Trapped in the Basement: Post War Expansion Poll

Alright, if you've been reading the highly-successful Trapped in the Basement 1942 Philadelphia Phillies dynasty, you know what's going on. If not, shame on you!

Here's a refresher:

It is currently June 20, 1944. The National League is looking to expand from 8 teams to 10. There were 8 potential candidates. Below are links to their proposals.

To continue with my 'audience participation', I'd like you to take the mindset of an owner in the WWII Era NL, and cast a vote.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE only vote for 2 cities! The NL has agreed that too much expansion could damage the league, so it will take baby steps. Expansion in the future is always an option.


THE 8 CANDIDATES

Norfolk
Kansas City
Dallas
Seattle
San Francisco
Baltimore
New Orleans
Los Angeles

Seattle and KC.

Alright, one at a time...and of course personal opinion only.

Norfolk:
Population Rank: (1940) 60th largest city US, (1950) 48th
Nearest Team: Washington (AL) - 198m

+: Norfolk IS our major Atlantic naval base, and this is a good time to reinforce anything patriotic. Our NL owners have to have that in mind.
The nearest team is a fair distance away.

-: Population is extremely low: 114K in 1940, 213K in 1950. In 1950 the smallest city that will eventually get a team IRL is already at 311K.
*******

Kansas City:
Population Rank: (1940) 19th, (1950) 20th
Nearest Team: St. Louis (AL,NL) - 249m


+: Decent sized city, though there are better choices. Described excellent rail service with St. Louis helping with some travel.

-: With TWO teams in St. Louis they need a larger fanbase to survive. KC cuts in on that slightly.
The ONLY team that benefits from rail service is St. Louis
*******

Dallas:
Population Rank: (1940) 31st, (1950) 22nd
Nearest Team: St. Louis (AL, NL) - 650m

+: Far enough away from any rivals to not threaten their fanbase and establish a considerable one of their own.

-: Isolated. A coastal city with superior transportation would be better.
Ewing looks like a nut job.
*******

Seattle:
Population Rank: (1940) 22nd, (1950) 19th
Nearest Team: Chicago (AL, NL) - 2063m

+: Again, should be able to build tolerable fan base.

-: Unlikely to be able to fill 47,000 seat stadium
Nervous about a large corp. like Boeing owning a team.
Severe isolation. Huge travel expenses.
*******

San Francisco:
Population Rank: (1940) 12th, (1950) 11th
Nearest Team: St. Louis (AL, NL) - 2055m

+: Probably a stronger fan base potential.

-: Again, severe isolation.
27,500 cap. stadium is a little low.
Do we want to share a stadium with FOOTBALL?
Bill Veeck. Enough said.
*******

Baltimore:
Population Rank: (1940) 7th, (1950) 6th
Nearest Team: Washington (AL) 40 miles

+: Another major port, so a good show of patriotism.
Established stadium at near ML capacity.

-: Too close to Washington and Philadelphia (AL,NL), will be in severe competition for fanbase.
Severe attitude problem.
*******

New Orleans:
Population Rank: (1940) 15th, (1950) 16th
Nearest Team: St. Louis (AL, NL) 677 miles

+: Major city, far enough away to establish its own fanbase in the south.
Strong city history for us to take advantage of.

-: Uhm...propellors?
*******

Los Angeles:
Population Rank: (1940) 5th, (1950) 4th
Nearest Team: St. Louis (AL,NL) 1828 miles

+: Huge city, far enough away to build a considerable fanbase.
Patriotic overtones: LA and SD were under threat of Jap attack at one point.

-: Perhaps TOO big a fanbase. We don't want the Yankees v2 on our hands.
Severe isolation. Large travel expenses.
Even if Wrigley gives up the CHC, he'll still have considerable influence.
*******

So...lessee here...

Norfolk and Dallas are really too small at this time to take seriously.

While New Orleans and KC aren't actually shrinking, their drop in ranking between '40 and '50 suggest that the dollars are flowing elsewhere at this time.

Baltimore's just too damned close to THREE teams. IRL they didn't move in until after the Athletics left. Four teams fighting for the MidAtlantic is just asking for SOMEONE - maybe the Phils or Orioles - to fail.

That leaves me with LA, SF and Sea. The first choice is easy: Seattle. First, I don't want CoachOwens to kill me, second if I'm an NL owner I have to be very wary of Veeck...or of Wrigley wielding so much potential power.

My second choice could go either way. However, I'll go with Los Angeles. SF would be nice as it would give us two west coast teams relatively close to each other and save on expenses, but....Bill Veeck. LA's larger, and as an NL owner I have to believe it'll be easier to keep Wrigley from doing anything grandiose than to keep Veeck from doing something insane.

Attendence numbers are a (rough) average from the 1940 and 1950 censuses.

