broncos would be immediately available. Years of success in the American Association makes area equally attractive.

Montreal: Another long-time successful minor-league area, and depending on the values of the US and Canadian dollars might have led to an earlier excursion up north.

Toronto: See Montreal.

Seattle or San Diego: The only problem here is that neither had MLB ready stadiums at the time, and the owners would be hesitant to put just one team on the west coast.

My choice would be Denver, for the reason(s) mentioned above. Any other thoughts or suggestions?
 

DTF955Baseballfan

I've done it a few different ways in my TLs. I can see Bartholomay pushing for a team in Atlanta - he almost bought the White Sox (did in one of my TLs) and would have moved them, and did buy the Braves. I think you're right, though that in 1961-2 it'd be less likely than by 1964. However, you could also argue that a team could be a reward for integrating things. "If you believe ins tates' rights, we'll give you a deal so you can integrate on your own; after all, if you believe in States' Rights you shouldn't care what the states around you are doing.")

Hosuton is another thought; the Cardinals looked there in 1953 till Busch bought the team. (They also looked to Milwaukee, just as the Browns had.) You'd face the same problems as Atlanta and Dallas.

I think one team has to go into L.A., and my thought would be Houston, but that's just going by OTL history. I don't know how much of an issue Civil Rights was there but it must not have been by 1962 OTL.
 

phil5775

I have Houston as a definite, as in OTL. Lyndon Johnson's influence may have had something to do with it.

Also, Griffith would need an incentive to allow the NL in LA. When the Mets wanted to go into NY, the AL said fine, we want a team in LA. The NL wouldn't have that bargaining power in this timeline.
 
ScrewySqrl

ScrewySqrl

What about the Boston Braves? OTL, they moved to Milwaukee, then to Atlanta. With the Giants moving to Minneapolis, where will the Braves go? Milwaukee might be perceived as too close to Minneapolis, given the initial reason for the move was to get out from under the shadow of the Red Sox.
 

DTF955Baseballfan

phil5775 said:
I have Houston as a definite, as in OTL. Lyndon Johnson's influence may have had something to do with it.

Also, Griffith would need an incentive to allow the NL in LA. When the Mets wanted to go into NY, the AL said fine, we want a team in LA. The NL wouldn't have that bargaining power in this timeline.
Click to expand...

Good point - maybe Anaheim would be far enough away that Griffith wouldn't care? Or San Diego, how far from L.A. is that? They'd want a team in California, for sure. San Diego was definitely growing fast even by 1960.
 

High Plains Drifter

The NL has to (HAS TO!) get a team on the West Coast. They simply can't afford to cede the whole market to the AL. Just like OTL the LA area is going to get another team, unless they are stupid and go for Oakland.
 

1940LaSalle

Who says the Giants go anywhere? There was a deal in the works to have them become tenants in Yankee Stadium at least through 1959 while a new stadium was built (presumably on the site of the Polo Grounds). I think that's every bit as plausible as the Giants decamping for the Twin Cities.

With that, expansion would probably have occurred in both leagues with the new teams beginning play in 1961. One suspects that the leagues would have divided California with the league not getting LA getting Denver (as opposed to the Twin Cities) as compensation based on Denver's projected membership in the nascent Continental League.

The next round (teams beginning play in 1969) would probably have included Seattle, Montreal, Houston, and San Diego. A third round, at some point in the 1970s, would have yielded Toronto, Dallas/Ft. Worth, a second LA area team, and Atlanta. That should probably hold things until the 1990s, with a final round (making 16 teams in each league) putting teams in Miami, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Phoenix, and Vancouver.

League alignments:

National League Classic Division:
New York Giants
Brooklyn Dodgers
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Pirates
Cincinnati Reds
Chicago Cubs
St. Louis Cardinals
Milwaukee Braves

National League Continental Division:
San Francisco Seals
Denver Dinosaurs
San Diego Padres
Seattle Pilots
Toronto Blue Jays
Dallas Wranglers
Vancouver Orcas
Los Angeles Cruisers


American League Classic Division:
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees
Baltimore Orioles
Washington Senators
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City A's

American League Continental Division:
Montreal Royals
Twin Cities Twins
Los Angeles Angels
Houston Astros
Tampa Rays
Phoenix Scorpions
Atlanta Rattlers
Miami Marlins
 

phil5775

1940LaSalle said:
Who says the Giants go anywhere? There was a deal in the works to have them become tenants in Yankee Stadium at least through 1959 while a new stadium was built (presumably on the site of the Polo Grounds). I think that's every bit as plausible as the Giants decamping for the Twin Cities.




Funny you bring that up. I just read something about that. That's what Robert Moses wanted because he wanted to tear down the Polo Grounds and build low income housing units. But the idea was shot down for some reason. The Giants wanted a new park on the West Side of Manhattan, near Penn Station. Unlike O'Malley, who wanted to build and own his stadium, Stoneham wanted the city to build his. Moses wanted one in Flushing. I don't know if the Queens option was ever given to the Giants. But the stadium in Bloomington, MN was already built and could easily be adapted to MLB levels, and the Giants already had plans to go there.
Click to expand...
 

phil5775

ScrewySqrl said:
What about the Boston Braves? OTL, they moved to Milwaukee, then to Atlanta. With the Giants moving to Minneapolis, where will the Braves go? Milwaukee might be perceived as too close to Minneapolis, given the initial reason for the move was to get out from under the shadow of the Red Sox.
Click to expand...


We're talking this timeline happening between 1958 and 1962. The Braves would already have been in Milwaukee for about five years. Minneapolis and Milwaukee had the potential of an excellent rivalry, like the Cardinals and the Cubs.
 

Comte de Geneve

1957 - Giants owned the Minneapolis team in the American Association. Until O'Malley staged the escape to LA and brought Stoneham along to SF for logistical purposes, the assumption was that the Giants were headed to Minneapolis.
 

phil5775

Something else to be contemplated is that Griffith might not have moved to LA. The Minnesota situation was convenient in that an MLB ready stadium was available. We need to ask if he would have played temporarily in the Coliseum while a new stadium was being built. Another question is who was going to finance a new stadium? Griffith didn't have O'Malley's resources to build his own park, and there's no evidence that the city would have built it for him. In that case, as this ATL dictates, he can't go to Minnesota because the Giants are already there. San Francisco, maybe, but again the stadium issue in LA prevents a definite move to California. Maybe the Senators in Houston? Or Denver?

Also, does either league have the foresight to expand to LA and SF, once stadium issues are resolved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top