What about a Dodgers Triple A team in Brooklyn.

[princethomas]

I understand that I'll get trashed for this, but would ANYONE welcome a triple A affiliate of the Dodgers to play in Brooklyn and be called the Brooklyn Dodgers?
Just seemed like a cool idea to try to begin healing.
-T

[dodger dynamo]

pt you have guts for the post, sounds like one of my Ideas, battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[Todd Anderson]

Tremendous idea, but I'll wager MLB would frown on the name. Probably copyrighted, etc., I dunno. I would have thought if that was easy to do, they would have simply named the Cyclones the Brooklyn Dodgers.

I'm astounded that someone with deep pockets hasn't built a replica of Ebbets, complete with museum. I mean, there are copycats of the Titanic being built, Disney's Epcot has replicas of entire countries, etc. Since I'm not from New York, maybe there's nowhere to build such a stadium replica. Sure wish there was. That'd be a wonderful attraction for baseball fans in general. Tourists travel to see the ball field from "Field of Dreams" [in Iowa], so it's not a leap to assume they be thrilled to visit an Ebbets look-alike. Just a thought.

Fun to discuss, Prince!
-Todd

[Gary Dunaier]

Since Fred Wilpon loves the Dodgers so much, it's surprising that he didn't have the Cyclones' ballpark be a minor-league version of Ebbets Field instead of the structure that was built.

[dodger dynamo]

you know what, if the dodgers ever go up for sale again, it wouldn't surprise me, that a sale of the mets would not also be imminent and part of the sale might include terriorial rights for brooklyn. then, well, maybe I'm dreaming, but anything can happen. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo.

[Shotgun Shuba]

[QUOTE=princethomas;1066068]I understand that I'll get trashed for this, but would ANYONE welcome a triple A affiliate of the Dodgers to play in Brooklyn and be called the Brooklyn Dodgers?
Just seemed like a cool idea to try to begin healing.

I think it is a good idea. We talked about it.

www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=50028

[Silver Blaze]

Tremendous idea, but I'll wager MLB would frown on the name. Probably copyrighted, etc., I dunno. I would have thought if that was easy to do, they would have simply named the Cyclones the Brooklyn Dodgers.



There's no copyright issue within the organization. That's why there are teams named the Staten Island Yankees and Binghampton Mets. As an outsider to the situation, I think calling a minor-league team the Brooklyn Dodgers might hurt the memory of the original major league team, and a lot of Brooklyn fans might object to Los Angeles benefitting from their players developing on Brooklyn territory, only to go to L.A. when they are ready for the big leagues.

[metfan13]

you know what, if the dodgers ever go up for sale again, it wouldn't surprise me, that a sale of the mets would not also be imminent and part of the sale might include terriorial rights for brooklyn. then, well, maybe I'm dreaming, but anything can happen. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo.

Yes you're dreaming. The Dodgers have been sold twice already and this was never remotely a possibility. Remember there are more NY Mets fans now than there are Brooklyn Dodger fans. And what Bkn Dodger fans there are, are an old fanbase (no offense there about the age)

[metfan13]

There's no copyright issue within the organization. That's why there are teams named the Staten Island Yankees and Binghampton Mets. As an outsider to the situation, I think calling a minor-league team the Brooklyn Dodgers might hurt the memory of the original major league team, and a lot of Brooklyn fans might object to Los Angeles benefitting from their players developing on Brooklyn territory, only to go to L.A. when they are ready for the big leagues.

You have to remember though that the SI Yanks and Binghamton Mets are affiliated with the Major League teams of that name. The Mets would not allow the Dodgers to operate a AAA franchise in their area.

[ShortStop]

they would have simply named the Cyclones the Brooklyn Dodgers.



:eek: A Mets affiliate being named after a NL rival. Now that is something.

[LeoD]

Yes you're dreaming. The Dodgers have been sold twice already and this was never remotely a possibility. Remember there are more NY Mets fans now than there are Brooklyn Dodger fans. And what Bkn Dodger fans there are, are an old fanbase (no offense there about the age)

Thanks for making sense.

[JohnCropp]

Wouldn't that be a bit like Paul McCartney naming a solo album "Rubber Soul?"

[dodger dynamo]

once upon a time no one would think the dodgers could ever move, no one ever believed the berlin wall would fall, the mets fans are fine, they have their team, they can go watch the mets, they have nothing to do with the brooklyn dodgers except former players in brooklyn played for them and coached for them. their fans have a deep loyalty and that's fantastic. however, In my opinion the mets are involved in only two respects one they have territorial rights to the area and two they have a minor league team in Brooklyn. other than these two facets the mets need not be brought into the picture. met fans need not be concerned, worried or upset. they have their own fan base, their own park and their own history. there's no need for them to rally against any kind of dodger return. the rivalry would be tremendous! so if you still want to be a met's fan that's great. If some one wanted to follow both that's great. if someone wants to be a brooklyn dodger fan that's great. there's this barrier that is in place for some unknown reason, the feeling of betrayal? the team betrayed no one, the man who owned the team and politicians on both coasts betrayed the people. maybe if the dodgers moved back those who want to believe the mets are the dodgers in some way would have to give that up and it upsets people. they don't have to give up anything, we all can believe what we want, even with facts to the contrary. belief and faith go beyond the tangible or provable. "the flat bush faithful" as we used to be called, I still believe and have kept the faith, flying in the face of the unbelievable. the dodgers did win the 55 series you know! how unbelievable or unprovable was that until it happened. the dodgers are a baseball team, yet they were in a very real way a non denominational religion in Brooklyn. yet the brooklyn dodger fanbase does not cease at the borough boundary line or even state lines. the brooklyn dodger loyalty transcends all that, while still having deep connections to brooklyn the actual borough, city whatever. It has endured for the past 50 yrs. despite the fact that the physical team is no longer there. beyond that there were men who conspired to remove the team, however they're all dead or at least no longer in control. the baseball landscape has changed many, many times against even the most ardent fans wishes and belief that "this could never happen" the philadelphia a's with many pennants and championships, moved twice. base ball in washington now on three separate occasions. In the 68 yrs. I've been here I've come to know only death is for certain. there may be many highly unlikely things, such as man landing on the moon or the findings by many scientists that neptune is not really a planet, or that the world is round. against all that a base ball team returning to it's home city seems more of a plausible thing. might not live to see it, but it's possible. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[metfan13]

That's all fine and good. You can have your fantasies, but there are realities that will be brought up. NO WAY would the NY Mets franchise allow another team in their area. Not happening. And they're not allowing another ML franchise to put a high minor league team in their area. Why would they do anything to dilute their market share?

And really, though a vocal group, the remaining Brooklyn Dodger fanbase just isn't all that large.

[metfan13]

What does the Philly A's (who were unseuccessful at the times of their moves) have anything to do with the Dodgers/Mets? What does teams moving to Washington (which was unoccupied by the way) have to do with the Mets/Dodgers?

[dodger dynamo]

it simply has to do with teams like the a's who over all have been more sucessful than their cross town rivals over a certain period before moving, despite the fact that when they did the phillies were performing better. their fans like we in brooklyn never thought of the two teams they had the one with two pennants would stay and the team with many more pennants and 5 world series championships would leave. they thought that was unbelieveable of course until it happened. In the case of washington, what's, the possibility of getting another franchise to move in when two have failed and moved? many would have said impossible, won't happen, until it did. why then if the mets or yanks feel brooklyn is no threat as a mlb franchise territory, would they care? If not many people will go to the brooklyn games, then give the borough territorial rights, build a park put the dodgers or any team there, then if it fails, it fails. I've got no argument with the mets, yanks or any of their fans. why should any one worry about a brooklyn team that many believe has no fanbase. the dodgers belong in brooklyn, I still feel that way after 50 yrs. their not there of course, many say it will never happen, but no person or argument can convince me. yet if I'm wrong, why worry, why care. I'm not asking anyone else to believe it or buy it, that's up tp them. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[princethomas]

Wow, a lot friendlier response than I thought I might get. I suggested triple AAA because it might be weightier and not feel like an empty gesture. But I don't think the Mets would want that to be the case. I suppose AA or Single A would be better.

The Greenville South Carolina team is a Red Sox Single A affiliate. The just built a new stadium It seats 9,000 and it is a close-to-exact replica of Fenway Park. The field dimensions and wall heights are the same and the stands mimic fenway. Its pretty cool. Greenville is Braves territory and is only about an hour and a half a way from Atlanta. Its not the same as Brooklyn and Queens of course, I know.

I don't think the Mets would or Should lose any sleep over the Dodgers having a lower minor league team there.

I will tell you, I am a Los Angeles Dodger fan and have been my whole life. Im 32. I look at what happened to Brooklyn, and its sad. Whats really sad is that it hasn't gotten any better. I wish there was some way to heal these wounds.

Some way to reach out to the Brooklyn fans and offer something.

-T

[metfan13]

Wow, a lot friendlier response than I thought I might get. I suggested triple AAA because it might be weightier and not feel like an empty gesture. But I don't think the Mets would want that to be the case. I suppose AA or Single A would be better.

The Greenville South Carolina team is a Red Sox Single A affiliate. The just built a new stadium It seats 9,000 and it is a close-to-exact replica of Fenway Park. The field dimensions and wall heights are the same and the stands mimic fenway. Its pretty cool. Greenville is Braves territory and is only about an hour and a half a way from Atlanta. Its not the same as Brooklyn and Queens of course, I know.

I don't think the Mets would or Should lose any sleep over the Dodgers having a lower minor league team there.

I will tell you, I am a Los Angeles Dodger fan and have been my whole life. Im 32. I look at what happened to Brooklyn, and its sad. Whats really sad is that it hasn't gotten any better. I wish there was some way to heal these wounds.

Some way to reach out to the Brooklyn fans and offer something.

-T

It would compete with the Mets low minor league team, already in Brooklyn. Not happening. I don't see why so many fail to see the obvious. The Mets are not going to allow a competitor to bring any team into their markeyplace to compete with them in any way. It's simple business.

[metfan13]

it simply has to do with teams like the a's who over all have been more sucessful than their cross town rivals over a certain period before moving, despite the fact that when they did the phillies were performing better. their fans like we in brooklyn never thought of the two teams they had the one with two pennants would stay and the team with many more pennants and 5 world series championships would leave. they thought that was unbelieveable of course until it happened. In the case of washington, what's, the possibility of getting another franchise to move in when two have failed and moved? many would have said impossible, won't happen, until it did. why then if the mets or yanks feel brooklyn is no threat as a mlb franchise territory, would they care? If not many people will go to the brooklyn games, then give the borough territorial rights, build a park put the dodgers or any team there, then if it fails, it fails. I've got no argument with the mets, yanks or any of their fans. why should any one worry about a brooklyn team that many believe has no fanbase. the dodgers belong in brooklyn, I still feel that way after 50 yrs. their not there of course, many say it will never happen, but no person or argument can convince me. yet if I'm wrong, why worry, why care. I'm not asking anyone else to believe it or buy it, that's up tp them. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

They keep putting teams back in Washington so Congress will stay quiet and not look too carefully at the way they do business.

As to the part I bolded, yes it is a threat. Why let a competitor into your back yard. It's part of the Mets territory. It would be stupid for them to allow a competitor in there. Right now those people go to Mets game if they want MLB why give them a choice.

[dodger dynamo]

you know, you made me chuckle on the washingon and why give the people a choice statements. It's true far truer than any of the other reasons. met fan 13 take it easy, I got no problem with your arguments or point of view, just wish you didn't have one with mine. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[dodger dynamo]

princethomas, you came into the forum with a question, suggestion that took nerve, but one I'm glad you asked. it gets the brain working, speaking for myself, you've been very respectful of the feelings here and I wouldn't mind hearing some other brooklyn suggestions, would you support the dodgers if they moved back? I hope so. maybe we can convert you to a brooklyn fan, maybe not. don't know how much history you've read or care to read. seek it out read it, decide for yourself. take it easy. battlin bake the dodger dynamo

[bobw357]

I'm not sure the Dodgers would want their top farm club all the way across the country. Most teams have their Triple A teams within a reasonable distance.

[LeoD]

That's all fine and good. You can have your fantasies, but there are realities that will be brought up. NO WAY would the NY Mets franchise allow another team in their area. Not happening. And they're not allowing another ML franchise to put a high minor league team in their area. Why would they do anything to dilute their market share?

And really, though a vocal group, the remaining Brooklyn Dodger fanbase just isn't all that large.

And getting smaller by the day.

[aqib]

I think at some point in the next 10-15 years there will be a third team in the NYC area. There has been talk about it for a while, there is enough fan support and media to support a third franchaise. The Giants were contemplating a return to NY before Toronto taking the lead and Stoneham selling them to Bob Laurie at the last second. Now would it be placed in Brooklyn or North Jersey I can't say. If it is in Brooklyn, it would be under a different name but I suppose its possible if someone was willing to pay $300+ million to the LA franchise for the name they could get it back.

Here is a thought though, what if the Dodgers wanted to play a game at Keyspan park under the Brooklyn name wearing the Brooklyn uniforms. How would that be received?

[dodger dynamo]

I think we've discussed that before, many hate the Idea. I think, personal opinion here, ok, It's ok by me. I'd like to go to that game, to once again see the dodgers in brooklyn. I don't think there would be enough seating. p.s now once their here I would try to convince them brooklyn is where they belong. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo. would any one support a northern jersey team called the brooklyn dodgers? not much different a concept than them moving there in 58. after all they once played games in jersey city.

[MattM]

I think we've discussed that before, many hate the Idea. I think, personal opinion here, ok, It's ok by me. I'd like to go to that game, to once again see the dodgers in brooklyn. I don't think there would be enough seating. p.s now once their here I would try to convince them brooklyn is where they belong. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo. would any one support a northern jersey team called the brooklyn dodgers? not much different a concept than them moving there in 58. after all they once played games in jersey city.

Quite similar to the Jets/Giants situtation, with both teams playing out of New Jersey. Alot of people don't like the idea, but they still support the team.

I'd love to see another team in Brooklyn, but I'm with all of you in that it will probably never happen. With both Wilpon and Steinbrenner pretty much owning the NY baseball scene, it would be a tough thing to do.

