|
|
| Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) (464011) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 11 |
|
|
| (464011) | |
Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 18:35:14 2007 Saw a very interesting documentary a few days ago on the history of the Dodgers. It turns out that after their 1955 World Series win, O'Malley planned for the construction of a new state-of-the-art domed stadium at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush. Why there? Because it was the confluence of the existing subway/el lines and the LIRR. He recognized that with tens of thousands of ex-Brookynites moving to LI, this was the easiest way for them to get to the game. There was parking space for only 700 cars at Ebbets Field.He fought for two years but Robert Moses was dead set against it. Moses wanted a new stadium in Queens (which he got in 1964). The land at Atlantic and Flatbush was used by meat markets and the area was slated to be condemned, which O'Malley needed so he could buy the land cheap, but Moses refused to condemn it. Without Moses condemning the land it was unaffordable. O'Malley finally threw in the towel and cut a deal with LA, which gave him 153 acres at no charge to build a new stadium. I found it fascinating that if Moses wasn't such a dictator, dem Bums would have stayed in Brooklyn and the Giants probably wouldn't have moved to San Francisco. What does the latter have to do with the former? The Giants were looking to move to Milwaukee. O'Malley needed at least a second team on the west coast so he convinced Horace Stoneham to make the move with him. And the rest, as they say, is history. |
|
|
| (464056) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jul 21 22:00:03 2007, in response to Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 18:35:14 2007. Sorry, but it was O'Malley that moved the Dodgers to L.A. and screwed all the loyal Brooklyn fans, not Robert Moses. |
|
|
| (464057) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by treman262 on Sat Jul 21 22:00:49 2007, in response to Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 18:35:14 2007. Why would the Giants want to move to Milwaukee? The Braves had made the move there in 1953, four years before the final season in New York. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (464060) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sat Jul 21 22:02:14 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jul 21 22:00:03 2007. However, Moses DID push O'Malley to move. |
|
|
| (464063) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 21 22:06:00 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jul 21 22:00:03 2007. That's more of an urban legend. O'Malley certainly did move the team, but with a more cooperative government in City Hall, he could have been persuaded to stay. It may be easy to blame O'Malley and O'Malley alone, but it's certainly not fair. |
|
|
| (464066) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 21 22:08:16 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by treman262 on Sat Jul 21 22:00:49 2007. The Giants were going nowhere, at least nowhere while Stoneman was still running the team. He didn't care that he was basically playing the role of the Clippers to the Yankees' Lakers. |
|
|
| (464103) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Jul 21 23:12:04 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 21 22:08:16 2007. au contraire...Stoneham was losing money hand over fist at the Polo Grounds - the PG was in someways in worse shape than Ebbetts. Stoneham was halfway out the door going to Minneapolis, when O'Malley snowed him into going to SF. O'Malley NEEDED Stoneham in a very bad way - there HAD to be a second team on the Left Coast to make road trips for the other teams practical. And the Giants were the ONLY other NL team that really needed to move:The Braves had just moved to Milwaukee, and was making a mint. The Cardinals had gotten rid of the Browns, and had St Louis all to themselves. The Phillies had just gotten rid of the Athletics, and had Philly all to themselves. The Cubs weren't going anywhere Neither were the Reds or Pirates...so O'Malley got Stoneham, showed him Candlestick Point during the half hour it isn't ice cold there, probably got him drunk, and it was bye, bye Dodgers and Giants... But the point is that even if Moses had approved the Atlantic Terminal stadium for the Dodgers, Stoneham would have gone eventually SOMEwhere.. And as bad as Moses was, at least he had enough scruples as to not to ever want to use eminent domain for PRIVATE business uses...compare that to what is going on in Brooklyn today... And if it wasn't for Moses, Flushing Meadows might STILL be a big garbage dump today.... |
|
|
