From the linked UPI article:

The biggest mass move since the Giants and Dodgers pulled up stakes together will be completed within the next 30 days when the Milwaukee Braves officially transfer their franchise to Atlanta and the Cleveland Indians shift to Seattle.

There are NO ifs, ands, or buts about the two switches which it was learned will be consummated almost simultaneously around Oct. 15...

I wasn't aware the Indians' proposed move to Seattle was ever that close to actually happening. My first thought after reading the article was that if it had happened, I wouldn't have grown up a Tribe fan and maybe I'd get to see my favorite team a World Series championship at some point in my life.

Then I realized if there was no baseball in Cleveland, I'd have grown up a Pirates fan.

Well, the Pirates won a couple WSes in the '70s, wore cool unis and had funny caps.

Yeah, that's true. I was born in '75 so I'd have been alive for a WS win. I just would have been too young to remember it, like my dad (born in '44) and Cleveland's 1948 World Series win.

So you missed the glory days and were coming of age as a fan during the Rod Scurry/Dave Parker drug scandals. Sorry.

Never heard about that Indians shift either. I think this was also about the same time Charlie Finley was flirting with Dallas/Fort Worth, Seattle, and Louisville.

If Seattle got the Indians in 1964, where would Jim Bouton have spent much of the 1969 season? What expansion franchise would Bud Selig have moved to Milwaukee?

An Indians move to Seattle likely would have made the Athletics relocate to a place other than Oakland, as the American League would then have had its second team on the West Coast to complement the Angels. Where Finley might have gone after that is uncertain; had it been Dallas-Fort Worth, Bob Short would then have needed to find another place to relocate Senators II if, as Shelby Whitfield alleges in his book "Kiss It Boodbye," that was his plan from day one. The A's in Louisville might have been intriguing, just as if the NL had selected Buffalo over Montreal for its '69 expansion.

Assuming the Seattle Indians didn't have the same financial problems that doomed the Pilots, and eventually got a suitable stadium, it might have worked out well (except for folks in Cleveland, however).

If Seattle got the Indians in 1964, where would Jim Bouton have spent much of the 1969 season?

I would think Milwaukee--then maybe Selig never buys the Brewers and we currently live in a vastly reconfigured universe.

Or, maybe, the expansion franchise gets put in Cleveland.

There is a book called Play it Again, a McFarland book, which asks a series of "What-If" questions by era and has them "answered" by various people in and around the game. James and Neyer do a couple, other historians, broadcasters, a few players. It is not a bad book, but there could be a much better baseball "what if" book written. One of the interesting ones in that book is a scenario where Sandy Koufax gets Tommy John Surgery (which is of course called "Sandy Koufax Surgery") and pitches until 1977. The guy writes it up like an "article"--clever stuff, if a bit syrupy.

One of the interesting ones in that book is a scenario where Sandy Koufax gets Tommy John Surgery (which is of course called "Sandy Koufax Surgery") and pitches until 1977. The guy writes it up like an "article"--clever stuff, if a bit syrupy.

I'm fairly certain that Koufax retired because of arthritis in his pitching elbow/arm, not any type of ligament damage. I could be wrong however; I have a lot of righteous work to do today and don't have time to research the question.

I would think Milwaukee--then maybe Selig never buys the Brewers and we currently live in a vastly reconfigured universe.

I thought Selig was behind the ownership group attempting to land a Milwaukee expansion franchise in 1969 and ended up buying the Pilots when that plan failed. If so, we end up with Seligula either way.

I never heard this but there are all sorts of franchise relocations that just missed happening. Giants to Toronto in the mid 70s before the courts stopped it. San Diego to Washington after the Senators left. New York tried to get teams like Phillies and Pittsburgh to relocate before they got the Mets expansion. There are stories the American League had a meeting scheduled on December 8, 1941 to discuss moving the Browns to Los Angeles but Pearl Harbor happened the day before.

I guess the economic survey told Paul it wasn't a good move. Charlie Finley, on the other hand, told his consultants "Tell me to move to Oakland". Missouri senator Stuart Symington said Oakland was the unluckiest city since Nagasaki.

If Milwaukee had gotten a franchise in 1969, which seems like, than wouldn't Seligula et al have been the likely owners?

So, Batgirl is tweeting.

There's a good Hardball Times article from a few years ago reimagining MLB expansion.

It's been proven to my satisfaction that the Dodgers and Giants had sufficient economic reason to move west. Is there a good argument for the Braves or Athletics staying in Boston and Philadelphia? I can see the former maybe but not the latter.

Also, being a South Florida resident and baseball fan, I vividly remember the countdown to the Tampa Bay Giants. I think the Tampa Bay White Sox was before my baseball awareness, though.

