MLB Team Relocations Are A Waste Of Time | The Touchback
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- For more sports and random stuff, visit The Touchback: thetouchback.com
There has been a lot of talk about the shadiness of the Oakland A’s move to Las Vegas and rightfully so. But if you take a step back and look at the big picture of MLB team relocations, a major trend is evident. Namely, they are a stupid waste of time.
Not because they involve greedy owners taking away franchises people love. Sure, that sucks. However, something even more ridiculous emerges when you look at MLB team relocations since 1950. Baseball almost always ends up returning to the single-team markets it vacates.
Time and time again, MLB has let an owner walk away from a city only to turn up there again down the road, usually to avoid political battles. Every scenario is slightly different, but the trend is very real.
Read the full article: thetouchback.c...
About The Touchback
#takeitouttothe25
The Touchback is the world’s best sports and culture website…or something like that. The site is the brainchild of Andrew Davis and Cheyenne Hollis, two American expats wanting to bring a different perspective to sports, fantasy, betting and a bunch of other random stuff. You’ll either really like it or really hate it. But it’s worth reading either way.
He didn’t note that once the A’s leave the San Francisco Bay Area (Oakland is located less than 15 miles from San Francisco), the San Francisco Giants will control that area and probably won’t permit any other baseball team from entering the market.
Yeah. Oakland is technically part of a “two-team market.” And currently the smallest one, at that.
It's not terribly large. But, San Jose is also included.
MLB would have to leave a clause that it still remains a two team market.
Toronto and Buffalo have used their advantage to cause problems for the Hamilton Market (not that success is guaranteed there) to pull in any real long term clubs other than the Tiger-Cats.
It's a cross league discussion. But, there are only so many sport fans (at any level). As well as the necessary sale of season tickets/box interest that almost any new franchise needs to bait the Ownership and League Governors to grant an expansion, or even a move bid.
Truth. The A's gave up control over San Jose to the Giants to help them build a ballpark which didn't happen. Then when the A's were sniffing around SJ, the Giants totally C@#k blocked them.
@@pringlized Exactly what I was going to say. San Jose wanted the A's, the A's wanted San Jose, but MLB was too weak to step up for for a franchise that could instantly make MLB more money by moving the San Jose. I understand the business decision by the Giants, but MLB should have stepped in a righted the wrong. Territorial rights in an existing multi-team urban area is nonsense or at least should be limited to the first 50 years the franchise is present in an urban area (not permanent). MLB has repeatedly (as recent as this week, June 2023) refused to step in for the good of the league, San Jose, and A's.
@@lewatoaofair2522 The SF area does NOT need 2 teams. The Atlanta metro area is 25% larger than SF/Oakland and you don't see them clamoring for 2 teams. In fact there are 11 metros areas larger than SF/Oakland and only 3 have 2 teams. You have a better case for putting a 3rd team in NY than you do have 2 teams in SF/Oakland
Unfortunately I can't see Oakland getting another team.
I honestly don't understand why Vegas would fund a stadium for that crook and not deman a salary floor from him. If they believe he won't be just as much of cheapskate as he was in Oakland then they're delusional
If MLB teams built their own playgrounds, you would likely see far less transient franchises
In Reality The ANGELS & PADRES Are California Originals 😱
Life long A’s fan. Born into an A’s family. I don’t want to see my team go
Your A's should move to Sacramento.
So, are you one the tens of fans who attend their games?
@@leeschaeffer3209acting like the coliseum is a great stadium and the owner has a good payroll
New York was a 1 team baseball city for the 58, 59, 60, and 61 seasons. The Mets started in 1962. That's only 4 years that New York had only 1 team, not 8, like you were saying
That is correct. The Dodgers and Giants move was approved in 1957 and happened in 1958. However, when you aren't using a teleprompter and are filming yourself, sometimes you mess up a word or two.
@@thetouchbackthis is the realest response I’ve ever seen from a channel. Argh. Okay I will do it “subscribe”
It really dont matter if it was 4 or 8 years.
It dont matter if its 4 or 5 or 8. Thats irrelevant bobo
The Yankees' attendance went DOWN 1958-61.
It's not a waste of time for MLB. Most relocations are driven by stadium issues. Team wants a new stadium. City A says no. City B offers the team a new stadium. Team moves to City B. MLB tells City A that they will never get a replacement team unless they build a new stadium. City A builds a new stadium. MLB gives them an expansion team. MLB got two brand new stadiums by "wasting time"
The problem is that many of the stadiums are poorly built and don't last long because the owners don't pay for it. It's paid by taxpayers and the owners could care less about the quality of the stadium when they don't pay for it.
Another problem is the terrible way the fans are treated. Once their team leaves many fans leave Baseball and start watching other sports like the NFL and NBA. Then MLB wonders why the ratings keep dropping after this continuous mistreatment of the fans for decades.
@@giacobbeperales5926 Actually this current season in 2023, MLB has league wide their best attendance/tickets sold(according to the Wall St Journal & other sources)and most importantly TV Ratings/Viewership for a regular season in many years. Even with the drama/crisis in Oakland and Both NYC teams in the Yankees and Mets with likely last place finishes. Actually MLB has only 1 relocation in the past 50 years. The Expos leaving Montreal for Washington, D.C.
There are other issues that has caused issues for MLB to get new lifelong fans from Millenials and the now Generation Z (kids born between the years 2000-appx. 2011)among US born Viewers and Customers.
Although Oakland and San Francisco are 2 different cities, they are part of the same metro area. So the same way Boston, Philadelphia, and St. Louis didn't need 2 teams, neither does the Bay Area....
What about Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York?
@@leesdroidaccountharbin9665 Chicago doesn’t need 2 teams neither. However both the NY and LA metro areas have around 20 million people. That’s twice as many as Chicago or DC, so yes, they DO need 2 teams
@@masp809 Baltimore -Washington has 2 in 2 leagues.
@@leesdroidaccountharbin9665 Los Angeles has only one MLB team, the former Brooklyn Dodgers. Anaheim is about fifty miles from where I live and the traffic on weekdays makes it nearly impossible to get there. The Los Angeles Angels was a Pacific Coast League franchise in the past along with their crosstown rivals, the Hollywood Stars. SoCal is an even larger market (or markets) than NorCal, so we have three teams, one in Los Angeles County (pop. 10 million), one in Orange County (pop. 3.1 million) and one in San Diego County (pop. 3.2 million).
I was pleased that my Dodgers swept the Freeway Series this week. If I lived in OC I would want my team to have either a local name (Orange Sox, for example) or a regional name (California Condors or maybe SoCal Singing Cowboys to remember their original owner, Gene Autry). IF MLB realignment puts the teams in the same division there would be more of a rivalry. Now it is all in the NL West with the Dodgers, Giants and Padres.
@masp809
You should do research before you spout out metro population numbers for New York City and Los Angeles. First of all, metro Los Angeles does not have 20 million people. It has in 2023 an estimated 12.5 million people while New York City has almost twice as many, 23.5 million. You should always check your sources before posting comments to make sure you're giving out accurate information.
Just another note about the Mets adopting the Giants and Dodgers' old colors - Blue and orange are also the official colors of NYC, tracing back to when the Dutch settled the city. The Knicks and the Islanders (and even fictitious teams like the New York Knights from "The Natural") chose those colors for that reason as well.
Also the flag of New York is an orange blue and white tricolor
Citi Field (and before that, Shea Stadium) were the only MLB parks to have orange foulpoles.
it should be noted that the orginal owner of the mets was a co-owner of the giants, the only one who voted against moving
@@davidaltman8831 Not to go off topic but the Oringal majority Owner of the Mets Joan Payson became(correct me if I am wrong) the first Woman to win a championship in at least major North American sports ie NFL, NHL NBA and MLB as well.
Always found it interesting that she does not get more noted for that achievement especially it was a NYC based team.
They even stole the Giants' NY logo. And Yankees pinstripes.
In a way, it's kind of weird the A's left Philly, since they were the better team between them and the Phillies. The Braves always had trouble getting attendance in Boston, and the Browns were rarely good in St. Louis, so their relocations were a little understandable, but the A's were kind of the shocking one.
The Phillies were the better team at the time the A's left. Their 5 world series wins were a distant memory to the fans.
A market getting a new team wasn't always due to political pressure. During the late 1950's, a third baseball league was proposed, the Continental League, which was to begin play in 1960 or 1961. Two of the locations for teams in the CL were to be New York and Minneapolis-St. Paul. The prospective owners of the New York CL team were wooed by the National League, and walked away from the CL. They received an expansion team in New York for 1962, as did Houston, which was another slated location for a CL team. The Dodgers moved after being unable to receive permission from New York City to build a new stadium to replace the aging Ebbets Field. The Giants were in the same situation with the ancient, dilapidated Polo Grounds, where the Giants had been playing since 1890. The Giants were planning on moving to Minneapolis-St. Paul, but agreed to join the Dodgers on the West Coast. The Dodgers were given permission to move to Los Angeles only if another team agreed to also move to the West Coast. In Boston and New York, the older, established NL clubs moved (the Yankees began as the 2nd edition of the Baltimore Orioles, moving to New York in 1902). In St. Louis and Philadelphia, it was the younger AL teams that moved (the St. Louis Browns had been the Milwaukee Brewers before moving to St. Louis in 1902).
Bobby Fisher + Bobby Boyfred = greed!!! Oakland A's forever!!! Las Vegas A's??? Yuck! Yuck! Yuck!
There should be a requirement in MLB that teams, not taxpayers, must pay for there own stadiums.
There should be a requirement in sports that teams, not taxpayers, must pay for there own stadiums.
*Fixed.*
@@juicyfartsofjimcornette1154 Agreed. I only put baseball because this is an MLB video. But I agree 100% that this should apply to ALL sports.
I totally agree, but just imagine the outrageous ticket prices because the owners want to recoup their money as fast as possible.
