|
|
| Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs (1369225) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1369395) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 01:13:31 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Merrick1 on Fri Oct 9 20:56:48 2015. Wrigley got some upgrades, and sadly, lights. |
|
|
| (1369398) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Oct 10 07:32:29 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 01:13:31 2015. Wrigley Field was supposed to have lights as early as 1942. The Cubs went out and bought lights, fixtures and towers in late 1941, then donated all of that to the war effort the day after the attack at Pearl Harbor. |
|
|
| (1369400) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sat Oct 10 07:52:27 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Oct 9 21:11:48 2015. fenway park and wrigley field got updated with new scoreboards, stands and lights and pa systems.chud1. :)..... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1369401) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Oct 10 08:19:00 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Oct 9 16:56:33 2015. This is bullshit. What O'Malley wanted was the city to buy the land for the stadium with eminent domain, and sell it to O'Malley for cheap. O'Malley was a real estate developer first and a baseball team owner second. O'Malley was unwilling to lease a city-owned stadium. Robert Moses was unwilling to provide O'Malley with the corporate welfare that he wanted. The City of Los Angeles was. |
|
|
| (1369413) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Oct 10 11:20:52 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Oct 9 21:11:48 2015. Then you have Shibe Park, Sportsman's Park, Crosley Field, Forbes Field and Griffith Stadium, all from that same era. They were replaced in the 1960's only to have their replacements replaced while Fenway and Wrigley survived. |
|
|
| (1369414) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Oct 10 11:37:27 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by merrick1 on Sat Oct 10 11:20:52 2015. Shibe Park aka Connie Mack Stadium remained in use until the end of the 1970 season, when The Vet opened. Crosley Field and Forbes Field closed midway through the 1970 season. Had the Reds played the entire 1970 season at Crosley Field, they probably would have won 110 games. They were something like 62-26 at one point. They played .500 ball after moving to Riverfront Stadium, but they had such a big lead they were able to coast to the division title and would up with 102 wins. |
|
|
| (1369420) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 12:48:33 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Oct 10 07:32:29 2015. To me the lights issue has to do with the decline of shift work which cut afternoon game attendance and the takeover of game scheduling by TV. Longtime friends who live on Addison had "No Lights" posters at their home when the issue was in contention. |
|
|
| (1369422) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Oct 10 13:18:38 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 12:48:33 2015. IIRC the original intent to install lights in 1988 was to be able to finish games that would otherwise have to be suspended because of darkness. Most games would still be day games. |
|
|
| (1369436) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sat Oct 10 15:45:42 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by merrick1 on Sat Oct 10 11:20:52 2015. IAWTP!chud1.:)..... |
|
|
| (1369438) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 16:10:21 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Fri Oct 9 13:12:14 2015. As noted, a lot of that was written in 2011 right after Snider passed away.If someone O'Malley had been convinced to wait out Moses until the late 1960s and the political climate allowed the domed stadium to be built OR there was say a three-way swap of ownership where O'Malley got the Senators and moved them to LA, the Griffiths got the Giants and moved them to the Twin Cities and Stroneham got the Dodgers on the condition they remained in Brooklyn, then a lot of what I think happened after that would have. Remember, everything would have been completely different had the Senators, who apparently were the original targets to move to LA had been the ones that moved. The one thing that might have been different from what I originally wrote knowing what I do now about the situation with the Pilots (that became the Brewers right before the 1970 season began) might have been the A's remained in KC under the ownership that came in with the Royals and Finley got an expansion team in Oakland that would have likely been in the NL since the San Francisco team that would likely have come in with the second Senators would have been in the AL and commenced play in 1968 with perhaps Bud Selig having the Brewers come in as the other expansion team in 1968 to replace the Braves that had moved in '65. |
|
|
