What has happened

[tonypug]

The Brooklyn Dodgers were America's team, colorful, vibrant, controversial and most of all unpredictable. This forum used to be the same way. Lots of great conversation, many times controversial but also very captivating. The color, the fun, the vibrancy has left this once great and colorful forum. What has happened?

[The Real McCoy]

The Brooklyn Dodgers were America's team, colorful, vibrant, controversial and most of all unpredictable. This forum used to be the same way. Lots of great conversation, many times controversial but also very captivating. The color, the fun, the vibrancy has left this once great and colorful forum. What has happened?

it got turned into an apartment house.

[tonypug]

There used to be a Brooklyn Dodger forum right here.:hissyfit:

[penncentralpete]

Well...............the journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step................let's GO..................start your engines guys.

[VIBaseball]

Thanks for the encouragement, Pete -- agreed.

[MATHA531]

You can only say the same thing so many times.....I myself only post when somebody makes a false statement requiring a response...

The other problem, and this is unfortunate but it's life, certain things turn out postings. When a former Boy of Summer passes into the great beyond, it often brings out posts and memories. Unfortunately there are not that many left as the years pass by to spur conversations.you know I was there the day Podres shut out the Yankees...well Johnny passed away a few years ago and so there wouldn't be much cause to write something about him unless somebody new joins the forum.

The other problem is on this side of the issue and the same thing holds. We're getting older and some of us are passing from the scene. I have always maintained that when we are all gone, there will be few to carry on the memory of just what the Brooklyn Dodgers were and the wrong that was done to the fans of Brooklyn by the greedy you know what and the attempts on the part of the Los Angeles National League baseball team's organization currently masquerading as the Dodgers to change history....we've discussed it so many times here but when the issue arises, most unfortunately there are fewer and fewer of us to carry the ball........

It's life most unfortunately.

[tonypug]

Ah but ther in those words that you typed lies the problem Matha. Peter O'Malley and the revisionists are using us against ourselves. We say why talk very few people listen, when in reality we should talk to those few, because they will be the ones to carry on the memories when we are all gone. Every new person whi is inquisitive about the Brooklyn Dodgers should be taken under our wings. This was once the hot spot for both BrooklynDodger fans and the curious to meet and discuss the Brooklyn Dodgers.Many of us had our feelings hurt and moved on. It is now up to BBF management whether they are going to let us re-kindle things, or like many of us believe, get out the water hoses and put out the flame forever. There are many smaller forums such as my own, but lets be honest BBF has by the largest readership, where our voices can be heard the loudest. The ball is now in their court lets what the response is.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Isn't the purpose of this thing to record our feelings and thoughts, contribute stories, memories, points of views, and photos? We're doing that, with the growing realization that "tings ain't never gonna be as de where," but our memories are indelible... I can't tell you the joy I receive from this forum.
Let's just keep on keepin' on.

[tonypug]

You are quite right, but in the recent past, certain people in management haven't allowed that to happen. The history of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the story of their march west is controversial and fans the passions of many posters. Some posters have been stifled in their attempts to express themselves. Look how quiet it has been here in comparison to the past. There have been 2 books published recently. One book tries to change history as we know it and the other sticks to the facts. There was a flurry of postings and then quiet. Its as if everyone is walking on eggshells over here. The current moderator does what he can, but a bandleader can't lead without a band.

[penncentralpete]

Life's too short. Post what you want and let the chips fall where they may. It's supposed to be FUN.

[VIBaseball]

tonypug, at times the East Coast-West Coast stuff had crossed the line. Many may view the past response as overly firm, but let's see if we can avoid courting further intervention.

Thanks for the good words about striking up the band, everyone. The debate can be rekindled; meanwhile I'll continue to make the case for keeping the environment friendly as needed.

[penncentralpete]

With all due respect, the environment needs ONLY to avoid PERSONAL attacks/name-calling. The "rhubarbs" (as Red Barber would call them) are all part and parcel of the Brooklyn fans versus the woild.

[penncentralpete]

tonypug, at times the East Coast-West Coast stuff had crossed the line. Many may view the past response as overly firm, but let's see if we can avoid courting further intervention.

Thanks for the good words about striking up the band, everyone. The debate can be rekindled; meanwhile I'll continue to make the case for keeping the environment friendly as needed.

As far as the "East Coast - West Coast stuff" shouldn't even be a concern. This is the BROOKLYN forum, not the Los Angeles forum. It has been an infrequent occurance when a Brooklyn poster "trolls around" in the LA forum -- not so much the other way around. 95% of the Brooklyn posters have experienced the 1940's -- 1950's. 95% of the LA posters only have first-hand knowledge of the Dodgers on the west coast. They are versed in the California shibboleth and the revisionist ramblings of a few misguided authors. I dare say none of the LA posters who troll around here are over 50 (and therefore cannot really understand the old-time Dodgers of Durocher, Jackie, Branca, Campy, et al). Leave us to our own devices and we can re-light the smoldering fires here.

[jayzeeg]

okay guys, let's rekindle. required reading. "a brooklyn dodgers reader", by andrew paul mele. i cried after every chapter.

[penncentralpete]

okay guys, let's rekindle. required reading. "a brooklyn dodgers reader", by andrew paul mele. i cried after every chapter.

OK, but let's put this post into the "Brooklyn Dodgers in Literature" thread.

