I spotted that clip on Youtube about the lost baseball teams.
QuoteDuring the first half of the 20th century, there were three teams that shared a city with other teams, The St. Louis Browns, Boston Braves, and Philadelphia Athletics. This is the story of their demise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AB3XgUfRtw
They make a big point of calling these teams "lost." They're not lost, they're just in other cities.
Interestingly, two of these–Braves and Athletics–moved yet again in the 60s.
The time when NYC had 3 major league baseball teams: the NY Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers until 1958 when the two NL teams agreed to relocate to CA: Giants in SF and Dodgers in L.A. leaving behind the highly successful NY Yankees of the AL until 1962 when the NL void in NYC was filled by the New York Metropolitans (or Mets). IMO, the Dodgers should stayed in Brooklyn...or even moved back, however the Yankees and Mets team boards forbids a third competitor in the NYC-NJ metro area sports market. NYC has 2 NFL teams in NJ (Meadowlands), 2 NBA: the NJ-then Brooklyn Nets and NY Knicks, and 3 NHL teams-one is the NJ Devils.
Kansas City were granted an AL expansion team: the Royals in 1969 and Milwaukee was the new home of the relocated Seattle Pilots in the AL: the Milwaukee Brewers since 1970. CA had 3 more major league baseball teams: the AL expansion California/Anaheim (their home-field since 1965 or 66)/back to Los Angeles Angels in 1961, the Oakland Athletics or A's in 1968 and the NL expansion San Diego Padres in 1969. And Canada had 2 major league baseball teams from 1977 to 2004, remaining is the Toronto Blue Jays of the AL.
The difficulty of maintaining 2 major league baseball teams in Boston, Philadelphia and St. Louis shows the intense competition in professional sports and the teams' desire to seek new ground and new fans in the west. The Washington Senators couldn't compete with the Baltimore Orioles-former St Louis Browns arrived in 1953 or 54, then the Senators left in 1961 for Minneapolis-St Paul as the Minnesota Twins. But the AL expansion replacement Senators left in 1972 for Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas as the Texas Rangers. Since 2004 or 05, Washington DC was home to the NL Nationals-formerly the Montreal Expos (established 1969).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 07:04:49 PM
They make a big point of calling these teams "lost." They're not lost, they're just in other cities.
Interestingly, two of these–Braves and Athletics–moved yet again in the 60s.
The Browns could be considered "lost" because Baltimore does their best to pretend the St. Louis Browns never existed.
In that vein, you could probably consider the Montreal Expos "lost" because the Nationals focus more on DC baseball history than on the franchise's history in Montreal, but they don't necessarily actively ignore the Montreal years either (they had a ceremony honoring Andre Dawson and Gary Carter a few years back, thankfully while Carter was still alive). I don't know whether the same is true of the Milwaukee Brewers (former Seattle Pilots, though they only spent one year in Seattle before moving).
BTW, it's misleading to say there were three teams that shared cities with other teams but have moved. I count five such teams, the ones listed first (and second in the New York area's case):
–Boston Braves and Boston Red Sox
–Philadelphia Athletics and Philadelphia Phillies
–St. Louis Browns and St. Louis Cardinals
–Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, and New York Yankees
Chicago, of course, still has two teams.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 09:46:34 PMThe Browns could be considered "lost" because Baltimore does their best to pretend the St. Louis Browns never existed.
Of course. It's the Baltimore M.O. to take Browns but not their history.
I think it's safe to say that the Seattle Pilots are a lost team as they were to be moved to Milwaukee after that one year in existence. Also, it's easy to forget that the Mariners are the second team in that area, completely ignoring the Pilots.
As for Chicago having two teams for the last 110+ years, it's very impressive, considering that it was in danger of losing the White Sox before building them a new ballpark in 1991. But in my eyes, it has always been a Cubs town, even with the Sox winning the World Series ten years ago.
I guess what I was getting at as to the Pilots was that I don't know whether the Brewers ever acknowledge their year in Seattle. Their website mostly ignores it, though of course since the Pilots only existed for that one year there isn't much to acknowledge. The Baltimore franchise almost completely ignores its prior existence in St. Louis, whereas some of the other teams that moved don't hesitate to acknowledge their history. The San Francisco Giants even donated money to restore the John T. Brush Stairway on Coogan's Bluff in New York in 2013.
