DBWI: The Dodgers move to Los Angeles

In 1957 Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley secured an 11th-hour deal with the City of Brooklyn to build a new Ebbets Field, one that still stands today after two major renovations. O'Malley had demanded $6 million in public money; the compromise amounted to a loan and some help building training facilities for the Dodgers and their minor league clubs.

After O'Malley's death, it came out that O'Malley's backup plan was to move the Dodgers, a Brooklyn icon, to Los Angeles. It seems unfathomable to have such a mainstay in the Big Apple out in LA, but it almost happened.

What would baseball, and indeed sports in general, look like if the Dodgers had made the leap to the West Coast?
 
In 1957 Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley secured an 11th-hour deal with the City of Brooklyn to build a new Ebbets Field, one that still stands today after two major renovations. O'Malley had demanded $6 million in public money; the compromise amounted to a loan and some help building training facilities for the Dodgers and their minor league clubs.

After O'Malley's death, it came out that O'Malley's backup plan was to move the Dodgers, a Brooklyn icon, to Los Angeles. It seems unfathomable to have such a mainstay in the Big Apple out in LA, but it almost happened.

What would baseball, and indeed sports in general, look like if the Dodgers had made the leap to the West Coast?
We wouldn't have the expansion Los Angeles Stars
 
They would of needed a second Team. would in this time line mean the Giants dont move to Atlanta ? But instead too Oakland or San Fransisco ?
 
They would of needed a second Team. would in this time line mean the Giants dont move to Atlanta ? But instead too Oakland or San Fransisco ?

The Giants were an obvious solution; they were on their way out of New York no matter what. At least the rivalry ended up being preserved when the divisions were made and the Dodgers had to fight the Giants to get to the NLCS in the 70s.

Oddly enough, against the San Francisco Seals.
 
OOC:

1) Was the "new Ebbets Field" a possibility? I thought the negotiations eventually revolved around a new stadium in Flushing Meadows in Queens. In other words, if the Dodgers had stayed in New York, they would have become the Mets. They were leaving Brooklyn anyway, there are problems with siting something as big as a modern stadium because the part of the borough with good transportation connections doesn't have much unused land.

2) I thought the issue was the use of money designated for public housing to subsidize the team, something Moses took a principled (at least IMHO) position on. How is this resolved?

3) Weren't the Giants going to move to Minneapolis anyway? The "convince the Giants to go to California too to maintain the rivalry" robs Minnesota, not New York.

4) An alternative history where Major League Baseball avoids moving established teams to new markets, and then replacing them with expansion teams later, in favor of just putting expansion teams in new markets, would be interesting. I don't know how you get around the short terminism. Counting the Mets as the replacement for the Giants, the Dodgers were one of only five relocated teams (the others are the Browns, which moved first, the Braves, the Athletics, and the Expos) not replaced in the end by expansion franchises, and St. Louis and Boston were not going to be two team cities long term. In the other five instances an expansion team or relocated team replaced the team that had moved, suggesting that the market was there for the original team after all.
 
IC:

Just moving already existing franchises to the West Coast would certainly have butterflied away the Continental League, at the cost of alienating some of their existing fans, the National League and later the American League headed off having to deal with a competitor.
 
Was the "new Ebbets Field" a possibility?
There was the Dome they always wanted.

How this would affect Baseball in the west Coast? Would have not controversy when the Atheltic moved to Washington DC? what would be of the LA Stars, is time like an american league team like the Hollywood Moguls? would gene audry still get an expansion if he didn't got the stars?
 
OOC:

1) Was the "new Ebbets Field" a possibility? I thought the negotiations eventually revolved around a new stadium in Flushing Meadows in Queens. In other words, if the Dodgers had stayed in New York, they would have become the Mets. They were leaving Brooklyn anyway, there are problems with siting something as big as a modern stadium because the part of the borough with good transportation connections doesn't have much unused land.

