A New Team In Brooklyn?

[Brownie31]

Please excuse me, but I am relatively new to baseball-fever, so perhaps this question has been discussed before: instead of the Dodgers returning to Brooklyn, could another franchise, one with financial worries, move to Brooklyn just as the Expos moved to Washington? Say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays? Just asking.-Brownie31

[DODGER DEB]

Please excuse me, but I am relatively new to baseball-fever, so perhaps this question has been discussed before: instead of the Dodgers returning to Brooklyn, could another franchise, one with financial worries, move to Brooklyn just as the Expos moved to Washington? Say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays? Just asking.-Brownie31

MLB, Fred Wilpon and George Steinbrenner would NEVER allow it.....and not necessarily in that order!

Seriously, there are many reasons why it hasn't happened, and why it probably never will. They are just a few!

c.

[Bluesteve32]

Please excuse me, but I am relatively new to baseball-fever, so perhaps this question has been discussed before: instead of the Dodgers returning to Brooklyn, could another franchise, one with financial worries, move to Brooklyn just as the Expos moved to Washington? Say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays? Just asking.-Brownie31

You guys can have the Dodgers back after McCourt runs them into the ground. ;)

[Elvis]

You guys can have the Dodgers back after McCourt runs them into the ground. ;)

If by running into the ground you mean retaining MLBs best minor league system, restoring Dodger Stadium, NOT firing the organist (like Anaheim did), keeping ticket prices low for working-class fans like me, drawing 4,000,000 fans and winning the pennant (Which we'll do this year) then you're right. :D

[MATHA531]

Elvis...

Ask Ross Porter how he feels about current Los Angeles National League baseball team ownership..

As far as having baseball's best prospects, all well and good. Doesn't mean a thing unless they blossom into major leaguers.

And lastly I don't understand why fans or broadcasters refer to a team they root for or broadcast as "we". It is so nonsensical. Even your beloved Vince Scully (or Red Barger or Mel Allen or Curt Gowday or Lindsey Nelson or Russ Hodges) never referrered to the teams they cover as we. It's always been a no no in NYC sports broadcasting.

But as far as the original post is concerned, no there will never be another team in Brooklyn....as noted George and Fred will see to that (in the same way there will never be another team on Long Island and/or Northern New Jersey)...which is one of the things that made the solime ball's theft of the franchise in 1957 so bad.

Think of this historical fact...every franchise shift in the 1950's involved making a two team city into a one team city (Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia and New York)....only Brooklyn lost its team completely.

And in later years, every American city that lost a franchise, had one restored although Washington had to wait for a long time (and of cuorse Montreal is not an American city) but Milwaukee lost the Braves and got the Brewers...Seattle lost the Pilots (to Milwaukee) and got the Mariners...Kansas City lost the Athletics and got the Royals...Washington lost the Senators and got the Nationals. Brooklyn, which major league baseball always considered a separate market than New York never got its team back and unfortunately never will.

[Brownie31]

MLB, Fred Wilpon and George Steinbrenner would NEVER allow it.....and not necessarily in that order!

Seriously, there are many reasons why it hasn't happened, and why it probably never will. They are just a few!

c.
DODGER DEB: Alas, you are probably right. This just illustrates the stupidity & rotgut of the baseball establishment. Baseball is a wonderful game but it has nearly always had sorry leadership. Anyway, one can always hope!-Brownie31

[Greenpeach]

In the late 1970's when the Giants were experiencing financial difficulties, there was serious talk about the state of New Jersey building a baseball only stadium in the Meadowlands next to Giants Stadium. However, King George quickly put the kibash on that idea since the Yankees own the territorial rights to northern New Jersey.

The A's have been experiencing the same problem with the Giants in the bay area. They've been exploring the idea of moving the A's to San Jose for years. However, the Giants have been blocking the move because they own the territorial rights.

[Brownie31]

In the late 1970's when the Giants were experiencing financial difficulties, there was serious talk about the state of New Jersey building a baseball only stadium in the Meadowlands next to Giants Stadium. However, King George quickly put the kibash on that idea since the Yankees own the territorial rights to northern New Jersey.