| (464104) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:12:18 2007, in response to Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 18:35:14 2007. I watched the HBO Special the other night. And the Giants had their eyes on Minneapolis, where the club already operated a AAA franchise.I also found it very interesting to note that O'Malley saw Atlantic and Flatbush as the center of Brooklyn in terms of transit lines his existing fan base while Moses saw highways as the future, and the middle of a series of interchanges in Queens as his center of NYC. Moses also saw any attempt to boost ridership on the LIRR as an affront to to his growing highway empire. O'Malley felt having the Dodgers play above the LIRR would enable many of the fans who moved to the Island to attend games easily. O'Malley did get the site he wanted at the center of his fan base. During the documentary, pictures showed O'Malley flying around in a sheriff's helicopter, looking for potential stadium sites. In Chavez Ravine, he found a rundown, yet centrally located landscape to build a ballpark. And Dodger Stadium set the standard for facilities when it comes to a 100-percent automobile-friendly facility. Meantime, he could have done the same with transit in Brooklyn had Moses played ball on the Title I provisions in condemming the meat markets. O'Malley as Howard Cosell once said "Had a cash register where his heart should have been." He wasn't a baseball man like Branch Rickey, but a lawyer and engineer by trade who knew how turn a buck. The Giants rode the Dodgers coattails to the West Coast, and Horace Stoneham took absolutely no interest in doing the type of advance work on finding a suitable home for his team. He settled for Candlestick Point, land owned by a contractor who wanted to develop it with close ties to City Hall. As it remains today, Candlestick Park is near NOTHING! Not by car, bus, train, boat, or even helicopter. And 40 years later, the Giants go it right with a downtown park which serves all of their fan base by transit, highway, city streets, and even ferry! |
|
|
| (464105) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Jul 21 23:12:59 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Jul 21 23:12:04 2007. bah.....hit the darn post button instead of 'preview'...my bad |
|
|
| (464107) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:15:44 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Jul 21 23:12:59 2007. Rumor in SF is, Stoneham toured the Candlestick site around 10:00am, when the entire eastern side of SF bakes in the sunlight, and reaches the mid 70's during the summer. Problem is, the wind that moves the fog in and out of town kicks up between 1-3pm, and stays strong through mid-evening, the same time you play baseball! |
|
|
| (464112) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 21 23:27:22 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:15:44 2007. Many fans feel that Willie Mays would have broken Ruth's record before Hank Aaron had it not been for the wind. |
|
|
| (464116) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 23:31:07 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jul 21 22:00:03 2007. O'Malley didn't see himself having a choice. If he couldn't stay in Brooklyn he figured he might as well get the best deal out of town that he could. Which, he did! Brooklynites by and large said they'd never go to Queens to see a game. |
|
|
| (464118) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 23:34:56 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:12:18 2007. Right, Minneapolis, not Milwaukee. My bad. |
|
|
| (464127) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sat Jul 21 23:52:10 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 23:31:07 2007. I hate Robert Moses...he was trash incarnate. |
|
|
| (464135) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Sun Jul 22 00:08:44 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:15:44 2007. That's not rumor, that's truth! It was told during the All Star game. |
|
|
| (464148) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:34:18 2007, in response to Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 18:35:14 2007. Here we go with the revisionist history once again being pushed by several aging members of the imposter organization on the left coast that calls itself the Dodgers in an attempt to get the half human slime ball O'Malley into the baseball Hall of Fame before they pass on (Vin Scully and Tommy Lasorda come to mind).But the HBO documentary is full of half truths. Yes Moses wasn't a baseball person and yes he didn't go out of his way to do O'Malley's bidding for some personal reasons but there are other facts conveniently ignored by HBO and those who are pushing this Bob Moses is the culprit garbage. 1. O'Malley wanted Moses to condemn the land under eminent domain provisions. Like it or not, this was illegal under New York State law as the property was not publically owned as it is today (there was no MTA) but rather was owned by the Pennsylbania Railroad Company of which the LIRR was a subsidiary at the time. To condemn the land would mean taking from the PRR (a private organization) and giving it to the half human O'Malley (another private organization) absolutely illegal under New York State law. 2. Isn't it interesting that O'Malley never offered to trade the land at Ebbets Field to reimburse the city for his brazen land grab yet when he moved his franchise to LA, he exchanged the land where Wrigley Field (LA) was located. 