Bob Short & Why the Senators Left

[bryanac625]

I can't relocate the link, otherwise I would post it, but I read a 2005 preseason story where the late Bob Short's son said his dad did "everything he could" to keep the Senators in DC. Is this true? He said he held Ladies Days, all kinds of giveaways, specifically hired Ted Williams as the manager, but nothing worked. The team had good fans, but just not enough to support the team (I hope this does not happen again). I ask this because I always had the impression that Short never cared about DC but took the team and ran.

In any case I think by the early 1970s, America was losing because of Vietnam and social unrest, and baseball was losing popularity and cities had developed a bad reputation. By the early '70s, baseball (not yet a big money game) was way behind football in popularity. Traditional winners like the Yankees were no longer successful. In the interview, Short's son says in those days, baseball attracted those interested in bringing businesses to the city and families. And a big thing here is that 1971 DC was still smoldering from urban rage from the MLK assassination. Apparently, not many white families wanted to drive into a prodominantly black city to see a losing team.

I may be wrong on some things here, but I just wanted to find out if these things are true.

[Aa3rt]

I can't relocate the link, otherwise I would post it, but I read a 2005 preseason story where the late Bob Short's son said his dad did "everything he could" to keep the Senators in DC. Is this true? He said he held Ladies Days, all kinds of giveaways, specifically hired Ted Williams as the manager, but nothing worked. The team had good fans, but just not enough to support the team (I hope this does not happen again). I ask this because I always had the impression that Short never cared about DC but took the team and ran.

bryanac625-Just to give you a little, perspective, I turned 18 in 1971. I'm probably not the most objective person when this subject comes up. The way I remember it (My memory is somewhat fuzzy after 36 years.) I always felt that Mr. Short was looking to move the team as soon as he acquired control of it in the offseason between 1968 and 1969. You can read more about it in this (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=47001) thread, particularly posts 5,6,7,8 & 9.

Keep in mind that this is the same Bob Short who moved the Minneapolis Lakers of the NBA to Los Angeles and then sold the franchise to Jack Kent Cooke (later to own the Washington Redskins) at an obscene profit.

I will also point out that the Senators played two exhibition games in Arlington, TX BEFORE they ever played in Washington in 1969 so it would take some very convincing proof to sway me into changing my mind from my belief that Mr. Short started counting that Texas oil money as soon as he took over the control of the Senators.

In any case I think by the early 1970s, America was losing because of Vietnam and social unrest, and baseball was losing popularity and cities had developed a bad reputation. By the early '70s, baseball (not yet a big money game) was way behind football in popularity. Traditional winners like the Yankees were no longer successful. In the interview, Short's son says in those days, baseball attracted those interested in bringing businesses to the city and families. And a big thing here is that 1971 DC was still smoldering from urban rage from the MLK assassination. Apparently, not many white families wanted to drive into a prodominantly black city to see a losing team.

I will concede that Washington, DC was in a sad state after the riots that followed the Martin Luther King assassination in 1968. The Washington Metro that now carries fans to and from RFK Stadium was only a pipe dream. While not a "bad" neighborhood in the classic sense, there are some unsavory areas around the stadium and I'm sure that many folks from the suburbs were intimidated, causing the attendance to diminish.

However, the 1969 team that went 86-76 (the expansion Senators only season over .500) did draw almost 1,000,000 fans setting an attendance record for the expansion team. Some of the dumb moves by the front office (like that ill-advised Denny McLain trade) saw the on field performance of the 1970 & 1971 teams revert to their losing ways and attendance dropped accordingly.

I may be wrong on some things here, but I just wanted to find out if these things are true.

36 years later I will admit that I still have no fond memories of Mr. Short and believe that he had no intention of keeping the team in DC. I don't really believe what his son had to say. However, I will also admit that I was much more interested in the team itself that in the economics involved in running the team.

You will probably find the truth somewhere in between.

BTW-you may want to peruse some of the other threads in the Senators forum where you may pick up some other insight.

[bryanac625]

I will concede that Washington, DC was in a sad state after the riots that followed the Martin Luther King assassination in 1968. The Washington Metro that now carries fans to and from RFK Stadium was only a pipe dream. While not a "bad" neighborhood in the classic sense, there are some unsavory areas around the stadium and I'm sure that many folks from the suburbs were intimidated, causing the attendance to diminish.

However, the 1969 team that went 86-76 (the expansion Senators only season over .500) did draw almost 1,000,000 fans setting an attendance record for the expansion team. Some of the dumb moves by the front office (like that ill-advised Denny McLain trade) saw the on field performance of the 1970 & 1971 teams revert to their losing ways and attendance dropped accordingly.

I've often wondered what would have happened had the DC metro come 5 years sooner (it opened in 1976).

A good book on the impact of race on a baseball stadium and its city is To Everything a Season: Shibe Park and Urban Philadelphia. And it's a similar story: struggling baseball team (although the book is about an old ballpark) surrounded by a black neighborhood. The difference, of course, is that the Phillies are still in Philadelphia, but Shibe Park is long gone.