@billbeliakoff5589 Yeah, but as much as high ticket prices would prevent people from attending, one can choose to not buy tickets for the games. Try choosing to not pay taxes.
@@Soxruleyanksdrool If enough people don't buy tickets then the owners will lose their money even quicker.
I'm 50 and a life long A's fan. Moving to Vegas is breaking my heart. But based on this video if Oakland got an expansion team say 10 years down the road, I'd be conflicted if Id root for the new Oakland Oaks or the Vegas A's. I agree, with you. Sell the team and be the first bidder on expansion in the new city.
Been a lifelong A's fan as well and no way I root for the Vegas A's.
Oakland has no chance in hell of getting a team again. MAYBE San Jose will get one if the Giants give up that territory but I doubt it. Perhaps Sacramento could get a shot. But realistically I don’t think California will get any other teams until the state starts to become more amenable to giving public money to owners for a stadium.
I went through the same issue when the LA Rams left my hometown in Orange County, CA in 1995. I was so pissed I boycotted the entire NFL for 20 years. I forgave the Rams when they returned.
My grandfather was a diehard Philadelphia A’s fan. Followed them for a few years in Kansas City, but gave up and became a Phillies fan
As an A's fan, I'm happy that they are finally going to get a new stadium that the city of Oakland kept denying them. This whole saga has shown that city leaders in Oakland didn't care about any professional sports teams that were there. In 5 years, they lost the Warriors, Raiders, and now the Atheletics.
It took 35 years for Washington to regain an MLB team after the Senators 2.0 left for Texas. Probably partly due to the Orioles being in Baltimore, which is generally considered part of the same metro region as Washington, D.C.
And it required that the Expos, after being screwed over by the 1994 strike, being left in an endless cycle of no talent roster -> low attendance -> no money to improve roster. Such cycles can be broken by owners willing to spend their own money, but that was never going to happen in Montreal.
Nah the Expos had plenty of good teams and the fan support still wasn't there. The Marlins are a good example of what you described but guess what...they never broke the cycle either despite massive spending by ownership. Montreal just isn't a baseball town and neither is Miami.
I feel bad for the 94 Expos but they voted to strike. Team was absolutely stacked.
The Astros were pretty good that year, too. And Bagwell was NL MVP. Guess we’ll never know…..
33 years. The Senators left after 1971 (1972 being the first year without baseball), and the Nationals arrived in 2005.
By your own logic Oakland could be considered the second team in the Bay Area and thus won’t be replaced down the line.
You’re right that on average teams leaving is pointless because they do get replaced but in this case Oakland is 1) the second team in its market, 2) in a city with poverty issues and not enough corporate money/richer fan bases, and 3) in a state that doesn’t like to give public money for billionaire stadiums. In other words, baseball wanted out of Oakland by any means necessary and they will NEVER go back.
Hopefully they bring baseball back to Montreal soon!
They had to be the Washington Nationals because the Texas Rangers still own the rights to the Senators. In fact in their incorporation papers, they are legally called the Washington Senators DBA as the Texas Rangers.
I always assumed the demise of the Seattle Pilots was due to incompetent ownership. The part that gets left out is that MLB set them up to fail.
I mean for my braves moving cities has worked out for us We won a championship in Boston in 1914 Given us our 1st World series won our 2nd in 1957 in Milwaukee then our 3rd in 1995 in Atlanta then our 4 in 2021 in Cobb County Georgia
I’m an Astros fan but I LOVED seeing Manfred get the shit booed out him by both Braves and Astros fans when he handed over the trophy. A highlight of my 55+ years of watching MLB.
In the case of Oakland, they probably have to hold on to the Athletics. They'll never see another team if the Athletics leave. Vegas could afford to be patient.
Baseball wants out of that city by any means necessary. Nothing short of the city giving the owner absolutely everything for free will keep them there. And you’re right, they will never go back
Sue MLB like those other cities did.
Let’s talk about baseball relocation while holding a football 😂 I get You’re the Touchback just picking on You Brother 🤘🏽 Awesome content
Which brings up an excellent point - does he feel as strongly about football relocations?
If the city of Oakland could keep the A’s name, history, etc like the Browns did, and bring in Lacob as owner of the new A’s team as a continuing the A’s tradition at Howard Terminal later on, that would be great. Fisher can have a team in Las Vegas but not called the A’s. Las Vegas Pilots.
The Giants were originally going to move to Minneapolis who was the home of the Giants minor league affiliate Minneapolis Millers but the Dodgers and MLB convinced them to go to California instead. Just a few years later the Senators showed up and became the Twins.
that was so that all the other teams wouldnt have to travel to the west coast to play only one team
New York went without an NL team for 4 seasons, not 8.
There's no way they go through with the move. Dozens of better cities to host a team then Vegas
You’re probably right but now the sports leagues are sucking at the teat of legalized betting. So Vegas is the new golden goose.
0:10 Not shady. Oakland won't build a new stadium. Las Vegas will. It's pretty simple.