[aqib]

I think we've discussed that before, many hate the Idea. I think, personal opinion here, ok, It's ok by me. I'd like to go to that game, to once again see the dodgers in brooklyn. I don't think there would be enough seating. p.s now once their here I would try to convince them brooklyn is where they belong. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo. would any one support a northern jersey team called the brooklyn dodgers? not much different a concept than them moving there in 58. after all they once played games in jersey city.

No what I meant was that I think eventually there will be a third team in the NY area, weather it is in Brooklyn or Northern Jersey I can't predict. Also regardless of where it is it would have a different name unless there was an MLB team put in Brooklym and the owner of that team offered McCourt a ton of money for the Dodgers name. When the Browns moved to Baltimore and left the name in Cleveland, they tried to buy the Colts name from Indy. They offered $5 million and Indy asked for $25 million. McCourt paid $430 million for the team and stadium, and land. I would guess he would probably want $250 million for the name.

[dodger dynamo]

you know, If I owned a new team and that much to spend, I'd make the offer. Brooklyn Dodgers as a name would be a great marketing point. merchandising alone would be terrific. brooklyn fans in brooklyn and else where would then have somewhere to go. a team with a different name, well, the market's there, I believe it to and nj as a seperate state could probably get territorial rights. a new team even with brooklyn in it would be ok, but we'd all still be in the forum discussing the brooklyn dodgers and missing them. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[metfan13]

you know, If I owned a new team and that much to spend, I'd make the offer. Brooklyn Dodgers as a name would be a great marketing point. merchandising alone would be terrific. brooklyn fans in brooklyn and else where would then have somewhere to go. a team with a different name, well, the market's there, I believe it to and nj as a seperate state could probably get territorial rights. a new team even with brooklyn in it would be ok, but we'd all still be in the forum discussing the brooklyn dodgers and missing them. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

Separate state doesn't matter. NJ is in the Yanks and Mets region and if you go further south the Phils would be interested.

[metfan13]

That would be one expensive franchise.

New Franchise fee
Payments to yanks and Mets for invading their turf
Payment to Dodgers for the name
Payment for land and construction of new stadium.

Can we say cost prohibitive?

[MATHA531]

It's very simple...

Brooklyn is a major league city and should have major league baseball...it is not a class A baseball city (sorry Cyclones) nor a triple A city...it deserves and should have major league baseball.

It never will, of course, thanks to Uncles Fred and George (or should I say Hank)...but we shouldn't settle for a hand me down minor league franchise.

Major league baseball or nothing I say.

[LeoD]

It's very simple...

Brooklyn is a major league city and should have major league baseball...it is not a class A baseball city (sorry Cyclones) nor a triple A city...it deserves and should have major league baseball.

It never will, of course, thanks to Uncles Fred and George (or should I say Hank)...but we shouldn't settle for a hand me down minor league franchise.

Major league baseball or nothing I say.

We will get nothing.

[aqib]

I am holding fast to my theory that their will eventually be a third team in the NYC area, although I can't say exactly where (Brooklyn, North Jersey, etc.). There is too much money to be made there from population, corporate support and media, for MLB to let only two teams have all the fun. Remember as other big cities are losing population NYC is still growing, so if its be eventual expansion or relocation I think NYC will be a 3 team area again.

[LeoD]

I am holding fast to my theory that their will eventually be a third team in the NYC area, although I can't say exactly where (Brooklyn, North Jersey, etc.). There is too much money to be made there from population, corporate support and media, for MLB to let only two teams have all the fun. Remember as other big cities are losing population NYC is still growing, so if its be eventual expansion or relocation I think NYC will be a 3 team area again.

The Mets, and the Yankees will keep that from happening but you and dodger dynamo, can dream.

[dodger dynamo]

nj legislators vs. yanks and mets for territorial rights. as a state with no major league team, would you let what they say be the last word? I know baseballs rules governing territorial rights and with many minor league franchises in place agreements have been signed, so before anyone points all of this out I am aware of it. however, if I'm any state legislative body and there's a market there and the constituents want it, well, ny residents don't vote in nj. at least there not supposed to. then it comes down to mlb agreeing to give them a team. mets and yanks of course will do all in there power to prevent it and mlb will side with them. they'd drag it out until forever. mlb can deny a team, but a state does posses the power not to renew minor league agreements and leases. If a state chooses not to give or continue territorial rights, the ones without a ml franchise will lose what? a few minor league teams. I know mlb would still view the area as a certain teams territory. that's kind of like the bank feeling legally they still own your house once you've paid for it. In jersey you can still go see mlb in ny or philadelphia. which is what they've got now. how would anyone feel knowing a state was letting an organization like mlb virtually hold them hostage and dictate what they can or cannot do? as a legislator or resident in any state, any where, I'd resent that and question it's legality. whatever happened to free enterprise? I know none of this applies to all powerful mlb. It's sort of like wal-mart telling a city in kansas you can't put up a store similar to ours within a 150 miles. a Gm dealership can't tell a ford dealership not to move in across the street. I know it's for structure and stability but it seems base ball is allowed to do whatever they want, like move a team that should never have been moved or deny a state with no mlb a team. so I guess they can, why do we give them this power? so they can continue running it smoothly without interruption? no one ever questions it. strange stuff, If you stop and think about it. people used to be much more naive, some believed only 16 teams existed because the states that didn't have one, didn't want or couldn't support one. yet for other people, it simply never crossed their minds. mlb's been holding brooklyn hostage for 50 yrs. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[shotten1947]

We are mixing reality and fantasy. The reality is, there never again will be a Brooklyn Dodgers. Their might possibly be another MLB team in Brooklyn but not the Dodgers. People who suggest the Mets should move to Brooklyn have no regard for the people who support the Mets now, who live in places other then Brooklyn. There could and should be a third team, a team in Brooklyn.

[dodger dynamo]

for brooklyn it'self as a former resident, dodgers or not brooklyn does and has alway's deserved a major league team. I agree on this point, it might not make all of us happy, or completely satisfied, but you're right on the money. brooklyn should have it's own team. I might be a fan of the new team, I might not, but for brooklyn it's what's right. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[metfan13]

It's very simple...

Brooklyn is a major league city and should have major league baseball...it is not a class A baseball city (sorry Cyclones) nor a triple A city...it deserves and should have major league baseball.

It never will, of course, thanks to Uncles Fred and George (or should I say Hank)...but we shouldn't settle for a hand me down minor league franchise.

Major league baseball or nothing I say.


It's very simple, Brooklyn is a borough of New York City which already has two teams, neither of which is going to go along with another team being added to their city.

