Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 214

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

  1. #41
    A good libation is good for the soul.

    O'Malley didn't do things on the spur of the moment. He gave careful thought to something before he did it. The move to LA was a well thought out plan, many years in the making. Certain things happened, to put it in motion when he did.
    Lets get Eddie Basinski elected to the Polish Sports Hall of Fame.
    www.brooklyndodgermemories.com

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by dodger dynamo View Post
    Add to that the Giants leaving and if you wanted to see Nl baseball in New York...you'd go to the dodger games...which would boost revenue...my guess a lot of giant fants would have come out to see mays and co...face the brooklyn dodgers too. battlin bake the dodger dynamo...ps. some old giant fans would have come out to root for anybody facing the dodgers...
    Do you think Giants fans would have become Dodger fans?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by aqib View Post
    Do you think Giants fans would have become Dodger fans?
    No. I personally do not think so. At least the older fans wouldn't. Their sons and daughters, and the next generation--yes.
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  4. #44
    When The Dodgers played 15 games over 2 years in New Jersey, 70% of the fans were there to boo the Dodgers. These were mostly Giants fand from the days that the Giants had a farm team there. Would old Giants fans attend Dodgers games, yes. Would they become Dodgers fans, no. I speak from experience, from 1958-1961 my father took me to a lot of Yankee games, to keep my interest in baseball. I became a fan of anyone who the Yankees were playing. I am quite sure there are others that post here who were in the same situation.
    Lets get Eddie Basinski elected to the Polish Sports Hall of Fame.
    www.brooklyndodgermemories.com

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by tonypug View Post
    When The Dodgers played 15 games over 2 years in New Jersey, 70% of the fans were there to boo the Dodgers. These were mostly Giants fand from the days that the Giants had a farm team there. Would old Giants fans attend Dodgers games, yes. Would they become Dodgers fans, no. I speak from experience, from 1958-1961 my father took me to a lot of Yankee games, to keep my interest in baseball. I became a fan of anyone who the Yankees were playing. I am quite sure there are others that post here who were in the same situation.
    Robert: I attended many of these games at Roosevelt Stadium in both 1956 and 1957. I wouldn't put the anti-Dodger noise at 70%. That being said, it was a good 50/50. The one Dodger that got the most negative feedback was Jackie.
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Long Island NY
    Posts
    3,221
    Did the Jersey City Giants still play at the same time as the Dodgers were playing at Roosevelt?
    unknown brooklyn cabbie " how are the brooks doin"
    unknown fan "good they got three men on base"
    unknown brooklyn cabbie "which one?"

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by theAmazingMet View Post
    Did the Jersey City Giants still play at the same time as the Dodgers were playing at Roosevelt?
    No, they weren't. The team played in JC from 1937-1950 and were referred to many times as the "Little Giants."
    Last edited by penncentralpete; 08-02-2009 at 06:54 AM.
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    In the July 7, 1948 issue of The Sporting News, it was reported that Los Angeles County Supervisor Leonard Roach led a contingent of LA officials on a hunt for a big league ball club. They sought the St. Louis Browns and the Chicago Cubs. Although turned down this time, Los Angeles and the major leagues were growing closer and closer.

    By the time O’Malley had forced Branch Rickey out and totally taken over control of the organization after the 1950 season, it was no longer a question of if Los Angeles would become a part of major league baseball, but when, and who would be the one to nail it down.
    If the PCL hadn't thrown so many hoops for MLB to jump through so they could enter their territory, I think it would have been very likely that the Browns would have been playing in LA in 949 or 1950.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    Los Angeles first began to be mentioned as a site for a baseball franchise in 1941 when Don Barnes, owner of the St. Louis Browns, requested that he be allowed to relocate his team to L.A. He believed that he had all the bases covered, including scheduling and claimed to have the necessary votes from the owners.

    His request was on the agenda at the major league meetings and was to be addressed at 9 a.m. on Monday, December 8, 1941. Events of December 7 made the move a moot point, since baseball was not even sure of playing at all in the coming season.

    Immediately following the dispatching of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Los Angeles was back on track as a potential major league city.
    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.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post

    By the time O’Malley had forced Branch Rickey out and totally taken over control of the organization after the 1950 season, it was no longer a question of if Los Angeles would become a part of major league baseball, but when, and who would be the one to nail it down.
    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.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    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.
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    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.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    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.
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    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.
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    816
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    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......

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    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.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by MATHA531 View Post
    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.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ by way of Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,985
    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."
    you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
    http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The State of New England
    Posts
    6,166
    Quote Originally Posted by penncentralpete View Post
    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?

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •