Jackie Robinson T Shirt Night at Chavez Ravine Stadium

[Mattingly]

I'll tell you what's tiresome...the constant, perpetual, and often baseless, irrational hatred and anger towards an organization and everything connected to it. If you want to blame O'Malley for the Dodgers moving, I understand, although I don't agree that he is totally to blame for it, nor do I think he holds a majority of the blame for the events leading up to, and including the transfer of the franchise to LA. Do you realize that this thread started out of a knee jerk reaction, born in a deep hatred of the LA Dodgers, to the fact that the Dodgers were participating in a celebration of Jackie Robinson's life and career that was being conducted across the country by MLB? Do you recognize that the originator of this post's apparent hatred is so deep for the Dodgers that rather than look at the event as a positive, he instantly assumed that this was just an attempt by the Dodgers to make a cash grab using Jackie's name? How patheic is that?

O'Malley is long gone, and the Dodgers of today are where they are. There is essentially no one, in any capacity of responsibility, that has any connection to the days of Brooklyn, and quite frankly, many weren't even alive when the transfer occured. To spew bitterness and hatred towards them is illogical, they had no role in any of the events that lead to the transfer. It's been 50 years. How long can anger blind people to logic, to understanding, and to reality?

The over dramtic tone of so many who feel so passionate about the Dodgers move from Brooklyn does nothing to impassion your argument or viewpoint, in fact it creates an image of a group of irrational folks, unable to look at something realistically. Terms like "injustice" are best used to describe true injustices, like poverty, social inequality, etc., not the transfer of a baseball team from one city to another. Terms like that cheapen any argument you might have and serve as ammunition for those who are your detractors.

I'm curious, when you entered this thread, did you intend to do so to discuss your pure love for the game of baseball and its long and beautiful history? Or did you come here to offer an opinionated rebuttal of what the various long-time Brooklyn fans here have to say?

As far as realistically, are you saying that whatever is your opinion of reality should be shared by others here? If not, then they would be wrong and yourself would be right?

[JohnCropp]

Complete with his usual awkward syntax and bad grammar, the BBF anti-Brooklyn police has returned. Way to go, Cropp. What a great life you must have, rubbing salt in old wounds whenever possible. Britney Spears thinks you lack class and dignity.

What is your purpose here, anyway? (Note*: A certain level of self-awareness is required in order to provide a relevant answer; therefore, you may be excused from answering the question on the grounds of insufficient intellectual capability)

* - If you had to look up more than two words in that parenthetical note, please refrain from posting a response in this thread. It can only make you look worse.

To paraphrase the Great John Kruk: I'm not a writer ma'am, I'm a baseball forum poster.

As for answering your question, my purpose "here" (if by "here" you mean "in this thread") is to express my views on Jackie Robinson T Shirt Night at Chavez Ravine Stadium. That's why we're all "here," right? I mean, some of us may be here to deny the existence of reality or to grade grammar, but I'm here to discuss the topic advertised. If you're more interested in discussing nouns and verbs, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Pete Rose (and Britney Spears) would have been very disappointed in the way you ran these bases.

He'd probably also tell you to shove your syntax and insufficient intellectual capability up your ***.

[bluecrew50]

Hey donzblock what is this thee and I crap, everyone here whether it be Los Angeles or Brooklyn hates the Giants and Yankees! It most certainly thee only thing we have in common.

[Shawon-o-Meter]

It starts with Jack Roosevelt Robinson running out to play first base for the Dodgers against the Braves, a lifetime in America before Sen. Barack Obama could very well be rounding third and heading for home.

lol http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnzKegOZkGI

[dodger dynamo]

OK, THIS IS THE "BROOKLYN DODGER" FORUM NOT LETS QUESTION SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THOSE OF US HERE, WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME! THOSE OF US OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER JACKIE ROBINS EXPLOITS ON AND OFF THE FIELD. THOSE OF US WHO GREW UP IN BROOKLYN AND CHEERED JACKIE ROBINSON. THOSE SAME PEOPLE WHO REVERE JACKIE ROBINSON HATE O'MALLEY AND DESPISE THE FACT THAT THE TEAM IS IN LA. I'M NOT LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, i'D WELCOME THEM BACK NO QUESTIONS ASKED, HOWEVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE IN THE FORUM WHO SIMPLY WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN "BROOKLYN" BASE BALL! THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE AS I SEE IT IS ANOTHER ROUND ABOUT ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE US TO "GET OVER IT" AND IF WE DON'T WE'RE BAD PEOPLE. WE NOT ONLY HONOR JACKIE ROBINSON'S MEMORY, WE HONORED THE MAN WHILE HE WAS ALIVE! USUALLY I'M QUIET ABOUT A LOT OF STUFF, BUT OUR DEVOTION TO JACKIE ROBINSON AND THE DODGERS AS A WHOLE IS BEYOND REFUTE. WE'VE BEEN CARRYING THE BANNERS FOR A LONG TIME. AS FAR AS "OUR BROOKLYN PLAYERS" WE'RE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THEM, WE CHERISHED AND CHEERED JACKIE ROBINSON WHEN IT WASN'T THE EASY OR FASHIONABLE THING TO DO. WE LOVE ALL OUR BROOKYN DODGERS AND WE'VE HONORED THEM FOR A LONG TIME SINCE THE DAY "BROOKLYN BASEBALL" CEASED TO EXIST. BATTLIN BAKE, THE DODGER DYNAMO
DODGER BASEBALL CEASED TO EXIST.