[metfan13]

nj legislators vs. yanks and mets for territorial rights. as a state with no major league team, would you let what they say be the last word? I know baseballs rules governing territorial rights and with many minor league franchises in place agreements have been signed, so before anyone points all of this out I am aware of it. however, if I'm any state legislative body and there's a market there and the constituents want it, well, ny residents don't vote in nj. at least there not supposed to. then it comes down to mlb agreeing to give them a team. mets and yanks of course will do all in there power to prevent it and mlb will side with them. they'd drag it out until forever. mlb can deny a team, but a state does posses the power not to renew minor league agreements and leases. If a state chooses not to give or continue territorial rights, the ones without a ml franchise will lose what? a few minor league teams. I know mlb would still view the area as a certain teams territory. that's kind of like the bank feeling legally they still own your house once you've paid for it. In jersey you can still go see mlb in ny or philadelphia. which is what they've got now. how would anyone feel knowing a state was letting an organization like mlb virtually hold them hostage and dictate what they can or cannot do? as a legislator or resident in any state, any where, I'd resent that and question it's legality. whatever happened to free enterprise? I know none of this applies to all powerful mlb. It's sort of like wal-mart telling a city in kansas you can't put up a store similar to ours within a 150 miles. a Gm dealership can't tell a ford dealership not to move in across the street. I know it's for structure and stability but it seems base ball is allowed to do whatever they want, like move a team that should never have been moved or deny a state with no mlb a team. so I guess they can, why do we give them this power? so they can continue running it smoothly without interruption? no one ever questions it. strange stuff, If you stop and think about it. people used to be much more naive, some believed only 16 teams existed because the states that didn't have one, didn't want or couldn't support one. yet for other people, it simply never crossed their minds. mlb's been holding brooklyn hostage for 50 yrs. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

New Jersey is going to kick out the minor league teams? These are businesses and it's not a totalitarian state. Where do you come up with this?

[MATHA531]

It's very simple, Brooklyn is a borough of New York City which already has two teams, neither of which is going to go along with another team being added to their city.

Not saying I necessarily disagree with you as to whether Brooklyn will ever get another mlb baseball team...however let me just make a point that you fail to grasp throughout many of your posts....

This classification of borough and city is very hazy and changes all the time.

In one sense, of course you're right.

In another sense, however, Brooklyn, like all the other boroughs, is a completely separate political subdivision

of New York State insofar as it is a completely separate county with its own borough President (chief executive), its own district attorney, its own courts, its own public library system, is part of a completely separate federal court district (the Eastern District of NY as opposed to the Southern District of NY) and of course, unless something changed in 1957, was considered by mlb for more than 60 years (1890 to 1957) as a separate city. Is it all different than the relationship say between Anaheim and Los Angeles (Anaheim is in a separate county too)....admitedly territorial rights are based on distances not political subdivisions but baseball wise, Brooklyn could and should be considered a separate city.

But I do think that if ever New York got a third mlb team (and it certainly and clearly deserves one far more than say the Miami area or the Tampa area), it will probably go to Northern New Jersey.

[metfan13]

Not saying I necessarily disagree with you as to whether Brooklyn will ever get another mlb baseball team...however let me just make a point that you fail to grasp throughout many of your posts....

This classification of borough and city is very hazy and changes all the time.

In one sense, of course you're right.

In another sense, however, Brooklyn, like all the other boroughs, is a completely separate political subdivision

of New York State insofar as it is a completely separate county with its own borough President (chief executive), its own district attorney, its own courts, its own public library system, is part of a completely separate federal court district (the Eastern District of NY as opposed to the Southern District of NY) and of course, unless something changed in 1957, was considered by mlb for more than 60 years (1890 to 1957) as a separate city. Is it all different than the relationship say between Anaheim and Los Angeles (Anaheim is in a separate county too)....admitedly territorial rights are based on distances not political subdivisions but baseball wise, Brooklyn could and should be considered a separate city.

But I do think that if ever New York got a third mlb team (and it certainly and clearly deserves one far more than say the Miami area or the Tampa area), it will probably go to Northern New Jersey.

Who said it was considered anything by MLB? Matter of fact people talked about the 3 teams in NY.

[dodger dynamo]

what i'm saying is a seperate state wants a major league team, feels they can support it. they're just supposed to say ok, the city in a different state has two ml teams and they've got the right to say we can't have a team, what's the deal with that?. If i'm from nj, that upsets me. so the mets and yanks get to decide nj can't have a team, what's right about about that, that sounds very dictatorial. also I'm not saying kick the minor league teams out, it is however a leverage point. what I was saying was If the two teams in ny kicked up a fuss at nj's desire to get a team all they could do to nj, is remove their minor league franchises, they can't take away mlb, because guess what, nj doesn't have a ml team. I don't think they're gonna keep people from nj. out of the mlb parks in ny and philly. people are just willing to accept that that's the way it is, why fight it. if your happy with the way things are you want it to stay the same, if not you want it to change. If a city or in this case a state is not interested in a mlb team then ok, but if they are, I say then they should be able to send a proposal to mlb and if it looks good give em a team. what if nj. decided how much tax the people pay in ny? or prohibit an amusement park from being built, because it's too close to six flags, in a different state. base ball has this strange strangle hold on things that other businesses could never get away with. the thought that mlb knows best in all things ended for me in 1957 and was further reinforced by all the rest of it's bad decisions over the years. cemented recently with o'malley's induction to the hall of fame. they adhere to corrupt antiquated practices, that the great o'malley was supposed to have rescued base ball from. here's the rub, they get away with it to. why? because many people live vicariously through their teams the wins the losses, the disparaging remarks, they take it personally so mlb knows they got you. they lost me in sept. 57. so I know they don't alway's know best, or even do the decent or right thing. like all other businesses, yet their not held to many of the same standards. I don't know why anyone would defend them, your teams yes, but mlb?. I love the game of base ball played in the warm summer sun, I still love the brooklyn dodgers maybe it's best they didn't live to see how it really was and is. my feeling is everyone should be allowed to play, every state or city is entitled mlb does not agree. It doesn't matter what I say, they do as they do, they function as they function and look at the the mess they've got themselves into. oh, and brooklyn still has no team, why? because mlb say's so. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[aqib]

Did the Yankees have territorial rights when the Mets were added, or the Dodgers with the Angels, or San Fran with the As (who contemplated Chicago), or even recently the Orioles over the Expos/Nationals. All these things can be negotiated away. I am not saying that 4 years from now that Frank McCourt is going to tear down Dodger Stadium, build a residential complex and move the team back to Brooklyn. What I am saying is that my prediction is eventually there will be a third team in the NY area. There is too much money to be made for MLB for that not to happen. I have heard this suggested in the national media a few times. Florida expansion has pretty much been a bust, Oakland is still trying to work out its stadium deal and its still in flux. You have a 16-14 split between the leagues, there has also been talk of moving to 4 4-team divisions in each league which would mean expansion again. So look around where are the logical places. Las Vegas and ?????? In exchange for some upfront cash, reduced luxary taxes and revenue sharing requirements I think the arm can be twisted on both the Yankees and Mets. Again its just my prediction.

[aqib]

http://www.nysun.com/article/62559

Apparently I am not the only one who has thought about this

[dodger dynamo]

and aquib a true and fair one. one which I believe to. battling bake, the dodger dynamo

[MATHA531]

Who said it was considered anything by MLB? Matter of fact people talked about the 3 teams in NY.

Two team cities were always scheduled never to play home against one another.....Brooklyn always had to play home against either one of the two New York teams....

The team was called Brooklyn...not New York.......you are so wrong on this....mlb considered New York to have 2 teams, the Yankees and the Giants.....do remember that when Brooklyn joined the NL, it was indeed a separate city.

It still remains, and I repeat that maybe youcan get it, that Brooklyn, NY is considered a completely separate political sub-division of New York State...it is in Kings County..not New York County, not Richmond County, not Bronx County, not Queens County...they are all separate counties of New York State...no other city as such crosses county lines or state lines...Kansas City Missouri is not the same as Kansas City, Kansas despite the fact they are contiguous......Bristol Tennessee is not the same as Bristol Virginia despite the fact they are contiguous...at least Brooklyn is separated from New York by a river as is the Bronx from New York...the Yankees don't call themselves the Bronx Yankees, the Mets don't call themselves the Queens Mets (or the Flushing Mets for that matter)...both are New York teams (or maybe the New York stands for New York State just like the Texas Rangers don't call themselves the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Rangers nor the Minnesota Twins are not the Minneapolis Twins???? and then we have the Los Angeles Angels who play in Anaheim which of course is in a separate county from Los Angeles)...but go back to the schedule which meant Brooklyn was a separate city, as far as mlb was concerned, than New York.

And that is irrefutable.

[metfan13]

Did the Yankees have territorial rights when the Mets were added, or the Dodgers with the Angels, or San Fran with the As (who contemplated Chicago), or even recently the Orioles over the Expos/Nationals. All these things can be negotiated away. I am not saying that 4 years from now that Frank McCourt is going to tear down Dodger Stadium, build a residential complex and move the team back to Brooklyn. What I am saying is that my prediction is eventually there will be a third team in the NY area. There is too much money to be made for MLB for that not to happen. I have heard this suggested in the national media a few times. Florida expansion has pretty much been a bust, Oakland is still trying to work out its stadium deal and its still in flux. You have a 16-14 split between the leagues, there has also been talk of moving to 4 4-team divisions in each league which would mean expansion again. So look around where are the logical places. Las Vegas and ?????? In exchange for some upfront cash, reduced luxary taxes and revenue sharing requirements I think the arm can be twisted on both the Yankees and Mets. Again its just my prediction.

In every one of those cases the new teams were ni the other league and moving to an entirely different city. The Mets one was obvious because baseball was trying to avoif the Continental League and replacing NL baseball in the city. In the other cases the new teams were in entirely different cities, Anaheim, Oakland, DC.

[metfan13]

Two team cities were always scheduled never to play home against one another.....Brooklyn always had to play home against either one of the two New York teams....

The team was called Brooklyn...not New York.......you are so wrong on this....mlb considered New York to have 2 teams, the Yankees and the Giants.....do remember that when Brooklyn joined the NL, it was indeed a separate city.

It still remains, and I repeat that maybe youcan get it, that Brooklyn, NY is considered a completely separate political sub-division of New York State...it is in Kings County..not New York County, not Richmond County, not Bronx County, not Queens County...they are all separate counties of New York State...no other city as such crosses county lines or state lines...Kansas City Missouri is not the same as Kansas City, Kansas despite the fact they are contiguous......Bristol Tennessee is not the same as Bristol Virginia despite the fact they are contiguous...at least Brooklyn is separated from New York by a river as is the Bronx from New York...the Yankees don't call themselves the Bronx Yankees, the Mets don't call themselves the Queens Mets (or the Flushing Mets for that matter)...both are New York teams (or maybe the New York stands for New York State just like the Texas Rangers don't call themselves the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Rangers nor the Minnesota Twins are not the Minneapolis Twins???? and then we have the Los Angeles Angels who play in Anaheim which of course is in a separate county from Los Angeles)...but go back to the schedule which meant Brooklyn was a separate city, as far as mlb was concerned, than New York.

And that is irrefutable.

Yes, and the mets play in Queens county, a different county in NY State. Maybe you can understand this, Brooklyn has been part of New York City for over 100 years. There are congressional districts that go across county lines from Manhattan to parts of Brooklyn. You can slice it many ways, most of which are completely irrelevent to MLB.

[Gary Dunaier]

Why not just call 'em the Brooklyn Dodgers of Chavez Ravine and be done with it?????

:eek:

sorry... I'll go back to my seat and be quiet now...

:hide:

[jints15]

Why not just call 'em the Brooklyn Dodgers of Chavez Ravine and be done with it?????

:eek:

sorry... I'll go back to my seat and be quiet now...

:hide:

The Mets and Yankees will NEVER let a third mlb. team or even put a high minor league team in this area. Lets stop and think why The Boss and Mr.(Ebbets Field on the brain)Wilpon only have their lowest class minor league teams here that play only from mid June till the first week of Sept.

[LeoD]

The Mets and Yankees will NEVER let a third mlb. team or even put a high minor league team in this area. Lets stop and think why The Boss and Mr.(Ebbets Field on the brain)Wilpon only have their lowest class minor league teams here that play only from mid June till the first week of Sept.

I said that 10,000 words ago, this has got to be the most boring thread ever, don't you guys get tired of these very, very long repetitious posts?

[jints15]

I said that 10,000 words ago, this has got to be the most boring thread ever, don't you guys get tired of these very, very long repetitious posts?

Your right this is getting boring, Yonkers NY has a better chance of getting a third team than Bklyn and they have the honor of having been voted to have the worst park in professional history. I'am out of here, and it was more like 11,000 words ago but who's counting..

[Fuzzy Bear]

What I don't understand is what constructive purpose this would serve, even if such an idea could come to reality.

Would this salve the wounds of the Brooklyn Dodger fans still living? I doubt it. If you took away my Lincoln Continental, albeit an older model, but a classic, and gave me a new Ford Focus, would that pacify me?

I fail to understand how a AAA "Brooklyn Dodgers" team would make it OK for those in Brooklyn who want a MLB team IN BROOKLYN, and who know, or remember, that the Brooklyn Dodgers were, in the years leading up to their move, the leading franchise in the league. A Triple-A Brooklyn ANYTHING team, but especially a Dodger FARM CLUB, would be salt into a wound that has pretty much been healed by time, and by the death of the vast majority of BROOKLYN Dodger fans. It's been 50 years since the Dodgers left Brooklyn; how many of those people are still alive anywhere? How many of their descendants care as deeply as they did on this issue?

The move of the Brooklyn Dodgers is different from the move of just about any other franchise in the history of major league sports. The only POSSIBLE exceptions are the Baltimore Colts leaving Balitimore, the Oakland Raiders leaving Oakland, and the Cleveland Browns leaving Cleveland. The Raiders are back, the Browns have been resurrected, and the Ravens have replaced the Colts, and have won a Super Bowl already. Houston has also received a new franchise, and Los Angeles certainly will someday.

The Philly A's, the Boston Braves, the St. Louis Browns; none of these teams were really missed. Even the New York Giants weren't missed all that much. These were the second-fiddle (in the case of the Giants, third fiddle) teams that had other teams representing their cities left behind.

The Brooklyn Dodgers were different. The Dodgers were, technically, a part of New York City, but Brooklyn had its own identity; it was once a city, and, if separated from NYC, became the 4th largest city in America. Something was taken that was sorely missed (unlike the case of the Montreal Expos) and nothing was put back in its place. No one in Philly cares about the A's, and no one in St. Louis cares about the Browns, but people in BROOKLYN cared about the Dodgers.

This wound is almost healed, and it needs to stay that way. A replacement franchise is too late, and probably never going to happen; why tantalize Brooklyn only to see it be disappointed. The idea proposed in this thread is something I just don't understand. I mean, what would it accomplish, other than reopening a wound.

