Which past professional sports team would you bring back?

[cmm]

I'm thrilled the Dodgers and Giants left since I'm a Mets fan. But I'd love to visit the parallel universe where the Dodgers stayed (the Giants might have been on the way out anyway, though to Minnesota and not SF). Would the PCL have become a third Major League? And if it did, how would the World Series have looked? A three-team round robin?

[sportstar1212]

I would bring back the Montreal Expos, Quebec Nordiques, and Seattle SuperSonics.

[connriv]

Dayton Triangles.

[The_Admiral]

I'm thrilled the Dodgers and Giants left since I'm a Mets fan. But I'd love to visit the parallel universe where the Dodgers stayed (the Giants might have been on the way out anyway, though to Minnesota and not SF). Would the PCL have become a third Major League? And if it did, how would the World Series have looked? A three-team round robin?

Probably a few years of something confusing before deciding to just have the AL and NL assimilate the PCL for the sake of baseball not having its western teams cut off from the midwest and northeast.

[infrared41]

The Seattle Pilots. Idiotic ownership and an awful stadium ruined Seattle's first attempt at baseball. And the Pilots had killer uniforms.

The entire ABA. We need teams with names like the Colonels, Squires, and Chaparrals.

[The_Admiral]

Yellow on grey is interesting. I think I like it. I always thought their base was powder blue. And the scrambled-eggs bill was inspired. Again, though, I'm glad the Pilots' failure directly led to the blue-and-gold Milwaukee Brewers and eventually a superior identity in the Mariners.

"Kentucky Colonels" lends itself to too many dumb fried chicken jokes, but Squires and Chaparrals/Chaps are excellent. "Dallas Chaparrals" would've made a good name for what we know now as the Texas Rangers.

[infrared41]

Yellow on grey is interesting. I think I like it. I always thought their base was powder blue.

It was. I think I posted a bad picture. Let's try it again...

[Lycan38]

Some more teams I'd like to see back.

Toronto Toros

San Diego Mariners

Quebec Citadelles

[raysfan24]

Some more teams I'd like to see back.

Toronto Toros

San Diego Mariners

Quebec Citadelles

What sports did these teams participate in?

[HedleyLamarr]

Atlanta Thrashers

[Camden Crazy]

1. Seattle SuperSonics

2. Montreal Expos

3. Quebec Nordiques

[Lycan38]

Some more teams I'd like to see back.

Toronto Toros

San Diego Mariners

Quebec Citadelles

What sports did these teams participate in?

Hockey, San Diego and Toronto were in the WHA and Quebec was in the AHL.

[Gothamite]

Which past professional sports team would you bring back?

A couple weeks ago, I would have put this one at the top of my list:

[DustDevil61]

Me?

1. Seattle Supersonics
   
2. Houston Oilers*
   
3. Hartford Whalers/Quebec Nordiques (Toss-Up)
   
4. Montreal Expos
   

*I'd even be fine with Tennessee keeping the Oilers name as well.

[yh]

I would be for the Dodgers staying in Brooklyn and just giving LA an NL expansion team. But that's providing it was 1957, not 2012.

Los Angeles wasn't the principal driver behind the Dodgers' move -- Brooklyn was. Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley wanted out of the decaying Ebbetts Field, but NYC Parks Commissioner Robert Moses (he of "The Power Broker" fame) would not meet his demands for a new, Buckminster Fuller designed, glass-domed stadium adjacent to Brooklyn's LIRR yards. Moses offered up land in Flushing Meadows, Queens and O'Malley opted for California. So, one way or the other, the Dodgers were not going to stay in Brooklyn. The best case scenario would have been that the Dodgers stayed in NYC, albeit in Queens where Shea Stadium might have gone up 4-5 years earlier than it did to house the new NL franchise.

[Gothamite]

I would be for the Dodgers staying in Brooklyn and just giving LA an NL expansion team. But that's providing it was 1957, not 2012.

Los Angeles wasn't the principal driver behind the Dodgers' move -- Brooklyn was. Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley wanted out of the decaying Ebbetts Field, but NYC Parks Commissioner Robert Moses (he of "The Power Broker" fame) would not meet his demands for a new, Buckminster Fuller designed, glass-domed stadium adjacent to Brooklyn's LIRR yards. Moses offered up land in Flushing Meadows, Queens and O'Malley opted for California. So, one way or the other, the Dodgers were not going to stay in Brooklyn. The best case scenario would have been that the Dodgers stayed in NYC, albeit in Queens where Shea Stadium might have gone up 4-5 years earlier than it did to house the new NL franchise.

Well... more or less. O'Malley was the first to suggest Flushing Meadow, but why quibble?

The bottom line is that New York wasn't willing to kick people out of their homes and businesses to give O'Malley land, where Los Angeles was.

[pmoehrin]

I would be for the Dodgers staying in Brooklyn and just giving LA an NL expansion team. But that's providing it was 1957, not 2012.