I wanted to narrow the list down to four or five, and then go from there, so that's how I'm going to go about this.

Baltimore---Population-900,000
Pros-Location. You can't really ask for a better place.
Cons-Location. Between the two teams in Philadelphia and the team in Washington, the last time any one of those teams had a winning record was in 1936 when Washington went 82-71, the two Philadelphia teams each lost 100 games. Granted this year the National league franchise in Philadelphia is in first place, but the season is not over.
Vote-No. It's posible that the market is already too flooded for this area and to add another team just seems, well, flawed.

Dallas---Population-350,000
Pros-Obviously the west will someday be conquered by baseball, and this is a step in that direction.
Cons-The man brought and shot his gun in our meetings. You really want to cross the guy in future owners' meetings?
Vote-Uhm, no.

Kansas City---Population-425,000
Pros-Like Dallas, it makes for a smoother transistion to the west coast. Solid presentation.
Cons-Size...location...the two St. Louis clubs could be a slight problem.
Vote-Passed round 1.

Los Angeles---Population-1,750,000
Pros-It's HUGE!!! An experienced baseball man in Wrigley to head baseball's move out west.
Cons-Location. Who will buy the Cubs? Will Wrigley have an influence on that new owner.
Vote-Passed Round 1.

New Orleans---Population-525,000
Pros-If Dallas had made the cut, this wouldn't be a terrible idea.
Cons-A former player being an owner, might be too sympathetic towards player's and their grievences.
Vote-No Dallas, no chance.

Norfolk---Population-175,000
Pros-Nice location and a great presentation.
Cons-Size.
Vote-I just don't think the area can support a major league team. No.

San Francisco---Population-700,000
Pros-If we go with LA, SF is closer than Seattle. If we go with Seattle, SF is closer than LA.
Cons-Location. Bill Veeck.
Vote-Passed round 1. Barely.

Seattle---Population-425,000
Pros-If we make to the west coast, Seattle is definately high on the list. No Wrigley, no Veeck.
Cons-Location. It doesn't have the "wow" factor that SF and certainly LA have.
Vote-Passed Round 1.


TEAMS CUT IN FIRST VOTE
Baltimore, Dallas, New Orleans and Norfolk.

TEAMS REMAINING
Kansas City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle.

Kansas City-With the other finalists on the coast, it makes sense to put both teams there. Sorry, but no.

TEAMS REMAINING
LA, SF, Seattle.

We can't let the AL get into LA before we do. We need to lay claim, we need to do it now. YES on Los Angeles.

SF/Seattle. Bill Veeck...Bill Veeck...Bill Veeck. SF has a little more "Eastern" profile, so it'll be easier to sell to the public, but Bill Veeck! SF is so much closer to LA and would make things easier for travel, but Bill Veeck!!!

Okay...if we give LA to Wrigley, he'll sell the Cubs...and Veeck will likely put in a bid. At least in SF, he stays out of the newspapers in the east. Plus, we can always push Veeck out if he gets out of hand.


My two cities are...Los Angeles and San Francisco.

L.A., Seattle

Are y'all using metro area population data? Doesn't seem like it. There were a whole lot more people in the Norfolk area than 175,000 in the 40s. As noted in the presentation (real numbers) there were 30,000+ people working at the shipyard and 40,000+ at the naval base. There had to be 400,000 to 500,000 in the area to support two "businesses" of that size.

Anyway, I vote for New York and New York to replace the Dodgers and Giants when they move west. Not an option?

Then I vote for LA and SF, as long as the Dodgers and Giants remain in NY. Baseball needs 3 teams in NY to keep any one team from becoming too rich.

New Orleans is out?? :( Wait, I have a better idea. Instead of propellors, how about those new-fangled jet turbines they put on planes? Fire 'em up and spectators can have a nice breeze to keep them cool watching the game. What do you think? No? In that case.....

Los Angeles - the biggest city on the west coast ought to have a team.

San Francisco - the city that gave us the Di Maggios deserves a team.

My comments will simply echo the other commenters.

1. Norfolk. I have no doubt that the presentation was a good one, but Norfolk is simply not large enough to support a major league baseball city. From the 1920-40s, the census has indicated that Norfolk won't even crack the top 50 in American cities, and there is no guarantee that the wartime population in Norfolk will stay there after the war is over (God willing).

2. Kansas City: Also a good presentation, but there are already two franchises in Missouri -- the Cardinals and Browns. There's a danger of oversaturating the area.

3. Dallas. Their owner is crazy, which is unfortunate. Dallas would have made a good place to put a team.

This only leaves five real candidates: Baltimore, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco.

1. Baltimore. Putting a team in Baltimore basically puts two teams in the Washington area. Although it might be a good idea to give Baltimore a chance in future expansion, that time is not now. We need more or less unclaimed territory.

