In 1900 Baltimore was the nation’s 6th largest city. Buffalo was its 8th. Every city larger than Baltimore was a multiple team market. Yet somehow the AL and NL overlooked these markets. It seems crazy that these 2 spent the first half of the 20th Century without MLB.

Baltimore was still the 6th largest city when it finally got a team in the early 50s. Buffalo had slipped to 15th and probably could have supported one then but a team never came.

Imagine what baseball might have looked like if one of the leagues decided to go 10 and planted flags in these cities. Would they still be there today? What would it mean for the St Louis Browns if there was already a team in Baltimore?

Buffalo isn't even a Top 50 market today, there's a very good likelihood they wouls gave relocated. Had the Saint Louis Browns been blocked form Baltimore, they may have wound up in Washington, Kansas City, or Texas, as the Senators (now Rangers), and Royals were expansion teams that began play not long after the Browns relocated. Los Angeles may have also been in play.

(09-18-2026 12:53 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Buffalo isn't even a Top 50 market today, there's a very good likelihood they wouls gave relocated. Had the Saint Louis Browns been blocked form Baltimore, they may have wound up in Washington, Kansas City, or Texas, as the Senators (now Rangers), and Royals were expansion teams that began play not long after the Browns relocated. Los Angeles may have also been in play.

I agree that there’s a good chance that bigger market would lure away a Buffalo club—then again, they support the Bills well.

As for the St Louis Browns, the Boston Braves had beat them to Milwaukee the season prior so I guess the market pool in the 50s would have been LA, SF, KC, and MIN. The question becomes could stadium time lines be moved up to accommodate the Browns earlier and/or could the Browns wait a few seasons until stadium situations settled. KC attracted the As by renovating an old MiLB park, MIN & SF built brand new parks (SF spent 1 season in the old Seals Park), while the LA Memorial Coliseum hosted the Dodgers for a few seasons, before Dodgers Stadium was complete.

Imagine if the Browns and As of the AL beat the Dodgers and Giants of the NL to the West Coast? Those 2 have to settle for MIN and KC—or, perhaps without the need for a partner to make moving so far west feasible, only 1 NL team moves. There’d be no need for a NY Mets expansion franchise.

This then generates the question of when and how the NL gets to the West Coast? Do the California Angels enter baseball as an NL franchise—this seems likely. Maybe the Braves/Giants/Dodgers eventually move to the Bay Area or maybe even to San Diego before the Padres are founded.

The entire relocation and expansion era looks totally different with the one tiny change of adding a couple clubs in Buffalo and St Louis.

Note, none of this even factors in the Buffalo team (I’ll presume Buffalo and Baltimore are AL clubs) throwing their hat into the relocation ring. (I also didn’t explore the idea of the NL growing to 10 far sooner either.)