Could Pilots have stayed in 1970 and beyond?

[DTF955]

In looking at the Pilots' history and that of the rest of baseball, it strikes me that there weren't many options for the Pilots in 1970.

The Rangers, for instance, after bob Short moved them from Washington, had to hurry really fast and expand something, IIRC. They couldn't have done that in time for the 1970 season in spring training. Nor ws Toronto ready, apparently they didn't have Exhibition Stadium ready. Denver, with mile High Stadium, was a thought, I suppose, but there werne't many other places, with the majors having just expanded.

So, let's suppose that Milwaukee got one of those expansion teams. The more I think aobut it, it's sort of like a game of musical chairs with the 1969 expansion. There were 5 deserving cities, with Montreal almost not getting a club. And, 4 teams that could go to them.

Still, there are a couple options for the Pilots to stay, possibly. Montreal could have lost the bid and Milwaukee gotten their club. Finley could hve moved the Athletics to one of the 4 cities that got teams, as Oakland wasn't as likely as an expansion club, I don't think. But, even these two, Montreal and Oakland are at least possible sites for the Pilots to move to, becuas ethey did have some major economic problems. Indeed, even Washington is possible, as I can imagine the league having to run the club, then when Bob Short moves, and work on the Kingdome behind (as it was in OTL), the league finds investors to placate Congress. perhaps the ones who almost brought he Padres there in '74, but with a little more backing.

The Pilots did have some economic woes that needed addressed. there's a great site here, which you probably already know about, that explains a lot about it, which I found recently: http://www.brandx.net/pilots/

But, they're probabls other clubs have had, too, like the Phillies before the Carpenters bought them.

[Bucfan]

Pilots were gone after the 1969 season. Poor stadium, poor attendance, lack of ownership support in the city, better alternatives elsewhere.

Even if the Pilots had been forced to stay in Seattle for a second season, they would have been gone no later than the next year. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken ... stuff.

[Calif_Eagle]

Assuming all else in the scenario of what actually DID happen stays constant, except for Milwaukee getting the team that Montreal did get in "real time", the Pilots have to move somewhere with a readily available and ready-to-go ballpark. I think of the choices that were given, the Pilots have to go to Denver because of Bears Stadium (I guess it was called Mile High by then... ? ) being ready for baseball and having been expanded for Denver Broncos football. Plus, it was at least relatively close to Seattle and a schedule that was drawn up for West Coast swings in 1970, expecting a team to be in Seattle, would probably still work fairly well with the team in Denver.

I dont recall anything being written or said at the time, but a team going on a West Coast swing in 1970 and playing the Angels, A's and then the Brewers... well my guess would be the visiting players were less than thrilled with the added long flights.

[Seattle1]

Seattle...

[Calif_Eagle]

Seattle...

I also wish the Seattle Pilots had survived in their original form and city. But I believe the original owners (Dewey and Max Soriano, with Bill Daley, former Cleveland Indians owner as a minority investor.) were woefully undercapitalized for operating an MLB team & didnt realize that until they were deep into it. As I recall, if they didnt actually turn the franchise back over to the AL in Spring Training of 1970, they came about as close to that as you can. I think they made it plain they had no intention of operating during the 1970 season.

I'm sure the AL had no desire to operate the team in 1970 itself either, esp. after seeing the red ink bath the Pilots took in 1969. The state of the art in marketing technique back then for a sports team operator was to hang up a sign saying "Game Tonight", (if your name wasnt Bill Veeck or Charlie Finley.) That an AL operated team in Seattle in 1970 would have been a candidate to be moved away ASAP would have been obvious even to the most unsophisticated fan, after the poorly drawing debut season, and the decision of the owners to throw in the towel so quickly.

I think the AL powers that be felt they had no choice but to sell the team and move it. They needed to put that team into a ready to go Stadium. Time was too short, as camp was about to break. (If I recall correctly, the real life situation got to within a day or 2 of Opening Day and the Pilots still didnt know where they were going to be playing that season.) If Milwaukee hadnt been an option, standing ready to buy and operate the club, they probably would have gone somewhere in the West with a ready stadium, even if only for a season while they sorted everything out. I dont think they would have played in Seattle as a "lame duck" team.

Its a shame that the AL panicked under pressure from Senator Stuart Symington (Missouri, representing Kansas City interests after the move of the Athletics to Oakland.) and moved up their expanson timetable from 1971 as planned, to 1969, adding the KC Royals and the Pilots. Maybe a more stable and experienced ownership set-up for the Seattle team could have been put in place with the extra time.