[tonypug]

It's no secret that Pete and I have our own website, that we are very busy with. But we both know that it is important to get to as many people as possible to keep the memories alive, and this is one of the best vehicles to do so. Pete beat me to the keyboard, on the East Coast-West Coast thing. This is the Brooklyn Dodger forum come here to talk Brooklyn Dodger baseball, not to berate the posters here as has happened in the past. I have gone on the LA forum twice to ask Questions about the LA team. I don't go there to start trouble and the same courtesy should be shown to the posters here.

[penncentralpete]

It's no secret that Pete and I have our own website, that we are very busy with. But we both know that it is important to get to as many people as possible to keep the memories alive, and this is one of the best vehicles to do so. Pete beat me to the keyboard, on the East Coast-West Coast thing. This is the Brooklyn Dodger forum come here to talk Brooklyn Dodger baseball, not to berate the posters here as has happened in the past. I have gone on the LA forum twice to ask Questions about the LA team. I don't go there to start trouble and the same courtesy should be shown to the posters here.

Yes Robert, and we've been called "cranky old men" who should "get over it", etc. Yeah, baby, we ARE cranky old men who will NEVER get over it (the robbery of our Dodgers from Brooklyn). This is where we come (or CAME) to discuss all of these things. Moderating this Brooklyn forum SHOULD be a breeze..................all the mod hasta do is keep the California boys and girls in the LA forum (unless they wanna come here to learn about the history of the Brooks).

[Let's Go Mets!]

It's a shame the Brooklyn Dodgers forum is dying, because this is a really good forum. Unlike MLB.com's.

I know, because MLB.com recently deleted a couple of anti-"LA/O'Malley" posts in the "Brooklyn Dodgers fan's dream comes true" thread. I replied to a poster who cried that O'Malley stole his team away from him when he was a child, claimed the Dodgers ceased to exist after 1957, and questioned how any Brooklyn Dodger fan could root for the Los Angeles Dodgers? I politely agreed with all. The posts stayed up for about four days, and have now magically :silent: disappeared. :silent:

[whoisonit]

This is the Brooklyn Dodger forum come here to talk Brooklyn Dodger baseball, not to berate the posters here as has happened in the past. I have gone on the LA forum twice to ask Questions about the LA team. I don't go there to start trouble and the same courtesy should be shown to the posters here.

Well said !:applaud::applaud:

I think with VIBaseball around to moderate this could be a great forum.

[Let's Go Mets!]

Well said !:applaud::applaud:

I think with VIBaseball around to moderate this could be a great forum.

I agree, but still, hardly anyone posts any more.

[VIBaseball]

Editing/deleting is something I will continue to avoid unless truly necessary. If we can go easier on the workings of BB-F, though, and keep our collective eye on Dodgers history, we'll be able to self-monitor effectively without any other things going on.

[whoisonit]

I agree, but still, hardly anyone posts any more.

Fear of what has taken place in the past.

[CaliforniaCajun]

tonypug, at times the East Coast-West Coast stuff had crossed the line. Many may view the past response as overly firm, but let's see if we can avoid courting further intervention.

Thanks for the good words about striking up the band, everyone. The debate can be rekindled; meanwhile I'll continue to make the case for keeping the environment friendly as needed.

I think it is common knowledge among baseball fans on the web that fans at this site still mourn the loss of their team and thoughtless people representing the Dodgers' current home see the vulnerability and poke at the tiger. Under those circumstances, I think insensitive remarks representing the West Coast point of view should be removed here and vice versa on the L.A. Dodger forum. The reason is because the Brooklyn team was never replaced and therefore the fans have no means of fighting back.

As if they hadn't suffered enough, Brooklyn Dodger fans have been dealt some blows 50 years after losing their team that would have bothered me: Walter O'Malley was elected to the Hall of Fame; the publishing of Forever Blue; the closing of Spring Training at Vero Beach which may be seen by some as the final act of the divorce decree. I have a feeling that emotions reached a fever pitch things got out of hand. Personally, I have visited this forum only sporadically because I sense the tension and have to get away from it from time to time.

Everyone probably knows by now that I am an L.A. native who was a big Dodger fan before I knew they originated elsewhere. I still like the Dodgers but I had a feeling of disallusionment as a 12-year-old one day in 1968 when Vin Scully mentioned something about the 10th Anniversary of the Dodgers. I'll also never forget how odd it felt the first time I saw that familiar uniform with a "B" on the cap. To make a long story short, I became an Angel fan because they are a marriage and not a mistress.

I think MLB exploits the memory of the Brooklyn Dodgers but does not do what they need to do and replace the team. MLB is the NFL without the Green Bay Packers. Any wonder why the NFL has surpassed MLB in popularity?

[tonypug]

California Cajun you have always been reasonable and level headed in your postings here. There have been many issues at stake here recently and hopefully they can be overcome. Stop by and chat often.

