Ebbets Field's last years

[dreifort]

aerial photo:

[dreifort]

main entrance

[dreifort]

start of game...

[dreifort]

..........

[dreifort]

.....>....

[dreifort]

....>.....

[dreifort]

...........

[dreifort]

............

[dreifort]

..........

[dreifort]

..>.......

[dreifort]

......>...

[dreifort]

.......>..

[dreifort]

......>....

[dreifort]

Hodges' telling reporters that he doesn't care that he will get snubbed by the Hall of Fame, that he still enjoyed playing ball in Brooklyn :rolleyes:

[dreifort]

fire the advertising rep.... :(

[donzblock]

Thanks for the wonderful pictures: my favorite shows the Dodgers taking the field. Only one of them ain't so good.

[tonypug]

Thanks for the wonderful pictures: my favorite shows the Dodgers taking the field. Only one of them ain't so good.
Your right, that one of the Dodgers taking the field is great. The visiting team pitcher warming up in front of the dugout, the grounds crew finishing up their work, what memories. I like the ones showing into the corners down each line.

[dreifort]

Thanks for the wonderful pictures: my favorite shows the Dodgers taking the field. Only one of them ain't so good.

these are video captures from footage from a baseball documentary during the late 50s.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Add my name to the list of the grateful for your posting those special shots of our favorite ballpark.

As I saw each, I was instantly reminded of my youth. Got a chill from those long ago splendid memories.

How sad that Ebbets Field is now only a remembrance. What great places it and Flatbush once were!

[dreifort]

thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed them.


btw, did Ebbets field rotate its signs on the RF wall regulary? I noticed that the Van Huesen sign seemed to move locations in a couple of the pics.

I'm also really surprised & disappointed that the new owner of Ebbet's land didn't save or re-create the exterior to the main entrance to Ebbets...that's really a landmark and unique design to the early 1900s...shame they only saved a marker and not part of the stadium design itself :(

[DODGER DEB]

thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed them.


btw, did Ebbets field rotate its signs on the RF wall regulary? I noticed that the Van Huesen sign seemed to move locations in a couple of the pics.

I'm also really surprised & disappointed that the new owner of Ebbet's land didn't save or re-create the exterior to the main entrance to Ebbets...that's really a landmark and unique design to the early 1900s...shame they only saved a marker and not part of the stadium design itself :(


The new "owner" of OUR EBBETS FIELD really had NO interest in preserving any part of the ballpark. Kratter's interest was in obtaining the land to build that monster that stands there. IF you were there during the days they threw it down, as I was, you would have understood that.

In 1960 NYC did NOT have a Landmark Preservation Group; it came too late for OUR ballpark, so there was really no one to appeal to, and no way to save OUR ballpark.

In hindsight, perhaps WE (BROOKLYN FANS) should have concentrated more on trying to save, and keep in BROOKLYN, many of the parts of OUR EBBETS FIELD that were OUR HISTORY! The PAIN of watching OUR EBBETS being destroyed still hurts to this day.

OUR Centerfield Flagpole was "donated" to a VFW Hall in Flatbush, and still stands in front of that building. WE have been trying to "buy" it back and have it relocated in Downtown BROOKLYN. OUR Scoreboard was sold to a minor league group in Ashville, NC, and I understsand, destroyed several years ago. I have never been able to find out what happened to OUR BIG WHITE LETTERS that spelled EBBETS FIELD. Several items that were in OUR ROTUNDA, including that spectacular Chandelier are in storage in LA by the O'Malley Family. Many of the seats were sold at auction and they are scattered all over the country.

As for your question about the advertising signs, I think that just came down to WHO bought WHAT and HOW MUCH they paid for it, for THAT season!

BTW, dreifort, thanks for ALL the great photos......I NEVER tire of LOOKING at OUR HOME!

c.

[tonypug]

The new "owner" of OUR EBBETS FIELD really had NO interest in preserving any part of the ballpark. Kratter's interest was in obtaining the land to build that monster that stands there. IF you were there during the days they threw it down, as I was, you would have understood that.

In 1960 NYC did NOT have a Landmark Preservation Group; it came too late for OUR ballpark, so there was really no one to appeal to, and no way to save OUR ballpark.

In hindsight, perhaps WE (BROOKLYN FANS) should have concentrated more on trying to save, and keep in BROOKLYN, many of the parts of OUR EBBETS FIELD that were OUR HISTORY! The PAIN of watching OUR EBBETS being destroyed still hurts to this day.

OUR Centerfield Flagpole was "donated" to a VFW Hall in Flatbush, and still stands in front of that building. WE have been trying to "buy" it back and have it relocated in Downtown BROOKLYN. OUR Scoreboard was sold to a minor league group in Ashville, NC, and I understsand, destroyed several years ago. I have never been able to find out what happened to OUR BIG WHITE LETTERS that spelled EBBETS FIELD. Several items that were in OUR ROTUNDA, including that spectacular Chandelier are in storage in LA by the O'Malley Family. Many of the seats were sold at auction and they are scattered all over the country.

As for your question about the advertising signs, I think that just came down to WHO bought WHAT and HOW MUCH they paid for it, for THAT season!

BTW, dreifort, thanks for ALL the great photos......I NEVER tire of LOOKING at OUR HOME!

c.
All the newspapers of the time as well as the Sporting News all carried stories of Kratter saying part of Ebbets Field would be used for youth and Little League fields and that some sort of baseball would always be played there. What ever happened to that. I don't ever remember any youth ball fields being put on the Ebbets Field site. I have copies of the Sporting News articles.

[DODGER DEB]

All the newspapers of the time as well as the Sporting News all carried stories of Kratter saying part of Ebbets Field would be used for youth and Little League fields and that some sort of baseball would always be played there. What ever happened to that. I don't ever remember any youth ball fields being put on the Ebbets Field site. I have copies of the Sporting News articles.


It's safe to say that Kratter NEVER had any intention of keeping those promises. Obviously, all THEY represented were more PR lies....kind of like....a spoon full of sugar lets the (bad) medicine go down....

c.

[Obri]

A question for you Bums....since I'm not sure of Ebbets Field's location, can anyone tell me what lies in it's place today? Thanks.

[dreifort]

a grungy looking apartment/condo high-rise

[EbtsFldGuy]

A question for you Bums....since I'm not sure of Ebbets Field's location, can anyone tell me what lies in it's place today? Thanks.

Obri,

Let me add to Dreifort's accurate answer.

As far as I can tell from this Board, I've been back to the site where EF once stood most often in recent times: 5 times in the past 2 years. Those visits are discussed on other threads here, along with comments of other posters about what the neighborhood once was and became.

The short version: structurally, the area hasn't changed much, except for the actual site of the park, which is now Ebbets Field Houses, a series of typical high rise apt buildings. The area does seem seedier now than it was then, but is nowhere near the horrid area that the North Philadelphia site of Connie Mack Stadium is now. The surrounding streets housing stock of one family homes and apt buildings is similar to what I remember it from Dodger years.

If you Google "Ebbets Field" you will find many sites, some with photos, describing the area today. One of them shows a tour two young men made a few years ago of the EF area. Sad.

Hope this helps.

[Obri]

Thank you Dreifort and EbtsFldGuy.

[DODGER DEB]

Probably the most interesting "site" on this apartment complex is the one on the corner of Bedford Avenue and Sullivan Place where, ingraved in one of the bricks on the building, it states NO BALL PLAYING ALLOWED!

Considering it is on the site of where some of the GREATEST BASEBALL PLAYING of the 20th Century took place...THAT SIGN is almost criminal! :evil

BTW, nice to see you back, Obri,....hope you stay a while this time!

c.

[Paulmcall]

Yea and a "No ball playing" sign.
They have a small sign mentioning that it was the former site of Ebbets Field etc.
A pathetic end to a great place to see a game.
Terrific photos.

[dreifort]

(few more I have found)

[dreifort]

BROOKLYN SCORES AN "INSIDE THE PARK" HOME RUN


Wednesday, June 19th, 2002

It was almost 90 years ago that a park opened at 55 Sullivan Place. It was a playground for adults and children, and the only game played there was baseball. Charlie Ebbets, the primary owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, named the stadium after a very important person, himself. An unofficial exhibition game was played there against the New York Yankees on April 5, 1913. And on April 9, 1913, the Dodgers officially broke in their new ballpark in a game against the Phillies.


But less than fifty years later—and only two years after the Dodgers won their first World Series—the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles, rendering an entire borough of baseball fans heartbroken.