You want to talk about lost teams, how about the Syracuse Stars, Providence Greys, Louisville Colonels, Cleveland Infants, or the plain old Worcesters?
The Angels remain located in the L.A. metro area, the first 5 seasons in the city of L.A. and the rest in Anaheim, in Orange County. Originally, Long Beach in L.A. county wanted a major league baseball team in a proposed yet unapproved stadium, but the Angels owner Gene Autry found a better deal in Anaheim not far from Disneyland. Since 2005, the team were the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (an unusual team name) modeled on the ice hockey Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (1993-2007, now the Anaheim Ducks) under current owner Arte Moreno.
Interestingly, I have memories of the Angels' spring training camp in Palm Springs (I was 8 or 9 when I saw them play not far from my Dad's apartment) before the team went to Arizona for spring training in 1993. Palm Springs was where Gene Autry had a home and the desert climate was perfect without humidity associated with Florida. There was a California League team, the Palm Springs Angels from 1986 to 1993. 3 or 4 minor league teams later (the collegiate Power), and now the instructional California Winter League is held in Palm Springs.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 07:04:49 PM
They make a big point of calling these teams "lost." They're not lost, they're just in other cities.
Interestingly, two of these—Braves and Athletics—moved yet again in the 60s.
The Browns could be considered "lost" because Baltimore does their best to pretend the St. Louis Browns never existed.
In that vein, you could probably consider the Montreal Expos "lost" because the Nationals focus more on DC baseball history than on the franchise's history in Montreal, but they don't necessarily actively ignore the Montreal years either (they had a ceremony honoring Andre Dawson and Gary Carter a few years back, thankfully while Carter was still alive). I don't know whether the same is true of the Milwaukee Brewers (former Seattle Pilots, though they only spent one year in Seattle before moving).
BTW, it's misleading to say there were three teams that shared cities with other teams but have moved. I count five such teams, the ones listed first (and second in the New York area's case):
—Boston Braves and Boston Red Sox
—Philadelphia Athletics and Philadelphia Phillies
—St. Louis Browns and St. Louis Cardinals
—Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, and New York Yankees
Chicago, of course, still has two teams.
Maybe Montreal will have a gap...wait only the NFL acts that stupid
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
I guess what I was getting at as to the Pilots was that I don't know whether the Brewers ever acknowledge their year in Seattle. Their website mostly ignores it, though of course since the Pilots only existed for that one year there isn't much to acknowledge. The Baltimore franchise almost completely ignores its prior existence in St. Louis, whereas some of the other teams that moved don't hesitate to acknowledge their history. The San Francisco Giants even donated money to restore the John T. Brush Stairway on Coogan's Bluff in New York in 2013.
I went to Seattle Pilots game at RFK stadium against the expansion Washington Senators. Seattle won
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
I guess what I was getting at as to the Pilots was that I don't know whether the Brewers ever acknowledge their year in Seattle. Their website mostly ignores it, though of course since the Pilots only existed for that one year there isn't much to acknowledge.
At one point, I seem to recall seeing a few Pilots hats tucked away in a corner of one of the Team Stores at Miller Park.
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history. The Dodgers' departure from one of NYC's 5 boroughs devastated this community. In 1962, the NL granted a team, the Mets, to fill the void left by the Giants and Dodgers' moves, and the Mets are in Long Island (Queens close to Brooklyn). Understandably, there's a regional rivalry between Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx, the "blue collar" vs wealthy boroughs in NYC history.
Ironically, the NHL Islanders moved to a new arena in Brooklyn where the NBA Nets (has the Brooklyn title) play...and nearby is a proposed NFL stadium where the Giants or Jets decide to play. Brooklyn is a big league town again...and the folkloric Dodgers completes the puzzle. Some older Brooklynese fans and their families root for the L.A. Dodgers, instead of the not-so-often-good Mets or the legendary Yankees. I noticed in Oakland CA was Raiders fanfare didn't die out when the Raiders were in L.A. and the Raiders are still popular in so CA.
L.A. won't want to lose another major league sports team: two NFL teams left 20 years ago, it can't handle 2 NBA teams share the same arena, the market has 2 NHL teams (actually, ice hockey did well since the late 80s when Gretzky was in the Kings) and 2 to 1 to 2 soccer teams (the Galaxy and for awhile, Chivas USA). Yes, the Dodgers did great in L.A. and the west coast, but Brooklyn really misses them. L.A. had 3 major recessions in the last 25 years, but their economy right now is good and the sports market is large to support 2 teams of each sport.