Los Angeles wasn't the principal driver behind the Dodgers' move -- Brooklyn was. Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley wanted out of the decaying Ebbetts Field, but NYC Parks Commissioner Robert Moses (he of "The Power Broker" fame) would not meet his demands for a new, Buckminster Fuller designed, glass-domed stadium adjacent to Brooklyn's LIRR yards. Moses offered up land in Flushing Meadows, Queens and O'Malley opted for California. So, one way or the other, the Dodgers were not going to stay in Brooklyn. The best case scenario would have been that the Dodgers stayed in NYC, albeit in Queens where Shea Stadium might have gone up 4-5 years earlier than it did to house the new NL franchise.

Well... more or less. O'Malley was the first to suggest Flushing Meadow, but why quibble?

The bottom line is that New York wasn't willing to kick people out of their homes and businesses to give O'Malley land, where Los Angeles was.

There's been alot written about why the Dodgers left but I think it came down to ego more then money.

The deal Moses presented to O'Malley should have been enough to keep the Dodgers in New York strictly from a dollars and cents point of view. But O'Malley wanted to stay in Brooklyn and Moses was not going to let that happen and I think it really came down to O'Malley saying I'm not going to let this guy get his way and Moses feeling the exact same way. I don't think O'Malley was ever serious about moving the Dodgers to LA until right at the very end. It was more of a bargaining chip and a fall back plan. I don't even think LA thought they had much of a chance to get the Dodgers. O'Malley was the one that came to LA officials, not the other way around. They're efforts were more focused on the Senators. If you asked most LA city officials in '55 or '56 and maybe even into '57 that would probably be the answer to the team they thought was going to move there.

[MadmanLA]

I would be for the Dodgers staying in Brooklyn and just giving LA an NL expansion team. But that's providing it was 1957, not 2012.

Los Angeles wasn't the principal driver behind the Dodgers' move -- Brooklyn was. Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley wanted out of the decaying Ebbetts Field, but NYC Parks Commissioner Robert Moses (he of "The Power Broker" fame) would not meet his demands for a new, Buckminster Fuller designed, glass-domed stadium adjacent to Brooklyn's LIRR yards. Moses offered up land in Flushing Meadows, Queens and O'Malley opted for California. So, one way or the other, the Dodgers were not going to stay in Brooklyn. The best case scenario would have been that the Dodgers stayed in NYC, albeit in Queens where Shea Stadium might have gone up 4-5 years earlier than it did to house the new NL franchise.

Well... more or less. O'Malley was the first to suggest Flushing Meadow, but why quibble?

The bottom line is that New York wasn't willing to kick people out of their homes and businesses to give O'Malley land, where Los Angeles was.

There's been alot written about why the Dodgers left but I think it came down to ego more then money.

The deal Moses presented to O'Malley should have been enough to keep the Dodgers in New York strictly from a dollars and cents point of view. But O'Malley wanted to stay in Brooklyn and Moses was not going to let that happen and I think it really came down to O'Malley saying I'm not going to let this guy get his way and Moses feeling the exact same way. I don't think O'Malley was ever serious about moving the Dodgers to LA until right at the very end. It was more of a bargaining chip and a fall back plan. I don't even think LA thought they had much of a chance to get the Dodgers. O'Malley was the one that came to LA officials, not the other way around. They're efforts were more focused on the Senators. If you asked most LA city officials in '55 or '56 and maybe even into '57 that would probably be the answer to the team they thought was going to move there.

I'll agree with you about it being more ego than money; I reference back to the HBO special on the Dodgers from a few years ago, and it was noted that the Dodgers were only one of two profitable teams in the National League just prior to the relocation (I believe the Braves were the other). Robert Moses wielded a lot of power in New York City, on par with or even surpassing that of the Mayor himself, and anyone who has followed Dodger history at least over the last 60 years knows that Walter O'Malley had an big ego as well. As far as O'Malley was concerned, it was either Brooklyn or else; Queens, even though it's just to the north and east of Brooklyn, it might as well been another world.

However, the biggest issue came down to stadium ownership...O'Malley wanted to build his own stadium, on his own dime (funny ain't it that an owner wants to actually build his own facility using his own money, huh?), while the proposed stadium in Queens (which, of course, became Shea Stadium) would be owned by the city. It would have been possible that the city could have negoitated operational control with the Dodgers of the stadium, where the Dodgers could have recieved some non-baseball revenue from other events, but I think O'Malley wanted completed control with no other interference.

[north dakota]

1. Buffalo Braves

2. Montreal Expos

3. Quebec Nordiques

4. Seattle SuperSonics

5. Charlotte Hornets

[OnWis97]

With the Wild here, they can't be "brought back", but my one sports wish would be for the North Stars to have never left (then I'd get greedy and wish they'd never have dropped the N-Star for the "ST*RS" logo). I will never feel about the Wild as I did about the North Stars (though that is in large part because the moved as I was graduating high school to spend the next 12 years or so in areas not interested in NHL...it was a recipe for my interest declining).