Ahh…with a neat look back at the Bill Freehan - Abbie Hoffman-like S.I. issue from ‘69.
It was a big deal at the time. As this terrific article from the 1969 Sports Illustrated baseball preview issue mentions, the four new teams altered the structure of major league baseball significantly.
“The final out of professional baseball’s first century occurred on a beautiful afternoon early last October at Busch Memorial Stadium in St. Louis when Bill Freehan of the Detroit Tigers moved gracefully under a foul fly near the first base dugout. He tapped his catcher’s mitt, caught the ball and in an instant was bearing the full weight of Mickey Lolich, the pitching hero in one of the more heartwarming comebacks in sport. It has been only six months since Freehan made the catch, and in just that short period of time baseball has undergone more changes than any other traditional game has ever endured.
This week the second century of professional baseball began, and instead of 20 teams there were 24. Instead of two leagues there were four divisions. One hundred players who were not good enough to make the major leagues in 1968 were suddenly prime properties. Nobody knows what kind of a season it will be because nobody has ever tried to get through a year like this one before. But there are the precedents of two recent seasons when two teams were added, and if what happened then is any measure for 1969 the elements for a spectacular year are present.”
The 1969 season also saw the lowering of the pitcher’s mound from 15 inches to 10 inches (and the arrival of Bowie Kuhn as commissioner, but that’s a whole other post). It was truly a season of change for many reasons, but none were more significant than the arrival of major league baseball in four new cities.
...Looking at the forty year histories of these four franchises, I think I’d have to say that the Royals have been the most successful of the four. With the only World Series win of the group, and the most postseason visits, the Royals dominated a good stretch of the ‘70s and ‘80s. However, that stretch coincided entirely with the peak of George Brett’s career, and the Royals haven’t been able to do too much since then. In recent years, the Padres have had more success than any of the other ‘69 expansion teams, though their immediate prospects have taken a big hit recently. The Brewers and Nationals hope to take over that mantle soon, but that may only be possible for one of those teams. However you cut it, though, the 1969 crop of expansion teams have added a significant amount of color to the annals of major league history, and helped pave the way for baseball as we know it today. For that, we can be quite thankful, even if we aren’t from any of these cities.
Repoz
Posted: March 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM |
56 comment(s)
|
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
General,
History
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Nice turn of phrase.
Mickey Lolich was the first to test and franchise the Elston Howard donut?
Add in the Class of '77, and you still get five titles for six teams, albeit with one that's never been to the big dance. I'd guess that Toronto is probably the most successful expansion team in the post-'68 era (same number of titles as Florida, more division championships), although someone who really wanted to push the Marlins for having the same number of world titles in a much shorter time would have a pretty good argument, too.
Funny that the 1969 expansion has had 1/2 the teams move (Seattle to Milwaukee and Montreal to Washington) while San Diego used to be subject to move talks too and KC is one of the smaller markets in MLB. I'd say that has to be viewed as the weakest expansion in MLB history as only one other expansion team has moved (Washington Senators II to Texas).
And then he ate it.
I wrote this up for my piece on 1968 for this year's THT Annual, but I cut it before the article went to press.
Kansas City’s desires were the easier to satisfy. The American League had deemed it necessary that they replace Finley’s vagabond Athletics with a new franchise. After a series of heated negotiations with Missouri’s Senator Stuart Symington and an extra-legal meeting of his owners, American League president Joe Cronin declared that his league would grant expansion franchises to Kansas City and a yet-unselected city so they might begin play in the 1969 season. National League owners countered this brazen power play by agreeing to expand their league to a dozen also, but they would only commit to moving forward “in an orderly manner” so that they would begin play “no later than 1971.” In January 1968, the American League, acting with much haste, if not wisdom, edged National League out of a desirable market, when it granted their other expansion franchise to the poorly-financed Seattle Pilots.