[tonypug]

I agree, but still, hardly anyone posts any more.All I can say is "Post it and they will come." My apologies to the origonel author of words similar to those

[jaykay]

Many of the foregoing points are well taken, but - to me, at least - one of the prime factors in the diminished participation here has to do with the existence of the Brooklyn Dodgers having ended 52 years ago. While there may be nothing at all wrong with viewing the past retrospectively if you never attended a game at Ebbets Field or saw the Brooklyn team play, it is a view that lacks the vibrancy of someone who was there, who remembers Leo kicking dirt on an umpire, or Jackie stutter-stepping off third, or hearing Gladys Goodding's semi-operatic version of the National Anthem, or.....(I could go on and on and on.....and I have.....) All this is not to be confused with second-hand analysis of O'Malley and Moses - which has been worked, reworked and overworked, because what else is there to say when the games and the players were never there in front of you. It is no one's fault that he or she was not born earlier. I suppose that those of us who were around during the 40s and 50s could repeat what has already been posted, but I doubt if that would serve a useful purpose. As has been noted, time is not on our side. The number of Brooklyn Dodger fans who saw and heard what they talked about (as opposed to read about it, or heard about it from grandpa) can only fade. They've had their say. To them, "yesterday" was most recently 52 years ago. Take it from me.....that's a long time.

[penncentralpete]

Many of the foregoing points are well taken, but - to me, at least - one of the prime factors in the diminished participation here has to do with the existence of the Brooklyn Dodgers having ended 52 years ago. While there may be nothing at all wrong with viewing the past retrospectively if you never attended a game at Ebbets Field or saw the Brooklyn team play, it is a view that lacks the vibrancy of someone who was there, who remembers Leo kicking dirt on an umpire, or Jackie stutter-stepping off third, or hearing Gladys Goodding's semi-operatic version of the National Anthem, or.....(I could go on and on and on.....and I have.....) All this is not to be confused with second-hand analysis of O'Malley and Moses - which has been worked, reworked and overworked, because what else is there to say when the games and the players were never there in front of you. It is no one's fault that he or she was not born earlier. I suppose that those of us who were around during the 40s and 50s could repeat what has already been posted, but I doubt if that would serve a useful purpose. As has been noted, time is not on our side. The number of Brooklyn Dodger fans who saw and heard what they talked about (as opposed to read about it, or heard about it from grandpa) can only fade. They've had their say. To them, "yesterday" was most recently 52 years ago. Take it from me.....that's a long time.

So for all of us "old fans".......it's all been posted? It's all been said? Anything more would only be a redundancy? You spoke of Leo kicking dirt on an ump, and Jackie dancing off third, Goodding's voice, etc. Why couldn't you post short stories re: same? I, for one would enjoy reading them and contributing my own memories.................or should we just lock up these threads and call it a day?

[jaykay]

My purpose was merely to point out, in a way that had not been altogether in focus, why there is relatively very little being posted about the Dodgers in Ebbets Field. It seems inevitable. The teams that still exist offer events and personalities on a daily basis - including the 52 years that there has been no team in Brooklyn. As for your wish that I offer my "short stories" about what I saw and heard back then, I respectfully point out that in my seven years of contributing to this forum, I already have. If I think of anything else, I'll post it.

[penncentralpete]

My purpose was merely to point out, in a way that had not been altogether in focus, why there is relatively very little being posted about the Dodgers in Ebbets Field. It seems inevitable. The teams that still exist offer events and personalities on a daily basis - including the 52 years that there has been no team in Brooklyn. As for your wish that I offer my "short stories" about what I saw and heard back then, I respectfully point out that in my seven years of contributing to this forum, I already have. If I think of anything else, I'll post it.

Your past posts have always galvanized me personally. Very interesting, informative, and funny to boot. I hope you can recall some more tidbits..............

[tonypug]

With all due respect Jaykay, whenever any of us who were there posts things, many who were not there, come to read and participate. Take this thread for instance, it appears there are many out there who will read and participate , if there is something to read and participate in. The revisionists hope is that those of us who were there will get tired of speaking the truth, and then all that will be left is their distorted version of the truth.

[Squeeze Play]

As someone who grew up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s, I’ve read almost all of the threads in the Archives of this Forum, and I have to agree with Matha531:

Nostalgia is interesting and enjoyable – the first time around.
But how many times can you revisit the same conversation and say the same things?

In addition, after reading the Archives, it appears that many of the members who actually did live the Brooklyn experience first-hand and who created the bulk of those earlier threads, are no longer contributing to the Forum.

Perhaps they grew tired of repeating themselves.

[penncentralpete]

As someone who grew up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s, I’ve read almost all of the threads in the Archives of this Forum, and I have to agree with Matha531:

Nostalgia is interesting and enjoyable – the first time around.
But how many times can you revisit the same conversation and say the same things?

In addition, after reading the Archives, it appears that many of the members who actually did live the Brooklyn experience first-hand and who created the bulk of those earlier threads, are no longer contributing to the Forum.

Perhaps they grew tired of repeating themselves.

With all due respect--then why are you here?

[tonypug]

Every time someone who was there, says we have said it all, why talk about it again, they are doing just what the revisionists want stay quiet. That way the only voice that is heard is from the re-writers of history. There are many younger people out there, who weren't there, who would like to know. We should probably stop teaching history as a required course in our schools, since most of us weren't there when a lot of those things happened. Again I ask how are younger people who weren't there going to find out the truth, unless it's form us. Otherwise the only thing they will learn the gospel as re-written by Peter O'Malley in honor of a most despicable man.

[skaukatt]

If you will allow me to offer my opinion...