[Mattingly]

Sadly, a thread about a franchise honoring a great man and a great ballplayer gets overshadowed by another group's bitterness and irrational anger. Why use the occasion of the memorialization of Jackie Robinson's achievement for a commentary on your thoughts and beliefs? Are you so devoid of respect for him and his family that you cannot let one day pass without dragging the events scheduled in his memory into your wretched and petulant campaign of hatred? Are you so self absorbed that you think only your anger and hatred matter, regardless of anything else?

Jackie Robinson is an integral part of the franchise history and I expected a much higher level of respect for him and his accomplishments and the events held by ALL major league franchises to honor him.

I think that this is where you may have been mistaken. According to what I've been told, as has been mentioned here, the Brooklyn Dodgers were not the same franchise as the LA team, just as the Montreal Expos aren't the same franchise as the Washington Nationals. Same players, management, front office, but a different franchise since relocated, unlikely to return.

I will simply caution you that insults are not welcome here at BBF, and if you're going to go off on the deep end, then you cannot expect to continue doing so freely.

1. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And the Dodgers are still the Dodgers. If you look at the facts, you'll learn that the owners committee of MLB approved the transfer of the Brooklyn franchise to L.A. Note in particular the word "transfer".

2. Anyone who knows any history at all about the sport knows the Dodgers were moved from Brooklyn to LA. No one has ever disputed that fact. This whole "roots" thing is crap.

3. "They are like every nouveau-riche child ever embarrassed by the fact that their father drove a bus; and,

They need to remember how Daddy risked EVERYTHING when he marched for Civil Rights because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO"... This comment is without doubt the most over the top thing I had ever read anywhere on this forum, until I read this gem...

"Even if they never come home, that BEING A DODGER should instill AS MUCH OR MORE PRIDE than even wearing Yankee Pinstripes---They had GREAT PLAYERS and WON TITLES---OUR history CHANGED HISTORY, AND IS SO MUCH MORE PROFOUND AND MEANINGFUL TO ALL MANKIND!"

Profound and meaningful to all mankind? Seriously, things like the polio vaccine and penicillin were meaningful to mankind. A baseball team does not fall into the category of meaningful to all mankind. I am sure some person living in the plains of Africa could give 2 craps about the Dodgers, but probably is appreciative of things like modern medicene and things like irrigation a hell of a lot more than a baseball team because those are genuine contributions that have meaning to all of mankind.

You are so disconnected from reality, its pathetic. I guess you are what you appear to be, a bitter old fossil who can't accept the most basic facts.

I believe that you're trying excessively hard to rub this "one franchise" thing very deeply into the forumers' heads. I do believe that you could be much more civil, and if you find that others disagree, trying not force-feeding those thoughts into people. Can you accept the term "agreeing to disagree"? Or are you use the wisdom you so wish to ask others to accept. To call people's opinions "crap", to me is unacceptable.

I would hope that in the future, you will not talk down to people, calling them disconnected from reality and saying that they are "pathetic". This is not one of the mlb.com forums, so please act accordingly.

I also suggest you no longer call anyone an old fossil, since people who have known much about baseball history and have lived it will be older than yourself, as expected.

[NY16CATCHER]

I'm curious, when you entered this thread, did you intend to do so to discuss your pure love for the game of baseball and its long and beautiful history? Or did you come here to offer an opinionated rebuttal of what the various long-time Brooklyn fans here have to say?

As far as realistically, are you saying that whatever is your opinion of reality should be shared by others here? If not, then they would be wrong and yourself would be right?