In April, the Lords of the Senior Circuit, in a bit of daze after losing Seattle, agreed to expand the league for the 1969 season but only if the new franchises could be chosen by unanimous consent. They immediately tabbed San Diego’s bid for a team, in no small part because former-Los Angeles Dodgers’ vice-president Buzzie Bavasi headed their organization and had a waiting 50,000-seat stadium. National League owners failed to come to unanimous consent on any of the most logical remaining locations for a franchise – Milwaukee, Dallas-Fort Worth and Buffalo. Houston’s owner Judge Roy Hofheinz refused to grant the league access to his personal fiefdom of Texas and Atlanta’s Bill Bartholomay spitefully vetoed Milwaukee’s bid even though he had absconded from his former-marriage to the city with all the assets. By default almost, National League owners passed over the under-funded Buffalo group, headed by former Cincinnati Reds owner Bill DeWitt, in favor a well-capitalized but disorganized contingent from Montreal. The National League’s decision to maintain their supremacy by securing their dominance in Southern California and “capturing” the Canadian market, to say nothing of the alliances of millions of Mexican nationals and Quebecois, proved too smart by half. The rickety San Diego and Montreal franchises toddled along for the next thirty years, alternating between respectability and bleakness, until the man who headed the twice-neglected Milwaukee contingent saved them (sort of).
Expansion matters still hung fire into the summer of 1968, however. Feeling their oats, the American League refused to compromise on its plan to split their league into two divisions, while playing a 156 game schedule. “You can’t sell a 12th-place team,” explained A.L. president Cronin. Spearheaded by traditionalists, like league president Warren Giles and Chicago Cubs owner Philip K. Wrigley, National League owners refused to countenance the Junior Circuit’s plan. “Baseball is built on history and tradition,” said Giles, “and we do not believe that the public will accept a World Series contender that might have had the third or fourth-ranked record in its league.” Analogizing, Giles concluded that the proposed divisional setup “was like running a mile race and winning it – and then being told that you have to run another 100 yards to decide the real winner.” By the end of June, however, a group of National League owners forged a compromise by conceding to a divisional alignment in return for a162- game schedule. They yielded one-hundred years of tradition to guarantee the attendance revenues for three extra home dates and mitigate the revenue that might be lost by team that spent an entire seasons hopelessly out of contention. In the end, baseball’s agents of change had outmaneuvered the sport’s forces of orthodoxy, just as the agents of the establishment across the world had been outflanked, and forced them to accept a series of new, uncertain and even chaotic arrangements.
Ah, the lovely brown SD uniforms!
After struggling in the early going to find a temporary home (Jarry Park) and additional capital (Seagram's Charles Bronfman), the franchise became one of the more solid one in the NL from the early 1970s until the late 1980s. Attendance was great and the team was competitive. The downward spiral started when Bronfman decided to sell in 1989, and couldn't find anyone to buy the team. He sold the team because it had failed to produce a Series-winning club, and he saw long-term economic trends as being unfavorable to Montreal, which was battered economically by Toronto starting in the early 1970s. Bronfman helped piece together a group of small local investors led by his former right-hand man Claude Brochu, but they were chronically under-funded and tried to win on the cheap. It almost worked in 1994, but when the strike failed to resolve growing exconomic disparities, the group owners threw in the towel, trading away star players to keep enough cash flow to operate the team. They sought new investors, and ended up (on Bud Selig's recommendation) letting the fox (Jeffrey Loria) into the chicken coop in 1999. The rest is well documented.
How was this an issue Anthony? The NL had been already been playing a 162-game schedule since the 1962 season (one year after the AL). Was it somehow scheduled to be pared back, but never happened due to expansion negotiations?
C Arnholt Smith picked out the colors himself.
Also, why were Atlanta and Cincy put in the West and Chicago and St. Louis put in the East? That really messed with my mental map of the U.S. as a kid, as for awhile I thought Atlanta must be west of Louisiana somewhere.
The original plan was not to have divisions based on geography. The Mets wanted either the Dodgers or the Giants in the same division, but that was ruled out. So the divisional setup was a compromise. The NL also wanted the divisions to be of relatively equal strength. I think some owners wanted to rebalance the divisions every few years but that never happened. I have the SPorting News article on this lying around somewhere. It was actually in my office for months.
Exactly. The AL had approved a 2-division, with a 156-game schedule. Each team would have played their divisional opponents 18 times each and the other division's teams 11 times. The White Sox and Twins both objected, since were slated to move to the West and would be forced to play half their divisional games with 9 pm local start times (plus other reasons). Chicago and Minnesota maintained league solidarity though, even though the Sox tried to win a 154-game balanced schedule.
