Why did the Braves move twice?

[tonypug]

I can understand the Braves moving from Boston to Milwaukee, better attendence more revenue, but why the fairly quick move to Atlanta ? After the move to Milwaukee, the Braves attendence figures were so great it scared the pants off of O'malley and was one of the reasons given for the Dodgers move to LA. Sure attendence started to go down, but that is normal, after the initial surge. I just don't understand the move to Atlanta.

[DODGER DEB]

Originally posted by tonypug
I can understand the Braves moving from Boston to Milwaukee, better attendence more revenue, but why the fairly quick move to Atlanta ? After the move to Milwaukee, the Braves attendence figures were so great it scared the pants off of O'malley and was one of the reasons given for the Dodgers move to LA. Sure attendence started to go down, but that is normal, after the initial surge. I just don't understand the move to Atlanta.



I believe, like LA, Atlanta made the Braves an offer they couldn't refuse. This, coupled with the fact the MLB was looking for a "gateway" into the South, made the move very easy! I don't remember if Lou Perini still owned the Braves at that time, but obviously ALL the owners were on board.....Atlanta just had to dangle more revenue in front of them and "the deal was done".

c.


:radio OUR MOMENT IN TIME - OCTOBER 4, 1955 - 3:43PM :clapping

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by tonypug
I can understand the Braves moving from Boston to Milwaukee, better attendence more revenue, but why the fairly quick move to Atlanta ? After the move to Milwaukee, the Braves attendence figures were so great it scared the pants off of O'malley and was one of the reasons given for the Dodgers move to LA. Sure attendence started to go down, but that is normal, after the initial surge. I just don't understand the move to Atlanta.

Its called greed, they got a better deal in Atlanta.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by tonypug
I can understand the Braves moving from Boston to Milwaukee, better attendence more revenue, but why the fairly quick move to Atlanta ? After the move to Milwaukee, the Braves attendence figures were so great it scared the pants off of O'malley and was one of the reasons given for the Dodgers move to LA. Sure attendence started to go down, but that is normal, after the initial surge. I just don't understand the move to Atlanta.

Attendance peeked for the Braves in Milwaukee in 1957 at 2.2 million. This coincided with their World's Championship victory over the New York Yankees. However, attendance steadily decreased from that point on for the next eight years until it bottomed out at 555,000 in 1965 when Lou Perini decided to sell the club.

I can't really blame Perini for dumping the club. The steady attendance decline was very disappointing considering that the Braves never had a losing record in their 13 years in Milwaukee.
In addition, the city of Milwaukee built a then state-of-the-art stadium for the Braves in 1953. When talking to some of my friends from Wisconsin, they indicate that the novelty of major league baseball just wore off. One must also take into account the presence of the White Sox & Cubs just 90 miles to the south. Many people in the southeastern part of the Dairy state (ex. Kenosha) openly root for the Chicago sports teams. If major league baseball had been smart, they would've moved the White Sox to Milwaukee in 1970 & moved the Pilots elsewhere.

[donzblock]

If Milwaukee is a town where baseball is regarded as a novelty, then it should never have a team. Its history indicates that no major league team belongs there.

[yellowdog]

Bill Bartholomay was the owner when the Braves moved to Atlanta. He led a group of investors that bought the tem between the 1962-63 seasons. He saw a pot of gold in the rapidly growing Atlanta area and surrounding areas.

The Braves were originally scheduled to move in 1965, but a judge issued a restraining order that kept them in Milwaukee for that season. They were in fact a lame duck team in '65 which is the main reason for the attendence bottoming out at 555,000 that year.

From everything I've read and remember, the Milwaukee fans enjoyed a very good relationship with the Braves. Comments from some of the players at the time suggest that the majority of them weren't very happy about the move.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by yellowdog
Bill Bartholomay was the owner when the Braves moved to Atlanta. He led a group of investors that bought the tem between the 1962-63 seasons. He saw a pot of gold in the rapidly growing Atlanta area and surrounding areas.

The Braves were originally scheduled to move in 1965, but a judge issued a restraining order that kept them in Milwaukee for that season. They were in fact a lame duck team in '65 which is the main reason for the attendence bottoming out at 555,000 that year.

From everything I've read and remember, the Milwaukee fans enjoyed a very good relationship with the Braves. Comments from some of the players at the time suggest that the majority of them weren't very happy about the move.

I think many of the African-American players, most notably Hank Aaron (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=aaronha01), didn't want to move back to the still segregated south. In Milwaukee, they were treated well by the overwhelmingly white fan base. Taken in the context of the times, I can't say that I could blame them at all.

YD, I have to disagree with you a little bit on the attendance plunge. While it's true that 1965 was a lame duck year for the Braves in Milwaukee & it certainly didn't help attendance, they had drawn less than a million fans for the three previous years (1962-1964) prior to the lame duck year. What makes this attendance plunge even more alarming was the fact that the Braves won 86, 84 & 88 respectively during those years. In addition, they had a roster which featured future Hall-of-Famers; Eddie Mathews, Hank Aaron & Warren Spahn on it. I'm sorry, but the fans of Milwaukee didn't deserve that franchise.

[yellowdog]

I realize the Braves attendence had been on a steady decline since their World Series win in '57 despite some decent teams with some very good players. I was just pointing out that the year it hit rock bottom, it was known and had been known for sometime that the team was leaving. So I think you have to throw out '65 (and '64) when indicting the Milwaukee fans for not supporting the Braves.

I've never been really sure what the reason was for the decline in attendence in the late 50s and early 60s, prior to Bartholomay buying the team with the intent of moving to Atlanta. They apparently supported the team well before then. So what happened to change that?

I've read comments by all the prominent players concerning the move. Eddie Mathews and Hank Aaron were the two who were most aphrensive. But their comments semed to reflect a love for Milwaukee rather than any negative feelings toward Atlanta. I'm sure Aaron was concerned about the racial issues of the time. But I know he also must have been aware that, even in the mid 60s, Atlanta was a progressive city in that regard and much different from the rest of the south in general. Still he had to be concerned, that would only be human.

Mathews just expressed his love for Milwaukee. He had played in Atlanta in the minors and had no distaste for it but rather seemed to prefer the small town atmosphere of Milwaukee and the special relationship he had with the fans.

Joe Torre, who wasn't in Milwaukee during the glory days, seemed the most eager of the prominent players to move. He commented that it would be good to play in front of some large crowds for a change. His only concern seemed to be catching in the heat. But even thought that might be a plus if it help him keep his weight down which he said he a a problem doing.

They all seemed to be concerned about the large amount of foul territory in the stadium and also worried about how the ball would carry in the humidity. We all know how that worked out.