3. O'Malley and his supporters claim how dreadful it was that Ebbets Field only had 700 parking spaces...how many do Wrigley Field and Fenway Park have? They are approximately the same age as Ebbets Field and still going strong today. And if the park had been built at Atlantic and Flatbush, where would the cars have come from; the BQE is about a mile and a half away and is jammed evening rush hours as it is...can you imagine the traffic nightmare of a Friday night Dodger game competing with the rush hour traffic heading home? No a 60,000 seat ball yard would not have been appropriate there. 4. Let's not compare this with the Ratner proposal...today the land is owned by the MTA and emeinent domain of private property is not a factor. 5. The fact is the Brooklyn Dodgers were the second most profitable franchise in baseball still....this despite the fact (or because as the case may be) every home game was on free television for which WOR paid them a pretty penny...plus the mutual savings banks which sponsored Happy Felton's Knothole Gang the pregame show on WOR...and they also televisioned 2/3 of their road games on free television with an additional 11 games in New York carried by channel 11 on the Giant telecasts. Thus 140 of the 154 games were available to Brooklyn fans on television. 6. It is interesting to note that O'Malley claims that he would pay for the construction of the Stadium by taking the games off free television and putting them on pay television; despite the fact the technology was still a generation away. 7. It is clear for the reasons noted above that O'Malley never intended or could not afford to build a ball park...this business about Atlantic & Flatbush was used to try to hide what he set out to do to try to save his image for history. 8. There were better locations in Brooklyn for a ball park. How about Floyd Bennet Field area...of course to get that going the city would have had to fulfill the promise it broke since Brooklyn transit riders were not important to them namely building the Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue subways to the ball park. But the area was right off the Belt Parkway. Or there was Coney Island...the success of Keyspan Park makes it very clear this wouldhave been a wonderful location for a major league baseball field with 5 subway lines two blocks away and a short distance from the Belt Parkway. Can you imagine how nice it would be to spend a summer's evening watching the Dodgers play with the cyclone beyond the third base line and the Atlantic beyond right field. 9. It is nonsense that everybody was opposed to Flushing Meadows; it would have made sense for the many Long Island fans to come to the ball yard and for a long time many complained the Mets had a sweetheart deal regarding parking and concessions and keeping the Jets out of Shea Stadium for the first month of the season...while it wasn't the best of solutions, and the half human slime ball clamied this was no good as he couldn't call the team the Brooklyn Dodgers if they played in Queens, nobody ever asked him how he could have continued to call the team the Brooklyn Dodgers playing in la la land. And of course if they had moved to Flushing Meadows, they easily could have moved back to Brooklyn when the Stadium became obsolete as stadiums do in this day and age. 10. The argument that the area around Ebbets Field was becoming a dump? Well what pushed it was the construction of those monstrosities on the land where Ebbets Field stood...there is no reason to say that if Ebbets Field had been refurbished for say a decade while the slime ball waited out Bob Moses if indeed it was Moses' fault, the neighborhood might have suffered the same "fate" as Park Slope less than a mile away where the brownstones are now worth millions. The Crown Heights neighborhood had the same kind of buildings (see Wrigley Field for what can happen to a neighborhood with a ball yard there). 11. Where was the Commissioner of baseball one Ford C. Frick who was supposed to be there to protect the best interests of baseball. It is very obvious that the theft of the Brooklyn franchise was one of the major reasons that mlb went into the tank and the nfl passed it. If what happened to Brooklyn fans who supported the team through thick and thin could occur, then what was it worth to support a baseball team? 12. The issue of major league baseball on the left coast was a completely separate issue. Why shouldn't LA and SF have gotten expansion teams. And as far as the half human slime ball professing his love for Brooklyn, he easily could have done what Art Modell was later to do and leave the name Brooklyn Dodgers where it belonged so when the eventual National League expansion occurred (despite NL President Warren Giles' imbecilic proclamation that the NL did not need a franchise in NY), the name Brooklyn Dodgers could have been restored to its rightful place. 