The A's have been experiencing the same problem with the Giants in the bay area. They've been exploring the idea of moving the A's to San Jose for years. However, the Giants have been blocking the move because they own the territorial rights.
Greenpeach: You are so right about "King George"! The whole concept of territorial rights smacks of 18th & 19th Century colonialism. Baseball's leadership is as stupid & rotten today as in the days of the original Charles Comiskey. Brownie31

[Elvis]

Elvis...

1. Ask Ross Porter how he feels about current Los Angeles National League baseball team ownership..

2. As far as having baseball's best prospects, all well and good. Doesn't mean a thing unless they blossom into major leaguers.

3. And lastly I don't understand why fans or broadcasters refer to a team they root for or broadcast as "we". It is so nonsensical. Even your beloved Vince Scully (or Red Barger or Mel Allen or Curt Gowday or Lindsey Nelson or Russ Hodges) never referrered to the teams they cover as we. It's always been a no no in NYC sports broadcasting.

1. No argument there. I liked Ross - grew up with him. Bad move by the McCourts :ughh

2. No agument there. But, I'd rather have a stacked and well run farm system then not.

3. Many fans have always used we rather than they - It's just a part of the culture for me.

As for broadcasters doing so, I think it's comical and annoying. Broadcasters are supposed to be objective in my opinion, especially in a market like this that has many transplanted local viewers that still root for their old teams. Here in LA we've been "raised" by broadcasters who are very objective - Vin, Chick Hearn, Bob Miller, Dick Enberg, Don Drysdale - These guys never said "we" and it's pretty much expected that LA broadcasters should follow that tradition of professionalism. When my friend and I first heard the guys who do the White Sox games last year on WGN we laughed our heads off - It's very strange to hear that openly biased a sports broadcast, at least here in these parts.

[Bluesteve32]

If by running into the ground you mean retaining MLBs best minor league system, restoring Dodger Stadium, NOT firing the organist (like Anaheim did), keeping ticket prices low for working-class fans like me, drawing 4,000,000 fans and winning the pennant (Which we'll do this year) then you're right. :D

What does an organist have to do with the team overall?

Take away the pavilion seats, the prices at Chavez Ravine are nothing special and those new seat were overpriced and horrible views. Well, I guess if you want to see the backside of a base coach, those new seats are just fine.

Don't count your chickens before thay hatch! They'll have to play 162 games this season and granted, some of the players picked up in the offseason ought to help; quite frankly, since they play in the poorest division in baseball, a pickup of some 10 or 15 games just may get them into the post season, but I really doubt a WS appearence.

Elvis, sometimes you ought to take off those Dodgerblue colored glasses.

Also be honest, has the club been run as smoothly and as professionally as it was under the O'Malleys? Ask most Dodger fans would concur with me that they have not and last season their whole billboard and marketing plan was in reaction to Arte Moreno's and the Angels reverting back to their original name by using the "This is LA Baseball" and "The Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles" lines. Would the O'Malleys or even FOX have been so petty as calling the Angels when they played at the Ravine as "The Angels of Anaheim" as opposed to the "Los Angeles Angels" or "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" and showing their scores as "ANA" instead of "LAA?"

Elvis, my guess is that you are not old enough to remember those days and your blind loyalty is almost comical at times to those of whom that actually remember the Dodger as being clearly one of the best run franchise in all of sports. That day is almost two decades ago and sorry to say (to you that is) that many feel that the club some 30 miles down the Santa Ana Freeway is a much better run organization top to bottom.

Oh yeah, we did not have to steal a franchise away like you guys did! Just ask the people here in this particular forum.

[Bluesteve32]

As for broadcasters doing so, I think it's comical and annoying. Broadcasters are supposed to be objective in my opinion, especially in a market like this that has many transplanted local viewers that still root for their old teams. Here in LA we've been "raised" by broadcasters who are very objective - Vin, Chick Hearn, Bob Miller, Dick Enberg, Don Drysdale - These guys never said "we" and it's pretty much expected that LA broadcasters should follow that tradition of professionalism. When my friend and I first heard the guys who do the White Sox games last year on WGN we laughed our heads off - It's very strange to hear that openly biased a sports broadcast, at least here in these parts.