The reason for my original post in this thread was to reply to what I thought was a knee-jerk smear of the LA Dodgers. I thought it was completely uncalled for to take a shot at the Dodgers and imply that by giving out T-shirts with Jackie's name and number on them that they were capitalizing on his memory and making a cash grab, when in reality they were participating in a league wide celebration of his life and achievement. As it (the thread) evolved, I couldn't believe the way that my comments were attacked and I replied, in the futile hopes of having a factual discussion on the subject (as another poster pointed out, trying to have a rational conversation on this subject with a majority of the posters in this folder is impossible and I should have recognized their clear lack of rationality far earlier than I have).

Again, I think some people (maybe yourself included) are not understanding the difference between FACT and OPINION. They are clearly 2 different things. It is fact that the MLB ownership committee granted a "transfer" of the Brooklyn Dodgers to Los Angeles. That can be historically proven. It is my opinion that Walter O'Malley is not the primary reason for this even. Others share a different opinion. Whose opinion is actually more factually accurate can be debated, that which can be imperically proven is just that...a proven fact. There's a HUGE difference between the 2.

[NY16CATCHER]

I think that this is where you may have been mistaken. According to what I've been told, as has been mentioned here, the Brooklyn Dodgers were not the same franchise as the LA team, just as the Montreal Expos aren't the same franchise as the Washington Nationals. Same players, management, front office, but a different franchise since relocated, unlikely to return.

I will simply caution you that insults are not welcome here at BBF, and if you're going to go off on the deep end, then you cannot expect to continue doing so freely.

I believe that you're trying excessively hard to rub this "one franchise" thing very deeply into the forumers' heads. I do believe that you could be much more civil, and if you find that others disagree, trying not force-feeding those thoughts into people. Can you accept the term "agreeing to disagree"? Or are you use the wisdom you so wish to ask others to accept. To call people's opinions "crap", to me is unacceptable.

I would hope that in the future, you will not talk down to people, calling them disconnected from reality and saying that they are "pathetic". This is not one of the mlb.com forums, so please act accordingly.

I also suggest you no longer call anyone an old fossil, since people who have known much about baseball history and have lived it will be older than yourself, as expected.

"From what I have been told"....therein lies the first problem. I think you need to consider your sources. If you go to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and do some research in their archives (which I have done on a couple of occasions for various academic reasons), you'll find a treasure chest of information, including things like meeting minutes of the owners committee's etc. dating back for many decades. I know, for fact, that the franchise was "transferred", which is significantly different from "folding" one franchise and granting a new one, which is what happened in the case of the Expos/Nats.

As far as insults go, I will not be addressed as "son" in a deragatory fashion, nor will I sit idle while others take pot shots at my screen name. I didn't hurl insults first, and while I may have transgressed in regards to the posting policy here, I think if you want to publically castigate me for my transgression, you should equally, and just as publically, castigate the original transgressor as well. After all, the rules apply equally, don't they?

As far as the comment regarding "rubbing the one franchise thing into the forumers heads"...all I am doing is stating a FACT, which I can prove (or anyone can prove by working with the National Baseball HOF and their historians/archivists). To suggest that this is somehow not a fact is a distortion of reality. If I were to reply by challenging those who disagree with this fact to provide evidence to the contrary, what would you say to that?

And as for my comments about being disconnected from reality (I'll concede the use of the word pathetic was a poor choice of words), I genuinely think that describing a baseball franchise's impact upon history as "Meaningful to all mankind" displays a disconnect from reality. It's the nicest way I can put it. If you don't like the description, I'm sorry.

As for referring to someone as a fossil, please refer to my comments about insults (and as wrong as it was, it was used as a contrast to the insult referring to me as "SON"). And as far as your comment "people who have known much about baseball history and have lived it will be older than yourself, as expected. ", I would suggest that age does not have a direct relationship to knowledge, and that those who lived history are often the least equipped to discuss it in a rational and factual manner, because their memories are often jaded by their own opinions and point of view of the events at the time they happened. A prime example of this would be asking someone from Brooklyn about the events leading up to the Dodgers transfer, and then asking someone from LA about the same events. You will likely get 2 very different stories purporting to represent the very same historical event, all dependant upon their own point of view, moreso than fact.

[MATHA531]

Very simple and you can check this in the archives...

The corporate name of the franchise until 08 October 1957 was the Brooklyn National League Baseball Club....

After that it became the Los Angeles National League Baseball Club...a completely different corporate entity...

BTW if you lived in Cleveland, who would you say has the right to glorify people such as Paul Brown, Jim Brown and the rest, the Cleveland Browns or the Baltimore Ravens.....same difference isn't it?

[NY16CATCHER]

Very simple and you can check this in the archives...

The corporate name of the franchise until 08 October 1957 was the Brooklyn National League Baseball Club....

After that it became the Los Angeles National League Baseball Club...a completely different corporate entity...