The NL wanted zero divisions and the current 162 game schedule. Keeping the longer schedule was a key for several important owners, including O'Malley and the Dodgers, since the drew well. On June 26, 1968, the two leagues compromised, adding the divisions but keeping the 162 game schedule.
Well, other than the last line, which was to an extent a throwaway sentence to conclude the paragraph, I really haven't got the story wrong. Remember, I was only writing a single paragraph on why the NL went with MON and SD over other choices. So, I couldn't go into a great deal of depth. You may quibble with the term rickety, but, in fact, when it got the franchise Montreal had neither enough investors nor a stadium to play in.
And Montreal was far from the most desirable location for a franchise. It In April 1968, the NL drew up a list of "requirements" for their prospective franchises: minimum ball park size, sound financing, farm systems . . . These "requirements" made it nearly impossible for any cities other than San Diego and Milwaukee to be considered. However, when Bartholomay and one other vetoed the wishes of the other eight NL owners, the NL was forced to scramble. So, the choice of Montreal was "unexpected" at the time since, with less than 11 months to Opening Day, it did not have a ball park that met MLB specifications.
Further, Montreal's financial backing was tremendously rickety from the very beginning. The NL tabbed a Montreal ownership grouped headed by well-heeled investor Jean-Louis Levesque and backed by the others including Charles Bronfman, the head of Seagrams. As problems with planned conversions to the Autostade mounted and proposed costs soared, Levesque dropped out. By the end of 1968, Bronfman had concocted a consortium of ten equal partners (and a seven-man management group) who each put up $1.2 million. The only one of these investors familiar with baseball was John McHale, whom major league baseball was lobbying to become commissioner. As the problems with the Expo Autostade mounted, some of these owners became convinced, and noted it publicly, that the team was destined for an early bankruptcy.
Only the sharp mind of Montreal's mayor Jean Drapeau saved the franchise. Drapeau promised that the city could aid in adding 27,000 seats to 3,000 seat, publicly-owned Jarry Park after mid-August 1968 to make it MLB "ready" by Opening Day 1969.
That's what I alluded to when I said "there were still a lot of strings untied (including the lack of a stadium and a need for more investors)." Shortly after Montreal was awarded a franchise, things came to a head because the financial package was incomplete, and there was no stadium for the team to play in. To force Montreal to resolve these outstanding isues, the NL gave them an ultimatum, and threatened to pull the franchise in case of failure.
Buffalo was another candidate city, but their stadium situation was not any better: the AAA Bisons played in a run-down stadium in a downwardly-mobile part of town. Things were so bad that a lot of games were moved to a class-A ballpark in Niagara Falls, as fans were literally too scared to go to games (this was the riotous summer of 1968). The Bisons collapsed early in the 1970 season and ironically were bought out by the Expos, who moved the team to Winnipeg so that it could play out the season.
(1) Given how low Series ratings have gone, it's entirely possible that Giles was right re/ "3rd or 4th-ranked record in its league." Most people probably don't regard the two teams in the Series as the best two teams in baseball. They're probably right, more often than not.
(2) And clearly he's right about the second thing.
The nitty-gritty of business and marketing meets abstract notions of competitive purity and sports idealism, I suppose.
First, what a dick move by Bartholomay. What was his reasoning? Bitter grapes?
Second, if the Milwaukee Brexpos are born here, where do the Seattle Pilots go to when they fail? Presumably, Montreal got lucky here and could very well get passed over...who knows, Dallas?
I think that reasoning is pretty low on the list of reasons why World Series ratings are down.
Second, if the Milwaukee Brexpos are born here, where do the Seattle Pilots go to when they fail? Presumably, Montreal got lucky here and could very well get passed over...who knows, Dallas?
Yea, I say Dallas. And the Senators end up moving to...Seattle?
I was reacting to the word "ricketty", because I read too many articles around 2004 stating theEexpos were doomed from the start and "Montreal did not know about baseball before the Expos moved in". Neither is true, and I react badly whenever I read something that hints at these two falsehoods.
