The Lost Baseball Teams.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2024
- During the first half of the 20th century, there were three teams that shared a city with other teams, The St. Louis Browns, Boston Braves, and Philadelphia Athletics. This is the story of their demise.
As a kid, I saw the great Satchel Paige pitch for the Browns. He kept arguing with the umpire to clean off home plate. I think he wanted the hitters to think he couldn't see! My uncle gave my brothers and I tickets to a Browen's double-header. It's like the old joke: First Prize-tickets to a Browns game. Second Prize-tickets to a Brown's double-header!
Sorry pet peeve about speaking the English language. It’s “my uncle gave my brothers and ME…”. Not I
Growing up in Bucks County and being a Phillies fan, I was so jealous of my dad when he would tell me stories of going to A’s and Phillies games. My dad was 19 when the A’s left, but I was so jealous he got to see Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Hank Greenberg from the AL and then be able to see Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner from the NL, let alone the home town guys like the Whiz Kids.
For all the talk about how inter league play would provide that opportunity of seeing players from all teams, the fact is there are too many teams and the teams visit so rarely, here in Philly we don’t get to see the Ohtanis and Trout and Judges very often, and not only that, it limits how often we get to see the NL stars.
Starting with bus selfie and continuing now, the owners and commissioner are ruining the major league game
And let's not forget the old Washington Senators, the second team in a one-team town.
Indeed, and they were the second go round with the name as an expansion team, and twice as bad. Remember the old saying "First in war, first in peace, and last in the American Leauge.
@@prausch65 The motto of the St. Louis Browns used to be"First in booze, first in shows and last in the American League."
"...in shoes..."
@@prausch65 Their last game was one of three American League forfeits in 1970s, the
others were 10 cent beer night in Cleveland and Disco Demolition night in Chicago.
They're kinda still the second team in a one-team town. Minneapolis may go out to see the Twins, but if you cut us, we bleed Vikings purple.
4:34/ Fun fact: Connie Mack came up with the elephant logo for the Philadelphia Athletics. The reason? JOHN MCGRAW! During one of the earlier World Series meetings between the A's and the New York Giants, McGraw told a newspaper reporter HERE COMES THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM! Finding out that it was a derogatory statement towards his team, Mack decided to have white elephant patches sewn onto the sleeves of the A's uniforms! They went on to beat the Giants, and the logo stayed as a good luck charm courtesy of Ole Connie Mack...🇵🇷🇺🇸😉
My left ear is really enjoying this video
Jamie Fryer ok I thought my headphones were broken😂😂
The A's fared no better the entire time in Kansas City than their final years in Philadelphia.
Fucking whiner
Thank you! I thought it was just me.
Imagine what New York fans had to endure losing both the Dodgers and Giants the same year when they were both top-notch teams. Brooklyn had been in the World Series just one year prior to their last in NY.
gatesbrown26 Losing the Dodgers can be blamed squarely on NY city commissioner Robert Moses. The Dodgers owner had a design and location in place for a domed stadium, could pay for its construction and the city wouldn’t agree to the construction. In the case of the Giants, it was just the opposite. The city wanted to keep them but the owner only saw dollar signs in leaving for SF.
Yes, however they would love to lose the Mets.
Would have been a conundrum if The Dodgers had stayed but The Giants had left? Could Giant fans root for The Dodgers or Yankees?
As much as the METS are loved, their ownership sucks so badly that it truly is hard being a METS fan.
Actually the Dodgers won their only World Series title in Brooklyn in 1955, two years before they played their last season.
The Kansas City A 's were the unofficial farm team of the New York Yankees during the 1950s. The Yankees getting Roger Maris and many of their other star players from that team for practically nothing.
They returned to being the unofficial farm team of the rich clubs in the mid 90s.
And for the record, the A's were in KC for only 12 years, from 1955 to 1967. And the Royals have been in KC since 1969, 52 years and counting.
I guess Im asking randomly but does anybody know a trick to log back into an Instagram account??
I stupidly forgot the password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.
@Christian Otto Instablaster =)
@Nash Russell I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im trying it out now.
Seems to take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
This video makes me appreciate my buccos have stayed in Pittsburgh for over 100 years. Through the thick n thin and we’ve had plenty of both!!
My Uncle Myron "Red" Hayworth was the Brown's 1944 catcher. He was the only rookie catcher to catch all games of a world series ... until broken by Buster Posey.
The irony is that the Boston Braves made it to the World Series in '48 (four seasons before they left) and were in two World Series only five and six years afterwards, in
Milwaukee. During the same time, the Red Sox went twenty years before making it
to the Series again: last one in '46 until the next, in '67.