Last week, the spirit of Ebbets Field and the Brooklyn Dodgers was in the air, and it didn’t only come from the hotdogs and Crackerjacks cooked up by Parks’ Brooklyn Special Events Office (although they were quite yummy). In fact, last Tuesday in Crown Heights, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe joined Council Member James E. Davis, Community Board 9 Chair Rabbi Jake Goldstein, community members, and children, to celebrate the reopening of Dodger Playground (formerly known as Sullivan Playground). The playground, steps away from where Ebbets Field once stood, has received a complete Dodger-theme makeover.



"In addition to adding brand new play equipment, Parks Designers Dennis Flynn and Randee Stewart paid tribute the first great Brooklyn team," said Commissioner Benepe. "Looking at historical photographs of Ebbets Field, they created laser-cut steel panels for the park’s gates and a ramp to simulate the feeling Brooklynites got when they entered the stadium’s grand entrance." The designers also placed a super-sized pre-cast concrete replica of a 1941 Brooklyn Dodgers Opening Day ticket, and they added a concrete North Arrow paver that lists the years in which the Dodgers won the Pennant—in addition to their one World Series victory in 1955. Kids can also play a water version of baseball thanks to a baseball diamond spray shower. The mini-ballfield features a water-shooting catcher and bases. Finally, parks planted several native species of shrubs including Aucuba, Euonymus, Hydrangea, Holly, Juniper, and various perennials. Throughout construction, Resident Engineer Hicham Osman made sure the designers’ plans went smoothly.


Ebbets Field cost $750,000 to build. Of course, that was back in 1913. Dodger Playground’s reconstruction cost $828,000 and was funded by the City Council. In a marked departure from Charlie Ebbet’s example, the Parks Department decided to name this mini-park after the team, not the owner.


"As we speak," noted Benepe, "the Brooklyn Cyclone’s 2001 Championship Flag is being raised above Borough Hall. I am pleased that Parks, too, is helping to bring back the baseball legacy to this beautiful borough." Council Member James E. Davis also commented on the significance of the Dodgers as a team of true racial and religious diversity.


Now, thanks to the support of elected officials, community advocates, and the vivid imaginations of our Parks designers, a whole new generation of Brooklyn children will grow up learning about one of the greatest teams ever to play ball.


Written by Eric Adolfsen

[Paulmcall]

Hope you liked that top photo. It's from my book Ebbets Field:Brooklyn's Baseball Shrine.
There are ten other color photos (54 all together) in the book along with great stories from the Brooklyn faithful as well as 11 old Brooklyn Dodgers.
I'll be speaking at a SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) chapter in Ann Arbor, Michigan next Saturday, Feb. 19th about the book.
If you know anyone else that wants an autographed book, just give them my email and I will help them out.
E-mail is Paulmcall@comcast.net
Thanks, Joe

[dreifort]

Hope you liked that top photo. It's from my book Ebbets Field:Brooklyn's Baseball Shrine.
There are ten other color photos (54 all together) in the book along with great stories from the Brooklyn faithful as well as 11 old Brooklyn Dodgers.
I'll be speaking at a SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) chapter in Ann Arbor, Michigan next Saturday, Feb. 19th about the book.
If you know anyone else that wants an autographed book, just give them my email and I help them out.
E-mail is Paulmcall@comcast.net
Thanks, Joe

do you know what year the photo is from? to me, a kid born in the 70s, I think I see some 1960s cars?

[Paulmcall]

The photo with the people walking across the gas station to Ebbets Field was taken in 1956.
It is part of a set of eight color slides I used for the book. They have never been published before.

[dreifort]

ok. I thought it may have been some other event held there after Ebbets was vacated by the Dodgers. Besides the Football team, was Ebbets ever used for other events, like a fair/show or circus during the 40s & 50s?

[Paulmcall]

I have a bunch of events listed in my book. There is a whole chapter devoted to other events at Ebbets Field.
Hopalong Cassidy was there with the Cole Bros. Circus.
Soccer was played there often as well as all sorts of high school sports.
In the early 20's, Marcus Loew showed a movie there to a packed house.
Those are just a few items I mentioned.

[VIBaseball]

I have asked the moderator to take down my other thread; I will present some concise info here.

A team called the Brooklyn Stars -- sponsored by none other than Roy Campanella -- played at Ebbets in the summer of '59. A gentleman I met in St. Croix, USVI in 1999 had told me he played for this team. I had never been able to find proof until recently.

Campy's club, made up of local black and Latin talent, played four doubleheaders that July and August along with Negro American League teams.

The twinbill on August 23, 1959 featured another Hall of Famer. Satchel Paige struck out four in his three-inning appearance that day.

That, to my knowledge, was the last baseball game at dear old Ebbets Field.

The Stars also played out of town. At one game at Hawkins Stadium in Albany, the opposing pitcher was Joe Black, two years after his last major-league appearance. He was a schoolteacher in his hometown of Plainfield, NJ by then, but still played a little ball with a club called the Newark Eagles.

I actually got a reply from Mr. Black when I wrote to him about Campy and the Brooklyn Stars, but his brief message was a damper. He said he didn't think it was possible. But Campy was a busy man after he got out of the hospital, and so I think Joe's memory wasn't so clear.

By the way, the last sporting event of any kind at Ebbets was an American Soccer League doubleheader on October 25, 1959. I have more information on this period.

[ColtscorrAL]

Thanks Dreifort for the great pictures. Although, I was very young when the Dodgers moved, I still have some nice memories. Thanks for helping to bring them back. :atthepc

[VIBaseball]

If anyone can help me get in touch with Ted Schreiber, who got a cup of coffee with the '63 Mets, I would appreciate it. Here's why.

Brooklyn-born Ted played college ball at St. John's. In April 1958 he hit a homer for the Redmen to win a game at Ebbets Field, after the Dodgers had left. I'd really like to get his memories about this for the article I'm writing on the "twilight years."

A couple of years ago at least, he lived in Staten Island, but that address is no longer current. I tried calling the Mets, but no luck with them so far.

[ColtscorrAL]

Thanks for the picture show Dreifort. We shall not see her likes again. To bad we live in such a disposible society. That was history they put the wrecking ball to, all in the name of progress. Who ever called THAT progress, should be made to write the definition of the word a thousand times. :atthepc

[64Cards]

Thanks for the picture show Dreifort. We shall not see her likes again. To bad we live in such a disposible society. That was history they put the wrecking ball to, all in the name of progress. Who ever called THAT progress, should be made to write the definition of the word a thousand times. :atthepc
Amen, brother. I don't know what would have been so hard about leaving the old ballparks up, let college and high school teams play football & bb at 'em. They would have been thrilled, just get someone in to mow the grass once in a while. Could of had some great beer gardens at them too. Wouldn't be bad, knocking down a few cold ones on a nice afternoon, while gazing at a classic ballpark. But once they're gone, that's it. All we have left are photos and memories.

RIP-Ebbetts, Polo Grounds, Sportsmans, Crosley, Forbes, Comiskey and all the others. :ughh

[Gotham]

That is great idea. The only problem is that it would cost a lot to always have the field look good and the safety issue would always have to be dealt with. Maybe Bud will do that with Busch Stadium but it's not exactly beautiful is it?

[64Cards]

That is great idea. The only problem is that it would cost a lot to always have the field look good and the safety issue would always have to be dealt with. Maybe Bud will do that with Busch Stadium but it's not exactly beautiful is it?
Anheuser-Busch doesn't own the Cards or the ballpark anymore. It gets nuked as soon as the season is over, they can't complete the new park till it's gone. And you're right, it's not exactly beautiful, the best of the cookie cutters, but not a classic like the old parks.

[VIBaseball]

If anyone can help me get in touch with Ted Schreiber, who got a cup of coffee with the '63 Mets, I would appreciate it. Here's why.

Brooklyn-born Ted played college ball at St. John's. In April 1958 he hit a homer for the Redmen to win a game at Ebbets Field, after the Dodgers had left. I'd really like to get his memories about this for the article I'm writing on the "twilight years."

A couple of years ago at least, he lived in Staten Island, but that address is no longer current. I tried calling the Mets, but no luck with them so far.

I finally did reach Ted some months ago through SABR connections, and the story I got from him was just what I wanted. The article, which you may now see on the sticky Ebbets Field History thread, is available for you all to read if you wish.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Here is a photo that i found on the web that was taken in 2004. its one of the ebbets field street cars in storage i guess some where in brooklyn or new york.i new that everyone would like to see this photo.

[Elvis]

Great pic. It looks like it's pretty well preserved too.

[VIBaseball]

I believe this is in Red Hook. There was a plan to revive trolley service from this cut-off neighborhood to downtown Brooklyn, but the funding ran out. I remember seeing this car or another with the Ebbets sign there near the Beard Street pier. There is now a Fairway supermarket there and water taxi service is making a stop. It's really a shame about the trolley...I think the idea came just a little too early.

[tonypug]

Here is a photo that i found on the web that was taken in 2004. its one of the ebbets field street cars in storage i guess some where in brooklyn or new york.i new that everyone would like to see this photo.
This is a great picture and an ironic picture. Notice the destination sign. Ebbets Field via Flatbush and Atlantic Aves. Flatbush Ave and Atlantic Ave. Where the battle line was drawn in the sand. And to think O'Malley knew all along that Moses was right, it wasn't a suitable place for a ballpark.

[EbtsFldGuy]

a grungy looking apartment/condo high-rise


Amen!


And to Obri,

The official address of Ebbets Field was 55 Sullivan Place.
EF was located on the border of Crown Heights/Flatbush. It was surrounded by Sullivan Place (1st base side), Bedford Ave (right/center field), Montgomery Street (left field) and McKeever Place (3rd base side).

All those streets remain, enveloping now that awful complex.

[VIBaseball]

It's safe to say that Kratter NEVER had any intention of keeping those promises. Obviously, all THEY represented were more PR lies....kind of like....a spoon full of sugar lets the (bad) medicine go down....

c.

I'm trying to see if I can find more about Kratter's promise to build a ballfield at the Ebbets Field apartments. Nothing so far. However, I found something really perverse. Would you believe that Brooklyn College named Kratter its alumnus of the year for 1961?

I wondered why...surely the people who made that decision weren't baseball fans. But the Times reported on December 26, 1960 that Kratter gave $100,000 to the college to provide for five scholarships. Who knows, maybe he was trying to assuage his conscience.

[aqib]

A couple of questions:

1) So why the Ebbets Field stay standing for a couple of years after the Dodgers left? If they were going to clear the land for apartments why not start the week after the last game?

2) Were the apartments meant to be low income housing from the start or were they nicer but decended with time?

[dodger dynamo]

I know o'malley held a lease till 1959, how the move affected that agreement who knows?

[EdTarbusz]

(few more I have found)





I was starting to think that references to Robert Moses were revisionist history.

[MATHA531]

A couple of questions:

1) So why the Ebbets Field stay standing for a couple of years after the Dodgers left? If they were going to clear the land for apartments why not start the week after the last game?

2) Were the apartments meant to be low income housing from the start or were they nicer but decended with time?

They were meant to be middle income.

[VIBaseball]

1) So why did Ebbets Field stay standing for a couple of years after the Dodgers left? If they were going to clear the land for apartments why not start the week after the last game?

As dodger dynamo notes, O'Malley subleased Ebbets for three years (1957-59). The Dodgers played their last season in Brooklyn under this deal. There was an option to extend for two years more (1960-61), but it was not picked up.

In my view, this was a fallback option in case the L.A. deal blew up.

[Anthony]

As dodger dynamo notes, O'Malley subleased Ebbets for three years (1957-59). The Dodgers played their last season in Brooklyn under this deal. There was an option to extend for two years more (1960-61), but it was not picked up.

In my view, this was a fallback option in case the L.A. deal blew up.

So who owned Ebbets Field at the end of the Dodger's run? Did the Dodgers sell it to the developers and lease it back right before leaving? Or did they sell it earlier?

[dodger dynamo]

He sold it in 56 to the kratter corp. and immediately signed the lease deal. Whether he paid all three seasons up front is unknown. likely, or maybe he paid for 58 and 59 after they moved just as a precaution, as the La deal became tricky almost as soon as the dodgers moved. If no stadium referendum comes through. It may have been a quick trip back or somwhere else. If he had come back imagine the spin that would have been on that one. My hearts in brooklyn, I rescued the team, so forth and so on. Also a new stadium wouldn't have gone up until 62 or 63.

[Mongoose]

I was starting to think that references to Robert Moses were revisionist history.

Strange smiling protest photo. All the signs are professionally made and seem to have been made by the same sign maker. Hmmm... I wonder who would organize such a protest against Robert Moses? Certainly not any of the Dodgers' actual fans; none of them blamed him for the situation.

Well, if you read the signs, especially the one that reads "Mr. Moses, our answer to your Queens site is no", it does prove that Moses had made a credible proposal to O'Malley of the future Shea site in plenty of time to have kept the Dodgers close to home.

Which takes the legs out from under the nonsense that keeps spewing out of the O'Malley camp 50 years later.

It's good to know that Peter O'Malley is so bothered by what kind of scoundrel his father was that 50 years and more later, he's still got the propaganda mills running hard.

[Let's Go Mets!]

It's good to know that Peter O'Malley is so bothered by what kind of scoundrel his father was that 50 years and more later, he's still got the propaganda mills running hard.

No one from New York who lived it, will ever be fooled.

[aqib]

No one from New York who lived it, will ever be fooled.

IIRC he has Joan Hodges fooled and she still lives in Brooklyn.

The issue is that both Moses and O'Malley are dispicable human beings. While Moses may have been right on this issue, there are other things about him that have been discussed a lot here and elsewhere. Moses is getting more bad pub on non-Dodger issues due to the fact he is seen as the godfather of sprawl, which while it served the country well for 50 years is now seen as a bad thing with green cities as everyones new goal(there was even a reference in the ABC drama Dirty Sexy Money about rebuilding NY as a green city with Moses as a reference to a guy who had everything wrong - Again all hindsight). Also, Moses had no family and was not wealthy so there is no machine out there to tell his side of the story. O'Malley has Peter, Vin Scully, Tommy Lasorda, etc

[EdTarbusz]

Well, if you read the signs, especially the one that reads "Mr. Moses, our answer to your Queens site is no", it does prove that Moses had made a credible proposal to O'Malley of the future Shea site in plenty of time to have kept the Dodgers close to home.
.

The Dodgers must have made up those signs pretty quickly. Moses made the Flushing Meadows proposal pretty late in the city's negotiation (May of 1957 IIRC). It was a proposal that I'm sure he knew that O'Malley would never accept.

[EdTarbusz]

IIRC he has Joan Hodges fooled and she still lives in Brooklyn.

The issue is that both Moses and O'Malley are dispicable human beings. While Moses may have been right on this issue, there are other things about him that have been discussed a lot here and elsewhere. Moses is getting more bad pub on non-Dodger issues due to the fact he is seen as the godfather of sprawl, which while it served the country well for 50 years is now seen as a bad thing with green cities as everyones new goal(there was even a reference in the ABC drama Dirty Sexy Money about rebuilding NY as a green city with Moses as a reference to a guy who had everything wrong - Again all hindsight). Also, Moses had no family and was not wealthy so there is no machine out there to tell his side of the story. O'Malley has Peter, Vin Scully, Tommy Lasorda, etc

Caro's The Power Broker intimated that Moses came from a moneyed background. I don't remember if it said if he any kids or not, but that he was married twice

[Mongoose]

The Dodgers must have made up those signs pretty quickly. Moses made the Flushing Meadows proposal pretty late in the city's negotiation (May of 1957 IIRC). It was a proposal that I'm sure he knew that O'Malley would never accept.

As you so perceptively suppose, the Dodgers/O'Malley's hirelings probably did make up those signs. So your idea that O'Malley wouldn't accept the proposal is probably well founded.

Now why, pray tell, do you suppose he wouldn't accept the proposal?

As the Mets were to prove so pointedly, even an upstart baseball franchise with no guaranteed fan base and no history at all could make a killing with the set-up Robert Moses was proposing to O'Malley at Flushing Meadows...

To the extent that by the time they moved out of Shea Stadium, the Mets had a higher franchise value than that of the Dodgers.

[Mongoose]

Moses made the Flushing Meadows proposal pretty late in the city's negotiation (May of 1957 IIRC).

Not that it matters, since in 1957 the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn and there was plenty of time to keep them close to home, but...

Is that so? Did Moses really just come up with the Flushing Meadows proposal in May of 1957?