One thing really sticks out to me here... I've read and heard some of the old Senators fans say "it didn't matter that they didn't win. I just loved the team." Certainly, that is the magic of baseball, especially to a kid. But, as you know, a team can't survive on losing. I hope the Washington Nationals can finally give DC baseball something it has never had: respect.

[Rome Colonel]

I could go on and on about this topic but I'll limit myself to just a few points.

1. It's only natural that a son would defend his father, but I doubt you'd find a baseball fan in the DC area who would defend Bob Short or accept his son's version of the events of 1968-71.

2. Short did hire Ted Williams, but by the end of his second year Williams management style had become part of the team's problem. The players were no longer responding to his leadership and the novelty of having Williams in town had worn off. Short would have been far better served by an experienced manager in the long term, but then he probably wasn't thinking long term.

3. The McCain trade, one of the worst in baseball history, also helped destroy any clubhouse chemistry still lingering from 1969. Conspiratorialists (I'm not among them) argue the trade was deliberate sabatoge on Short's part.

4. The downturn on the field in 1970-71, though severe, did not depress attendance as much as Short wanted people to think. The Senators still drew nearly 825,000 in 1970 (four clubs drew less) and 655,000 in 1971 (more than they drew the majority of years in the 60s).

5. One of the worst ironies of the move was that the team did not outdraw their 1970 attendance in either of their first two years in Arlington. The Rangers did not draw over a million until 1974, the year Short sold the team to Texas interests, effectively proving that his primary concern had been to make a profit, not build and run a ball club.

6. The subway would have helped had it come a decade earlier but certainly the Redskins had no problem getting people from the suburbs to drive into the District, even for night games (of course the Redskins had the advantage of being winners in the 70s). Incidentally, the Blue Line stop at RFK Stadium didn't open until the summer of 1977, but a bigger problem was that not many lines extended very far into the surburbs until the 80s.

7. The man Short outbid for the Senators was - Bob Hope! Unlike Short, who was a politician, Hope was a patriot and I can't imagine he ever would have moved the team out of the nation's capital.

8. To Everything a Season is an excellent book and could well serve as an extended reading text in an uban history course.

9. I'm sure it's long out of print, but a good account of the demise of the Senators is Shelby Whitfield's Kiss it Goodbye.

[PlayJay]

Bob Short never did anything to market the franchise in the DC area; he was even more inept at this than the other owners. MLB wouldn't aggressively market the product until the NFL showed them how. By that time, the franchise was in Arlington.

The Television/radio deals the Senators had were poorly negotiated; the club didn't make a penny.

Was the move worth it? Well, it took the Rangers over two decades to get the grass growing firmly under their feet out there. Artistically, the team today's a bust, the Nats are a more interesting option by far. However, what Short did was nothing less than a crime in my eyes.

[Steve Jeltz]

The more I research about Bob Short, the more I am inclined to believe that he never had any intention of staying in Washington, like Aa3rt stated. Short hailed from Minneapolis and that didn't deter him from moving the Lakers to LA. So, why would he have any loyalty to D.C.? Texas was going to be the gold mine, in Short's view, with millions of dollars awaiting. However, Texas was fools gold for Bob Short.

In December, 1968, Short purchased the Senators for $9.4 million from James H. Lemon and the estate of James Johnston. In April, 1974, Short sold the Rangers to a syndicate led by Brad Corbett for $9.5 million. After all was said and done, Short netted a meager $100,000 profit in the sale! Short could have sold the team for more in 1971 or if he stayed in Washington. Short put on an elaborate act in D.C. about how much money he was "losing" and, in the end, he makes $100 grand? You got to be kidding me.

[PlayJay]

Bob Short was a buffoon. Bottom line.

[welch]

I'll add -- and all of the replies are sound

- the '71 team drew poorly, but Short made it clear during the season that he was moving

- even though the Metro was still being built, DC Stadium opened with one dramatic improvement over Griffith Stadium: it had parking lots.

- I believe that whenever the Nats had a respectable team, attendance increased. Baseball is a long season. I go to a game to see my team, and I want to see them win whenever I go. If I have above a 40% chance of seeing a win, I'm happy. It's not like the NFL, where every game almost amounts to a playoff. When Short traded the left side of the infield plus two starters for Denny McClain, he killed the team.

- With good sense, Short could have marketed the team as well as Edward Bennett Williams marketed the Redskins...who were, at best, a spotty team under Otto Graham.

- I suspect that Short simply did not have the money to be in the baseball business. (I've begun to wonder the same thing about the Lerners, who seem to have the New New Nats on a tight budget, but that's a speculation for anopther place.)

[swbredbaronfan]

I may be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure that Senators tickets may also have been the priciest in baseball at the time.

When i attended in 1970, box seats were $5 when the Phils, Mets and O's were charging $3.50-$4 per seat.

That doesn't seem like much by todays standards but it was very high relative to the economy of the day.