13. Let's bear in mind one thing...there are only 2 municipalities in North America that were totally deprived of major league baseball and never had their teams restored. One is Montreal but then agin they never really supported their team. The other is Brooklyn which was a member of the NL since the 1890's and was always considered a separate baseball city than New York. And even today, Brooklyn is the largest municipality in America (and do remember Brooklyn is a separate political subdivision of New York State with its own Sheriff, its own DA, its own courts and is in a separate federal court district than Manhattan, its own library system) which does not have a major league baseball team and unfortunately because of territorial rights it never will again. And the only person responsible for this is the half human, greedy piece of slime Walter O'Malley. |
|
|
| (464155) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:40:57 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:34:18 2007. oops...the last sentence should include the statement since the start of the modern era of major league baseball in 1903 as there are several municipalities (Providence RI comes to mind) that indeed lost mlb teams before 1903 and never had them restored either by expansion or stealing somebody else's team. |
|
|
| (464198) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 22 03:21:28 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Scrabbleship on Sat Jul 21 23:52:10 2007. why? |
|
|
| (464209) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sun Jul 22 03:57:23 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:34:18 2007. Really minor nitpick: Boroughs in NYC do not have their own sheriffs.As for everything else: RIGHT ON! Robert Moses deserves criticism for a lot of things, but this isn't it. |
|
|
| (464220) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 22 07:19:30 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by American Pig on Sun Jul 22 03:57:23 2007. Actually, they do ... there IS a Brooklyn county sheriff's office although the primary duties of city sheriffs these days is serving evictions and court orders and sealing properties. But they DO exist and did exist. Bronx had one also and I'll bet the other three did as well. |
|
|
| (464235) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Sun Jul 22 08:22:41 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:34:18 2007. Somehow I sense that Walter O'Malley is not your favorite person.I was 8 years old when the Dodgers left Brooklyn. For the next four years, it was difficult rooting for a team 3000 miles away. Thank goodness the Mets came around when they did; otherwise I may have turned into (horror of horrors) a yankee fan! :-) |
|
|
| (464243) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jul 22 08:53:53 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:34:18 2007. Warren Giles was reported to have said, "Who needs New York?" |
|
|
| (464246) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 08:58:06 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jul 22 08:53:53 2007. Indeed he did...but then again who could take a moron like that seriously...imagine he wanted to keep the NL office in Cincinnati and not where it belonged in Chicago or New York....But he wasn't the only piece of garbage in this sordid affair...there was baseball commissioner Ford C. Frick supposedly there to protect the best interests of baseball whose reaction to this whole theft of the franchise from where it belonged who shrugged his shoulders and said, "So they'll be Yankee fans. Big deal." |
|
|
| (464366) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jul 22 12:18:21 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Bob Andersen on Sun Jul 22 08:22:41 2007. Bite your tongue! *g* |
|
|
| (464381) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 12:36:14 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Jul 21 23:12:04 2007. I know of no concrete offers or any definitive intent on the part of the Giants to move anywhere in 1957. Economic conditions would have forced some move by the early 60's, but none was planned before the offer from SF, which would not have been possible without the Dodgers also moving. NYC isn't comparable to other 2-team cities. This city supported 3 teams for more than half a century. Those others didn't have a 2-team sized fanbase. Even Los Angeles, a city almost as large as NYC, couldn't support both the Dodgers and the Angels. Also, differing reasons led to these 2-team cities to shed one of their teams. The Browns and Braves moved because they had lost dominance to the "other" team and couldn't turn profits on what little fanbase they had left. The Senators moved to Minneapolis because the Senators NEVER drew well (the Nationals will learn this lesson the hard way). Philadelphia is another story. The Athletics were always the dominant team in Philadelphia. What drove them out was public anger over Connie Mack's behavior and excessive penny pinching, especially when he built the "spite wall" at Shibe Park to prevent people from across the street from watching the games for free (like at Wrigley Field). Even today, the Phillies are the 4th most important team in their home city, with the 76'ers, Eagles and even the Flyers being more popular. |
|
|
| (464384) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 12:39:50 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:15:44 2007. That's absolutley true. A similar story concerning the Mets accepting the site of the new Shea Stadium also exists, where the owner(s) were given a tour of the site on a day where air traffic from LaGuardia was diverted elsewhere. |
|
|
| (464390) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 12:51:07 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 12:39:50 2007. ...but the planes flying over Shea have never really affected play on the field...nobody was ever blown off the mound because a jet was on its final approach to LGA..perhaps a bit annoying to the fans but they quickly got used to it.OTOH Candlestick...need I say more. |
|
|
| (464399) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 13:17:03 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 12:51:07 2007. ...but the planes flying over Shea have never really affected play on the field...Many players would disagree with this assesment. |
|
|
| (464420) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 22 14:43:02 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 12:36:14 2007. Remember that Stoneham owned the AAA team in Minneapolis, and that of the THREE NY teams, he was always the most underfinanced. Except for the blofeeated postwar attendance numbers, he always lagged far behind the Yanks and Dodgers in attendence. Giants attendance was always (except maybe 1954)in the 6-700,000 range -deadly for the NY market. He also got way less for his TV/radio too. Stoneham had his territory already - he owned the AAA team in Minneapolis, and they had just made plans for what turned to be Metropolitan Stadium. One way or another,Stoneham would have been out of NY by 1959-60.This business of 'New York supported three teams for decades' is a myth - if you look at the actual numbers, there was always one team that lagged far behind the others - and before 1939 it usually, if not always, was the Dodgers. The Dodgers were literally BANKRUPT in the late 30's- which is how O'Malley got into the organization to start with - he was the Brooklyn Trust Company's trustee helping to overlook the running of the bankrupt organization, and slowly started accumulating stock. Ironically, how would history had been different if the bank had sent another one of its young lawyers to the Dodger assignment - a guy named William A. Shea? Anyways, it is absolutely a supportable position that even New York could not feasibly support THREE teams. As much of a drunk as Stoneham was, he was still smart enough to realize this. And the funny thing is that Stoneham would have had no problems with a Flushing Meadow ballpark! The only reason NY had three teams up that point, was the fact since the AL and NL had signed their 1902 peace treaty, it really was unheard of to move your team - although the BROWNS actually would have moved to LA...except the day the AL was going to vote on it was....December 8 1941....oops! The thing that changed all the rules was when the Braves moved to Milwaukee...and instantly started printing money. THAT is why O'Malley needed a bigger,newer ballpark - competition. He knew that eventually the Braves could theoretically (and did) outspend him on their farm system, and overtake the Dodgers - in fact, they did just that in 1957 and 58, and JUST missed in 59! Remember that O'Malley did NOT buy the LA Angels (and their park) until early in the 57 season - when it was obvious that Moses was not going to bend. And where would have O'Malley got the money for the new Brooklyn Stadium? He certainly had the money to build Dodger Stadium! He might have got the land for free, but he paid for the stadium himself! |
|
|
| (464421) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 14:54:01 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 22 14:43:02 2007. A good deal of the money used to build Chavez Ravine Stadium was put up by the Union Oil Company of California (and for years Union 76 had the only advertisements at this baseball stadium). |
|
|
| (464424) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 15:01:36 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 22 14:43:02 2007. BTW while it was true Milwaukee was outdrawing Brooklyn, they had a very limited radio-tv market and the fact is Brooklyn was out revenuing Milwaukee and we of course know from hindsight that the Milwaukee thing was to be very very temporary and by 1962 when the Mets were making their first visit to Milwaukee, the writers covering the Mets most of whom had covered the Brooklyn Dodgers were shocked by the low crowds they were drawing and it was only a couple of more years before Atlanta beckoned (but of course mlb made sure Milwaukee was not deprived of mlb the way Brooklyn was with the move of the Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee to become the Brewers and then they made sure Seattle was not left without mlb with the expansion Seattle Mariners and also when the Kansas City Athletics were allowed to move to Oakland, they took care of Kansas City with an expansion franchise the Royals and when the Senators moved first to Minneapolis to become the Twins mlb saw to it that Washington got an expansion franchise the Senators; the second time the Senators left Washington for Arlington Tx., it took them about 40 years but that franchise was replaced by the Expos leaving Montreal and Brooklyn as the only two municipalities from the beginning of baseball's modern era to lose mlb completely and those are facts nobody can dispute. |
