Alternate history topic: What if the Dodgers stayed in Brooklyn?

Estil

Although we are now approaching almost sixty years (has it really been that long ago?) since the Giants/Dodgers moved to California after the 1957 season, I have no doubt that there are still some people in Brooklyn who are saddened by the loss of their team (at least do now have a big league ballclub again, the Brooklyn Nets of the NBA). Now you guys might remember that my BA's at UK are in history and political science...but what I find even more fascinating is alternative or "what if?" history. In this case, how different would things have been had the Dodgers not moved to LA?



Now I know Ebbets Field at least in hindsight is one of the most famous, most beloved defunct ballparks in history...but sadly however, there was no realistic chance in saving it. What O'Malley originally wanted was a nice domed stadium...which just so happened to be spot where Shea Stadium would go later in 1964. Let's suppose that he was granted his request and he did get that stadium and the Dodgers then would've had no reason to move.



But what would become of the Giants? I think in all likelihood that they would've moved anyway. Not necessarily to SF mind you...in fact I think Minneapolis was their first choice.



So that means LA/SF are still without big league ball...but wait, not so fast! It just so happens that the Pacific Coast League from 1952-57 had "Open" cl*****ification (sorta like AAAA level) and were in fact hoping to become a third major league. I think had the Dodgers stayed in Brooklyn, the Giants would've moved to Minneapolis instead and the PCL would indeed end up becoming a third major league. I'm not sure how many teams there were off the top of my head but let's say they had eight just like the NL and AL at the time. Because there are now big league teams (which the PCL is now) in LA, SF, and whatever other six you wanna pick (west of St. Louis of course), we are now up to 24 big league teams (like we had in 1969) so as far as the expansion that happened in 1961, 1962, 1969...it doesn't because there's no need for it.



Now how exactly the World Series would work with three major leagues that's a good question...maybe the pennant winner with the best record gets the bye?



Any other changes (keep it realistic of course) you think would've been different? Both in baseball and perhaps elsewhere?

JoeBanzai

The problem with your theory is that at that time existing clubs didn't get new stadiums. As a Minnesota Twins fan, I have read a bit on the events you are discussing and you are forgetting about the Washington Senators who wanted out as well, eventually moving to Minnesota. Minnesota would have ended up in California if the Giants moved to Minnesota.



Supposedly the Continental League was going to become your third major league and MLB responded by expanding, creating the Angels, replacing the Senators and adding the Mets and Astros the following year. What the MLB did was very smart, adding yet another team in California, replacing one of the teams that left New York and adding a team in Texas.



Even if a third league would have gotten off the ground, I think it would have been "absorbed" into the MLB, similar to what happened to the AFL in football. Ownership doesn't like too much competition! Remember the Federal League?

jay0791

Could the city have supported 3 ML teams.....the Mets?????

JoeBanzai

Originally posted by: jay0791
Could the city have supported 3 ML teams.....the Mets?????

New York could support three competitive teams!