Celebrate the past, live in the present.

[Shotgun Shuba]

I love the dedication and obvious affection shown to our beloved Dodgers, but I am a little confused. It was an awful thing for the Dodgers to move but it is such a complex issue that you cannot just turn your back on the Dodger Blue. O'Malley was a greedy opportunist, but Robert Moses is the villain. One post even suggested the "Brooklyn Curse" should have been called for in 1963. What kind of person would root for the Yankees over the Dodgers of any city? I can't fault the Dodgers for leaving a declining urban area and moving toward an uncertain future. O'Malley made it work and the Dodgers thrived. I am positive most of the posters on this site don't live in Brooklyn now, if ever. Did you betray Brooklyn by leaving? No, you wanted to make a life for yourselves and the true Dodger fan would never abandon them just because of their ownership. With today's technology you could follow the Dodgers even more closely than 50 years ago. Don't live in the past, your Dodgers deserve better than that. I wish Ebbets field still stood but that is over forever, enjoy what you can still see, touch and hear. Dodgers Forever!

[Mike Nealon]

excellent point, Peter Goldenbock's Bum's book talks about the "mass exodus" of the Brooklynites out of Brooklyn. The same people who rooted for Robinson to be treated equally did so, just as long as it wasn't in their back yard. However, I disagree with the Robert Moses remark, I've said this before and I'll say it again, blaming Moses is like blaming your parents for not letting you take cookies out of the cookie jar. Do they have the power to do so? yes, do they have to? no. Moses was under no obligation to kiss O'Malley's fanny and in turn didn't. After all Moses told O'Malley, if you want the land that bad why don't you go and buy it yourself. Of course O'Malley didn't want this, he wanted Moses to look like the bad guy running in there and kicking everyone out, then turning around and selling the land to O'Malley at a wholesale discount price, something O'Malley would never have gotten on the open market. Capitalism works both ways, not just O'Malley's way!!!

[Shotgun Shuba]

You are right, there is plenty of blame to go around. The story of the Dodgers and Giants leaving is one involving a city, country and society that were changing. No city could support three ball teams. The Dodgers could not move to Nassau or Queens and still be the Brooklyn Dodgers and the temptation was just too great. As for the Giants, as Stoneham said " I feel bad for the kids, but I haven't seen many of their parents lately." To have a team you have to support them. Both teams had to go for it to work and so it happened. Besides, think of the miracle Mets never occuring, everything works out. I lived on Long Island for 30 years, but the time came to leave. Thats life.

[donzblock]

The time had not come to leave, at least not for the Brooklyn Dodgers. They simply needed a new ballpark. We have listened for a long time to the argument that suggests that Brooklyn Dodger fans are hypocrites for criticizing the move out of Brooklyn when they themselves moved out of Brooklyn. I and my fellow movers did not move out of greed. I did not move to Pennsylvania because the state gave me a sweetheart deal on real estate and built me a great new house. The differences between my move and the Dodgers' move are significant and have already been spelled out. Think about these differences and you will come up with so many that you ought to see how absurd it is to equate the two.

The curse should have been invoked in 1963, and the kind of person who would have rooted for the Yankees in 1963 is not a person who was rooting against the real Dodgers. The real Dodgers were killed at the end of 1957, and so far there has been no resurrection. Your shotgun, Mr. Shuba, is firing blanks.

[tonypug]

Many of us moved to Long Island and still came to Brooklyn for games. We went to as many games when we lived on Long Island as we did when we lived in Brooklyn and that was quite a few.

[EbtsFldGuy]

In their posts, Shotgun Shuba makes sense, and Mike Nealon adds reality.

As we have discussed on other threads at length, Ebbets Field and its environs were on a steady path downward as the 1957 season arrived. The familiar problems, perceived or real (i.e. lack of mass transit from Long Island, limited parking, concern about safety, and the aging park, among others) were causing people to stay away. While Tony Pug and some other ex Brooklynites may have come back to Crown Heights from Long Island to see a game, not enough of them did - droves of others declined to make the trip back, for the above reasons and perhaps others.

And even within the City, it was chancy to go to EF sometimes. I remember making the trip as a young boy with my Dad, who was physically handicapped, and having to park several blocks away from EF on streets that were seemingly not safe was a real disincentive for even Dodger loyalists like us. That feeling was surely not isolated.

Had the Dodgers stayed then and no changes been made, attendance would likely have continued to drop steadily. Who knows where that would have taken the team - especially with the financially restless owner that OM was? Maybe their trip to LA -or Arizona - or somewhere else was just a matter of time. Maybe not.

Sure, we all wish they were still at Ebbets Field. But that's as much a fantasy as the "Curse of Brooklyn" is folly.

The borough was changing rapidly then, and the Dodgers faced a challenge that confronted other teams years later (e. g. the Tigers, the Phillies, and the Yankees). The reality is that although NYC would later renovate Yankee Stadium twice at great cost, in the late 1950s it was not about to do that for the Dodgers in the way that OM wanted.

I believe, though, that with a stronger Mayor, and with an earlier-acting Governor, compromise could have been reached and the Dodgers saved for NYC, though perhaps not for Brooklyn.

Perhaps even the Giants could have been settled in NJ, or even co-located with the Dodgers in Queens (in what would have been the ULTIMATE co -existence compromise!). There was no place for them in Manhattan, however.

All of this would make a fine case study for an MBA program somewhere.

Regrettably, though, now we have only our memories of that wonderful time in our youth when the Dodgers gave Brooklyn and Dodger fans a kind of warm spirit that was unique, and enriched all of our lives. Thankfully, this board and our poster colleagues keep that spirit alive!

[Shotgun Shuba]

Well thought out and well said. I have promised not to talk about the move any more. I think it was inevitable that one of the NL New York teams would have to move, others disagree. That era sure was a bright spot in baseball history. I must add, however,(and I know people will scream at me) if the Dodgers or Giants decided to come back, I think there are too few people left who would even care. Most people in NY under 55 have grown up not giving a hoot about the Dodgers or Giants.

[tonypug]

I love the dedication and obvious affection shown to our beloved Dodgers, but I am a little confused. It was an awful thing for the Dodgers to move but it is such a complex issue that you cannot just turn your back on the Dodger Blue. O'Malley was a greedy opportunist, but Robert Moses is the villain. One post even suggested the "Brooklyn Curse" should have been called for in 1963. What kind of person would root for the Yankees over the Dodgers of any city? I can't fault the Dodgers for leaving a declining urban area and moving toward an uncertain future. O'Malley made it work and the Dodgers thrived. I am positive most of the posters on this site don't live in Brooklyn now, if ever. Did you betray Brooklyn by leaving? No, you wanted to make a life for yourselves and the true Dodger fan would never abandon them just because of their ownership. With today's technology you could follow the Dodgers even more closely than 50 years ago. Don't live in the past, your Dodgers deserve better than that. I wish Ebbets field still stood but that is over forever, enjoy what you can still see, touch and hear. Dodgers Forever!
I do celebrate the past and live in the present. By choice I prefer to ignore the LA team, and root elsewhere. No one here says you can't root for the LA team, just don't come here and say we should.

[Shotgun Shuba]

I will not, trust me. Since I made that post I have decided it was wrong for me to talk about L.A., since that was never the point of this forum. I only speak Brooklynese here.

[tonypug]

I will not, trust me. Since I made that post I have decided it was wrong for me to talk about L.A., since that was never the point of this forum. I only speak Brooklynese here.
Then I hold my hand out in peace.

[donzblock]

I would like to believe that that there is room enough for three MLB baseball teams in NYC. Put the Dodgers in Coney Island; put the Giants in Manhattan somewhere on the Hudson River waterfront; keep the Yankees in the Bronx. Move the Mets--anywhere. Or keep the Mets in Queens and have four MLB teams in the city. What the hell! Such a plan might persuade MLB to euthanize the Philadelphia Phillies so that the four NYC teams could have a convenient place for their minor league teams. Or move the Phillies to Staten Island and have 5 MLB teams in NYC. We now have a new and flexible master plan.

[Shotgun Shuba]

I would like to believe that that there is room enough for three MLB baseball teams in NYC. Put the Dodgers in Coney Island; put the Giants in Manhattan somewhere on the Hudson River waterfront; keep the Yankees in the Bronx. Move the Mets--anywhere. Or keep the Mets in Queens and have four MLB teams in the city. What the hell! Such a plan might persuade MLB to euthanize the Philadelphia Phillies so that the four NYC teams could have a convenient place for their minor league teams. Or move the Phillies to Staten Island and have 5 MLB teams in NYC. We now have a new and flexible master plan.

What did Staten Island do to deserve that?

[donzblock]

What did Staten Island do to deserve that?
Philadelphia today does not deserve the Phillies. Philadelphians have suffered enough. However, there is a huge landfill in Staten Island that would be just perfect for the Phillies. Also, the Phillies would be able to absorb and conteract the awful smells that waft over from Elizabeth, New Jersey.