You used the wrong logos for the two Senators teams. The one with the block W moved to the Twin Cities while the one with the circular logo moved to Texas.
Oakland moved because the city didn't want them. Plain and simple. Be glad someone picked up that sad team
Toronto Blue Jays were suppose to be the Toronto Giants. The city hastily renovated their football stadium to lure the San Francisco Giants, specifically wanting a National League team that would face the Montreal Expos. When the deal fell through Toronto got the Blue Jays as a consolation. Had the Giants moved to Toronto, San Francisco may not have gotten a team back from expansion because it would mean there would be two American League teams in the bay area. San Francisco would probably have to wait until the 90s when the league expanded in the National League.
Before that, the Giants almost moved to Minneapolis in 1957, before they decided to move to the Bay Area instead.
It's interesting to think about the Braves originally being a Boston franchise, though it's clear to see why they moved since Boston got much more attached to the Bosox. After hopping from Milwaukee to here in Atlanta, they really solidified themselves as Georgia's team with the sheer amount of success they've had starting in the 90's and also thanks to the work of Ted Turner in the early days here.
The Braves are kind of America's team for anyone growing up in the 1990s because of TBS. I have fond memories of watching Mark Lemke and Jeff Blauser as a kid in California.
@@thetouchbackgood point - Ted Turner does not receive enough credit for really showing that the idea of a regional sports network could really work - and WGN out of Chicago - Cubs games were always on in the 80s and 90s as well
The Braves still have a street named after them near their old stadium.
Ironically, the Boston Braves were the last team that Babe Ruth played for.
The unpopularity of the Boston Braves owed much to their ballpark. It had a large seating capacity for the time, fitting 40,000, which was why it was rented by the Red Sox for home games in the 1915 and 1916 World Series, when the park was brand new. The owner of the Braves at the time thought that the inside-the-park home run was the most exciting play in baseball, so the original dimensions of the park were huge. 400’+ down the lines, and about 500’ to deep center. It also was in a part of Boston that was not very busy at the time, and just wasn’t a cozy atmosphere for watching baseball, like Fenway was. The Braves would have had a great opportunity to capitalize on the Red Sox’ failures, especially between 1920 and 1932 (during which much of Fenway Park burned down I believe), but they didn’t. In the ‘30s, Tom Yawkey bought the Red Sox, and renovated Fenway to basically be the park we know today. He also improved the team, bringing in Jimmie Foxx and Lefty Grove, before getting Ted Williams. The biggest shame for Boston baseball was that the Red Sox lost a one game playoff to the Indians that would have resulted in a Red Sox-Braves “Trolley Series.” I don’t think Boston is a two team town, but that might have bought a few more years. Anyhow, Fenway claims to be “America’s most beloved ballpark.” Braves Field was very much the opposite.
Time to pull MLB's antitrust exemption. And time for Oakland to sue.
Great content but using the football as a prop was distracting in a discussion about baseball.
The St. Louis Browns (which moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles) were poised to finalize a move to California in December of 1941, when the plans were abandoned in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. mostly due to fears the west coast might actually be invaded. The war put everything on hold and it wasn't until the 1950s that the moves to the west coast began. If that original move had taken place, would one of the NY franchises have moved to Baltimore instead? That would have returned the favor of Baltimore sending the old American League Orioles of the early 1900s (int he 1890s the Orioles had been National League Champions in 1894, 1895, and 1896) to New York to become the Highlanders, and later the Yankees.
This is an interesting hypothetical and one that could have gone in a number of different ways. Maybe this would have spurred West Coast expansion as opposed to relocations. There were several prominent PCL teams in the 1940s ( Oakland Oaks/San Francisco Seals/Sacramento Solons) that did well enough for themselves and the Browns would need someone close geographically.
Just glad none of Pittsburgh's teams have moved. Black and Gold knows loyalty
Oakland should have left years ago, fans there do not support them and same with Montreal. Most relos are due to stadium issues but both Oakland and Montreal were far deeper than just stadiums.
LAA and LAD is ridiculous make the ANGELS ANAHEIM again
I somehow got my hands on a Juan Alvarez Anaheim Angels dugout jacket complete with chaw stains. It is one of my prized possessions.
The Angels have never been called simply the "Anaheim Angels."
Before being called the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim," they were called the "Los Angeles Angels" from 1961-1965. When they moved into their new stadium in Anaheim, they were renamed the "California Angels" in 1966 ⚾
In the late 1990s, they were definitely just the Anaheim Angels. It is also the only time they ditched having a halo in the logo.
I prefer they go back to “California Angels”.
@@jamesrivera4947
Yes they were. Remember the late 1990's early 2000's? They won a title during that time.
A similar argument could be made for NFL relocations. Baltimore, Houston and Cleveland come to mind.
1:44 OH MY GOD IS THAT WHY? I’ve been watching baseball since 1986 when I was 8 and never ONCE considered that. I’m a Braves fan, but still. Good point. I learned something today…
Tigers don't need relocation they've been in Detroit since 1901 and have been called the Tigers since that very first season
Montreal has fought to get a team ever since Loria destroyed & moved the Expos & still no team there 🙄
A few observations from someone who lived in the Bay Area for close to two decades, and went to dozens of A's games while living there.