But whatever reasons they had for moving to Atlanta, I'm glad they did. They made a lot of baseball fans in this area very happy. And even though, I would have been just as happy (at the time) with an expansion team, I could not imagine the last 39 years without the Braves in Atlanta.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by yellowdog
I realize the Braves attendence had been on a steady decline since their World Series win in '57 despite some decent teams with some very good players. I was just pointing out that the year it hit rock bottom, it was known and had been known for sometime that the team was leaving. So I think you have to throw out '65 (and '64) when indicting the Milwaukee fans for not supporting the Braves.

I've never been really sure what the reason was for the decline in attendence in the late 50s and early 60s, prior to Bartholomay buying the team with the intent of moving to Atlanta. They apparently supported the team well before then. So what happened to change that?

I've read comments by all the prominent players concerning the move. Eddie Mathews and Hank Aaron were the two who were most aphrensive. But their comments semed to reflect a love for Milwaukee rather than any negative feelings toward Atlanta. I'm sure Aaron was concerned about the racial issues of the time. But I know he also must have been aware that, even in the mid 60s, Atlanta was a progressive city in that regard and much different from the rest of the south in general. Still he had to be concerned, that would only be human.

Mathews just expressed his love for Milwaukee. He had played in Atlanta in the minors and had no distaste for it but rather seemed to prefer the small town atmosphere of Milwaukee and the special relationship he had with the fans.

Joe Torre, who wasn't in Milwaukee during the glory days, seemed the most eager of the prominent players to move. He commented that it would be good to play in front of some large crowds for a change. His only concern seemed to be catching in the heat. But even thought that might be a plus if it help him keep his weight down which he said he a a problem doing.

They all seemed to be concerned about the large amount of foul territory in the stadium and also worried about how the ball would carry in the humidity. We all know how that worked out.

But whatever reasons they had for moving to Atlanta, I'm glad they did. They made a lot of baseball fans in this area very happy. And even though, I would have been just as happy (at the time) with an expansion team, I could not imagine the last 39 years without the Braves in Atlanta.

I stand corrected about the ownership in the early 1960's. You're right about Perini selling the team to Bartholomay several years pprior to the move to Atlanta. I had forgotten about that fact.

However I must take a small exception with your Hank comment, I've heard Aaron on the radio here in Atlanta several times over the years & he has indicated that because of his childhood in Mobile, Alabama he was very apprehensive about subjecting his family to the segregated South of the mid-1960's. While it's true that Atlanta was one of the more progressive cities in the South, it still wasn't as racially tolerant as Milwaukee at that time.

[DODGER DEB]

Yellowdog and I discussed "WHY did the Braves leave Milwaukee" at length a few months ago on the Atlanta Forum.

As I mentioned then, when WE went to Milwaukee in July 1957 with BROOKLYN, the city was BRAVES CRAZY, almost as much as WE were in BROOKLYN for OUR DODGERS. It was hard to believe that in just a few short years all that "just stopped". To this day, I could not understand just what happened to their "FAN LOYALTY". One possible explanation, and some say the only one, is that Milwaukee only wants a winner and will not support any team for the years in between. It seems to have taken on the same life form now with the Brewers, even with a brand new ballpark. If that is true, then I guess Milwaukee really doesn't deserve to be in the ML..........as several other cities have proven, that they are really NOT ML caliber.

But, for those three days in 1957, one would have thought they ate, slept and drank Braves baseball.......and would forever!

c.


:radio OUR MOMENT IN TIME - OCTOBER 4, 1955 - 3:43PM :clapping

[tonypug]

When the Braves moved to Atlanta they had the same surge in attendence as they had when they moved to Milwaukee. After a few years when thr team did not play well they had a very similar dip in attendence, if you check the numbers they were very close. Milwaukee fans were never given the chance to renew their support for the Braves, the fans in Atlanta were given that chance.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by tonypug
When the Braves moved to Atlanta they had the same surge in attendence as they had when they moved to Milwaukee. After a few years when thr team did not play well they had a very similar dip in attendence, if you check the numbers they were very close. Milwaukee fans were never given the chance to renew their support for the Braves, the fans in Atlanta were given that chance.

Tony, I have to disagree with you on the assertion that the two situations were similar.

In the Braves 13 years in Milwaukee, they never had a losing season. In addition, during their short stay in Wisconsin the club won two Pennants & a World Championship. However, during their 1st 13 years in Atlanta, the club only won a Western Division title in 1969. Plus, they could muster up only 4 winning seasons during that time span. I don't think that the circumstances were similar at all. The team was much more competitive during their 13-year-run in Milwaukee.

[tonypug]

Greenpeach,I think had the Braves stayed in Milwaukee, the fans would have returned. The Braves attendence reflected the overall League attendence other then the last year. That last year of course, everyone knew was a lame duck year. The first couple of years in Atlanta the fans came out to see a star studded team. When the rebuilding started the fans stopped coming. When the team started winning the fans started coming out again. What would happen now if the Braves fall on hard times? Would the fans stop coming to games again? After a couple of lean years the fans of Milwaukee should have been given a chance.

[Greenpeach]

Tony, we're getting into a very subjective debate here. Let's just say that we agree to disagree on the topic. Obviously, we differ on our views on the fans of Milwaukee.

[The Dude]

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

[Greenpeach]

I'm not sure where you're going with your post. If you go back & re-read my previous posts, I indicate that the Braves NEVER had a losing season in the 13 years (1953-1965) that they were in Milwaukee. Yet this didn't stop attendance from steadily plummeting after the 1957 World Championship. You're comparison is completely invalid.

[The Dude]

I was referring to Deb's comments about the current day brewers.
It seems to have taken on the same life form now with the Brewers, even with a brand new ballpark. If that is true, then I guess Milwaukee really doesn't deserve to be in the ML

Sorry for the misunderstanding Green.

[tonypug]

Greenpeach, I'll be good, and agree to disagree.

[Mattingly]

What exactly kind of "deals" were offered to teams when they'd moved? New stadiums? Tax breaks? Financial aid (aka, corporate welfare) from the MLB Commissioner?

I keep hearing about this, but never knew the specifics.

Thanks. :)

[yellowdog]

[QUOTE=tonypug]What would happen now if the Braves fall on hard times? Would the fans stop coming to games again?[QUOTE]

Yes

[DODGER DEB]

What exactly kind of "deals" were offered to teams when they'd moved? New stadiums? Tax breaks? Financial aid (aka, corporate welfare) from the MLB Commissioner?

I keep hearing about this, but never knew the specifics.

Thanks. :)


ALL of the ABOVE, Mattingly........and then some!

If the select "group" of "powerful owners" wanted a team moved..........the MLB Commissioner, whoever he was at that time, became their "puppet"......and IT GOT DONE!!!!

c.

[tonypug]

ALL of the ABOVE, Mattingly........and then some!