The Red Sox were the team of the effete intellectuals, crooked politicians, and working class drunks. The Braves were the team of decent middle class families.
To me Lou Perini didn't know the first thing about running a team. He chose to wave the white flag instead of rebuilding the team into a contender. He'd've been better off selling the Braves to someone else who knew to run a team and keep them in Boston.
What’s the irony?
What should have been stated was the massive economic pressure upon Mr. Mack when the ravages of the 1930s Depression had its effect. Red Sox owner, Tom Yawkey (who had a great personal fortune) bought several of his stars, Foxx & Grove.
The Browns did win the AL pennant in '44, but lost to their park-mates, the Cardinals in the World Series. Yes, they shared the same park: the schedule-maker had to have one team on the road and the other at home, at all times.
As did the Phillies and the A's from mid-1938 until 1954. Both teams played at Shibe Park after the Phils vacated Baker Bowl.
There were so many old lost teams, Worcester Ruby Legs, Baltimore Orioles, Washington Senators
Orioles...?
+Ohm's Law 1900 teams
Those Orioles are currently known as the New York Yankees
Cesar.....Muchas Gracias .....Es La Verdad.
César Cabrera That was the original AL Baltimore Orioles. There was also an NL Baltimore Orioles
Bill Veeck had more to do with the Browns moving to Baltimore more than declining attendance. He actually wanted to move the team back to Milwaukee. The other owners blocked him and the Braves moved there first, so he ended up selling to Baltimore instead.
One reason for the A's move was because one of Connie Mack ' s sons sold out. Reportedly, Mack was heartbroken.
My dad went to some Browns games in 1951-52 when he was stationed in the Army and Bill Veeck owned them. Once Gussie Busch and Budweiser bought the Cardinals, there was no chance Veeck could compete financially, so he had to get out of town.
Ironically, they would have moved to LA if the War had not intervened.
The Browns probably had the most inept ownership ever, they could have got Branch Rickey to run the team, they spent money on Sportsman's park, which was more advantageous to the Cardinals that rented from them
JStarStar00 funny thing was that the Browns actually owned the stadium and the Cardinals rented from them. They shared it and if I remember correctly it was called Sportsman’s Park before the Cards changed it to Busch Stadium.
@@smscamp3016 The Browns had Branch Rickey, but let him go to the Cardinals. Branch Rickey had played for the Browns and then had a none playing role with the Browns I think from 1911-1917 according to the Society for Baseball Research. His role was initially as kind of a mixture of a scout and GM. He also managed them from 1913-1915. By 1916 he was the Browns vice-president and business manager, (the later is like a GM today). He was an early stat freak and he clashed with others who thought his approach was too intellectual or theoretical. Evidently he also clashed with Phil Ball who bought the Browns in the Summer of 1915, who was contemptuous over his approach to the game and Branch's religious views. A new ownership group of the Cardinals convinced the Browns to let Branch leave the Browns and join the Cardinals becoming their president. If things had somehow worked out and Branch stayed with the Browns and then developed the farm system with the Browns ...
@@mikewiedenkofer3546 You're right about that.
No love for the Seattle Pilots here????
It's for "lost teams" of the 50's.
I wouldn't say that the Pilots are a "lost team", since they were only in Seattle for a year.
the Seattle pilots became the Milwaukee brewers afterwards
the Seattle pilots became the Milwaukee brewers afterwards
No, Pat. None.
Right you are. Veeck wanted to drive the Cardianls out of town. The Browns also owned the Ballpark the Cardinals played in. The Cardinals owner was convicted of massive tax evasion in 1952 and looked like the team that was going to leave. He sold the team to Anheuser-Busch and the Browns ended up leaving.
It would've been so bad for St. Louis if the Cardinals had left and we were stuck with the terrible Browns instead. To lose the team with the winning history for the team that was nothing but perennial losers would've been terrible.
@joemckim1183 though after the Browns moved they won a few world series in Baltimore and coincidentally the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and then won 2 Superbowls .
@@joemckim1183 The history of the Cardinals makes them one of the elite franchises.
@@quigon6349 The last time the Orioles went to the World Series was 1983 when Joe Altobelli was their manager and Cal Ripken was shortstop. From 1954 until then, the franchise rose to the top pretty quickly thanks to Paul Richards and the Hoffberger ownership. They became one of the more winning franchises during those years.
After Hoffberger sold the franchise in 1985, the Orioles fortunes took a downward turn until this year. They often played more like the old Browns did. They started 1988 the season 0-21, and lost 107 games for the worst record that season. There were more seasons at the bottom of the well to come.
When Edward Bennett Williams owned the team there was much concern that he wanted and would move the team to Washington D.C. Williams spent lots of his money bringing in players whose careers were winding down like Freddy Lynn and others hoping to win the big one again.