I'll let Robert Moses respond to that one himself. From his 1957 essay in Sports Illustrated:

Finally, the Park Department came up with the only suggestion involving park land which makes any sense. It was no new thing. Its locale was Queens, not Brooklyn, a fatal defect from the point of view of some Brooklyn fanatics, but otherwise eminently sensible. It had been on the park program for many years, going way back to the expansion of Flushing Meadow and the basic improvements for the World's Fair of 1939, 1940. I had charge of this work, and everything was planned with the idea that Flushing Meadow Park ultimately would take the place of the World's Fair at the geographical center of metropolitan New York and what is today also its population center.

[EdTarbusz]

As you so perceptively suppose, the Dodgers/O'Malley's hirelings probably did make up those signs. So your idea that O'Malley wouldn't accept the proposal is probably well founded.

Now why, pray tell, do you suppose he wouldn't accept the proposal?

As the Mets were to prove so pointedly, even an upstart baseball franchise with no guaranteed fan base and no history at all could make a killing with the set-up Robert Moses was proposing to O'Malley at Flushing Meadows...

To the extent that by the time they moved out of Shea Stadium, the Mets had a higher franchise value than that of the Dodgers.

I don't think the signs were made up by the Dodgers.

O'Malley wouldn't accept the Flushing deal because he was adament that the Dodgers had to own their new ballpark, he would not accept municipal ownership.

I don't think franchise value matters in this debate. This is about O'Malley getting what he wanted. And in getting that, he became the most powerful owner in the game. I don't think he would have been as powerful if he remained in New York after taking an unfavorable deal and being second banana to the Yankees.

[EdTarbusz]

Not that it matters, since in 1957 the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn and there was plenty of time to keep them close to home, but...

Is that so? Did Moses really just come up with the Flushing Meadows proposal in May of 1957?

I'll let Robert Moses respond to that one himself. From his 1957 essay in Sports Illustrated:

Finally, the Park Department came up with the only suggestion involving park land which makes any sense. It was no new thing. Its locale was Queens, not Brooklyn, a fatal defect from the point of view of some Brooklyn fanatics, but otherwise eminently sensible. It had been on the park program for many years, going way back to the expansion of Flushing Meadow and the basic improvements for the World's Fair of 1939, 1940. I had charge of this work, and everything was planned with the idea that Flushing Meadow Park ultimately would take the place of the World's Fair at the geographical center of metropolitan New York and what is today also its population center.



Per The Dodgers Move West by Neil Sullivan, Moses made the Flushing Meadows proposal to the Dodgers on April 18, 1957.

[Mongoose]

I don't think the signs were made up by the Dodgers.

O'Malley wouldn't accept the Flushing deal because he was adament that the Dodgers had to own their new ballpark, he would not accept municipal ownership.

I don't think franchise value matters in this debate. This is about O'Malley getting what he wanted. And in getting that, he became the most powerful owner in the game. I don't think he would have been as powerful if he remained in New York after taking an unfavorable deal and being second banana to the Yankees.

Well, O.K.

We can probably agree then.

The thrust of the recent bombardment of O'Malley propaganda has focussed on the idea that New York City wouldn't give the poor man a stadium and he was forced to either lose money in the supposedly decrepit, unworkable Ebbets Field, or move. As we've seen, there was another very good, highly workable option on the table: namely a stadium at Flushing Meadows.

So we can see that O'Malley could have remained highly profitable if he'd stayed in New York. He chose to leave anyway, rather obviously so he could palm the huge tract of free land in Los Angeles that the Mexicans had been kicked off.

No more needs to be done in order to prove that all the recent books and the HBO documentary are a load of garbage.

[Mongoose]

Per The Dodgers Move West by Neil Sullivan, Moses made the Flushing Meadows proposal to the Dodgers on April 18, 1957.

Even if this was true, and I don't believe it is, so what?

There was still plenty of time to accept the proposal and stay in the area.

If he really wanted to, that is...

As it stands, he flushed the Dodgers' fanatically devoted fan base down the toilet for a few hundred acres of prime real estate in Los Angeles. He didn't have to: he had a potentially highly lucrative proposal right in his backyard, but having the richest team in the league wasn't enough; he needed to be even richer. Fair enough...

But that demolishes the argument of the recent onslaught of wretched books and documentaries that suggest he was forced to move to Los Angeles as a matter of survival.

[Mongoose]

The Dodgers must have made up those signs pretty quickly.


I don't think the signs were made up by the Dodgers.

Stick with your original, off-the-cuff response. It rings more honest.

[EdTarbusz]

Stick with your original, off-the-cuff response. It rings more honest.

My original response was sarcastic.

[EdTarbusz]

Even if this was true, and I don't believe it is, so what?

There was still plenty of time to accept the proposal and stay in the area.

.

There wasn't much time. O'Malley had to give LA a decision by Oct 1, 1957 (this was extended to Oct 10th). The chances that the O'Malley would accept Moses's proposal was virtually nil, and I'm sure that O'Malley and Moses both knew that.

Count me in the camp that believes that the move was less because of greed, but more because O'Malley thought that his franchise had a better chance of substantial growth outside of Brooklyn. Brooklyn's hugely devoted fan base wasn't making much of an effort to get out to Ebbets Field, and who's to say they wouldn't came out in droves to Shea.

[dodger dynamo]

Also in moving he was taking a deal for free land that was almost yanked out from under him. He had to wait until 62 to occupy his new stadium in La. If he had known the deal was as shaky as it was he wouldn't have moved when he did.
In brooklyn he already had a safe stadium and a counter proposal on where to build one. Couldn't he have countered the proposal with let me pay for and build my own stadium on the ground? it would save the city a bundle. I think the city fathers would have said by all means pay for it yourself and the land is, for all practical purposes yours.

[Mongoose]

There wasn't much time. O'Malley had to give LA a decision by Oct 1, 1957 (this was extended to Oct 10th). The chances that the O'Malley would accept Moses's proposal was virtually nil, and I'm sure that O'Malley and Moses both knew that.

Count me in the camp that believes that the move was less because of greed, but more because O'Malley thought that his franchise had a better chance of substantial growth outside of Brooklyn. Brooklyn's hugely devoted fan base wasn't making much of an effort to get out to Ebbets Field, and who's to say they wouldn't came out in droves to Shea.

O'Malley already had the most profitable franchise in the league and all his supposed misgivings about the future in the greater Brooklyn area were solved by the Flushing Meadows proposal, which he would not accept.

If you already have the most profitable franchise in the league, but are still looking for "substantial growth", most people would classify that as greed.

[dodger dynamo]

To clear up one other thing, I was 17 for most of 57 and we thought yea, keep em in brooklyn, but hey, if it's Queens or La, nothing else, then my god as long as we still call them the brooklyn dodgers we'll choose queens, ok well I'll choose queens anyway. I was thinking that, my rationale was as long as their close a site might become available in the future. Also it's going to take several years to build that stadium over in queens so they'll be playing in ebbets till then and who know's what might come up in the meantime.
I'm believeing the signs were made by the team at o'malley's insistance, then they grabbed a few well meaning kids and told them hey, you'll get your picture in the paper and this protest will help keep the bums in brooklyn.

[MATHA531]

I don't think the signs were made up by the Dodgers.

O'Malley wouldn't accept the Flushing deal because he was adament that the Dodgers had to own their new ballpark, he would not accept municipal ownership.

I don't think franchise value matters in this debate. This is about O'Malley getting what he wanted. And in getting that, he became the most powerful owner in the game. I don't think he would have been as powerful if he remained in New York after taking an unfavorable deal and being second banana to the Yankees.

Ed...

Throughout all this you have been a staunch O'Malley defender. That, of course, is your perogative. It is the position of most of us that O'Malley was a despicable human being who felt the need for greed; who was making a mint in Brooklyn and that just wasn't enough to suit him.

The counter argument from the O'Mallehy revisionists is that poor Mr. O'Malley was faced with a failing situation in Brooklyn, received no cooperation from Robert Moses in his modest request to condemn land where stood only a meat market and that hence failing to get this, O'Malley was forced to grudgingly accept an offer from the LA city government and take his possession elsewhere.

Now, we have to discuss two parts of this argument. Was O'Malley failing in Brooklyn? The answer, of course, as has been shown time and time again is a resounding NO. Even in 1956 (let's leave 1957 out of this which everybody knew, at least by June, was a lame duck season). Brooklyn Dodger revenue was #1 in the major leagues, even more than the Yankees thanks to the residuals the name Brooklyn Dodgers gave to him. Do you deny that? The Milwaukee Braves, and again to be fair we'll leave out what we know about them from hindsight, were making nowhere the money as were the Brooklyn Dodgers. Is it true or not true that all other teams that had moved were playing in municipal stadiums they leased? So owning your own Stadium was not the norm. Was it illegal under New York's eminent domain laws for the land O'Malley claimed he wanted Moses to condemn to have done so? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I've read your stuff...O'Malley was afraid that because of the flight of his wealthier clientele to uh Queens and Nassau, the Dodgers would not be able to compete for ballplayers and hence would fail on the field and hence would not be able to command the television and radio money being paid to them. There is not one piece of evidence to suggest this. As a matter of fact, the Mets when formed, a team that lost 120 games were granted by Cnannel 9 one of the biggest contracts in the history of baseball (and also in their first year followed the Dodger tradition of televising 127 games on free television).

Purely and simply, it is clearly, a need for greed that precipitated the move.

And to the O'Malley family, sick of seeing poor Walter and the name being depicted in the negative manner he was for years, and perhaps being kept out of the Hall of Fame which certain members of the imposter organization felt he belonged (Vin Sculkly made it a point never to attend an induction day at Cooperstown because of the "injustice" that was being done to Walter).

And guess what, they thought they had an easy target in Robert Moses a man whose name is very much associated with many as one of the most evil people of the 20th century. I won't argue with many of the things that were said about Moses but I hate to think where the NY region would be today without his highways, bridges, and parks although many were built with a heavy toll on the lower classes. The book "The Power Broker" makes that abudantly clear. But in its over 700 pages, there is only one small mention of Walter O'Malley and the Dodgers, just one. If indeed Moses was at fault, this would certainly have raised a juicy topic for the author to sink his fangs into, don't you think?

I just don't understand why you have become such a defender of O'Malley as you have said you grew up in Cleveland and I think mentioned you are a Browns fan. Do you think Art Modell did right by Cleveland? But as we have pointed out, from what I read, the solution to leave the name and traditions of the Browns in Cleveland at least partially rectified the situation. (And don't the Browns play in a Stadium they lease?) Now the Cleveland solution would surely not have been my preference, that's for sure. But it sure would have been better than the no solution we eventually were given.

And how well do you know the geography and everything else about the New York City region. Do you know the relationship between Brooklyn and Queens? They are artificial subdivisions of Long Island based on the way some Dutch settlements happened to have been laid out in the 17th century (as BTW are Nassau and Suffolk Counties)....about the only tangible thing that can easily be shown is that all four counties, all part of Long Island, are part of the Federal government's Eastern District of New York. Federal court cases from Queens are heard in a federal court located in of all places Brooklyn. Fact, yes or no.....So it would hardly be preposterous for a team called the Brooklyn Dodgers to play in such alien territory as Queens, in a location with more than adequate transportation choices including subway, LIRR, highway and loads of land for parking the automobiles that were begining to become part of the American fabric of life (like it or not today and certainly something O'Malley later was proud of when Chavez Ravine Stadium was built without any real public transportation).

You know something, where I lived as a boy and as a boy and as well my dad we didn't particularly like the Queens solution as it was not terribly convenient for us to tet to Atlantic/Flatbush by public transportation either. Ah ha, then we moved to Canarsie, just off the Belt Parkway. Driving to Flushing Meadow could take as little as 15 minutes and when we got there, we would be able to park the car. Much better than Atlantic/Flatbush.

And of course, Ed, as I've done several times with you. Don't substitute the way baseball attendance is counted today as compared to the way it was done then. Paid attendance of 1,000,000 ore more in that era was considered very good. And while you can talk about the Dodgers having the entire metropolitan area to draw from and should have had a much higher paid attendance, another one of your arguments, the fact is the Dodgers could never be at home on any day when either the Giants or Yankees were home as baseball always considered the Giants and Yankees as NY teams and would never schedule them at home on the same day. So the Dodgers were always competing for attendance with either the Giants or the Yankees. Of course, by 1956, the Giants had totally lost their fan base and everybody knew they were bound for Minneapolis. Perhaps after their departure, which few if any did anything to try to stop, Dodger attendance with the whole National League market to themselves and with the fact they could now play games with no other game in town, would have soared. You cannot say with any certainty whether or not that was true.

I just don't understand why you are so adamant in defending O'Malley. I could understand some of our West Coast friends who do; after all they had a winning baseball team thrown into their laps and didn't understand the way O'Malley screwed them by not playing in a normal baseball field (Wrigley Field) so as not to destroy the careers prematurely of people like Duke Snider who thought he was coming home and who the first time he saw the lay out of the LA Coliseum for baseball knew his career was finished. They also don't understand how disgusting it was that the first thing O'Malley did was rip the Dodger games off free television (because he thought pay television was just around the corner, the same pay television he said he would use to build the lavish ballpark at Atlantic/Flatbush). That sure showed how much he cared about his new fans.

And let's not leave out his decision to buld Chavez Ravine Stadium without water fountains. Tht is also a fact. Why would anybody do this? All the better to force his patrons to buy overpriced sodas or beer to go with their Los Angeles National League dogs (how could they be Dodger dogs as the Dodgers ceased to exist on 08 October 1957?)....

Despite the recent wave of books and television documentaries with all the half truths and downright lies, there is and will remain only 1 true villain in the theft of the Brooklyn franchise. And that person is Walter F. O'Malley. (Pleae read the article by Dave Anderson at http://tinyurl.com/dajjqr. Anderson to almost everybody is considered one of the great sports columnists of our time. Nobody has ever said a bad word about him (unlike say Dick Young whose name is prominently mentioned in the SI excerpt). The guy should know. He was there and not writing from second hand knowledge or a one sided set of facts.

With all due respect to you.

[Mongoose]

To clear up one other thing, I was 17 for most of 57 and we thought yea, keep em in brooklyn, but hey, if it's Queens or La, nothing else, then my god as long as we still call them the brooklyn dodgers we'll choose queens, ok well I'll choose queens anyway. I was thinking that, my rationale was as long as their close a site might become available in the future. Also it's going to take several years to build that stadium over in queens so they'll be playing in ebbets till then and who know's what might come up in the meantime.
I'm believeing the signs were made by the team at o'malley's insistance, then they grabbed a few well meaning kids and told them hey, you'll get your picture in the paper and this protest will help keep the bums in brooklyn.

And now his son recruits various jerks, gives them "special access" to the O'Malley family archives, and has them write books and make documentaries.

Same difference...

[EdTarbusz]

I don't feel that I'm a defender of O'Malley. I just don't have the blinders on that people from New York seem to have about this subject. The more I read about the subject, the more I think the move wasn't a bad thing. I think my view is dispassionate. I have no real feelings at all for either the Brooklyn Dodgers or the LA Dodgers. In fact, I tend to think that sports in both New York and California to be overblown by both fans and media. Before I began reading about the subject, I thought the move west was unwarrented, but I have since changed my mind. I don't think the Dodgers situation in 1956-57 was as good as people make it out to be. I don't think they were dying in Brooklyn, but the seeds were there for a franchise beginning to go downhill. They had an aging facility, aging team and weren't a great box office draw in the best of times. If the team starting going down in the standings, I think a real nose dive at the box office was probable, which would have made competition with a team like the Braves to become extremely difficult.

I know how attendence was calculated in the 1950s, and I think the attendence at Ebbets Field stunk in the 1950s. In a boro of 3 million people (plus whatever the population of Long Island) I can't believe that the Dodgers couldn't attract 20,000 paying customes into Ebbets Field on a weekday. For what it's worth, you are incorrect about the scheduling of Dodgers, Giants and Yankees games. The Giants and Yankees were matched on the schedule and were not scheduled at hone against each other The Dodgers were matched with Washington, and could play home games while either the Yankees or Giants were playing a home game.

As far as issues like lack of water fountains at Dodger Stadium and lack of LA games on TV: I don't care about those. Not being able to get a drink of water wouldn't bother me much, nd I don't feel entitled to get Indians on TV just because I'm a fan. When I was growing up the Indians were rarely on TV and that didn;t bother me at all.

I goew up in Cleveland but was never an NFL fan, and really didn't care about the Browns leaving. I don't know Modell did right by the fans, but I don't think the city leaders did right by Modell. When the Gateway Project was authorized and there was nothing there for the Browns, it was only a matter of time before they left. The name and colors thing was a sop to the fans from the NFL. It doesn't mean anything.

I believe the Browns lease their stadium.

I think the recent (and not so recent) scholarship about the move shows that people want to look at the facts behind the move while looking past the hyperbole of the last 50 years.

[Mongoose]

If the team starting going down in the standings, I think a real nose dive at the box office was probable, which would have made competition with a team like the Braves to become extremely difficult.

