New si.com article - bringing MLB back to Brooklyn

[VIBaseball]

It's fun to read, but the author undercuts himself by saying MLB will never allow it to happen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ers/index.html

[Bklyn Boy since 1936]

Thanx VIB for the interesting read. What was particularly interesting was the quote from Brooklyn's Borough President Marty Markowitz who said, "I believe that the next generation here in Brooklyn will be celebrating the Brooklyn Nets the same way I did the Dodgers," he says. "When the New Jersey Nets become the Brooklyn Nets, the ghosts of Ebbets Field will have been lifted."

Does he really believe that the ghosts of Ebbets Field will have been lifted by the addition of a Basketball team? It sounds like he doesn't have a clue!

[theAmazingMet]

That is because most politicians Have No Clue! I agree the Nets are not and never will be the Dodgers. It is like comparing a BMW to a Pinto. As much as we would love to get the Dodgers back we never will. They will remain as memories for some, and as a sort of baseball camelot for unfortunates like me who never got to see them play. Nice article though, we can always dream.

[DODGER DEB]

Originally Posted by Bklyn Boy since 1936

Thanx VIB for the interesting read. What was particularly interesting was the quote from Brooklyn's Borough President Marty Markowitz who said, "I believe that the next generation here in Brooklyn will be celebrating the Brooklyn Nets the same way I did the Dodgers," he says. "When the New Jersey Nets become the Brooklyn Nets, the ghosts of Ebbets Field will have been lifted."

Does he really believe that the ghosts of Ebbets Field will have been lifted by the addition of a Basketball team? It sounds like he doesn't have a clue!

YOU are absolutely right, BB36, Markowitz "doesn't have a clue!

I have had him say that to my face a few times over the course of the past two years. I am not sure whether he really believes it, OR, like any other politician, it sounds good and will help him win the next election.

Interesting article that, more or less, tells it "like it is". It does make one wonder though, when you look at the demographics, that MLB agrees to move teams into these small markets and then complains that they are not making any money, except for "tax write-offs" for the owners, and yet, allows themselves to be "controlled" (by two owners) out of a major market like BROOKLYN that most certainly could handle a third team. I have said this before, and I still firmly believe that if a third team (in NYC) was moved to BROOKLYN, in a flash they would be supported 1000%, and Markowitz would be the one out front leading the cheers. In the end, I suppose WE will never really know the answer to that question.

c.

[LouGehrig]

Please explain how having a team in Brookyn would stop George from having a $200 million payroll.

[DODGER DEB]

If you are directing that question to me, Lou, I never said it would stop George from rasing his payroll to $300 million, if that is what he wants to do. It's his money and his choice.

What I am saying is that all the owners, collectively, stick together on a vote to transfer a team to a different/new city, and George and Fred Wilpon have power to spare in convincing their fellow owners to vote against "expanding" to BROOKLYN....and that is what would happen! They are as GREEDY as the "Big O" was 50 years ago.

BROOKLYN, by itself, with a market of 2.8 million people is larger than several present cities with a team, like Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Milwaukee. The (present) combined market of NYC, with two teams, has 10.6 million, while other two team markets like SF/Oakland, Washington DC/Baltimore, Chicago are closer to the BROOKLYN market.

c.

[JACKIE42]

Sure Brooklyn could support another team, there has never been a doubt about that. But even if they bring a MLB team to the boro what would they call them the Brooklyn what, L.A. owns the name Dodgers, if its not the Brooklyn Dodgers, its nothing to me. IMHO

[DODGER DEB]

My response had nothing to do with bringing OUR Dodgers back to Brooklyn. It was simply answering a question...as to whether MLB would bring another team to BROOKLYN...and would Brooklyn support that team.


c.

[JACKIE42]

Originally Posted by DODGER DEB

My response had nothing to do with bringing OUR Dodgers back to Brooklyn. It was simply answering a question...as to whether MLB would bring another team to BROOKLYN...and would Brooklyn support that team.


c.

And so did my answer, has there ever been a doubt in our minds that Brooklyn always supported a team, why would that ever change. My response was what would they call them, has nothing to do with your response. Since I announced that I was going to L.A., you've been on my case, kindly get off it.

[VIBaseball]

LouGehrig was pointing to one of the themes in the article -- that competition in the city might curb George's appetite for spending. I agree with him. That was another of the less convincing bits of logic in the story, despite the quote from noted sports economist Andrew Zimbalist. I too still don't see why extra competition would prompt less spending -- I'd expect the opposite.

[theAmazingMet]

Originally Posted by JACKIE42

Sure Brooklyn could support another team, there has never been a doubt about that. But even if they bring a MLB team to the boro what would they call them the Brooklyn what, L.A. owns the name Dodgers, if its not the Brooklyn Dodgers, its nothing to me. IMHO

If and this is of course a HUGH IF a team came back to Brooklyn we could call them either the Bridegrooms, Superbas, or Robins. All frontrunners to the Dodger name.

[Steve Jeltz]

If Washington was given two chances by MLB, then why shouldn't Brooklyn? As everyone knows, the fans supported the Dodgers in unprecedented fashion and it never hurt the Yankees and the Giants. If a team was in Brooklyn today, it would not hurt the Yanks or the Mets.

[DODGER DEB]

Originally Posted by Steve Jeltz

If Washington was given two chances by MLB, then why shouldn't Brooklyn? As everyone knows, the fans supported the Dodgers in unprecedented fashion and it never hurt the Yankees and the Giants. If a team was in Brooklyn today, it would not hurt the Yanks or the Mets.