By 1988. Williams had died. He had bought the Orioles for 12 million dollars. Eli Jacobs bought the team paying the Williams estate 70 million dollars. Jacobs soon went bankrupt owing money he could not pay to radio stations and others and was forced to sell the team. Sports writers thought the had no interest in winning or losing and had bought the team just to entertain the D.C. high rollers and other crooks.
The ownership of Peter Angelos has been for the most part disappointing with the Sporting News calling him in 2009 one of the worst owners in baseball. Angelos, however, is not without his defenders.
@@Diosprometheus I agree and it woud've been a shame if they moved to Houston or wherever instead of staying here in St. Louis. The Browns would just be a small market team like the Royals or Pirates who most seasons are below .500 with a tiny payroll if they were still the St. Louis team. St. Louis isn't the biggest city compared to New York or Chicago but the support that the city does give the Cardinals allows them to compete as if they're a bigger city. I don't know if the city would support the Browns to that same extent.
This is a great show, just watching the old clips is interesting.
I really wouldn't call the Boston Braves and Philadelphia Athletics lost teams, mainly because they retained their nicknames so as a result they still carry that history and legacy with them.
The Browns are a lost team for that reason, so are the Washington Senators and Seattle Pilots.
True in one respect, but the cities that once rooted for them, now have nothing, except an expansion franchise.
prausch65 Fans in Boston and Phillie still have teams that aren't expansion teams though.
Happened to the Washington Senators twice. After 1960 when the 1st Senators shipped up to Minnesota to become the Twins. Then after 1971 when the 2nd Senators shipped south to Texas to become the Rangers.
=Kyle Funderburk and St Louis has the Cardinals which is also not an expansion team and one of MLB's most storied franchises.
Kyle Funderburk exactly but due to low attendance and there stadiums falling apart the A's could make a return to philly
The Montreal Expos are a lost team.
Indeed they are thanks for posting
prausch65 No problem
.
+The Orange Guy Hi ,I uploaded Fenway Park Boston 1981 a photo montage of an exhibition game between the red sox and Expos in the baseball strike seson of 1981. Bill Lee pitched for the Expos.
+The Orange Guy What about the Washington Senators?
The sad irony for the Browns was that in the early 1920s, they were THE big St. Louis team. They just missed out on the 1922 pennant to the Yankees by one game. So, Management expanded the capacity of Sportsman's Park. Owner Phil Ball predicted the park would house a World Series by 1926. He was right, except that it was his tenant, the Cardinals, who beat the Yankees in the Series.
The Browns had Rickey, and they pissed him off. So he went to the Cardinals. Had Rickey stayed put, the Browns would still be in STL.
From 1946 to 1952, The St. Louis Browns drew over a million in attendance. In 1953 the Brown drew over 800,000. A slight decline but a good number compare to other major league teams. . The year they drew only 80,000 was the heart of the depression in 1931. Now from 1946 to 1953 they were highly successful in attendance but not on the field. The fact of the matter the city of St. Louis did support both teams. These so called historian are wrong. Go Brownies
According to baseball-almanac.com., in 1953 the Browns drew 297,238 fans, an average of 3860 per game. Meanwhile the Cardinals drew 880,242 fans, an average of 11,432 per game.
Loved the documentary. I have a book named Lost Ballparks and has ALL former stadiums. Great book.
THE A's WERE THE ONLY TEAM THAT DID NOT HAVE THE LETTER OF THEIR CITY ON THEIR CAP. I GUESS THYE WERE MADE TO MOVE. I WAS 12 WHEN THEY PLAYED THEIR LAST GAME AND MET CONNIE MACK ONCE IN THE GRANDSTAND PLACE BEHIND HOME PLATE WHERE ONE COULD NOT SEE THE TOP OF A FLY BALL. THE A's ARE THE SECOND BEST AMERICAN LEAGUE TEAM EVER AND THE BEST TEAM MONEY DID NOT BUY. I STILL FOLLOW THEM EVERY YEAR WITH THE MLB PACKAGE ON COMCAST.
It's kind of amazing that the Phillies outlasted the A's when for decades(not years but decades) where the Phils were the dregs of MLB and the A's were one of the better franchises but after the war years when the Phillies started to contend and the A's were falling was the death knell for them. But they ended up OK in the end. Now they're back to being the red headed stepchild of the bay area.
No, the A’s were not one of the better teams for decades. They had two stretches in Philadelphia when they were pennant contenders each season, but overall most seasons they were a weak team. Not as weak as the Phillies usually were but they were not contenders most years
@@steveswangler6373 when scant few exceptions the Phillies were God awful. Worst team on the planet God awful. Even when Chuck Klein was in his prime the best they could do was 4th place. At least the A's were somewhat competitive.