2. New Orleans. New Orleans would give the South a real team of its own. However, the problem is that there's no large city nearby to "pair up with". This means that Eastern-based teams have to go out of their way to visit a single city, then take another long trip to whatever the next city is. If Dallas's owner wasn't insane, I would have probably chosen Dallas/New Orleans as the combination, which would have been a very natural expansion.

We are now down to three west coast cities:

Los Angeles is the natural choice. The most populated city on the West Coast, it has all the amenities. The only question is which city does Los Angeles pair up with on that long flight west?

San Francisco has the problem of Bill Veeck. Most owners don't like him.
Seattle has the problem of corporate ownership. This presents problems of its own.

Veeck's problems are predictable, but the long-term ramifications of a Boeing ownership are unknown. Furthermore, San Francisco for the longest time in the 19th century was the flagship city of California. It seems natural that Los Angeles and San Francisco, the new and old, be paired.

My votes: Los Angeles, San Francisco

--Pet

I Chose for the NL

San Francisco and Baltimore

I'd like to see New Orleans and Dallas, which should be a natural rivalry itself, and not too expensive in the travel department for existing teams. Baseball should reach the West Coast in a subsequent round of expansion.

Seattle and LA

Dudes ... Dallas and New Orleans are more than 400 miles apart. They're approximately as close together as New York and Raleigh NC. Not exactly natural rivals. :)

yup, but the distance between LA and SF is about 350 miles. Between LA and Seattle...even farther. :)

--Pet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RunHomer

Dudes ... Dallas and New Orleans are more than 400 miles apart. They're approximately as close together as New York and Raleigh NC. Not exactly natural rivals. :)

---

But they're a lot closer to existing teams than any of the LA/San Fran/Seattle group. I'm just trying to think like a bottom-line conscious team owner from the '40s.

Gotta do LA. Can't have just one team on the Coast. SF is the natural rival, bigger than Seattle, and all the boys coming home from the Pacific will go through it - some of them will even stay. And if we can't avoid Veeck anyway - no one has yet - Sf is the perfect place for him

As much as it pains me to say (I would love for Baltimore to have a team) I will have to say Los Angeles and San Francisco

Dallas and New Orleans

Seattle and New Orleans. BTW Great job so far, I just wish we did not have to wait so long for the expansion!

I thought New Orleans is out of the voting :confused: People must really want to see those propellors :p

Dallas and Los Angeles.

Ok, assuming these talks are just between us, lets get right to the point, We all wanna be winners, no doubt, but at the end of the day we need to be making money, for the good of the league.

That taken into account, Im not fond of going to Norfolk or Baltimore. It will compact our teams and I worry about competeing to fill out stadiums. This leaves us with two option, the mid-south (KC, Dallas and NO or the West Sea, SF and LA) and i think it needs to be one market or the other in terms of travel expenses.

As far as the Mid-south Dallas is out, theres no way I could stand dealing with that Jackass, If i have to discuss ticket revenue with him I'll wind up punching him in the mouth (well except for the six-shooter he carries). That leave NO and KC. Im alittle worried about KCs small stadium (sure they say they can add seats, but then hes gotta deal with a bunch of blow hard politicians.) But at the end of the day filling/getting seats is really his problem more than ours. No has similar issues, who the **** is gunna sit in 150 degree weather with 300% humidity like they have there!

That, gentlemen, leaves the west coast. My concern there is draining our profits away with travel expenses, but with two teams and linger trips I think we can help minimize that. Now Im a bit concerned about LA. If all those hollywood types take a big interest in the game, they may have an unfair advantage over us talking kids into signing with them. An if those guys start pouring in to much money that gunna leave our guys wanting more pay, and that just ain;'t good business.

And that leaves us with SF and Sea. While they have many as the same issue in sea as KC, those problems are theirs, not ours at the end of the day and the potential is great and if Boeing is tied down with the current situation that may delay expansion. Same goes for SF, i think the positives far out weigh the negatives. And by moving to the coast, i think we can count on LA being an able back up if SF or Sea runs into trouble.

So at the end of the day, just like our great states, the NL should follow it own Manifest Destiny and stretch to the Pacific Ocean by admitting Seattle and San Francisco.

LA, Dallas

Nope, by my count New Orleans is in a respectable fifth right now. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

Nope, by my count New Orleans is in a respectable fifth right now. :)

---

Why did I think it was down to three teams? :confused: In that case, can I change my vote to SF and NO? I hear they are a bit flakey in LA in any case. Now...about those propellors....:p

New Orleans and Norfolk... and move (insert horrible team here :)) to LA.

Hey, what place is Seattle in?