If the select "group" of "powerful owners" wanted a team moved..........the MLB Commissioner, whoever he was at that time, became their "puppet"......and IT GOT DONE!!!!

c.
Remember the Commissioners office in the 50's was not very powerfull. Each league was independent of each other and took care of their own affairs. After the Dodgers and Giants left for the west coast, the two leagues battled over the New York area. The American League wanted New York to be strictly Yankees territory, sinve the National League abandoned the city. That is when the National League declared their intention to put another franchise in New York.

[CaliforniaCajun]

I'm not sure where you're going with your post. If you go back & re-read my previous posts, I indicate that the Braves NEVER had a losing season in the 13 years (1953-1965) that they were in Milwaukee. Yet this didn't stop attendance from steadily plummeting after the 1957 World Championship. You're comparison is completely invalid.

A baseball encyclopedia I read suggested that the fans experienced success at too early a stage, which I guess means unrealistic expectations were developed. I also read that the Milwaukee Braves were one of the last to have a TV network, in contrast to the Cubs who were on TV all the time. The fans would have come back, but would have had similar difficulties to the Brewers during the era of free agency due to market size.

I sure liked those Milwaukee uniforms and think the Atlanta Braves should go back to the black tomahawk used from 1946-1962 instead of the red. Atlanta should also quit patching the names on the back because it cheapens the uniform. They need to sew each individual letter on back or remove the name altogether.

[twilight]

Milwaukee was Boston's Triple A farm team and Atlanta became the Milwaukee'sTriple A farm. So there is a pattern there. The Braves won championships in 57 and 58. So you would expect attendance to remain high after the move to Milwaukee. Perini sold the team in 1962. Attendance in Milwaukee had dwindled to 800,000 by then which was not horrible. The Braves had become a bad team by 1965. The new owners were looking for greener pastures. The city of Milwaukee battled with injunctions and appeals. But Atlanta had already built a stadium- without a team. Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. had courted the Braves heavily and that stadium sealed the deal.

[Chisox73]

What exactly kind of "deals" were offered to teams when they'd moved? New stadiums? Tax breaks? Financial aid (aka, corporate welfare) from the MLB Commissioner?

I keep hearing about this, but never knew the specifics.

Thanks. :)

Atlanta had a new stadium ready by 1965.The city was actively pursuing at 2 teams,the Braves and the Philles,to relocate to the newly built Atlanta-Fulton Co. Stadium.

[64Cards]

I believe there was a combination of factors, some have already been mentioned, such as having the Cubs and Sox 90 miles south, but when the Nats moved to Mn. in 1961, just to the west, this also cut into their fan base. Also, Lombardi came to Green Bay in 59 and in the 60's established the Pack as the NFL's greatest dynasty, while the Braves slipped from being the NL's dominant team to just a pretty good franchise.

What I wonder is, when the Braves were making noises about moving, why didn't one of the Milwaukee breweries [Miller, Schlitz, Pabst] step up, purchase the team like AB did with the Cards in 53?

The Fonz, Richie Cunnungham, Laverne & Shirley never seemed to have any interest in the Braves.

[Steve Jeltz]

There are two other reasons that have not been discussed yet. One, was the perception by Milwaukee fans of Perini as an absentee owner who would eventually move the team out of Milwaukee for greener pastures, i.e. Atlanta, as quickly as he moved the Braves from Boston in 1953. Eventually, Perini sold the Braves to Bartholmay in 1962.

Second, with televison playing a bigger role in all baseball clubs fianancial ledgers, Milwaukee was considered, unfairly or not, as having very little TV market potential when compared to that of Atlanta. Atlanta was considered an untapped TV market gold mine in the mid sixties. It also didn't hurt Atlanta that they also had a brand new facility that was already built.

[efin98]

Second, with televison playing a bigger role in all baseball clubs fianancial ledgers, Milwaukee was considered, unfairly or not, as having very little TV market potential when compared to that of Atlanta. Atlanta was considered an untapped TV market gold mine in the mid sixties. It also didn't hurt Atlanta that they also had a brand new facility that was already built.

The TV markets still holds true to today. It's an important asset to teams to accompany attendance money. Atlanta was and still is a bigger city with a bigger market to tap into, only logical that when the deal was offered to move the team there that the Braves take it. Don't forget that you don't have just Atlanta tuning in, you also have a large chunk of the Southeast tuning in as well- they were the only team in the area for hundreds of miles...

[THE OX]

Milwaukee was Boston's Triple A farm team and Atlanta became the Milwaukee'sTriple A farm.

Atlanta was the Milwaukee Braves' farm team in the DOUBLE A Southern Association. The Louisville Colonels were the Milwaukee Braves TRIPLE A farm from 1959 thru 1962. I believe when Atlanta entered Triple A, they were a Cardinals' farm team in 1962 and perhaps later.

I had heard that the prohibition on "carry-in" beer at County Stadium in the late 50s/early 60s, which hadn't been in effect the first few years the Braves were in Milwaukee, had some influence on declining attendance.

IMO the trading of a lot of promising young players who could have revitalized an aging Braves lineup in the early 1960s soured the fans, too.

[Brownie31]

Atlanta was the Milwaukee Braves' farm team in the DOUBLE A Southern Association. The Louisville Colonels were the Milwaukee Braves TRIPLE A farm from 1959 thru 1962. I believe when Atlanta entered Triple A, they were a Cardinals' farm team in 1962 and perhaps later.

I had heard that the prohibition on "carry-in" beer at County Stadium in the late 50s/early 60s, which hadn't been in effect the first few years the Braves were in Milwaukee, had some influence on declining attendance.

IMO the trading of a lot of promising young players who could have revitalized an aging Braves lineup in the early 1960s soured the fans, too.

OX:

All's well that ends well. Milwaukee still has major league
baseball and the team operates under its ancestral name.

The Brewers had a long and rich American Association
heritage. If Birmingham is ever to ever get an MLB team.
I hope it is known as the Barons.

Brownie31

[efin98]

OX:

All's well that ends well. Milwaukee still has major league
baseball and the team operates under its ancestral name.

The Brewers had a long and rich American Association
heritage. If Birmingham is ever to ever get an MLB team.
I hope it is known as the Barons.

Brownie31

Like Baltimore with the Orioles and Washington with the Nationals some names just deserve to be used by teams that come in

[Giantfanforever]

Remembering the instant love affair the city of Milwaukee had with the Braves and how such a generally losing franchise was transformed overnight into a contending team, it is hard to believe the bloom was off the rose so soon.

Even after the last pennant-winner in 1958, the Braves lost only in a playoff with the LA Dodgers the next season and continued to field a contending team throughout their Milwaukee history. Not only did the fans lose MLB, they missed the chance to witness Hank Aaron's pursuit of Babe Ruth's home run record.

At least they have the Brewers, not that successful a franchise with a couple of exceptions (Harvey's Wall-Bangers). I wonder if the Milwaukee fans wish they still had the Braves with their 14 consecutive division championships?