@@Rockhound6165 I have always like the 1930 Phillies. That team could knock the cover off a ball and they still lost more than they won. The Phillies had 1,783 hits, the most ever by a team and still finished last.
About those Braves...They got new ownership in the late 40s and contended under Billy Southworth. They won the pennant in 1948 and if the Sox had beaten the Tribe in a one game playoff, their would have been an all Boston World Series. They fell back a little in the following years, but so did the Sox. It came to pass that the Boston faithful preferred a mediocre Red Sox team to a the Braves. So off to Milwaukee where they never had a losing season!
Browns shortstop John Beradino who later became a successful actor spoke of being drafted during WW2 and the team being so cheap, receiving as a "bonus" to its serviceman players, a deck of playing cards (While other teams were giving cash) with the team logo on it.
Which he threw into the ocean from the troopship carrying him to Pearl Harbor.
What’s sad about the Boston Braves was that they moved after 1952 but won the pennant in 1948. But I suppose the popularity of the Red Sox winning the pennant in 1946 and being perennial threats with Ted Williams sealed the Braves’ fate in Boston. ‘48 was their last hurrah
This didn't even scratch the surface of all the lost teams of the MLB
I would think the Browns transcends the lost teams, however which teams are missing?
@@prausch65 -- Washington Senators
@@gregb6469 Both versions (Minnesota and Texas).
respect the spirts and ghostly decadence that this film contains within. somewhere there is a man in a field , of golden grain wheat and grass, waiting to build a team of his own.. then he rested. ans waited and waited and waited and
At 19-years-old, I remember my first game with Connie Mac's A's of 1920. The family didn't have much money so going to a game was a big deal. It was love at first gate. Get it? Over the years they went from the top to the basement. I still go to A's games and that's in Oakland. People can't believe it, but I'm the oldest living fan of this great franchise.
Hello Erich, what's your age? Unless my math is wrong that would make you around 117.
Millano my nigga you the oldest human alive
He ded
Not as lost as the old National League Orioles (1882-1899) They have seven HOFers and three straight NL pennents and hardly get a mention.
They were the Old Milwaukee Brewers (1901), St. Louis Browns (1902-1953) & the Baltimore Orioles (1954-present.)
New York City had THREE teams, but was whittled down to one when the Dodgers and Giants moved west for the 1958 season after both teams were turned down for new ballparks, leaving New York with only one team until the birth of the Mets (1962).
Were the Mets truly born?
Mets = shitshow
i'd recognize that announcers voice anywhere, alec baldwin narrating. i suppose you could add the new york giants and brooklyn dodgers to that same era of lost teams, new york had 3 teams. except for the browns going east to baltimore, every other team moved west, and i'll bet you didn't know the st. louis browns were originally the milwaukee brewers, they moved to st louis in 1902.
And the Yankees were originally the Baltimore Orioles.
@@kevosuss4537 There was also a National League Baltimore Orioles team in the 1890s that eventually disbanded.
The A's franchise has a lot of rings despite its century-long economic woes.
The Browns almost moved to Los Angeles in the early 40s, but World War 2 killed any negotiations
World War 2 killed a lot of things.
They're almost move to Montreal in 1935
What really killed the Philadelphia Athletics is that Connie Mack was the only owner by the 1920s who didn't have any fortune from somewhere else, meaning he was far more reliant on ticket sales than others. If you are ever in Mt. Airy in Northwest Philadelphia, it's nice, but not nearly what you'd expect for a sports franchise owner.
The sport was evolving and owners no longer could be just baseball owners, to compete you had to make a lot of money in other fields also so attendance business wasn't such a make or break situation for your team.
@@joemckim1183 Indeed, which is what crowded our people like Connie Mack. He's probably going to be the last owner ever of a major North American sports franchise (soccer leagues are different elsewhere with promotion and relegation giving someone with a modest fortune a chance to eventually build, to the point where Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds found a team in the fifth tier of the English pyramid, got them promoted to the fourth, and now have a decent chance of getting to the third). I get why it happened, but it's still a shame.
I never understood why the Braves moved to Milwaukee only 5 years after winning a pennant. They played the Cleveland Indians in the 1948 World Series and although the Indians beat them, they must have been a competitive team because by 1957 they won a championship and won another pennant in 1958. Seems like they must have been much better than the Red Sox at that time.
they sold odd that pennant team for some reason and plus after that due to poor play people quickly went back to the sox
+Robert Wayne True, but the city lived for the Sox. The Sox sucked, and they still went to see them. SMH, I don't understand it, either.