|
|
| (464430) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 22 16:16:31 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 12:36:14 2007. Remember that Stoneham owned the AAA team in Minneapolis, and that of the THREE NY teams, he was always the most underfinanced. Except for the blofeeated postwar attendance numbers, he always lagged far behind the Yanks and Dodgers in attendence. Giants attendance was always (except maybe 1954)in the 6-700,000 range -deadly for the NY market. He also got way less for his TV/radio too. Stoneham had his territory already - he owned the AAA team in Minneapolis, and they had just made plans for what turned to be Metropolitan Stadium. One way or another,Stoneham would have been out of NY by 1959-60.This business of 'New York supported three teams for decades' is a myth - if you look at the actual numbers, there was always one team that lagged far behind the others - and before 1939 it usually, if not always, was the Dodgers. The Dodgers were literally BANKRUPT in the late 30's- which is how O'Malley got into the organization to start with - he was the Brooklyn Trust Company's trustee helping to overlook the running of the bankrupt organization, and slowly started accumulating stock. Ironically, how would history had been different if the bank had sent another one of its young lawyers to the Dodger assignment - a guy named William A. Shea? Anyways, it is absolutely a supportable position that even New York could not feasibly support THREE teams. As much of a drunk as Stoneham was, he was still smart enough to realize this. And the funny thing is that Stoneham would have had no problems with a Flushing Meadow ballpark! The only reason NY had three teams up that point, was the fact since the AL and NL had signed their 1902 peace treaty, it really was unheard of to move your team - although the BROWNS actually would have moved to LA...except the day the AL was going to vote on it was....December 8 1941....oops! The thing that changed all the rules was when the Braves moved to Milwaukee...and instantly started printing money. THAT is why O'Malley needed a bigger,newer ballpark - competition. He knew that eventually the Braves could theoretically (and did) outspend him on their farm system, and overtake the Dodgers - in fact, they did just that in 1957 and 58, and JUST missed in 59! Remember that O'Malley did NOT buy the LA Angels (and their park) until early in the 57 season - when it was obvious that Moses was not going to bend. And where would have O'Malley got the money for the new Brooklyn Stadium? He certainly had the money to build Dodger Stadium! He might have got the land for free, but he paid for the stadium himself! |
|
|
| (464437) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 17:18:02 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun Jul 22 14:43:02 2007. This business of 'New York supported three teams for decades' is a myth No, it's not. From 1901 to 1957 this city supported 3 major league baseball teams to varying degrees of success. Your points are valid, and the feasibility of keeping 3 ML teams beyond 1960 was not good, but the fact remains that until O'Malley came to him with the idea of relocating to San Francisco, Stoneman was NOT considering a specific move anywhere else. |
|
|
| (464439) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 17:28:54 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 15:01:36 2007. The story of the Athletics moving is probably the most interesting of them all. In their last year in Philly, they outdrew the Phillies almost 3 to 1 (both shared Shibe park, but the A's owned it, the Phillies rented it). It was Mack's son, who took an already strained relationship with Philly fans and then ran it into the ground. When the Mack family finally had enough, the team was sold to someone who moved them to KC without so much as whimper from Philly. The A's then began their long tenure as a glorified farm team for the New York Yankees (a major reason why the Yankees dominated in the 50's and 60's and one most Yankee apologists don't want to admit to). |
|
|
| (464450) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 22 18:07:58 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 22 07:19:30 2007. That's correct. It's now a unified Sheriff of the City of New York. His name is Lindsay Eason.www.nysheriffs.org/sheriffs/queens.htm |
|
|
