Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn, once and for all.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • god bless you, dd. I'm with ya!

    Comment


    • It's not as rich a history, for all 50 years of it. LA is not the true home of the Dodgers. It is akin to saying Paul McCartney spent as much time in Wings as the Beatles, so therefore ... if the other Beatles wanted to get together, it would have ignored all those top ten Wings hits for Paul to have left Wings for his beloved Beatles.

      Comment


      • True MattM, but in some respect the Mets, sad to say, are a capitulation to NYC politicians, to strip Brooklyn of an identity. Look at all the movies about Brooklyn. It's famous around the world. Granted that was a different era, but stripping Brooklyn of its Dodgers was partially responsible. The Mets are nearly impossible for a high school Brooklyn student to visit on weeknights. It is a capitulation to the mall/car culture which stands so far apart from what Brooklyn represents.

        Comment


        • MATHA531, you say some pretty interesting things. Thanks for sharing the ideas and insights. I have one question about your assertion that Flushing Meadows was the most logical destination for the Dodgers, or Mets. As a young kid in Brooklyn, with games played at night, how could you hope to see a game. Even on the weekend, when subway travel usually is stalled out for repairs at many stations, getting from Bay Ridge to Flushing is a bit of a stretch. It's a day trip. Might as well take Amtrak to Philadelphia or, while you're in Flushing, hop a plane to Boston. Truly, that has potential to be 2 hours each way by subway. That's why I say that Flushing was an unacceptable destination for a 'Brooklyn' team. But maybe I'm wrong. Talk me out of it!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gbittar View Post
            It's not as rich a history, for all 50 years of it. LA is not the true home of the Dodgers. It is akin to saying Paul McCartney spent as much time in Wings as the Beatles, so therefore ... if the other Beatles wanted to get together, it would have ignored all those top ten Wings hits for Paul to have left Wings for his beloved Beatles.
            If Wings sold more records than the Beatles you might have a solid analogy.
            I see great things in baseball. It's our game - the American game.
            - Walt Whitman

            Comment


            • Not even so. Sometimes a core band establishes a name and reputation, on which a later band or reincarnation of the first band profit. Take the case of Bob Marley. Many of those songs were originally written and recorded by the Wailers. When Bob Marley decided to 'leave' Jamaica to become a global artist, on world tours, he lost part of his band. Original songs were re-recorded, by all account lacking the fire of the originals, and it is these re-recordings that are often better known. There are many similar cases. In this case, the Brooklyn Dodgers established the brand, and the LA Dodgers profitted from it. From most cultural perspectives, the LA Dodgers are a hollowed out core, but they retain the name. If the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn, or even Queens, they would have done at least as well as the Mets. Things have changed, baseball makes more money than it used to, period.

              Consider how many old rock bands are touring now, with new members, sounding obviously not as good as they used to when they had the original members, the thrill of invention, and youth behind them. But tours now obviously make much more money than they used to. Similar situation, my friend. The move to LA has turned out to be not an unprofitable move, but a less profitable move than if they had merely gone to Queens.

              Money made is relative to the era and the situation.

              So if Wings had made more money, suddenly they would have been more relevant than the Beatles? What if the draw to the Wings was primarily that people wanted Paul de la Beatles? When I travel the north east, I don't see a lot of LA Dodger hats to be honest. Once in awhile. But for many years now, even as far north as Maine, I am surprised by how many Cyclones hats I see. Cyclones hats are everywhere on the east cost. And Brooklyn Dodger hats too. Up north, I see them on par with Yankee hats. Now you tell me what this says about marketability of a Brooklyn Dodger franchise.
              Last edited by gbittar; 06-05-2010, 05:00 AM. Reason: another idea

              Comment


              • Dodger Dynamo, I agree with you that history can definitely change for the better. There have been numerous cases I've witnessed over a lifetime where things miraculously and unexpectedly revert to an original, better form. NYC, for all its yuppified homogenization, is safer and cleaner and more usable now than any point in my lifetime. Who would have guessed you could walk through Central Park at midnight? (Although I'm still not sure how I'd feel walking through Prospect Park at midnight.)

                And I agree it's probably a good business decision for the Dodgers since, as cushy as LA is, and as profitable as LA is, with a lot of Latinos getting into the game, NYC is the dominant sports market and the dominant baseball market. Bklyn/Dodger-mania has not receded.

                Bringing the Dodgers back, you'd need passion for the team. I could see someone like the Wilpons, acting through another entity, aquiring and returning the Dodgers to Brooklyn. It would have to be carefully done as it would flout league rules: can't own two teams at once.

                However, from what I gather, the sad facts are that a future team, at this time, would be bound to NJ. An interesting case is the Nets, leaving NJ, for Bklyn hopefully. If they establish this as a successful passage, then maybe...

                But it's also important to remember that sometimes two parties want to reunite, but just can't.

                Comment


                • I left my apt this morning, Saturday, and the first piece of baseball merch I saw was a Brooklyn Dodger T shirt. I spent the day in the Bronx Zoo and the Little Italy up there, then took the train back down, walked around Yankee Stadium, hung out in the playground there with my kid, returned to Manhattan, walking back through Central Park. The last piece of baseball merch I saw was a Brooklyn Dodger cap. I'd seen two Mets caps and a Mets jersey. That says something. I'm in another borough, in another century, 50 some years removed, and STILL, the merch sells.

                  Comment


                  • For all you Brooklyn fans who dream of the bums returning to Brooklyn (which we all know will never happen), you may enjoy a book
                    written in the 80's called "The Man Who Brought The Dodgers Back to Brooklyn" written by David Ritz.. It was a good read. I'm sure it's
                    available on ebay or Amazon.

                    Comment

                    Ad Widget

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X