I am one, as I have posted before (and I do not claim to be a regular poster - I lurk most of the times), who only know this team via the oral history passed on to me by my Dad and various family members who lived the experience first hand and by way of reading books, articles, newsreels, TV documentaries, websites and various other sources. I found a refuge here in this forum when I searched and found others like me who have a burning desire to learn as much about this team from those who either lived it or have much to offer based upon the stories told to them from their own life's experience, ie., oral history from family and friends - like me. I was grateful that there was such a forum, dedicated to the Brooklyn Dodgers by those who hold a passion for the bygone team that I witnessed in my Dad. I miss him and his stories and the way his eyes lit up every time he spoke about his beloved Dodgers of Brooklyn. To me, the excitement I experience here is extremely inspiring and I commend the dedication to all those who contribute here.

I belong to many online forums. I am a huge briar pipe collector and belong to almost all of the forums available to the collecting hobby. Posts to the forums are always up and down. People's lives and schedules vary and so the output of posts reflect that. Sometimes, yes, there is not much new to talk about. But unlike the pipe forums where you can talk about a new pipe or tobacco hitting the market, we do not have that luxury here. Most of what we talk about is past tense. But let me say that I for one can appreciate what is posted in this forum and feel it has a place. If we need to talk about the same things over and over, so be it. You never know who is lurking and who will join in the discussion offering perhaps their own personal experience that will spark the attention of us here and lead to greater discussion, knowledge and insight about this team.

I agree with the previous posts when it was said post it and they will come. Without the forum, we who seek insight into this bygone team will be left unfulfilled in that effort. There is a place for this "thing of ours" be it something repeated 1 time or a thousand. Keep up the good work here and by all means keep posting.

Lou, NY

[Squeeze Play]

With all due respect--then why are you here?

I was trying to post a GENERAL response to the original question, "What has happened to this Forum?"

I'm here because I have fond memories of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and feel I have something to contribute to these conversations. I just haven't been on this Forum long enough to be tired of the subject.

When I do begin to feel that way...and when I find I've begun to repeat myself, I will no longer visit and will stop contributing.

[tonypug]

As someone who grew up in Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s, I’ve read almost all of the threads in the Archives of this Forum, and I have to agree with Matha531:

Nostalgia is interesting and enjoyable – the first time around.
But how many times can you revisit the same conversation and say the same things?

In addition, after reading the Archives, it appears that many of the members who actually did live the Brooklyn experience first-hand and who created the bulk of those earlier threads, are no longer contributing to the Forum.

Perhaps they grew tired of repeating themselves.Squeeze play let me try to answer you as to why so many former regulars are no longer here. I also have to be careful how I word this. While it is true that some former regulars have left because of being "tired of repeating", many left after the former moderator left. The former moderator gave many years to this forum working tirelessly, to keep the memory of the Brooklyn Dodgers alive. She left under circumstances still unclear to many of us. Many regular posters left, including myself, when this happened. BBF has one of , if not the largest viewership of any forum of this type. I run a much smaller site, but if I want to get the message out and keep the memories alive, I finally realized, this is the place to do it. Both Pete and I and other members spend a lot of time at my site, but like I sad we realize that it is important to also post here. As I said earlier, "Post it and they will come" and we are starting to see just that.

[Let's Go Mets!]

many left after the former moderator left.

It certainly seems that way.

[jnakamura]

She left under circumstances still unclear to many of us. Many regular posters left, including myself, when this happened.

She still visits the site everyday but just wont post anything. I would guess many of the others who "left" are still here also.

[tonypug]

She still visits the site everyday but just wont post anything. I would guess many of the others who "left" are still here also.Just to keep the record straight, jnakamura, "she" can't post here. Her account has been modified so that she is unable to post or PM anyone. The same goes for a couple of others as well. And how are you doing these days?

[CaliforniaCajun]

The Brooklyn Dodgers are unique in that they are the only departed team that has this level of following so many years later. I think the second most painful move, the Baltimore Colts, wouldn't be able to generate this level of fandom and they have only been gone half as long as the Dodgers. There are probably more reasons the Bums of Flatbush still live than I could imagine: The borough rivalry and the fact that the "NY Giant" logo lives on with the Mets and the Mets have won three pennants and two World Series while the S.F. Giants have won three pennants and no World Series since they left New York. The fact that Brooklyn won half the National League pennants in their last 10 years of existence. Perhaps the fact that the Brooklyn fans had to see the L.A. Dodgers win 9 pennants and 5 World Series while never getting a replacement team to fill the void. Players in those days personified the community and losing that representation is a bigger loss to those back in the day than it is now with free agents selling out to the highest bidder.

I think there are some outside fans from time to time who are thoughtless and like to yank the chain and disrupt this forum.

The answer to me is to delete any posts by L.A. Dodger or other outsider fans that upset a Brooklyn fan (and vice-versa on the L.A. Dodger forum). This is a place to reminisce and keep a cherished institution alive. No one person's right to be heard supercedes the right of the majority to enjoy interaction in this forum. If we were given the opportunity to be in the midst of Joe DiMaggio, pick his brain about his baseball career and his era, I'm sure everybody would agree to the stipulation not to bring up the subject of Marilyn Monroe. So why not be respectful of the very understandable sensitivities of the Brooklyn Dodger fans here?

Perhaps under these conditions all ex-Brooklyn contributors might be able to return.

There is no situation quite like this. And ever since I found out what happened in 1968 I have felt your pain.