If... If... If...

Do your homework. The Dodgers had been perennially strong in attendance since the 1920s, whether the team was good or bad. Your supposition flies in the face of history and the facts on the ground at that time.

By the way, the Braves had built their powerhouse while they were still in Boston and drawing 250,000 a year. Please cite your evidence to suggest that the Milwaukee Braves were in the process of in any way using their short-lived attendance bump to surpass the Dodgers.

[Let's Go Mets!]

By the way, the Braves had built their powerhouse while they were still in Boston and drawing 250,000 a year. Please cite your evidence to suggest that the Milwaukee Braves were in the process of using their short-lived attendance bump to surpass the Dodgers.

History proves that there was no real danger of the Braves surpassing the Dodgers.

Only in O'Malley's mind.

Very paranoid, kind of like Hitler's fear of Stalin and attacking Russia.

[dodger dynamo]

And what did the great yankees pull in, in attendance in the 1950's? I guess their attendance stunk too then. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[dodger dynamo]

Oh, in case anyone was wondering, the all powerfull yankees in 1957 drew 1,497 thousand and some odd fans. The dodgers drew 1,028 thousand some odd fans. in a year in which we knew he was gone and the dodgers, weren't getting any help from the front office in the way of talent.
I think a direct corelation to this is that no real star calibre player was
signed by brooklyn to play in brooklyn continued their playing career into the 70's with the dodgers or any other team.
koufax may have if he hadn't been hurt, but he was signed in 55 not 57 to
a ml contract. Drysadale, roseborro and podres came close. So I contend that after he knew the move was going to happen The big O' let the team
and the park go to seed and didn't provide real help in aquiring the necessary talent, funny how by 59 they won the series again after aquisitions and trades in 58 early 59. Branch Rickey Dodgers won the pennants and the series. He just wasn't there when it happened.
Here's something else that strikes me funny, my dad and I called the box office at ebbets on a number of occasions in 56 and 57 only to be to be told they were sold out. Then when you'd watch the game on tv I could swear that tumble weeds were blowing through the stands. funny how just enough were sold to break a million in 57, still profitable to line pockets, but just low enough to make an excuse. Anybody else have that experience? I think Penncentral Pete had a similar story. Would fit with barbers statement of devious. It's easy to get away with back then. Firstly whose going to suspect an owner doesn't want to make money, secondly you just give the ticket office the info that X number of tickets are reserved on X dates. Guy selling the tickets has no Idea. He's just following procedure. battlin bake,
the dodger dynamo.
PS. Impossible to get away with today, not so then.

[dodger dynamo]

You know WOR aired both giants and dodgers games on tv. Wonder how much more the dodgers could have got out of WOR after the giants left?
That looks like a potential source of increased revenue to me. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[MATHA531]

You know WOR aired both giants and dodgers games on tv. Wonder how much more the dodgers could have got out of WOR after the giants left?
That looks like a potential source of increased revenue to me. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

Sorry...in all due respect you are incorrect. Only Dodger games were televised on Channel 9, WOR-TV. The Giants shared Channel 11 with the Yankees.....

The Dodgers were Channel 9 which only had their games and Million Dollar Movie.

Dodger home games were preceded by a show called Happy Felton's Knothole Gang. That show consisted of three players of approximately the same age playing the same position in amateur baseball programs in Brooklyn. They would be interviewed by Felton, given a Dodger cap, a Dodger yearbook and then worked out by a Dodger. If they were pitchers, they were worked out by Campy. If they were catchers, one of the pitchers would throw to them. If infielders, usually Pee Wee Reese. The Dodger player would then choose the player he thought the best. The prize was that at the end of the next show, the winner would get a chance to interview a Dodger of his choice who would then take the player into the Dodger dugout to meet the players and be an honorary bat boy for the game (the real bat boy was Charley DiGiovanni I think his name was; the spelling could be off). The show was sponsored by the mutual savings banks (Lincoln, Dime, Greenpoint) of Brooklyn.

The game telecast was sponsored by Lucky Strike (LSMFT, see if you remember what that stands for) and Shaeffer Beer. The post game after home games was Happy Felton talking to the stars where listeners could call in with baseball questions. I submitted my mom's name and she didn't have a clue of what to ask so I told her. We won two tickets to a Dodger Giant game at Ebbets Field. After that, on weekends, there was a scoreboard show sponsored by General Tire (the owners of WOR-TV) hosted by Harry Wismer, late of the Titans of New York fame.

Before road night games, they had kaleidescopes made (video tape had not yet been perfected) of various reporters going over their predictions (the predictions were made before the season and placed in a safe)..there was no pre game before weekend road day games and no post game. (BTW, as another piece of trivia for television junkees, the first commercial use of video tape on television was at Eisenhower's second inauguration on 20 January 1957 when after taking the oath of office, it was immediately played back on video tape...I thought watching it they were giving him the oath twice).

The broadcasters of that era were Vin Scully who became the lead announcer after Red Barber walked out or was fired depending on who you wanted to believe, Connie Desmond who really should have been the lead announcer but had many personal problems that eventually cost him his job and the third was either a fellow named Andre Baruch or Al Helfer. After Desmond finally left (in fairness to O'Malley, he did everything possible to give Desmond chance after chance after chance), a young fellow named Jerry Dogget came along and in the last couple of years in Brooklyn it was Sculy, Dogget and Helfer who shared radio and television duties.

Now the one thing I don't know is if the Dodgers controlled the pre game show on radio. The show, on WMGM 1050, was called Warm Up time and was anchored by Marty Glickman, Ward Wilson and tennis star Gussie Moran. But I hardly ever listened on radio as 127 games were available on television.

The Giants and Yankees split all their home games on Channel 11. The Giant announcers at the time were Russ Hodges and a fellow named Bob Delaney. The Giants only televised home games. The Yankees announcers were Mel Allen and Jim Woods (who was later to move to the Pirates and become Bob Prince's side kick when Phil Rizutto was brought in...Red Barber, who jumped from the Dodgers to the Yankees, helped out on home games only as a third man but the Yankees basically only took two guys on the road. They did televise a few road games on days where they played at night and the Giants played during the day. The sponsors of the Giants telecasts were Knickerbocker Beer (satisfies your beer taste better, have a Knick have a Kncierbocker Beer) and Chesterfield cigarettes. The Yankees big sponsor was Ballantine Beer (and Ale) (later their slogan became Baseball and Ballantine, it's a combination you can't beat) and White Owl cigars.
(Boy does this kid have a great memory if I don't say so myself)

If you go back to the NY Times archives, you can probably pick up television schedules from those days. About a year ago somebody gave out misinformation that the Dodgers had pulled Happy Felton's Knothole Gang a month before the end of the 1957 season. I told the fellow he was wrong that Happy Felton's knothole gang continued through the last game at Ebbets Field (the winner that night is still waiting to collect his prize. Usually the first Brooklyn telecast each season was of a Friday afternoon exhibition game against the Yankees at Ebeets Field followed by two exhibition games at Yankee Stadium.

You can check out all this information but I guarantee you it is all correct.

[Gary Dunaier]

Before road night games, they had kaleidescopes made (video tape had not yet been perfected)

Kinescopes.

[EdTarbusz]

Very paranoid, like Hitler's fear of Stalin and attacking Russia.

This is wrong on so many levels that I wouldn't know where to start discussing it.

[VIBaseball]

Possibly Let's Go Mets was writing in the same vein as Pete Hamill and Jack Newfield with this comparison. If not, I agree...let's watch this kind of thing, please.

[EdTarbusz]

There was no real danger.

Only in O'Malley's mind.

.

Even if it was only in O'Malley's mind, his was the was opinion that mattered.

[Let's Go Mets!]

Possibly Let's Go Mets was writing in the same vein as Pete Hamill and Jack Newfield with this comparison.

Yes, through the years there have been so many comparisons of O'Malley to Hitler, that maybe I've been brainwashed.

Interesting to note, however, that the author of this latest article does exactly the same. Why is that?

[Mongoose]

O'Malley wouldn't accept the Flushing deal because he was adament that the Dodgers had to own their new ballpark, he would not accept municipal ownership.

I don't think franchise value matters in this debate. This is about O'Malley getting what he wanted. And in getting that, he became the most powerful owner in the game. I don't think he would have been as powerful if he remained in New York after taking an unfavorable deal and being second banana to the Yankees.


Even if it was only in O'Malley's mind, his was the was opinion that mattered.

If you'll notice, every post you make tends to rationalize O'Malley's actions by putting us inside he head and divorcing his thoughts from objective reality.