And is MLB going to expand? Brooklyn is a potential site, so is Buffalo NY (no major league baseball in about a century), Portland OR (lacks a minor league team, unless you consider the Hillsboro Hops), Sacramento or San Jose CA (or they can have the Oakland A's in need of a new ballpark) and even Montreal again...or San Juan, PR, where the Expos held 20 home games in each the 2003 and 2004 seasons. It all depends on the MLB's decision to grant a team, except the NY Mets and Yankees would never approve a 3rd team in the NYC sports market.
Quote from: Mike D boy on March 12, 2015, 09:07:26 PM
Since 2005, the team were the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (an unusual team name) modeled on the ice hockey Mighty Ducks of Anaheim
That is not why they are named the way they are...Moreno (the owner) wanted to just name them Los Angeles Angels believing that Los Angeles would give them a higher profile (read: more merchandise sales) than Anaheim. However, when Anaheim ponied up money to renovate Angels stadium, one of the stipulations was the team (California Angels at the time) had to use Anaheim in its name. When Moreno bought the team from Disney, his solution was the convoluted name, knowing most people (including media) would just use Los Angeles Angels, while he was still honoring the letter of the contract by including Anaheim in the "official" name. It pissed a lot of people off, and Anaheim even filed suit (but lost). This is why the Angels' away uniforms have the team name instead of the city name like everyone else.
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history.
It
was controversial...58 years ago. The Los Angeles Dodgers are arguably the most popular team in any sport (maybe the Lakers, and maybe USC football compare) in the second largest market in the country and have a world-famous brand most other teams could only dream of.
They own their stadium which, despite being the third-oldest in the majors, you don't hear anyone talking about replacing in order to keep the team in town.
Without wanting to sound mean or morbid, within a generation there won't be anyone left who remembers the Dodgers playing in Brooklyn, and you said it yourself - the Mets and Yankees don't want the competition.
The chances of the Dodgers going anywhere, let alone Brooklyn, are zero.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 18, 2015, 07:22:31 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on March 12, 2015, 09:07:26 PM
Since 2005, the team were the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (an unusual team name) modeled on the ice hockey Mighty Ducks of Anaheim
That is not why they are named the way they are...Moreno (the owner) wanted to just name them Los Angeles Angels believing that Los Angeles would give them a higher profile (read: more merchandise sales) than Anaheim. However, when Anaheim ponied up money to renovate Angels stadium, one of the stipulations was the team (California Angels at the time) had to use Anaheim in its name. When Moreno bought the team from Disney, his solution was the convoluted name, knowing most people (including media) would just use Los Angeles Angels, while he was still honoring the letter of the contract by including Anaheim in the "official" name. It pissed a lot of people off, and Anaheim even filed suit (but lost). This is why the Angels' away uniforms have the team name instead of the city name like everyone else.
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history.
It was controversial...58 years ago. The Los Angeles Dodgers are arguably the most popular team in any sport (maybe the Lakers, and maybe USC football compare) in the second largest market in the country and have a world-famous brand most other teams could only dream of.
They own their stadium which, despite being the third-oldest in the majors, you don't hear anyone talking about replacing in order to keep the team in town.
Without wanting to sound mean or morbid, within a generation there won't be anyone left who remembers the Dodgers playing in Brooklyn, and you said it yourself - the Mets and Yankees don't want the competition.
The chances of the Dodgers going anywhere, let alone Brooklyn, are zero.
Brooklyn NY baseball fanfare is attached to the Mets and Yanks now, but it must be some "cool" thing by hipsters too (they're moving to Brooklyn when Manhattan was priced out) to admire the bygone Dodgers. Nostalgia and memories of the time when Brooklyn was well known for the Dodgers, a famous name in sports, comparable to the NY Yankees (they play in THE Bronx, not Manhattan, ROFL), and there's a class-A minor league affiliate of the NY Mets, the Brooklyn Cyclones in a ballpark in Coney Island, whose regional rival is the Staten Island Yankees.