[ColtscorrAL]

I love the Brooklyn Dodgers and I love the LA Dodgers. Guess I love the Dodgers. :atthepc

[donzblock]

A friend of mine has similar tastes. He loves classical music and mud wrestling.

[dreifort]

what would the Dodger fans have done if the team relocated to Queens, where Shea Stadium is today? Would you have rejected the team there also? - from reading past posts and books...Queens was not an option in the eyes of Dodger fans?

[DODGER DEB]

what would the Dodger fans have done if the team relocated to Queens, where Shea Stadium is today? Would you have rejected the team there also? - from reading past posts and books...Queens was not an option in the eyes of Dodger fans?


THAT, dreifort, would NEVER have happened!!!!

c.

[donzblock]

what would the Dodger fans have done if the team relocated to Queens, where Shea Stadium is today? Would you have rejected the team there also? - from reading past posts and books...Queens was not an option in the eyes of Dodger fans?
Had the Dodgers moved to Queens, getting them back to Brooklyn would have been a lot easier. The point, however, is not how we would have responded to Queens. The point is how we have responded to LA: that response has been clear and nearly unanimous

[jaykay]

"Brooklyn Dodgers" with their new home ballpark in Queens? Why would that have been a problem? When the New York Highlanders/Yankees moved from the Polo Grounds to their new home ballpark in The Bronx, there was no gnashing of teeth because they weren't going to be called The Bronx Yankees. As my fellow old-timers all know, Brooklyn was a city when the team came into existence, and in those more relaxed and more rational days, teams were named after the cities they called home (sometimes, when even the faintest measure of creativity was lacking, resulting in the babytalk-doubletalk of "Philadelphia Phillies," for example). The Dodgers in Queens would have still been the "Brooklyn Dodgers," I believe, and virtually all of their fans within hailing distance would have been happy enough to visit the new ballpark ( call it Shea Stadium, O'Malley Stadium, what's the difference) - closer to where they lived after moving from Brooklyn, cleaner, possessed of ample parking adjacent to the ball grounds, the team featuring Brooklyn boy Hall of Famer Sandy Koufax.....I could go on.....and who knows if some of these thoughts hadn't crossed the mind of Moses, even if he knew next to nothing about baseball.....and O'Malley's mind, too, but he had better reasons to leave than to stay.

I mean, c'mon guys and gals, if the Brooklyn Dodgers died in 1957 because the team moved to LA, would that team have died in - let us say - 1962 because the team moved to Queens? Hate Moses with all your aching heart if you must, but he never said "I want this team out of New York!" O'Malley? That's another story.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Brooklyn Dodgers playing in Queens would have exceeded the success (baseballwise, businesswise, and otherwisewise) of the Mets. What's in a name? The NFL New York Giants don't play in New York, the New York Jets don't play there either, the Detroit Lions don't play in Detroit, nor the Cowboys in Dallas, etc. and so forth, and not all of the extant examples are in football. The Dodgers might have been playing in Queens for the past 48 years, winning some, losing some, agitating for a new stadium (in Brooklyn?) - perhaps abandoned by a few of the Flatbush Faithful because the home field was no longer in what was once the city of Brooklyn. As some of you know, I gave up betting about two years ago, but all the same, I'll betcha that every Brooklyn native who tunes in to this forum now lives somewhere else. And if you want to double the stakes, I'll bet that plenty of you left before the Dodgers did.

What's that? You moved to Queens?
Then there we are.

[DODGER DEB]

"Brooklyn Dodgers" with their new home ballpark in Queens? Why would that have been a problem? When the New York Highlanders/Yankees moved from the Polo Grounds to their new home ballpark in The Bronx, there was no gnashing of teeth because they weren't going to be called The Bronx Yankees. As my fellow old-timers all know, Brooklyn was a city when the team came into existence, and in those more relaxed and more rational days, teams were named after the cities they called home (sometimes, when even the faintest measure of creativity was lacking, resulting in the babytalk-doubletalk of "Philadelphia Phillies," for example). The Dodgers in Queens would have still been the "Brooklyn Dodgers," I believe, and virtually all of their fans within hailing distance would have been happy enough to visit the new ballpark ( call it Shea Stadium, O'Malley Stadium, what's the difference) - closer to where they lived after moving from Brooklyn, cleaner, possessed of ample parking adjacent to the ball grounds, the team featuring Brooklyn boy Hall of Famer Sandy Koufax.....I could go on.....and who knows if some of these thoughts hadn't crossed the mind of Moses, even if he knew next to nothing about baseball.....and O'Malley's mind, too, but he had better reasons to leave than to stay.

I mean, c'mon guys and gals, if the Brooklyn Dodgers died in 1957 because the team moved to LA, would that team have died in - let us say - 1962 because the team moved to Queens? Hate Moses with all your aching heart if you must, but he never said "I want this team out of New York!" O'Malley? That's another story.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Brooklyn Dodgers playing in Queens would have exceeded the success (baseballwise, businesswise, and otherwisewise) of the Mets. What's in a name? The NFL New York Giants don't play in New York, the New York Jets don't play there either, the Detroit Lions don't play in Detroit, nor the Cowboys in Dallas, etc. and so forth, and not all of the extant examples are in football. The Dodgers might have been playing in Queens for the past 48 years, winning some, losing some, agitating for a new stadium (in Brooklyn?) - perhaps abandoned by a few of the Flatbush Faithful because the home field was no longer in what was once the city of Brooklyn. As some of you know, I gave up betting about two years ago, but all the same, I'll betcha that every Brooklyn native who tunes in to this forum now lives somewhere else. And if you want to double the stakes, I'll bet that plenty of you left before the Dodgers did.

What's that? You moved to Queens?
Then there we are.


YOU always could make a convincing argument, jaykay!

OK, OK, I live in Queens.....but, I moved years after 1957.

My point was that I could never see OUR DODGERS being called the "BROOKLYN DODGERS", while holdup in Queens. Just as I have a problem with calling both the GIANTS and JETS, NY teams, while residing in NJ. Call me a purist, BUT, that is the way I feel!

On the other hand, YOU are right about having OUR TEAM just minutes away, right here in NYC, where WE could have been enjoying them for the past 48 years, instead of knowing how unappreciated they were wasting away in "la la land".

.....and YOU are right again, about how OUR DODGERS would have continued to bring more business, baseballwise, and "otherwisewise", to this town, than the Mets have ever attracted.

JAYKAY, you simply must not stay away so long......

c.

[shlevine42]

I love the dedication and obvious affection shown to our beloved Dodgers, but I am a little confused. It was an awful thing for the Dodgers to move but it is such a complex issue that you cannot just turn your back on the Dodger Blue...Don't live in the past, your Dodgers deserve better than that. I wish Ebbets field still stood but that is over forever, enjoy what you can still see, touch and hear. Dodgers Forever!

Of course you're confused.

You’ve stated on another thread that you’re “a man in your thirties,”
which tells me you’re obviously too young to have experienced the Dodger era in Brooklyn…
and therefore clearly incapable of feeling the loss of our team as deeply as those who actually suffered through that heartbreak.
And equally incapable of understanding how vibrant and important the memory of those days is to us.

And yet you come here and lecture us about not living in the past!

What presumptuous nonsense. What monumental chutzpah.

The fact is you’re not qualified to tell us what to celebrate, what to remember or which team to root for.

Your advice is irrelevant. And worthless.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Of course you're confused.

You’ve stated on another thread that you’re “a man in your thirties,”
which tells me you’re obviously too young to have experienced the Dodger era in Brooklyn…
and therefore clearly incapable of feeling the loss of our team as deeply as those who actually suffered through that heartbreak.
And equally incapable of understanding how vibrant and important the memory of those days is to us.

And yet you come here and lecture us about not living in the past!

What presumptuous nonsense. What monumental chutzpah.

The fact is you’re not qualified to tell us what to celebrate, what to remember or which team to root for.

Your advice is irrelevant. And worthless.

There you have it.

Infallibility itself!

[Gotham]

This OLD thread certainly says enough about this tired subject. Brooklyn is gone forever, do we have to keep fighting about it.

[MATHA531]

Sorry...I disagree. This topic will never become old or dated...it is important for people growing up today to be aware of the GREED a piece of slime who was making mints of money had to destroy an entire community.

And there is always the chicken and egg syndrome...was Brooklyn decaying and the team had to leave or did the team leaving help contribute to the team leaving.

Finally the statement that Robert Moses was the villain is absurd as has been shown in this forum many times.

People of today do have the right to understand the contempt mlb had for fans who had supportd a team through thick and thin and ultimately what the meaning of the word GREED is.