First, Oakland is in the Bay Area, so it's not a single team market.
2nd, the A's and Giants have distinctive fan bases that don't mix well or root for each other.
3rd, The Oakland Colosseum is perhaps the worst stadium to watch major league baseball anywhere in the country. It's ancient and falling apart, and was so 20 years ago when I lived there. When the City and County changed the layout to entice Al Davis to bring the Raiders back they completely destroyed the stadium for watching baseball, and his numerous lawsuits left them with no money to make improvements or to build another one.
4th, the Colosseum is in a terrible part of Oakland, surrounded by some of the worst neighborhoods in Northern California. One has to be crazy to drive and park there. The only redeeming factor is the BART station that's within walking distance.
5th, San Jose would never work for the East Bay A's fan base, and San Jose is not really a destination where people go for food and entertainment. San Jose is Giants and 49er territory. You are much more likely to see Giants fans driving north to The City to watch a game and enjoy a night on the town, than you would be seeing A's fans heading South.
6th, A better move that makes more sense for everyone would be relocating the A's to Sacramento. There are large numbers of A's fans already in that area that currently drive to Oakland to watch games. I'm sure that there are plenty of fans that would be willing to drive from the East Bay to Sacto to occasionally watch a game, more so than would be willing to fight the traffic heading South to San Jose.
When they had the plans to build a stadium in Fremont SJ fans we ecstatic but this is also when the Giants whined about location rights and it being with in their fan radius. I dont know how old you are but i have lived here since since the 80s when i was a kid. i saw why the Giants and Niners wanted a new stadium because of the 89 earth quake where tile were falling off the ceiling at Candlestick during the battel of the bay world series. Both teams demanded a new stadium. The giants got one 1st with the Pacbell Park and the later the Niners got Levis Stadium. But the A's and Raiders needed a new Stadium also and the proposal with the A's moving to SJ (via Fremont) was the best proposal as all parties wanted expect for the whiney Giants. The A's would have prospered in SJ because guess what they have fans there too. But it looks like the A's will move.
As for Sac they may have the opportunity to get an expansion now that they kind of got put on the map with the Kings finaly making it in to the playoffs in a long time. But then again baseball has been in a decline in ratings and fan attendance in general (this was happening pre c-19) and this is why they added the pitch clock to move the game faster to keep fan interested. So i dont know if an expansion team in Sac would even help.
Also BTW most Giants fans are Raider fans and alot of Niner fans root for the A's so moving to Fremont would not matter much.
Montreal needs a mlb team
I hate it in all sports. Team wants a new stadium/arena, they don't get, team leaves,, city eventually gets a relocated/expansion team, and city builds the facility.
The Rangers got a new stadium even though the old one was less than 30 years old. Same thing with the Titans. White Sox and Orioles also want new digs and their homes aren’t very old, either. Madness…..
I find this subject endlessly fascinating. I absolutely love baseball, the game and the history is beautiful, but the business side of this sport makes me want to walk away sometimes. I think of all the fans and families that support these teams through the good times and the bad, and for generations sometimes - and then just like that we see a team up and leave a city, a fanbase. Its abhorrent.
Im from Baltimore, lifelong O's fan and just old enough to remember the Colts trucking out of town. And I feel bad for Cleveland too. Now we're seeing it unfold in Oakland...again! They are losing all their teams and two of them to Vegas?! Its just disgusting. That team has a proud fan base and they don't deserve it. I wish MLB would make the owner sell rather than leave the Bay area. But as we see the Comish has the owner's back in this case.
Don't blame THIS PROBLEM on the commissioner! Rather, The Commissioner WORKS FOR THE OWNERS. IFB BE DOESN'T HAVE AN OWNERS BACK, THAT WOULD BE A DAMNED GOOD REASON TO FIRE HIM!
Sorry, but us in the Carolinas are waiting for an opportunity to get a MLB team. It's nuts we don't have one yet considering Charlotte can already sustain a team and how fast the Carolinas are growing. Atlanta (who I love) shouldn't be the only option for the entire Southeast not counting Florida. Sorry but If you can't hold your team a place like Charlotte should have the opportunity to have one.
Oakland isn't a dying city, it's a city being systematically murdered by Leftist politics. A major league sports franchise can no longer make it there.