BTW if you lived in Cleveland, who would you say has the right to glorify people such as Paul Brown, Jim Brown and the rest, the Cleveland Browns or the Baltimore Ravens.....same difference isn't it?

Here is the actual (and historically correct) series of events:

1. In September, a corporation was formed, and registered, in the state of California for the corporate name of the Los Angeles National League Baseball Club, Inc.

2. The Brooklyn National League Baseball Club, Inc., applied to MLB and the Ownership Committee for "transfer" to Los Angeles. This request was approved.


3. Later, in the month of October, the assests of the Brooklyn National League Baseball Club, Inc. were transferred to the Los Angeles National League Baseball Club, Inc. and the Brooklyn National League Baseball Club, Inc. was dissolved with the NYS Secretary of State. The principals named on the dissolution documents as owners and officers were identical to those named on the incorporation papers in CA.

This is the standard legal activity that goes along with the transfer of location with ANY business from one legal entity to another (ie. state to state), be it a baseball team or a trucking company. If this is your "smoking gun" its not a very good one.

As for the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens/Cleveland Browns analogy you made, I have no real opinion on it, because I don't know any of the factual history surrounding it. I'm not a huge football fan, and pay little attention to the history of that sport.

[MATHA531]

Who does the legacy of Roy Sievers belong to...the Minnesota Twins, the Texas Rangers or the Washington Nationals? And of course in the 60's, there were all kinds of squabbles between the Minnesota Twins and the then functioning Washington Senators as to just whom the legacy of Walter Johnson belonged...

Do the Washington Nationals recognize the exploits of Rusty Staub and Gary Carter??? Will we expect to see them invited to a Washington Nationals Old Timers Day?????

Roy Campanella played for the Brooklyn National League baseball club...he never played a minute (for a very unfortunate reason of course) for the Los Angeles National League baseball club...is that any different than Staub and Carter or Sievers???

Mr. O'Malley voluntarily chose to abandon Brooklyn in a decision that was, as we all know and even you would admit, that was ethically and morally wrong and was done not because the franchise was in the remotest danger of losing money, as a matter of fact, it was making more money than any other franchise in the National League all things considered...when he did that he left the history of the team in Brooklyn (I have never seen the Baltimore Orioles honor the memory of Eddie Gaedel)...now the current ownership of the Los Angeles National League baseball team can say anything it wants, but these players we referred to all played for the Brooklyn National League baseball team, as you noted two completely separate entities, one incorporated in NY and the other in California.

McCourt, Scully, Lasorda can all say anything they want and even major league baseball can say anything it wants, the fact is the Dodger franchise died on 08 October 1957, a franchise named for the people of Brooklyn dodging Trolleys in the early 20th century, a franchise that was a member of the National League before the turn of the century. From any viewpoint, I don't see why this is such a hard thing to grasp.

[donzblock]

The reason for my original post in this thread was to reply to what I thought was a knee-jerk smear of the LA Dodgers. I thought it was completely uncalled for to take a shot at the Dodgers and imply that by giving out T-shirts with Jackie's name and number on them that they were capitalizing on his memory and making a cash grab, when in reality they were participating in a league wide celebration of his life and achievement.

Here is an illustration of how the brilliant CATCHER understands the difference between fact and opinion: Criticism of the LA celebration of Jackie is a smear. How does he know that for a fact? Because he has analyzed the chemistry of the smear, and the molecules under his microscope have been correctly identified as smear. This smear is not to be confused with a totally different but no less factually true schmear that one gets on a bagel.

Also, this particular smear from the Brooklyn Dodger fans has been catalyzed by a knee jerk. How does CATCHER know that the catalyst is a knee jerk? Again, he has carefully analyzed this catalyst in the laboratory of his mind. Consequently, when he refers to the knee jerk response of this forum, he is not being insulting or stating an opinion. No petty opinions will sully the mind of this fellow. CATCHER is coldly and objectively and factually describing what he is encountering here. He did pretty much the same thing when he referred to Spirit55 as a fossil and me as an old dog. It will surprise nobody to learn that I happen to be a 16-year-old Black-and-Tan Coonhound. CATCHER triumphs again.

As it (the thread) evolved, I couldn't believe the way that my comments were attacked and I replied, in the futile hopes of having a factual discussion on the subject (as another poster pointed out, trying to have a rational conversation on this subject with a majority of the posters in this folder is impossible and I should have recognized their clear lack of rationality far earlier than I have).

You're being too hard on yourself, old boy. The posters in these parts are beyond redemption. That is my opinion, but I'm sure you, CATCHER, can show that it is a fact.

