Giants move was quiet

[tonypug]

Compared to the Brooklyn Dodgers move to LA which was in the newspapers every day, there was very little written about the Giants move to SF. O'Malley was always being quoted, nothing much was ever said about Stoneham. Was it that nobody believed Stoneham would move, or that none of the City fathers cared if they did. I remember stories about Stoneham begging to come to meetings with the city fathers and O'Malley, but he was never invited. How come?

[Mays1951]

Stoneham in his latter years regretted moving the Giants out of New York. I read this in a book.

[tonypug]

We have had several debates, about this. Horace Stoneham was easily manipulated. O'Malley played him like a master puppeteer. He even took Stoneham to Candlestick Point on one of the few days it wasn't windy. Horace second guessed himself on many occasions, about making the move.

[donzblock]

He should have second guessed himself one day at a time.

[tonypug]

That could have been the New York Giants playing at Shea these last 42 years.

[DODGER DEB]

........and, as a result, there is a good chance WE would still have OUR BROOKLYN DODGERS in BROOKLYN......where they belong!!!

c.

:radio OUR MOMENT IN TIME - OCTOBER 4, 1955 - 3:43PM :clapping

[westsidegrounds]

Very different situations.

Brooklyn fans had been turning up in excellent numbers throughout the '50s, providing solid revenues for a team that most regarded as the standardbearer of their borough's identity. Then some tinhorn shyster backstabs his way into control and sells out the loyal fans for a few lousy extra bucks. No wonder they were peeved, and still are.

On the other hand, the Giants had been in the Stoneham family for many years. The '50s featured some of the most exciting pennant races even in that team's glorious history. Plus they had the most exciting and charismatic player in the game's history playing center field every day. But attendance figures were shamefully low. NYG fans today don't blame Horace for the move - he did what he had to do, fan attendance was his only source of income. If anyone's to blame, it's the people who only had to take a ten-minute subway ride to watch the greatest team in baseball, and didn't, because "oooo - that's a Bad Neighborhood!" They stole my team - not Horace.

[donzblock]

Would you have followed the Giants to Queens?

[westsidegrounds]

Originally posted by donzblock
Would you have followed the Giants to Queens?

No.

Might as well play in SF or Minneapolis as in Queens.

[donzblock]

I feel the same way about the Bums in Queens.

[tonypug]

We say that now as adults, but I have a feeling a lot of us would have followed our team to Queens, Giants or Dodger fans.

[tonypug]

I understand attendence was going down, the last three years were,824,000.629.000 and 653,000. People said they wouldn't go because of the area, how come the Mets drew 922,000 and 1,080,000 their two years in the Polo Grounds? I found it strange when the Giants moved to SF they had a bunch of good young players Orlando Cepeda, Jim Davenport, Willie McCovey ready to play. Why not bring some of them up early to New York, it might have helped attendence and created more interest.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by tonypug
I understand attendence was going down, the last three years were,824,000.629.000 and 653,000. People said they wouldn't go because of the area, how come the Mets drew 922,000 and 1,080,000 their two years in the Polo Grounds? I found it strange when the Giants moved to SF they had a bunch of good young players Orlando Cepeda, Jim Davenport, Willie McCovey ready to play. Why not bring some of them up early to New York, it might have helped attendence and created more interest.

Tony, I've stated in previous threads that if the Giants had stayed in New York they would've owned Gotham in the 1960's. Playing in a brand new Shea Stadium with such young stars as Mays, McCovey, Marichal, Cepeda & later Gaylord Perry, I have no doubt that they would've broken many attendance records.

I think Stoneham was thinking along the same lines when he publicly acknowledged in 1976 (Right after selling the Giants.) that the biggest mistake he ever made was moving the Giants to San Francisco.

[tonypug]

Maybe, if Stoneham made more noise, like O'Malley, a lot of things would have turned out differently, and New York City would still have three baseball teams.

[DODGER DEB]

Originally posted by tonypug
Maybe, if Stoneham made more noise, like O'Malley, a lot of things would have turned out differently, and New York City would still have three baseball teams.


Looking back at it now, WE should have been the ones MAKING THE NOISE about keeping the Giants here. If WE had been thinking orange/black, instead of being blinded by royal blue, maybe, just maybe, WE would have had OUR ROYAL BLUE FOREVER!!!

I know WE are joking about this now, but ya know, if you really think about it, IT just might have worked!!!

c.



:radio OUR MOMENT IN TIME - OCTOBER 4, 1955 - 3:43PM :clapping

[donzblock]

If the major league owners would not have approved a solo move to the coast, then persuading the Giants to stay would have worked.

[DODGER DEB]

Originally posted by donzblock
If the major league owners would not have approved a solo move to the coast, then persuading the Giants to stay would have worked.


From everything I know and read about THAT move, it was obvious that MLB would NOT have approved any move without TWO clubs going to CA. IT would have been too costly for them to travel, several times a season, for just one stop over.

No, Professor, I think WE had this in the palm of OUR hand....and WE BLEW IT!

c.