I forgot to mention Las Vegas is betting on a MLB team...and we know sports gambling is what prevents Nevada from ever granted a major league sports team. Their AAA-level baseball team, the Area 51's (formerly Snowbirds and Stars) in the PCL has among the lowest minor league fan attendance last year. The team either folded, relocated and restored under 5 different affiliations: Padres, Dodgers, Blue Jays and Mets...and the 5th one I forgot (the A's?), because Las Vegas proved itself not the best place for baseball, be it major league or the minors. The Reno Aces, a D-backs affiliate in the PCL, does better despite Las Vegas is in the D-backs or Phoenix/AZ sports market. I recall Tucson had a PCL team relocated to either Albuquerque or El Paso on the border with Mexico. Apparently, Tucson is like Palm Springs and Yuma: outdated spring training camps/ stadiums not going to have minor league baseball again (is it because it's too hot in summer?)
My mother was an English teacher for many years in Northern Virginia (she's now retired). One of her younger male colleagues who knew she was from Brooklyn asked her if, when she was growing up, her family rooted for the Yankees or the Mets. :-D
Picture a teacher pushing her glasses down her nose and giving you that arch look over the top of them. My mom says that's the look she gave him while saying, "When I was growing up you rooted for the Yankees or the DODGERS."
(I suggested she should be flattered he thought she was so much younger than she is, but she said she thinks he's just stupid.)
I am honestly surprised that the LA Dodgers never put a "Brooklyn Dodgers" minor league affiliate in Brooklyn. It would be a nice nod to the community.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:12:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 09:46:34 PMThe Browns could be considered "lost" because Baltimore does their best to pretend the St. Louis Browns never existed.
Of course. It's the Baltimore M.O. to take Browns but not their history.
Maybe someday Saint Louis will get an expansion Browns and there will be a gap.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 18, 2015, 10:16:47 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:12:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 09:46:34 PMThe Browns could be considered "lost" because Baltimore does their best to pretend the St. Louis Browns never existed.
Of course. It's the Baltimore M.O. to take Browns but not their history.
Maybe someday Saint Louis will get an expansion Browns and there will be a gap.
Probably not, as the St. Louis market is barely big enough to support even the Cardinals, with the Rams and Blues mostly being an afterthought. MLB is also not likely to expand anytime soon, with the popularity of baseball having been mostly stagnant since the proposal to contract the league to 28 teams by folding the Twins and Expos was defeated in 2001. Expanding to underserved markets also takes away a valuable bargaining chip (the threat of moving to another city) for teams attempting to negotiate new stadiums.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on June 18, 2015, 09:59:16 PM
I am honestly surprised that the LA Dodgers never put a "Brooklyn Dodgers" minor league affiliate in Brooklyn. It would be a nice nod to the community.
Well, there exist the Brooklyn Cyclones (named after the Coney Island coaster), a Single-A Short Season affiliate of the Mets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Cyclones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Cyclones)
The Atlanta Braves do a pretty good job of honoring their history in Boston (as the Boston Braves, or Bees, or Doves...), as the most recent Braves game I went to (a victory vs Oakland in 2014) was a celebration of the 1910 World Series team.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
I guess what I was getting at as to the Pilots was that I don't know whether the Brewers ever acknowledge their year in Seattle. Their website mostly ignores it, though of course since the Pilots only existed for that one year there isn't much to acknowledge. The Baltimore franchise almost completely ignores its prior existence in St. Louis, whereas some of the other teams that moved don't hesitate to acknowledge their history. The San Francisco Giants even donated money to restore the John T. Brush Stairway on Coogan's Bluff in New York in 2013.
I don't know whether the Brewers acknowledge their one year as the Seattle Pilots, but one of the most controversial sports books ever written is about the Pilots, Jim Bouton's Ball Four.
In regards to the Braves history, I'm surprised more isn't done when the two teams play at Fenway Park (as they did a couple of days ago). The Braves won the World Series at Fenway so the park is apart of their history too (albeit a minor part of it).
I had a roommate once who believed that the cities should retain the history. The result of this would be that the Atlanta Braves would never be allowed to mention their Boston history. His logic was that when the Braves (or Dodgers or Giants or A's or whoever) were making their history, the fans in Atlanta weren't cheering them but the fans in Boston were. He reasoned that because of this, Boston should keep the history of the Braves and Atlanta should get nothing.
It should be noted that he's an Orioles and Ravens fan and in the former case, they ignore their prior history and in the latter case, they gave it away to an expansion franchise.