| (464603) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 22 23:22:59 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 22 03:21:28 2007. You mean you have to ask? |
|
|
| (464648) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 00:16:24 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by randyo on Sun Jul 22 23:22:59 2007. New York City would have died without the vision of Bob Moses. It would have ended up like Detroit and so many other formerly great American cities. The man may have been arrogant and stubborn but that is the only way to get things done in NY. Nothing of public importance has been built here since he left the scene. Imagine NYC had Moses never existed. It would have become a dump. My only beefs with him is his contempt for mass transit and the overt racial implications of his housing policies. I'm glad that some of his projects like the LOMEX were shot done. Other then that I wish we had a modern day more sensible and transit oriented version of Robert Moses. There was never any whiff of malfeasence in his work. His legacy stands the test of time. It seems that the biggest gripe here is that he didn't bend to O'Malley's blackmail. Any public servant who shuns requests of handouts to the rich and other corporate welfare should be commended instead of vilified. |
|
|
| (464659) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Jul 23 00:29:36 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 00:16:24 2007. New York City would have died without the vision of Bob Moses. It would have ended up like Detroit and so many other formerly great American cities.I don't know what makes you say that. What has happened to Detroit is sad, but I don't see why that would be any reflection on NYC. Chicago has maintained fairly well. Boston is hanging in there. |
|
|
| (464665) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 00:39:16 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 00:16:24 2007. I am sure I can find lots of people in the Bronx whose property was taken from them to build the Cross Bronx Expressway when alternate routes which would not have destroyed their neighborhold existed.And that was indeed Moses' big problem. Once he decided something, no amount of logic or anything could change his mind. It was going to be his way period end of discussion. He finally met his match when for once in his life Robert Wagner stood up to him regarding the Cross Manhattan Expressway which would have cut across Greenwich Village which was the beginning of the end. We also have Moses to thank for the low overpasses on the Southern and Northern State Parkways put there deliberately to keep low income people from taking buses out to his precious beaches at Jones Beach (and do remember many of these people when this construction occurred were not necessarily people of color). Yes, Moses had quite a bit to answer for, some of it good but much of it bad when he finally met his maker; however the removal of the Brooklyn baseball franchise was most assuredly not one of them. |
|
|
| (464687) | |
Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 23 01:58:17 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 00:39:16 2007. Matha:I remember watching a special on Moses a while back, and it actually was a woman named Jane Jacobs who was mainly responsible for preventing the Cross Manhattan Expressway from going through. Very good thing too, as we would not have the tourist attraction Greenwich Village is for some had Moses gotten his way there. As for Moses, if only he were mass transit oriented, but even if he were, the problem was autos were the big thing then. |
|
|
| (464695) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 03:37:23 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Easy on Mon Jul 23 00:29:36 2007. NYC's density and geographical layout is very different from the cities you mentioned. Keeping the city vibrant and relevant in a new age meant making contoversial, divisive and often very painful decisions that caused major displacements. The physical reality is that we need bridges and tunnels to connect our boroughs whereas regular roads get the job done in other cities. We often bitch about NIMBYs. Moses may have been a bit too dismissive of thir legittimate concerns but the alternative would have spelled disaster. The complicated tapestry of road bridges, tunnels, parkways and expressways that he weaved throughout the five boroughs plus his making parkand, playgrounds and greenspace a major priority are the reasons NY is still the crown jewel of American cities. Had he failed, residents and businesses would have fled to greener pastures as many did anyway. As much as we railfans may dislike cars and highways, they were an economic necessity in the 20th Century economy and will continue to be in this century. Without Moses, NY would still have had too many cars but without his works we would be driving in an empty shell of a city on even more clogged and dangerous streets heading towards a Long Island CBD. As I lamented earlier I really wish he would have had a higher regard for mass transit. |
