What happened to the LA Dodgers?

[(vikm)]

See, I don't see this as disparaging to the Dodgers as an organization. Does it hinder them and their ability to win currently? Sure. Does it tarnish the organization for any length of time past a couple of years once it's settled? No chance. Once the owner is dumped (which is just a matter of time as he continues to make poor legal decisions), it'll be short order until they go back to the business of competing. If anything, they will be stronger for all of this as MLB will never risk the same thing happening. Lesson learned.

The franchise is too solid historically for them to be down for too long with a new owner in place. Their decades upon decades of history and firsts are far more than any one selfish owner could destroy. The best thing Selig did was to appoint an MLB guy to oversee so that Frank couldn't do further damage.

Five years from now, this will be a distant memory. These are not the Montreal Expos.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

(vikm) wrote:
See, I don't see this as disparaging to the Dodgers as an organization. Does it hinder them and their ability to win currently? Sure. Does it tarnish the organization for any length of time past a couple of years once it's settled? No chance. Once the owner is dumped (which is just a matter of time as he continues to make poor legal decisions), it'll be short order until they go back to the business of competing. If anything, they will be stronger for all of this as MLB will never risk the same thing happening. Lesson learned.

The franchise is too solid historically for them to be down for too long with a new owner in place. Their decades upon decades of history and firsts are far more than any one selfish owner could destroy. The best thing Selig did was to appoint an MLB guy to oversee so that Frank couldn't do further damage.

Five years from now, this will be a distant memory. These are not the Montreal Expos.

It's been a LONG time since the Dodgers were "the" Dodgers - since 1988, to be precise. We're talking about a franchise that produced FIVE CONSECUTIVE National League Rookies of the Year in the early '90s yet couldn't manage to make it past the first round of the playoffs in any of those years.

Between the organization's long-term failure to bring a championship back to L.A., the circus that is the McCourt divorce and the recent attack at Dodger Stadium that put a baseball fan into a long-term coma, a lot of Angelinos are seriously down on the Dodgers.

[(vikm)]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:

It's been a LONG time since the Dodgers were "the" Dodgers - since 1988, to be precise. We're talking about a franchise that produced FIVE CONSECUTIVE National League Rookies of the Year in the early '90s yet couldn't manage to make it past the first round of the playoffs in any of those years.

Between the organization's long-term failure to bring a championship back to L.A., the circus that is the McCourt divorce and the recent attack at Dodger Stadium that put a baseball fan into a long-term coma, a lot of Angelinos are seriously down on the Dodgers.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they haven't been the Dodgers since '88 but I can appreciate what you're trying to say.

Perhaps a lot are down on the team. Up until the last season or so, record ticket sales continued to show that there are more than enough still supporting the team even if others jumped ship (many bandwagoned to the Lakers when they were winning). It's clearly the McCourt issue along with the economy that has attendance down this year. Unorganized boycotts (which I can proudly say I'm partaking in) are having a great effect.

Just because the Dodgers haven't won a championship since '88 doesn't mean they've lost what made them great as an organization (regardless of the lack of production during years when stud ROY's were produced like Todd Hollandsworth ).

As a fan with Brooklyn ties living in LA and having been fortunate to see great things over the years at the Ravine (from Gross's no-hitter to Finley's granny) I've seen changes over the years. Admittedly, it's not the same as '88 but nothing is. I'd suggest it had more to do with the sale of the team by O'Malley years later than anything else. They are still the Dodgers, though. At least to me and millions of others they are. As I mentioned, their history alone will allow them to continue on being "The Dodgers" barring any further destruction in years to come.

[vision63]

(vikm) wrote:
[quote=vision63]
People in L.A. just like being in the middle of other people's business. The current squad isn't a bad team. If they get a good run, they might be able to do something.

They may not be a bad team but they aren't a good team, either.

BTW, what are you having for dinner? I just wanna know... ;-)
I love Brooklyn! I lived on Ditmas Ave in the early 90's. But we stole that team good and proper. Now my other team (Oakland A's) are being stolen from us. Oakland would love to have the Dodger's problems.

[Buzz]

Oakland <- Kansas City <- Philadelphia

[NewtonMP2100]

....they almost DODGED a bullet.....but.....missed it by....that much.........