| (1369439) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 16:32:39 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 16:10:21 2015. Taking off from the earlier 3 evil people 2 bullets, First shoot Griffith, with O'Malley standing behind him so you get a 2-fer, then Moses. |
|
|
| (1369440) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sat Oct 10 17:31:10 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Oct 9 09:15:36 2015. While because of money, O'Malley was able to get history re-written, Moses was allowed to hang out to dry by the Manhattan centric city administration which quite frankly for a variety of reasons were not willing to put up the money to buy out the businesses blocking O'Malley from building his ballpark on top of the LIRR terminal. But then again the little fact that the laws of NY State on eminent domain probably would have meant years of litigation while O'Malley had the totally unethical offer from Los Angeles to screw the inhabitants of Chavez Ravine and hand O'Malley the rights to any oil found there (none has been found). If you don't believe that, look at how long it took to clear the way for the construction of Barclay Center (more than 5 years) despite the fact that Bruce Ratner included a housing component in the original plans, which he probably never intended to build to get around these very same eminent domain laws and also we had a mayor who despite his manhattan centric outlook on things, was a sports fan.There are other villains in this piece. For example, the St. Louis Browns had asked the American League to schedule a meeting to allow them to move to Los Angeles and the meeting was scheduled. There are no indications their request would have been granted but the meeting was never held. Why not? It was scheduled for 08 December 1941. So add Admiral Yamamoto to the list of villains (Ford Frick, Warren Giles, Walter O'Malley) who are responsible for the fact that Brooklyn is one of only two cities major league baseball abandoned and never restored major league baseball. The other is Montreal where the situation will be rectified in the near future. |
|
|
| (1369442) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sat Oct 10 17:58:15 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Oct 10 08:19:00 2015. It wasn't just Moses. Almost the entire adminisgtration of the city of New York was Manhattan centric and were opposed to having the ball park at Atlantic Flatbush. Moses, who was not an elected official, was willing to take the fall but...the reality was it was all irrelevant. Despite the fact Bruce Ratner included a housing component to the bjilding of Barclay Center which he never intended to build and despite the fact that despite his Manhattan centric view of the world, Bloomberg was a sports fan and helped bring Barclay Center to reality, it still took five years of litigation before construction began on Barclay Center due to the very same eminent domain laws. Would O'Malley have waited 5 years with the totally unethical offer he got from the politicians in LA? Besides, although Moses indeed was a putrid excuse for a human being, let's look at it from a practical view point. The Dodgers fan base was moving to LI and being replaced by a population that was far poorer. Would a 60,000 seat ball park at Atlantic/Flatbush have made sense? How sould the Dodgers fan base drive there with the nearest highway, the over used always crowded BQE more than a mile away and having to drive down Atlaantic Avenue to get to the ballpark.While I was a 10 year old boy at the time (and yes the trolleys had already stopped running in October 1956)and the last thing I wanted was to have to ride the subway to Atlantic Avenue, the thought of the team moving to Queens was sickening. However, the reality is that Brooklyn and Queens and Nassau County and Suffolk County are all part of one contiguous land mass (except in the extreme west where Newtown Creek separates Kings County from Queens County and these county lines simply reflect the way some Dutch and English towns were laid out in the 17th century. In the same way listening to the whinig of some of the Islander fans how terrible it is to come to Broolyn for Islander games (of course the only other alternative for the Islanders would have been Quebec Ity or Kansas City or Seattle), there would have been a period of adjustment but in my alternate history of the Brooklyn Dodgers, opening up the 1964 season at Flushing Meadows with the World's Fair next door would have been great and by now, it would have been no big deal. As much as I despise Robert Moses as a bad excuse for a human being, on this he was probably correct. A 1000 page book was written on the life and times of Robert Moses in the early 1970's; a very damning book including his decision to make sure the overpasses on the Northern and Southern State Parkways were deliberately constructed low to prevent buses from bringing poor people from the city slums to Moses' parks in Nassau county. But in any event there is only one small mention of Moses and the Dodgers in that book. There are lots of villains in the theft of the Brooklyn franchise from