“So, why are you so incensed that the Dodgers moved out of Brooklyn?”

[penncentralpete]

I don't believe this story because I've never seen a contemporary reference to the possibilty of a move, or any mention of it when there was a possibility of the Browns being purchased by LA interests in 1948. The story came out in 1952, when the Celler Committie was investigating baseball's anti-trust clause, specifically the fact that MLB was not represented in the west coast. I think that it was a pretty convienient time for that story to come out.

In a book called "Spirit of St. Louis" which is a history of the Cards and Browns franchises, it is stated that the AL had given permission for the Browns to move to LA, it would have been announced on 12/8/41.

[EdTarbusz]

In a book called "Spirit of St. Louis" which is a history of the Cards and Browns franchises, it is stated that the AL had given permission for the Browns to move to LA, it would have been announced on 12/8/41.

I don't believe the claim. I think it's a baseball urban legend.

Spirit of St Louis was written by Peter Golenbock who, in my opinion, should not be the final word on any baseball related subject.

[penncentralpete]

I don't believe the claim. I think it's a baseball urban legend.

Spirit of St Louis was written by Peter Golenbock who, in my opinion, should not be the final word on any baseball related subject.

But Ed, you stated that you've "never seen a contemporary reference" to this claim. Yet there it is in a book written in 2002. There it is: a contemporary reference stating said claim.

[EdTarbusz]

But Ed, you stated that you've "never seen a contemporary reference" to this claim. Yet there it is in a book written in 2002. There it is: a contemporary reference stating said claim.

61 years after the fact isn't exactly a contemporary reference.

[penncentralpete]

61 years after the fact isn't exactly a contemporary reference.

Oh, I see. You were vague and ambiguous with your need for a contemporary reference. I thought you meant contemporary, but you meant a reference from December of 1941. My bad. You can believe anything in any book to be "urban legend"..............did the Babe point in the '32 Series? You probably believe that is "urban legend" too, yet at the time Ruth said he actually did it.

[MATHA531]

I think the event that really made it clear that MLB would reach LA was the move of the Braves from Boston to Milwaukee. Before this happened the PCL had been making noise since at least 1942 to become a third Major League. After the franchise shift, I believe that LA officials were no longer interested in an upgraded minor League team and wanted an established MLB team.

Ah ha so among the other villains in the piece were the LA city officials who didn't give a damn about other cities.....what a group of low lifes......

[EdTarbusz]

Oh, I see. You were vague and ambiguous with your need for a contemporary reference. I thought you meant contemporary, but you meant a reference from December of 1941. My bad. You can believe anything in any book to be "urban legend"..............did the Babe point in the '32 Series? You probably believe that is "urban legend" too, yet at the time Ruth said he actually did it.

How is contemporary reference a vague or ambiguous term?

I found no reference about this proposed move in the Sporting News from late 1941 or early 1942. This is the type of story the Sporting News woould have jumped on, especially since a St Louis team was involved. There was also no metion of it on 1948, when Richard Muckerman was being sounded out by LA interests who werre interested in purchasing the team.

I don't believe the called shot story. I do believe that Babe Ruth would have been knocked on his ass by Charlie Root if he had called his shot.

[EdTarbusz]

Ah ha so among the other villains in the piece were the LA city officials who didn't give a damn about other cities.....what a group of low lifes......

LA city officials chief concern should have been LA, not other cities. LA officials weren't secretive about pursuing a ML team in the mid 50s.

[penncentralpete]

If you don't like nor trust Peter Golenbock, here's yet another source: "The International Directory of Company Histories" vol.66 -- St. John's Press

"Under new ownership the Browns fared no better on the field or the box office, so that by 1941 Barnes sought permission from the American League to relocate the franchise to Los Angeles. The meeting was held on December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor that precipitated the United States' entry into World War II. Because of the sudden uncertainty in the world, Barnes was turned down."

[EdTarbusz]

If you don't like nor trust Peter Golenbock, here's yet another source: "The International Directory of Company Histories" vol.66 -- St. John's Press

"Under new ownership the Browns fared no better on the field or the box office, so that by 1941 Barnes sought permission from the American League to relocate the franchise to Los Angeles. The meeting was held on December 8, 1941, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor that precipitated the United States' entry into World War II. Because of the sudden uncertainty in the world, Barnes was turned down."

As I said, I haven't seen anything from the 40s to convince me this story is true.

What is the the author's source for thos quote?

[penncentralpete]

Posted by Ed T.:"How is contemporary reference a vague or ambiguous term?"



Ed: The term "contemporary reference" was/is not vague/ambiguous. The time frame wished for (by you) was. Whether you wished to see something from 1941 or the present day. Sorry for the confusion.

[EdTarbusz]

Posted by Ed T.:"How is contemporary reference a vague or ambiguous term?"



Ed: The term "contemporary reference" was/is not vague/ambiguous. The time frame wished for (by you) was. Whether you wished to see something from 1941 or the present day. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't understand how my reference was confusing. What exactly is confusing about a contemporaqry reference to an event that is supposed to have occured in 1941?

[penncentralpete]

As I said, I haven't seen anything from the 40s to convince me this story is true.

What is the the author's source for thos quote?

I do not know that particular author's source for the quote. You'll have to do the "leg work" on that.......but I can find a fewdozen more references re: the Brown's 1941 planned shift to LA if you wish. (I don't think you do however).

[penncentralpete]

I don't understand how my reference was confusing. What exactly is confusing about a contemporaqry reference to an event that is supposed to have occured in 1941?

It confused me Ed...........but then again, I'm easily confused!

[EdTarbusz]

I do not know that particular author's source for the quote. You'll have to do the "leg work" on that.......but I can find a fewdozen more references re: the Brown's 1941 planned shift to LA if you wish. (I don't think you do however).

I've looked enough to feel very comfortable that the 12/6/1941 owners meeting story is fiction. I also haven't been able to find a story from late 1941 that owners meetings were scheduled the same weekend of the Pearl Harbor attack. I think that the fact that this owners vote is upposed to have taken place on a Saturday is a bit suspect also.

[penncentralpete]

I've looked enough to feel very comfortable that the 12/6/1941 owners meeting story is fiction. I also haven't been able to find a story from late 1941 that owners meetings were scheduled the same weekend of the Pearl Harbor attack. I think that the fact that this owners vote is upposed to have taken place on a Saturday is a bit suspect also.

Ahhh, but that's the point. It was on Monday, December 8,1941 (not Saturday December 6th). These were the "winter meetings of major league baseball". According to "The Journal of Baseball History and Culture" (vol.15, no.1), the meeting took place and the Browns' move to LA was voted down.

[EdTarbusz]

Ahhh, but that's the point. It was on Monday, December 8,1941 (not Saturday December 6th). These were the "winter meetings of major league baseball". According to "The Journal of Baseball History and Culture" (vol.15, no.1), the meeting took place and the Browns' move to LA was voted down.

I'd like to see a contemporary sourse that the meeting took place, let alone that vote on the Browns took place.

[penncentralpete]

I'd like to see a contemporary sourse that the meeting took place, let alone that vote on the Browns took place.

Let me see if I've got this straight. Even though I (or anyone) can find dozens and dozens of reports of these meetings and this vote, you need something reported/written in 1941 to believe they happened?

[EdTarbusz]

Let me see if I've got this straight. Even though I (or anyone) can find dozens and dozens of reports of these meetings and this vote, you need something reported/written in 1941 to believe they happened?

Yes. I'd want to see something from as close to the event as possible. In this instance I would consider anything written after about 1952 to be suspect.

[penncentralpete]

Yes. I'd want to see something from as close to the event as possible. In this instance I would consider anything written after about 1952 to be suspect.

I believe The Last Supper was chronicled more than 11 years after its (so called) occurance too.

[EdTarbusz]

I believe The Last Supper was chronicled more than 11 years after its (so called) occurance too.

The last supper is not somethng that I'm interested in studying.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe that baseball has been covered more extensively then events of the first century were. I doubt if there arer any contemporary references to the last supper.

[tonypug]

If I may put my 2 cents in here. In the December 20, 1941 edition of the New York Times on page 26 In the Sports of the times column is the following:

Much as one may appreciate why a man wearing the shoes of a man trying to make 'ends neet" with the Browns would like to get as far away from St. Louis as is humanly possible, the insistence of Donald Barnes to move his franchise from the Mound City to Los Angeles seems a bit puzzling. Yet, despite the fact that the idea was quietly but firmly squelched by his American League colleagues during the recent major league sessions in Chicago, Mr Barnes is still making it quite clear he has not abandoned the project.

The above is the opening paragraph of a lengthy essay. I hope this helps.

[EdTarbusz]

If I may put my 2 cents in here. In the December 20, 1941 edition of the New York Times on page 26 In the Sports of the times column is the following:

Much as one may appreciate why a man wearing the shoes of a man trying to make 'ends neet" with the Browns would like to get as far away from St. Louis as is humanly possible, the insistence of Donald Barnes to move his franchise from the Mound City to Los Angeles seems a bit puzzling. Yet, despite the fact that the idea was quietly but firmly squelched by his American League colleagues during the recent major league sessions in Chicago, Mr Barnes is still making it quite clear he has not abandoned the project.

The above is the opening paragraph of a lengthy essay. I hope this helps.

I'll see if I can find that story at the library.

[tonypug]

I'll see if I can find that story at the library.

I would be happy to send it to you, just PM me.

[penncentralpete]

I'll see if I can find that story at the library.

Ed: You DOUBT TonyPug's reference? He gave you the date and the page number in the New York Times! Good grief man. Accept the fact that this meeting happened!