I actually will follow you in line here. I can't believe those Chicago guys expecting their announcer to be homers and saying those guys are the best in the business.

All I can say that Vinnie and Enberg went on to network work and we rarely see Chicago guys do that. Most national guys seem to come out of NY, then LA and St Louis. There must be some reason for that. ;)

BTW, LA guys are that fond of Marv Albert's style since we were brought up of Chick Hearn who actually would chastise the LAkers when they were playing poorly. Maybe it is good that Chick has since passed on to see this abombination of a "Laker" (I use quotes because these guys wearing the purple and gold cannot really be called the Lakers) team play ball.

[Elvis]

What does an organist have to do with the team overall?

It has to do with my enjoyment of a day at the ballpark.

Take away the pavilion seats, the prices at Chavez Ravine are nothing special

Yeah, like you can get a seat behind home plate every game for $6 in Anaheim or anywhere else.

and those new seat were overpriced and horrible views. Well, I guess if you want to see the backside of a base coach, those new seats are just fine.

I wont sit in those new seats they're installing right now so I can't say.

Don't count your chickens before thay hatch! They'll have to play 162 games this season and granted, some of the players picked up in the offseason ought to help; quite frankly, since they play in the poorest division in baseball, a pickup of some 10 or 15 games just may get them into the post season, but I really doubt a WS appearence.

World Series 2006. It's in the bag.

Elvis, sometimes you ought to take off those Dodgerblue colored glasses.

Naa, I like it just fine. Everythings full of optimism, tranquility and joy with these glasses.

Also be honest, has the club been run as smoothly and as professionally as it was under the O'Malleys? Ask most Dodger fans would concur with me that they have not and last season their whole billboard and marketing plan was in reaction to Arte Moreno's and the Angels reverting back to their original name by using the "This is LA Baseball" and "The Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles" lines. Would the O'Malleys or even FOX have been so petty as calling the Angels when they played at the Ravine as "The Angels of Anaheim" as opposed to the "Los Angeles Angels" or "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" and showing their scores as "ANA" instead of "LAA?"

I look to the future, not the past

Elvis, my guess is that you are not old enough to remember those days

That's true, you're much older than me. and probably always will be.

and your blind loyalty is almost comical at times

That's nice

to those of whom that actually remember the Dodger as being clearly one of the best run franchise in all of sports. That day is almost two decades ago and sorry to say (to you that is) that many feel that the club some 30 miles down the Santa Ana Freeway is a much better run organization top to bottom.

What "many feel" is of no intrest to me - only what I feel, and I feel McCourt is running the club just fine these days. I really don't pay any attention to the OC team except when they're playing Los Angeles.

Oh yeah, we did not have to steal a franchise away like you guys did! Just ask the people here in this particular forum.

Not even the people in this forum blame Angelinos for stealing the Dodgers and neither do you, so I'm not sure why you would say "I" stole the team. Did some housewife in Marin County steal the Giants? ;)

------- :dance --------- :waving ----------

[CaliforniaCajun]

Please excuse me, but I am relatively new to baseball-fever, so perhaps this question has been discussed before: instead of the Dodgers returning to Brooklyn, could another franchise, one with financial worries, move to Brooklyn just as the Expos moved to Washington? Say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays? Just asking.-Brownie31

I have never even visited the New York area, but it would seem to me that the scenario to get Brooklyn a team would be to lure the Mets there with a new state of the art ballpark. Whether that's realistic with regards to traffic, willingness to build a stadium, etc., I don't know, but I don't think the Mets have ever been excited about Shea Stadium. :atthepc

[bhss89]

[QUOTE=Elvis9045]If by running into the ground you mean retaining MLBs best minor league system, restoring Dodger Stadium, NOT firing the organist (like Anaheim did), keeping ticket prices low for working-class fans like me, drawing 4,000,000 fans and winning the pennant (Which we'll do this year) then you're right. :D[/QUOTE

One of the greatest posts ever on BF. Go Elvis!