This just came to mind: North Carolina has the most minor league baseball teams of any state, so I guess they can be granted a MLB team someday, preferably in Charlotte or Durham, the town with the class-A (now class AAA) team the Bulls in the 1980s movie "Bull Durham". Team names keep popping up in my autistic mind: the Bees, Bats, Bulls (of course), Knights, Cougars and Coyotes, so there should be a contest poll to decide what's their name. Most likely they're "Carolina" to represent the 2-state region. The minor league teams in Durham and Charlotte were, at times, Atlanta Braves affiliates, due to the proximity of NC to Atlanta in the Southeast.
About past baseball teams: the populations of Boston, Philadelphia and St. Louis were much larger in the 1950s than they are now, even though their metro areas expanded greatly in size and population, when working-class urban whites moved to the burgeoning suburbs. Anyone heard of this story: before Dec. 7, 1941, the St. Louis Browns agreed to relocate to Los Angeles, so they would been the first MLB team in the west coast, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the threat of invasion when the US entered WW2 cancelled the action. Instead of the L.A. Dodgers of the NL, we would have the L.A. Browns in the AL and no L.A Angels team either.
Quote from: DandyDan on June 18, 2015, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
I guess what I was getting at as to the Pilots was that I don't know whether the Brewers ever acknowledge their year in Seattle. Their website mostly ignores it, though of course since the Pilots only existed for that one year there isn't much to acknowledge. The Baltimore franchise almost completely ignores its prior existence in St. Louis, whereas some of the other teams that moved don't hesitate to acknowledge their history. The San Francisco Giants even donated money to restore the John T. Brush Stairway on Coogan's Bluff in New York in 2013.
I don't know whether the Brewers acknowledge their one year as the Seattle Pilots, but one of the most controversial sports books ever written is about the Pilots, Jim Bouton's Ball Four.
I was so interested in this book but it was such a boring read. Would love to see a new bio just about the team.
Saint Louis is one of those rare towns that baseball does well in but no other sport does well in.
The "gap" joke was because of Cleveland's silly gap. The old Browns actually won a title.
Don't forget the original Major League Baltimore Orioles became the New York Highlanders and then adopted a team name that I cannot mention and moved to Bronx County, N.Y.
When those Orioles left Baltimore, Charm City had to wait until the 1950's, when they were able to snag the St. Louis Browns and bring them to Maryland.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2015, 09:54:46 AM
Don't forget the original Major League Baltimore Orioles became the New York Highlanders and then adopted a team name that I cannot mention and moved to Bronx County, N.Y.
Almost. The Highlanders (later Yankees–go ahead, you can say it) played twenty seasons in Manhattan before heading over to the Bronx.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 23, 2015, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2015, 09:54:46 AM
Don't forget the original Major League Baltimore Orioles became the New York Highlanders and then adopted a team name that I cannot mention and moved to Bronx County, N.Y.
Almost. The Highlanders (later Yankees–go ahead, you can say it) played twenty seasons in Manhattan before heading over to the Bronx.
The shift from Highlanders to Yankees happened during that twenty year residency in Manhattan, coinciding with the beginning of the ten year period where the team shared the Polo Grounds with the Giants.
Quote from: kendancy66 on March 12, 2015, 10:26:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 08:41:52 PM
I guess what I was getting at as to the Pilots was that I don't know whether the Brewers ever acknowledge their year in Seattle. Their website mostly ignores it, though of course since the Pilots only existed for that one year there isn't much to acknowledge. The Baltimore franchise almost completely ignores its prior existence in St. Louis, whereas some of the other teams that moved don't hesitate to acknowledge their history. The San Francisco Giants even donated money to restore the John T. Brush Stairway on Coogan's Bluff in New York in 2013.
I went to Seattle Pilots game at RFK stadium against the expansion Washington Senators. Seattle won
Awesome
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history. The Dodgers' departure from one of NYC's 5 boroughs devastated this community. In 1962, the NL granted a team, the Mets, to fill the void left by the Giants and Dodgers' moves, and the Mets are in Long Island (Queens close to Brooklyn). Understandably, there's a regional rivalry between Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx, the "blue collar" vs wealthy boroughs in NYC history.