I wonder how history would have changed if the Sox had moved instead of the Braves.
The Red Sox were on the downslide. If the Braves, who rose to third place the first year in Milwaukee, had stayed in Boston, they would have taken over the town.
Two pennants and a contending team through the fifties and into the early '60s.
Lou Perini, the Braves owner, was a
Boston man, had his business and home in Boston, and kept them there after the franchise moved.
Imagine Walter O'Malley and Horace Stoneham trying to live in New York after hijacking the Giants and Dodgers to California?
At Shea Stadium, on the occasion of Daryl Strawberry's return to Shea, as a Dodger, the LA heir, Peter O'Malley, sat in an aisle seat, with an armed man stood next to him, facing the crowd.
The Braves' move came in late spring training.
And Lou Perini showed up at the
annual pre-season exhibition game against the Red Sox in Fenway Park.
Just more season would have kept the team in Boston.
Well the Sox won the pennant in 1946, so it's not that much of a difference. Five years is a long time in baseball too. The Braves were down in the dumps by their last season in Boston but once they got to Milwaukee, two stars emerged - Eddie Matthews and Hank Aaron.
The reason why the Red Sox were the city favorites probably has to do with Ted Williams, the history/rivalry with the Yankees and how Fenway stood out in its iconicity compared to Braves Field, even during that period.
I read somewhere that had the Giants and Dodgers stayed in NYC, there would've been a World Series played on New York city soil every year from 1949-66. Actually, had only the Dodgers stayed true to their roots, that would have been true, as the Yankees played the San Francisco Giants in '62. In '65 and '66, the Yankees suffered what would be the 1st 2 of three straight losing seasons, but the Dodgers won NL pennants those two years, including being World Series champs in '65 (4 games to 3 over the Minnesota Twins) and being swept by the Baltimore Orioles the next year.
New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers
In a 3-team market. Only the "Damn Yankees" were left until the creation of the Mets.
Think this deserves its own posting: On the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn-O'Malley had the LA deal in his back pocket so he thought he could negotiate hard. Robert Moses offered him Flushing where the Mets did very well thank you. Yes, they were the Brooklyn Dodgers not the New York Dodgers as O'Malley said but he wanted the area where the Barclay Center is now. To get that NYC would have had to use eminent domain and over pay for the land. Time to rehab Robert Moses's name-he was no saint but deserved better than Robert Caro wrote about him.
Oh bullshit.
The Browns are the only true lost team in this clip. Their name was completely changed and the Orioles barely acknowledge their Brownie history.
This barely scratched the surface of the A's and the Braves. Learn about the 1914 Miracle Braves under George T. Stallings. Last place on the Fourth of July to World Series victors. The A's were the best team in thr early part of the 20th century until about 1915. A lot more can be said about the Browns than was mentioned, as well. The Dodgers were not always the Dodgers, they were also the Superbas and the Robins. I believe that the Braves were also once called the Beaneaters, and also the Bees. The Phillies were called the Blue Jays for maybe one year, or maybe two. The original Milwaukee Brewers, the Cleveland Spiders, the Seattle Pilots, and probably more than these.
As a Mets fan I'm worried the mets will someday soon be on this list
Anthony F As much of a Yankees fan as I am, the Mets have enough support in the New York metropolitan area to be able to stay.
Why did they stop using Shea Stadium?
@@cityhawk when they lost all that money to madoff it really hit them hard that's why they're trying to sell....
I think Brooklyn could support a team, and like the Giants, it was the politicians who lost those teams as not willing to give them a hand in renovating or moving to better stadiums that had become derelict
The Dodgers would have thrived had they stayed in Brooklyn intensely loyal fans, don't blame O Mally, blame Robert Moses.
I think Brooklyn could still support a team. It helps that NYC hasn’t suffered any real population decrease and is filled with enough disposable income that people would want to spend on MLB games. Having a successful NBA team also helps set the precedence.
Of course, under MLB’s rules, it wouldn’t happen unless the Yankees and Mets both allowed a new team in their designated markets, which they don’t have to and definitely would not do. It’s one thing to have Short Season teams in SI and Coney Island. It’s another thing entirely to allow a ML team with a 50,000 seat stadium to siphon off ticket sales.
@@prausch65 No, O'Malley had the LA deal in his back pocket so he thought he could negotiate hard. Robert Moses offered him Flushing where the Mets did very well thank you. Yes, they were the Brooklyn Dodgers not the New York Dodgers as O'Malley said but he wanted the area where the Barclay Center is now. To get that NYC would have had to use eminent domain and over pay for the land. Time to rehab Robert Moses's name-he was no saint but deserved better than Robert Caro wrote about him.