[LeoD]

Your right this is getting boring, Yonkers NY has a better chance of getting a third team than Bklyn and they have the honor of having been voted to have the worst park in professional history. I'am out of here, and it was more like 11,000 words ago but who's counting..

Wait for me.

[metfan13]

I said that 10,000 words ago, this has got to be the most boring thread ever, don't you guys get tired of these very, very long repetitious posts?

Can't say I disagree, but when i see the same argument brought up in new threads, I feel the need to offer the same replies rather than let them go. Must be a character flaw.

[omnivore]

Business Week, a 3rd team in NYC (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2002/nf20020823_1798.htm)

Pretty much every study out there has said that the NY Metro Area could support as many as 5 MLB teams at one time. Would it be practical? Of course not. But you can best believe that a third team will arrive -- probably along with a third team for the Inland Empire area outside LA in the next decade or so. It's just too lucrative not to make sense and it would be good for baseball economically since those markets have not just lots of people, but lots of people who LOVE baseball.

New Jersey is likely the destination for the third team. The Mets, Yanks and Phils could veto if the team was placed within 75 miles of their territory, meaning that the team would need to play on the Jersey Shore or somewhere near there. Not that difficult to do, really and it's the best destination because that part of the state already attracts tons of people and has the hotel infrastructure to do it.

You'd likely put them in a moribund locale that's got the boardwalk already there and just needs a big investment to redefine the town as the home of the ballclub.

Will Jersey folks support the team? Sure they will. The Bronx and Queens aren't exactly around the corner when you live in Central Jersey, so to have a ballclub down the road that's within driving distance? People would easily make that move.

It'd be a lot better if the team played in Newark, a decade from now their renassiance will be in full swing and it'd be the perfect thing for a city with a proud baseball history, too.

But realistically, the team would do a lot better support wise if it were closer to Central Jersey, because there is lots of money there and people with families who would support the team and who only support the New York teams by default.

The talk of a stadium in Jersey has always been thisclose to happening and the only stopping it has been politics at one time or another.

What makes me think it'll be different in the future than it has been in the past? The growth of baseball and its kooky division structure more than anything, plus the lucrative prospect of two new teams and the revenues they'd bring..will be too irresistable for the owners heading into the next decade. They would've expanded already, had 9/11 not happened. There are all sorts of articles on the web out there with Selig saying that they were considering expansion back in the late 1990s. The current alignment wasn't intended to be permanent and so, it'll need to be fixed...probably the first thing the new Commish will do after Selig retires at the end of the decade.

Brooklyn isn't likely to get ever get a team again and while that's a sad prospect...in a way, it's better that way. No team will ever replace what the Dodgers were and to put some team there in a uber corporate world of what baseball is now compared to what it used to be, would be a joke unless it was executed perfectly.

Though if Bruce RATner's Atlantic Yards deal fails -- and it will fail -- someone might get the idea to build a baseball stadium there. But given the amount of money it'd take to do it..it seems unlikely.

But Jersey will again want its own team one of these days and it will happen sooner than later.

[donzblock]

I haven't been following what is going on in Ratnerville, but why do you think the Ratner deal will fail?

[omnivore]

Well, it's obvious that it's a land grab. He's only building the arena, because he wants to build lucrative real estate and he can do it cheaper and presumably with less rancor in Brooklyn than in Manhattan. Big shock.

There is too much opposition and the fact is, the Nets still can't pinpoint when they are moving. Sure, RATner has taken some steps to get the building going, but there are still a ton of suits they have to settle before they'll be able to build. He can't run away with his head between his tails because he wouldn't want to give the appearance that he can be run off by community groups and others who are opposed to his ridiculous plan that wasn't very well thought out.

Trotting Jay-Z won't be enough, because RATner's allies are dwindling by the day. He's trying to keep it quiet, hoping that they can get this thing built under the cloak of night, but too much has to go right for it to happen.

Consider that the Prudential Center in Newark was the first new arena built in the NY metro area in over a quarter century. You think that's an accident? It takes a lot of political will to get these deals done and all Ratner has come up against locally is negativity from the start.

He would've been a lot smarter to try to buy the Islanders and move them to Brooklyn as the Brooklyn Americans than he would to bring a basketball team that no one cares about away from swamp country and to bring it to a city that could frankly care less if it's not the Knicks.

So I just don't think the political will is there. It never was, despite the grinning from ear-to-ear about the deal when it was first announced. The national media has no real handle on the local details of it all and so, they won't report on it and Stern is sorta just sitting back and waiting. Meanwhile, the Nets renewed their lease in Jersey again.

I think what will happen is...they'll keep this Brooklyn charade going for the next 2-3 years and once it's obvious a new arena isn't being worked on, Ratner will sell the team and someone from Jersey will move the team to Newark where they belonged in the first place. I applaud the Devils for having the courage and smarts to do a daring thing that no one would've ever expected them to do.

Putting arenas in the middle of swamp country for the convienence of New Yorks was fine for Giants Stadium, but arenas and baseball stadiums are meant to be in cities where people are living and breathing and living life.

That arena deal in Newark will help continue to spur the redevelopment of that city and once the real estate market picks up again in the next five years, they'll really see massive growth. The Nets won't help that (or hurt it) but it's sure better than playing to sparse crowds in an arena that's ridiculously inaccesible.

Personally, I'd love for the Nets to move simply because the team never really felt like it belonged in Jersey. The Devils have a Jersey character. The Giants and Jets even have adopted that, but...I don't feel like the Nets are anything other than a bad team that showed up because no one wanted them. They ought to move to St. Louis if someone can work a deal out to get the rights of that city away from the old ABA owner who still collects a nice king's ransom from the NBA TV team for voluntarily folding his club for the purposes of the merger.

But that arena will be an albatross and an eyesore on Brooklyn and I hope Ratner fails miserably in his attempts to build an arena there.

[metfan13]

Business Week, a 3rd team in NYC (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2002/nf20020823_1798.htm)

Pretty much every study out there has said that the NY Metro Area could support as many as 5 MLB teams at one time. Would it be practical? Of course not. But you can best believe that a third team will arrive -- probably along with a third team for the Inland Empire area outside LA in the next decade or so. It's just too lucrative not to make sense and it would be good for baseball economically since those markets have not just lots of people, but lots of people who LOVE baseball.

New Jersey is likely the destination for the third team. The Mets, Yanks and Phils could veto if the team was placed within 75 miles of their territory, meaning that the team would need to play on the Jersey Shore or somewhere near there. Not that difficult to do, really and it's the best destination because that part of the state already attracts tons of people and has the hotel infrastructure to do it.

You'd likely put them in a moribund locale that's got the boardwalk already there and just needs a big investment to redefine the town as the home of the ballclub.

Will Jersey folks support the team? Sure they will. The Bronx and Queens aren't exactly around the corner when you live in Central Jersey, so to have a ballclub down the road that's within driving distance? People would easily make that move.

It'd be a lot better if the team played in Newark, a decade from now their renassiance will be in full swing and it'd be the perfect thing for a city with a proud baseball history, too.

But realistically, the team would do a lot better support wise if it were closer to Central Jersey, because there is lots of money there and people with families who would support the team and who only support the New York teams by default.

The talk of a stadium in Jersey has always been thisclose to happening and the only stopping it has been politics at one time or another.