[MATHA531]

The Brooklyn Dodgers are unique in that they are the only departed team that has this level of following so many years later. I think the second most painful move, the Baltimore Colts, wouldn't be able to generate this level of fandom and they have only been gone half as long as the Dodgers. There are probably more reasons the Bums of Flatbush still live than I could imagine: The borough rivalry and the fact that the "NY Giant" logo lives on with the Mets and the Mets have won three pennants and two World Series while the S.F. Giants have won three pennants and no World Series since they left New York. The fact that Brooklyn won half the National League pennants in their last 10 years of existence. Perhaps the fact that the Brooklyn fans had to see the L.A. Dodgers win 9 pennants and 5 World Series while never getting a replacement team to fill the void. Players in those days personified the community and losing that representation is a bigger loss to those back in the day than it is now with free agents selling out to the highest bidder.

I think there are some outside fans from time to time who are thoughtless and like to yank the chain and disrupt this forum.

The answer to me is to delete any posts by L.A. Dodger or other outsider fans that upset a Brooklyn fan (and vice-versa on the L.A. Dodger forum). This is a place to reminisce and keep a cherished institution alive. No one person's right to be heard supercedes the right of the majority to enjoy interaction in this forum. If we were given the opportunity to be in the midst of Joe DiMaggio, pick his brain about his baseball career and his era, I'm sure everybody would agree to the stipulation not to bring up the subject of Marilyn Monroe. So why not be respectful of the very understandable sensitivities of the Brooklyn Dodger fans here?

Perhaps under these conditions all ex-Brooklyn contributors might be able to return.

There is no situation quite like this. And ever since I found out what happened in 1968 I have felt your pain.

For the most part, I don't have a problem with fans of the Los Angeles National League baseball team coming here and trying to refute what is being said because it is easy to show they don't have a clue of what they're talking about.

The fact is, the theft of the Brooklyn franchise is unique among all the franchise shifts that occurred before and occurred after and remains today by far the blackest mark in the hisoty of the contempt mlb has for its fans. There are two irrefutable reasons for this....

1. The Brooklyn Dodgers were still the biggest money makers in baseball in 1957 (yeah I know attendance was down but they had other sources of income far above what other teams had including the Yankees)....their radio tv package was worth far more than that of the Yankees.

2. Brooklyn, along with Montreal, remain the only cities in North America that have totally lost their mlb teams (and of course Brooklyn is the only American community to have that dubious distinction) and never had them replaced. Again, to some it might seem a touchy argument because after all I am a guy who feels Robert Moses' offer of working out a lease at Shea Stadium, while not the best of solutions to a Brooklyn fan, would have been satisfactory and in hindsight it has been clearly established it was the correct way to resolve the issue without breaking laws and giving the many fans of the Dodgers who had moved to Long Island easier access to the ball park. It is now very clear that a baseball stadium at Atlantic/Flatbush would have been a nightmare in terms of traffic and the way the country developed after 1956. But the Mets are not, can never be, the replacement for the Dodgers. To me, they are the replacement for the Giants. It was Giants personnel (Ms. Payson and M. Donald Grant) who were given the original franchise just to make sure it was NY Giant oriented. There's quite a big in a name. Now if O'Malley had taken his team, had the decency to leave the name and tradition of the Dodgers where it belonged in Brooklyn, and then an expansion Brooklyn Dodgers team began playing at what was to become Shea Stadium, well today we would have the Brooklyn Dodgers opening up in a brand new stadium honoring the remembrance of Campy, Reese, Snider, Furillo, Hodges who were Brooklyn Dodgers and had little to do with the criminal organization playing on the West Coast.

[Let's Go Mets!]

the Mets have won three pennants and two World Series....while the S.F. Giants have won three pennants and no World Series since they left New York.

Good post.

Just a correction...only because they really need it...the Mets won four pennants.

1969, 1973, 1986, 2000

One of the earliest things I remember from my childhood was the New York Giants sweeping Cleveland in four games. Hard to believe that was the last time they won. I can see why the San Francisco Giants honor their past!

[Let's Go Mets!]

But the Mets are not, can never be, the replacement for the Dodgers. To me, they are the replacement for the Giants. It was Giants personnel (Ms. Payson and M. Donald Grant) who were given the original franchise just to make sure it was NY Giant oriented. There's quite a big in a name. Now if O'Malley had taken his team, had the decency to leave the name and tradition of the Dodgers where it belonged in Brooklyn, and then an expansion Brooklyn Dodgers team began playing at what was to become Shea Stadium, well today we would have the Brooklyn Dodgers opening up in a brand new stadium.

I can see an expansion Brooklyn Dodgers franchise with a different owner, but Joan Payson is the one to thank for National League baseball returning to New York. Do you really think Payson and Grant would have been for a new Brooklyn Dodger team, if O'Malley left the tradition behind? I can see it stirring up a new controversy, since there would be only one new NY team in 1962.

Despite the Brooklyn Dodgers rich tradition, the new team still might have been called the New York Mets. At least if Joan Payson was the owner. Nevertheless, it would have been interesting to see what name, shape, and form the new franchise would have taken, had O'Malley been so kind to leave a little something behind.