Concerning team names, I heartedly agree certain names just go with certain teams and adds to the legacy of baseball. Could Baltimore ever have a team not called the Orioles? One of my greatest disappointments when Denver finally got a team in 1993, they decided to call them the Colorado Rockies instead of the Denver Bears.

[Brownie31]

The Braves are also the only team with a world series
championship in three different cities. For stability sake,
we probably don't wish to see that record broken!

Brownie31

[soberdennis]

But the Texas Rangers have the rights to the name "Washington Senators"
I agree that certain names belong to the city-Orioles, Padres, Brewers. It applies to other sports, too. Cleveland Browns, New York Knickerbockers.
Could you imagine the Knicks moving to St. Louis and becoming the St. Louis Knickerbockers?
The name Senators should belong to Washington, too.

[tonypug]

But the Texas Rangers have the rights to the name "Washington Senators"
I agree that certain names belong to the city-Orioles, Padres, Brewers. It applies to other sports, too. Cleveland Browns, New York Knickerbockers.
Could you imagine the Knicks moving to St. Louis and becoming the St. Louis Knickerbockers?
The name Senators should belong to Washington, too.
To go along with that, Dodgers belongs to Brooklyn and Giants belongs in New York. The first team in LA should have been Angels and San Fran should have been Seals.

[Brownie31]

To go along with that, Dodgers belongs to Brooklyn and Giants belongs in New York. The first team in LA should have been Angels and San Fran should have been Seals.

Brooklyn and New York are where those names belong.
Of course, the most idiotic situation happened over in
the NBA when the Jazz moved to Utah and kept the
name.

Surely there is a more fitting name with Utah ties!

Brownie31

[Aa3rt]

Of course, the most idiotic situation happened over in
the NBA when the Jazz moved to Utah and kept the
name.

Surely there is a more fitting name with Utah ties!


What about the LA Lakers? That franchise originated in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Lakes-or so it says on their license plates.

BTW-the Lakers franchise was moved to LA by :grouchy Bob Short-the same :grouchy Bob Short who would, after the 1971 season, move the expansion Washington Senators to Texas. :mad:

[tonypug]

What about the LA Lakers? That franchise originated in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Land or 10,000 Lakes-or so it says on their license plates.

BTW-the Lakers franchise was moved to LA by :grouchy Bob Short-the same :grouchy Bob Short who would, after the 1971 season, move the expansion Washington Senators to Texas. :mad:
Baseball never learns, just look at Jeff Loria. He plunders the Expos, then is allowed to buy the Marlins. Gee look what is happening with the Marlins.:grouchy

[BaseballHistoryNut]

The Braves are also the only team with a world series
championship in three different cities. For stability sake,
we probably don't wish to see that record broken!

Brownie31

THANK YOU, Brownie. I had never thought of this, but you are correct. The "Miracle Braves"--with or without a laydown job by Connie Mack's first juggernaut team--won the Series in, what, 1914, I believe. And of course Milwaukee won in 1957 (and should have won in 1958).

So, in addition to Eddie Mathews' being a truly great player who played for one franchise in 3 different cities, this is a franchise that won The Big One in 3 different cities.

When you consider how very rarely they won in the first half of the century, that's a hell of a feat. The A's, for instance, cannot make the same claim--even though they are one of only two teams to have two different periods, in different cities, where they won The Big One at least 3 years straight. It seems that Grove, Foxx and Cochrane didn't have much left during the early years in K.C. (being in their 50's, and all :) ), and Simmons was "retired" in the ultimate sense of the word.

Thanks again for pointing out something which had never occurred to me, Brownie. I always enjoy your posts. :waving

BHN

[Brownie31]

THANK YOU, Brownie. I had never thought of this, but you are correct. The "Miracle Braves"--with or without a laydown job by Connie Mack's first juggernaut team--won the Series in, what, 1914, I believe. And of course Milwaukee won in 1957 (and should have won in 1958).

So, in addition to Eddie Mathews' being a truly great player who played for one franchise in 3 different cities, this is a franchise that won The Big One in 3 different cities.

When you consider how very rarely they won in the first half of the century, that's a hell of a feat. The A's, for instance, cannot make the same claim--even though they are one of only two teams to have two different periods, in different cities, where they won The Big One at least 3 years straight. It seems that Grove, Foxx and Cochrane didn't have much left during the early years in K.C. (being in their 50's, and all :) ), and Simmons was "retired" in the ultimate sense of the word.

Thanks again for pointing out something which had never occurred to me, Brownie. I always enjoy your posts. :waving

BHN

BHN:

You are quite welcome. I also enjoy your very knowledgeable
posts.

Brownie31

[efin98]

Baseball never learns, just look at Jeff Loria. He plunders the Expos, then is allowed to buy the Marlins. Gee look what is happening with the Marlins.:grouchy

Could you guys save the hatred for another forum, this place is for Braves talk. Loria has nothing remotely to do with the Braves.

[swilcott]

Re: Greenpeach's opinion that "Milwaukee didn't deserve the Braves": The Milwaukee Braves' attendence didn't merely "peak out" at 2.2 mil. That was known as "The Milwaukee Miracle". The first National League team in history to hit 2 mil in attendence was the Milwaukee Braves - not NY, not Chi, St. L or LA.

We've all got to look at both the top and bottom in attendence. (As noted, '65 & even '64 were lame-duck situations.)

Dudecar00 pointed out the dismal attendence positions for the Yankees during off-years. If Milw didn't deserve the Braves, NY sure didn't deserve the Yanks. Greenpeach - a good person - wants to let NY off the hook when they don't crowd Yankee Stadium on the grounds that the team wasn't winning, while the Milw Braves had a winning record every year. I would think a team has to be supported reasonably well even during the lean years - and this is Gotham, which is what - 12-15X the size of Milwaukee ? (Also, doesn't Chicago support the Cubs well ?)

The Milwaukee Braves had the city/state on fire and were bigger than the Green Bay Packers in those years. Bartholomay could have given the pendulum a chance to swing back up. There were a very few down seasons.

(I might note that I believe in Atlanta the Braves don't even sell out some playoff games. The "novelty" has worn off.)

Plus - and I'm sorry to bring up this point to the good people of Georgia - but if we're going to talk about "deserving" the Braves - Aaron and others, I understand, were trepidatious about moving to the Jim Crow South. While Aaron was playing/winning World Series and basking in the adulation of Wisconsin in '57 & '58, Georgia was passing new segregation laws re: busses and accomodations. I think it was '63 when they got around to reversing those.

In 1966 - familiar year ? - the Georgia state legislature elected the axe-handle-wielding segregationist Lester Maddox to the Governorship - the GOVERNOR. In '71, with Aaron and the Braves playing in Georgia, the Peach State elected Maddox Lt. Governor. Who on earth is Atlanta, GA to be suggesting that they "deserved" a MLB team - a team from another city - especially a team whose #1 superstar was a black man ?