this area. But the biggest one will always be the greed of O'Malley and what I resent as somebody who was alive and able to remember that time and what the Dodgers meant to us in Brooklyn is when people claim the Dodgers were losing money in Brooklyn and attendance was poor, those are outright lies. The Dodgers were the biggest moneymakers in baseball at the time thanks to their telvision contract where every home game was on free television, black and white to be true, but on television as well as 2/3 of the road games while the Yankees and Giants had to share channel 11 so we only saw Giants and Yankees home games so Dodger television rights were bu far the biggest in baseball. Their attendance was leading the National League until the Braves moved to Milwaukee when they dropped to second and we now know the Milwaukee thing was an illusion. No, the Dodgers could have lasted a few more years at Ebbets Field but greed got the best of him and nobody in mlb stood up for the fans of Brooklyn; people like Ford Frick and Warren Giles who wantedd to go down in history as people who brought major league baseball to the Left Coast and damn the Brooklyn fans. All of them, but especially O'Malley are rotting in hell where they belong. |
|
|
| (1369446) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Oct 10 19:08:03 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Oct 10 17:58:15 2015. Here Here...Excellent post! |
|
|
| (1369450) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 20:17:49 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Oct 10 19:08:03 2015. Where where? |
|
|
| (1369452) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Oct 10 20:22:08 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 20:17:49 2015. There, there...!! |
|
|
| (1369453) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 20:42:15 2015, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac - October 8, 1974 - The Book of First Runs, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Oct 9 20:47:17 2015. As did Tom Landry in Dallas. |
|
|
| (1369470) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sun Oct 11 07:39:10 2015, in response to What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Oct 9 05:41:13 2015. Screenplay??? |
|
|
| (1369473) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Sun Oct 11 09:45:11 2015, in response to What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Oct 9 05:41:13 2015. If the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn, the Giants might not have moved to SF, since Walter O'Malley convinced Horace Stoneham, the Giants owner, to move to California with the Dodgers to show the public that California Major League Baseball's time had come. Would we still have three MLB franchises in NYC today under that scenario? Who knows.One thing is for sure. If the Dodgers hadn't moved, there would be no Mets franchise and I, a Bronx native, would have most likely ended up a Yankees fan. I moved from the Bronx to Queens in January of 1970, when NYC was in love with the Miracle Mets and the Yankees were in the dark CBS days. My uncle, who lived in Jackson Heights, took me to my first Mets game in 1972, when I was 7. After learning how close Shea was to my house and seeing guys like Seaver, Staub and Mays, I was hooked to the orange and Blue forever. If the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn, I wouldn't have felt the same allegiance to them, and would have followed my older cousins into the Yankees abyss. |
|
|
| (1369474) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Oct 11 10:27:30 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Oct 11 09:45:11 2015. The Giants had totally lost their fan base. Period. They were gone. They were all signed sealed and delivered to Minneapolis where they had their triple A farm club and such future Giants as Orlando Cepeda, Felipe Alou, Juan Marichal were playing there.There is a far better chance, if O'Malley wasn't such a pos the Dodgers would have ended up in Flushing. O'Malley was a lawyer who went to work for the Brooklyn Trust Company specializing in foreclosures (to show what a slime ball he was; he had no problem with hurting little people). In 1944, the Dodgers because of the war and all sorts of squabbling between Charlie Ebbets' heirs were in danger of bankruptcy and much of that paper was held by the Brooklyn Trust Company. To protect their interests, the bank wanted a member of their foreclosure department within an arm's length of the team's Board of Directors. At that point in time, the bank had two young lawyers working in their foreclosure department. The chairman of the bank, unfortunately for the Brooklyn fans, chose O'Malley. The other lawyer was a fellow named Bill Shea for whom Shea Stadium was eventually named. How different baseball history would have been. |
|
|
| (1369482) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Oct 11 16:44:04 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Oct 9 23:17:36 2015. Steve, your knowledge of this topic is very impressive and I now anoint you an honorary Brooklyn Dodgers fan-----I said Brooklyn, not Los Angeles, the pack of filthy cheaters. BTW, that visit you described can be found in the book Drysdale co-authored....ONCE A BUM ALWAYS A DODGER. |