It'll never happen. The Dodgers are LA's team now and have been for 57 years. Only the old-timers and probably some bitter Brooklyners still associate the Dodgers with Brooklyn in a modern context.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 24, 2015, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history. The Dodgers' departure from one of NYC's 5 boroughs devastated this community. In 1962, the NL granted a team, the Mets, to fill the void left by the Giants and Dodgers' moves, and the Mets are in Long Island (Queens close to Brooklyn). Understandably, there's a regional rivalry between Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx, the "blue collar" vs wealthy boroughs in NYC history.
It'll never happen. The Dodgers are LA's team now and have been for 57 years. Only the old-timers and probably some bitter Brooklyners still associate the Dodgers with Brooklyn in a modern context.
I dunno. I'm not that old of an old timer and the LA Dodgers still sounds a little odd to me, despite the fact that they moved before I was born.
The Mets would move to Brooklyn before the Dodgers would.
Quote from: Rothman on June 24, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 24, 2015, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history. The Dodgers' departure from one of NYC's 5 boroughs devastated this community. In 1962, the NL granted a team, the Mets, to fill the void left by the Giants and Dodgers' moves, and the Mets are in Long Island (Queens close to Brooklyn). Understandably, there's a regional rivalry between Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx, the "blue collar" vs wealthy boroughs in NYC history.
It'll never happen. The Dodgers are LA's team now and have been for 57 years. Only the old-timers and probably some bitter Brooklyners still associate the Dodgers with Brooklyn in a modern context.
I dunno. I'm not that old of an old timer and the LA Dodgers still sounds a little odd to me, despite the fact that they moved before I was born.
On a related note, why is it that I sometimes see the current New York Giants team being referred to as the New York Football Giants, when the baseball Giants moved to San Francisco 57 years ago?
And yes, I think that the Dodgers should have Brooklyn as their affiliate. But at least they got major-league sports back with the NBA's Nets.
Quote from: Henry on June 25, 2015, 01:04:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 24, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 24, 2015, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Mike D boy on June 18, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
I firmly believe the Dodgers might return to Brooklyn someday, because the move out of Brooklyn was the most controversial in US major league sports history. The Dodgers' departure from one of NYC's 5 boroughs devastated this community. In 1962, the NL granted a team, the Mets, to fill the void left by the Giants and Dodgers' moves, and the Mets are in Long Island (Queens close to Brooklyn). Understandably, there's a regional rivalry between Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx, the "blue collar" vs wealthy boroughs in NYC history.
It'll never happen. The Dodgers are LA's team now and have been for 57 years. Only the old-timers and probably some bitter Brooklyners still associate the Dodgers with Brooklyn in a modern context.
I dunno. I'm not that old of an old timer and the LA Dodgers still sounds a little odd to me, despite the fact that they moved before I was born.
On a related note, why is it that I sometimes see the current New York Giants team being referred to as the New York Football Giants, when the baseball Giants moved to San Francisco 57 years ago?
That's a Chris Berman thing, who is on ESPN. No one knows why he does it.
Quote from: Henry on June 25, 2015, 01:04:17 PM
On a related note, why is it that I sometimes see the current New York Giants team being referred to as the New York Football Giants, when the baseball Giants moved to San Francisco 57 years ago?
It is their legal name...
Quote from: davewiecking on June 25, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 25, 2015, 01:04:17 PM
On a related note, why is it that I sometimes see the current New York Giants team being referred to as the New York Football Giants, when the baseball Giants moved to San Francisco 57 years ago?
It is their legal name...
True. Even twenty years after the baseball Giants' departure, this was not rare in common parlance. Long a formality, the team now embraces the full name and displays it prominently at field level. Half the current Giants ownership dates to 1925–I guess tradition is a big deal.
Kind of makes me wish the New Jersey Nets publicly used "Meadowlands Basketball Company."
Speaking of MLB expansion: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13256319/rob-manfred-sees-expansion-mlb-future (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13256319/rob-manfred-sees-expansion-mlb-future)
I could definitely see an expansion to 32 teams, with teams in Charlotte (an AL promotion of the Knights) and Montreal (the return of the NL Expos), and a split into eight divisions of four teams.