What would have happened to Jackie Robinson if he had played in Atlanta instead of Brooklyn ? Perhaps it's not fair to mention Medgar Evers, James Chaney, MLK - or even JFK, who met their end in the South, since those didn't happen in Georgia, but with the segregationist situation of those times in Georgia, those were hardly irrelevant considerations. I know Greenpeach has acknowledged that situation already. Sorry to go there, but for me to ignore the times is to refuse to deal with reality.

As for the Milwaukee Braves "short time" in Milw: First, it was longer than Aaron's time in Atlanta; second, here's some of what happened in that "short time":

My youth, a new war-hero President who had crushed Hitler, end of Korean War. Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, I Love Lucy. Rosa Parks, Birmingham, Castro. Sputnik, Duck & Cover, McCarthyism, Camelot, the Berlin Wall, Bay of Pigs, I Have A Dream, The Cuban Missile Crisis, Nov. 22, 1963.

Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepherd, Beatlemania.

Cassius Clay, Mantle & Koufax, Bill Russell, Vince Lombardi, Vietnam.

I'll leave it at that. Thanks for reading, and I applaud the civility of your exchanges. I hope I held up to those standards. I try to.

Best wishes,
swilcott

[mwiggins]

I grew up in Wisconsin, and even in the mid 80's there were a LOT of Cub fans. And Milwaukee is definitly much more into the Packers than baseball, the whole state is. The Brewers and Bucks were always much less popular. Though much of that with the Brewers is probably due to them usually being losers. But in 1982 the state went nuts for them. And from what I saw, Hank Aaron was still very popular in Milwaukee.

[Calif_Eagle]

Milwaukee was Boston's Triple A farm team and Atlanta became the Milwaukee'sTriple A farm. So there is a pattern there. The Braves won championships in 57 and 58. So you would expect attendance to remain high after the move to Milwaukee. Perini sold the team in 1962. Attendance in Milwaukee had dwindled to 800,000 by then which was not horrible. The Braves had become a bad team by 1965. The new owners were looking for greener pastures. The city of Milwaukee battled with injunctions and appeals. But Atlanta had already built a stadium- without a team. Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. had courted the Braves heavily and that stadium sealed the deal.
Atlanta better be sleeping with one eye open... Richmond Va. is out there... just waiting for THEIR chance I'm sure ! :)

[Rome Colonel]

Re: Greenpeach's opinion that "Milwaukee didn't deserve the Braves": The Milwaukee Braves' attendence didn't merely "peak out" at 2.2 mil. That was known as "The Milwaukee Miracle". The first MLB team in history to hit 2 mil in attendence was the Milwaukee Braves - not NY, not Chi, Boston, St. L or LA. (If that isn't correct, please correct me.)


The Yankees drew over 2 million every year from 1946 to 1950:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/attend.shtml


The Indians went over 2 million in both 1948 and 1949:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/attend.shtml

The Senators' move to Minnesota really was a major factor in the Braves' decline. Attendance fell from just short of 1.5 million in 1960 to just over 1.1million in 1961, the Twins' first year. The next year, with the Twins in contention most of the season, attendance dropped to 766,921. The proximity of the Cubs and White Sox had been a minor factor in the Braves' attendance, but the arrival of the Twins cost the Braves the entire Minnesota market and probably NW Wisconsin as well.

[KevinWI]

Wow...

Wow...

A lot of comments made in this thread about Milwaukee fans kind of offended me. I don't never know where to begin.

[tonypug]

Wow...

Wow...

A lot of comments made in this thread about Milwaukee fans kind of offended me. I don't never know where to begin.

I for one, would like to hear your reaction,

[KevinWI]

Well. First off, this is what everybody in Milwaukee (meaning me and my friends) have always believed about the Braves moving to Atlanta.

Around 1962, Bill Bartholomay, an insurance man from Chicago bought the club and was strictly a "investor" owner. He owned the franchise to strictly to make money, and didn't give a damn about Milwaukee, baseball, Hank Aaron or that the Braves had set league-wide attendance records. All he saw were $$$$ and the increasing TV revenues made him seek a bigger market team. The Mayor of Atlanta wooed him, and he moved to Atlanta, which at the time was a "growing regional center".

Now, about the Wisconsin fans "not caring about baseball". It's true that we are a football state. We just don't have the dedication of St. Louis, New York, or Boston, but we have a good sized demographic of true baseball fans. When the Giants were at Miller Park a few weeks ago, and the local sports media was all abuzz about Barry Bonds, the local FSN Wisconsin interviewed Hank Aaron. The Hammer (who started his career in a minor league team in Wisconsin, and of course played for the Braves pre-Atlanta and later the AL Brewers), said that Wisconsin baseball fans are kind, and his days of playing in Wisconsin are a special memory for him.

My grandparents and father had season tickets for the Braves, and they went to every home game and cheered on guys like Hank Aaron and Edie Matthews. When the Braves moved away they were absolutely heartbroken, along with several of their friends, and the city in general. The Milwaukee Braves had been a small dynasty, with a collection of pennants and World Series rings. My grandparents became Cubs fans, and refuse to cheer for the Brewers ("I ain't cheering for the Seattle Pilots", my grandmother likes to say about the Brewers) and my dad only became a Brewers fan in the recent Ben Sheets-era (2000 to present).

Since we're such a hardcore baseball family, it kind of offended me to hear comments like "the novelty of a baseball team had worn off." But thing about this, in the late-1960's, when Bud Selig was advertising Milwaukee for an expansion team, and he got the White Sox to host 9 games at County Stadium that year, those combined 9 sell-out games were more than the rest of the 72 home games of the White Sox at Comiskey. This season, when the Cleveland Indians needed to escape to the roof of Miller Park when The Jake was snowed out, Milwaukee fans showed up and came out to cheer on the Indians despite them not even being the home town team.

As for the Cubs, the new Brewers owner, Mark Atta-something-or-other (as he's know in my baseball circle), has launched a "take back Miller Park" campaign where they give out free Brewers shirts when the Cubs play, and basically are trying to retake Miller Park, instead of being "Wrigley North". Now, the Cubs @ Brewers games have much more Brewers fans in days past.

I guess, what my point is. Even though Brewers don't sell out every home game like the Cardinals, Yankees or Red Sox, we still are a proud baseball town.

OK, rant over. :sleepy:

PS: Bud Selig is my hero, for bringing baseball back to Milwaukee, and making sure that Hank Aaron hit 755 in Milwaukee. Just wanted to add that.

PPS: The American League was signed into creation during an owner's meeting that took place in Milwaukee, and the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers were one of the charter AL teams.

[CaliforniaCajun]

Remembering the instant love affair the city of Milwaukee had with the Braves and how such a generally losing franchise was transformed overnight into a contending team, it is hard to believe the bloom was off the rose so soon.