|
|
| (1369485) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Oct 11 16:53:56 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Mitch45 on Sun Oct 11 09:45:11 2015. Well all I can say is that what transpired saves you from being part of a catastrophe. |
|
|
| (1369486) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Oct 11 17:01:31 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Sun Oct 11 10:27:30 2015. Wow!!!! We have people on this board who really know their baseball stuff. Good work M531!!!!! You're right on target. And your take on the Giants was spot on. In the latter part of the 1956 season, the next to last one for the Giants in Manhattan, a survey was taken of the support the Giants had in their home borough and it was a real eye opener. Did you know that Southern Manhattan, especially along the lower East side, was mainly Dodger country? And that Harlem where the Giants played was also heavily made up of Brooklyn fans? The legacy of the Dodgers breaking the color line stayed strong there and even Willie Mays couldn't reverse the numbers. Outside of Harlem in the white sections it was mostly Yankee fans. The only place there might still have been a Giants majority was some neighborhoods on the upper West Side. Right you are.....the Giants were toast because they had pretty much lost their fan base. Brooklyn was overwhelmingly Dodger country, the Bronx heavily Yankee except for the black precincts, and Manhattan was wide open, Queens was split between the Yankees and Dodgers and Staten Island mainly Dodger country. |
|
|
| (1369512) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Alan Follett on Mon Oct 12 11:46:24 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Oct 11 17:01:31 2015. Let's go with the premise that if the Giants hadn't packed up for San Francisco their planned move to the Minneapolis would have gone through. What's the follow-on? No need for the Twins, obviously; so, would the old Senators franchise have remained in Washington, rendering the second, expansion Senators franchise (that later moved to Texas) unnecessary? And, without them, would there now be a Texas Rangers franchise?Alan Follett Hercules, CA (Off-topic? Moi?) |
|
|
| (1369513) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 12:23:07 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Alan Follett on Mon Oct 12 11:46:24 2015. The Senators then move to Los Angeles? |
|
|
| (1369514) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 12 12:25:44 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Alan Follett on Mon Oct 12 11:46:24 2015. I posted my theories about this elsewhere in the thread. However in retrospect they would have moved to San Francisco because the Senators had actually entertained the idea before deciding on the Twin Cities. |
|
|
| (1369521) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Oct 12 14:45:04 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Sun Oct 11 17:01:31 2015. In their final season, the Giants were averaging only 1,200 fans per game. Not exactly an incentive to revamp the Polo Grounds. Like Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, the neighborhoods around both ballparks were in decline, which not only discouraged local fans, but also those who lived outside the area. given the decline in fan base and the area around the Polo Grounds, O'Malley found a more-than willing travel partner for the one-way trip to California! |
|
|
| (1369522) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 12 15:03:42 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Sun Oct 11 10:27:30 2015. Flushing actually made the most sense as a home for the Dodgers. I wonder if O’Malley didn’t really give a shit and just proposed the Dodger Dome in Downtown Brooklyn as a negotiating chip that would provide an excuse to move to New Jersey or California.Had the Dodgers moved to Flushing, they probably would have moved back to Brooklyn with the popularity of retro ballparks in downtown areas, i.e. CitiField would be at Atlantic Yards instead of Barclays Center. As for the inaccuracy of the name “Brooklyn Dodgers” while playing outside of Brooklyn, no one would care, just like the Giants, Jets and other teams that play outside their parent cities. Or they could have become the New York Dodgers. They would have reverted their names at some point anyway, especially now that Brooklyn is so trendy. |
|
|
| (1369526) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Mon Oct 12 15:20:58 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 9 13:16:32 2015. Yep, and all 4 years that the Dodgers played in the L. A. Memorial Coliseum (1958-1961), fans could arrive via the V trolley on Vermont Ave (former Los Angeles Railway line). Once they were at Dodger Stadium in 1962, no trolley lines within walking distance. |
|
|