EXACTLY!

The only "road-block" are two owners named Steinbrenner and Wilpon, in the name of GREED! WHY would they want to cut the pie three ways when their power allows them to only cut it in half? THEY are the huge hurdle that MLB will have to jump over, if BROOKLYN is ever to have a ML team again.

c.

[JACKIE42]

Originally Posted by theAmazingMet

If and this is of course a HUGH IF a team came back to Brooklyn we could call them either the Bridegrooms, Superbas, or Robins. All frontrunners to the Dodger name.

They were the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1932, until they left, if there is ever a team in Brooklyn again, they should be called the Dodgers, anything else is not acceptable, for this old fan.

[D6+]

Originally Posted by theAmazingMet

If and this is of course a HUGH IF a team came back to Brooklyn we could call them either the Bridegrooms, Superbas, or Robins. All frontrunners to the Dodger name.

In the Washington Senators Forum, a discussion has been taking place regarding nicknames as it relates to the current organization still owning the rights to the name even if they elected to change their nickname in the city they moved in. The Texas Rangers for instance apparently own the Senators name.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=43551


This leads to a question on this end as it relates to your reply. Being that the Brooklyn NL Baseball Club elected to use the name Dodgers instead of Bridegrooms, Superbas, or Robins, once the team was hijacked to Los Angeles, would the Los Angeles NL Franchise also own the rights to these nicknames? My guess is they probably do have the rights to these nicknames, even though there's not one player alive from the eras that these nicknames were used. Chances are though, the current owner of the Los Angeles NL Franchise would be reasonable in a request by Brooklyn to use one of these nicknames. This clearly wouldn't have been the case with the O' Malley family, which would have tried to get every last penny from the transaction.


Though my first choice would be Dodgers, followed by Trolleys, if Brooklyn gets another MLB team, I would welcome the nickname Bridegrooms, Superbas, or Robins. Tradition is something that's very important to me.

I didn't realize until today that Brooklyn Dodgers franchise had so much success in the late 19th Century. The Brooklyn Bridegrooms won the AA Championship in 1889 ( they lost to the National League NY Giants in a Championship Series ) and the NL Championship in 1890. That was their first season in the NL. The Brooklyn Superbas won the NL Championships in 1899 and 1900. The 1890 Championship Series against the Louisville Colonels ended in a 3-3-1 draw. The AA folded in 1891. Though the Dodgers only won 1 World Series, in reality the Brooklyn Dodgers franchise won 4 World Championships.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Mentioning the Nets & Dodgers in the same sentence is awkward enough, but equating the impact of the former to that of the latter approaches sports obscenity.

[Greenpeach]

I thought the SF Giants entertained offers from the state of New Jersey in the late 1970's to move to a proposed baseball only stadium in the the Meadowlands complex. If memory serves me right, it was a very serious offer but King George blocked the deal & ultimately the Giants remained in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, unless the baseball bylaws are changed the New York metropolitan area will never have more than two teams.

[D6+]

Originally Posted by EbtsFldGuy

Mentioning the Nets & Dodgers in the same sentence is awkward enough, but equating the impact of the former to that of the latter approaches sports obscenity.

I definitely agree. Though I'm 100% in favor of the Nets moving to Brooklyn and plan on supporting and rooting for the team when it represents Brooklyn, there's no question that the Nets can't replace the Dodgers. After reading many threads in this forum over the last several months +, I'm convinced that no team can ever capture what the Brooklyn Dodgers provided the Borough of Brooklyn and the team's fan base as a whole. I'm of the opinion that the Nets will be a huge asset to Brooklyn. But not on the level that the Dodgers were. When it comes to sports franchises that have had impact to the area they represent and their fan base, the Brooklyn Dodgers are absolutely in an elite class.

[D6+]

Originally Posted by Greenpeach

I thought the SF Giants entertained offers from the state of New Jersey in the late 1970's to move to a proposed baseball only stadium in the the Meadowlands complex. If memory serves me right, it was a very serious offer but King George blocked the deal & ultimately the Giants remained in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, unless the baseball bylaws are changed the New York metropolitan area will never have more than two teams.

Though New Jersey certainly supports the football Giants and Jets, much of the support that the teams getis from New York. With 81 home games instead of 10 ( including two pre-season games ), I don't think the vast majority of fans in New York would make a commitment to a New Jersey baseball team. As a result, it's probably best for the Giants franchise that they didn't end up moving to New Jersey.


W/o question, the best option for a financially successful 3rd team in the NY City area is Brooklyn. There's not even a close 2nd option. The " name " Brooklyn by itself would be a goldmine for an investor.


From my point of view, the financial success of the Brooklyn Cyclones was the first step in the 21st Century to get a MLB team back in Brooklyn. The Nets moving to Brooklyn is the second step. One reason why I'm totally behind the Nets moving to Brooklyn is I believe the Nets are going to get tremendous fan support in Brooklyn. With Bruce Ratner making a huge Return on Investment. If this happens, it can only increase the chances of a MLB Baseball team coming to Brooklyn.

Someone with very deep pockets and vision of a Brooklyn MLB team as a lucrative long term investment could emerge under the scenario of the Nets being highly successful financially. IMO, this is what's needed to make MLB in Brooklyn a reality again. It would very likely cost at least $ 400 million dollars ( maybe significantly more ) to satisfy the Mets and Yankees ownership combined, in order for them to enable a Brooklyn MLB team to enter the market. For a prospective owner with deep pockets and long term vision, it would be a price well worth paying.