2) I thought the issue was the use of money designated for public housing to subsidize the team, something Moses took a principled (at least IMHO) position on. How is this resolved?

3) Weren't the Giants going to move to Minneapolis anyway? The "convince the Giants to go to California too to maintain the rivalry" robs Minnesota, not New York.

4) An alternative history where Major League Baseball avoids moving established teams to new markets, and then replacing them with expansion teams later, in favor of just putting expansion teams in new markets, would be interesting. I don't know how you get around the short terminism. Counting the Mets as the replacement for the Giants, the Dodgers were one of only five relocated teams (the others are the Browns, which moved first, the Braves, the Athletics, and the Expos) not replaced in the end by expansion franchises, and St. Louis and Boston were not going to be two team cities long term. In the other five instances an expansion team or relocated team replaced the team that had moved, suggesting that the market was there for the original team after all.

1. There were ongoing negotiations for a new ballpark, so one possibility is that they leave Brooklyn but keep the name as something of an anachronism name (considering that "Dodgers" is a bit of an anachronism anyway, it's not too outrageous.) Same with Ebbets Field - it's essentially Shea Stadium, possibly as a dome, but it retains the name since it's home to the Dodgers.

2. That's why I made it a loan - the money comes back to the city, and things can be worked out to make it benefit the public.

3. I heard they were going to do that, though Atlanta makes a bit more sense to preserve the Dodgers-Giants rivalry. Besides, the Senators moved to Minnesota anyway, so they didn't end up being robbed.

4. Five cities originally had more than one team - Boston, NYC, Philly, Chicago and St. Louis. Only NYC and Chicago kept two teams IOTL, and the other three wouldn't be able to be two-team cities permanently. Only Washington lost their team - twice - of the originals, so clearly someone was doing something wrong there.

I imagine the Senators could have remained. NYC could have kept the Dodgers. Is there any hope for the Giants to stay?
 
The Giants' first choice was to stay in New York: a deal with the Yankees to play as tenants in Yankee Stadium through the 1959 season while the Polo Grounds were rehabbed was all but signed until O'Malley somehow arm-twisted/convinced Stoneham to move to Frisco to more or less keep the rivalry intact.
 
OOC:

I think the move of the second team out of St. Louis (certainly), Boston (probably), and Philadelphia (maybe) would have had to happen eventually.

The others would have been handled better, for everyone except the owners profiting from the subsidies, by expansion teams in the new city. The Pacific Coast League teams could also have been promoted to major league status.

The New York Giants, Washington Senators, Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Seattle Pilots all wound up being replaced by expansion or relocated teams, and the New York area can support three teams and with better luck the Expos would have been fine in Montreal. Of course the NFL is as bad and the NFL and NHL even worse.
 
The New York Giants, Washington Senators, Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Seattle Pilots all wound up being replaced by expansion or relocated teams, and the New York area can support three teams and with better luck the Expos would have been fine in Montreal. Of course the NFL is as bad and the NFL and NHL even worse.

NYC got the Mets within five years. KC was quick as well. Milwaukee and Seattle were closer to a decade. So in most of those cases, it was the clear existence of a seemingly golden opportunity elsewhere or a disagreement with the home city that caused the move, not the city no longer being viable. Charlie Finley hated KC, but that didn't make it unworkable as a baseball town; if it had, we'd be talking about the, I don't know, Salt Lake City Royals. Same with NYC - California glittered in Walter O'Malley's eyes, and he took the Giants, who had ballpark issues of their own, with them. No reason the Mets couldn't work, even as awful as they typically are when they're not pennant contenders.

Washington blew it twice. Probably a result of bad teams and worse ownership, but some cities blow it twice and don't get a third chance. San Diego hasn't gotten an NBA franchise back after losing the Rockets and Clippers. I don't see the NHL going back to Atlanta after losing two teams to Canada. The fact that this took 30+ years makes a little more sense under that lens.
 
Top