:radio OUR MOMENT IN TIME - OCTOBER 4, 1955 - 3:43PM :clapping

[tonypug]

O'malley really took advantage of Stonehams personality. The city of New York never thought Stoneham would be a problem, they very rarely invited him to meetings, O'Malley went to every one. It wasn't until after the double move was announced that Stoneham was given any consideration. Even then the feeling was take care of O'Malley and everything will fall into place. The two leagues were independent then, all O'Malley and Stoneham needed were the National league owners votes, and they seemed more then happy to get out of New York for some reason. I have never figured out why they would allow the National League to be without a New York team.

[DODGER DEB]

Originally posted by tonypug
O'malley really took advantage of Stonehams personality. The city of New York never thought Stoneham would be a problem, they very rarely invited him to meetings, O'Malley went to every one. It wasn't until after the double move was announced that Stoneham was given any consideration. Even then the feeling was take care of O'Malley and everything will fall into place. The two leagues were independent then, all O'Malley and Stoneham needed were the National league owners votes, and they seemed more then happy to get out of New York for some reason. I have never figured out why they would allow the National League to be without a New York team.


YOU make the point exactly...."Even then the feeling was take care of O'Malley and everything will fall into place". The reason NYC was thinking THAT way was because they knew that the "Big O" not only controlled Stoneham,but knew how badly he needed $$$$$, so there was no need for them (NYC) to pay attention to him or even invite him to any meetings.

BUT, suppose people like US, and there were thousands who could have been organized, rallied to Stoneham's side to "present" his story, separating him from the "Big O". There is no doubt in my mind HE would have been VERY receptive to Moses' offer of Flushing Meadows, and why not, it could have turned into a gold mine for him, compared to what he was pulling in at the Polo Grounds. Moses would have switched gears so quick he would have had our heads spinning.....and that would have left the "Big O" with no where to go.........but to stay in BROOKLYN and build a new ballpark.

The thought of THIS scenario, which really could have worked, is making me crazy, the more I think about it! At the very least, it would have bought US TIME.....and with TIME on OUR side, it all could have worked out for keeping OUR DODGERS in BROOKLYN!

c.

:radio OUR MOMENT IN TIME - OCTOBER 4, 1955 - 3:43PM :clapping

[westsidegrounds]

Originally posted by tonypug
O'malley really took advantage of Stonehams personality. <...> It wasn't until after the double move was announced that Stoneham was given any consideration. <...>.

Not at all.

Stoneham had a proposal ready for a new ballpark on the west side, by the river, on the site of a little-used railyard. City Hall wasn't interested.

Then along comes the Big O with his plan to move all the way out west. He NEEDED Stoneham - but Stoneham didn't need him.

Because Stoneham was already planning a move to Minneapolis, home of the Giants' top farm team the Millers. The Giants would have done just fine there.

So yeah, O'Malley went to all the meetings & did all the work - you tell me who was being taken advantage of there.

SF was a better opportunity for the Giants than Minneapolis would have been - all of northern California to themselves, instead of competing with the Braves Cubs Sox & Cards for a share of the upper Midwest. Who wouldn't take that deal? How do you figure Stoneham got hornswoggled?

Horace wasn't dragged out to the coast, he was given a free pass there.

[donzblock]

We have the seeds for a good alternate history SF novel here.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by westsidegrounds
Not at all.

Stoneham had a proposal ready for a new ballpark on the west side, by the river, on the site of a little-used railyard. City Hall wasn't interested.

Then along comes the Big O with his plan to move all the way out west. He NEEDED Stoneham - but Stoneham didn't need him.

Because Stoneham was already planning a move to Minneapolis, home of the Giants' top farm team the Millers. The Giants would have done just fine there.

So yeah, O'Malley went to all the meetings & did all the work - you tell me who was being taken advantage of there.

SF was a better opportunity for the Giants than Minneapolis would have been - all of northern California to themselves, instead of competing with the Braves Cubs Sox & Cards for a share of the upper Midwest. Who wouldn't take that deal? How do you figure Stoneham got hornswoggled?

Horace wasn't dragged out to the coast, he was given a free pass there.

In the 1950's, New York City wasn't interested in building a publicly funded stadium in Manhattan. And since Stoneham couldn't afford a privately financed one in the borough, this plan fell through. However, Moses was receptive to a new municipal stadium project in Flushing Meadow. The Yankees were willing to lease Yankee Stadium to the Giants until the city completed the new project, but by this time Stoneham was looking elsewhere. This is the point where Minneapolis entered the picture.

[westsidegrounds]

[i]. This is the point where Minneapolis entered the picture. [/B]


Mm.

Just conjecture on my part, but:

I'm thinking the point at which Minneapolis entered the picture was approximately one second after the following figures crossed Stoneham's desk:

Boston Braves 1952 attendance: 281,278
Milwaukee Braves 1953 attendance: 1,826,397


Yeah - I think it would have been right around then ...

[westsidegrounds]

Originally posted by westsidegrounds

Stoneham was already planning a move to Minneapolis, home of the Giants' top farm team the Millers. The Giants would have done just fine there.


In case anybody's wondering about that - during the first ten years the Twins spent in Bloomington, their total attendance was 13,264,656.