[Brownie31]

People of today do have the right to understand the contempt mlb had for fans who had supportd a team through thick and thin and ultimately what the meaning of the word GREED is.

Exactly, very well said. The only caveat I would add is that mlb
contempt for the fans was not limited to Brooklyn and did not
end in 1957. It continues to this very day, especially with the
reign of the clown prince, Bud Selig.

Brownie31

[MATHA531]

Exactly, very well said. The only caveat I would add is that mlb
contempt for the fans was not limited to Brooklyn and did not
end in 1957. It continues to this very day, especially with the
reign of the clown prince, Bud Selig.

Brownie31

But that was really the first clear example of contempt for the fans of any Commissioner...the Commissioner of baseball, at the time, was presumably charged with making decisions in the best interests of baseball.

You had a Commissioner named Ford C. Frick, obviously a big Yankee fan, who later showed he was much more interested in protecting Babe Ruth's record and not giving fans something to cheer about for Roger Maris, shrugged his shoulders while hanging out at Toots Shoor (sp.) restaurant and said, "It's a league matter. Besides, they can go root for the Yankees."

Then there was another clown named Warren Giles, the President of the National League. So interested was he in pushing major league baseball and the National League that he kept the National League office in Cincinnati; now I'm not saying it should have been in New York but Chicago would have made sense (as was the American League office)...but anyway at the infamous meeting on Friday May 25, 1957 when the National League owners voted to give permission for the piece of slime semi human O'Malley and the owner of the Giants who didn't know what he was getting into to move the franchises, Giles was asked How the National League could afford not to have a franchise in New York. This imbecile's response, "Who needs New York?"

Now if that is not contempt for fans, what is???????

Again, while you can say why live in the past, and believe me I don't except when I am pressed on the issue or see downright lies that need correcting, the answer is fans of today, especially those in the Metropolitan New York area have every right to understand how their baseball teams were stolen from them and who was responsible and while NYC politicians might have done more, all the evidence points to the fact that the piece of slime semi human piece of garbage O'Malley made an agreement during the 1956 World Series to move the team and the Atlantic Avenue Stadium was just a feeble attempt to try to protect his place in history.

Hopefully he will never get into the Hall of Fame and will continue to rot in hell where he belongs.

[DODGER DEB]

To those who think, or have thought, that BROOKLYN would never again have been the place to be, take a glance at this article about OUR BROOKLYN....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/08/03/travel.trip.brooklyn.ap/index.html

......and for those of you who keep telling US to "move on" , take special note of the item midway through the article, which, once again, alludes to OUR BROOKYLN DODGERS! Even 49 years later, they are always remembered and referenced. I would like to think that WE true and loyal BROOKLYN DODGER FANS have had something to do with that! :gt

I would also add here that a new "EBBETS FIELD" would have fit perfectly into the "new" BROOKLYN! :waving

c.

[Brownie31]

But that was really the first clear example of contempt for the fans of any Commissioner...the Commissioner of baseball, at the time, was presumably charged with making decisions in the best interests of baseball.

You had a Commissioner named Ford C. Frick, obviously a big Yankee fan, who later showed he was much more interested in protecting Babe Ruth's record and not giving fans something to cheer about for Roger Maris, shrugged his shoulders while hanging out at Toots Shoor (sp.) restaurant and said, "It's a league matter. Besides, they can go root for the Yankees."

Then there was another clown named Warren Giles, the President of the National League. So interested was he in pushing major league baseball and the National League that he kept the National League office in Cincinnati; now I'm not saying it should have been in New York but Chicago would have made sense (as was the American League office)...but anyway at the infamous meeting on Friday May 25, 1957 when the National League owners voted to give permission for the piece of slime semi human O'Malley and the owner of the Giants who didn't know what he was getting into to move the franchises, Giles was asked How the National League could afford not to have a franchise in New York. This imbecile's response, "Who needs New York?"

Now if that is not contempt for fans, what is???????

Again, while you can say why live in the past, and believe me I don't except when I am pressed on the issue or see downright lies that need correcting, the answer is fans of today, especially those in the Metropolitan New York area have every right to understand how their baseball teams were stolen from them and who was responsible and while NYC politicians might have done more, all the evidence points to the fact that the piece of slime semi human piece of garbage O'Malley made an agreement during the 1956 World Series to move the team and the Atlantic Avenue Stadium was just a feeble attempt to try to protect his place in history.

Hopefully he will never get into the Hall of Fame and will continue to rot in hell where he belongs.

MATHA531:

Ford Frick was a contemptible schweinhund, just like O'Malley. When I
pointed out what I did about today under Selig, it was not meant to
dispute what you said, simply to point out that it is still going on.

This is my favorite forum in all of BBF. I salute you and all of the
other loyal Brooklyn Dodger fans in your preservation of such a
great epoch.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[MATHA531]

To those who think, or have thought, that BROOKLYN would never again have been the place to be, take a glance at this article about OUR BROOKLYN....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/08/03/travel.trip.brooklyn.ap/index.html

......and for those of you who keep telling US to "move on" , take special note of the item midway through the article, which, once again, alludes to OUR BROOKYLN DODGERS! Even 49 years later, they are always remembered and referenced. I would like to think that WE true and loyal BROOKLYN DODGER FANS have had something to do with that! :gt

I would also add here that a new "EBBETS FIELD" would have fit perfectly into the "new" BROOKLYN! :waving

c.

Great article and of course, Park Slope is less than a mile as the crow flies from where Ebbets Field was which puts a lie to this decay garbage some people who don't know better throw out.

But I still think, of course it is a thought based on 2006 knowledge, that the perfect spot for the ball park would have been Coney Island where Keyspan Park is....yes a major league park with the Atlantic behind the right field fence, with the parachuse jump all lit up at night, with four subway lines less than a block away, with a short extension built off the Cropsey AVenue exit of the Belt Parkway to a mult tiered parking garage...oh yes how glorious it would be instead of a Union 76 station behind the centre field fence and a hazy view of the mountains and a one hour wait to get out of the parking lot...how glorious it would be.

[tonypug]

Great article and of course, Park Slope is less than a mile as the crow flies from where Ebbets Field was which puts a lie to this decay garbage some people who don't know better throw out.

But I still think, of course it is a thought based on 2006 knowledge, that the perfect spot for the ball park would have been Coney Island where Keyspan Park is....yes a major league park with the Atlantic behind the right field fence, with the parachuse jump all lit up at night, with four subway lines less than a block away, with a short extension built off the Cropsey AVenue exit of the Belt Parkway to a mult tiered parking garage...oh yes how glorious it would be instead of a Union 76 station behind the centre field fence and a hazy view of the mountains and a one hour wait to get out of the parking lot...how glorious it would be.
We all know, O'Malley could have done a number of things that would have kept the team in Brooklyn or in close proximity to Brooklyn. As early as 1955 his eyes were on LA.He was just waiting for them to make the first offer. All of the garbage that came out of his mouth was just to stall until LA put their cards on the table.

[Elvis]

... and a one hour wait to get out of the parking lot...how glorious it would be.

Hey, it's only 58 minutes, stop exaggerating.

[EbtsFldGuy]

I guess that if there were not interest - and substantial interest, at that - in the baseball past of Brooklyn, this board would not exist.

Are we living in the past? Sure, to the extent we enjoy memories of the wonderful place Ebbets Field was and the special group that the Brooks were in our youth.

And what's wrong with that?

[Gotham]

I guess that if there were not interest - and substantial interest, at that - in the baseball past of Brooklyn, this board would not exist.

Are we living in the past? Sure, to the extent we enjoy memories of the wonderful place Ebbets Field was and the special group that the Brooks were in our youth.

And what's wrong with that?

I think the point most present Dodger fans are making is that it would have been a shame in 1941,1952,1955 etc. to have been gnashing your teeth about things that happened 50 years ago. Think of all the joy you would have missed. The present is all we have.

[tonypug]

Most cities that lost teams, lost them because of lack of interest by their fans. Thats what makes Brooklyn different, we didn't lose our team because of lack of interest. Thats why this board is so successful. because we still have interest in the Brooklyn Dodgers.

[MATHA531]

See Gotham...here is what you just don't get...look at the boards of the other defunct teams...how many postings do you see? When you get down to it, just about every other franchise shift, at least in mlb, was economically justifiable...I'm sure there is a fan or two in Boston who misses the Braves and would write as passionately about them as the people do here...but in reality the Braves had lost their fan base in Boston...as had the Browns in St. Louis as had the Athletics in Philadelphia as had the Giants in New York..in each case the team departing changed a two team city to a one team city.

Later we had franchise shifts of the Senators to Minneapolis, the Braves to Atlanta, the Pilots to Milwaukee, the Atletics to Oakland, the Senators to Arlington Tx., the Expos to Washington....in each case with the exception of the last one, expansion teams (or in the case of Milwaukee a transferred team) were given to the community (although it took awhile for Washington)...in none of the cases were the departing team making loads of money.