| (1369529) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Oct 12 16:09:06 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Mon Oct 12 15:20:58 2015. iawtp |
|
|
| (1369536) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Oct 12 17:12:59 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 12 15:03:42 2015. No! O'Malley's dream for a downtown Brooklyn stadium probably came sometime after WWII. Realizing that the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel would bring fans in cars to downtown Brooklyn, he supported the tunnel project and even went to the dedication in 1950. This, despite the presence of his family's political arch-enemy, Robert Moses. He even congragulated Moses for the project. However, the "Love" was not returned by Moses. Moses opposed every downtown proposal that O'Malley offered. Counteroffers for Flushing or East NY were declined by O'Malley.The spineless mayor, Robert Wagner, must share some of the blame. He knew about O'Malley's plane trips to the west coast, which were covered by the press. But, Wagner blindly stuck with Moses and kept him on until he left Gracie Mansion. Ironically, Moses lasted for 2 more years, before William Ronan forced him out of the newly formed MTA. |
|
|
| (1369553) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Oct 12 20:16:53 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 12:23:07 2015. In the middle of the 1956 season it was heavily rumored that Clark or Calvin Griffith were seriously considering moving the Senators to Los Angeles. The Dodgers had not yet shown any interest in mvving there at that time. It was at the 1956 World Series that Kenneth Hahn, LA County Supervisor was told my Walter O'Malley to hold off on the Senators, that we was considering moving the team to LA since all hope of securing the necessary land to build O'Malley's new Brooklyn stadium had pretty much gone by the boards. When the "Big "" returned with his team from Japan after a successful junket there he saw nothing that remotely was being done to get him the land he needed. It was then that I think O'Malley made up his mind to move to the West Coast. |
|
|
| (1369578) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:10:40 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Mon Oct 12 20:16:53 2015. That is correcgt. The creeps in LA flew O'Malley over Chavez Ravine as the Dodgers were returning from Japan. (too bad for Brooklyn the helicopter did not crash). Too bad about the inhabitants (squatters)living at Chavez Ravine; besides there were very loose if any eminent domain laws in California. O'Malley at that point, the miserable piece of slime that he was, that he would be coming but that since he had to play out 1957 in Brooklyn, they should not take seriously anything he said about continuing to seek a place in Brooklyn. At the baseball writers diner in New York in February 1957, he negotiated with Phil Wrigley, the owner of the Cubs, to swap AAA franchises in Fort Worth (Dodgers) with Los Angeles (Cubs). That should have been the tip off as was the announcement the Dodgers had bought their own airplane. He was also told by other NL owners there had to be another left coast team and thus he began urging Horace Stoneham of the virtues of transferring their rivalry to the left coast.In April 1957, there was a big article in the NT Times of Moses showing O'Malley the site at Flushing Meadows where the city would build for him a large municipally owned ballpark. Knowing he was leaving anyway, O'Malley proclaimed it was unsatisfactory since he could not play in Queens and call the team the Brooklyn Dodgers. (Two notes here, he first originally considered calling the team the Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles after moving. Secondly nobody asked him how he could call the team the Brooklyn Dodgers if they played in Los Angeles). The imminent departure of the teams became all but official in May 1957. That was a Friday night and I had just come back from my cub scout pack meeting where I was inducted into the Webelos (those within a half year of becoming boy scouts at age 11). It was announcd when I turned on the ball game on channel 11 as Brooklyn was playing at the Polo Grounds by Russ Hodges that the NL had unanimously voted to give permission, if necessary (ha ha), for the Dodgers and Giants to re-locate to Los Angeles and San Francisco. It was a very angry meeting where O'Malley continued his lie that it wasn't too late (again untrue, he was committed at this point to LA but still had to play out half a season in Brooklyn). Warren Giles, another pos who was President of the National League at a time when the League Presidents had a little power, when asked how his league could operate without a NY franchise replied, "Who needs New York? Ford Frick, the Commissioner of baseball, when asked what about the Brooklyn fans replied, "No problem. We're not abandoning New York. They will siply root for the Yankees." Remember these were two people whose job it supposedly was to operate in the best interests of baseball. Before he died, Bowie Kuhn who later became Commissioner stated he would have blocked the Dodgers