The Browns were the premier team in St. Louis for about 25 years. The Cardinals were a bit of a joke until Branch Rickey became general manager and set up the farm system. The Cards suddenly won public favor in St. Louis when they won the 1926 NL pennant (their first) and the World Series.
what team now used to be the browns
Constantine Gounaris The Baltimore Orioles, of course!
Constantine G @@Lava1964 Actually, if you go back to their American Association roots and their first 7 seasons in the NL in the later 1800's, the Cardinals were also known as the Browns.
Btw, a very good book about the American Association pennant race in 1883 is The Summer of Beer and Whiskey. The Browns lost the pennant to the Philadelphia Athletics that year by 1 game, (no relation between the American Association Athletics and the current Athletics). It is a very good read about the race, personalities involved, and baseball during that time.
Between 1902 (when the Browns came to St Louis) and 1929, the Browns outdrew the Cardinals 16 times, and the Birds outdrew the Brownies 12 times. The big difference came in the 1930s and 40s, when the Cardinals regularly drew over twice as many fans as the Browns. After 1925 the Browns outdrew the Cardinals only once--1944.
The Braves will always be my favorite National League team since they used to be a Boston team
interesting video......thanks for posting
Connie Mack made his huge mistake by twice selling off league-championship quality teams. When you do that it pisses off an entire generation of fans, and he did it twice. By the 1940s nobody in Philly thought Mack gave a damn about winning. No wonder they dumped the team. (Ironically, Charlie Finley did the same exact thing with the team in KC and then Oakland).
Billy Beane is like that today. Dumped all the old 1989 A's and got new ones, and never kept the fan favorites. Always focused on obp and whip. Sure they had a 20+ win streak. Sure they made the 2006 ALCS. But from 2007-2011 they were horrible. They came back in 2012 with a Cinderella story, and retained their division title last year. However, Beane has done it again by getting rid of fan favorite and power hitter Cespedes and quality pitcher Millone. He also insists on this Hammel guy who couldn't pitch his way out of a wet paper bag. Since the trade the A's have been losing to the worst teams in baseball and have been reduced from a World Series hopeful to the top of the wildcard spot.
Keith Pixton And then he trades Donaldson for 2 scrubs and an injured mediocre Brett Lawrie.
Not to mention they lost Hammel, Lester, and Samardzija quite quickly.
+JStarStar00 First game I saw when a child was Philadelphia Athletics at Boston Red Sox Fenway Park. Before the game us kids collecting autographs went to the lobby where tha Athletics were staying,and there he was just sitting in the lobby, Connie Mack!
+JStarStar00 A couple reasons Connie Mack did what he did.
With the first dynasty, the Federal League was raiding existing MLB teams and driving up salaries beyond what Connie could afford to keep his players. With the second dynasty, the Depression had kicked into full swing by the time the A's won their third straight pennant while his players were demanding more money because, well, they'd won their third straight pennant. In both cases, the reality of the ledger won.
By the 1940's Connie Mack had basically become senile. But nobody was going to kick him out.
Surprised no mention of the Senators but they weren't a duel city team. But they were lost, twice. That said, my guess is that the worst thing that could have happened to the A's in Philly were the Whiz Kids because otherwise, the Phils weren't successful by any means except for that period from about 1949-50 but after the 50 season they were back to the 2nd division themselves.
The side armer number 18 for the Browns is eldin aucker
Add another 2 in there, Seattle Pilots and the Montreal Expos.
Great video. Sorta sad :( Being the secon team in the city and being unloved.
But the good news was that as technology and the country’s geodemographics evolved, these team’s were able to move to new markets hungry for some baseball, and in the case of the Braves and the A’s, it might’ve taken a couple tries but they eventually found their true home cities in Atlanta and Oakland. I sure hope the A’s don’t have to move to a fourth city like Portland or Las Vegas.
If the A's move anywhere it will be to San Jose.
@Greg B yeah, about that...
I'd really like to see the Expos come back to life as expansion team
+Renato Costa Montreal still needs a new ballpark, the Big Owe is crap.
+rockvilleraven it's better than Tropicana.
+rockvilleraven I agree. I used to like that ballpark Jarry Park in Montreal. It seemed like one of those parks from out of the 1950s or earlier and so much nicer looking than all those cookie cutters like Riverfront, Three Rivers and Veterans Stadium that were all so bland in the '70s and '80s.
Robert Wayne What Montreal needs is an ownership group with deep pockets and a new stadium plan. Maybe a retro version similar to Jarry Park or what they have in Pittsburgh with PNC Park. I heard rumors that MLB will expand by two teams, if Montreal can meet those conditions, and no team has moved there, then they should be awarded one of the franchises.