[DODGER DEB]

While the information you are providing would be useful to fans of that "west coast group", it is not relevant to the topic of THIS thread on this BROOKLYN DODGERS FORUM....A NEW TEAM in BROOKLYN.

I would suggest that WE return to the topic of THIS thread.

c.

[Bluesteve32]

While the information you are providing would be useful to fans of that "west coast group", it is not relevant to the topic of THIS thread on this BROOKLYN DODGERS FORUM....A NEW TEAM in BROOKLYN.

I would suggest that WE return to the topic of THIS thread.

c.

The fans and organization of the west coast group have always been an arrogant lot; please excuse them for overreacting to a tongue-cheek-comment that is very unlikely to happen (The Dodgers moving back to the true ancesteral home).

Of all people in baseball, they are the one insisting in still calling the Angels "Anaheim" when they chose to revert to their rightful and historic name.

The Marlins, Devil Rays are two teams that may be among that need to look for new homes. I wonder why not Brooklyn? I know that King George, Bug (not a typo) Selig, and the Mets would not allow it, but they would be a whole lot more profitable that whenre they are today.

I remember about 20 years ago that some of my buddies said the Florida would be a great place for MLB teams and I disagreed. Their arguement was the ST was held there so it sould work, and I said that baseball just may not be conducive to Florida since that is the "off-season" down there. Now the Marlin are exploring other opprotunities and the Devil Rays are a joke of an organization in a horrible yard.

[Elvis]

The fans and organization of the west coast group have always been an arrogant lot; please excuse them for overreacting to a tongue-cheek-comment that is very unlikely to happen (The Dodgers moving back to the true ancesteral home).

Of all people in baseball, they are the one insisting in still calling the Angels "Anaheim" when they chose to revert to their rightful and historic name.

The Marlins, Devil Rays are two teams that may be among that need to look for new homes. I wonder why not Brooklyn? I know that King George, Bug (not a typo) Selig, and the Mets would not allow it, but they would be a whole lot more profitable that whenre they are today.

I remember about 20 years ago that some of my buddies said the Florida would be a great place for MLB teams and I disagreed. Their arguement was the ST was held there so it sould work, and I said that baseball just may not be conducive to Florida since that is the "off-season" down there. Now the Marlin are exploring other opprotunities and the Devil Rays are a joke of an organization in a horrible yard.

The Marlins would thrive right where they are if they had decent ownership and a little ballpark to match - Same with the Rays - Your friends were right and you are wrong, baseball can be wildly sucessfull in Fla.

You said, "Why not Brooklyn?" I suppose they could move to Broooklyn (if they were complete morons), although there's not one chance in a trillion that they would be able to build a new stadium there, or that it would ever be approved by anyone without mashed potatoes for brains. Becides, the Dodgers are the only club that would belong in Brooklyn, and they're never going back. There will never be a "new (MLB) team in Brooklyn", despite you thinking the Brooklyn Devil Rays is a groovy idea.

Oh, and if you seriously believe that it's only Dodger fans that think that the Angels' "Los Angeles" name is hilarious and retarded, then you're living in your own little fantasy world.

[Brownie31]

I realize it will probably never happen, but if, say, the Devil Rays were to move to Brooklyn, a good team name would be to revert to Robins from the days of Wilbert "Uncle Robbie" Robinson. An extra benefit would be honoring not only Uncle Robbie, but also Jackie Robinson. Brownie31

[Old Hoss Radbourn]

As someone who loves baseball history, I think it would be wonderful to have a team in Brooklyn again. But realistically, I don't think that in this day and age New York could support three major league teams. There's just too much money involved. It would be too expensive for ownership trying to keep up with the Yankees and the Mets. It would be too expensive for fans, who would need to be pulled away from the current teams because baseball has just about priced itself out of the range of most people who are interested but don't already support the Yankees or the Mets.

[EbtsFldGuy]

[QUOTE=Bluesteve32]The fans and organization of the west coast group have always been an arrogant lot;

While I don't know the present Dodger organization or any LA fans, truth requires recognition that arrogance is the common denominator of a few of the regular Brooklyn era posters on this board, as well

Fortunately, only a few.