AL East: BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR
AL South: TB, CLT, HOU, TEX
AL North: CWS, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West: OAK, LAA, SEA, KC
NL East: NYM, PHI, PIT, MON
NL South: ATL, MIA, WSH, CIN
NL North: CHC, STL, MIL, COL
NL West: SF, SD, LAD, AZ
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 15, 2015, 11:50:31 AM
Speaking of MLB expansion: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13256319/rob-manfred-sees-expansion-mlb-future (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13256319/rob-manfred-sees-expansion-mlb-future)
I could definitely see an expansion to 32 teams, with teams in Charlotte (an AL promotion of the Knights) and Montreal (the return of the NL Expos), and a split into eight divisions of four teams.
AL East: BOS, NYY, BAL, TOR
AL South: TB, CLT, HOU, TEX
AL North: CWS, MIN, CLE, DET
AL West: OAK, LAA, SEA, KC
NL East: NYM, PHI, PIT, MON
NL South: ATL, MIA, WSH, CIN
NL North: CHC, STL, MIL, COL
NL West: SF, SD, LAD, AZ
I'm all for that too!
I really like that eight division plan.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 19, 2015, 11:12:42 AM
I was so interested in this book but it was such a boring read.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2Fwhat1.gif&hash=82367092a4fec9acfe588157bf80451ed4c37f46)
The interesting thing is baseball went 50 years (1903, the start of the AL, to 1953) without a single team relocating to a different city. Once the Browns moved, it set off a wave of changes over the next 20 years. Then there was another period of stability that's been ongoing for 40+ years, the exception being the Expos-Nationals. (Not counting expansion, obviously).
The only candidates for relocation I see are Tampa Bay and Oakland. Tampa Bay's stadium situation is ridiculous and the A's have explored moving down the coast to San Jose.
The problem is, the Giants have territorial rights to San Jose and have been threatening to block the A's from moving there. An alternative would be to build a new stadium in Oakland and play in San Francisco during construction, which the A's should consider anyway if the NFL's Raiders leave. As for Tampa Bay, they need to resolve it quickly, or they might end up being another Seattle.
Quote from: Road Hog on July 15, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
The interesting thing is baseball went 50 years (1903, the start of the AL, to 1953) without a single team relocating to a different city. Once the Browns moved, it set off a wave of changes over the next 20 years. Then there was another period of stability that's been ongoing for 40+ years, the exception being the Expos-Nationals. (Not counting expansion, obviously).
The only candidates for relocation I see are Tampa Bay and Oakland. Tampa Bay's stadium situation is ridiculous and the A's have explored moving down the coast to San Jose.
I think the reason for all of the relocation in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of the the dominance of East Coast teams during that period , sudden realization that the west coast was a viable media market, resulting in the movement of a bunch of teams from multi-team cities (such as the Philadelphia Athletics, the Boston Braves, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the NY Giants) seeking to escape from the shadow of their more popular neighbors for greener pastures out west.
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 16, 2015, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on July 15, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
The interesting thing is baseball went 50 years (1903, the start of the AL, to 1953) without a single team relocating to a different city. Once the Browns moved, it set off a wave of changes over the next 20 years. Then there was another period of stability that's been ongoing for 40+ years, the exception being the Expos-Nationals. (Not counting expansion, obviously).
The only candidates for relocation I see are Tampa Bay and Oakland. Tampa Bay's stadium situation is ridiculous and the A's have explored moving down the coast to San Jose.
I think the reason for all of the relocation in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of the the dominance of East Coast teams during that period , sudden realization that the west coast was a viable media market, resulting in the movement of a bunch of teams from multi-team cities (such as the Philadelphia Athletics, the Boston Braves, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the NY Giants) seeking to escape from the shadow of their more popular neighbors for greener pastures out west.
My understanding is not that it was a "sudden realization" of viability as much as transportation - it made sense to have teams in a limited geographic area when travel between cities was still done on trains. Air travel made Los Angeles, San Francisco and the markets that followed logistically viable.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2015, 04:26:22 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 16, 2015, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on July 15, 2015, 06:05:24 PM
The interesting thing is baseball went 50 years (1903, the start of the AL, to 1953) without a single team relocating to a different city. Once the Browns moved, it set off a wave of changes over the next 20 years. Then there was another period of stability that's been ongoing for 40+ years, the exception being the Expos-Nationals. (Not counting expansion, obviously).
The only candidates for relocation I see are Tampa Bay and Oakland. Tampa Bay's stadium situation is ridiculous and the A's have explored moving down the coast to San Jose.