[StrawberryField]

a new franchise called the brooklyn dodgers would have alienated the Giants fan base and would not have worked. If they called them the New York Dodgers with the Giants interlocking NY that would have appeased both fans I think. I for one am glad they are called the Mets. My grandfather though a Yankees fan growing up because of Dimaggio and the Italian thing, had a secret affinity for the Giants and would tell me stories about Mel Ott and his huge leg kick swing, King Carl Hubbell, Christy Mathewson and the crazy stadium known as the Polo Grounds. He also stopped following baseball when the dodgers and Giants left though he was a Yankees fan...strange I know. He became a fan of football and followed the .....New York Giants. LOL

[MATHA531]

a new franchise called the brooklyn dodgers would have alienated the Giants fan base and would not have worked. If they called them the New York Dodgers with the Giants interlocking NY that would have appeased both fans I think. I for one am glad they are called the Mets. My grandfather though a Yankees fan growing up because of Dimaggio and the Italian thing, had a secret affinity for the Giants and would tell me stories about Mel Ott and his huge leg kick swing, King Carl Hubbell, Christy Mathewson and the crazy stadium known as the Polo Grounds. He also stopped following baseball when the dodgers and Giants left though he was a Yankees fan...strange I know. He became a fan of football and followed the .....New York Giants. LOL

Alienated the Giants fans? There were precious few Giants fans left in 1957...the transfer of that franchise was fully justified...they were losing money head over heels......Ms. Payson was a member of the Giants Board of Directors and was the only one who voted against the transfer of the franchise (or was it Grant as her proxy?)

There is no question in my mind that had O'Malley done one decent thing and left the Brooklyn Dodger name here where it was born, raised and matured, there would have been no lack of candidates to purchase and run such an expansion organization. While I do not for one second Ms. Payson's contribution to the Mets in particular, she was not the only one who would have been willing to own a NL franchise in NY......

JMHO

[Let's Go Mets!]

While I do not for one second Ms. Payson's contribution to the Mets in particular, she was not the only one who would have been willing to own a NL franchise in NY......

JMHO

Did anyone else step up? I don't remember.

[Let's Go Mets!]

It was Giants personnel (Ms. Payson and M. Donald Grant) who were given the original franchise just to make sure it was NY Giant oriented.

Why did it matter that it should be "NY Giant oriented"?

Who made that decision?

Was it because the new franchise was to represent all of NYC, like the Mets do?

[StrawberryField]

Alienated the Giants fans? There were precious few Giants fans left in 1957...the transfer of that franchise was fully justified...they were losing money head over heels......Ms. Payson was a member of the Giants Board of Directors and was the only one who voted against the transfer of the franchise (or was it Grant as her proxy?)

There is no question in my mind that had O'Malley done one decent thing and left the Brooklyn Dodger name here where it was born, raised and matured, there would have been no lack of candidates to purchase and run such an expansion organization. While I do not for one second Ms. Payson's contribution to the Mets in particular, she was not the only one who would have been willing to own a NL franchise in NY......

JMHO

well the way Brooklyn Dodger fans tell it....they never accepted the Mets and are still Brooklyn Dodger fans. So who became Mets fans if the Giants had no fans to speak of?

[StrawberryField]

Did anyone else step up? I don't remember.

I read that Giants great Bill Terry tried to buy the Giants from Stoneham and take up Moses' offer of flushing as a stadium location.

Funny that there were people trying to stop the Giants move, but nobody but the fans tried to stop the Dodgers move

[Let's Go Mets!]

well the way Brooklyn Dodger fans tell it....they never accepted the Mets and are still Brooklyn Dodger fans. So who became Mets fans if the Giants had no fans to speak of?

Just a few, but definitely not all Brooklyn Dodger fans tell it that way.

I know many former Brooklyn Dodger fans who became Met fans, including myself. :gt

[StrawberryField]

I just don't buy the reasoning that the Giants attendance struggled for about 5 years meaning they had to move and were justified and the franchise was gonna collapse because they had no fans. If this is a reasonable basis then the Mets shoulda moved in the late 70's early 80's and they shoulda moved in the early mid 90's as well because their attendance sucked and they had no fans as well if attendance is to be used as a measuring stick of fandom.

The New York Giants still have the most Hall of Famers all time, yet they were able to accomplish that with no fans backing them what so ever? Stoneham bailed on NY just like O'Malley and why he gets off the hook is beyond me. He took a great franchise that had flourished for 70 plus years and moved them based on 5 years of bad attendance? This trend was irreversible? I think not

[MATHA531]

I just don't buy the reasoning that the Giants attendance struggled for about 5 years meaning they had to move and were justified and the franchise was gonna collapse because they had no fans. If this is a reasonable basis then the Mets shoulda moved in the late 70's early 80's and they shoulda moved in the early mid 90's as well because their attendance sucked and they had no fans as well if attendance is to be used as a measuring stick of fandom.

The New York Giants still have the most Hall of Famers all time, yet they were able to accomplish that with no fans backing them what so ever? Stoneham bailed on NY just like O'Malley and why he gets off the hook is beyond me. He took a great franchise that had flourished for 70 plus years and moved them based on 5 years of bad attendance? This trend was irreversible? I think not

The glory of the Giants, so to speak, was pretty much over by the 1940's although they did win NL pennants in 1951 and 1954....for whatever the reason, their fan base had really shrunk big time...just look at the attendance figures. Again, their radio/tv rights were worth a fraction of what both Brooklyn and the Yankees were getting.