Even after the last pennant-winner in 1958, the Braves lost only in a playoff with the LA Dodgers the next season and continued to field a contending team throughout their Milwaukee history. Not only did the fans lose MLB, they missed the chance to witness Hank Aaron's pursuit of Babe Ruth's home run record.

At least they have the Brewers, not that successful a franchise with a couple of exceptions (Harvey's Wall-Bangers). I wonder if the Milwaukee fans wish they still had the Braves with their 14 consecutive division championships?

Concerning team names, I heartedly agree certain names just go with certain teams and adds to the legacy of baseball. Could Baltimore ever have a team not called the Orioles? One of my greatest disappointments when Denver finally got a team in 1993, they decided to call them the Colorado Rockies instead of the Denver Bears.

I think you're right. The fan base was spoiled in the early years, then mediocrity set in and the fans were turned off.

[tonypug]

Well. First off, this is what everybody in Milwaukee (meaning me and my friends) have always believed about the Braves moving to Atlanta.

Around 1962, Bill Bartholomay, an insurance man from Chicago bought the club and was strictly a "investor" owner. He owned the franchise to strictly to make money, and didn't give a damn about Milwaukee, baseball, Hank Aaron or that the Braves had set league-wide attendance records. All he saw were $$$$ and the increasing TV revenues made him seek a bigger market team. The Mayor of Atlanta wooed him, and he moved to Atlanta, which at the time was a "growing regional center".

Now, about the Wisconsin fans "not caring about baseball". It's true that we are a football state. We just don't have the dedication of St. Louis, New York, or Boston, but we have a good sized demographic of true baseball fans. When the Giants were at Miller Park a few weeks ago, and the local sports media was all abuzz about Barry Bonds, the local FSN Wisconsin interviewed Hank Aaron. The Hammer (who started his career in a minor league team in Wisconsin, and of course played for the Braves pre-Atlanta and later the AL Brewers), said that Wisconsin baseball fans are kind, and his days of playing in Wisconsin are a special memory for him.

My grandparents and father had season tickets for the Braves, and they went to every home game and cheered on guys like Hank Aaron and Edie Matthews. When the Braves moved away they were absolutely heartbroken, along with several of their friends, and the city in general. The Milwaukee Braves had been a small dynasty, with a collection of pennants and World Series rings. My grandparents became Cubs fans, and refuse to cheer for the Brewers ("I ain't cheering for the Seattle Pilots", my grandmother likes to say about the Brewers) and my dad only became a Brewers fan in the recent Ben Sheets-era (2000 to present).

Since we're such a hardcore baseball family, it kind of offended me to hear comments like "the novelty of a baseball team had worn off." But thing about this, in the late-1960's, when Bud Selig was advertising Milwaukee for an expansion team, and he got the White Sox to host 9 games at County Stadium that year, those combined 9 sell-out games were more than the rest of the 72 home games of the White Sox at Comiskey. This season, when the Cleveland Indians needed to escape to the roof of Miller Park when The Jake was snowed out, Milwaukee fans showed up and came out to cheer on the Indians despite them not even being the home town team.

As for the Cubs, the new Brewers owner, Mark Atta-something-or-other (as he's know in my baseball circle), has launched a "take back Miller Park" campaign where they give out free Brewers shirts when the Cubs play, and basically are trying to retake Miller Park, instead of being "Wrigley North". Now, the Cubs @ Brewers games have much more Brewers fans in days past.

I guess, what my point is. Even though Brewers don't sell out every home game like the Cardinals, Yankees or Red Sox, we still are a proud baseball town.

OK, rant over. :sleepy:

PS: Bud Selig is my hero, for bringing baseball back to Milwaukee, and making sure that Hank Aaron hit 755 in Milwaukee. Just wanted to add that.

PPS: The American League was signed into creation during an owner's meeting that took place in Milwaukee, and the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers were one of the charter AL teams.

Thanks for your reply. What you sayb is very true. The move from Milwaukee to Atlanta wasn't about the fans, but about another greedy owner.During the 50's the Braves and Brooklyn Dodgers had a very heated rivalry going. Of course both teame wound up moving due to the greed of their owners.

[GoBrewersGo]

But thing about this, in the late-1960's, when Bud Selig was advertising Milwaukee for an expansion team, and he got the White Sox to host 9 games at County Stadium that year, those combined 9 sell-out games were more than the rest of the 72 home games of the White Sox at Comiskey.

Bud and Arthur Allyn had a handshake agreement in 1969 to purchace a majority share and move the White Sox to Milwaukee. The AL put the kibash on the deal 'cause they did not want to surrender Chicago to the NL

PS: Bud Selig is my hero, for bringing baseball back to Milwaukee, and making sure that Hank Aaron hit 755 in Milwaukee. Just wanted to add that.

Amen, Brother! It is trendy to bash Bud but I'll love him forever for bringing the Brewers to Milwaukee and fighting like the devil to keep them here!

[six4three]

There are two other reasons that have not been discussed yet. One, was the perception by Milwaukee fans of Perini as an absentee owner who would eventually move the team out of Milwaukee for greener pastures, i.e. Atlanta, as quickly as he moved the Braves from Boston in 1953. Eventually, Perini sold the Braves to Bartholmay in 1962.

Second, with televison playing a bigger role in all baseball clubs fianancial ledgers, Milwaukee was considered, unfairly or not, as having very little TV market potential when compared to that of Atlanta. Atlanta was considered an untapped TV market gold mine in the mid sixties.

Those are two very important considerations - the only local ownership was in the minority. Fans knew that, and were very distrustful of the Chicago owners.

What I wonder is, when the Braves were making noises about moving, why didn't one of the Milwaukee breweries [Miller, Schlitz, Pabst] step up, purchase the team like AB did with the Cards in 53?


Miller was in a bit of turmoil at the time - Fred Miller (not the original, natch) died in a private plane accident. He had been one of those minority owners, and Charlie Grimm wrote in his autobiography that had Fred not been killed Charlie was convinced he would have led a successful fight to keep the Braves in town.

Before anyone says that Milwaukee isn't a baseball town, keep in mind that the fans there went crazy for the White Sox in 68 and 69, a time when Chicago couldn't have cared less about them. Does that mean that the South Side isn't a baseball town?

[odin0406]

As Bill Veeck described in his 1965 story for Sports Illustrated, the businessmen that bought the Milwaukee Braves in 1962 were “a group of would-be hotshots, having no connection with the city and little if any background in baseball, coming in to make a quick buck. If their personal fortune depends on taking a team away from fans who once were the most delirious and open-handed of all time—well, that's free enterprise, folks.”

Veeck goes on to say that Lou Perini, the owner who brought the Braves to Milwaukee from Boston, could’ve sold the team to local people. And even though there were several local groups interested, he didn't. Instead, he almost pointedly sold the club to a syndicate composed of half a dozen whippersnappers from Chicago, led by Bill Bartholomay.