It will happen again it's about the money who could ever put up the best baseball stadium and bring in the most money for Major League Baseball is why those teams move the Brewers will be next
@@mikekeeler6362 And...? MLB is a BUSINESS. There'd have to be one awfully lucrative incentive for the "Brew Crew" to leave Milwaukee, with that stadium, fan base, and branding. Relocation of a franchise is often a way to SAVE it from going under. Look at what was happening to the three teams that left Boston, St. Louis, and Philadelphia, respectively, in the 1950s; those teams were financially on the ropes (the A's were in such awful shape that even in KC they were still a Yankee "farm" team", as selling off players to the Bronx Bombers was a reliable income stream for them). The Braves turned around their fortunes when they moved to Milwaukee, but once the "glory" days of the late 1950s were over, attendance declined precipitously. Atlanta was simply too good a market for ANY team to ignore, or at least good for a team that got it RIGHT. The Orioles were in effect reborn out of the ashes of the sad-sack franchise that had been the Browns that even huckster Bill Veeck (as in "wreck") couldn't save with all his promotions and shenanigans, including putting in a midget to bat. Later on, the Senators, themselves perpetual door mats that their "fans" hardly noticed ("first in war, first in peace, LAST in the American League"), left decaying Griffith Stadium, even though the then-new DC stadium (slated for demolition soon) was in the works for the greener pastures of Bloomington, MN, re-born as the "Twinks" (Twins). The second incarnation of the Senators proved as hapless as their predecessor, and likewise left town after eleven futile seasons, only one with an over .500 record, and became the Texas Rangers. Part of the reason MLB replaced the departing Senators was the proposed Continental League, which would have put a team in the Nation's capital, it was also the reason for the Los Angeles Angels, Houston Colt 45s (later Astros) and the infamous New York Mets and their initial 40-120 debut season. It would take until their eighth season for the Mets to be a winner, but "Amazingly", they won it all in '69. BTW, like the other major league sports, that came at the expense of a Baltimore team that was considered that year to be a "powerhouse" and heavily favored.
Excellent perspective! As a Giants fan who's bummed the A's are leaving I found this to be quite interesting. Looking forward to seeing your channel grow!
Up until the early 1950's, there were only 10 cities in the USA that had an MLB team, and all were in the Northeast or Midwest. Most of the population was in those regions of the USA. The South was mostly rural and considerably poorer than the northern USA, while the West was very sparsely populated, with only Los Angeles and San Francisco ranked among major USA cities. Teams traveled by train so coast--to-coast travel took more than two days before the widespread adoption of jet travel in the late 1950's.
In the past 70 years, both the West and the South have grown considerably in population and economic strength. For example, Phoenix, which barely had 100,000 people in 1950, is now the center of a huge metropolis that has over 5 million people and is around the 10th most populous metropolitan area in the USA. Texas is the nation's second-populous state (after California) while Florida, which barely had a million people a century ago, is now the nation's third most-populous state. Texas is also the state with the largest number of headquarter locations of large companies (a good proxy of its economic strength). Several large Southern metropolitan areas without MLB teams, like Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Nashville, Orlando, San Antonio, and Austin, have populations comparable to or greater than some metropolitan areas that have had MLB teams for over 100 years, like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and St. Louis.
All of the MLB teams in the South and West have arrived in those areas either by expansion to create new teams, or relocation of existing teams. If the leagues did not expand, then how can the regions of the USA with growing populations and economic vitality acquire new teams if some teams in the relatively stagnant or declining regions did not relocate?
How are they a waste of time?
Without relocations, or the threat thereof, team owners may not stay competitive, they'll lose more money, and they may end up staying in their rotten stadia. (If the team is going to stay, why should local government help pay money for a new stadium?)
Maybe we would see more teams sold to other ownership groups (good argument), or, maybe if Major League Baseball was not as successful in prior decades we might have seen teams actually fold.
But relocations, as painful as they can be for fan bases, push cities to invest in their teams (though maybe sometimes unfairly so). Oriole Park at Camden Yards was built to keep the Orioles. Safeco Field (T-Mobile Park) was built to keep the Mariners. As have many, many other stadia. None of that happens without the threat of relocation, and when it does (Milwaukee, Kansas City, Seattle, Washington), those cities will find a way to pay for what they lost. But there’s little motivation without relocation.
"Safeco Field (AT&T Park) was built to keep the Mariners" AT&T Park is the giants stadium
@@blakem2902 Yeah, wrong phone carrier company. I meant T-Mobile Park.
Milwaukee had no team from 1902-1952 The Browns were the original Brewers.
Oakland couldn't fill the seats with an existing loved team, so I don't think an expansion team would do any better.
Oakland and Montreal were both screwed by MLB,
The Giants wanted out of the Stick but SF won't help build a Stadium. San Jose steps up to the bar and Giants then asked MLB for the rights to Santa Clara County. MLB awards Santa Clara to the Gaints but the Gaints move to SoMa San Francisco instead. San Jose then offers the A's the same deal but the Gaints block it, claiming they own Santa Clara County even though they never moved there. MLB doesn't right the wrong.
Washington desperately wants a 3rd Crack at the bat. Toronto desperately wants to own all of Canada. A well-coordinated set of events moves the Expos to Washington. Toronto is then awarded Quebec and the Eastern Canadian territory. Later Tampa seeks approval to play half the season in Montreal. The commissioner approves the plan and tells the Rays to ask Toronto for territorial rights. Few months later the commissioner says he is against the plan. It's clear who actually blocked the plan. Again MLB doesn't right the wrong.
