That whole Fred Wilpon trying to make Citi Field look like Ebbets Field thing got me thinking, "What would it be like if the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn?" For starters, the Mets wouldn't exist. But all the other franchise moves since probably wouldn't have happened either (at least not to the same cities). With all that in mind, it's time for a little revisionist history.
Since the three franchise shifts that preceded the Dodgers and Giants going to California had already happened, I'm not going to pretend they didn't. So, it's 1957, the Orioles have already moved to Baltimore, the A's have packed up and left Philadelphia for Kansas City, and the Braves have set up shop in Milwaukee. Here's where we start to change things. Walter O'Malley gets what he was asking for, Robert Moses stops blocking his every move, and the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn. However, the Giants already had one foot out the door. They were gone. They were all set to move to Minneapolis before O'Malley convinced them to go to San Francisco instead. Let's say they do move to Minnesota.
Now it's 1961 and the first round of expansion is set to begin. Four years earlier, the original Washington Senators were the other team in discussions to move to L.A. The Dodgers aren't there, so the Senators are the team that moves to L.A., becoming the Angels, which means the Angels are no longer an expansion team. The new Senators, the ones that became the Rangers, still join the American League, but they're joined by a companion team in San Francisco. The 1962 National League expansion still includes the Houston Astros, but with no need for a replacement team in New York, an expansion team in Atlanta joins them.
As a result, the Braves can't move to Atlanta and stay in Milwaukee. Likewise, with an American League team already in the Bay Area, the A's never leave Kansas City. The National League sees the success of the two American League teams in California, so instead of San Diego, the NL adds its own in L.A. to join Montreal. The AL still expands to Seattle, but the A's are still in Kansas City, which means the Royals never come into existence. With San Diego available as an expansion target, the Padres become an American League team instead. And the Braves are still in Milwaukee, which means the Pilots don't bolt the Pacific Northwest after just one season.
The Senators becoming the Rangers in 1972 still happens, but Washington doesn't have to wait 34 years for a replacement team. Instead, the new Senators join the American League with the Blue Jays in 1977. The four expansion teams in the '90s (Colorado, Florida, Arizona and Tampa Bay) aren't affected at all. The Brewers switched leagues when the Diamondbacks and Rays began play, so we'll move the same franchise.
The only remaining issue is what happens with the Expos. I'm not sure the National League would necessarily be dying to have a team in Oakland, especially with that stadium. But since they were able to figure out the stadium situation (and the Orioles' objections) to move them to Washington, we'll go ahead and put the Nationals in Oakland.
So, we still have all 30 teams in their current cities, but the division alignment is slightly different, as are (probably) some of the team names.
AL East: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays, Washington Senators
AL Central: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Athletics, Toronto Blue Jays
AL West: Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Seals, Texas Rangers
NL East: Atlanta Crackers, Brooklyn Dodgers, Florida Marlins, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates
NL Central: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, Houston Astros, Milwaukee Braves, Minnesota Giants, St. Louis Cardinals
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Los Angeles Stars, Oakland Klondikes, Seattle Pilots
There you have it. My vision of what the baseball landscape would look like if the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn. It's safe to say that things would've been a little different if Walter O'Malley hadn't moved his team cross country 50 years ago.
Interesting that, in this hypothetical, very little has changed in the grand scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteThough I would imagine that the Atlanta Crackers would have picked a better name somewhere along the line...
Excellent point, Drew. My guess is the derogatory nickname for white people would've been dropped sometime during the Civil Rights Era. Since all of Atlanta's other teams are named after birds, let's make them the Georgia Phoenix.
ReplyDeleteI Think the Atlanta team would be called the Generals, not only for Atlanta's involvement in the civil war but for the great locomotive chase, which started outside of Atlanta when Union spies stole a locomotive called "THE GENERAL". Theire mascot and logo however would be a modern day general instead of a civil war confederate general, or maybe a civil war general but with a different color uniform and no confederate insignias. The general's uniform in this case would be a red instead of gray. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteCan't imagine the Atlanta franchise would call itself the 'Crackers". Rebels would be a much better choice. As for Oakland, why would a sunny California city name itself after so ething associated with Alaska? Perhaps Tremors or Shippers (after the city's busy port) would be better.
ReplyDeleteI like the name Rebels for the Atlanta team, a contrast to New York's Yankees. Even better, maybe they'd beat the NHL and adopt the name Flames.
ReplyDelete