That was only good enough to be the BEST IN THE AMERICAN FREAKIN' LEAGUE for that span of time, is all.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[tonypug]

Stoneham talked about moving to Minneapolis and Pheonix where the Giants trained. They would have done well in either place. The point is Horace talked but never did anything. It wasn't until O'Malley grabbed him by the seat of the pants and basically dragged him to SF that he actually moved . Westside is right O'Malley needed Stoneham, not the other way around. From comments Stoneham made after the fact, had New York city talked he would have listened. O'Malley became a multi millionaire in LA, SF wasn't as kind to Horace. It has only been recently that SF has become a great Major League city. They almost moved before that happened, and an O'Malley had something to do with that also.

[Greenpeach]

Originally posted by tonypug
Westside is right O'Malley needed Stoneham, not the other way around. From comments Stoneham made after the fact, had New York city talked he would have listened.

I think that Stoneham was just putting a PR spin on things after the fact. Since the 1950's, Moses had talked about building a new municipal stadium in Queens (Flushing Meadow Project). I don't think that Moses or the Mayor really cared which National League team leased it. Both teams were offered the stadium at different times. As I stated previously, the Yankees offered to lease Yankee Stadium to the Giants until their stadium issue was settled. However, both O'Malley & Stoneham decided that they could cut better deals by looking elsewhere. As Westside stated in a previous post, after Stoneham realized that he could do better by leaving New York City, he had all but decided to move the Giants to Minneapolis where Stoneham owned the territorial rights. However, OM approached him about moving together to the Left Coast & the rest as they say is history.

On a side note, I have my doubts that OM would've stayed in the NY metro area even if the Giants had moved to Minneapolis. I think he would've eventually moved the Dodgers to Houston, Dallas or maybe even Denver These were all growing cities starved for major league baseball. And I'm sure that local politicians would've broken open the bank for OM just like Poulson did in LA.

Another scenario could've been the NL awarding an expansion franchise to San Francisco & then allowing OM to move to LA. This would've ensured that the National League would've beaten the junior circuit to the lucrative California market. It may not have been very far fetched. Remember, major league baseball did consider a plan to make the PCL a third major league if relocation plans of existing franchises failed.

[EbtsFldGuy]

What is easy to forget two decades later is that the Giants were all set to leave SF in about 1978 for Toronto. I recall watching the Channel 5 (in NYC) 10 o'clock news with Bill Jorgensen one Friday night in 1978 (maybe 79)when the lead was "The San Francisco Giants are no more." Only some last minute local efforts prevented that move.

Greenpeach has it right. Had the Giants gone to Shea, they would have thrived. In addition to the euphoria over getting out of the PG and its attendant dangers, people would have loved Shea, as the Mets fans did for several years. And yes, the quality of the young players the Giants had beginning in 1958 would have made that team a contender and keen draw in Shea - and a natural rival for the Yankees.

Horace Stoneham was honorable about his move, announcing it in August - unlike O'Malley, who milked every second of hope out of the adoring faithful in Brooklyn, waiting until October to announce his departure. Horace was a decent man, who was dealt a bad hand. Too bad he did not prosper, instead of that other fellow.

[Mays1951]

The Giants have done well in SF. They are a big draw in SF. The move had to be made. O'Malley was a very smart businessman. He knew that the Dodgers and Giants could not provide the parking nor safety that fans were demanding. Americans were moving away from the "inner city." They were not that thrilled with going to night games. Crime in New York as studies show was very, very bad. Why would either owner stay in New York back then? So that the Yankees could make more money? Watch Baseball Inning 7 from Ken Burns. This was on PBS ten years ago and sums up why the Dodgers and Giants moved.

[MetsFan11368]

What is easy to forget two decades later is that the Giants were all set to leave SF in about 1978 for Toronto. I recall watching the Channel 5 (in NYC) 10 o'clock news with Bill Jorgensen one Friday night in 1978 (maybe 79)when the lead was "The San Francisco Giants are no more." Only some last minute local efforts prevented that move.



Around that same time, the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority contacted the Giants about moving to the Meadowlands if a baseball stadium was built for them there.

Unfortunately, Bob Lurie came into the picture and made the commitment to keep the Giants in SF and that was that.

[donzblock]

The Giants have done well in SF. They are a big draw in SF. The move had to be made. O'Malley was a very smart businessman. He knew that the Dodgers and Giants could not provide the parking nor safety that fans were demanding. Americans were moving away from the "inner city." They were not that thrilled with going to night games. Crime in New York as studies show was very, very bad. Why would either owner stay in New York back then? So that the Yankees could make more money? Watch Baseball Inning 7 from Ken Burns. This was on PBS ten years ago and sums up why the Dodgers and Giants moved.

The Giants did not have to move. Your comments about "[c]rime in New York" are wrong and unconvincing. The Yankees for the longest time have been playing in a ballyard in what you would call a bad neighborhood, and the parking is deplorable. Have the Yankees thrived? Both owners should have stayed. The neighborhoods in New York were not the problem. A greedy O'Malley was the problem, a Stoneham who was not thinking clearly was the problem, and an arrogant, headstrong Robert Moses was the problem.

[tonypug]

The Giants did not have to move. Your comments about "[c]rime in New York" are wrong and unconvincing. The Yankees for the longest time have been playing in a ballyard in what you what call a bad neighborhood, and the parking is deplorable. Have the Yankees thrived? Both owners should have stayed. The neighborhoods in New York were not the problem. A greedy O'Malley was the problem, a Stoneham who was not thinking clearly was the problem, and an arrogant, headstrong Robert Moses was the problem.
Another problem, was the other six National League owners allowing the other two teams to move by voting in favor of their request. In fact they mandated that both teams needed to move or niether would be allowed to do so .

[EbtsFldGuy]

It is simplistic to reprise the easy refrain of a greedy O'Malley and an unthinking Stoneham as being the reasons for the moves. There was much more to the Giants' move.

It is also unrealistic to ignore the reality, correctly pointed out by Mays 1951, that crime WAS a problem in NYC, especially at 155th Street and Eighth Avenue, where the Polo Grounds sat. Though 161st and River Avenue across the bridge in the Bronx was no utopia, it was much safer than the PG, primarily because it was in a business district, just down the street from the Bronx County Courthouse, and across from McCombs Dam Park's baseball fields, in comparison to the PG, which sat hard by a housing project, with nothing else nearby.

Given the lack of meaningful NYC response, the Giants DID have to move. Fiscally, and from a corporate perspective, they could not have responsibly lingered in Harlem, hemoraging money. Otherwise, they would have been out of business in short order.

I wish they had stayed, but I don't blame Horace Stoneham for leaving town. Unlike O'Malley, he had ample cause to go.

[tonypug]

Stoneham had been turned down by the National League in his bid to move to Minneapolis. What a perfect time it would have been for the City of New York to step up and make Horace an offer. I don't believe Stoneham was ever offered Shea Stadium, O'Malley was. Stoneham and the Giants had to move, they didn't have to leave town.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Stoneham had been turned down by the National League in his bid to move to Minneapolis. What a perfect time it would have been for the City of New York to step up and make Horace an offer. I don't believe Stoneham was ever offered Shea Stadium, O'Malley was. Stoneham and the Giants had to move, they didn't have to leave town.


But given NYC's lack of interest in citing the Giants, where would they have played in town?

[tonypug]

Had the City of New York made the Shea offer to Stoneham, I think he would have jumped at it. O'Malley had people jumping through hoops, and they couldn't see the forest through the trees.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Had the City of New York made the Shea offer to Stoneham, I think he would have jumped at it. O'Malley had people jumping through hoops, and they couldn't see the forest through the trees.


Stoneham probably would have accepted such an offer.

But the unfortunate reality is that no such offer was forthcoming.

[donzblock]

Could the Giants have played in Yankee Stadium?

[tonypug]

Could the Giants have played in Yankee Stadium?
The NewYork newspapers were writing in 1956 and 1957 that the Giants were expected to move into Yankee Stadium in 1958 while a new Stadium was being built. Nothing was ever said about where that Stadium would be. I don't think there was any alarm until the National League voted to allow the Dodgers and Giants to move, but they had to move togeather. I am sure O'malley was behind that vote. He wanted to keep the rivalry,and the money it generated intact.

[wamby]

I think that Stoneham was just putting a PR spin on things after the fact. Since the 1950's, Moses had talked about building a new municipal stadium in Queens (Flushing Meadow Project). I don't think that Moses or the Mayor really cared which National League team leased it. Both teams were offered the stadium at different times. As I stated previously, the Yankees offered to lease Yankee Stadium to the Giants until their stadium issue was settled. However, both O'Malley & Stoneham decided that they could cut better deals by looking elsewhere. As Westside stated in a previous post, after Stoneham realized that he could do better by leaving New York City, he had all but decided to move the Giants to Minneapolis where Stoneham owned the territorial rights. However, OM approached him about moving together to the Left Coast & the rest as they say is history.

On a side note, I have my doubts that OM would've stayed in the NY metro area even if the Giants had moved to Minneapolis. I think he would've eventually moved the Dodgers to Houston, Dallas or maybe even Denver These were all growing cities starved for major league baseball. And I'm sure that local politicians would've broken open the bank for OM just like Poulson did in LA.

Another scenario could've been the NL awarding an expansion franchise to San Francisco & then allowing OM to move to LA. This would've ensured that the National League would've beaten the junior circuit to the lucrative California market. It may not have been very far fetched. Remember, major league baseball did consider a plan to make the PCL a third major league if relocation plans of existing franchises failed.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported a wire service story in 1954, that the Dodgers were negotiating a move to somewhere in Texas.

[LouGehrig]

Let us assume that the fans successfully prevented the Giants from moving. All that O'Malley would have done is wait until expansion, which was only four years away in the AL and five in the NL, and those with the power would have put an expansion team in SF and O'Malley still would have taken the team.

[Greenpeach]

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported a wire service story in 1954, that the Dodgers were negotiating a move to somewhere in Texas.

Thanks for the interesting info. It doesn't surprise me in the least. Even after the Dodgers announced their move to LA, OM threatened to move the Dodgers to Phoenix after their third season if attendance was not good. This conversation was verified by Mayor Poulson of LA.