I'm kinda warming to those propellors myself. Imagine, a flying stadium! Sounds almost anime-ish!

Ooh! Even better! Every NO game can be a home game, because they just take their stadium with them! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

I'm kinda warming to those propellors myself. Imagine, a flying stadium! Sounds almost anime-ish!

Ooh! Even better! Every NO game can be a home game, because they just take their stadium with them! :)

---

Wouldn't have been as cool as the once proposed Seattle stadium. :(

Lets eliminate a few teams first.

Norfolk - Small population. Once war is over, population could drop. Close to quite a few teams. (New York, Brooklyn, Pittsburg and Philadelphia in the NL/New York and Philadelpia in the AL)

Baltimore - Stadium burnt down, infringes a few places, no.

Kansas City - With 2 teams in the same state, and atleast one struggling to make a profit, no thanks.

Seattle - Big travel expences (I guess Boeing could cover that though :D). I'm weary about expanding to the west coast. If we do though, it'll be to California.

That leaves 4 possibilities.

Los Angeles - Can't go wrong with the 4th highest population in America. But, as stated already, travel expences would be huge.

San Francisco - See above but with the 12th highest population.

New Orleans - Not too far away. Less population though.

Dallas - Not too far away, but still expands to the southwest. Again, less population that the California teams, but can draw fans from all over Texas.

If I were to expand to the West Coast, I'd put atleast 2 teams out there. But, with the cost of fuel going up (nevermind, I'm 60 years ahead of myself :D, but its wartime, so its probobly the case ) I don't think its worth it to leap that far west.

My vote goes New Orleans and Dallas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosensgo101

Lets eliminate a few teams first.

Norfolk - Small population. Once war is over, population could drop. Close to quite a few teams. (New York, Brooklyn, Pittsburg and Philadelphia in the NL/New York and Philadelpia in the AL)

Baltimore - Stadium burnt down, infringes a few places, no.

Kansas City - With 2 teams in the same state, and atleast one struggling to make a profit, no thanks.

Seattle - Big travel expences (I guess Boeing could cover that though :D). I'm weary about expanding to the west coast. If we do though, it'll be to California.

That leaves 4 possibilities.

Los Angeles - Can't go wrong with the 4th highest population in America. But, as stated already, travel expences would be huge.

San Francisco - See above but with the 12th highest population.

New Orleans - Not too far away. Less population though.

Dallas - Not too far away, but still expands to the southwest. Again, less population that the California teams, but can draw fans from all over Texas.

If I were to expand to the West Coast, I'd put atleast 2 teams out there. But, with the cost of fuel going up (nevermind, I'm 60 years ahead of myself :D, but its wartime, so its probobly the case ) I don't think its worth it to leap that far west.

My vote goes New Orleans and Dallas.

---

Ahem, WRONG!

I think Seattle should be taken out of consideration due to pressure towards the NL GMs coming from the stockholders of Boeing.

BUMPITY BUMP BUMP!

You have until the end of the 1944 World Series to get your votes in here! This means about a week remains until I close this down, and votes are officially tallies. Please, please, please, do not let your favorite city down! If you don't want to face public ridicule for your selections, you can PM me.

THE END OF THE WORLD SERIES = THE END OF VOTING

Do your part to make the NL a better place!

Los Angeles and Seattle

Travel Cost will be bad either way with two teams on the west coast but Boeing is helping with the war effort and should be reward and Norfolk is too close to couple teams and will probably shrink after the war.

And a stadium flying via propellors is more steampunk then anime. In anime it would probably be flying via jets/rockets or some other futuristic means.

I vote for Dallas and Baltimore

relocation + expansion to the west coast with maybe 2 teams moving and 2 more expansion teams to set up a division out there would be the best bet i would think

Dallas and LA for 1946!

Alright, with the end of the World Series immenent, I am officially announcing:

LAST CALL

for any and all votes for expansion!

You have until Sunday at 11:59PM to cast your ballots. I'll announce the winners in the mother thread Trapped in the Basement.

Thank you all for participating!

New Orleans
Dallas

I'm starting to think there's something to be said for this move to the south/southwest. NO and DAL are close - but not too close. They can provide a natural rivalry for each other without draining each other dry. We're really several years early for a west coast expansion anyway.


Unvote SEA/LA

VOTE Dallas, New Orleans

I'm going to have to go with Dallas and New Orleans at this point. Travel costs would be outrageous for a west coast team, and Nawlins and Dallas are close enough for them to still be considered a days bus ride away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

I'm starting to think there's something to be said for this move to the south/southwest. NO and DAL are close - but not too close. They can provide a natural rivalry for each other without draining each other dry. We're really several years early for a west coast expansion anyway.


Unvote SEA/LA

VOTE Dallas, New Orleans

---

Traitor!! :(