Maybe St. Louis as they have a thriving market for baseball, but Montreal Quebec has become deep south of Canada, only wanting French people and players - they rioted when a coach of the Montreal Canadians could not speak French, despite the English being the language of the dressing room and the press all speak English - no different than the good old boys in the DS rioting for having a coach who was Black - they don't lynch in Quebec, they just get the language police on the hated anglos
as a white sox fan, this hits me hard
The Braves are the only team to win championships in three cities.
Seattle Pilots moved to Milwaukee in 1970.Played only one year [1969] in Seattle.Brooklyn Dodgers,New York Giants,Milwaukee Braves also moved.
The Braves and A's still exist, the Braves now play in Atlanta and the A's now play in Oakland, California, but I am sure you all know that already, there have been talks of the A's leaving the Bay Area for a while, to be honest it might just happen
I'd be more than happy if they returned to philly. Unfortunately, that would be unheard of
+mattb121395 Probably not, though if the A's leave, They will probably move to either Las Vegas, Mexico City, or Vancouver
+RAZORBLADEDALEJRBUCSFAN88 they need to just stay in Oakland. Every city you named doesn't deserve a ball club
+RAZORBLADEDALEJRBUCSFAN88 before those cities were being rumoured, it was Denver that was always being brought up. Charles Finley started that one and almost moved them at one point. if someone can find the money and a location, they deserve a new stadium.
+Kevin Moore I see, although it is impossible nowadays because of the Rockies
Don't name your sports team Browns as it will eventually end up in Baltimore.
Lol.
And New York could no longer support THREE teams. The Giants were becoming the odd team out. They were going have to do something, soon. Less so with the Dodgers. The Dodgers, at least in the short-term, could have afforded to be a bit more patient.
A new Brooklyn franchise should return to that city.
What city?
Yankees and Mets would veto it.
@@kevinbergin2225 Yep! I'm from New York, and it was the Mets & Yankees who were blocking any plans for the Tampa Bay Rays and any other team in financial trouble from moving to Northern New Jersey (Where Met Life Stadium is/The Meadowlands)
The 1929 A’s were as good as any major league team ever and that includes the ‘27 Yankees and the ‘61 Yankees or any other mlb team. Look up the stats and how much the dominated the AL in 1929-31.
Connie Mack also had a dominant team in Philly in the early part of the second decade of the century but had to break it up because of finances.
If ever there is a Time Machine invented, I would love to see a home game for every mlb and Negro League team from the 20’s to the 50’s.
You can now add the Oakland A’s
the Browns should have crossed the state over to KCMO....
Only if the A’s didn’t move to KC.
Anyway, the Browns we're second fiddle to the Cardinals in that city.
@@robertmasina4610 The Brownies only won ONE World Series title in their history (1944) due to player depletion because of World War Two.
New york highlanders boston doves brooklyn superbas.
Mason Lane Actually, the Highlanders are the Yankees. All they did was change the name and got new ownership.
Wouldn't mind jumping on the subway to see an Expos game but alas......
Ray Boone looking like his grandson, Aaron Boone. 3:38
Yep. And the elder Boone was quite a ballplayer.
kind of strange that both the st louis browns & the cleavland browns got moved to baltimore.
Chicago had two teams (Cubs and White Sox). New York had three (Bronx-Yankees, Brooklyn-Dodgers, Manhattan-Giants).
Bigger cities of course.
The Mets and White Sox know what your talking about
Angels, too
@@latinolawdog5067 Well at least my beloved White Sox are still in Chicago, even though I hate the fact that they always play second fiddle to the (puke) Cubs.
@@kevinmiller6324 I'm a Dodgers fan, but the White Sox have a great looking future with Robert, Eloy, Yoan, etc. I don;t think you guys will be second fiddle to the Cubs on the field for the next 10-15 years!
my right ear felt lonely
they were actually called the brown stockings
Actually, that was a 1870-80s National Association team who disbanded.
I wonder what the MLB would look like if these teams were still around
about 40 teams
They are still around
As a mets fan I can truly say the Mets are worse than the Browns,Boston Braves and Philadelphia Athletics combined
Do one on the pirates.
Very nostalgic
What about the Seattle Pilots?
the st louis brown's were the worst. I would se them when I went to yankee stadium. the yanks beat them 22 to nothing
joseph siano They had one of the worst records in baseball .
It was back when team functionality was optional.
Or to play second fiddle to a cross town rival.
Where's the Hoboken Zephyrs? (Twilight Zone fans know about the Zephyrs)
Oh by the way, my great, great uncle was Connie Mack. That's a story for another day.
A business such as an MLB franchise can't survive on "rich history" if it's ancient history.