[wamby]

Thanks for the interesting info. It doesn't surprise me in the least. Even after the Dodgers announced their move to LA, OM threatened to move the Dodgers to Phoenix after their third season if attendance was not good. This conversation was verified by Mayor Poulson of LA.

I'm sure that was a subtle way to make sure the Dodger Stadium initiative passed. LOL

[brooky]

The fact is that attendance was down at the polo grounds,however, to say that the Giants received all their respective income from attendance could not be further from the truth. You see,during that period the Giants, and Dodgers received what amounted to about $1,000,000.00 a piece from television rights. You can look it up! So ,in effect, while attendance was down they were making enough money to survive that "rocky period." I dont buy into any other reason outside of avarice and greed on the part of Judas and Stoneham for the move. Profits were down but each team was making money. As for Stoneham,he never made a dime out there on the west coast and had to sell out in the end.He should not have listened to Judas ,whose son by the way has a website dedicated to his father in hopes that the baseball lords(they will eventually)will elect Judas O'Malley to the Hall Of Fame. :ughh Brooky

[westsidegrounds]

As for Stoneham,he never made a dime out there on the west coast and had to sell out in the end.


Actually he did quite well. He got Candlestick for free - and whatever you think of the place, that ain't a bad price for a ballpark - and attendances were excellent, even in the Seals' old Coast League park they played in while the Palace Of The Winds was being built. It was Oakland getting a team that came close to driving the team out of SF - check the attendance figures, they were cut neatly in half.

But now they're drawing three million a year and crying poor ... I have no explanation for that ...

[CaliforniaCajun]

Stoneham in his latter years regretted moving the Giants out of New York. I read this in a book.

If those owners only knew what the future would be in baseball economics:

Philadelphia A's to KC
Braves to Milwaukee
Giants to San Francisco
Senators to Minneapolis

I don't think any franchise shifts would have been made.

What I think should have happened is for a third major league to start that covered the South and West without stealing teams. If that didn't work out you could have a merger. For a time, the Pacific Coast League was given a unique classification of AAAA. In the PCL you had the Los Angeles Angels, Hollywood Stars, and San Francisco Seals (I don't know if there was a San Diego Padres at that time but they definitely preexisted)..

[tonypug]

If those owners only knew what the future would be in baseball economics:

Philadelphia A's to KC
Braves to Milwaukee
Giants to San Francisco
Senators to Minneapolis

I don't think any franchise shifts would have been made.

What I think should have happened is for a third major league to start that covered the South and West without stealing teams. If that didn't work out you could have a merger. For a time, the Pacific Coast League was given a unique classification of AAAA. In the PCL you had the Los Angeles Angels, Hollywood Stars, and San Francisco Seals (I don't know if there was a San Diego Padres at that time but they definitely preexisted)..
The old Pacific Coast League consisted of eight teams.They were: Hollywood Stars,Portland Beavers, Oakland Oaks, San Francisco Seals, Sacremento Salons, Los Angeles Angels,Seattle Raniers and San Diego Padres. The big problem was the lack of Stadiums with adequate seating capacities.The other problem with three major leagues, how to play the world series.It would have made things easier on a lot of cities.

[Brownie31]

The old Pacific Coast League consisted of eight teams.They were: Hollywood Stars,Portland Beavers, Oakland Oaks, San Francisco Seals, Sacremento Salons, Los Angeles Angels,Seattle Raniers and San Diego Padres. The big problem was the lack of Stadiums with adequate seating capacities.The other problem with three major leagues, how to play the world series.It would have made things easier on a lot of cities.
Lefty O'Doul, longtime San Francisco Seals manager and 1932 NL batting champ (.368) as a Brooklyn Dodger, suggested the PCL as a third major league in 1946. Alas another missed opportunity! As to the World Series: whichever of the three pennant winners had the best winning percentage could draw a bye. The other two would have a playoff and meet the bye team in the World Series. Look at how many division playoffs you have now! A good case can be made that O'Doul is another Brooklyn Dodger slighted by the Hall of Fame. Brownie31

[EbtsFldGuy]

Any other owner with Stoneham's econcomic situation would have moved.

BUT an owner with money and/or political clout could have pressured NYC into amenities (including more cops outside the PG) and kept the Giants here.

Just look at Detroit, and the slum they played in for decades - but then, again, the Tigers were the only game in town.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Any other owner with Stoneham's econcomic situation would have moved.

BUT an owner with money and/or political clout could have pressured NYC into amenities (including more cops outside the PG) and kept the Giants here.

Just look at Detroit, and the slum they played in for decades - but then, again, the Tigers were the only game in town.I live in detroit and the area around tiger stadium is not a slum.i never had any problems going to games at tiger stadium. if any place is a slum its the area around comerica park.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Very different situations.

Brooklyn fans had been turning up in excellent numbers throughout the '50s, providing solid revenues for a team that most regarded as the standardbearer of their borough's identity. Then some tinhorn shyster backstabs his way into control and sells out the loyal fans for a few lousy extra bucks. No wonder they were peeved, and still are.

On the other hand, the Giants had been in the Stoneham family for many years. The '50s featured some of the most exciting pennant races even in that team's glorious history. Plus they had the most exciting and charismatic player in the game's history playing center field every day. But attendance figures were shamefully low. NYG fans today don't blame Horace for the move - he did what he had to do, fan attendance was his only source of income. If anyone's to blame, it's the people who only had to take a ten-minute subway ride to watch the greatest team in baseball, and didn't, because "oooo - that's a Bad Neighborhood!" They stole my team - not Horace.

I'm a lifelong Giant fan, but I'm of course aware of how BROOKLYN Dodger fans lived and died with that team, every year. And I thought of that when a law school classmate told me the following disgusting story a good many years ago now:

She said she and a friend were in L.A. when Dennis Martinez pitched his perfect game, and happened to go to the park that night. She's a lifelong Dodger fan and knows her baseball well. She was on the edge of her seat for the last two innings, as one would imagine. But do you know what she told me? She said that as usual, the LOS ANGELES Dodger "fans" were leaving the game in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings. Of a perfect game. Just getting up and walking out. Not even looking back.

I have pondered that story ever since, and two thoughts have come to mind:

(1) If I'd been the Dodgers' owner(s), I would have identified as many season ticket holders as possible who'd been among those walking out, and I would have forever erased them from the season ticket-holder list; and

(2) When the Dodgers' aging, but diehard, Brooklyn fans hear an outrageous story like that, even at this distant point in time, how must they feel?

Baseball History Nut

[DODGER DEB]

I'm a lifelong Giant fan, but I'm of course aware of how BROOKLYN Dodger fans lived and died with that team, every year. And I thought of that when a law school classmate told me the following disgusting story a good many years ago now:

She said she and a friend were in L.A. when Dennis Martinez pitched his perfect game, and happened to go to the park that night. She's a lifelong Dodger fan and knows her baseball well. She was on the edge of her seat for the last two innings, as one would imagine. But do you know what she told me? She said that as usual, the LOS ANGELES Dodger "fans" were leaving the game in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings. Of a perfect game. Just getting up and walking out. Not even looking back.

I have pondered that story ever since, and two thoughts have come to mind:

(1) If I'd been the Dodgers' owner(s), I would have identified as many season ticket holders as possible who'd been among those walking out, and I would have forever erased them from the season ticket-holder list; and

(2) When the Dodgers' aging, but diehard, Brooklyn fans hear an outrageous story like that, even at this distant point in time, how must they feel?

Baseball History Nut


No need to tell any of you about my BROOKLYN DODGER background; just check my Forum. I will, however, tell you, that I experienced that same situation in the ravine several times. The very first time it happened, I remember that I, and my friends, stood up and yelled..."and this is what they stole OUR Team for...to bring them out to this"?

This is only one part of the tragic story, "out there". I will be talking much more about what I witnessed in my upcoming book.

It made is sick! It still makes me sick when I think about all of it. :ughh

c.

[Brownie31]

No need to tell any of you about my BROOKLYN DODGER background; just check my Forum. I will, however, tell you, that I experienced that same situation in the ravine several times. The very first time it happened, I remember that I, and my friends, stood up and yelled..."and this is what they stole OUR Team for...to bring them out to this"?

This is only one part of the tragic story, "out there". I will be talking much more about what I witnessed in my upcoming book.

It made is sick! It still makes me sick when I think about all of it. :ughh

c.

Ode To Loyalty

Flatbush may have had fans who were loud and burly
But not a one left a ball game early

Out in LALA, where actor's agents are spinning
All are gone by the eighth inning

LALA's attitude is most assuredly third rate
While Brooklyn's been deprived since '58!

Brownie31

[mwiggins]

No need to tell any of you about my BROOKLYN DODGER background; just check my Forum. I will, however, tell you, that I experienced that same situation in the ravine several times. The very first time it happened, I remember that I, and my friends, stood up and yelled..."and this is what they stole OUR Team for...to bring them out to this"?

This is only one part of the tragic story, "out there". I will be talking much more about what I witnessed in my upcoming book.

It made is sick! It still makes me sick when I think about all of it. :ughh

c.

One thing I've always wondered, during the first few years in LA, which feeling was stronger - your dislike for O'Malley and his LA Dodgers, or your love for the players who had been Brooklyn Dodgers? For example, were you cheering for Snider and Hodges and Podres in the '59 Series, even though they were playing for LA?

[DODGER DEB]

One thing I've always wondered, during the first few years in LA, which feeling was stronger - your dislike for O'Malley and his LA Dodgers, or your love for the players who had been Brooklyn Dodgers? For example, were you cheering for Snider and Hodges and Podres in the '59 Series, even though they were playing for LA?

First, please understand that OUR DODGERS, the real DODGERS, died on October 9, 1957. I have never, and would never, root for a team that not only was stolen from US for pure greed, but a group that also stole OUR NAME...and after all these years, continues to use it! :evil

We were very close to OUR Players and always wished them well, no matter where they played. In 1958, we traveled to Philadelphia to see them play, and of course, we saw them in NY. As the years passed, most of OUR players either retired, or in a few cases, moved on, for a year or two, to other teams, like the METS, Pirates, Orioles, or Tigers etc.

c.