Your original argument was that he couldn't survive if he stayed in the greater Brooklyn area: now that's changed to that he wouldn't accept municipal ownership. It's no longer a question of his survival or for that matter profitability.

The offer at Flushing Meadows was a damned favorable deal. The Yankees bought their own land with their own money and built their own stadium, and they sure were profitable. Second banana? The Yankees and Dodgers had a totally different fan base. If O'Malley had let Stoneham move to Minneapolis, he likely would have had the entire NL fan base to himself! But O'Malley had other plans for Stoneham.

You're saying that even if his opinions were wrong, his were the only that mattered in deciding that fate of the Dodgers?

O.K., let's accept that.

Why then do you have so much trouble accepting others opinion that O'Malley doing what he wanted, with unprecedented disregard for his community, made him a creep?

[Let's Go Mets!]

If O'Malley had let Stoneham move to Minneapolis, he likely would have had the entire NL fan base to himself!

Instead, the New York Mets have it, and they are the real winners!

[Let's Go Mets!]

You're saying that even if his opinions were wrong, his was the only one that mattered in deciding that fate of the Dodgers?

"You're saying that even if his opinions were wrong, his was the only one that mattered in deciding the fate of the Dodgers?"

Yes, and unfortunately, it's the ugly side of capitalism.

[Let's Go Mets!]

Why then do you have so much trouble accepting others opinion that O'Malley doing what he wanted, with unprecedented disregard for his community, made him a creep?

One reason is that he didn't live here and love the Dodgers.

He dosen't understand that we were betrayed.

[dodger dynamo]

Sorry... Only Dodger games were televised on Channel 9, WOR-TV. The Giants shared Channel 11 with the Yankees......

You're right, I was thinking about the games I saw on WOR, but those were dodger home games against the giants (there were giant games aired on WOR they were
just road games against the dodgers and have nothing to do with the dodger tv deal) and after the move Phillies games against the giants. I believe they aired Phillies games against the dodgers too.
See what happens when you start to get old. However I'm sure the yankees then would have demanded more money from wpix. If it was more than the dodgers were getting over at WOR it's likely they would have asked for more too. Didn't WOR air GIant football games? no connection to the topic just thought I'd check my recollections. These are memories not things I've gone back and studied and poured over dilligently for years, in fact after Gil hodges retired I didn't follow baseball for many, many years.
battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Sorry...in all due respect you are incorrect. Only Dodger games were televised on Channel 9, WOR-TV. The Giants shared Channel 11 with the Yankees.....

The Dodgers were Channel 9 which only had their games and Million Dollar Movie.

Dodger home games were preceded by a show called Happy Felton's Knothole Gang. That show consisted of three players of approximately the same age playing the same position in amateur baseball programs in Brooklyn. They would be interviewed by Felton, given a Dodger cap, a Dodger yearbook and then worked out by a Dodger. If they were pitchers, they were worked out by Campy. If they were catchers, one of the pitchers would throw to them. If infielders, usually Pee Wee Reese. The Dodger player would then choose the player he thought the best. The prize was that at the end of the next show, the winner would get a chance to interview a Dodger of his choice who would then take the player into the Dodger dugout to meet the players and be an honorary bat boy for the game (the real bat boy was Charley DiGiovanni I think his name was; the spelling could be off). The show was sponsored by the mutual savings banks (Lincoln, Dime, Greenpoint) of Brooklyn.

The game telecast was sponsored by Lucky Strike (LSMFT, see if you remember what that stands for) and Shaeffer Beer. The post game after home games was Happy Felton talking to the stars where listeners could call in with baseball questions. I submitted my mom's name and she didn't have a clue of what to ask so I told her. We won two tickets to a Dodger Giant game at Ebbets Field. After that, on weekends, there was a scoreboard show sponsored by General Tire (the owners of WOR-TV) hosted by Harry Wismer, late of the Titans of New York fame.

Before road night games, they had kaleidescopes made (video tape had not yet been perfected) of various reporters going over their predictions (the predictions were made before the season and placed in a safe)..there was no pre game before weekend road day games and no post game. (BTW, as another piece of trivia for television junkees, the first commercial use of video tape on television was at Eisenhower's second inauguration on 20 January 1957 when after taking the oath of office, it was immediately played back on video tape...I thought watching it they were giving him the oath twice).

The broadcasters of that era were Vin Scully who became the lead announcer after Red Barber walked out or was fired depending on who you wanted to believe, Connie Desmond who really should have been the lead announcer but had many personal problems that eventually cost him his job and the third was either a fellow named Andre Baruch or Al Helfer. After Desmond finally left (in fairness to O'Malley, he did everything possible to give Desmond chance after chance after chance), a young fellow named Jerry Dogget came along and in the last couple of years in Brooklyn it was Sculy, Dogget and Helfer who shared radio and television duties.

Now the one thing I don't know is if the Dodgers controlled the pre game show on radio. The show, on WMGM 1050, was called Warm Up time and was anchored by Marty Glickman, Ward Wilson and tennis star Gussie Moran. But I hardly ever listened on radio as 127 games were available on television.

The Giants and Yankees split all their home games on Channel 11. The Giant announcers at the time were Russ Hodges and a fellow named Bob Delaney. The Giants only televised home games. The Yankees announcers were Mel Allen and Jim Woods (who was later to move to the Pirates and become Bob Prince's side kick when Phil Rizutto was brought in...Red Barber, who jumped from the Dodgers to the Yankees, helped out on home games only as a third man but the Yankees basically only took two guys on the road. They did televise a few road games on days where they played at night and the Giants played during the day. The sponsors of the Giants telecasts were Knickerbocker Beer (satisfies your beer taste better, have a Knick have a Kncierbocker Beer) and Chesterfield cigarettes. The Yankees big sponsor was Ballantine Beer (and Ale) (later their slogan became Baseball and Ballantine, it's a combination you can't beat) and White Owl cigars.
(Boy does this kid have a great memory if I don't say so myself)

If you go back to the NY Times archives, you can probably pick up television schedules from those days. About a year ago somebody gave out misinformation that the Dodgers had pulled Happy Felton's Knothole Gang a month before the end of the 1957 season. I told the fellow he was wrong that Happy Felton's knothole gang continued through the last game at Ebbets Field (the winner that night is still waiting to collect his prize. Usually the first Brooklyn telecast each season was of a Friday afternoon exhibition game against the Yankees at Ebeets Field followed by two exhibition games at Yankee Stadium.

You can check out all this information but I guarantee you it is all correct.

This is a terrific essay. Brings back memories of Giants fans [like my dear old self] wondering if Happy Felton and Jackie Robinson wore the same size uniform pants in 1956.
If that remark doesn't bring Dodger Deb back to us, nothing will. She is very missed.

[MATHA531]

It's really not like it is today....the home team carried the game as part of its package and the road team in these intra city rivalries did not bother...thus the 11 Giant games in Brooklyn were televised as part of the Dodgers contract with WOR and vice versa when Brooklyn played in New York.

Today we have situations where say Rangers are playing Devils where both teams would have telecasts (although both would be on MSG as MSG+ is really owned by the same person Mr. Dolan) with each team's broadcasters doing the game.

I don't remember Giant regular season games on channel 9. I do remember Giant regular season games around that time on the Dumont network which was channel 5 in New York....the NFL then I believe in early 1960 signed its contract with CBS that all NFL games would be telecast on CBS. (I think the championship game in 1958, the game that launched the NFL was on NBC, but was blacked out in NY). Interestingly, for a while CBS set up regional networks so they would have 2 separate telecasts of each game for each team. Thus when the Eagles came in to play the Giants, there were separate CBS broadcasts along the Giant regional network and the Eagles regional networks. The pictures were the same but the broadcasters were different...in those days Jack Whitaker did the Eagles games and Chris Schenkel did the Giants games....Ray Scott did the Packers games. It wasn't till the mid 60's that CBS wised up and only used one set of broadcasters for each game they carried and got away from associating a broadcaster with a particular team. And of course there were the home blackouts which were to last till well into the 70's.

Channel 13 in 1958 carrier a series of telecasts from either Pittsburgh or St. Louis into NY involving games of the Giants and the Los Angeles National League team. Channel 9 as you noted carrier many Phillie games into New York, not just games against the Giants and Los Angeles.

This ended before the 1959 season as Dan Topping threatened the Pirates, Cardinals and Phillies he would televise Yankee games into their areas if they continued to infringe on his territorial rights.