[DODGER DEB]

[QUOTE=Bluesteve32]The fans and organization of the west coast group have always been an arrogant lot;

While I don't know the present Dodger organization or any LA fans, truth requires recognition that arrogance is the common denominator of a few of the regular Brooklyn era posters on this board, as well

Fortunately, only a few.


I assume YOU include yourself in that group....who ever they are, EFG!

c.

[Robb Schwartz]

Wow, quite an interesting set of emotions....

For one, I'm an LA native--actually now living in the OC...and about a mile from Anaheim Stadium. I have grown now to love the locals but more to the point, also enjoy the GAME, which brings me to my point--I find a lot of the arguments posted here painful to read. It's very clear from "true" Brooklyn fans that their hearts were broken when the team left in 1957-1958. I cannot imagine my team just picking up and leaving. But, and this needs to be open for honest and true reflection, since when is baseball just a sport, and when did any of the owners really care about the fans?

For those naive fans here in LA...the O family got tired of the ridiculous demands and antics of the spoiled athletes (think Steve Howe and Darryl Strawberry), the corporate hijinks/money of the Steinbrenners (and others), and the increasing competition of literally dozens of other distractions for the locals (movies, water sports, and a million other diversions). In other words, note now that the most storied franchise in the game has experienced 3 ownership changes in the past 10 years, gone from 2 managers in 40 years to something like 6 in 5 years! The romance of the game might just be in our hearts, but not in the hearts of others.

My goodness, players used to have real jobs in the offseason (read the backs of some of the baseball cards of the 50's and 60's) and you'll find that while it was our romance, it was their hard work, often filled with tough survival choices when away from the game. Plus, ticket prices, food, parking, etc. now makes going to the park quite an expensive proposition.

My fellow fans, please realize that's it's a business, has always been, and always will be. Businessmen make business decisions, tough as that may be to swallow. If the Dodgers ever made a decision to move (as the Rams did in th 90's), then I'd probably feel your pain. But, I'd understand it because businesses need to change to survive. Painful as it was, NY couldn't or wouldn't continue to support a 3rd franchise...2 left and one was added. Perhaps this is about our changing society, demographics, and just a little about nostalgia. I have plenty of the latter and I know you do too.

[DODGER DEB]

Wow, quite an interesting set of emotions....

For one, I'm an LA native--actually now living in the OC...and about a mile from Anaheim Stadium. I have grown now to love the locals but more to the point, also enjoy the GAME, which brings me to my point--I find a lot of the arguments posted here painful to read. It's very clear from "true" Brooklyn fans that their hearts were broken when the team left in 1957-1958. I cannot imagine my team just picking up and leaving. But, and this needs to be open for honest and true reflection, since when is baseball just a sport, and when did any of the owners really care about the fans?

For those naive fans here in LA...the O family got tired of the ridiculous demands and antics of the spoiled athletes (think Steve Howe and Darryl Strawberry), the corporate hijinks/money of the Steinbrenners (and others), and the increasing competition of literally dozens of other distractions for the locals (movies, water sports, and a million other diversions). In other words, note now that the most storied franchise in the game has experienced 3 ownership changes in the past 10 years, gone from 2 managers in 40 years to something like 6 in 5 years! The romance of the game might just be in our hearts, but not in the hearts of others.

My goodness, players used to have real jobs in the offseason (read the backs of some of the baseball cards of the 50's and 60's) and you'll find that while it was our romance, it was their hard work, often filled with tough survival choices when away from the game. Plus, ticket prices, food, parking, etc. now makes going to the park quite an expensive proposition.

My fellow fans, please realize that's it's a business, has always been, and always will be. Businessmen make business decisions, tough as that may be to swallow. If the Dodgers ever made a decision to move (as the Rams did in th 90's), then I'd probably feel your pain. But, I'd understand it because businesses need to change to survive. Painful as it was, NY couldn't or wouldn't continue to support a 3rd franchise...2 left and one was added. Perhaps this is about our changing society, demographics, and just a little about nostalgia. I have plenty of the latter and I know you do too.

Allow me to add a little understanding of WHY WE BROOKLYN DODGER FANS feel as strongly as WE do...and have for all these past years.