Phils had better owners in the early 50's, it's survival by the dollars.
I heard that the A's are getting ready to leave their current home of Oakland California, and head for Las Vegas pretty soon.
How about the Cleveland Spider and the New York Highlanders
New York Highlanders, gee I wonder whatever became of that team?
A name change doesn't mean the franchise was lost to the city.
Comments about the Braves are not really accurate: the Boston Braves were the 1948 National League champs, but by 1953 they were in Milwaukee!
Don't forget the 1914 Miracle Braves under George T. Stallings.
so the stl browns are the o's now?
yes they are the Baltimore Orioles now
MrChessnuts And the Yankees are the ORIGINAL AL Baltimore Orioles
And the Orioles, formerly Browns, used to be the ORIGINAL AL Milwaukee Brewers
The franchise started in 1901 in
Milwaukee. It moved to St. Louis in 1902 and played as the Browns at Sportsman's Park until moving to Baltimore for the 1954 season. In Baltimore they took on the name Orioles and played at Memorial Stadium until 1991 when they moved to Oriole Park at Camden Yards.
O
my left ear enjoyed this video
The St. Louis Browns were never the Milwaukee Brewers.
The Milwaukee Brewers were the Seattle Pilots.
ysbt16 I was looking at MLB History about 4 years ago and it stated they were the Brewers before moving to St. Louis.
The St Louis Browns started out in Milwaukee as the Brewers in 1901. They moved to St Louis in 1902. You are right about the new franchise Pilots that became the brewers
ysbt16 The St Louis Browns were the ORIGINAL 1901 Milwaukee Brewers who moved to St Louis to become the Browns who eventually ended up in Baltimore as the Orioles.
The franchise was in Milwaukee in 1901 as a charter team for the new American League. It moved to St Louis in 1902 and Baltimore in 1954. The (original) Brewers, St Louis Browns, and Baltimore Orioles are all the same team and are recognised as such.
The A’s when they were in Phillies were more popular than the Phillies
Urban Shocker, Cooperstown 2025.st louis browns 1919 to 1924
But are still around in different cities
2:38 bottom score line GEES REDS SAVE SOME RUNS FOR THE NXT GAME
1:35 bottom score line OH YAAA GO TRIBE
I'm from Berea too!!
Another lost team is the Detroit Tigers. Well, lost in a different way...
They're just going through a rebuilding phase. Remember the names Casey Mize, Matt Manning and Tarik Skubal. Most MLB experts think these 3 guys are among the best pitching prospects in the game. The Tigers will rule the AL Central in 3-4 years.
funny how the philadelphia a's are similar to the oakland a's now
The only difference between the a's and the rest of the teams that moved was the a's were the better team of the pair
Not exactly. When the Braves moved to Milwaukee, they were contenders from the start. They even had some of the highest attendance numbers in MLB before they moved to Atlanta.
That’s incorrect. The Phillies Whiz Kids had won the pennant in ‘50 and finished 4th in ‘54.
@@cityhawk The (Boston) Braves could have been contenders, too, had Lou Perini emptied out his pockets and rebuilt his team by signing quality players and upgraded the farm system instead of looking for an excuse to leave. Spend two or three years in rebuild mode and by the end of the 1950s the (Boston) Braves would have been contending again and drawing fans to Braves Field, instead of looking for an excuse to skip town.
And the Boston American
caesar valentin they became the Redsox
@@notsure6187 ok I got it
Weren’t the Senators lost twice?
Yes, first time to Minneapolis (became the Twins), and second time to Dallas/Forth Worth (became the Rangers).
Actually the Senators were lost THREE times. The National League team of 1892-1899 were ALSO known as the Senators (after playing their first year 1891 as the Washington Statesmen in then Major League American Association. When the AA folded after 1891, the Statesmen were accepted into the NL and played (mostly as a second division team) for eight years before being contracted by the NL, along with Baltimore, Louisville, and the infamous Cleveland Spiders after the 1899 season. The team was historically bad, finishing 12th once, 11th three times, 10th twice, and 9th once, only making it to 6th in 1897, but tumbling to 11th the next two years.
Incidentally, there are also FOUR lost Washington Nationals teams from the 19th Century as well.
You know -when you think about all these teams that; due to finances or poor management -it kinda takes a bit of the luster off of the big winners that benefited.
Big winners didn't 'benefit'.
Big winners simply ran their organizations better. It's no coincidence that Branch Rickey made TWO historically bad franchises overwhelmingly successful. Rickey was the direct opposite of Connie Mack. Mack was stuck in the past. Rickey was a visionary for the future, as were Ed Barrrow, George Weiss and even the hated Walter O'Malley.