[D6+]

I understand attendence was going down, the last three years were,824,000.629.000 and 653,000. People said they wouldn't go because of the area, how come the Mets drew 922,000 and 1,080,000 their two years in the Polo Grounds? I found it strange when the Giants moved to SF they had a bunch of good young players Orlando Cepeda, Jim Davenport, Willie McCovey ready to play. Why not bring some of them up early to New York, it might have helped attendence and created more interest.


My guess is the Mets outdrew the NY Giants because of the novelty of National League Baseball being back in New York after not having an NL team in town the previous 4 seasons. It didn't even matter that the Mets were arguably the worst team in MLB history over a two year period and that the area the Polo Grounds was in wasn't the ideal place to visit. The hunger for National League baseball was the overriding factor in the equation.

[D6+]

What is easy to forget two decades later is that the Giants were all set to leave SF in about 1978 for Toronto. I recall watching the Channel 5 (in NYC) 10 o'clock news with Bill Jorgensen one Friday night in 1978 (maybe 79)when the lead was "The San Francisco Giants are no more." Only some last minute local efforts prevented that move.

Greenpeach has it right. Had the Giants gone to Shea, they would have thrived. In addition to the euphoria over getting out of the PG and its attendant dangers, people would have loved Shea, as the Mets fans did for several years. And yes, the quality of the young players the Giants had beginning in 1958 would have made that team a contender and keen draw in Shea - and a natural rival for the Yankees.

Horace Stoneham was honorable about his move, announcing it in August - unlike O'Malley, who milked every second of hope out of the adoring faithful in Brooklyn, waiting until October to announce his departure. Horace was a decent man, who was dealt a bad hand. Too bad he did not prosper, instead of that other fellow.


The San Francisco team also came very close to moving to the Tampa Bay area in 1992. If not for former NL President Bill White, the Tampa Bay Giants would likely have become a reality.

[tonypug]

My guess is the Mets outdrew the NY Giants because of the novelty of National League Baseball being back in New York after not having an NL team in town the previous 4 seasons. It didn't even matter that the Mets were arguably the worst team in MLB history over a two year period and that the area the Polo Grounds was in wasn't the ideal place to visit. The hunger for National League baseball was the overriding factor in the equation.
There was a hunger for National League baseball. The fan base was always there it just had to be full tapped. The area around the Polo Grounds didn't get any safer, yet people still came out. If it was truly an unsafe area. people would not have gone to see the Mets, hunger or no hunger.

[tonypug]

The San Francisco team also came very close to moving to the Tampa Bay area in 1992. If not for former NL President Bill White, the Tampa Bay Giants would likely have become a reality.
Peter O'Malley, not Bill White blocked the sale of the Giants to Tampa Bay. He made the it wouldn't be fair to the fans of San Francisco if they lost their team speech. Its funny his father never felt that way when he left Brooklyn.

[EbtsFldGuy]

There was a hunger for National League baseball. The fan base was always there it just had to be full tapped. The area around the Polo Grounds didn't get any safer, yet people still came out. If it was truly an unsafe area. people would not have gone to see the Mets, hunger or no hunger.

I agree about the hunger part, but not about the assessment of the area around the PG. It was no better in 1962 than it had been in 1957. Maybe NYC put more cops there on game day, but it was still a high crime area. Illustratively, several years after the Mets left, two NYC cops, Piagenti and Jones, were murdered by militants in the Polo Grounds Houses complex.

[tonypug]

I agree about the hunger part, but not about the assessment of the area around the PG. It was no better in 1962 than it had been in 1957. Maybe NYC put more cops there on game day, but it was still a high crime area. Illustratively, several years after the Mets left, two NYC cops, Piagenti and Jones, were murdered by militants in the Polo Grounds Houses complex.
I agree the area was no better or worse in 1957 and 1962. But the fans had a reason for going to the Polo Grounds again. Thanks for your support.

[EbtsFldGuy]

TonyPug's posts raise an interesting question that has been marginally considered from time to time on this and the Brooklyn Dodgers board: i.e. the effect of the safety of the neighborhood on the longevity of the stadium.

There are examples both ways. The Phillies HAD to leave Connie Mack because North Philly had deteriorated to the point that fan attendance was so negatively affected. Yet the White Sox not only stayed in a bad part of the South Side, but built a new park there. And there is Detroit, and Cleveland before the city rebuilt itself and its reputation.

The Polo Grounds neighborhood in 1957 was worse than Ebbets Field's (Crown Heights/Flatbush), but the Mets drew well for the two years they were there in 1962 & 1963. And the Bronx near Yankee Stadium has not been the best of places for years.

Yet there has always been an ample police presence at Yankee Stadium on game days and there have been improvements in parking, transit, etc.

I believe the same could have been done for the PG, but EF would have been harder, because of its location. Still, I am convinced that both parks could exist today, with proper financing and adjustmets. Whether they were suitable for the now-indispendable luxury box construction is another matter.

Nonetheless, how interesting is it that Giants and Dodger fans are still ruing the moves 49 years later.