By then, everyone knew it was fait accompli that the Expos were goners. It was one of the saddest non-mortality-related things I've witnessed in my life. A kid deprived of his baseball team. It ain't right.
As you note, the NFL can (assuming the NFL's modern era begins in the 50s or 60s).
I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards - those cities rightly abandoned the XFL.
From what I've read the financial concerns surrounding those two clubs were pretty legit.
I just learned today that there are no less than three professional football leagues planning to start up in the next three years. In this economy. I'm not sure there is a toilet large enough to flush all that money away.
'Cause really, for all purposes you might as well make that number four.
Los Angeles
Yes. The NFL and MLB are the same: They both have one abandoned city.
Yea, forgot about them. There is also the United Football League, the USFL v.2.0 (this time it counts!!!) and the All-American Football League made up of has-been college football stars of major conferences. It would be fun if the All-American Football League played the XFL in a "Good vs. Evil Bowl". The AAFL could have cheerleaders covered in 1950s skirts to their ankles, while the XFL cheerleaders could be in lingerie. The AAFL guys drink milk, the XFL promotes steroid use. It could be a lot of fun.
Ah, got it. I thought you meant the NFL "can" claim to have abandoned no cities.
I would suggest that the modern era of the NBA began with the merger, so St. louis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Syracuse, and Buffalo don't count. But Seattle* and Vancouver do.
*Oklahoma City Thunder? Seriously??
edit: San Diego counts. Forgot about the Clippers.
Ahhh, sweet memories.
the other party line for many years was that Joan Payson & M. Donald Grant INSISTED that the Mets be in the same division as the Cards--who were 2-time defending NL champs and a big draw--and then the Cards insisted that the Cubs had to be in their division also..and so we ended up with St Looie & Chicago in the east & Atlanta in the west by default
what I've never understood is why the Mets had any pull at all--remember this was 1968
I guess it had to do with the "importance" of having a successful franchise in NYC (or that belief anyway)
What would they be based on?
Capitol Coastal Central Century
the coastal had Baltimore, LA, Atlanta, SF
yeah OK--Coastal--both coasts
and Dallas was in the Capitol (and so were the Saints sometimes)
Neither's Baltimore, really. Bays are okay, but they ain't oceans.
You know what you are talking about, so I certainly didn't mean to sound snippy. From the mid-1970s on, the Expos were a well-run franchise, who suffered from problems in the game that were mostly beyond their abilities to solve. And, it's not from a lack of trying or a forlorn cry of "unfair competition." The Expos farm system of the mid-1970s to late-1970s is one of the half dozen greatest development engines in the game's history. I would think that the talent generated by the late-80s to early-90s teams would have to be considered one of the better periods in the last fifty years also.
From what I've read the financial concerns surrounding those two clubs were pretty legit.
Both clubs were profitable. Whether this was sustainable is up to debate (the Giants weren't drawing anybody), but I think it's fairest to say that while both teams had their reasons to go, they had reasons to stay too. Which is why we're still talking about this 50 years later.
From what I've read the financial concerns surrounding those two clubs were pretty legit.
Where have you read that?
The Giants and Dodgers would have done just fine financially had they remained in NYC. They chose to go to California, and do at least as well (in the Dodgers' case, almost certainly do better), but there was nothing wrong with the New York market they were leaving.
From the 1970 Sporting News Official Baseball Guide:
"'Threatening weather' was the excuse given for the postponement of a game in the International League July 19 [1969], even though the sun was shining in warm, clear weather. It seems that the Buffalo players had refused to play unless crowd control improved at War Memorial Stadium, scene of an invasion and robbery of the club's locker room by a gang of hoodlums the previous night. The stadium is situated in the midst of a troubled area and fans are reluctant to go there at night. For this reason, Buffalo had transferred most of its home games to Niagara Falls. A gang had forced its way at knifepoint into the clubhouse and stole money, gloves, and cigarette lighters. The chief valuables of the players were not obtainable because, as per custom, these were locked up in drawers before the game. As George Woodson, the Bisons' player prepresentative said, 'Nobody wants to play here.'"
#54 is also a classic.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main