edsg25
July 11th, 2005, 05:47 PM
It's been 47 years since 1958, the most monumental year in the history of franchise transfer in any professional sport. That was the year that the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers first played ball. It also marked the incredible end of New York's famed rivalry between the Brooklyn Dodgers and Manhattan's Giants.
47 years. A helluva long time. The vast majority of fans today were born after the NY Giants and Bkyn Dodgers ceased to exist. For the life time of every current Giant and Dodger player, Califonia has always been the teams' home.
The Dodgers have played in two parks since their arrival in LA; their current one is baseball's 4th oldest. The Giants are already on their 3rd SF park.
Under the circumstances, has New York's two boroughs slunk back into ancient history and has the Big Apple almost lost any association with these clubs? Do San Franciscans and Angelenos still relate to the old NY/Bkyn days....or is that time frame well off the radar screen, no different than their NL bretheren to the south, where the expansion SD Padres have always played in San Diego? For that matter, if any New Yorker happens upon this thread, do the Giants and Dodgers have any connection to your city today...or are they just another team you'd like to see the Mets beat?
And is there a difference between the two franchises and how they relate to their east coast roots? By the mid-1950's, the Giants were almost reaching invisibility in NYC and their eventual move at the end of the 1957 season was hardly greeted with the cataclysmic reaction that Brooklyn had in losing the Bums. The Dodgers, in many ways in the 1950's, had become the glamour team, the one more akin to the Yankees. Does this keep the Bkyn-LA connection going stronger than the NY-SF one?
NOTE: I mention this because the draw of New York is far greater than that of other franchise shifts. Therefore, I wouldn't consider California's other shifted franchise, the A's, to be like the Giants and Dodgers. The Philadelphia Athletics never had the hold over the baseball nation the way the NY Giants and the LA Dodgers did....and the KC A's bordered on irrelevancy.
47 years. A helluva long time. The vast majority of fans today were born after the NY Giants and Bkyn Dodgers ceased to exist. For the life time of every current Giant and Dodger player, Califonia has always been the teams' home.
The Dodgers have played in two parks since their arrival in LA; their current one is baseball's 4th oldest. The Giants are already on their 3rd SF park.
Under the circumstances, has New York's two boroughs slunk back into ancient history and has the Big Apple almost lost any association with these clubs? Do San Franciscans and Angelenos still relate to the old NY/Bkyn days....or is that time frame well off the radar screen, no different than their NL bretheren to the south, where the expansion SD Padres have always played in San Diego? For that matter, if any New Yorker happens upon this thread, do the Giants and Dodgers have any connection to your city today...or are they just another team you'd like to see the Mets beat?
And is there a difference between the two franchises and how they relate to their east coast roots? By the mid-1950's, the Giants were almost reaching invisibility in NYC and their eventual move at the end of the 1957 season was hardly greeted with the cataclysmic reaction that Brooklyn had in losing the Bums. The Dodgers, in many ways in the 1950's, had become the glamour team, the one more akin to the Yankees. Does this keep the Bkyn-LA connection going stronger than the NY-SF one?
NOTE: I mention this because the draw of New York is far greater than that of other franchise shifts. Therefore, I wouldn't consider California's other shifted franchise, the A's, to be like the Giants and Dodgers. The Philadelphia Athletics never had the hold over the baseball nation the way the NY Giants and the LA Dodgers did....and the KC A's bordered on irrelevancy.