Shortly after they purchased the team, the Carpetbaggers (as Veeck called them) began the process of moving the team to Atlanta. If they could have, they would’ve moved to Georgia for the start of the 1964 season. There were no professional sports teams in the southeastern U.S. at the time and there was money to be made from live attendance, and radio & TV.

Milwaukee never failed to draw more than a million fans each year during their first nine seasons in Wisconsin (1953-61), including four years of two million plus. But then attendance fell off significantly in 1962. Maybe it was because of the novelty of a major league team had worn off, maybe the Twins moving to Minneapolis had siphoned off some fans in NW Wisconsin and/or maybe some fans decided to stay home because they could no longer bring carry-ins into County Stadium. Whatever was going on in 1962, by the middle of the 1963 season, Braves fans knew that the team was headed for Atlanta sooner or later.

It's interesting to compare the attendance numbers for the Braves and the Cubs from 1953-1965. During those 13 years, the Cubs rarely had winning seasons. Not once during that time did the Cubbies draw a million fans. 900K twice, 800K three times, 700K four times and 600K four times. Did anyone say that Chicago didn’t deserve a National League team then? It took awhile but by 1984, fans finally started showing up at Wrigley Field in large numbers and they’ve continued to do so to this day, even though the Cubs have only made the post-season five times since 1945.

I was a young boy growing up in southeast Wisconsin in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Milwaukee Braves were my team. There were several Hall of Famers and All-Stars on those rosters. Baseball fans here were stunned and depressed when the team left for Atlanta after the 1965 season. Even when the Brewers landed here in 1970, it took several years before we really warmed up to them.

As Brewers fans have shown over the past 38 seasons, if you put a competitive team on the field, Wisconsin will support major league baseball in significant numbers.

Here’s the link to Bill Veeck’s 1965 SI story about the Carpetbaggers that moved the Braves to Atlanta:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077301/8/index.htm

[efin98]

As Bill Veeck described in his 1965 story for Sports Illustrated...

With all due respect to Mr. Veeck, he's the last guy who should be talking against moving teams...

[odin0406]

And why is Bill Veeck the last one who should be talking about moving teams? In his MLB front office career with the Cleveland Indians, St Louis Browns and Chicago White Sox, he never moved his franchise. Yes, he wanted to move the Browns in 1953 but who wouldn’t after the team drew an average of only 332,000 fans per season over the previous five years. The Cardinals have always ruled in St Louis.

Bill Veeck was co-owner of Milwaukee’s minor league team from 1941-45 and was head of a group that held a controlling interest in the Chicago White Sox from 1959-61. Veeck knew both cities well. And he was familiar with many of the Milwaukee groups that were interesting in owning the Braves as well as the Carpetbaggers from Chicago who bought the Braves in 1962. Bill Veeck is a credible source when discussing why the Braves moved twice in 13 years.

[Astros4Life]

Brooklyn and New York are where those names belong.
Of course, the most idiotic situation happened over in
the NBA when the Jazz moved to Utah and kept the
name.

Surely there is a more fitting name with Utah ties!

Brownie31

the nba also has some teams that moved to cities where the name made sense, for example the Houston Rockets moved here from San Diego

[Brownieand45sfan]

He threatened to move the Indians to LA to get stadium leverage in 1947 and then tried to move the Browns in '53 after only 1 1/2 years of ownership. Those would have been the first franchise moves in baseball history ,and AL history, respectively. So you can hardly say the guy was against franchise shifts.
And why is Bill Veeck the last one who should be talking about moving teams? In his MLB front office career with the Cleveland Indians, St Louis Browns and Chicago White Sox, he never moved his franchise. Yes, he wanted to move the Browns in 1953 but who wouldn’t after the team drew an average of only 332,000 fans per season over the previous five years. The Cardinals have always ruled in St Louis.

Bill Veeck was co-owner of Milwaukee’s minor league team from 1941-45 and was head of a group that held a controlling interest in the Chicago White Sox from 1959-61. Veeck knew both cities well. And he was familiar with many of the Milwaukee groups that were interesting in owning the Braves as well as the Carpetbaggers from Chicago who bought the Braves in 1962. Bill Veeck is a credible source when discussing why the Braves moved twice in 13 years.

[Aa3rt]

He threatened to move the Indians to LA to get stadium leverage in 1947 and then tried to move the Browns in '53 after only 1 1/2 years of ownership. Those would have been the first franchise moves in baseball history ,and AL history, respectively. So you can hardly say the guy was against franchise shifts.

Are you forgetting that the St. Louis Browns originated in 1901 as the Milwaukee Brewers and were shifted to St. Louis prior to the start of the 1902 season?

Don't forget that the New York Yankees started life as the Baltimore Orioles and were moved in 1903 to New York to resume play as the New York Highlanders, later Yankees.

The Browns move was allowed, only AFTER Veeck sold the team to a Baltimore syndicate, headed by then Baltimore mayor Tom D'Alessandro (SP?). I don't think anyone was too heartbroken to see the Browns franchise shifted as most teams reportedly lost money on their road trips to St. Louis, then the westernmost outpost in either league. The American League rid themselves of 2 problems at the same time-money losing trips to St. Louis AND Bill Veeck.

[Brownieand45sfan]

Technically, that is correct. But those were more of the character of early adjustments to Ban Johnson's transformation of the Western League to a major league. New York and St. Louis were the #1 and #4 most populous cities at the time and huge 19th century baseball towns. He needed those cities for credibility and to be competitive.
Are you forgetting that the St. Louis Browns originated in 1901 as the Milwaukee Brewers and were shifted to St. Louis prior to the start of the 1902 season?

Don't forget that the New York Yankees started life as the Baltimore Orioles and were moved in 1903 (IIRC) to New York to resume play as the New York Highlanders, later Yankees.

[six4three]

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that a 1947 move to Los Angeles would not have been "the first franchise move in baseball history." Modern history (at the time), but by no stretch of the imagination baseball history.

I still think you're missing his point, though. Veeck doesn't make the case that moving is itself a bad thing, only that this move was bad. Bad in part because there was local interest in ownership that was deliberately ignored, and bad in part because the team had a strong and loyal fanbase.

Bad, finally, because the move was about making money first and baseball second if that.

[Brownieand45sfan]

you should have been a school marm
who's point?


That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that a 1947 move to Los Angeles would not have been "the first franchise move in baseball history." Modern history (at the time), but by no stretch of the imagination baseball history.

I still think you're missing his point, though. Veeck doesn't make the case that moving is itself a bad thing, only that this move was bad. Bad in part because there was local interest in ownership that was deliberately ignored, and bad in part because the team had a strong and loyal fanbase.

Bad, finally, because the move was about making money first and baseball second if that.

[six4three]

efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim. :D

[aqib]

efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim. :D

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.