|
|
| (464696) | |
Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 03:48:58 2007, in response to Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 23 01:58:17 2007. Whether we like it or not, autos and trucks are still a big thing today and always will be until we can get the flying vehicles the Jetsons had. (or better mass transit and freight rail) I am glad Jane Jacobs and others helped stop LOMEX and other similiar abominations. One was the Brookyn-Battery Bridge over Governors Island which would have destroyed historic Fort Jay. I think the Federal Govt stopped him from that one and we got the essential Tunnel instead.Unfortunately today, we get halfass projects like a two track SAS that will take 20 years to build, no new trunk lines in the outer boroughs because of overt fear of NIMBYs even when their concerns are exagerrated or can be mitigated with modern technology and elitist traffic proposals like Congestion Pricing that would screw working people and small businesses. When will we get a Bob Moses of mass transit? Mr. Sander, I hope you read Subchat. |
|
|
| (464698) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 23 03:56:14 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Easy on Mon Jul 23 00:29:36 2007. Chicago had its own Robert Moses: Richard J. Daley. |
|
|
| (464699) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 23 04:08:24 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 22 07:19:30 2007. False. There is a single NYC Sheriff. |
|
|
| (464704) | |
Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Mon Jul 23 05:36:45 2007, in response to Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 03:48:58 2007. Tell me how to do so and I'd gladly take that role. |
|
|
| (464788) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 23 10:39:23 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 00:39:16 2007. I am sure I can find lots of people in the Bronx whose property was taken from them to build the Cross Bronx Expressway when alternate routes which would not have destroyed their neighborhold existed.And the alternate routes would have taken property from alternate people. We also have Moses to thank for the low overpasses on the Southern and Northern State Parkways put there deliberately to keep low income people from taking buses out to his precious beaches at Jones Beach (and do remember many of these people when this construction occurred were not necessarily people of color). Urban legend. Buses go to Jones Beach today, no? |
|
|
| (464789) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 10:42:11 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 23 10:39:23 2007. ...not by the Northern or Southern State Parkway...As far as the Bronx thing, I do remember reading that a slight alteration in the route would have spared the houses and taken it through an area which was not residential in nature. Read the book the Power Broker about Moses and the low overpasses on the Northern and Southern State Parkways. |
|
|
| (464795) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Jul 23 11:11:41 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 23 04:08:24 2007. Correct. The is Lindsay Eason, appointed as the 119th Sheriff of the City of New York by Mayor Michael M. Bloomberg, in January 2002. |
|
|
| (464799) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:20:06 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 10:42:11 2007. Read the book the Power Broker about Moses and the low overpasses on the Northern and Southern State Parkways.That's one side of the story, and a pook written sort of against Moses. |
|
|
| (464802) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:23:40 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 00:39:16 2007. He finally met his match when for once in his life Robert Wagner stood up to him regarding the Cross Manhattan Expressway which would have cut across Greenwich Village which was the beginning of the end.By that point, times were beginning to change. Moses was a man of his time. Cities all around the country were expanding their road and bridge and highway networks, that was not unique to NY. Those same cities were also NOT expanding their mass transit system. Moses was a man of his time, and gave people what they wanted at the time. By the end of the reign, things had begun to change. We also have Moses to thank for the low overpasses on the Southern and Northern State Parkways put there deliberately to keep low income people from taking buses out to his precious beaches at Jones Beach (and do remember many of these people when this construction occurred were not necessarily people of color). Oh please, give it a rest. That's an urban legend, and buses were well do go to Jones Beach today. In the beginning, the roads were planned in the 20's and 30's, and buses hadn't taken hold yet. It was impossible to envision the 1950's and the impacts of buses and trucks when the roads were being designed in the 1920's. Complete urban legend. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 11 |
|