Milwaukee is tied with DC for losing two current MLB franchises. Most people know the Braves played there but they also lost the current Orioles when the Brewers became the Browns in 1902.
Oakland is different. Nothing will return to Oakland. Especially because San Francisco is across the bay with more successful franchises. Oakland is also a dump.
And SF is trending that way….
While I agree that Oakland should not lose their team, I highly doubt they would get a new one, if only because as others have pointed out, they are for all intents and purposes the same media market as SF, the Bay Area. Further, I know you've argued that Baltimore/DC are different media markets, and they may be more different than Oakland and SF, but at the end of the day if the Orioles moved, it would surprise me if they got a new team, at least anytime soon, because they'd just move the fans onto the Nationals in the area, very close geographically ignoring traffic. Hell, some people commute from Baltimore to DC at times so there's that.
As a die hard orioles fan, I can say with confidence that if we lost our team. The mlb would be dead to me and the majority of the fans here. Baltimore has already been screwed in the past with their teams. And I sure as hell will never EVER root for the nationals or any dc team for that matter.
True, i live in the bay (SJ) and have rooted for both but the only way Oakland would get a team if the A's do move is:
1) if they city holds onto the naming rights (they tried this with the Raiders but failed)
-or-
2) if some how the A's moved back like the raiders did after moving to LA.
No way will the MLB move an expansion team into Oakland. But maybe Sac could qualify but i highly doubt it.
mark my words, Tom Brady is Going to be the reason and maybe co owner of a new version of Montreal expos in the next 5-10 years. It just makes too much sense.
I think Montreal will also eventually getting its team back, just that another US based market are probably in their priority...
As for two team markets, now I'm worried about White Sox...
And for the Bay Area, unless there's a population boom there won't be an expansion team there, and even if there is, it's probably placed in San Jose or Fremont, not Oakland...
🤔🤔🤔
San Jose would have been perfect for the A’s (and by now, they’d probably be playing there), but the Giants blocked the move. Another reason why A’s fans hate the Giants even more then they already do.
Does the Windy City really need two baseball teams?
@@ricknibert6417
Depends, but I'm worried MLB and/or the White Sox owner might make the same move as the A's...
In their eyer rather than splitting one market to two teams, might as well funnel that into one team and move the second team to an empty market ..
🤔🤔🤔
No it wont. No team wants to move to Quebec with their bull crap.
There is no larger market to move to and its inconceivable that baseball would let Chicago without an American League team. The only potential would be Montreal
If MLB is going to put a team in a city not in the US, they should try Mexico City....huge support for Baseball there.
Of course playing games in MC will make playing in Colorado look like playing at Candlestick...If you know what I mean..offensive numbers would be thru the roof
This is actually a great idea. It then opens up over the next 50 years expansion to Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, etc.. I've been to Mexico City. Loved the altitude comment 😆
No way they go to Mexico City unless you want to see every fly ball hit is a HR
Mexico City is more of a soccer town. also 7,000+ feet up. Maybe Monterrey. Also closer to the U.S.
@@ErikPortland Agreed. Monterrey if MLB expands to Mexico will most likely get it first over MC.
Oakland and San Francisco are basically two teams in the same marker.... so your argument doesn't hold water.
The best comp for Oakland and San Francisco is Baltimore and D.C. They are two very different markets that happen to be near each other.
@@thetouchback not really, the ones that decided the TV market area decided that Oakland and SF are in the same market, along with San Jose, so the one comparable cities are probably LA, Anaheim, and Long Beach
🤔🤔🤔
Actually the Braves started in Boston
Bring back the Colonels. Believe it or not, people don't know precious Montreal isn't the only North American city to lose MLB and not get it back.
Oakland will never (in our lifetimes anyway) get an expansion team. First, its too close to the Giants. 2nd, it doesn't expand the baseball empire, 3rd, there's no stadium and its doubtful there ever will be one again. 4) There is zero support for public assistance. 5) there's little appetite from the city government to move heaven and earth as they did in the 60's. Others will try harder. For MLB its better to expand in a new market and over time, the A's fans who love baseball will follow the Giants.
The As were in Philly, KC,then Oakland since the 50s
I think Oakland probably should not have a Baseball team, and I'd rather see Portland or Vancouver get franchise than Las Vegas.
Portland / Vancouver Mariners territory
Could you tell that to Montreal?
Good video. But I don't think the Bay area can handle 2 teams anymore. Crime and mass exodus.
I cant take people serious that suggest expansion is an answer. Expansion hurts small market teams. Every time we create one new team that means dozens of guys that wouldnt make the cut the year prior are on the field in the show. Do it enough and you have whole teams comprised of players that shouldn't be pros and they all sooner or later are signed to small market clubs.
Seattle also got screwed by the NBA
I would rather have the A's mlb team in Philadelphia, PA because they were a better team than the Phillies.
Until the 40s and '50s when they basically became a Yankees farm club.