This is the key point in all of this....the Brooklyn franchise was still the 2nd biggest money maker in baseball in 1956 when whatever his name was agreed to move to the left coast....and other than Montreal Brooklyn remains the only one which went from being a one team city to a no team city (with the exception now of Montreal).

The point is, that we all try to make here, is that the Brooklyn situation is different from every other situation that has occurred in mlb ever since the era of carpetbagging began and it's still a sore point to many of us today who understood what baseball meant in Brooklyn and how important the Dodgers were that there is no mlb in Brooklyn which was a founding member of the National League and one of the places where major league baseball originated.

It is this passion that is accentuated on this board and is the reason so many of us take the time to try to explain what baseball meant to us in Brooklyn and what was taken away from us through no fault of ours in the name simply of GREED. And yes, although it was 50 years ago, WE MUST NEVER FORGET or FORGIVE.

[Elvis]

And yes, although it was 50 years ago, WE MUST NEVER FORGET or FORGIVE.

Matha, you and others have logically explained why you should never forget, obviously we should never forget history or we're doomed to repeat it's mistakes, but you've never explained why we shouldn't forgive, as all the world's religions and enlightened philosophies teach us we must and should do.

Forgive, but never forget.

[tonypug]

Matha, you and others have logically explained why you should never forget, obviously we should never forget history or we're doomed to repeat it's mistakes, but you've never explained why we shouldn't forgive, as all the world's religions and enlightened philosophies teach us we must and should do.

Forgive, but never forget.
Elvis, if you wnt to talk baseball, I will talk baseball with you all day long. Do not preach to me, do not tell me how I should feel or think.

[Elvis]

Elvis, if you wnt to talk baseball, I will talk baseball with you all day long. Do not preach to me, do not tell me how I should feel or think.

Actually, I wasn't talking to you at all. :) Sorry for the confusion.

But here's a question for you specifically: You get a chance to watch Jamie Shields pitch more than I do, I assume: How good do you think he is? Has he reached his potential? How long is he under contract?

Edit: Never mind, wrong forum.

[Brownie31]

I think the point most present Dodger fans are making is that it would have been a shame in 1941,1952,1955 etc. to have been gnashing your teeth about things that happened 50 years ago. Think of all the joy you would have missed. The present is all we have.

Gotham:

If in 1941, 1952, 1955 etc. Brooklyn had not had an mlb team in
nearly 50 years the Dodger fans would have reason to gnash their
teeth at that time.

Likewise, if Brooklyn had an mlb team today, there would be
no gnashing of teeth at the present.

Brownie31

[tonypug]

Actually, I wasn't talking to you at all. :) Sorry for the confusion.

But here's a question for you specifically: You get a chance to watch Jamie Shields pitch more than I do, I assume: How good do you think he is? Has he reached his potential? How long is he under contract?

Edit: Never mind, wrong forum.
Come to the Devil Rays forum, I would be happy to answer your questions.

[EbtsFldGuy]

There is no reason why we Brooklyn Dodgers fans should have to justify why we convene here to relive those special times of our lives.

We are aging, and like to recall what was a special part of our youth that was removed.

Whether fans of the Braves, Senators, Browns, As,et al do so is irrelevant to the Brooklyn experience.

The Dodgers were a potent cultural force in Brooklyn and the NYC area.

Of course, that team and Ebbets Field are gone forever.

But taking some healthy joy from their memories is not so bad in this era in which conflict and confrontation regrettably are staples of life.

[LouGehrig]

Are we living in the past? Sure, to the extent we enjoy memories of the wonderful place Ebbets Field was and the special group that the Brooks were in our youth.

And what's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, for a myriad of reasons.

We were taught that the future will be better than the past. We would have it better than did the past generation.

That assumption is patently incorrect. Sadly, it doesn't even require documentation.

We do not know what time is. We do not know if time exists or if it is a construct created to allow us to organize our existence. As the song states, time is constantly slipping into the future.

We order past events chronologically, but once something has passed, it has passed, whether the event occurred a second ago or a century ago, according to OUR measurements.

The greatest team I ever saw was the 1961 Yankees. They were my favorite team, 1961 was my favorite season, and it was a fantastic season to experience. I never thought I would treasure a World Championship or a team more---until 1998.

But it cannot be prevented. Today, 1998 is part of the past.
2006 will be part of the past, however it turns out.

Once the 1998 season ended, its memories and those of 1961 were the same.

We must live in the present physically and to some extent, mentally, but there is nothing wrong and so much right in remembering and mentally reconstructing what has passed in the past.

What is amazing is how listening to music from the past triggers off memories and actions that were thought to be lost forever.

Reality is that which each individual creates for herself. Each individual can control her reality. Others try to control our reality. For those who have any doubts, just watch the news, sports news or current events news, and you can see.

[LouGehrig]

The present is all we have.

It certainly is NOT.

[LouGehrig]

See Gotham...here is what you just don't get...look at the boards of the other defunct teams...how many postings do you see? When you get down to it, just about every other franchise shift, at least in mlb, was economically justifiable...I'm sure there is a fan or two in Boston who misses the Braves and would write as passionately about them as the people do here...but in reality the Braves had lost their fan base in Boston...as had the Browns in St. Louis as had the Athletics in Philadelphia as had the Giants in New York..in each case the team departing changed a two team city to a one team city.

Later we had franchise shifts of the Senators to Minneapolis, the Braves to Atlanta, the Pilots to Milwaukee, the Atletics to Oakland, the Senators to Arlington Tx., the Expos to Washington....in each case with the exception of the last one, expansion teams (or in the case of Milwaukee a transferred team) were given to the community (although it took awhile for Washington)...in none of the cases were the departing team making loads of money.

This is the key point in all of this....the Brooklyn franchise was still the 2nd biggest money maker in baseball in 1956 when whatever his name was agreed to move to the left coast....and other than Montreal Brooklyn remains the only one which went from being a one team city to a no team city (with the exception now of Montreal).

The point is, that we all try to make here, is that the Brooklyn situation is different from every other situation that has occurred in mlb ever since the era of carpetbagging began and it's still a sore point to many of us today who understood what baseball meant in Brooklyn and how important the Dodgers were that there is no mlb in Brooklyn which was a founding member of the National League and one of the places where major league baseball originated.

It is this passion that is accentuated on this board and is the reason so many of us take the time to try to explain what baseball meant to us in Brooklyn and what was taken away from us through no fault of ours in the name simply of GREED. And yes, although it was 50 years ago, WE MUST NEVER FORGET or FORGIVE.


Excellent, but as a Yankees fan, I think that a critical factor is the fact that the Brooklyn fans really were "crazy," in the most complimentary way the term can be used.

For BROOKLYN fans, the team was a part of their existence. If Brooklyn lost, the fans lost. It was personal, and that is fine, despite the fact that today, one must attempt to overcome depression. When the Yankees lose, I am DEPRESSED. Why not? Should I be happy? "Hey, Joe, ain't is great. Let's go out. The Yankees lost."

I remember an incident, probably from 1949 and probably after the WS. We lived in Brooklyn and I was not a baseball fan yet. I was too little. We were coming home about 7 o'clock and a neighbor was sitting on the stoop, very, very, very, very, depressed.

My mother and father were hesitant to greet him because he was so upset. As we entered the hall, my mother asked my father, "What happened? Why does Charlie look like that? Did someone die (Charlie had a sick brother who was in the hospital)?

My father simply stated "The Dodgers lost."

[Elvis]

When the Yankees lose, I am DEPRESSED. Why not? Should I be happy? "Hey, Joe, ain't is great. Let's go out. The Yankees lost."

I remember an incident, probably from 1949 and probably after the WS. We lived in Brooklyn and I was not a baseball fan yet. I was too little. We were coming home about 7 o'clock and a neighbor was sitting on the stoop, very, very, very, very, depressed.

My mother and father were hesitant to greet him because he was so upset. As we entered the hall, my mother asked my father, "What happened? Why does Charlie look like that? Did someone die (Charlie had a sick brother who was in the hospital)?

My father simply stated "The Dodgers lost."

Interesting take on how we react to things. Tell me though, is it any less noble to react to a loss (ANY loss) with acceptance, hope, resolve and optimism, rather than with sorrow and depression?

When one of my teams lost a game I used to get quite melancholy for a long time--often I'd let it ruin my entire day. But I later learned that that feeling of self pity or sadness or whatever you want to call it was my choice. And after I realised that I decided to try and react to my teams loss with the attitude that "We'll get 'em tomorrow". It took awhile to adjust my attitude toward losing, but it was well worth the effort not to be so miserable after a loss. Misery sucks. :)

[Brownie31]

Excellent, but as a Yankees fan, I think that a critical factor is the fact that the Brooklyn fans really were "crazy," in the most complimentary way the term can be used.

