|
|
| Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) (464381) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 12:36:14 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Jul 21 23:12:04 2007. I know of no concrete offers or any definitive intent on the part of the Giants to move anywhere in 1957. Economic conditions would have forced some move by the early 60's, but none was planned before the offer from SF, which would not have been possible without the Dodgers also moving. NYC isn't comparable to other 2-team cities. This city supported 3 teams for more than half a century. Those others didn't have a 2-team sized fanbase. Even Los Angeles, a city almost as large as NYC, couldn't support both the Dodgers and the Angels. Also, differing reasons led to these 2-team cities to shed one of their teams. The Browns and Braves moved because they had lost dominance to the "other" team and couldn't turn profits on what little fanbase they had left. The Senators moved to Minneapolis because the Senators NEVER drew well (the Nationals will learn this lesson the hard way). Philadelphia is another story. The Athletics were always the dominant team in Philadelphia. What drove them out was public anger over Connie Mack's behavior and excessive penny pinching, especially when he built the "spite wall" at Shibe Park to prevent people from across the street from watching the games for free (like at Wrigley Field). Even today, the Phillies are the 4th most important team in their home city, with the 76'ers, Eagles and even the Flyers being more popular. |
|
|
|