What makes me think it'll be different in the future than it has been in the past? The growth of baseball and its kooky division structure more than anything, plus the lucrative prospect of two new teams and the revenues they'd bring..will be too irresistable for the owners heading into the next decade. They would've expanded already, had 9/11 not happened. There are all sorts of articles on the web out there with Selig saying that they were considering expansion back in the late 1990s. The current alignment wasn't intended to be permanent and so, it'll need to be fixed...probably the first thing the new Commish will do after Selig retires at the end of the decade.

Brooklyn isn't likely to get ever get a team again and while that's a sad prospect...in a way, it's better that way. No team will ever replace what the Dodgers were and to put some team there in a uber corporate world of what baseball is now compared to what it used to be, would be a joke unless it was executed perfectly.

Though if Bruce RATner's Atlantic Yards deal fails -- and it will fail -- someone might get the idea to build a baseball stadium there. But given the amount of money it'd take to do it..it seems unlikely.

But Jersey will again want its own team one of these days and it will happen sooner than later.


the distance from NY to Philly is 80-90 miles. I don't believe you can be in NJ and be more than 75 miles from all 3 teams.

[omnivore]

the distance from NY to Philly is 80-90 miles. I don't believe you can be in NJ and be more than 75 miles from all 3 teams.

The Lakewood Blue Claws are a team in the South Atlantic League. If you knew about Lakewood as I did growing up, you would wonder what possessed someone to put a team there? Well, it's simple. It's more than 75 miles and New York, meaning the Mets and Yanks didn't have to approve the team being there. They're a Phillies farm club and it's about close to 70 miles from Philly. So not suitable for an MLB team, but...close to being there.

But for my example, I suggested a stadium on the Jersey Shore and here's an example of a locale that would work, based on that.

Seaside Heights to Yankee Stadium (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=from:+seaside+heights,+nj+to:+Yankee+Stadium,+Up town,+New+York,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.150864,59.765625&ie=UTF8&z=9&om=1)
Seaside Heights to Shea Stadium (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=from:+seaside+heights,+nj+to:+Shea+Stadium,+Quee ns,+NY&sll=40.407765,-74.11499&sspn=0.93484,1.867676&ie=UTF8&ll=40.348637,-74.072571&spn=0.935653,1.867676&z=9&om=1).
For the Phillies, you'd have to get creative and go to Point Pleasant Beach to meet the 75 mile rule.
Point Pleasant Beach to Citizens Bank Park (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=from:+point+pleasant+beach+to:+Citizens+Bank+Par k&sll=39.943436,-74.619141&sspn=0.941251,1.867676&ie=UTF8&ll=40.029718,-74.608154&spn=0.940063,1.867676&z=9&om=1) (It's 74.1 miles from Yankee Stadium, but you could easily find a way to find that one mile you'd need to get them beat.)

Personally, it'd be better to put the team somewhere closer to land so your stadium isn't right on the water in case a hurricane wants to destroy it. But...even still, the first two locales are nearly 90 miles away from NYC, giving you about 15 miles of area to play with.

It'd be optimal to keep it in a community that's on New Jersey transit, so you don't have to deal with the whole problem that the Meadowlands has, which is that it's not rail accessible. But there are more than a few towns in that vicinity that meet muster in that regard. If it were me, I'd figure that our mythical, hypothetical Jersey team would have a deep pocketed enough owner to be able to get Steinbrenner (I don't see the Phils or Mets complaining as much..) to just shut up and let them play ball, realizing it'll just make him more money as it's one more place that Yankee fans can go to watch them play without having to travel too far.

But even if he didn't, it is indeed theoretically possible to place a stadium somewhere desirable, within New Jersey's borders and not need their approval.

[aqib]

I have long thought that the NYC area would eventually have a third team, too much money for MLB to not do it. It was just a question of where it would be. I think Brooklyn would make more sense than Jersey for a number of reasons:

1) New Jersey doesn't have an identity of its own. People from Jersey all claim they are from either NY or Philly.

2) Jersey does not have a track record of adopting New Jersey teams as its own. Even with the move to a new arena which by all accounts is a great place to watch a game the Devils are still in the bottom third of the league in attendance despite a first place team that is a perpetual Stanley Cup contender.

3) Brooklyn is considered an up-and-coming place to live where as recent surveys show a large number of people in New Jersey would move if they could.

It would take a lot of arm twisting to get the Yankees and Mets to waive thier rights, probably a large portion of the expansion fee, decreased revenue sharing and luxary tax payments, etc.

[MATHA531]

I have long thought that the NYC area would eventually have a third team, too much money for MLB to not do it. It was just a question of where it would be. I think Brooklyn would make more sense than Jersey for a number of reasons:

1) New Jersey doesn't have an identity of its own. People from Jersey all claim they are from either NY or Philly.

2) Jersey does not have a track record of adopting New Jersey teams as its own. Even with the move to a new arena which by all accounts is a great place to watch a game the Devils are still in the bottom third of the league in attendance despite a first place team that is a perpetual Stanley Cup contender.

3) Brooklyn is considered an up-and-coming place to live where as recent surveys show a large number of people in New Jersey would move if they could.

It would take a lot of arm twisting to get the Yankees and Mets to waive thier rights, probably a large portion of the expansion fee, decreased revenue sharing and luxary tax payments, etc.

Which of course is the rub and which will guarantee it will never happen.

[omnivore]

I have long thought that the NYC area would eventually have a third team, too much money for MLB to not do it. It was just a question of where it would be. I think Brooklyn would make more sense than Jersey for a number of reasons:

1) New Jersey doesn't have an identity of its own. People from Jersey all claim they are from either NY or Philly.

2) Jersey does not have a track record of adopting New Jersey teams as its own. Even with the move to a new arena which by all accounts is a great place to watch a game the Devils are still in the bottom third of the league in attendance despite a first place team that is a perpetual Stanley Cup contender.

3) Brooklyn is considered an up-and-coming place to live where as recent surveys show a large number of people in New Jersey would move if they could.

It would take a lot of arm twisting to get the Yankees and Mets to waive thier rights, probably a large portion of the expansion fee, decreased revenue sharing and luxary tax payments, etc.

The Devils attendance problems were exacerbated by playing in an arena that wasn't accessible by rail.

Jersey has a very strong identity from folks who grow up in the Central and Southern parts away from the influence of New York City. We're talking about 4-5 million people who don't have any reason to go to New York or Philly for anything and never do. The whole NYC influence thing is vastly overrated and is a myth created by people who live in those places or who visit the immediate communities just outside the cities and use that to shape the entire Jersey experience.

Brooklyn is a lot less likely to happen because it's right in New York and it's their sphere. Plus, it's not easy to get a stadium built in the city, with prime real estate being wanted for so many other things. It would be the optimal solution.

Jersey is far more optimal and you wouldn't have a new owner spending $150-170 million in expansion fees, plus getting a new ballpark built, just to sell out to the Yankees and Mets. What's more likely is, a mythical expansion team being placed in the American League and then partnering with the Mets by being on their new RSN. Or if it were a National League team, doing the deal with the Yankees and partnering with them on their RSN.

Those teams are run by businessmen. Other owners would be fine with trying to dilute the market a bit in NYC and given the market historically had three teams, it's not as difficult as sell in a market as lucrative as that one.