For BROOKLYN fans, the team was a part of their existence. If Brooklyn lost, the fans lost. It was personal, and that is fine, despite the fact that today, one must attempt to overcome depression. When the Yankees lose, I am DEPRESSED. Why not? Should I be happy? "Hey, Joe, ain't is great. Let's go out. The Yankees lost."

I remember an incident, probably from 1949 and probably after the WS. We lived in Brooklyn and I was not a baseball fan yet. I was too little. We were coming home about 7 o'clock and a neighbor was sitting on the stoop, very, very, very, very, depressed.

My mother and father were hesitant to greet him because he was so upset. As we entered the hall, my mother asked my father, "What happened? Why does Charlie look like that? Did someone die (Charlie had a sick brother who was in the hospital)?

My father simply stated "The Dodgers lost."

When I was younger, my reaction to a loss by a team
I was for was anger, not depression. Snarling, moping,
griping, totally miserable to be around.

It was as I got older and hopefully more mature
that I realized the score wasn't going to change
no matter how mad I got.

Brownie31

[LouGehrig]

Interesting take on how we react to things. Tell me though, is it any less noble to react to a loss (ANY loss) with acceptance, hope, resolve and optimism, rather than with sorrow and depression?

When one of my teams lost a game I used to get quite melancholy for a long time--often I'd let it ruin my entire day. But I later learned that that feeling of self pity or sadness or whatever you want to call it was my choice. And after I realised that I decided to try and react to my teams loss with the attitude that "We'll get 'em tomorrow". It took awhile to adjust my attitude toward losing, but it was well worth the effort not to be so miserable after a loss. Misery sucks. :)

Yes, misery sucks, and using that phraseology is being kind.

It IS, for some, less noble to react to a loss with ACCEPTANCE, although we have NO choice but to accept it. As Vince Lombardi said, "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser."

There must ALWAYS be hope, optimism, and ESPECIALLY RESOLVE.

It is fine to try to get them tomorrow or next year, but a loss can never erased. With important things, such as family, we must have faith. Maybe it CAN be erased and we are too ignorant to know to it. But we must, or at least some individuals realize that there is MUCH we cannot comprehend, and so we create our own reality, which may be completely wrong---or not.

With respect to baseball, a loss cannot be erased. It can be, to some degree, avenged. When Brooklyn won in 1955, the Yankees won in 1956. The 1955 loss was, to some degree, avenged, but it is always there. It can never be erased for the Yankees, just as 1956 cannot be erased for the Brooklyn team.

[LouGehrig]

It was as I got older and hopefully more mature
that I realized the score wasn't going to change
no matter how mad I got.

Brownie31

Yes, but maybe if the players on the team you rooted for got angry, the scores of the next games might be better.

[Brownie31]

Yes, but maybe if the players on the team you rooted for got angry, the scores of the next games might be better.

True enough, however, that was their occupation that
they were paid to perform. I was just a sorehead fan.

Brownie31

[Elvis]

It IS, for some, less noble to react to a loss with ACCEPTANCE, although we have NO choice but to accept it. As Vince Lombardi said, "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser."

Lombardi was a coach. As a fan, sitting in my living room, I have no such power to change the outcome of any team's fortunes.

If it is truly less noble as you say to live by this rule:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannnot change; The courage to change the things I can; And the wisdom to know the difference."

Than I shall always choose the path less noble.

[LouGehrig]

True enough, however, that was their occupation that
they were paid to perform. I was just a sorehead fan.

Brownie31

Yes, but for many fans, the players are us. We live through them vicariously, identify with them, win with them, and lose with them.

For a small minority, their baseball team may supercede their occupation.

[LouGehrig]

Lombardi was a coach. As a fan, sitting in my living room, I have no such power to change the outcome of any team's fortunes.

If it is truly less noble as you say to live by this rule:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannnot change; The courage to change the things I can; And the wisdom to know the difference."

Than I shall always choose the path less noble.

What happens to those who have not been granted the serenity to accept things they cannot change?

I understand what you are saying, and it is great if one can accept it, but there are individuals who will not, because they cannot.

[Brownie31]

Yes, but for many fans, the players are us. We live through them vicariously, identify with them, win with them, and lose with them.

For a small minority, their baseball team may supercede their occupation.

To each their own.

Brownie31

[Elvis]

What happens to those who have not been granted the serenity to accept things they cannot change?

I understand what you are saying, and it is great if one can accept it, but there are individuals who will not, because they cannot.

If you believe it's impossible, then that's the reality you will attract for yourself. Everyone is granted the ability to be at peace. Whether or not you find and accept it is up to you. Just as everyone is granted the ability to find knowledge, yet it is still up to you to open the books and attend the classes.

But the first and most important step in attaining anything you wish to create for yourself is just knowing that it is possible. You can't attract serenity into your life if you believe that you can't.

[Shotgun Shuba]

I know this is a sore subject and I have learned my lesson since I posted this, I hope. Since it has come back from it's moldy corner of the board though I do have one new thought. I get to watch most of the Dodger games, if I can stay awake, from my lair in NH. I bet, with no exaggeration, that I always see at least 10 to 15 shots of Brooklyn hats, jerseys etc. on fans in Chavez Ravine. My question is whether you believe that people are honestly looking back and seeing that they really blew it here and they want to feel some connection to something real and meaningful or LA sees this glaring nostalgic fervor and pumps out as much Brooklyn gear as possible in order to profit from the already profit driven move? I see no Braves hats in Milwaukee, REAL Athletics hats in Oakland and NEVER, let me repeat NEVER a NY Giants hat in San Francisco. You would think Cepeda begot the franchise. Anyway, what's going on? To this day the Dodgers seem to be having their cake and eating it too.

[EbtsFldGuy]

I know this is a sore subject and I have learned my lesson since I posted this, I hope. Since it has come back from it's moldy corner of the board though I do have one new thought. I get to watch most of the Dodger games, if I can stay awake, from my lair in NH. I bet, with no exaggeration, that I always see at least 10 to 15 shots of Brooklyn hats, jerseys etc. on fans in Chavez Ravine. My question is whether you believe that people are honestly looking back and seeing that they really blew it here and they want to feel some connection to something real and meaningful or LA sees this glaring nostalgic fervor and pumps out as much Brooklyn gear as possible in order to profit from the already profit driven move? I see no Braves hats in Milwaukee, REAL Athletics hats in Oakland and NEVER, let me repeat NEVER a NY Giants hat in San Francisco. You would think Cepeda begot the franchise. Anyway, what's going on? To this day the Dodgers seem to be having their cake and eating it too.

Brooklyn garb at Dodger Stadium is not a recent development.

In the summer of 1987, I had occasion to work on a project in NYC with a then-Dodger player, who told me that he regularly saw Brooklyn hats and shirts worn by fans at the games in LA.

MY guess then remains current: there are many transplanted Brooklynites and other NYers who long ago moved to LA, who want to cling to their youthful memories of Ebbets Field.

Your observation about the lack of NY Giants gear at SF has application here, too, as we've discussed on other threads. Rare it is to see such a hat here in NYC. Memory of the NY Giants seems to have nearly vanished.

Finally, last year I sought to buy a Boston Braves shirt for a relative. It was a challenge. Not even the Hall of Fame or any store in Cooperstown had one. I ultimately got it via the on line branch of a NYC sports store.

As to the Phila As, I have no clue. BUT there is an active board for the A's much like this one, on the same site. So, their memory is kept alive in Phila much like we do with Brooklyn.

[tonypug]

Brooklyn garb at Dodger Stadium is not a recent development.

In the summer of 1987, I had occasion to work on a project in NYC with a then-Dodger player, who told me that he regularly saw Brooklyn hats and shirts worn by fans at the games in LA.

MY guess then remains current: there are many transplanted Brooklynites and other NYers who long ago moved to LA, who want to cling to their youthful memories of Ebbets Field.

Your observation about the lack of NY Giants gear at SF has application here, too, as we've discussed on other threads. Rare it is to see such a hat here in NYC. Memory of the NY Giants seems to have nearly vanished.

Finally, last year I sought to buy a Boston Braves shirt for a relative. It was a challenge. Not even the Hall of Fame or any store in Cooperstown had one. I ultimately got it via the on line branch of a NYC sports store.

As to the Phila As, I have no clue. BUT there is an active board for the A's much like this one, on the same site. So, their memory is kept alive in Phila much like we do with Brooklyn.
Here is a question perhaps Elvis or someone else can answer. Do they sll Brooklyn Dodger memorabilia, at Dodger stadium or the Dodgers website? Of course its available all over the internet, But I was wondering if the LA team participates.

[Elvis]

Here is a question perhaps Elvis or someone else can answer. Do they sll Brooklyn Dodger memorabilia, at Dodger stadium or the Dodgers website? Of course its available all over the internet, But I was wondering if the LA team participates.

I can't say whether or not they sell any Brooklyn stuff in the stadium gift shops, but the next time I go I'll peek in and take a look. On the Dodgers official website, they do sell tons of Brooklyn Dodger gear, as it is linked to one gigantic MLB team shop that sells everything. Also, the Dodgers offical team store in Studio City might.

[tonypug]

I can't say whether or not they sell any Brooklyn stuff in the stadium gift shops, but the next time I go I'll peek in and take a look. On the Dodgers official website, they do sell tons of Brooklyn Dodger gear, as it is linked to one gigantic MLB team shop that sells everything. Also, the Dodgers offical team store in Studio City might.
Thanks for the reply. I go to Vero Beach on occasion and try to go to a game there. They don't sell Brooklyn Dodger gear there.

[CaliforniaCajun]

I know this is a sore subject and I have learned my lesson since I posted this, I hope. Since it has come back from it's moldy corner of the board though I do have one new thought. I get to watch most of the Dodger games, if I can stay awake, from my lair in NH. I bet, with no exaggeration, that I always see at least 10 to 15 shots of Brooklyn hats, jerseys etc. on fans in Chavez Ravine. My question is whether you believe that people are honestly looking back and seeing that they really blew it here and they want to feel some connection to something real and meaningful or LA sees this glaring nostalgic fervor and pumps out as much Brooklyn gear as possible in order to profit from the already profit driven move? I see no Braves hats in Milwaukee, REAL Athletics hats in Oakland and NEVER, let me repeat NEVER a NY Giants hat in San Francisco. You would think Cepeda begot the franchise. Anyway, what's going on? To this day the Dodgers seem to be having their cake and eating it too.

You make some interesting points.

Last week I saw a Dodger game on TV and noticed both a 1939-1957 blue cap and 1938 white cap with the blue bill. What I attribute the Dodgers' enduring identification with Brooklyn to is timing. The Dodgers' glory days were at the dawn of the television age. Even when they lost, it was in dramatic fashion as was the case in 1950 and 1951. In terms of championships, the Giants and Cardinals achieved more before 1960, but the Dodgers timed it right. The Dodgers were the team who broke the color barrier, which is another thing that shined the spotlight on them.

I also think the Dodgers are paranoid about the Angels renaming themselves the Los Angeles Angels, because it exposes them as the transplanted team and the Angels as the native team. My primary allegiance switched from the Dodgers to the Angels because of this.

MLB owes Brooklyn an MLB team. :atthepc

[Elvis]

MLB owes Brooklyn an MLB team. :atthepc


Where would they play? There are no stadiums in Brooklyn and as far as I know, no one is intereested in spending a billion dollars to build one.

[Elvis]

I also think the Dodgers are paranoid about the Angels renaming themselves the Los Angeles Angels, because it exposes them as the transplanted team and the Angels as the native team.


You seriously believe that? That Frank McCourt is seriously paranoid about the Dodgers being suddenly "exposed as a relocated team" and is really worried about a 43-year old last place Orange County expansion team that has never won a championship?

You've GOT to be kidding. :noidea

That's like saying that George Steinbrenner is worried about the Yankees being exposed as a non-native team from Baltimore because of the Mets.

[Shotgun Shuba]

Tell the Giants fans about how the Angels have never won a championship. How soon we forget.

[Elvis]

Tell the Giants fans about how the Angels have never won a championship. How soon we forget.

They did? Ya don't say. Guess I must've missed it. :p

Actually I used to be a big Angel fan back when I was a kid, but I grew out of it. :D

[strummer]

They do not sell Brooklyn Dodger equipment at Vero Beach (not even iof you go to Fantasy Camp --I had to bring my own "B" hat (as did Branca, Labine, Snider, Campanella, Erskine, Roe and Podres) --- nor at any of the gift shops at Dodger Stadium in LA. My kids were able to get me a set of golf club covers with the "Dodgers and ball" logo which of course does not have Los Angeles on it. They said that those covers and some golf balls, and a drinking glass were the only things they saw without Los Angeles on it.

[Elvis]

Some items sold at the Top of the park store at Dodger Stadium:

http://www.topofpark.com/products/123.jpg

http://www.topofpark.com/products/16.jpg

http://www.topofpark.com/products/134.jpg

[Elvis]

---------------------

http://www.topofpark.com/products/243.jpg

http://www.topofpark.com/products/4855.jpg

http://www.topofpark.com/products/4404.jpg

(topofpark.com)

[Elvis]

http://www.topofpark.com/products/445.jpg

http://www.topofpark.com/products/24.jpg

http://www.topofpark.com/products/481.jpg

(Top of the Park Gift Shop)

[CaliforniaCajun]

You seriously believe that? That Frank McCourt is seriously paranoid about the Dodgers being suddenly "exposed as a relocated team" and is really worried about a 43-year old last place Orange County expansion team that has never won a championship?

You've GOT to be kidding. :noidea

That's like saying that George Steinbrenner is worried about the Yankees being exposed as a non-native team from Baltimore because of the Mets.

Yes. The L.A. Times reported that McCourt spent $100,000 behind the scenes to try to legally prevent the Angels from having the name "Los Angeles Angels."

The original A.L. Orioles moved to New York in 1903, in the American League's third year of existence, so that pales in comparison. Plus, Baltimore got a team back in 1954.

Business people in Brooklyn have never been given an indication that MLB would consider locating a third team in New York. Offer a realistic opportunity to locate a team in Brooklyn and then you will see what kind of interest there really is. :atthepc

[DODGER DEB]

Yes. The L.A. Times reported that McCourt spent $100,000 behind the scenes to try to legally prevent the Angels from having the name "Los Angeles Angels."

The original A.L. Orioles moved to New York in 1903, in the American League's third year of existence, so that pales in comparison. Plus, Baltimore got a team back in 1954.

Business people in Brooklyn have never been given an indication that MLB would consider locating a third team in New York. Offer a realistic opportunity to locate a team in Brooklyn and then you will see what kind of interest there really is. :atthepc


It would happen so fast their collective heads would spin, CC!

As I have detailed here several times in the past, IMO Fred Wilpon is missing a HUGE golden opportunity by not grabbing and running with it! BROOKLYN would put the METS on the map, front and center, and they would be forever separated from that pinstriper group from Da Bronx!

Years from now, when it DOES happen, it will make an awful lot of politicans and baseball officials, since 1957, look really inept and stupid...and they would all deserve it!

c.

[tonypug]

The first thing that would have to be changed, is the baseball rule limiting a city to two major league baseball teams. Even though we all consider Brooklyn a seperate city, officially Brooklyn is part of New York City.

[Brownie31]

The first thing that would have to be changed, is the baseball rule limiting a city to two major league baseball teams. Even though we all consider Brooklyn a seperate city, officially Brooklyn is part of New York City.

Suppose the two teams limit was repealed and suppose
Brooklyn got a major league, but this time the American League.

Given Brooklyn's long NL history how would this go over?

Brownie31

[Paulmcall]

The Washington fans don't seem to mind switching leagues as long as they got a team back.
It's been so long and many old Dodger fans have passed away. Hard to say.

[MATHA531]

The first thing that would have to be changed, is the baseball rule limiting a city to two major league baseball teams. Even though we all consider Brooklyn a seperate city, officially Brooklyn is part of New York City.

There is no such rule; there are territorial considerations that apparently give the Mets and Yankees territorial vetoes over any team moving in within a stated distance, I think it is 75 miles radius but not sure about that.

As far as this issue of Brooklyn being a separate city, for years it was so considered by MLB....do remember Brooklyn was a founding member of the National League and the amalgamation was simply to cut down costs of providing certain services that were best done in unison...

But remember something very important...Brooklyn is a separate political entity in New York State...the county of Kings represents the borough of Brooklyn and is indeed a political subdivision of New York State...Brooklyn has its own court system its own District Attorney which are county functions.

MLB considered Brooklyn a separate city...note that in the era of the 2 team cities...schedules were drawn up so that two teams in the same city were not home on the same date...thus the 2 NY teams were never home on the same day but that meant Brooklyn was always at home against one or the other....

And of course as noted several times, Brooklyn and Montreal remain the only 2 cities that mlb has completely abandoned since the era of the carpetbaggers began.

[Paulmcall]

The reason for a lot of this is because Brooklyn was a separate city from New York.
They were annexed in the 1890's after the Brooklyn Bridge was built and many in Brooklyn have regretted being part of New York City since.
It also is has the most population of the five boroughs but they felt they haven't gotten the proper respect for years.

[CaliforniaCajun]

There is no such rule; there are territorial considerations that apparently give the Mets and Yankees territorial vetoes over any team moving in within a stated distance, I think it is 75 miles radius but not sure about that.