Again, I think some people (maybe yourself included) are not understanding the difference between FACT and OPINION. They are clearly 2 different things. It is fact that the MLB ownership committee granted a "transfer" of the Brooklyn Dodgers to Los Angeles. That can be historically proven. It is my opinion that Walter O'Malley is not the primary reason for this even. Others share a different opinion. Whose opinion is actually more factually accurate can be debated, that which can be imperically proven is just that...a proven fact. There's a HUGE difference between the 2.

The "imperical" proof is CATCHER's own invention. He will now explain to everybody the difference between "imperical" and "empirical." After that, he will explain Kant's Cortagerical Empiritive.

[Mattingly]

The reason for my original post in this thread was to reply to what I thought was a knee-jerk smear of the LA Dodgers. I thought it was completely uncalled for to take a shot at the Dodgers and imply that by giving out T-shirts with Jackie's name and number on them that they were capitalizing on his memory and making a cash grab, when in reality they were participating in a league wide celebration of his life and achievement. As it (the thread) evolved, I couldn't believe the way that my comments were attacked and I replied, in the futile hopes of having a factual discussion on the subject (as another poster pointed out, trying to have a rational conversation on this subject with a majority of the posters in this folder is impossible and I should have recognized their clear lack of rationality far earlier than I have).

Again, I think some people (maybe yourself included) are not understanding the difference between FACT and OPINION. They are clearly 2 different things. It is fact that the MLB ownership committee granted a "transfer" of the Brooklyn Dodgers to Los Angeles. That can be historically proven. It is my opinion that Walter O'Malley is not the primary reason for this even. Others share a different opinion. Whose opinion is actually more factually accurate can be debated, that which can be imperically proven is just that...a proven fact. There's a HUGE difference between the 2.

Which knee-jerk smear are you referring to? Unfortunately, from yourself, I saw several comments which I felt could've been more tactfully and carefully worded.

I'm curious, do you always go into other team forums in the "Teams of Yesteryear" forum and defend or try to correct anyone's behavior there also?

If you have a problem with the way you are being treated, instead of a crazy verbal melee, why not try contacting a Mod? If you feel that a comment you've received was unjustified, please explain why.

As far as rationality, I would simply say that some people are of different viewpoints and ideas than others. People differ on evolution, people differ on religion, people differ on diets and lifestyles. Which is right, which is wrong?

I don't consider your view to be "right" or "wrong" anymore than I would consider some of the forumers' views here to be "right" or "wrong". However, the two sides seem diabolically opposed. That, in of itself, does not warrant any insults on either side, and I couldn't care less "who started it".

I won't doubt you about the transfer of ownership from Brooklyn, NY to Los Angeles, CA. However, the issue, to my knowledge, would be whether or not the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Los Angeles Dodgers are the same *FRANCHISE*. That, to me, is one of the biggest issues.

As I was told, they are not the same franchise; they are two separate franchises. If you wish to word it differently, such as using "transfer" and/or any other synonym to this, it's up to you. It has been explained to me several times by long-time Brooklyn Dodger fans in this Brooklyn Dodger forum that a franchise ends once the team moves.

Examples of this would be the Boston Braves once they moved to Milwaukee, and then again, once they moved to Atlanta. When the 1900s version of the Baltimore Orioles moved to Manhattan as the NY Yankees, were they the same franchise?

For NFL, look at the Baltimore Colts upon their move to Indianapolis. Were they the same franchise?

Lastly, I will simply ask all sides to *ASK QUESTIONS* of the other. If you find it impossible to have a rationale discussion with others here, then kindly bow out of this thread. I would only suggest that you continue posting here if you wish to be open to views different from your own, and have an intention to listen careful to what others are writing, and doing so without any intention of "correcting" anyone's views that are very different from your own.

A little "give and take" often goes a long way.

I'll address your other post that directly followed the one I'm reply to later, but if you've ever checked the History and/or the Hall of Fame forums here on BBF, you will realize that there are quite a few people out here who have seen very much baseball and are often beloved for their knowledge of the game. That's one reason that older fans are so cherished, since they've seen the older games with their very own eyes. If you wish to denounce and/or belittle those long-time fans here, would you also do so for other parts of BBF?

If someone addresses you as "son", kindly ask them not to refer to yourself in that manner, and please give them a name, nickname or your own username to which you're prefer that they respond to you as.

Just as you would expect respect towards you, I can only ask that you give respect to others. Did your parents tell you to treat others as you would like to be treated? Aren't they obviously older than yourself?

From this point onward, let us all have civilized discussions, one in which people speak *WITH* each other, not *AT* each other, trying our best to shout down the other and yelling at the tops of our lungs in the process.

Thank you very much.