[Brownieand45sfan]

Not going to argue for or against any of those moves, but just want to point out that it is not just about city-size. Certain cities have deeper traditions for a certain thing than others. That's why we see small cities with impressive art museums, e.g., there is a tradition of art appreciation. There are cities with deep baseball traditions that baseball will work in .. and huge cities where baseball just doesn't work (perhaps, Montreal). Green Bay, for football, is an example too (although it's proximity to MLW obviously helps a great deal).

The St. Louis Browns were part of a deep tradition in St. Louis Baseball. I would account for this in two ways:
1. The Browns were the first team to show signs of life in the first 20 years of the modern era, finishing 2nd in their very first year while fielding a team of late 19th century St. Louis favorites, and were the only St. louis team to finish as high as 2nd (1902 and 1922). Of course the Cardinals were the first team to finish first (1926) and the rest was, sort of, history.
2. It was also owing in part to their playing at the same Park as the name-sake American Association team that won a four-peat in the 1880s.

And St. Louisans just love baseball, as is evidenced by the way they've supported the Cardinals despite St. Louis undergoing the usual Rust-belt woes during the last 50 years.

So while baseball attendance in the early 50s was in a post-war slump, Browns attendance actually went up 57% with the same last-place team in 1952 simply because the owner of the team (Veeck) reciprocated the fan's inchoate loyalty by putting a lot of thought into making the ballpark environment entertaining. Fans appreciated Veeck's understanding that it was not easy to watch a continually understocked 8th-placed team, no matter how loyal one was. It just took a little show of appreciation, to work that attendance boost. That was double the Boston Braves '52 attendance ... with 1/2 the population.
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.

[Brownieand45sfan]

efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim. :D
or non-pedantic.

[six4three]

Pedantic?

Hey, words mean things. Don't blame me, blame Webster. :D

[aqib]

Not going to argue for or against any of those moves, but just want to point out that it is not just about city-size. Certain cities have deeper traditions for a certain thing than others. That's why we see small cities with impressive art museums, e.g., there is a tradition of art appreciation. There are cities with deep baseball traditions that baseball will work in .. and huge cities where baseball just doesn't work (perhaps, Montreal). Green Bay, for football, is an example too (although it's proximity to MLW obviously helps a great deal).

The St. Louis Browns were part of a deep tradition in St. Louis Baseball, owing in part to their playing at the same Park as the name-sake American Association team that won a four-peat in the 1880s. And St. Louisans love baseball, as is evidenced by the way they've supported the Cardinals despite St. Louis undergoing the usual Rust-belt woes during the last 50 years.

So while baseball attendance in the early 50s was in a post-war slump, Browns attendance actually went up 57% with the same last-place team in 1952 simply because the owner of the team (Veeck) reciprocated the fan's inchoate loyalty by putting a lot of thought into making the ballpark environment entertaining. Fans appreciated Veeck's understanding that it was not easy to watch a continually understocked 8th-placed team, no matter how loyal one was. It just took a little show of appreciation, to work that attendance boost. That was double the Boston Braves '52 attendance ... with 1/2 the population.

I get that St Louis is probably the best baseball town in the country, evidenced by the fact it was one of the first to draw 3 million fans, but two teams in one sport is hard to support unless you are NY, LA, and to some extent Chicago. I just doubt St Louis could support two MLB teams.

[six4three]

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.

[Brownieand45sfan]

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.
A requirement of what?

[six4three]

A city need not have multiple teams to be a good baseball town.

[Brownieand45sfan]

A city need not have multiple teams to be a good baseball town.
True .. but it is one indicator. I think Chicago, for maintaining two teams, is probably a little better baseball town than Boston, though Boston is obviously quite good. I haven't done a complete ethno-cultural analysis, but I would suspect that with Boston having a smidge more Puritan stock than most cities, "pass-times" in general are not going to hold quite the allure there that they would in other cities, like, even New York (which for a while had three teams while Boston had one). St. Louis had three teams too: during the Federal League years (New York then had *four*). St. Louis had two teams competing for fans twice during the 19th Century too.

You have to remember Boston I think a lot was lost when baseball started getting all rationalistic about "only 1.2 teams per 3 million in population". Baseball should have been more preservation-minded and had more respect for the initial two-league genius which brought baseball into its great flowering as the national pass-time. The competition between the AL and the NL was good for baseball, as opposed to the monopolistic situation we have now. It was neat to have leagues competing in the various cities. Like Earth I and Earth II, if anyone here ever read DC Comic Books.

Of course respect for that genius went totally out the window with inter-league play.

[six4three]

Don't forget that the White Sox spent a couple decades trying to get out of Chicago. They actually had a deal to move in 1969 - only the National League learning from its New York mistake prevented it.

Baseball is a business. Nothing more. Has been since the 1880s. I know that we as fans get all sentimental about teams, but we cannot lose sight of that fact.

Boston didn't support two teams. The evidence could not be more clear. St. Louis didn't support two teams. Tough breaks, but at least those fans got to keep major-league baseball in their city.

[Brownieand45sfan]

Well, I'm not a materialist so I don't believe *anything* is just a business. Not even a widget factory.

And even within so-called "business interests" there are short-term ones and long-term ones. Where baseball owners sacrifice long-term interests for short-term ones, some of us like to call them out.

unsubscribed

Don't forget that the White Sox spent a couple decades trying to get out of Chicago. They actually had a deal to move in 1969 - only the National League learning from its New York mistake prevented it.

Baseball is a business. Nothing more. Has been since the 1880s. I know that we as fans get all sentimental about teams, but we cannot lose sight of that fact.

Boston didn't support two teams. The evidence could not be more clear. St. Louis didn't support two teams. Tough breaks, but at least those fans got to keep major-league baseball in their city.

[six4three]

Don't know what you mean by "unsubscribed."

I think baseball teams fall into that gray area between business and civic entity - they are more than just a widget factory, but neither can they stay static, in thrall to What Was.

[efin98]

efin98 and Aa3rt are, I think, missing Veeck's point - that some franchise shifts are good on principle and some are bad on principle, as stated above.

Sorry I didn't make it clear to whom I was talking. They were the ones missing Veeck's point, you were the one with the hyperbolic claim. :D

I didn't miss the point, Veeck is no saint and is the last guy who should talk about moving teams. His actions in Cleveland and St. Louis were as bad if not worse than moving the club out of Milwaukee.

[six4three]

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.

[efin98]

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.

[MSUlaxer27]

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.

[aqib]

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.

[six4three]

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.

[aqib]

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.

[six4three]

Sure sounds good.

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

[efin98]

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.

[aqib]

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.

[DrBear]

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.

[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.

[swilcott]

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.

[CaliforniaCajun]

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

[six4three]

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.

[Iron Jaw]

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.

[PACrdfn]

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.

[aqib]

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.

[six4three]

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

[MSUlaxer27]

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. :rofl:

[MSUlaxer27]

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

[aqib]

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.