As far as this issue of Brooklyn being a separate city, for years it was so considered by MLB....do remember Brooklyn was a founding member of the National League and the amalgamation was simply to cut down costs of providing certain services that were best done in unison...

But remember something very important...Brooklyn is a separate political entity in New York State...the county of Kings represents the borough of Brooklyn and is indeed a political subdivision of New York State...Brooklyn has its own court system its own District Attorney which are county functions.

MLB considered Brooklyn a separate city...note that in the era of the 2 team cities...schedules were drawn up so that two teams in the same city were not home on the same date...thus the 2 NY teams were never home on the same day but that meant Brooklyn was always at home against one or the other....

And of course as noted several times, Brooklyn and Montreal remain the only 2 cities that mlb has completely abandoned since the era of the carpetbaggers began.

Brooklyn was a separate city when the Dodgers entered the NL in 1890, and became a borough of New York City in 1898. If the rule was put in about the two-team limit, Brooklyn would be grandfathered in, I'm sure.

I'm also equally sure that if there was a realistic shot returning baseball to Brooklyn that an exception would be made here. MLB has taken a huge public relations hit for this.

What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that if Walter O'Malley wants to operate somewhere else, OK. But because of a personal decision he made Brooklyn shouldn't have to go forever without an MLB team. That's the rub to me. As far as I'm concerned, the Mets replaced the Giants and nobody replaced the Dodgers.

[Brownie31]

As posted earlier, say Brooklyn does get a mlb team in the AL.
Further suppose said Brooklyn wins the AL title and that the
LA national league team wins that league's pennant.

What a world series that would be!

Brownie31:D

[Elvis]

I'm also equally sure that if there was a realistic shot returning baseball to Brooklyn that an exception would be made here. MLB has taken a huge public relations hit for this.



And southern tourism took a big PR hit after the Civil War. I believe that today's Sothern governors are just as concerned with that as today's MLB is with repairing the "damaged PR" with the Dodgers move from Brooklyn a (relative) million years ago.

By the way, Winnipeg, Hartford and Quebec are still without NHL teams. :D

[Shotgun Shuba]

I thought that Dodger Deb was stating in her earlier post that you would not add a third team but Wilpon should have examined building a park in Brooklyn and they would become the Brooklyn Mets. This is a great idea and has never been examined fully. The Long Island fans wouldn't care a bit, they would probably love it, the Queens fans I think would also learn to accept it and the Manhattanites would probably never notice. I guess what I am saying is that the "NY" part of the Mets is not so sacred as to outweigh that Gold Mine that a new Brooklyn team would create. It is really semantics in many ways but very real in others. The Mets would still be the NY National league team but the proper borough would be receiving a long overdue apology. The Mets were meant to replace both NY teams but clearly I think the old dodger fans care more. Why didn't anybody think of this before it was too late? The greatest ideas are usually simplicity itself. I just wonder what the cap would have looked like. The dodgers never would have given up the "B".

[DODGER DEB]

I thought that Dodger Deb was stating in her earlier post that you would not add a third team but Wilpon should have examined building a park in Brooklyn and they would become the Brooklyn Mets. This is a great idea and has never been examined fully. The Long Island fans wouldn't care a bit, they would probably love it, the Queens fans I think would also learn to accept it and the Manhattanites would probably never notice. I guess what I am saying is that the "NY" part of the Mets is not so sacred as to outweigh that Gold Mine that a new Brooklyn team would create. It is really semantics in many ways but very real in others. The Mets would still be the NY National league team but the proper borough would be receiving a long overdue apology. The Mets were meant to replace both NY teams but clearly I think the old dodger fans care more. Why didn't anybody think of this before it was too late? The greatest ideas are usually simplicity itself. I just wonder what the cap would have looked like. The dodgers never would have given up the "B".


Shotgun, you have added to the argument that I have been making for a few years now. IMO, the METS are the natural choice for BROOKLYN...and a perfect fit at that. While a case could be made for adding a third team, I do believe that taking that route would be more difficult. With the METS coming into their own as real winners, Fred Wilpon will have more clout than ever.

As for WHY WE didn't think of it before it was too late......I think OUR wound was still very raw and bleeding. It was hard to think clearly, about replacing OUR DODGERS, under those circumstances.

But, hey, one never knows. Stranger things have happened!

c.

[Shotgun Shuba]

I'm serious, I have NEVER thought of this and it is such a great idea. Sometimes a group of egg heads will be discussing some great topic of the universe and a child will come in and offer a simple, jaw droppingly obvious answer that shames the think tank. DD is no child, however, and I do not mean to say she is. What I DO mean to say is that I can scarcely imagine this idea has never occured to anybody. The Bard said 'what is in a name', who needs the Dodgers? Wasn't it always Brooklyn that mattered?
What makes me really sad though is that once again I think it is too late. The new "Ebbets Field" in Flushing is full steam ahead.

In 1957 we had a few months to try to right the wrong. We have had 40 years to fix this and we slumbered. I honestly believe that Brooklyn would have loved the Mets as they loved the Dodgers. I honestly feel a little depressed right now.

[Elvis]

So suppose The Mets decided to change the name of the team to the Brooklyn Mets in '09 when they moved into the new Ebbets Field (Taco Bell Field) in Flushing. How would that go over with those here? After all, New York City has no NFL and probably never will, even though the NY moniker'd teams play in NJ.

I mean, which would you all like better, hypothetically, if given the choice:

New York Mets playing in Brooklyn, or the Brooklyn Mets playing in Queens?

[Paulmcall]

Like most things, politics played a role in Brooklyn not getting a new team after the DODGERS left. It's evident they don't have the clout to outmuscle other interests in New York proper.

[Brownie31]

Like most things, politics played a role in Brooklyn not getting a new team after the DODGERS left. It's evident they don't have the clout to outmuscle other interests in New York proper.

In the 1898 election only 52% of Broolynites voted
to go in. This was the smallest % in the five boroughs.

Brownie31

[DODGER DEB]

I'm serious, I have NEVER thought of this and it is such a great idea. Sometimes a group of egg heads will be discussing some great topic of the universe and a child will come in and offer a simple, jaw droppingly obvious answer that shames the think tank. DD is no child, however, and I do not mean to say she is. What I DO mean to say is that I can scarcely imagine this idea has never occured to anybody. The Bard said 'what is in a name', who needs the Dodgers? Wasn't it always Brooklyn that mattered?
What makes me really sad though is that once again I think it is too late. The new "Ebbets Field" in Flushing is full steam ahead.

In 1957 we had a few months to try to right the wrong. We have had 40 years to fix this and we slumbered. I honestly believe that Brooklyn would have loved the Mets as they loved the Dodgers. I honestly feel a little depressed right now.

About a year ago WE chewed on this very idea of moving the METS to BROOKLYN. Two years ago, WE had the very same discussion. Here are all those threads for you to mull over, Shotgun, after which WE can continue the conversation....

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=337106&postcount=7

c.

[Toy Boat]

I thought that Dodger Deb was stating in her earlier post that you would not add a third team but Wilpon should have examined building a park in Brooklyn and they would become the Brooklyn Mets. This is a great idea and has never been examined fully. The Long Island fans wouldn't care a bit, they would probably love it, the Queens fans I think would also learn to accept it and the Manhattanites would probably never notice. I guess what I am saying is that the "NY" part of the Mets is not so sacred as to outweigh that Gold Mine that a new Brooklyn team would create. It is really semantics in many ways but very real in others. The Mets would still be the NY National league team but the proper borough would be receiving a long overdue apology. The Mets were meant to replace both NY teams but clearly I think the old dodger fans care more. Why didn't anybody think of this before it was too late? The greatest ideas are usually simplicity itself. I just wonder what the cap would have looked like. The dodgers never would have given up the "B".

Why is it ok for the Mets to abandon Queens, but it wasn't ok for the Dodgers to leave Brooklyn? The Mets have been very successful (at least off the field) in Queens and have been there nearly as long as the Dodgers have been in Brooklyn. As a former Queens resident I would be extremely upset if the Mets went to Brooklyn and even more so if they changed their name to "Brooklyn" and not New York. The name New York is at least inclusive of the entire city/state, while the name Brooklyn pretty much excludes everyone outside the borough. I understand and respect the passion you still have for your team, but I sometimes get the feeling that some of your fans think this passion and love is exclusive to you. It's all pretty moot anyway as the Mets are building a new ballpark next to Shea.

[Brownie31]

Why is it ok for the Mets to abandon Queens, but it wasn't ok for the Dodgers to leave Brooklyn? The Mets have been very successful (at least off the field) in Queens and have been there nearly as long as the Dodgers have been in Brooklyn. As a former Queens resident I would be extremely upset if the Mets went to Brooklyn and even more so if they changed their name to "Brooklyn" and not New York. The name New York is at least inclusive of the entire city/state, while the name Brooklyn pretty much excludes everyone outside the borough. I understand and respect the passion you still have for your team, but I sometimes get the feeling that some of your fans think this passion and love is exclusive to you. It's all pretty moot anyway as the Mets are building a new ballpark next to Shea.