Again, from a financial viewpoint, their departure from New York was probably justified to a much greater extent than that of the Brooklyn team. They were rumoured to be destined for Minneapolis, the location of their AAA farm club when O'Malley persuaded Stoneham to move to the Bay area as it had been told to O'Malley there had to be 2 teams on the West Coast for all the NL owners to agree to what he did.

[StrawberryField]

The glory of the Giants, so to speak, was pretty much over by the 1940's although they did win NL pennants in 1951 and 1954....for whatever the reason, their fan base had really shrunk big time...just look at the attendance figures. Again, their radio/tv rights were worth a fraction of what both Brooklyn and the Yankees were getting.

Again, from a financial viewpoint, their departure from New York was probably justified to a much greater extent than that of the Brooklyn team. They were rumoured to be destined for Minneapolis, the location of their AAA farm club when O'Malley persuaded Stoneham to move to the Bay area as it had been told to O'Malley there had to be 2 teams on the West Coast for all the NL owners to agree to what he did.

I just think the thinking was short sighted, and the quick fix was chosen because of Greed. The Brooklyn Dodgers were great for about 10 years of their history (1947-1957) the Giants were the dominant team in the National league from 1883 till the 1940's being either #1 or #2 in attendance practically every year including 1954. With 2 pennants and a title in the 50's with a commodity like a young Willie Mays I think it was Lunacy to give up on the New York market and say the situation was hopeless.

Stoneham came to regret his decision years later as the Mets attendance routinely outdrew the Giants and he was forced to sell. Payson and Grant got the last laugh on Stoneham. The real issue is that Stoneham was a horrible owner with no vision. He woulda drove the Yankees into the ground if he owned them....yet people give him a pass.

[MATHA531]

I don't question that before 1940, the Giants were indeed the dominant team in the National League winning more pennants than anybody else but all that changed as the Dodgers began to compete seriously for the National League dollar in New York beginning with their pennant in 1941. The Dodgers were also more proactive to the changes in the country's life style and other things, more so than the Giants and Yankees. The Dodgers were the first NY team to broadcast their games...it took the Giants and Yankees a while to catch onto that. The Dodgers were the first NY team to put lights in their ballpark and begin playing night games (the Giants and Yankees were at first reljuctant to do so, especially the Yankees who did not put lights in the Stadium till I believe 1947)...the Dodgers of course were the first to sign and play Black ballplayers (the Giants were fiarly early to that too but the Dodgers were first and had a headstart)...

The Dodgers were televising 127 games every season. They had an exclusive on WOR-TV channel 9...the Giants were forced to share Channel 11 with the Yankees which meant no Giants road games were ever televised (well actually 11 Giant road games were available on television..the 11 games they played in Brooklyn and televised by the Dodgers)...as I said the Dodgers were by far the biggest money maker in baseball, even in 1957 with all the rumours floating around about their impending demise thanks to all their auxillary rights...the Yankees, by virtue of their success, were second...the Giants far far down the list.

They were indeed being squeezed by the very very popular Dodgers and the very successful Yankees. Now if O'Malley leaves and the Giants stay, things might well have developed differently but I would agree with you that Horace S. was too stupid to see that.

[tonypug]

Stoneham gets a pass becuse of his ineptness and lack of drive. He was and is looked upon as a pathetic figure who was taken advantage of by the dastardly Walter O'Malley. In reality what Stoneham did to his fans and the City of New York was just as bad as what O'Malley did. However Stoneham was very open and forthright about his intention to move once he made the decision. None of the secrecy, and manipulation used by Mr. O'Malley. When O'Mallet turned down the Flushing Meadow site, it was quietly offered to Stoneham. Horace turned it down saying Queens was Dodgers territory and the Giants wouldn't draw well there. Mineapolis would have been the ideal spot for the Giants and in fact Stoneham asked for permission to move there, after the 1956 season. In those days all the National League owners had to vote yes for a team to relocate. Horace was turned down.Gee I wonder who was behind that ?

[tonypug]

It sure looks like there are still a lot of reasons to keep the conversation going. I am watching the Astros- Dodgers game, it is on the Houston network. The Astro announcers said they had been given copies of D'Antonio's book "Forever Blue." They then started talking how O'Malley really wanted to stay in Brooklyn but Robert Moses wouldn't let him. These guys don't have a clue, yet they are talking this crap. The O'Malley for Sainthood machine is obviosly in high gear. The real truth has to keep being told and this is one of the places where it will be seen. Great posts guys, lets keep it up. Never Forgive Never, forget. O'Malley has been the right man all along to blame for what happened.

[CaliforniaCajun]

For the most part, I don't have a problem with fans of the Los Angeles National League baseball team coming here and trying to refute what is being said because it is easy to show they don't have a clue of what they're talking about.

The fact is, the theft of the Brooklyn franchise is unique among all the franchise shifts that occurred before and occurred after and remains today by far the blackest mark in the hisoty of the contempt mlb has for its fans. There are two irrefutable reasons for this....

1. The Brooklyn Dodgers were still the biggest money makers in baseball in 1957 (yeah I know attendance was down but they had other sources of income far above what other teams had including the Yankees)....their radio tv package was worth far more than that of the Yankees.

