A Tale of One City, Two Teams and Two Leagues - Did the Original Mets Become the NY Giants?

 

From 1880 through 1882, an independent, professional team called the New York Metropolitans (or “Mets”), played in New York City. Their founder and manager, James Mutrie, is credited with bringing first-class, professional baseball back to New York, paving the way for not one, but two major league teams in the city in 1883.

The franchise currently known as the San Francisco Giants joined the National League in 1883, representing the city of New York. That same year, a team called the New York Metropolitans (“Mets”), under the management of James Mutrie, joined the upstart American Association, a major league rival to the National League that had played its first season in 1882. The Giants still play in the National League. The Metropolitans folded in 1887. They are best known today as an historical curiosity, and as the team that lent its name to the modern New York Mets, who have played in the National League since 1962.

Baseball historians generally consider the Mets of 1883 to be a continuation of the same team that had competed as an independent team during the previous three seasons. It seems like a logical conclusion - the 1882 Mets and the 1883 Mets share the same name, same manager, and several players in common. Baseball historians generally date the beginning of the San Francisco Giants’ franchise to that 1883 season.

Nevertheless, a significant body of evidence gleaned from contemporary accounts of league, team and player transactions during the off-season between the 1882 and 1883 seasons suggests that the team admitted to the National League during League meetings in December 1882 was the New York Metropolitans, and that the team admitted to the American Association was a newly formed team, despite later playing under different team names when the new season began.

This is a radical suggestion that upsets long-standing historical doctrine of team, league and baseball history. I have written about the issue before, but in a condensed manner, and buried within a more extensive discussion of the history of the original Metropolitans and their founding manager, James Mutrie.ⁱ This article presents a more comprehensive and focused look at events related to both teams from September 1882 through February 1883.

1883 New York Metropolitans - https://twitter.com/thorn_john/status/1368628550140624903

 

Previous Reaction to the Theory

Full disclosure - John Thorn, the Official Historian for Major League Baseball reacted to this theory in March 2021, pronouncing it a “shaky thesis.” ⁱⁱ I have since won an unrelated baseball history debate with himⁱⁱⁱ (about where polo was played in New York city before the original Polo Grounds were built in 1880), so perhaps he (or any other interested baseball historians) might give the it a closer read and more careful consideration before dismissing it a second time. In addition, the reasons he gave for discounting the theory are not inconsistent with the theory.

The stated reason for John Thorn dismissing the theory is that, “the rosters of the independent 1882 Mets and the NL 1883 ‘Gothams,’ while mixed up a bit, bore little resemblance.” The vastly different roster, however, does not disprove the theory, it was to be expected under the circumstances.

 

Brief Rebuttal

James Mutrie, the founder and manager of the original Metropolitans from 1880-1882, reportedly withdrew from the Mets in September 1882, because of “the refusal of the stockholders to engage the players selected by him.”^iv He reportedly spent the off-season forming a new team, building a roster of players he liked, seeking and receiving admission to the American Association, a rival to the National League which had just finished its first season of play. And when the American Association voted to accept the newly-formed team during its league meetings in December 1882, they were referred to simply as “New York,” not the “Metropolitans.”^{v vi}

In addition, admitting the original Metropolitans into the National League would have been the most natural and easier path for all concerned. The original Metropolitans, while nominally independent, were not completely independent of the National League before 1883. The New York Metropolitans reportedly played in a National League-affilliated association called the League Alliance in 1881^vii and 1882,^viii and their affiliation with the Alliance may have extended back to their very first game in 1880. A report of their first game, played September 15, 1880, referred to the new team as, “the Metropolitan League Alliance Club of New York.”^ix Members of the League Alliance enjoyed player-contract security, with mutual and reciprocal respect of player-contracts with National League teams.

In 1882, only two teams vied for the League Alliance championship, the Metropolitans and Philadelphia. Both teams had “an application on file” for admission to the National League, as early as July of that year.^x And when the National League voted to formally admit two new teams to the League during league meetings in December 1882, “applications of the Metropolitans and Philadelphias for admission to the league were favorably acted upon and their Presidents were admitted to the meeting.”^xi

The fact that the original Metropolitans’ manager was managing many of the same players, but on a new and different team, may have been as confusing for fans of at that time, as it is for historians of today. The team owners at the time apparently resolved the “tangle” by simply swapping team names.

The New York tangle has been righted. The league team from Gotham will be christened New York club, and the association club will be named Metropolitan.

Fort Wayne Daily Gazette (Indiana), January 18, 1883, page 7.

 

That decision, however, may have created a different tangle, one which this article seeks to untangle.

Did the original Metropolitans join the National League and then give up their name to a new team from New York that joined the American Association? Or did the original Metropolitans join the American Association keeping their old name, while a new team from New York joined the National League?

You be the judge - but don’t judge too quickly.

It is possible that someone might sift through all of the evidence presented here and not agree with the conclusions. But no one should reach any conclusions about what happened during that off-season without actually reading what happened during that off-season, as reported by sportswriters closely following the league, team and player transactions as they happened at the time.

If true, the San Francisco Giants should celebrate their 150^th anniversary of their first game in September 2030, not April 2033. Start planning now! And the original New York Metropolitans should not be considered merely an historical curiosity, but as the origin of a team in continuous existence since 1880.

 

The Theory in Brief

The general outline of the argument in favor of the theory is laid out in brief, below, with direct quotations taken from period reporting. A lengthier discussion, with more citations to more references, follows.

The theory that the New York (NL) franchise (now known as the San Francisco Giants) is a continuation of the franchise that competed as the Metropolitans from 1880 through 1882 is supported by a later recollection by John B. Day, the original owner of the Metropolitans and one of the original owners of the team now known as the San Francisco Giants. Decades later, in recounting the early days of the New York Giants, Day recalled that the team had “played for a time as the ‘Metropolitans’” before joining the National League.

“Mutrie and myself had been interested in baseball from the start, and we tried to get into the league for some time before we were successful. I told Mutrie that if he would get the grounds, I would supply the money. So he got the grounds at 11^th st and Fifth av. We played for a time as the ‘Metropolitans’ before we joined the National League.”

The Boston Globe, February 13, 1925, page 13.

 

Day’s recollection is corroborated and supported by numerous, contemporary reports of relevant events affecting both teams, during the off-season period from September 1882 through February 1883.

As early as the second week in September 1882, James Mutrie revealed in an interview that money was being raised to “form another first-class club in New York” for the following season, and that he had been “offered big money to take the management,” although it was “not certain” whether he would accept the offer or not.^xii

Within less than two weeks, he had reportedly left the team.

Mutrie’s withdrawal from the Mets was caused by the refusal of stockholders to engage the players selected by him.

Buffalo Commercial, September 28, 1882, page 3.

Leslie's Illustrated, July 10,  1886, page 325.

After leaving, he recruited a new team to compete in the American Association. Having established, in three seasons with the Metropolitans, the commercial viability of high-level professional baseball in New York City, both major leagues were apparently willing to place a team there. Mutrie would take his new team into the American Association, and the original Metropolitans were expected to join the National League.

James Mutrie, the organizer and manager of the Metropolitan Club, has determined to sever the connection with it at the close of the present season. He had just returned from a two weeks’ trip taken for the purpose of engaging players for a new club, which he contemplates putting in the field to represent this city next season. It will be known as the New York Club . . . . The nine, which it is promised will be very strong, will contend for the championship of the American Association.

New York Clipper, September 23, 1882, page 431, column 1.

 

A Move of the Base Ball League.

Philadelphia, September 22. - The executive committee of the national league of professional base ball players accepted the resignation of the Worcester, Massachusetts, and Troy, New York clubs. The application for admissions into membership from the Metropolitans, of New York, and the Philadelphia clubs will be acted upon in December.

The Leavenworth Times (Kansas), September 23, 1882.

 

Early reports of the players the Metropolitans (now without Mutrie) had locked down for the 1883 season included eleven players who would play for New York’s National League team in 1883,^xiii suggesting that the team that entered the National League in 1883 was the same franchise that had played as the Metropolitans in 1882.

Base Ball - The League Players

The following is an official list of the [National] League players who have signed by the clubs and are safely under contract for next season: . . .

Metropolitans - Caskins, Dorgan, Clapp, Hankinson, O’Neil, Ward, Gillespie, Welch, Troy, Ewing, Connor.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 31, 1882, page 8.

 

Consistent with reports that Mutrie and the Metropolitans parted ways over a roster dispute, another early report on the following season’s roster signings noted that the “Metropolitans” had “retained” the services of only three players from its 1882 roster for its 1883 National League team, whereas Mutrie had signed six previous Metropolitan players for his new American Association team.

Notes of the Day - The Metropolitan Exhibition Company will place a very strong League team in the field in 1883 . . . . Only three of this year’s team have been retained - the new team including strong players from the Providence, Troy, Worcester and Detroit clubs.

The New York American Association Club will have six of this year’s Metropolitan team in its ranks, together with players from the Cleveland and Troy clubs.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 4, 1882, page 2.

 

A similar report also suggested that the team Mutrie would manage in the American Association in 1883 (as the Metropolitans) was a separate, new team, and not a continuation of the franchise that had competed as the Metropolitans in 1882, and which was expected to join the National League.

THE CLUBS FOR NEXT SEASON.

The Metropolitan Club will be under new management next season, and will also be in the League. The players so far secured are Clapp, O’Neill, Hankenson, and Coskins. . . .

Manager Mutrie, the organizer of the club, has resigned to take the management of the new American Association Club in this city next season.

The New York Sun, November 13, 1882, page 3.

 

And when the National League formally admitted teams from New York and Philadelphia into the National League, a report of the decision explicitly names the “Metropolitans” as the team from New York admitted into the League.

METROPOLITANS AND PHILADELPHIAS.

The resignations of the Troy and Worcester clubs were accepted, and the applications of the Metropolitans and Philadelphias for admission to the league were favorably acted upon and their Presidents were admitted to the meeting.

Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1882, page 1.

 

Other business conducted during the League meetings that week also supports the notion that the National League believed that it had just admitted the original Metropolitans, and not a separate, new team. The National League exercised jurisdiction over a dispute between Buffalo (then a National League team) and the Metropolitans, related to a dispute over a rain-out of an exhibition game between the Metropolitans and Buffalo in October 1882.^xiv

The decision to admit the Metropolitans and Philadelphia into the National League was a natural decision. Both teams had pre-existing ties to the National League, having played in the National League-affiliated organization, the League Alliance, during the 1882 season (they were the only two teams in the Alliance that season). The Metropolitans had been in the League Alliance for two seasons (1881 and 1882), and had had requests for full admission to the National League pending during both of those seasons.

And when the American Association voted to admit a team from New York, it was James Mutrie New York team, the team which, by all accounts, he had assembled from scratch, as a new team, during the off-season. The same article detailed the as-yet unresolved issues between the Association and the National League regarding mutual respect for player contracts.

THE WAR OF THE DIAMONDS.

New York, Dec. 13. - The annual convention of the American Association of Base Ball Clubs was held to-day at the Grand Central Hotel. . . . The following clubs and their representatives were admitted to membership: . . . New York, J. Mutrie and W. S. Appleton.

. . . On the subject of the alleged overtures of peace from the National League it was decided that as no official communication in regard to the matter had been received there was no cause for appointing a conference committee.

The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), December 14, 1882, page 3.

 

With two major league teams expected to play in New York during the 1883 season, one remaining issue to be resolved is where the two teams would play. Rumors circulated at one point that Mutrie was trying to find grounds further uptown. But the teams eventually settled on sharing the Polo Grounds. An early report of the plan referred to Mutrie American Association team as the “new” team.

It is likely that the Polo Grounds will be transformed into two base-ball grounds for use next season. The lease of the grounds at present is held by the Metropolitan Exhibition Company. The manager of that company has signified his willingness to lease half of the grounds to Mr. James Mutrie, who has organized a new base-ball club, which will represent this City in the American Association.

The New York Times, January 8, 1883, page 2.

 

Shortly after the reports surfaced of the agreement to share the Polo Grounds, a report noted that Mutrie American Association would be known as the “Metropolitans” in 1883, and that New York’s National League team would simply be called the “New York club.” The article noted that the decision on the team’s names helped resolve a “tangle,” which raises the question - if Mutrie American Association team had always been the Metropolitans, and if New York’s National League team were actually the new team (as baseball historians have heretofore assumed), then what was the “tangle” being resolved?

The New York tangle has been righted. The league team from Gotham will be christened New York club, and the association club will be named Metropolitan.

Fort Wayne Daily Gazette (Indiana), January 18, 1883, page 7.

 

The National League and American Association would not reach agreement on mutual and reciprocal player contract rules until adoption of the Tri-partite (“National”) Agreement in March of 1883, long after both teams had built their rosters for the season and been accepted into their respective new leagues. Which is more likely, that the National League would admit a new team, that had signed players under foreign, American Association contract law, or that it would admit a pre-existing team, with a pre-existing and continuing relationship under the common set of National League contract rules?

 

The New York Metropolitans

James Mutrie founded the New York Metropolitans as an independent professional team in 1880. They played twenty-six games at the original Polo Grounds between September 15^th and October 23^rd. They played sixteen of those games against National League opponents, with a record of 5-10-1, including three losses in three games to the 1880 League champions, Chicago.

Having proven the commercial viability of professional baseball in New York City, Mutrie set his sights on admission to the National League. His first move was to seek membership in a National League-affiliated baseball organization called the League Alliance.

 

League Alliance

In 1881 and 1882, Mutrie managed the Metropolitans in the National League-affiliated League Alliance, with applications for full membership in the National League pending during both of those seasons. Membership in the Alliance gave the team some security in player contracts and easier access to profitable games against major league opponents. It also gave them a leg up on the competition in gaining full membership in the League.

According to Brock Helander, writing for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), the “League Alliance arose as the National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs’ response to the perceived threat of the Internatinoal Association of Professional Base Ball Players in 1877.”^xv The purpose of the alliance was to “extend the League’s powers to independent teams across the country, limiting the availability of players while protecting the sanctity of contracts.” Helander’s article focuses primarily on the events of 1877, stating that it existed “only nominally thereafter.”

Helander closed his SABR article about the League Alliance with a comment consistent with the theory advanced here. “In 1882 [the League Alliance] provided a championship format for independent teams from the nation’s two most populous cities that led to their induction into the National League.” If the statement is true, then the New York Metropolitans of 1882, who contested the Alliance championship with Philadelphia in 1882, were the same franchise that was inducted into the National League before 1883.

Although perhaps “nominal” for most purposes, the Alliance was still alive in 1881 and 1882, and was an important part of the Metropolitans’ business plan. Membership in the alliance brought the team respectability in baseball circles, access to scheduling games with league opponents, and protected their roster from being poached by League teams.

James Mutrie organized the New York Metropolitans in 1880, and played only late-season games, many of them against professional teams eager to cash in on the New York baseball market, which had been without a major professional baseball team for several years.

The team owner sought membership in the League Alliance before the 1881 season began.

Mr. Day, the financial head of the Metropolitan Club of this city, made application for admission to the League Alliance, which will be granted beyond a doubt. This will give the Metropolitan Club all the protection of the League in enforcing contracts with players, etc., while not obliging them to incur the expense of Western tours involved in the regular League Club membership.

Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1880, page 5.

 

According to Spalding’s Offical Base Ball Guide - 1882, there “was but one League Alliance Club in 1881, and that was the Metropolitan Club of New York, of which Mr. Day was the financial manager, and James Mutrie - the old short stop of the New Bedford club of 1878 - the field manager.”

Membership in the Alliance promised the Metropolitans a successful, stable and lucrative season. The team also believed that membership in the Alliance would prepare them for admittance to the National League as soon as the following season, although that prediction would prove premature - it would not happen until 1883.

The Metropolitan Club is now an honorary member of the League, by virtue of its membership of the League Alliance, and under the protection of the League rules, will hold every player strictly to the League contract rules. It will not be as it was last fall, when the players were practically under no contract rules. This season every man who signs with Mr. Day will place himself in the position of a League player, and as such will be amenable alike to the League penalties. Mr. Day has received letters from players from all parts, soliciting position in the Metropolitan team.

. . . This season will be a preparatory one for the regular League club season of 1882 in [New York City], and it will necessarily be an experimental one.

Buffalo Morning Express, March 10, 1881, page 4.

 

Some observers even characterized membership in the Alliance as being “practically a league club team.”

The new Metropolitan team, of New York, which takes the field for the first time against the Detroit Club this coming Monday, on the Polo Grounds. The Metropolitan team this year is practically a league club team, as the club is a member of the League Alliance and amenable to the League association laws and rules, which hold players to a strict accountability.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 10, 1881, page 2.

 

But membership in the Alliance was a learning process. League contract rules included technical reporting requirements, which if not followed properly might cause a team to lose a player they believed to be under contract. The Metropolitans apparently made some errors along those lines, which made their first season of League Alliance play a challenge, particularly after losing some of their starters to injury.

The Metropolitan Club’s Management - It is now two months since the Metropolitan Club placed a team in the field at the Polo Grounds, to represent the Metropolis in the League Alliance arena. They began well with a nine which soon worked itself into local favor by well earned victories over league teams in April. . . . But by some mismanagement or other these extra men have been allowed to slip through their hands, though they had it in their power to hold them under league rules. . . .

The league rules require that league club managers - whether of regular or league alliance clubs - should send to Secretary Young a notification of their having made contracts with players, as soon as they are engaged. Unless this notification is sent in the rules oblige the secretary to ignore the fact of the existence of any such contract, and other clubs can engage players from league alliance clubs under such circumstances, just as if the player had signed no contract. The Metropolitans have just had experience of this.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 3, 1881, page 1.

 

Despite the initial hopes, it was clear by the end of the season that they would not join the National League for the 1882 season. But local sportswriters believed that continued membership in the League Alliance, as opposed to joining other new leagues being discussed, was in the team’s best interests, or any other teams’ best interests.

All doubt as to the complexion of the League for the season of 1882 may be considered at an end. The League will maintain its present membership without change, neither adding to nor taking from its numbers. . . .

Let all such clubs as cannot afford to enter the League championship arena become League Alliance clubs. That will given them protection from knavish players, and a reputable prestige, neither of which would be attainable at the hands of any Eastern League. As League Alliance clubs they could enter for the alliance championship, or for an Eastern championship. The League Association prohibits crooked play, Sunday ball playing, beer-selling and pool-selling, or open betting on any League club grounds, and these rules are enforced.

Chicago Tribune, September 25, 1881, page 12.

 

As of November of 1881, there were expected to be only three teams in the League Alliance during the 1882 season, a new team from Newark, New Jersey, the Metropolitans, and a team from Philadelphia,^xvi although only two teams, New York and Philadelphia, actually vied for the title. The Metropolitans took the regular season series fourteen games to six, while playing to a draw, six games to six, in a season-ending, League Alliance “Silver Prize” tournament.^xvii

In 1882 the Metropolitans entered the league arena in order to secure the protection of the league laws in keeping their players to their engagements and under subordination; and they closed the season by winning the League Alliance Championship, their adversary in this arena being the Philadelphia club.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 9, 1882, page 4.

Midway through the season, the Metropolitans submitted their application for full membership in the National League.

As the Metropolitans and Philadelphias, the two League-Alliance clubs, have each an application on file, the chances for Milwaukee are slim, especially as only the Worcesters are likely to withdraw.

Chicago Tribune, July 2, 1882, page 16.

 

Having proven the commercial viability of major league-level baseball in New York City, with nearly two seasons under their belt as members of the League Alliance, and with poor attendance threatening small National League cities like Troy and Worcester with demotion, the time was ripe to join the big leagues - one way or the other.

 

A New Team - A Rival League

During the off-season between the 1882 and 1883 seasons, a team from New York City, owned by the same ownership group that had owned the original Metropolitans, was admitted into the National League. During the same off-season period, James Mutrie reportedly withdrew from the original Metropolitans to form a new team to join a rival league, the American Association. By the time the 1883 season started, however, James Mutrie new team would be known as the “Metropolitans,” and the franchise formerly known as the Metropolitans, would be simply known as the “New York club.”

By the time the 1882 season came to an end, the National League had decided to expel both Worcester and Troy, paving the way for the the two League Alliance teams, the Metropolitans and Philadelphia, to join the League, although their requests for membership would not be formally acted upon until the League meetings in December.

A Move of the Base Ball League.

Philadelphia, September 22. - The executive committee of the national league of professional base ball players accepted the resignation of the Worcester, Massachusetts, and Troy, New York clubs. The application for admissions into membership from the Metropolitans, of New York, and the Philadelphia clubs will be acted upon in December. The explanation of the change is the desire to have no clubs in the league except from cites large enough to insure patronage.

The Leavenworth Times (Kansas), September 23, 1882, page 1.

 

When those plans were announced, changes were already underway in the management of the Metropolitans. James Mutrie was planning to leave the team to form his own, new team, with hopes of competing in an upstart, rival major league, the American Association. The Association had just completed its first year of operation, with teams in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Louisville, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Baltimore. It would expand in 1883, through the addition of teams from New York City and Columbus, Ohio.

James Mutrie, the organizer and manager of the Metropolitan Club, has determined to sever his connection with it at the close of the present season. He has just returned from a two weeks’ trip taken for the purpose of engaging players for a new club, which he contemplates putting in the field to represent this city next season. It will be known as the New-York Club, and will be backed by a stock company, every share of which has already been taken by a few wealthy gentlemen of this city. The nine, which it is promised will be very strong, will contend for the championship of the American Association.

New York Clipper, September 23, 1882, page 431, column 1.

 

The split was reportedly caused by a disagreement over team personnel.

Mutrie's withdrawal from the Mets was caused by the refusal of the stockholders to engage the players selected by him.

The Buffalo Commercial, September 28, 1882, page 3.

 

The dismantling of two major league teams put a glut of top talent on the market. Managers of several teams swooped into the towns where those teams were playing, hoping to pick up some good players. One report, out of Boston, names “J. B. Dove of the Metropolitans” (likely “J. B. Day” misspelled) and “Mutrie of the New York Club” as two of the managers in town to sign players from Troy, who were in town for a game.

All day yesterday the men were followed with religious persistency by the different managers in town, but all without effect. Among the managers who made the day a lively one with the Troy boys were Doescher of the Clevelands, Sharsiz of the Athletics, J. B. Dove of the Metropolitans, Thompson of the Detroits, Mutrie of the New York club, and or two of the directors of the Troy club and some of the management of the Boston club.

The Boston Globe, September 24, 1882, page 2.

 

The expansion of the American Association, and the National League’s plan to replace two small-market teams with teams from New York and Philadelphia, promised an interesting baseball season for 1883. The “Metropolitans” were expected to join the National League, while Mutrie “new club” was expected to join the American Association.

Next season bids fair to be one of the finest this country has ever experienced in base ball circles. There will be far more clubs in the arena than the two professional associations now in existence will be able to take within their folds. New York City, like Philadelphia, will contain two leading professional clubs, one in each association. The Metropolitans and the Philadelphias will enter the League and contest for the supremacy of that organization, while the new club which is to represent New York under the management of Mr. James Mutrie, formerly of the Metropolitans, will, like the Athletics, of Philadelphia, become a member of the American Association and compete for the championship of that body.

Courier-Post (Camden, New Jersey), September 25, 1882, page 1.

 

During the post-season, player-signing period following the 1882 season, the original Metropolitans were still members of the League Alliance, with full, mutual and reciprocal contract protection from the National League. The League Alliance was not dissolved until December 1882. It was dissolved at the same time Worcester and Troy were officially dropped from the League and the “Metropolitans” and Philadelphia were admitted to the League.^xviii The American Association and, by extension, Mutrie new team, slated to join the American Association, had no such agreement in place.

As early as October of 1882, reports circulated that Mutrie new New York team had been accepted into membership in the American Association. But the action was not finalized until the league meeting in mid-December.^xix

At the end of October 1882, a report of players under contract with National League teams for the following seasons included a list of eleven players signed to play for the “Metropolitans” the following season.^xx All of those players would play for New York’s National League team in 1883, not for the Metropolitans of the American Association.^xxi

In November of 1882, a similar report about team rosters, but without player names, reported separately that the “Metropolitans” of the National League had twelve players under contract, and that “Mutrie New York club” had nine men under contract.

At about the same time, the New York Sun reported that the “Metropolitan Club will be under new management next season, and will also be in the [National] League,” and that “Manager Mutrie, the organizer of the club, has resigned to take the management of the new American Association Club in this city next season.”^xxii

The New York Times, toward the end of November 1882, reported that the withdrawal of Troy and Worcester from the National League “left two vacancies, which were filled by the Metropolitan and Philadelphia Clubs.”^xxiii And when the League formally accepted the team in its fold during the League meetings in December, the Detroit Free Press reported, “the applications of the Metropolitans and Philadelphias for admission to the league were favorably acted upon and their Presidents were admitted to the meeting.”^xxiv

METROPOLITANS AND PHILADELPHIAS.

The resignations of the Troy and Worcester clubs were accepted, and the applications of the Metropolitans and Philadelphias for admission to the league were favorably acted upon and their Presidents were admitted to the meeting.

Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1882, page 1.

 

Immediately after admitting the “Metropolitans” into the League, the National League took action that appears to corroborate the notion that it was the original Metropolitans, and not some new team, which they had granted membership. The action involved the resolution of a dispute between Buffalo (then a National League team) and the “Metropolitans,” arising from a rain-out of a game originally scheduled to have been played on October 6, 1882, and the cancellation of the make-up game the following day.

 

A brief, initial report of the incident in the New York Times suggests that “Manager Mutrie found it more profitable not to play, as he would be compelled to pay the Buffalo men $100 should they play a game.”

Base-Ball.

The Metropolitans have assigned Ward, the pitcher of the Providence club, to play in the New-York League nine next season.

The game that was to have taken place on the Polo Grounds yesterday afternoon, between the Buffalo and Metropolitan nines, was postponed. About 50 persons paid admissions to the grounds, and Manager Mutrie found it more profitable not to play, as he would be compelled to pay the Buffalo men $100 should they play a game. This afternoon, however, if the weather proves favorable the Metropolitans will cross bats with the “Bisons.”

The New York Times, October 7, 1882, page 2.

 

This article is interesting in two respects. The comment that the Metropolitans had signed “Ward” (Hall-of-Famer, John Montgomery Ward) is consistent with the notion that the Metropolitans were the team admitted to the National League a couple months later. And the comment that it was Mutrie who decided not to play and not to pay, seems to contradict reports that he had withdrawn from the team weeks earlier.

But the Times’ own follow-up piece, published the following day, clarifies that it was the umpire, not Mutrie, who made the decision not to play, and that it was John B. Day, one of the team owners, who refused to pay, and not Mutrie. So perhaps Mutrie was not there, after all.

Base-Ball.

The Buffalo Club’s Singular Action.

The manager of the Buffalo Base-ball Club yesterday refused to allow his nine to play with the Metropolitan Club. ON Friday, Mr. John Kelly, a League umpire, declared the grounds to be in an unfit condition to play ball, and the game was not played. The manager of the Buffalo team thereupon demanded $100 guarantee, while it is claimed by the Metropolitan Club managers that according to the rules he was entitled to but $50. Mr. John B. Day, of the Metropolitans, refused to pay the guarantee, but said he would leave it to the Directors of the League at their next meeting and abide by their decision in the matter.

The New York Times, October 8, 1882, page 9.

 

When the teams met to play a make-up game on the following day, however, it was Buffalo who refused to play, unless they received immediate payment of their $100.

After all the preliminaries were arranged George H. Hughson, Secretary of the Buffalos, went to the Superintendent of the Metropolitans, Mr. Bell, and demanded $100, which he claimed was due him from the day before, and said if it was not paid he would call his nine from the field. His demand was not complied with, and he called the Buffalo players from the field.

The New York Times, October 8, 1882, page 9.

 

After admitting the “Metropolitans” into the National League, the League resolved the matter, ordering the “Metropolitans” to pay the $100.

The Buffalo and Metropolitan Controversy has been settled. The Metropolitans were ordered to pay over to the Buffalo Association $100.

The Boston Globe, December 8, 1882, page 2.

 

If the National League had not admitted the Metropolitans, they would have had no business of deciding any issue involving the Metropolitans at their League meeting. Any inter-league dispute would have had to be handled by negotiations between the two leagues. But in December 1882, the leagues were not yet on speaking terms.

When the National League voted to admit the “Metropolitans” and Philadelphia in early-December 1882, they had not reached an agreement with the American Association governing the mutual and reciprocal respect for one another’s player contracts. The National League was pushing for the creation of a multi-league commission to reach such an agreement in mid-December 1882, but the American Association was still resisting the idea.^xxv

On the subject of the alleged overtures of peace from the National League it was decided that as no official communication in regard to the matter had been received there was no cause for appointing a conference committee.

The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), December 14, 1882, page 3.

 

They reconsidered the issue the following day, appointing a committee to confer with the National League to “adjust the differences between the two organizations.”^xxvi There would be no agreement in place until until March 1882, when the National League, American Association and the Northwestern League all formally adopted the Tri-partite (or “National”) Agreement.^xxvii

The lack of any agreement during the player-signing period and at the moment the National League admitted the “Metropolitans” seems important in analyzing which of the two New York teams would be more likely to be admitted into the League. It seems more likely that the League would deal with an existing team, with a pre-existing relationship and mutual player-contract agreement in place.

Contemporary reporting also named the “Metropolitans” as the team that signed player contracts with players would play for New York in the National League the following season; names the “Metropolitans” as the team that joined the National League in December; and treated the “Metropolitans” as a League team such that it could demand payment for an old debt incurred during the prior season.

Contemporary reporting also discussed Mutrie leaving the Metropolitans, forming a “new” team (not called the Metropolitans), signing players for that team, and having his “new” team admitted into the American Association.

A “tangle” of some sort, apparently involving the identity of the two teams, was “righted” in January 1883.

The New York tangle has been righted. The league team from Gotham will be christened New York club, and the association club will be named Metropolitan.

Fort Wayne Daily Gazette (Indiana), January 18, 1883, page 7.

 

After the team-naming announcement, Mutrie team would be generally referred to as the “Metropolitans,” and the National League team as the “New York club,” or the like. But Mutrie’s team was still, on occasion, referred to as the “new club,” despite having the old name.

There will be two first class professional clubs located in New York next season. The league club will be under the control of Mr. Day and the American Association club will be managed by Mr. Mutrie. Both clubs will play upon the Polo Ground, which is located between One Hundred and Tenth and One Hundred and Twelfth streets and Fifth and Sixth avenues. The league club, which is to be known as the New York team, is to be located on the Fifth avenue end of the field, and will occupy the diamond which was laid out last season. The new club, which will be known as the Metropolitans, will have nothing but the old open stand, which was erected in 1881 for the accommodation of the foot ball spectators.

The Boston Globe, February 4, 1883, page 8.

 

Two Teams - One Owner

One reason that the New York team entering the National League could, so easily, transfer their supposed nickname, the “Metropolitans,” to a new team slated to join a different league, is that by the time the decision was made, both teams were under the same ownership team - the Metropolitan Exhibition Company. John B. Day, who had backed Mutrie, apparently took on some wealthier investors.

The Metropolitan Exhibition Company was organized in 1882, primarily to take control of their home field, the Polo Grounds, which they had previously rented, ad hoc, at the mercy of its polo-playing owners, who controlled the scheduling availability of the field.

One of the obstacles encountered by the Metropolitan management of 1881 was that arising from their not having entire control of the ground. To remove this difficulty the Metropolitan Club of 1881 was changed to the Metropolitan Exhibition Company of 1882, the latter being organized under the auspices of gentlemen of means, who were desirous not only of fully reviving professional play in the metropolis on the basis of honest service in the ranks, but of encouraging all gentlemanly sports of an athletic nature; and the first thing the new company did was to lease the Polo Grounds for a series of years,^xxviii so as to be able to practically carry out their ideas in regard to the establishment of a modern professional base ball ground.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 9, 1882, page 4.

 

Shortly after the earliest rumors of Mutrie withdrawal from the Metropolitans started circulating, he was said to be financed by the same people who financed his former team.

Mutrie is getting together a club to represent New York in the American Association next season. He is backed by Messrs. Lippincott and Day, the present backers of the metropolitans, who have a lease on the polo grounds, where the “Mets” now play.

New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 28, 1882, page 8.

 

Another report that the teams would be under common ownership implied that the Metropolitans would the National League and Mutrie newly-organized team would enter the American Association.

The present managers of the Metropolitan Club, it is said, are shaping matters so as to have the monopoly of the game in New York next year. The organization of the New York club, with Mutrie as manager, and which will probably be admitted into the American Association, is part of the project.

New Orleans Times-Democrat, September 30, 1882, page 2.

 

Nevertheless, despite the Metropolitan Exhibition Company having a long-term lease to the Polo Grounds, Mutrie team had “not yet located their grounds for the next season” as of the first week of October.^xxix The question of a stadium was still up in the air toward the end of November.

Where the games will be played while in town is not settled as yet, but it is understood that the projectors of the club have been negotiating for the lease of some property at One Hundred and Thirty-fifth-street and Eighth-avenue. . . . Unless the two clubs settle matters between themselves and arrange it so when the American Association club is in town the League team will be on the road, this difference of admission will certainly tend to hurt the high-priced exponents of the national game.

The New York Times, November 28, 1882, page 2.

 

The fact that it was Mutrie “new” American Alliance team that was seeking new quarters supports the notion that it was the original “Metropolitans,” who were slated to join the National League and continue to play in the Polo Grounds, a field for which their ownership team had a pre-existing lease.

Despite the few early-off-season rumors that both New York teams were financed by the same people, there is no further reference to it during October, November and December, when the teams were building their roster and admitted into their respective leagues. In January, however, a rumor emerged from the American Association league meetings, that the two teams were under “the same management.” Again, the article revealing the rumor supports the notion that the National League team is the same one that had played as the Metropolitans in 1882, and that the team joining the American Alliance was a new team, simply called the “New York club.”

Now comes a rumor that the present polo grounds on which the Metropolitans played last year are to be cut in two and occupied, half by the New York club, and the other half by the Metropolitans, who now hold League membership. It is also stated that both clubs are under the same management, although this fact is kept a secret.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 8, 1883, page 8.

 

Ten days later came the report that the “tangle” had been “righted,” and that the League team would be “christened” the “New York club,” and the team would be “named” the “Metropolitans.”^xxx

The great weight of reporting between late-September 1882 and early-January 1883 suggests that James Mutrie left the Metropolitans to form a new team; the original Metropolitans were admitted to the National League and Mutrie new New York team was admitted to the American Alliance; and the teams later swapped team names by mutual agreement. There was, however, some reporting during that period which, if standing alone, might give the opposite impression. In the interests of full disclosure, the contrary evidence is set out below.

 

Two Teams - One Manager(?)

Late in the process of assembling the information presented here, one more thread of information popped up that seems to support the theory that the original Metropolitans of 1880-1882 became the New York National League team of 1883. The new line of argument is not necessary to make the case, but it does point to James Mutrie’s continued, direct involvement in the operation and management of the National League team of 1883, despite his better-known position as manager of the Metropolitans in the American Association that same year. The notion is plausible, given that the two teams were both controlled by the Metropolitan Exhibition Company. If true, it suggests an even greater degree of continuity between the 1882 Metropolitans and New York’s 1883 National League team.

Several reports identify James Mutrie as the “manager” of New York’s National League team during the 1883 season, at the same time he is known to have been the manager of the New York Metropolitans in the American Association. One report appeared in Spalding’s authoritative Base Ball Guide and Official League Book. The apparently had an official connection to the National League; the “Publisher’s Notice” in the early pages of the book include a reproduction of a letter from “N. E. Young, Secretary National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs,” certifying that A. G. Spalding & Bros. had been granted the “exclusive right to publish the Official League Book for 1884.”

The eight managers who nominally governed their respective teams - and in a majority of instances actually did so - in the League arena in 1883, were Messrs. Harry Wright, Anson, Morrill, O’Rourke, Bancroft, Chapman, Ferguson and Mutrie.

Spalding’s Base Ball Guide and Official League Book for 1884, Chicago, A. G. Spalding & Bros., 1884, page 20.

 

The 1884 Guide includes the results of games played in October 1883, so it is not the case that the book was assembled or published too early to include changes from 1882. The Guide also includes a detailed account of the American Association’s 1883 season, but does not include a similar list of American Association managers. Spalding’s Base Ball Guide for 1885 includes lists Mutrie as manager for the AA Metropolitans and a man named Price as manager of the NL New York team.

The comment that some of the managers “nominally” managed their teams, may suggest that some of the managers were not day-to-day field managers, perhaps only business manager of some sort. That may have been the case with Mutrie, although he was known to travel with his National League team on occasion.

James Mutrie, manager of the New York and Metropolitan teams, joined his league team in this city yesterday.

Detroit Free Press, May 19, 1883, page 1.

 

On at least one occasion, Mutrie spoke on behalf of both teams, in his capacity as a representative of the “Metropolitan company,” which owned both teams. Mutrie visited the Boston Globe to address what he believed were biased reporting against both of his teams.

The Metropolitan Company.

Manager James Mutrie of the Metropolitan company was in the city [(Boston)] yesterday, and paid a visit to The Globe. He says that the numerous statements relative to the New Yorks and Metropolitans, which have been going the rounds of the press throughout the country, emanate from the pen of a disgruntled New York base ball reporter, who corresponds for many Western papers, besides reporting for the New York press.

The Boston Globe, August 15, 1883, page 2.

 

One report he addressed had to do with low attendance at a National League game between New York and Philadelphia, played on August 13^th. The low attendance, he said, was due to the fact that the game was not played on its originally scheduled date. The official record of the game corroborates the statement, listing it as rescheduled from September 5^th, for an unknown reason.

A second report Mutrie addressed with the Globe reporters was some “disgraceful conduct” in an American Association game between New York and Allegheny, which Mutrie claimed was not accurate - there had been “trouble with the umpire,” he admitted, but which had been “easily adjusted,” he claimed.

One of the reports Mutrie addressed in the interview related to the low attendance at a National League game between New York and New York’s National League team, not the Metropolitans, so he appears to have been speaking on behalf of the NL team, not simply speaking about teams from New York, generally.

Another source suggests Mutrie went out on the road on behalf of the Metropolitan Exhibition Company, late in the 1883 season, to recruit players for both teams for the following season.

The salaries which the players of the Metropolitan and New York clubs are demanding for the next season are remarkably high. Some of the men ask for $5,000 for the season’s work. The Metropolitan Exhibition Company are in most cases paying the players whom they intend to keep the prices they ask. Manager Mutrie, who is now on the road, is not passing any good player by, and it is understood that several first-class men have promised to play in New York next season.

Detroit Free Press, September 26, 1883, page 3.

 

There were also reports that was a manager for three teams, simultaneously.

Manager Mutrie of the New Yorks, who represents the Metropolitans and the Newarks as well, was in the city yesterday arranging for a series of games on the Hartford grounds between these fine clubs. The rumor that the Newarks are very soon to make this city their headquarters and change their name to the Hartfords is not without some foundation.

Hartford Courant, August 23, 1883, page 2.

 

Mr. Mutrie, manager of the Metropolitans, New Yorks and Newarks, was in Hartford yesterday and completed arrangements to transfer the Newarks to that city and rename them the Hartfords. They will be managed by Charles Toby.

The Philadelphia Times, August 24, 1883, page 4.

 

Mutrie’s close working relationship with teams in several leagues reportedly caused friction with other teams of the American Association. Following a “secret and special meeting of the American Base Ball Association,” the league Secretary was directed to give Mutrie an ultimatum.

[The Secretary] was also ordered to notify the Metropolitan club that if they wish to retain their membership in the Association next year they must at once cut loose from every other club, and have a separate and distinct management and a separate and individual ground. This means that unless the Mets pull away from the New York League club, and get grounds other than the Polo grounds for 1884, they must step down and out. The Association have been grossly imposed upon by the Metropolitan management, which, it has been discovered, is but a secondary part of the League Club. If they remain a member for next year they will have to vacate their present grounds and locate away from the League club. The Secretary was also requested to notify the Mets that if any one connected with the Mets had anything to do, directly or indirectly, in organizing or giving encouragement to any other association they would promptly expelled. This grew out of a rumor that Mutrie was about to remove his Newark club to Hartford, to join the Independent organization.

Pittsburgh Daily Post, September 3, page 4 (a similar report appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal, September 2, 1883, page 4).

 

Evidence to the Contrary

A New York Times report, toward the end of November 1882, is ambiguous on the issue of continuity for the Metropolitan franchise with the new League team. It noted, on the one hand, that the withdrawal of Troy and Worcester from the National League “left two vacancies, which were filled by the Metropolitan and Philadelphia Clubs.”^xxxi On the other hand, the headline of the article, “Formation of a Club to Represent this City Next Season,” might be read to mean formation of a new team entirely (although it might refer to building a roster to compete in the League). And a comment, to the effect that the New York League team “will be under the same management as that which had charge of the Metropolitan Club,” suggests the writer may have considered the new League team as something other than the old Metropolitan franchise. In either case, the article appears to be internally inconsistent on its own terms, and at best, ambiguous on the issue.

About a week later, the New York Times reported the names of the nine players under contract with New York’s American Association for the 1883 season. One comment in the article suggested that the writer believed that the original Metropolitan franchise was no longer in existence - “[i]t will be under the management of Mr. James Mutrie, who organized the Metropolitan Club and held the position of manager during its existence.” This comment is not consistent with numerous other references to the “Metropolitans’” off-season signings.

In mid-December 1882, a report of the American Alliance meetings, held in New York City, listed the names of attendees and the teams they represented. “Manager Mutrie,” it said, “represented the Metropolitans” at the meeting.^xxxii

It is impossible to read the mind of the writer, but it is possible that the writer merely assumed the name of the team, based on Mutrie past association with the Metropolitans. It is an easy conclusion to draw - the same manager, with some of the same players, on a team of the same name. But it is inconsistent with the great weight of other published reports from the 1882-1883 off-season and player-signing period, as laid out above.

"New York League Base Ball Club" (Copyrighted by James Mutrie New York 1883) https://www.toddradom.com/blog/first-stylish-mlb-uniforms-the-1883-new-york-gothams 

 

Conclusion

The obvious conclusion is an easy assumption to make. Without digging deep into the weeds of the week-to-week reporting between September 1882 and February 1883, it looks like an obvious slam-dunk - Mutrie managed the Metropolitans in 1882 and managed the Metropolitans in 1883, with many of the same players - “obviously” they are the same team.

But if one were to look only at the week-by-week reporting of player and league transactions during that period, without knowing what came before or after, it also seems like an obvious slam-dunk - Mutrie left the original Metropolitans, organized and recruited a new team to represent New York in the American Association, and later, by mutual agreement with his previous team, now in the National League, reclaimed the name of the team he had built from the ground up for use with his new team, which he had more recently built from the ground up. Not only do most of the reports from the period say so explicitly, baseball law, the Metropolitans’ pre-existing membership in the League Alliance, and the absence of an inter-league compact during the player-signing period, also provide an underlying motive in support of the theory.

Whether one buys into the theory or not, the details of the transition of the Metropolitans from non-league independent, to major league team, and the simultaneous creation of a second major league team from New York, may be of interest to baseball nerds and historians.

 

 

---

ⁱ  “Mets Might Be Giants - an Alternative History of the New York Giants, Early Sports and Pop-Culture History Blog, October 31, 2019. https://esnpc.blogspot.com/2019/10/mets-might-be-giants-alternative.html

ⁱⁱ  https://twitter.com/thorn_john/status/1368623783523803139

ⁱⁱⁱ  https://twitter.com/thorn_john/status/1603476028395261953

^iv  Buffalo Commercial, September 28, 1882.

^v  The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), December 14, 1882, page 3.

^vi  And in any case, the rosters of the 1881 and 1882 Metropolitans also bore little resemblance to one another, so it is unclear how persuasive the observation should considered, one way or the other. Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 9, 1882, page 4. “Team of 1881. Batteries. Doty-Dongan, Poorman-Farrow, Neagle-Hayes, Doyle-Sullivan,Driscoll-Kelly. Infielders. Esterbrook, Brady, Muldoon, Say. Outfielders. Kennedy, Clinton, Roseman. Team of 1882. Batteries. Lynch-Reipslager, Doyle-Clapp, O’Neill-Clapp, Valentine-Clapp. Infielders. Reilly, Larkin, Hankinson, Nelson. Outfielders. Kennedy, T. Mansell, Brady.”

^vii  Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1880, page 5 (“Mr. Day, the financial head of the Metropolitan Club of [New York City], made application for admission to the League Alliance, which will be granted beyond doubt.”); Buffalo Morning Express, March 10, 1881, page 4 (“The Metropolitan Club is now an honorary member of the League, by virtue of its membership of the League Alliance, and under the protection of the league rules . . . .”).

^viii  The New York Times, May 9, 1882, page 8 (“The first of a series of games for the championship of the Base Ball League Alliance between the Philadelphia club and the Metropolitan nine was played at the Polo Grounds yesterday afternoon . . . .”).

^ix  New York Clipper, September 25, 1880, page 212.

^x  Chicago Tribune, July 2, 1882, page 16.

^xi  Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1882, page 1.

^xii  Interview with James Mutrie. Detroit Free Press, September 12, 1882, page 1.

^xiii  https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYG/1883.shtml

^xiv  Chicago Tribune, December 8, 1882, page 3 (“It was learned today that the Metropolitans were ordered by a vote on Wednesday to pay the Buffalos the $100 guarantee which Manager Mutrie refused upon one stormy day last season.”). The game at issue was originally scheduled for October 6, 1882. After the field was declared unfit for play due to rain, John B. Day, of the Metropolitans, refused to pay the $100 advance, believing only a $50 payment was warranted. Before a game scheduled for the next day, Buffalo demanded immediate payment, and left the field without playing when it was refused. See, “Base-Ball. The Buffalo Club’s Singular Action,” The New York Times, October 8, 1882, page 9.

^xv  “The League Alliance,” Brock Helander, sabr.org. https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/the-league-alliance/

^xvi  Detroit Free Press, November 8, 1881, page 1.

^xvii  The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 9, 1882, page 4.

^xviii  Chicago Tribune, December 7, 1882, page 5 (Worcester and Troy resigned; League Alliance eliminated); Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1882, page 1.(Worcester and Troy resigned; Metropolitans and Philadelphia admitted).

^xix  Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), December 14, 1882, page 3 (“T]he following clubs and their representatives were admitted to membership: . . . New York, J. Mutrie and W. S. Appleton.”).

^xx  St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 31, 1882, page 8 (“Metropolitans - Caskins, Dorgan, Clapp, Hankinson, O’Neil, Ward, Gillespie, Welch, Troy, Ewing, Connor.”).

^xxi  https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYG/1883.shtml

^xxii  The New York Sun, November 13, 1882, page 3.

^xxiii  New York Times, November 20, 1882, page 8.

^xxiv  Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1882, page 1.

^xxv  The Louisville Courier-Journal (Kentucky), December 14, 1882, page 3.

^xxvi  The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 15, 1882, page 1.

^xxvii  The Cincinnati Enquirer, March 18, 1883, page 11.

^xxviii  The Metropolitan Exhibition Company sub-let the remainder of the Manhattan Polo Club’s five year lease on the property, which was set to expire at the close of the 1885 season. See “Mets Might Be Giants - an Alternative History of the New York Giants,” Early Sports and Pop-Culture History Blog, October 31, 2019. https://esnpc.blogspot.com/2019/10/mets-might-be-giants-alternative.html#_ednref35

^xxix  New York Clipper, October 7, 1882, page 466.

^xxx  Fort Wayne Daily Gazette (Indiana), January 18, 1883, page 7.

^xxxi  New York Times, November 20, 1882, page 8.

^xxxii  Cincinnati Enquirer, December 13, 1882, page 4.