Our local summer league team is called the pilots after the brief stint they spent as the Seattle farm team
*The origin of the Mets colors!!* 🤯
Maybe they are just too many teams across all sports leagues.
Oakland isn't getting another team once the A's leave. It makes no sense to have two ballparks right across the bay from each other. The bay area is a big market, but not big enough for 2 teams.
What do you call Chicago then , two teams in that town
@@stewgotz1 Well, there's the North Side (Cubs) and the South Side (White Sox).
@@freezer8530 White Sox should move, since Chicago is declining in population, and there are several metropolitan areas that don't have teams that are larger than some metropolitan areas currently with a team. A consideration is to move the White Sox to Indianapolis, which wouldn't be far and would give Indiana an MLB team.
Mets, blue and orange on Pinstripes.
Took 5 years. 1958-62.
Underrated channel keep up the amazing work 🎉
Not a total waste of time. Relocating the Expo's to Washington allowed me to not watch baseball any more. I have saved loads of time by not following the game.
I heard that since the Vegas approval of SB1 only approves a ballpark and not a team there is a thought that John Fisher may be selling the A's to a local investor like Joe Lacob and buying the new expansion team.
I think Finley made a mistake to move from KC. Since he livedcin Chicago, it was easier for him to go to KC to watch A's games. And KC was gonna built a stadium for baseball only.
I must respectfully disagree on the As relocation being wrong. Oakland is racked by poverty and violent crime, and the last thing they need to spend money on is a new ballpark. And besides, why does the Bay Area need two MLB teams? They'd still have the Giants and yes, they're NL while the As are AL, but there's a reason why the only metro areas with a team in both leagues are the three largest in the United States (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago).
Also, the Mets didn't "just happen" to have the same colors as the Dodgers and Giants; they were chosen intentionally as an homage to NYC's two former NL teams.
As a Minnesotan, I saw the Vikings threaten, but stay, Twins threaten multiple times, and stay, and my beloved Northstars barely threaten and leave. It sucks.
Sure they speak mostly (but not entirely) French and it’s cold till mid-May in Montreal, but it’s also a lot bigger than several U.S. metro areas who have teams. At some point soon Montreal will get a new team if they can get a new stadium.
No chance Montreal gets a new team. There’s no new stadium. Olympic Stadium was a dump then and it’s still a dump now.
One issue if the A's leave Oakland is that because of the proximity to San Francisco, the giants might claim Oakland's to close like they did with San Jose when A's tried to move there a couple years ago.
You can forget about MLB ever coming back to Oakland. Maybe another SF area city like San Jose, but Oakland? No.
MLB is spread too thin as it is. I think the game is in serious trouble due to a lack of interest.
Love the old footage you found! 👏👏Great work here.
The Senators moved to Texas after 1971, not 1970.
DC has lost 4 teams, not 2.
Thanks for referring to Bud Selig as “some prick,” there’s no other way to describe him
yeah there is... adolph selig , your ass holiness, come to mind
It aways amazed me that such big cities like Boston, Philadelphia, st. Louis and New York could not support two or more teams
New York City supported three teams for decades.
The bay area IS a two team markets, though. The Giants would eat up any A's fans who weren't just sick of baseball.
Bring the A's to Portland Oregon. No realignment needed. Sweet Seattle rivalry. Some color scheme as the MLS's Timbers.
And all the junkies and tent cities one could ever hope for…..
Portland is a mess, so it shouldn't get a team.
Someone commented that the Astros and Rangers would not allow a third team in Texas, in either Austin or San Antonio, but if you look mapping distances, Portland is closer to Seattle than Arlington is from either Austin or San Antonio, and the average distance between Houston and Austin and San Antonio is greater. Thus, if the Astros and Rangers could block a third team in Texas, which has a population considerably greater than the combined population of Washington and Oregon, then the Mariners should be able to block a proposed team in Portland.
@@leeschaeffer3209 If another team is added to Canada, then Vancouver BC would be a better choice than Montreal. While that is around a three-hour drive from Seattle, it requires crossing an international boundary. People who don't have passports or citizens of one country who are not admissible to the other country, like people with felony convictions, could not travel between the two cities.
Relocation has always been such a weird concept to me you shouldn’t be able to just ditch the community and fanbase you’ve created could you imagine if a soccer club in Europe relocated its unthinkable
Soccer does have the curious case of AFC Wimbledon/MK Dons in which basically everyone turned out to be a major loser.
Just an opinion - let’s all wait to see how many fans come out when the A’s play in Sacramento?….
The real reason why Fisher has the A's It's because a Bud
It took less than 5 years for major league baseball to return to NY, not 8. MLB gained a new stadium in NY as the 2 they left were crumbling. The move to LA was also a total success.
PUT ONE on The Gulf Coast
If MLB wants another team in Northern California, they should look to Sacramento.
I don't think MLB wants another team in California.
It all comes down to new stadium and who funds. Majority of teams that are denied a stadium find several cities willing to build them a new stadium.
I remember when the Saint Louis Cardinals or the only team west of the Mississippi
I don’t think a team is going go back to Oakland