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

[EdTarbusz]

Ed: If I received a dollar for each edit you've effected in the past 2 days re: Red Barber, I could afford to attend a Yankee game.

I apologize for typing with a squirming toddler sitting on my lap. How may many edits has it been? 2, 3?

[penncentralpete]

I apologize for typing with a squirming toddler sitting on my lap. How may many edits has it been? 2, 3?

The only time the words "lasted edited by.." appear under a re-post, is if the poster leaves the site and then returns to change something. If you stay on this site and edit a post, nothing appears. I've seen many of your posts change time and time again without the italicized addendum.

[EdTarbusz]

The only time the words "lasted edited by.." appear under a re-post, is if the poster leaves the site and then returns to change something. If you stay on this site and edit a post, nothing appears. I've seen many of your posts change time and time again without the italicized addendum.

So adding an additional thought is a bad thing? What about correcting a typo?
Maybe double checking something? Reorganizing my thoughts?

Perhaps the next time I write a paper, I should write it from start to finish without making any changes?

Also, the last edited by phrase doesn't only appear when you leave the site.

[penncentralpete]

So adding an additional thought is a bad thing? What about correcting a typo?
Maybe double checking something? Reorganizing my thoughts?

Perhaps the next time I write a paper, I should write it from start to finish without making any changes?

Also, the last edited by phrase doesn't only appear when you leave the site.

More like reorganizing your position(s)/opinion(s). Let's drop this entire ugly mess. You are anything except STUPID. You are a bright, articulate guy. Deep down you understand exactly what I've meant in my posts. You waffled, backtracked, denied obvious statements, etc. I have moved forward. Forget it.

[penncentralpete]

Some oldtime Brooklyn fans have hated (with a passion) the Dodgers since the fall of 1957 and winter/spring of 1958. Others continued to love their Dodgers even though they were now 3,000 miles away. With today's technology, I cannot wonder if more fans would have "followed" the team to the west coast if these things were available.. By this I mean with the internet and MLB.com (and a host of other new things available), the team would have been much easier to follow (games, scores, results, etc.). Any thoughts?

[EdTarbusz]

More like reorganizing your position(s)/opinion(s). Let's drop this entire ugly mess. You are anything except STUPID. You are a bright, articulate guy. Deep down you understand exactly what I've meant in my posts. You waffled, backtracked, denied obvious statements, etc. I have moved forward. Forget it.

Deep down, I know gthat I haven't waffled or backtracked or denied any obvious statements.

[Trickyhop]

Some oldtime Brooklyn fans have hated (with a passion) the Dodgers since the fall of 1957 and winter/spring of 1958. Others continued to love their Dodgers even though they were now 3,000 miles away. With today's technology, I cannot wonder if more fans would have "followed" the team to the west coast if these things were available.. By this I mean with the internet and MLB.com (and a host of other new things available), the team would have been much easier to follow (games, scores, results, etc.). Any thoughts?

I don't think so, Expos fans don't care about the Nationals, but then again, they were the Expos and Nationals. Most of the Expos ended up leaving the Nationals anyways.

Only other example I can think of relates to me being in Seattle. Our Supersonics were stripped away from us because our Key Arena didn't have enough Suites for high rollers. I can still follow the team in Oklahoma, but evertime I see the team on t.v. or internet, it only makes me sick. Something tells me that the conveniences of internet and t.v. would only make Brooklyn fans all that more annoyed to see their team playing elsewhere.

[MATHA531]

Some oldtime Brooklyn fans have hated (with a passion) the Dodgers since the fall of 1957 and winter/spring of 1958. Others continued to love their Dodgers even though they were now 3,000 miles away. With today's technology, I cannot wonder if more fans would have "followed" the team to the west coast if these things were available.. By this I mean with the internet and MLB.com (and a host of other new things available), the team would have been much easier to follow (games, scores, results, etc.). Any thoughts?

How can one hate the Dodgers as since 08 October 1957, they, by their own choice, no longer exist. The renegade organization on the left coast lifted the name that belonged in Brooklyn and since that day, I have never referred to that team with the name Dodgers. They can call themselves anything they wish to but they are not the Dodgers. There were only one Dodgers that existed as a member of the National League from 1890 to 08 October 1957. The organization playing on the west coast is, as is their corporate name, the Los Angeles National League baseball team and should be referred to as such.

[Let's Go Mets!]

The organization playing on the west coast is, as is their corporate name, The Los Angeles National League Baseball Team and should be referred to as such.