For more than two years, and most especially through the entire 1957 season, all WE heard from the "BIG O" was (and this is a direct quote): "MY ROOTS ARE IN BROOKLYN; MY ROOTS ARE IN BROOKLYN". Foolishly, WE believed him, because WE could not imagine anyone taking OUR DODGERS out of BROOKLYN, and away from the very special home they had for years, and away from the FANS WHO LOVED THEM SO MUCH!

The "Big O" LIED, and LIED, and then he LIED some more, right to OUR faces! When he was through, he ripped out OUR HEARTS and he let US BLEED! When he took OUR team away, for pure greed, he left a hole in BROOKLYN that will never ever heal!

I know it's difficult for people who were not there and part of US to comprehend such grief, but the pain was SO VERY REAL...and, I dare say, IT STILL IS! YOU have to understand, THE DODGERS DIDN'T BELONG to BROOKLYN...THEY WERE BROOKLYN!

c.

[Bluesteve32]

Oh, and if you seriously believe that it's only Dodger fans that think that the Angels' "Los Angeles" name is hilarious and retarded, then you're living in your own little fantasy world.

Hey, I agree the name is silly, but Arte had to counter the micky mouse city council who refused to help the club's new vision and ownership so Arte found that silly loophole and all it got was him in court. After Arte socks the city for 7mill in attorney fees, the city will agree to to let the club drop the "of Anaheim."

What I wasrefering to is that Dodger fans are still insisting to just call the Angels "Anaheim," even when you remind them that Anaheim is no longer around. In that repect, they are like those OC "Anahomers" as we are calling them now.

It was LAA when the franchise started and it is today, which it should be and in 2017, they will have a brand new stadium away from that mickey mouse town that is home to the mouse's house.

All that being said, you guys root for a team that carpetbagged it way out west, got free land (well in exchange for the deed to Wrigley Field) and had the residents forcibly removed from that land, were horrible landlords over the new tenants that shared their palacial ballpark for four seasons (made Autry pay for toilet paper used by Dodger fans, pay for half the landscaping, cleaning windows for officies that had no windows, etc), broke the heart of a city that absolutely loved that club and was its sense of identity, and then you guys come in here acting "all bad" because you are Dodger fans.

Don't you get it, they hate you guys in here and think you and your claim to the very name Dodgers is blasphemy to them! You guys stole their players and many, quite frankly, think those 1959, 1963 and 1965 WS titles really belong to Brooklyn, since it was their players that won that for you guys.

Now the playing field is much more level in So Cal, and even you must realize that the Angels and their silly name has made giant inroads in reaching their fair share of the local So Cal market and Arte Moreno has parlayed the 2002 title along with a darn good farm system, in restocking this club into a winning organization while the current Dodgers is being mismanaged by Frank McCourt who has ignored the past of the club and has been very petty vis-a-vis the Angels on the name issue. Even O'Money would have ignored whatever the Angels did.

Enjoy your Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles. You know O'Money tried to sue some bar named the Brooklyn Dodger around a quarter century ago, well after the club left for the riches of LA LA land. Let me tell you, if these Brooklynites hear all the (excrement) that the Dodger PR department was saying during the late 1960s and 1970s on how great they were to their fans (I guess than only meant the LA fans since they snubbed those loyal Brooklyn fans) and what a great organization they were, many of these folks in hear would have been willing to hire a hitman to rub that hippocritical Walter O'Money off the face of the "Eoith" (using the lingo of the town).

O'Money would likey have moved the Dodgers to Tokyo if he would make more money there and rip the hearts out of LA without ever thinking twice about it! At least the Angels have always played in the area and took their name, like the Orioles, Padres, Brewers, and Browns, before them; from the team that played in the area for decades as opposed to stealing an established and beloved franchise from another city.

[MATHA531]

Wow, quite an interesting set of emotions....

For one, I'm an LA native--actually now living in the OC...and about a mile from Anaheim Stadium. I have grown now to love the locals but more to the point, also enjoy the GAME, which brings me to my point--I find a lot of the arguments posted here painful to read. It's very clear from "true" Brooklyn fans that their hearts were broken when the team left in 1957-1958. I cannot imagine my team just picking up and leaving. But, and this needs to be open for honest and true reflection, since when is baseball just a sport, and when did any of the owners really care about the fans?