I think the reason for all of the relocation in the 50's and 60's was due to a combination of the the dominance of East Coast teams during that period , sudden realization that the west coast was a viable media market, resulting in the movement of a bunch of teams from multi-team cities (such as the Philadelphia Athletics, the Boston Braves, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the NY Giants) seeking to escape from the shadow of their more popular neighbors for greener pastures out west.
My understanding is not that it was a "sudden realization" of viability as much as transportation - it made sense to have teams in a limited geographic area when travel between cities was still done on trains. Air travel made Los Angeles, San Francisco and the markets that followed logistically viable.
There was also talks of a third league called the Continental League but the National and American Leagues added teams in the west and the south to prevent the birth of this league. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_League
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 15, 2015, 11:50:31 AM
Speaking of MLB expansion: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13256319/rob-manfred-sees-expansion-mlb-future (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13256319/rob-manfred-sees-expansion-mlb-future)
Expansion? Only if national interest in the game is also expanding, which it is not.
The MLB has too many media markets with multiple teams. New York, Chicago, LA, SF-SJ-Oak, Bal-Wash; do they really need two teams in all of those metro areas? (apologies to Baltimore and Washington, but c'mon, you're right on top of each other.)
The Expos should've moved to Charlotte to give the Braves a regional rival. Nashville would've been good, too.
I am on board with moving the A's somewhere, but not because the taxpayers won't buy them a new stadium. That's a bullshit reason. You do it because you don't need two teams in that market.
If you're gonna move the Rays, do it because no one goes to baseball games in Florida after March, not because they won't replace that cruddy "old" dome.
At least expansion would make the leagues even again, and thus decrease the dependency on interleague series, which has gone from a midseason event to an everyday occurrence. I hated the Astros' move to the AL, but the Brewers' move to the NL made sense because they could play the Braves during the regular season instead of having to wait until October for that chance.
Quote from: Henry on July 21, 2015, 01:09:38 PM
At least expansion would make the leagues even again, and thus decrease the dependency on interleague series, which has gone from a midseason event to an everyday occurrence. I hated the Astros' move to the AL, but the Brewers' move to the NL made sense because they could play the Braves during the regular season instead of having to wait until October for that chance.
I never understood the hatred people have with interleague play, as every other major sport incorporates it without any issue.
And the first person to say anything along the lines of tradition can then start explaining every other rule that has been changed over the past 100 years or so.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2015, 01:19:23 PM
I never understood the hatred people have with interleague play, as every other major sport incorporates it without any issue.
And the first person to say anything along the lines of tradition can then start explaining every other rule that has been changed over the past 100 years or so.
Yeah... I feel the same way. Maybe it's cause I was never really into baseball until a few years ago, but I never totally understood the disdain some have for it. I guess I view the MLB as one league and the AL & NL as glorified conferences (in relation to other sports) - Yes, one league having the DH and not the other is a
major difference (and probably one of the things that those who don't like interleague would quote), but otherwise it's 30 teams featuring, in theory, the best of the best. With a season of 162 games, there is no valid excuse that there should be teams that never play each other during the course of a couple of seasons. (I think the NFL does an excellent job in regards to inter-conference play).
Just my opinion.
I really enjoy Interleague play, gives me a chance to see players in person that I otherwise wouldn't be able to see.
It's just still irritating that the league refuses to consider Pittsburgh and Cleveland "natural rivals."
Quote from: wphiii on July 22, 2015, 02:48:02 PM
I really enjoy Interleague play, gives me a chance to see players in person that I otherwise wouldn't be able to see.
It's just still irritating that the league refuses to consider Pittsburgh and Cleveland "natural rivals."
Probably because Indians-Pirates does not have the same rivalry aspects as Browns-Steelers. And Cleveland's real natural rival is Cincinnati anyway.
BTW, I like interleague play because it allows for unlimited possibilities to be played out during the regular season.
Quote from: Henry on July 23, 2015, 11:49:02 AM
Probably because Indians-Pirates does not have the same rivalry aspects as Browns-Steelers. And Cleveland's real natural rival is Cincinnati anyway.
Ask anyone from Cleveland what city they consider their biggest "rival" and I guarantee you "Pittsburgh" will be a nearly unanimous answer. A lot of that probably
is Browns-Steelers, but that doesn't make it less of a real thing.