The Los Angeles National League Baseball Team

Sounds perfect!

[penncentralpete]

Deep down, I know gthat I haven't waffled or backtracked or denied any obvious statements.

Holy Flatbush Tarbusz.......DROP IT.

[Let's Go Mets!]

Some old time Brooklyn fans have hated (with a passion) the Dodgers since the fall of 1957.

Put me on that list!

[tonypug]

I recently met 2 former Brooklyn dodger fans, One Vinnie I met while taking my new Brooklyn cap for a walk. He grew up near the Parade Grounds and has remained a fan of the Los Angelos National League team.I met Lou at the Rays game, he grew up in the Bushwick section, and became a Yankee fan, of all things. I would say the majority of Brooklyn Dodger fans who remained baseball fans, became Mets fans. Of couse there was a segment of former,fans who stopped being baseball fans, and that truly is a shame. I followed the LA team until all of our old heros were gone and became a Mets fan when they were born. The outrage is that any of this had to happen at all.

[jnakamura]

This is exactly what you said: "I think the point of the story was to point out Barber's erudition, but to me the story made Barber out to be a pompous jerk."

And how does an intelligent person interpret that statement to mean that he's personally calling him a jerk.

You're coming off as someone who can't comprehend.

[jnakamura]

The only time the words "lasted edited by.." appear under a re-post, is if the poster leaves the site and then returns to change something. If you stay on this site and edit a post, nothing appears.

You're wrong. That's not how it works.

[tonypug]

Jnakamura, we finally get this thing calmed down, and then you want to go and flare it up again. Is that how you get your kicks?

[VIBaseball]

Agreed, tonypug. jnakamura, I'll be in touch...meanwhile, let's please avoid blowing on the coals.

[penncentralpete]

How can one hate the Dodgers as since 08 October 1957, they, by their own choice, no longer exist. The renegade organization on the left coast lifted the name that belonged in Brooklyn and since that day, I have never referred to that team with the name Dodgers. They can call themselves anything they wish to but they are not the Dodgers. There were only one Dodgers that existed as a member of the National League from 1890 to 08 October 1957. The organization playing on the west coast is, as is their corporate name, the Los Angeles National League baseball team and should be referred to as such.

Matha531: I do not have to tell you that you are entitled to your oipinion. We live in the greatest free society in the history of man. We can all express our conviction(s). However, I am sure you acknowledge that there are more than a few fans who believe otherwise, and I'm positive you afford them their sentiments, perhaps with some rancor, but afford them just the same. Personally, I enjoyed very much the ESPN televised game the other evening of the ATLANTA Braves vs. the LOS ANGELES Dodgers.

[aqib]

Some oldtime Brooklyn fans have hated (with a passion) the Dodgers since the fall of 1957 and winter/spring of 1958. Others continued to love their Dodgers even though they were now 3,000 miles away. With today's technology, I cannot wonder if more fans would have "followed" the team to the west coast if these things were available.. By this I mean with the internet and MLB.com (and a host of other new things available), the team would have been much easier to follow (games, scores, results, etc.). Any thoughts?

Well if the same technology was available back then I think there would have been more grassroots efforts to stop the move. Look to the Browns situation in 95/96. Internet use was still in its infancy but there was a huge grassroots movement all over the internet that put tremendous pressure on the NFL. Imagine if someone in 30 seconds could send out a message to 50,000 NYers to be at a rally in front of the NL headquarters or Warren Giles house. The NFL had to hire an extra 6 people to handle all the calls from angry Browns fans. If the NL had to do the same maybe something would have been different.

[penncentralpete]

And how does an intelligent person interpret that statement to mean that he's personally calling him a jerk.

You're coming off as someone who can't comprehend.

My good man: Ed and I have both agreed that if we had had this same conversation face to face at a restaurant, the failure of my comprehension would not have existed. More than we all like to admit, emails and posted thoughts do not translate perfectly as (many times) real life meetings can. Both Ed and I have dropped our semantic tiff and have moved forward. I respectfully suggest you do the same.

[tonypug]

What always has to be remembered, is that O'Malley essentially ran the Nationa League, in the 50's and 60's. Warren Giles was nothing more then a puppet league president. If O'Malley were alive and in his prime today, he would be commissioner today not Selig.

[jnakamura]

Well if the same technology was available back then I think there would have been more grassroots efforts to stop the move. Look to the Browns situation in 95/96. Internet use was still in its infancy but there was a huge grassroots movement all over the internet that put tremendous pressure on the NFL. Imagine if someone in 30 seconds could send out a message to 50,000 NYers to be at a rally in front of the NL headquarters or Warren Giles house. The NFL had to hire an extra 6 people to handle all the calls from angry Browns fans. If the NL had to do the same maybe something would have been different.

The Dodgers didn't suddenly and unexpectedly move in the middle of the night, ala the Colts. There was plenty of time to organize "50,000 NYers to be at a rally in front of the NL headquarters or Warren Giles house". Where were these huge protests and campaigns to keep the Dodgers and/or their name in Brooklyn? Why wasn't more done at the time?

[MATHA531]

The Dodgers didn't suddenly and unexpectedly move in the middle of the night, ala the Colts. There was plenty of time to organize "50,000 NYers to be at a rally in front of the NL headquarters or Warren Giles house". Where were these huge protests and campaigns to keep the Dodgers and/or their name in Brooklyn? Why wasn't more done at the time?

Both Warren Giles and Ford Frick made their opinions known when many of the Dodger beat writers took up the cause.

At the infamous National League meeting in June 1957 when it was announced the Dodgers and Giants had been given permission to take the franchises to LA and SF respectively, Giles was asked how the National League could allow itself to not have a franchise in New York. His reply, showing what a genius he was, "Who needs New York?"

As far as Frick was concerned, he was a closet Yankee fan. He took the Marie Antoinette tact ("Let them eat cake.") When asked what he was doing to protect the interests of the Brooklyn fans, he replied, "Let them root for the Yankees."

But then again mlb paid the price. Although I cannot put a quantitative number on it, the theft of the Brooklyn franchise especially told fans throughout the country the contempt mlb had for its fans. And based on the time line, many of the Dodger fans turned their attention to the New York Football Giants which helped spur the leap frogging of baseball by the NFL as the national pastime. While I will never say it was the sole reason for this, the time line and the way it came down in New York stongly suggests the theft of the Brooklyn franchise played a major role in the rise of the NFL.

Giles and Frick certainly did a great job standing up and acting in the best interests of baseball for allowing O'Malley especially to show his contempt for the Brooklyn fans who made the team the biggest money maker in baseball, including in 1957 which most knew would be a lame duck year after the NL meeting in June.

Also one must remember, O'Malley, wanting to protect as much of his gate as possible, kept playing the "it's not too late game" with the fans when it is now clear that upon the Dodgers return from Japan in 1956 and his fly over Chavez Ravine O'Malley told the thieves from LA he was coming and anything else they heard in the coming year was simply an attempt on his part to protect his gate.

A more devious scoundrel never lived.

[jnakamura]

All good and true points. But still, why the seeming apathy at the time from the fans? Why weren't these millions of Dodger fans organizing, protesting, holding huge rallies etc.?

Where was the fury then that exists now?

No offense, I mean, I know most of you guys were kids then, but it seems much more of an effort could have been made by the adults to keep the name in Brooklyn by waging a huge, public campaign.

[VIBaseball]

All good and true points. But still, why the seeming apathy at the time from the fans? Why weren't these millions of Dodger fans organizing, protesting, holding huge rallies etc.?

Where was the fury then that exists now?

No offense, I mean, I know most of you guys were kids then, but it seems much more of an effort could have been made by the adults to keep the name in Brooklyn by waging a huge, public campaign.

There's probably still a fair bit on this topic in the archives of this board, jnakamura. To sum up, my impressions (I was not around then either) are:

1. There was a sense of disbelief that anything would really happen in many quarters, even though there was also nagging suspicion.
2. There actually were some protests, signs, etc. Matha531 has provided pictures.
3. America was different then. I think it took the civil rights movement and Vietnam to really spark that kind of large-scale protest.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Matha531: I do not have to tell you that you are entitled to your oipinion. We live in the greatest free society in the history of man. We can all express our conviction(s). However, I am sure you acknowledge that there are more than a few fans who believe otherwise, and I'm positive you afford them their sentiments, perhaps with some rancor, but afford them just the same. Personally, I enjoyed very much the ESPN televised game the other evening of the ATLANTA Braves vs. the LOS ANGELES Dodgers.

Pete, you're a better man than me. Although I've remained a Giants apologist [if not always a fan] all these years, I've never been able to enjoy them "to the max," or ever not think that they "should be the New York Giants...," whenever I see or hear of them. I'm amongst those who will forever feel jilted by the Fat Slob's orchestrated move west.