It's been proven to my satisfaction that the Dodgers and Giants had sufficient economic reason to move west. Is there a good argument for the Braves or Athletics staying in Boston and Philadelphia? I can see the former maybe but not the latter

Though as to that, two teams are doing fine in NYC right now, and most people admit a third would do fine there if the powers weren't aligned against it. Very few people propose adding another club in Boston or Philly, even with the recent success of both their current franchises.

The Dodgers and Giants were impelled West not because New York was too small/crowded as that LA and the Bay were too temptingly large/empty.

Though as to that, two teams are doing fine in NYC right now, and most people admit a third would do fine there if the powers weren't aligned against it.

Sure. I just meant at the time.

I wonder what would have happened to the Giants and Dodgers had they stayed in New York. The Dodgers would probably always have a ballpark in Brooklyn. The Giants couldn't have stayed in Manhattan, would they be out in Queens now? Maybe North Jersey?

I think the Tampa Bay White Sox was before my baseball awareness, though.

The Tampa Bay White Sox was a real possibility up until the late '80s or so, when (White Sox fan) governor Jim Thompson twisted enough arms to get a new stadium built. For a while, when it looked like the stadium plan would fail, the White Sox were basically saying good-bye.

The White Sox were also involved in potential moves to Milwaukee and Seattle. The ownership groups in the '60s and '70s were horribly broke, and they were constantly testing the waters. During the 1968 and 1969 seasons, the White Sox played a bunch of "home" games in Milwaukee, and those games did very well. Before Selig purchased the Pilots, he made an effort to purchase the White Sox, but the American League blocked the move, because they didn't want to give up the Chicago market

Another idea floated a few years later was the White Sox moving to Seattle, and the A's moving to Chicago. But Bill Veeck bought the team and scotched the idea.

Also, being a South Florida resident and baseball fan, I vividly remember the countdown to the Tampa Bay Giants. I think the Tampa Bay White Sox was before my baseball awareness, though.

There was also talk of the Tampa Bay Indians and the Tampa Bay Mariners was supposedly thwarted by the 1995 Mariners season.

There was also the Carolina Twins had they approved a stadium initiative in the NC Triad.

The A's tried to move to Denver once under Finley, but couldn't get out of their lease in Oakland.

There were the teams that tried to land the MLB-held Expos - Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, Norfolk, VA, Portland and Monterrey, Mexico.

Its also interesting to think about the never-were expansion franchises. I still remember the press conference by the Orlando franchise that had hired Bob Boone as its manager.

1993 Expansion Applicants: Buffalo, Charlotte, Denver, Miami, Nashville, Orlando, Phoenix, Sacramento, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and Washington, D.C

1998 Expansion Applicants: Buffalo, Mexico City, Monterrey, Nashville, Northern Virginia, Orlando, Phoenix, St. Petersburg and Vancouver

In the late 1940's, when St. Louis had both the Browns and Cardinals, the Cardinals seriously considered moving to Houston, and almost were sold to owners wanting to move them to Milwaukee. Amazing considering the Cardinals were the most successful MLB team of the 1940's, and much more popular in St. Louis than the Browns.

I think the Braves drawing 281,278 fans their last season in Boston permanently finished any ideas of a second team in Beantown. How empty the stands at Braves Field must be been in the summer of '52!
Apparently in the 1950s Horace Stoneham and the Giants tied their fortunes to O'Malley and the Dodgers. Their games were about the only ones which drew at the Polo Grounds. The Giants were still profitable, despite last place in attendance, because of TV money. When O'Malley decided to leave, Stoneham did too, although he announced first.
There was talk of building a stadium on the west side of Manhattan where the Jets wanted to build one a few years ago. Or even more into Yankee stadium, reversing the owner-tenant relationship of 50 years earlier. But you never hear much talk about the Giants going to Flushing, like Robert Moses wanted the Dodgers to do.
A few years ago people said the Eagles number five running back got more attention than the whole Phillies team. That may be more even now with their success. But it doesn't sound like a recipe for moving a team in.

Rob Neyer has something interesting in his book on baseball dynasties that if in 1932 you told people in Philadelphia that one of their teams would move in 20 years, everyone assumed it would be the Phillies. The A's were the successful team the first third of the 20th century. But the Carpenters (DuPonts) bought the team, the A's faltered because of the depression, no farm system, no blacks, and when Connie Mack died, they were moved. Perhaps unwisely, Donald Sterling and the NBA Clippers have proven you can be successful financially as a small fish in a big market instead of the only fish in a small market like San Diego.

Was Stoneham first planning to move to Minneapolis? Then after O'Malley couldn't get his stadium deal, swapped the Minneapolis rights to the Red Sox for the San Francisco Seals?

Greg Goosen, why can't you just post like that all the time?