2. Brooklyn, along with Montreal, remain the only cities in North America that have totally lost their mlb teams (and of course Brooklyn is the only American community to have that dubious distinction) and never had them replaced. Again, to some it might seem a touchy argument because after all I am a guy who feels Robert Moses' offer of working out a lease at Shea Stadium, while not the best of solutions to a Brooklyn fan, would have been satisfactory and in hindsight it has been clearly established it was the correct way to resolve the issue without breaking laws and giving the many fans of the Dodgers who had moved to Long Island easier access to the ball park. It is now very clear that a baseball stadium at Atlantic/Flatbush would have been a nightmare in terms of traffic and the way the country developed after 1956. But the Mets are not, can never be, the replacement for the Dodgers. To me, they are the replacement for the Giants. It was Giants personnel (Ms. Payson and M. Donald Grant) who were given the original franchise just to make sure it was NY Giant oriented. There's quite a big in a name. Now if O'Malley had taken his team, had the decency to leave the name and tradition of the Dodgers where it belonged in Brooklyn, and then an expansion Brooklyn Dodgers team began playing at what was to become Shea Stadium, well today we would have the Brooklyn Dodgers opening up in a brand new stadium honoring the remembrance of Campy, Reese, Snider, Furillo, Hodges who were Brooklyn Dodgers and had little to do with the criminal organization playing on the West Coast.

The problem I have with the debate is that it evidently sent some fans over the edge, which caused some people to stop coming, contributing, and that's the topic of this thread, "What has happened?"

Questions linger in my mind as to whether Brooklyn fans would have accepted a Brooklyn Dodger team in Flushing, or at least to the degree they once did. I am an L.A. Angel fan and much of the Dodger marketing is an indirect swipe at the Angels intimating that the Dodgers are the only legitimate L.A. team (which is a bunch of bull). Both clubs have the identical territorial rights in their respective leagues. MLB did not change the Angel territory from the time they started in downtown L.A. until the time they couldn't get a stadium in L.A. and moved 30 miles south to Anaheim. Would Dodger fans want to go through the same thing if they were in Flushing?

The debate about Robert Moses and the exodus of the Dodgers is irreconcilable among people who disagree and I think we should finally identify it for what it is. If Flushing was the best long-term solution for the Dodgers, is this because of the way Moses laid out the traffic throughout NYC and did Moses act in the best overall interests of everyone in the way he did it? See what I mean?

As far as leaving the Dodger name, logos, and colors behind, that would have been the way to go. The original Baltimore Orioles moved to New York and became first the Highlanders and then the Yankees, making the "Baltimore Orioles" name available when the Browns moved there in 1954. If MLB moves another team to St. Louis it can be called the Browns. The Dodgers could have, and should have changed their name to Los Angeles Angels, the ancestral name of L.A. pro baseball since 1893. In fact, the MLB Angels bought the name "Los Angeles Angels" from the Dodgers for $350,000.

[tonypug]

Some of the things that have hurt participation on this forum was and is entirely out of the hands of us ordinary posters and were mostly behind the scenes things that spilled over to the public side. I think what we have seen the last few days, shows there is still plenty of interest here.

When the Dodgers and Giants deserted New York, the National League, never expected or intende to ever return. New York was given to the Yankees and the American League in return for exclusive rights in California. The only reason the Mets were born was the return of O'Malley's arch enemy Branch Rickey to the baseball scene. Rickey was the front man for the never to get off the ground Continental Baseball League. The new league would have had a team in New York which would have played in what was Shea Stadium. The last thing O'Malley wanted was Rickey running a team in New York City. Almost all the Continental Leagues cities are now in MLB. The National League quickly agreed to expand into New York City and Houston. Before the American League would agree to that, the national league had to allow the AL into California.

[tonypug]

Just to continue the above, O'Malley who wouldn't play in Wrigley Field, because it was to small, pressured the Angels to play there. When Dodger Stadium was built O'Malley took in the Angels as tennants and treated them as second class citizens forcing them to go to Annaheim. The Angels have as much right as the Dodgers to LA.

Not only did O'Malley keep the name and colors, but gave serious consideration to calling the team The Los Angeles Brooklyn Dodgers. Now that would have really been a kick in the teeth.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Just to continue the above, O'Malley who wouldn't play in Wrigley Field, because it was to small, pressured the Angels to play there. When Dodger Stadium was built O'Malley took in the Angels as tennants and treated them as second class citizens forcing them to go to Annaheim. The Angels have as much right as the Dodgers to LA.

Not only did O'Malley keep the name and colors, but gave serious consideration to calling the team The Los Angeles Brooklyn Dodgers. Now that would have really been a kick in the teeth.
... after we've been kicked in more painful places. :-)

[tonypug]

... after we've been kicked in more painful places. :-)Ouch, Ouch and ouch.:crazy

[penncentralpete]

The "Los Angeles Brooklyn Dodgers" huh? But heaven forbid the "Brooklyn Dodgers" in Queens....................

[tonypug]

After moving to LA O'Malley said the best site for a new ballpark in the entire city of New York was Flushing Meadow. It just wasn't right for him. That tells me he had no intention of staying in New York. All the elements were there room for parking close by public transit, but that still wasn't enough for O'Malley.

[penncentralpete]

After moving to LA O'Malley said the best site for a new ballpark in the entire city of New York was Flushing Meadow. It just wasn't right for him. That tells me he had no intention of staying in New York. All the elements were there room for parking close by public transit, but that still wasn't enough for O'Malley.

The slob literally broke my heart........................

[tonypug]

O'malley was a treacherous man not a saint. The truth has to be told, the real truth not thr revisionist version.