For those naive fans here in LA...the O family got tired of the ridiculous demands and antics of the spoiled athletes (think Steve Howe and Darryl Strawberry), the corporate hijinks/money of the Steinbrenners (and others), and the increasing competition of literally dozens of other distractions for the locals (movies, water sports, and a million other diversions). In other words, note now that the most storied franchise in the game has experienced 3 ownership changes in the past 10 years, gone from 2 managers in 40 years to something like 6 in 5 years! The romance of the game might just be in our hearts, but not in the hearts of others.

My goodness, players used to have real jobs in the offseason (read the backs of some of the baseball cards of the 50's and 60's) and you'll find that while it was our romance, it was their hard work, often filled with tough survival choices when away from the game. Plus, ticket prices, food, parking, etc. now makes going to the park quite an expensive proposition.

My fellow fans, please realize that's it's a business, has always been, and always will be. Businessmen make business decisions, tough as that may be to swallow. If the Dodgers ever made a decision to move (as the Rams did in th 90's), then I'd probably feel your pain. But, I'd understand it because businesses need to change to survive. Painful as it was, NY couldn't or wouldn't continue to support a 3rd franchise...2 left and one was added. Perhaps this is about our changing society, demographics, and just a little about nostalgia. I have plenty of the latter and I know you do too.

Robb:

The part of your post that I disagree with strongly is the statement baseball has always been a business...there were in the 50's true baseball owners such as Phil Wrigley in Chicago, Carpenter in Philly, Crosley in Cincinnati, and others who were making no where near the money the Brooklyn franchise was making and didn't move...in the 50's there was still considered a degree of civic responsibility in owning a major league baseball team.

It is an untruth that NY (or Brooklyn more specifically) could no longer support the Dodgers....they were still making money head over heels in "crumbling" Ebbets Field and would have continued to do so....it was the slime ball for purposes solely of greed that decided he was not making enough money and demanded a free hand out of land despite the fact it was illegal under the law to condemn property held by one private entity to give to another....could the Dodgers have lasted another decade or two in Ebbets Field...just ask fans of the Cubs (Wrigley Field), Red Sox (Fenway Park0 even the White Sox (Cominksey Park I) and Tigers (Tiger Stadium) who lasted and did very well in old time ball parks in the inner city for at least a decade or more after O'Malley folded up his tent (not to mention the money he made by selling the land where Ebbets Field was located).

My big criticism of those who try to defend the slime ball is they had no experience with what really happened, what baseball meant. They approach this subject from a perspective of 2005 knowledge. It is the responsibility of my generation, and I am probably in the very last generation who understands this, to tell the truth, to make sure this slime ball never gets into the Hall of Fame, to dispel the notion that it was Robert Moses who was responsible for the theft of the Brooklyn franchise, a franchise that you can plainly see will never rise again.

And you know what...as a Smithsonian study said a decade later it was the transfer of the Brooklyn franchise that turned many, not just Brooklyn fans, off from baseball. It was by far the most dastardly deed ever perpetrated in the history of baseball and was one of the factors that led to pro football surpassing baseball as America's national sport.

[Old Hoss Radbourn]

I agree that it was always a business. Nobody ever owned a team hoping to lose money or even break even. There are thousands of stories out there among all the baseball lore regarding how notoriously cheap most of the owners were, which is why most players had to have off-season jobs. The difference, in my opinion, is that in those days it wasn't so wildly profit-driven. Back in those days, players played because they loved the game, managers managed because they loved the game and owners owned because they loved the game. All of them wanted to make a living, but they also realized they were making that living by being involved in a child's game. Greed had not yet sucked the heart out of the game. A long time ago it was said that baseball was a microcosm of our society. I suppose in many ways it still is.

By the way, for anyone who would like to get a sense of how baseball was in the 1950s and particularly the Brooklyn Dodgers, I highly recommend Roger Kahn's marvelous "The Boys of Summer." Still the best baseball book I've ever read.