The answer is for Wilpon and Steinbrenner to forego territorial
(read colonial) rights to Brooklyn and let mlb into the Borough
of Churches. Then Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn would all
be happy.

Brownie31;)

[Shotgun Shuba]

Why is it ok for the Mets to abandon Queens, but it wasn't ok for the Dodgers to leave Brooklyn? The Mets have been very successful (at least off the field) in Queens and have been there nearly as long as the Dodgers have been in Brooklyn. As a former Queens resident I would be extremely upset if the Mets went to Brooklyn and even more so if they changed their name to "Brooklyn" and not New York. The name New York is at least inclusive of the entire city/state, while the name Brooklyn pretty much excludes everyone outside the borough. I understand and respect the passion you still have for your team, but I sometimes get the feeling that some of your fans think this passion and love is exclusive to you. It's all pretty moot anyway as the Mets are building a new ballpark next to Shea.


I agree that it is moot. I do not think the Mets really personify Queens the way the Dodgers personified Brooklyn. There was something special there and I do not think it was transfered to Flushing. Queens does not OWN the Mets, it is not THEIR team. If Wilpon had built a park in Brooklyn, Queens would have had to like it or lump it. I would hardly call it abandoning. I viewed this idea as a way that everyone could be happy and a real injustice could have been fixed. Due to timing it now is impossible but in 1960 it might have flown. I don't think it should just be Brooklyn's team but couldn't NY fans in other boroughs just go with the flow and realize that a team in Brooklyn really does mean more historically, emotionally and financially. The city has no football teams and yet is able to pretend they do and accept going to Jersey. I think NY baseball fans would certainly get used to the Brooklyn Mets and realize they are all of New York's team.

[Toy Boat]

The answer is for Wilpon and Steinbrenner to forego territorial
(read colonial) rights to Brooklyn and let mlb into the Borough
of Churches. Then Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn would all
be happy.

Brownie31;)

I'm all for that. Don't know where theyd build a ballpark though.

[Toy Boat]

I agree that it is moot. I do not think the Mets really personify Queens the way the Dodgers personified Brooklyn. There was something special there and I do not think it was transfered to Flushing. Queens does not OWN the Mets, it is not THEIR team. If Wilpon had built a park in Brooklyn, Queens would have had to like it or lump it. I would hardly call it abandoning. I viewed this idea as a way that everyone could be happy and a real injustice could have been fixed. Due to timing it now is impossible but in 1960 it might have flown. I don't think it should just be Brooklyn's team but couldn't NY fans in other boroughs just go with the flow and realize that a team in Brooklyn really does mean more historically, emotionally and financially. The city has no football teams and yet is able to pretend they do and accept going to Jersey. I think NY baseball fans would certainly get used to the Brooklyn Mets and realize they are all of New York's team.

Well I do agree that the Mets dont personify Queens the way the Dodgers do Brooklyn, but I think that's mainly becasue the Mets aren't called the "Queens Mets". I still think there's a certain amount of borough pride though having the Mets call Queens home. No offense to the fine people of Brooklyn, but calling them the "Brooklyn Mets" makes me a little nauseous as I have no connection to Brooklyn whatsoever. I know this has been covered before, but what probably shouldve happened was have the Dodgers move to Queens instead of LA. If that had happened then maybe today they'd be in a position to move back to their true home in Brooklyn.

[Brownie31]

I'm all for that. Don't know where theyd build a ballpark though.

Brooklyn is booming right now. They could find somewhere!

OswaldTheOsprey

[Shotgun Shuba]

I just voted for MLB's Hometown Heroes. It is a promotion by MLB where you vote for the best player from each franchise. Under LA Dodgers your choices are Jackie, Duke, Campy, Pee Wee and Sandy. I voted for Jackie. Does anybody else see a problem with calling anybody but Sandy a LA hero? Oh well, the choices for the Nationals include Rusty Staub and Gary Carter. What a weird world we live in.

[Brownie31]

I just voted for MLB's Hometown Heroes. It is a promotion by MLB where you vote for the best player from each franchise. Under LA Dodgers your choices are Jackie, Duke, Campy, Pee Wee and Sandy. I voted for Jackie. Does anybody else see a problem with calling anybody but Sandy a LA hero? Oh well, the choices for the Nationals include Rusty Staub and Gary Carter. What a weird world we live in.

What would George Orwell made of mlb!:eek:

Brownie31

[tonypug]

Bud Selig could screw up a junkyard.

[Elvis]

I just voted for MLB's Hometown Heroes. It is a promotion by MLB where you vote for the best player from each franchise. Under LA Dodgers your choices are Jackie, Duke, Campy, Pee Wee and Sandy. I voted for Jackie. Does anybody else see a problem with calling anybody but Sandy a LA hero? Oh well, the choices for the Nationals include Rusty Staub and Gary Carter. What a weird world we live in.

It's just another useless silly MLB promotion for the sole purpose of marketing to corporate sponsors. As worthless as a roll of pennies at a nudie bar.

[LouGehrig]

It's just another useless silly MLB promotion for the sole purpose of marketing to corporate sponsors. As worthless as a roll of pennies at a nudie bar.

Absolutely agree, but why is a roll of pennies at a nudie bar worthless? Couldn't one exchange the roll of pennies for something that is not worthless?

[Elvis]

Absolutely agree, but why is a roll of pennies at a nudie bar worthless? Couldn't one exchange the roll of pennies for something that is not worthless?

:) True, but it would take a wheelbarrow full of pennies to "get the job done". :laugh

[D6+]

"Brooklyn Dodgers" with their new home ballpark in Queens? Why would that have been a problem? When the New York Highlanders/Yankees moved from the Polo Grounds to their new home ballpark in The Bronx, there was no gnashing of teeth because they weren't going to be called The Bronx Yankees. As my fellow old-timers all know, Brooklyn was a city when the team came into existence, and in those more relaxed and more rational days, teams were named after the cities they called home (sometimes, when even the faintest measure of creativity was lacking, resulting in the babytalk-doubletalk of "Philadelphia Phillies," for example). The Dodgers in Queens would have still been the "Brooklyn Dodgers," I believe, and virtually all of their fans within hailing distance would have been happy enough to visit the new ballpark ( call it Shea Stadium, O'Malley Stadium, what's the difference) - closer to where they lived after moving from Brooklyn, cleaner, possessed of ample parking adjacent to the ball grounds, the team featuring Brooklyn boy Hall of Famer Sandy Koufax.....I could go on.....and who knows if some of these thoughts hadn't crossed the mind of Moses, even if he knew next to nothing about baseball.....and O'Malley's mind, too, but he had better reasons to leave than to stay.

I mean, c'mon guys and gals, if the Brooklyn Dodgers died in 1957 because the team moved to LA, would that team have died in - let us say - 1962 because the team moved to Queens? Hate Moses with all your aching heart if you must, but he never said "I want this team out of New York!" O'Malley? That's another story.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Brooklyn Dodgers playing in Queens would have exceeded the success (baseballwise, businesswise, and otherwisewise) of the Mets. What's in a name? The NFL New York Giants don't play in New York, the New York Jets don't play there either, the Detroit Lions don't play in Detroit, nor the Cowboys in Dallas, etc. and so forth, and not all of the extant examples are in football. The Dodgers might have been playing in Queens for the past 48 years, winning some, losing some, agitating for a new stadium (in Brooklyn?) - perhaps abandoned by a few of the Flatbush Faithful because the home field was no longer in what was once the city of Brooklyn. As some of you know, I gave up betting about two years ago, but all the same, I'll betcha that every Brooklyn native who tunes in to this forum now lives somewhere else. And if you want to double the stakes, I'll bet that plenty of you left before the Dodgers did.

What's that? You moved to Queens?
Then there we are.


The Detroit Lions moved back to Detroit in 2002, after playing in suburban Pontiac from 1975 to 2001. The Lions play in Ford Field, which is across the street from Comerica Park, in Downtown Detroit.

[D6+]

Had the Dodgers moved to Queens, getting them back to Brooklyn would have been a lot easier. The point, however, is not how we would have responded to Queens. The point is how we have responded to LA: that response has been clear and nearly unanimous


. donzblock, I completely agree with you. In the previous message, I mentioned that the Detroit Lions, which moved to Pontiac ( which is about 28 miles N.W. of Downtown Detroit) in 1975, moved back to the City of Detroit in 2002. There were no territorial barriers for the Lions to go back to the City of Detroit. The obstacles in bringing the Dodgers back to Brooklyn from Los Angeles are many times greater.