Shows the impact those teams had in NYC and beyond. I'd bet that there is no such passion left in Boston (for the Braves), or St. Louis ( for the Browns). There is a Phila A's website, however.

End of my Sunday morning musings.

[tonypug]

TonyPug's posts raise an interesting question that has been marginally considered from time to time on this and the Brooklyn Dodgers board: i.e. the effect of the safety of the neighborhood on the longevity of the stadium.

There are examples both ways. The Phillies HAD to leave Connie Mack because North Philly had deteriorated to the point that fan attendance was so negatively affected. Yet the White Sox not only stayed in a bad part of the South Side, but built a new park there. And there is Detroit, and Cleveland before the city rebuilt itself and its reputation.

The Polo Grounds neighborhood in 1957 was worse than Ebbets Field's (Crown Heights/Flatbush), but the Mets drew well for the two years they were there in 1962 & 1963. And the Bronx near Yankee Stadium has not been the best of places for years.

Yet there has always been an ample police presence at Yankee Stadium on game days and there have been improvements in parking, transit, etc.

I believe the same could have been done for the PG, but EF would have been harder, because of its location. Still, I am convinced that both parks could exist today, with proper financing and adjustmets. Whether they were suitable for the now-indispendable luxury box construction is another matter.

Nonetheless, how interesting is it that Giants and Dodger fans are still ruing the moves 49 years later.

Shows the impact those teams had in NYC and beyond. I'd bet that there is no such passion left in Boston (for the Braves), or St. Louis ( for the Browns). There is a Phila A's website, however.

End of my Sunday morning musings.
Not bad for a Sunday morning. I was 10 when the teams left for the west coast. I remember going to both Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds from 1954 on.I never felt insecure, but of course I was always in the company of my father and older brother.Ebbets Field and Brooklyn were doomed because O'Malley was looking to move well before 1957. O'Malley had no intention of using any of his own money to build a new stadium. The Giants were a different situation. The Dodgers were still making a healthy profit despite what O'Malley tried to say. The Giants were having real financial problems. The Polo Grounds could have been renovated, but the question was would it have nade a difference. Stoneham didn't think it would make a difference. O'Malley encoraged the talk about safety and security issues, it helped his cause.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Were I a professor in an MBA program, here's an assignment I'd give to each student:

Make an economic case for the Dodgers (or Giants) leaving NY in 1957.

Then make the opposite case.

Would make for interesting reading, I suspect.

[tonypug]

Interesting concept. I would enroll in that course just to do the project.

[aqib]

Were I a professor in an MBA program, here's an assignment I'd give to each student:

Make an economic case for the Dodgers (or Giants) leaving NY in 1957.

Then make the opposite case.

Would make for interesting reading, I suspect.

That would have made getting my MBA so much more fun, but I am sure anyone who made too strong of a case FOR the Dodgers move would fail in my school because I went to NYU. The University president is John Sexton the same one who was in the HBO documentary telling the story of how his Catholic school teacher wouldn't let them listen to game 7 of the 1955 series as a punishment. Towards the end of the movie he says "Walter O'Malley is in the 7th layer of Dante's h**l with some of the most vile people of the 20th century." So I am pretty sure if I wanted to graduate my case would have to say "yeah the Giants should go because who likes the Giants anyway, they were a bunch of cheaters and we all hate the Giants, but the Dodgers they should stay"

[nl1899fan]

Compared to the Brooklyn Dodgers move to LA which was in the newspapers every day, there was very little written about the Giants move to SF. O'Malley was always being quoted, nothing much was ever said about Stoneham. Was it that nobody believed Stoneham would move, or that none of the City fathers cared if they did. I remember stories about Stoneham begging to come to meetings with the city fathers and O'Malley, but he was never invited. How come?

I never have understood this myself. It seemed like New York didn't care if the Giants left-very little is written about this half of the double move west.
Pretty ironic, since the Giants were once THE team in town until that Babe Ruth guy showed up.

The city bigshots probably figured if the Giants left the Dodgers wouldn't dare to do so too even though the signs were all there and the NL insisted that a move west would be a package deal. True the Giants were in bad shape by 1957 but more effort should have been made to keep them-had they stayed put two more years the Giants would have done well financially in New York when Cepeda, Mc Covey, Marichal and the rest came up.

[Perseus71]

I just wanted to add in that the Giants also were talked about in a move to Denver, before the expansion team got awarded to them. The Denver Post, at the time, put the "D" on the baseball cap and put Denver in the Giants logo. Quite sickening to tell you the truth... The Denver Giants?

The Giants have a nice home now, but like I said in the Dodger forum,"How do you leave the #1 market in the country?" The Mets are worth more than the Dodgers and Giants combined, so the NY National League team gets the last laugh. Plus a better stadium now!

[Ottman]

I'm too young to remember the Giants and the Dodgers playing in New York although my father has 8mm film of the Cardinals and Mets playing at the Polo Grounds in 1963. I find the whole Giant/Dodger move extremely interesting. There seems to be a myriad of reasons and theories. Can anyone recommend a book that definitively deals with the subject? Does such a book exist, and if not one should be written!