move. The Dodgers still finished the season in Brooklyn drawing over a million which was considered adequate in baseball at the time, bearing in mind they had by far the richest television/radio contract in the game ensuring they were the biggest money makers in the game and in October as noted in this thread, O'Malley finally publically announced the Dodgers franchise was dead and it would be re-located to Los Angeles. In the interim, in August, Moses wrote a piece for Sports Illustrated, which you can read by doing a google search, defending his actions and blaming the Brooklyn fans for not attending the game as if there was any truth to that. It is my firm belief today, however, that Flushing would have worked and the Dodgers would have done quite well there as we all know Citi Field and Shea Stadium were locatd between three highways, had a subway station and an LIRR station within walking distance, was about to host the NY World's Fair, had a boat marina nearby. Quite frankly, it was the perfect location if one could ignore the totally artificial boundaries between Queens and Brooklyn which had nothing to do with geography. Also I can tell you tow other locations in Broklyn that while never considered would have been perfect. First was Floyd Bennet Field. Plenty of land there for a ballpark and parking but it would have meant the long promised extensions of the Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue subways would have had to have been built. The other would be Coney Island where MCU Park is located. Enough land to build a jajor league ballpark there and of course six or seven subway lines go through that complex at Stillwell Avenue. Oh how beautiful it would be to go to a Dodgers game at Dodger Stadium at Coney Island with the Atlantic Ocean behind the right field fence, the cyclone operating as well as the other amusements there with a restored parachute jump all lit up at night. It was nevet considered but it would have been spectacular. Alas, O'Malley the pompeous pos that he was wanted it to be his way or the highway despite the fact there were laws prohibiting him from getting what he wanted, he felt the city owed him the land so he could build the first privately owned ball park since Yankee Stadium was built in 1923 instead of renting. And to show his appreciation to his new fans in Los Angeles, he played in a ballpark totally inadequate for baseball just to pack in 80,000 fans the vast majority of which were so far from home plate you needed binoculars to see the action or a transistor radio to listen to Vince Scully doing the games and most tragic of all for the baseball fans of Los Angeles, he refused to televise the games claiming television had ruined him in Brooklyn when in fact it was television that made the Dodgers the richest franchise in baseball. But thanks to his families' money, several books have been written trying to transfer the blame to Robert Moses who, in this instance quite frankly, was probably right on this one thing. |
|
|
| (1369580) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:13:21 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:10:40 2015. ...sorry about a couple of typos. Unfortunately my lap top computer has a tendency to skip and my eye sight is not as shart as it once was. But I don't think any of the typos should prevent anybody from reading the truth of just what happened in 1957. |
|
|
| (1369583) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:36:25 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:10:40 2015. Myths of the theft of the Brooklyn franchise that too many people have been brainwashed into believing but were simply untrue...1. Robert Moses was solely responsible for what happened. Moses certainly didn't help but once again there were and still are eminent domain laws on the books in NY State and despite the fact the city administration was totally behind the construction of Barclay Center despite the Manhattan centric nature of the mayor, and Bruce Ratner included a hosing provision which it looks like he never intended to build, it took five years of litigation to get the construction started. O'Malley didn't intend to wait that long. 2. Shea Stadium was a dump the day it opened and just deteriorated. Snea Stadium, when it opend, was a state of the art ballpark in many ways modeled after Chavez Ravine Stadium except Shea had provisions for moving the lower deck for football. Yes it deteriorated in the finl years the Payson family owned it but if O'Mally ey were playing there, that never would have happened. 3. The Dodgers were losing money in Brooklyn because nobody was going to the games. A lie. The Dodgers led the NL in attendance until 1953 when Milwaukee acquired the Braves and was second every year thereafter till 1957 when in their lame duck year in Brooklyn, they fell all the way to third. Of course their radio/tv rights including the pre and post game shows were by far the largest in baseball and every Brooklyn home game as well as 2/3 of the road games were on FREE television. Look. I represent the last generation of people who were alive and old enough to understand what was gooing on and lived through those days. People younger than I am have to get their information through the books that have been written with the latest one full of lies about how wonderful O'Malley was and how it was Robert Moses who stymied his plans (which would have cost the City of New York a pretty penny). People older than I am are, for the most part, no longer with us to try to correct the records that even Brooklynites have come to believe. In a few years, I will be joining them and there will be nobody left to tell what truly happened in 1957 and what was done to the Brooklyn fan base in the name of greed. |