[Tailwind Tommy]

The Sporting News dated November 28, 1970 gives a report on the upcoming 1971 Milwaukee schedule, and mentions that last season (1970) Milwaukee inherited the schedule of the Seattle Pilots, causing untold traveling problems not only for themselves, but for the other American League clubs who found themselves hopscotching all over the country. On one "eastern trip", the Brewers hit Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore and Anaheim: Milwaukee played at Detroit June 9 - 11, then at Cleveland June 12 - 14, then at Baltimore June 15 - 17, then at California June 19 - 21, then at Minnesota starting June 22.

Another travel problem: Chicago played at Milwaukee ending July 9, then Milwaukee played at Oakland July 10 - 12. July 13th was an open date. July 14th was the All-Star Game at Cincinnati at 8:15 p.m. July 15th was an open date. Then Milwaukee played at Boston starting July 16.

Another travel problem: Milwaukee played at Kansas City ending September 10, then at California September 11 - 13, then Oakland played at Milwaukee starting September 14.

Several clubs found they had to make a trip back to Milwaukee on their western swings: Cleveland at Oakland ending May 31, then Cleveland at Milwaukee June 2 - 4, then Cleveland at California starting June 5.

Washington at California ending July 26, then Washington at Milwaukee July 28 - 30, then Washington at Oakland starting July 31.

California at Oakland ending September 20, then California at Milwaukee September 21 - 23, then Oakland played at California starting September 25.

The Sporting News mentions that the Brewers and the rest of the American League breathed a sigh of relief when the 1971 Milwaukee schedule was announced.

[DTF955]

As I recall, if they didnt actually turn the franchise back over to the AL in Spring Training of 1970, they came about as close to that as you can. I think they made it plain they had no intention of operating during the 1970 season....I think the AL powers that be felt they had no choice but to sell the team and move it. They needed to put that team into a ready to go Stadium. Time was too short, as camp was about to break. (If I recall correctly, the real life situation got to within a day or 2 of Opening Day and the Pilots still didnt know where they were going to be playing that season.) If Milwaukee hadnt been an option, standing ready to buy and operate the club, they probably would have gone somewhere in the West with a ready stadium, even if only for a season while they sorted everything out. I dont think they would have played in Seattle as a "lame duck" team.

Wow, instead of a team with an interim manager, you'd have a manager with an interim team. :D

Although I suspect if Denver (the only one with a ready stadium) was the city, they would be doing it with an eye toward seeing how the city supported them and keeping it there; it would be in at least a better position than Seattle, in that case.

Which could actually draw a lot of fans. IIRC, Denver voters had turned down a proposal to fund a bunch of public works that would have brought the '72 Winter Olympics there. (I could be off by 4 years on that, though.) Now, the city populous could say, "See, we told you we didn't need to spend all that public money on sports. Why, we just sat and did nothing and a professional team fell right into our laps!" :laugh

[Tailwind Tommy]

This article in The Seattle Times carries my sentiment exactly!

[Iron Jaw]

Wow, instead of a team with an interim manager, you'd have a manager with an interim team. :D

Which could actually draw a lot of fans. IIRC, Denver voters had turned down a proposal to fund a bunch of public works that would have brought the '72 Winter Olympics there. (I could be off by 4 years on that, though.) Now, the city populous could say, "See, we told you we didn't need to spend all that public money on sports. Why, we just sat and did nothing and a professional team fell right into our laps!" :laugh

Denver was awarded the 1976 Winter Games. In 1973-74, a group that included future governor, Dick Lamm, ran a campaign to rid Colorado of that obligation to the Olympics. Eventually, the issue wound up on the ballot and Colorado voters elected to dump the Games by a relatively close margin. I graduated from High School in Colorado in 1973, and remember the issue well, as well as the eventual ballot measure. I disagreed with dumping the Games, of course, but they properly allowed the voters to address the issue and what's fair is fair.

Denver was craving major league baseball in 1969. Our minor league team did very well in attendence and popularity, and Mile High Stadium was a big league park after the rennovations/expansions that began in 1967 when Lou Saban became Head Coach of the AFL Broncos. I went to many games at Bears' Stadium over the years, and witnessed the park changes first hand. Very dramatic. We thought we were dissed when cities such as Seattle and Montreal were awarded franchises in 1969, despite not having decent ballparks (the Expos played in Jarry Park, with a capacity of about 28,000 the first few seasons). We had a couple of misses in the 70's, when Marvin Davis came close to purchasing the A's. But, as things have it, Denver would not have MLB until the 90's, a few years after I left the state and moved to Arizona for my job with the Border Patrol. I still think the owners of the Rockies should have listened to the fans and called the new team, the Denver Bears.

[six4three]

This article in The Seattle Times carries my sentiment exactly!

"Talk of Move Irritating to Players" - does that sidebar article belong with the Pilots feature or the Sonics piece? :D

[Tailwind Tommy]

Yes, that article relates to the proposed move of the Pilots franchise to Milwaukee.