I'm not really thinking it'll happen anytime in the remotely near future, but if or when it ever did...it would be too sensible not to do it in New Jersey.

The only alternative in that region would be to put the team say, 35 minutes outside of Philadelphia in the Lancaster, PA/Central PA television market. That TV market is surprising high on the Nielsen's DMA list and coupled with the sphere of influence that an AL team would have there, could easily tap into Philadelphia's market. Given the A's had no business moving in the first place, that would be something that would probably work out all right..especially if the team was well run.

[joeclark]

Correct me if Iam wrong, but hasnt there been a AAA team in Brooklyn since 2004?

[joeclark]

You need to understand a little history. The Mets were created as a response to the
moves by the Dodgers to Los Angeles and the Giants to San Francisco. It won't happen
for the reason you suggest, but beacuse in the opinon of MLB it was addressed when the Mets were created.

[omnivore]

Correct me if Iam wrong, but hasnt there been a AAA team in Brooklyn since 2004?

The Brooklyn Cyclones are part of the New York-Penn League. A short-season A ball league.

[joeclark]

:homeplate: Well I was wrong about a AAA minor league in Brooklyn.
However I don't think it's realistic to start talking about this.

The creation of the Mets was supposed address the following issuses.

(1) The move of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to LA.

(2) The move of the Giants to "Frisco"

(3) Satisify a segment of Yankee who were disgruntled by the 1960 firings
of George M.Weiss and Casey Stengel. And who did not like the Yankees
role in the above mentioned moves.

(4) And perhaps the most important of all, the deplated condition of
Ebbetts Field and the Polo Grounds.

All 4 of these were addrressed. Who was the first GM the Mets had?
George M.Weiss.
Who was thier 1st field manager? Casey Stengel.

Look at the home uniforms that they wore for so many years.

Blue (Dodgers)
Orange (Giants)
Scrp (Dodgers)
Pin Stripes (Yankees)

I realizie that the Mets are in Queens, not Brooklyn and that there might be
some tribal thing going on that I am not aware of.

[Yankeefan90]

:homeplate: Well I was wrong about a AAA minor league in Brooklyn.
However I don't think it's realistic to start talking about this.

The creation of the Mets was supposed address the following issuses.

(1) The move of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to LA.

(2) The move of the Giants to "Frisco"

(3) Satisify a segment of Yankee who were disgruntled by the 1960 firings
of George M.Weiss and Casey Stengel. And who did not like the Yankees
role in the above mentioned moves.

(4) And perhaps the most important of all, the deplated condition of
Ebbetts Field and the Polo Grounds.

All 4 of these were addrressed. Who was the first GM the Mets had?
George M.Weiss.
Who was thier 1st field manager? Casey Stengel.

Look at the home uniforms that they wore for so many years.

Blue (Dodgers)
Orange (Giants)
Scrp (Dodgers)
Pin Stripes (Yankees)

I realizie that the Mets are in Queens, not Brooklyn and that there might be
some tribal thing going on that I am not aware of.

Also the NY on the Mets cap is the same as the NY on the Giants cap.

Anyway, I read today that in 1998 there was a panel set-up by NY City and State officials exploring the prospect of buying the Dodgers and moving them back to Brooklyn, they had a preliminary offer set up that was ultimatly rejected by the O'Malley's. The offer was supposedly larger than what was eventually paid by the buyer. I'm not sure if this is true or not, if it is anyone with more knowledge of the situation it would be appreciated if it was shared.

[D6+]

You need to understand a little history. The Mets were created as a response to the
moves by the Dodgers to Los Angeles and the Giants to San Francisco. It won't happen
for the reason you suggest, but beacuse in the opinon of MLB it was addressed when the Mets were created.


joeclark, I agree with you about MLB's viewpoint regarding the Mets. My viewpoint though is decisions along these lines, by those running MLB, helped create a situation in which MLB went from by far the most popular pro sports league in this country, to a distant 2nd at best.


I'll never view the New York Mets as an acceptable replacement of the Brooklyn Dodgers. What many fail to realize, or conveniently look the other way when the subject comes up, is that Brooklyn had a unique baseball history, that reflected the overall pulse of the Borough. The Giants and Yankees were considered the glamour teams. Manhattan was considered the glamour Borough. Brooklyn was everything that Manhattan wasn't. The Dodgers were everything that the Giants and Yankees weren't. In essence, Brooklyn was the underdog. I'm convinced this is the # 1 reason why the Dodgers were such an important part of the Borough.

The fact that the Dodgers broke the color barrier before any other MLB team did, only enhanced the importance of the Dodgers to the diverse population of Brooklyn.


In essence, the Mets didn't add anything to the fabric of Brooklyn. The Mets have their own identity and history. It shouldn't be confused with the identity and history of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Forming a team that combines the Dodgers and Giants..........with the purpose of the Dodgers and Giants fans becoming a single entity.......... is an insult to everyone who made the Dodgers-Giants the greatest rivalry in the history of pro sports in North America.

[dodger dynamo]

thank you d6 for the expression of how I've felt all along. which I'm sure I've said to some degree, but it needed saying again. the brooklyn dodgers and the ny giants are not or have ever been or will ever be an amalgam team playing with the name mets. no matter what anyone wants to believe. giant fans I'm sure feel the same way. thanks again. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[metfan13]

thank you d6 for the expression of how I've felt all along. which I'm sure I've said to some degree, but it needed saying again. the brooklyn dodgers and the ny giants are not or have ever been or will ever be an amalgam team playing with the name mets. no matter what anyone wants to believe. giant fans I'm sure feel the same way. thanks again. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

Yet there are many older Mets fans, say around your age, who disagree. NL baseball continued in NY with the Mets.

Also, I've read a few times on this forum that at worse they should have gotten an expansion team in NY and been allowed to keep the Dodger history, logo, etc. How is that much more official than a new team to represent NL ball for both jilted fan bases?

[dodger dynamo]

met fan 13, those my age should accept the fact that their mets fans. it's an insult as d6 said to the brooklyn dodgers, new york giants and the mets who've accomplished so much and come so far on their own, without the dodger history. met fans should celebrate this and not try to link two separate teams that played at different times and different boroughs. however people can believe what they want that's their privilege, it's just not true. the dodgers and giants both still exist as ml baseball entities albeit regrettably in san francisco and la. team and franchise histories remain intact. until both relinquish their new york past and turn over stats and records to the mets. which I'm sure they don't want or have any desire for. the mets will be the mets and the dodgers and giants will be the dodgers and giants. many here in the forum seem only interested and concerned with facts not beliefs, dreams or wishes from all the previous posts, well, what I've said is a fact. me, speaking for myself, Id rather be an la dodger fan than accept the mets as the dodgers. many met fans I'm sure don't consider the mets the brooklyn dodgers and they'd be right. the mets have a successful colorful history all their own it's theirs, they have two world series championships one more than the brooklyn dodgers, yell about that, brag about that, but nobody should try and usurp or steal the brooklyn image and history. the teams already been taken. one theft of the brooklyn dodgers is plenty thank you. that's why we guard it why we don't want to let it go. It's all we have left and it doesn't belong to the mets, just as it wouldn't belong to a new brooklyn team. we could love them but even they wouldn't be the brooklyn dodgers. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo