The Minneapolis Giants?

[MacCaulay]

I'm watching Baseball by Ken Burns, and he interviews the GM of the Giants at the time of their move to San Francisco. It turns out that the original plan was for them to go to Minneapolis.

They had a farm team there apparently, and the idea was basically to take the place of that team.

So...what would've happened had the Giants gone to Minneapolis instead of San Fran?

 

[psriter]

The Dodgers would not be able to move to LA without another team moving west, and no other NL team would be interested. Depending on how soon the Dodgers want to leave NY, they could move somewhere else or wait until the first wave of expansion and move west alongside an expansion team in the West.

Obviously the Senators would not have moved to Minnesota, they would try to move to either SF or LA instead. The Senators would not be able to move until the first AL expansion, when OTL they moved to MN and DC got an expansion team.

Without the Dodgers and Giants moving to CA, the Continental League would have had different membership but probably a similar effect (replace the NYC and Minnesota teams with SF and LA). Both leagues would need to expand.

I would suggest this timeline:

1956 - Giants move to Minnesota

1960 - Dodgers move to LA. The NL expands to include the San Francisco Seals and Houston Colts.

1961 - Senators move to LA and become the Los Angeles Angels. The AL expands to include the Washington Senators and the Atlanta Crackers (this was the name of the minor league team at the time, and besides it's no more racist than the Braves).

After this the next round of NL expansion will be moved up to include a replacement for the Dodgers, and after that I expect that which markets are filled by MLB teams will more or less be the same as OTL.

Which teams are historically strong/weak will probably be the same - big-market teams like the Yankees / Red Sox / NYC NL team will have lots of money to spend, and the MN Giants and the Pirates will not. Which player is on which team and which team is good in any given year will all be changed by butterflies.

 

[Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll]

I'm watching Baseball by Ken Burns, and he interviews the GM of the Giants at the time of their move to San Francisco. It turns out that the original plan was for them to go to Minneapolis.

They had a farm team there apparently, and the idea was basically to take the place of that team.

So...what would've happened had the Giants gone to Minneapolis instead of San Fran?

They just wouldn't have been as important as they once were. Because they were moving from a big market to a small market, they'd lose a lot of name power. I mean, who remembers that the Orioles were once the Browns? Only the true fans remember.

 

[athleticsfan2kx]

The Dodgers would not be able to move to LA without another team moving west, and no other NL team would be interested. Depending on how soon the Dodgers want to leave NY, they could move somewhere else or wait until the first wave of expansion and move west alongside an expansion team in the West.

Obviously the Senators would not have moved to Minnesota, they would try to move to either SF or LA instead. The Senators would not be able to move until the first AL expansion, when OTL they moved to MN and DC got an expansion team.

Without the Dodgers and Giants moving to CA, the Continental League would have had different membership but probably a similar effect (replace the NYC and Minnesota teams with SF and LA). Both leagues would need to expand.

I would suggest this timeline:

1956 - Giants move to Minnesota

1960 - Dodgers move to LA. The NL expands to include the San Francisco Seals and Houston Colts.

1961 - Senators move to LA and become the Los Angeles Angels. The AL expands to include the Washington Senators and the Atlanta Crackers (this was the name of the minor league team at the time, and besides it's no more racist than the Braves).

After this the next round of NL expansion will be moved up to include a replacement for the Dodgers, and after that I expect that which markets are filled by MLB teams will more or less be the same as OTL.

Which teams are historically strong/weak will probably be the same - big-market teams like the Yankees / Red Sox / NYC NL team will have lots of money to spend, and the MN Giants and the Pirates will not. Which player is on which team and which team is good in any given year will all be changed by butterflies.

Of Course

1962 - NL expands to New York (New York Mets) and Washington (Washington Nationals)

1965 - Milwaukee Braves became Milwaukee Brewers

1966 - Kansas City Athletics relocated to Dallas (Texas Rangers)

1969 - AL expands to Seattle, WA (Seattle Pilots) and Oakland, CA (Oakland Oaks), NL expands to Montreal, QU (Montreal Expos) and San Diego, CA (San Diego Padres)

1977 - AL expands to Manila, Philippines (Manila Mariners) and Toronto, ON (Toronto Blue Jays), NL expands to Miami, FL (Miami Marlins) and Denver, CO (Colorado Rockies)

 

[phil5775]

There wouldn't be any Manila Mariners. Baseball owners are notorious tightwads, and traveling 5000 miles for a 3-4 game series would be an unwanted expense.

If the Giants go to Minnesota, I think the Senators go to LA, since they were being courted by the city before Walter O'Malley made his decision to move out there. So the AL expands to replace the team in DC, and puts the other team in SF (Seals? Missions?).

What about the Dodgers? Possibly, O'Malley and Robert Moses hammer out a deal keeping the team in New York. With the Giants gone, O'Malley conceivably realizes a centrally located stadium for all New York NL fans is a workable idea, and buys the land in Flushing and builds his stadium there. Maybe even renames the team the New York or Long Island Dodgers.