|
|
| (1369585) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Oct 12 23:53:16 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:36:25 2015. I very much appreciate your efforts and the knowledge that you are passing on. |
|
|
| (1369587) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Oct 13 00:46:14 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:36:25 2015. M-531----Excellent expose of what really went down.....and I was on the other side when it did, having moved to Los Angeles in 1954 and elated (at first) when the Dodgers announced they moving out to my adopted state. That lasted for all of about four months entering the season when O'Malley brainwashed the press not to refer to the Dodgers as the Bums, refused to allow fans to bring beverages into the Coliseum, decided to play in that monstrous disgrace of a saucer where you baked in the summer, and refused to televise any games until he was forced somehow to start televising their last eight games in San Francisco, where they thrilled the viewers by winning only one of those games. By June of 1958 when I graduated high school this once rabid Dodger fan began a hate fest towards that team that burns still deeply today. I just hope the Mets can win tomorrow and sent the LA Bums home as failures again. Here's hoping. |
|
|
| (1369594) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 13 05:09:25 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Oct 13 00:46:14 2015. we hope the dodgers make a comeback win tomorrow and send it back home |
|
|
| (1369595) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 13 05:48:14 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Oct 12 23:36:25 2015. Right:And why I think the Dodgers (possibly following a three-way swap of owners between O'Malley, the Griffiths and Stroneham) play 1-2 seasons in the Polo Ground while Ebbets Field is renovated to allow play to continue there through the 1960s when by the time Lindsay becomes Mayor the Dodgers are allowed to build their stadium where the Barclays Center currently stands and that opens around 1972. Meanwhile, the Jets play in a modern (for 1966) version of the Polo Grounds that likely is state of the art for a football stadium of its time, possibly with the Giants joining them there (instead of playing in the Yale Bowl) while Yankee Stadium is rebuilt following the 1973 season before the Giants go to the Meadowlands in '76 or even depending on how things would be in the early '70s the Jets and Giants sharing a modern Polo Grounds just as they have since 1984. |
|
|
| (1369599) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 07:05:12 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 13 05:48:14 2015. LOL! |
|
|
| (1369607) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Oct 13 08:43:59 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Oct 13 05:48:14 2015. Amazing, how Wally can type with one hand!!! |
|
|
| (1369612) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:05 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 13 05:09:25 2015. We hope they don’t make a comeback win tomorrow and get sent back home. |
|
|
| (1369613) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:18 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:05 2015. Should be tonight, not tomorrow. |
|
|
| (1369622) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 13 13:16:44 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:05 2015. we will see about that |
|
|
| (1369623) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 13 13:17:20 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:18 2015. and if we win we go back to los angeles with a chance |
|
|
| (1369655) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 13 22:59:07 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:18 2015. DODGERS WIN !! |
|
|
| (1369656) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Oct 13 22:59:37 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Oct 13 09:58:18 2015. DODGERS WIN !! |
|
|
| (1369663) | |
Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn? |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Oct 14 00:44:49 2015, in response to Re: What If The Dodgers had not moved from Brooklyn?, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Oct 13 00:46:14 2015. DODGERS WIN !!WE BEAT THE METS AT THIER HOME |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