[penncentralpete]

Matha........why are the Giants the "Giants" after 1957, but the Dodgers are the "Los Angeles National League Team" after 1957? Just wondering...........

[MATHA531]

The Giants move was totally warranted...they had lost their fan base and were losing money...they were drawing less than a half million a year. Nobody should be forced to lose money. Of course Horace's big mistake was letting O'Malley talk him into San Francisco rather than going through with his original plan to move to Minneapolis.

The theft of the Brooklyn franchise was totally different. They were making money head over heels in Brooklyn. I will never recognize the imposter organization playing in LA as the Dodgers. They gave up the right to use that name on 08 October 1957 when the need for greed caused O'Malley to turn his back on his loyal fans in Brooklyn and in the NYC area. He should have had the decency to leave the name where it belonged or somebody in mlb's hierarchy should have. That is as much a part of their stupidity as anything else.

[Let's Go Mets!]

The Giants move was totally warranted...they had lost their fan base and were losing money...they were drawing less than a half million a year. Nobody should be forced to lose money.

Even though their attendance fell off, with their good radio and TV contract, I've always questioned whether they really lost that much money, forcing Stoneham to move.

Also, since WWII, the Giants never drew less than half a million a year at the Polo Grounds.


1957-- 653,923
1956-- 629,179
1955-- 824,112
1954-- 1,155,067
1953-- 811,518
1952-- 984,940
1953-- 1,059,539
1950-- 1,008,878
1949-- 1,218,446
1948-- 1,459,269
1947-- 1,600,793
1946-- 1,219,873
1945-- 1,016,468


Also, interesting to note is that during Stoneham's San Francisco years, the NY Mets outdrew the Giants 14 of 16 times. Often by very wide margins.

[penncentralpete]

The Giants move was totally warranted...they had lost their fan base and were losing money...they were drawing less than a half million a year. Nobody should be forced to lose money. Of course Horace's big mistake was letting O'Malley talk him into San Francisco rather than going through with his original plan to move to Minneapolis.

The theft of the Brooklyn franchise was totally different. They were making money head over heels in Brooklyn. I will never recognize the imposter organization playing in LA as the Dodgers. They gave up the right to use that name on 08 October 1957 when the need for greed caused O'Malley to turn his back on his loyal fans in Brooklyn and in the NYC area. He should have had the decency to leave the name where it belonged or somebody in mlb's hierarchy should have. That is as much a part of their stupidity as anything else.

The Dodgers' moving hurt no one worse than it hurt me. That being said, the Giants (with a pitiful roster, save Willie) drew 653,923 fans in the summer of 1957 (not less than 1/2 million). In the 8 seasons before the move(s) the Dodgers drew 9,016,587 and the Giants drew 7,127,156 (1950-1957). The Dodgers were making money, and the Giants were struggling their final two years in New York, after over a half century of prospering. The Dodgers won 4 pennants during this period, the Giants won two. The Dodgers had many stars still on their club in '56 and '57. The Giants only had Willie (unless you want to include Valmy Thomas). If Horace couldn't see that the product on the (his) field was awful, he had to have been blind (he couldn't have been that drunk for that long). My point is that I believe Horace was as greedy and exploitative as Walter. Together, along with Giles and Frick, they were equally derelict in their disgraceful scheme.

[penncentralpete]

The Dodgers' moving hurt no one worse than it hurt me. That being said, the Giants (with a pitiful roster, save Willie) drew 653,923 fans in the summer of 1957 (not less than 1/2 million). In the 8 seasons before the move(s) the Dodgers drew 9,016,587 and the Giants drew 7,127,156 (1950-1957). The Dodgers were making money, and the Giants were struggling their final two years in New York, after over a half century of prospering. The Dodgers won 4 pennants during this period, the Giants won two. The Dodgers had many stars still on their club in '56 and '57. The Giants only had Willie (unless you want to include Valmy Thomas). If Horace couldn't see that the product on the (his) field was awful, he had to have been blind (he couldn't have been that drunk for that long). My point is that I believe Horace was as greedy and exploitative as Walter. Together, along with Giles and Frick, they were equally derelict in their disgraceful scheme.

All that being said ............if you call the Giants the Giants........then call the Dodgers the Dodgers.

[Let's Go Mets!]

My point is that I believe Horace was as greedy and exploitative as Walter. Together, along with Giles and Frick, they were equally derelict in their disgraceful scheme.

Agreed. Shame on all!

[EdTarbusz]

If you'll notice, every post you make tends to rationalize O'Malley's actions by putting us inside he head and divorcing his thoughts from objective reality.

Your original argument was that he couldn't survive if he stayed in the greater Brooklyn area: now that's changed to that he wouldn't accept municipal ownership. It's no longer a question of his survival or for that matter profitability.

The offer at Flushing Meadows was a damned favorable deal. The Yankees bought their own land with their own money and built their own stadium, and they sure were profitable. Second banana? The Yankees and Dodgers had a totally different fan base. If O'Malley had let Stoneham move to Minneapolis, he likely would have had the entire NL fan base to himself! But O'Malley had other plans for Stoneham.

You're saying that even if his opinions were wrong, his were the only that mattered in deciding that fate of the Dodgers?

O.K., let's accept that.

Why then do you have so much trouble accepting others opinion that O'Malley doing what he wanted, with unprecedented disregard for his community, made him a creep?

Why wouldn't I try to figure out what O'Malley was thinking? He was the one amking the decision whether to stay or leave. My opinion is not that the team couldn't survive in the Brooklyn area, but that the team needed to get out of Ebbets Field. As for O'Malley not wanting municipal ownership-that is a well known fact. That fact (plus a battle of egos with Moses) is most likely what kept the Dodgers out of Flushing. O'Malley wanted a prvately owned stadium in Brooklyn and wasn't going to settle for anything else.

Personally. i don't think the communities feelings should have factored into O'Malley's decision, He was well within his rights to move the franchise if he thought that would be benificial to the franchise's future success. The community didn't do anything serious to aid the Dodgers in the mid 50s.

I've never bought into the notion that a sports franchise was part of the community or that I was an important aspect of a sports franchise by being a fan.

If the Dodgers had remained in New York, O'Malley would have been second bana to the Yankees. How many powerful owners have the Mets ever had? What is the Mets revenue compared to the Yankees?

[MATHA531]

The Dodgers' moving hurt no one worse than it hurt me. That being said, the Giants (with a pitiful roster, save Willie) drew 653,923 fans in the summer of 1957 (not less than 1/2 million). In the 8 seasons before the move(s) the Dodgers drew 9,016,587 and the Giants drew 7,127,156 (1950-1957). The Dodgers were making money, and the Giants were struggling their final two years in New York, after over a half century of prospering. The Dodgers won 4 pennants during this period, the Giants won two. The Dodgers had many stars still on their club in '56 and '57. The Giants only had Willie (unless you want to include Valmy Thomas). If Horace couldn't see that the product on the (his) field was awful, he had to have been blind (he couldn't have been that drunk for that long). My point is that I believe Horace was as greedy and exploitative as Walter. Together, along with Giles and Frick, they were equally derelict in their disgraceful scheme.

I don't necessarily disagree with you....yet there simply wasn't as much bitterness expressed about the Giants for whatever the reason. Let me just throw out a thought that I might or might not subscribe to which further caused the bitterness about the Dodgers and not so about the Giants.

For 50 years, from 1903 to 1953, the map of major league baseball had never changed. Within the two leagues, there were 5 two team cities, Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis. Then each league had 3 one team cities...AL Cleveland, Detroit and Washington while in the NL the one team cities were Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and........Brooklyn.

Starting in 1953, four of the five two team cities shed one of its franchises, the weaker one....in 1953 it was Boston, in 1954 it was St. Louis and in 1955 it was Philadelphia (although there are fans from Philly who claim the wrong team left town)...so the departure of the Giants in 1957 simply continued that trend.

However, Brooklyn was a one team town and it was the first time in the modern era of baseball (although I suspect some fans of the AL Baltimore Orioles felt betrayed in 1903 when Ban Johnson felt it necessary to have an AL team in NY and the Orioles moved to NY to become the Highlanders and of course the rest is history) that a city was completly stripped of its major league team (perhaps semantics but from a baseball standpoint, Brooklyn was a separate city from New York.)...

And while we can argue whether the Giants were doing okay in New York or not, there is no doubt the Dodgers in Brooklyn were making a mint and were by far the richest team in baseball when everything was considered.

That might be the difference.

However, I do feel there should be a rule that when a team leaves a city, it should be required to leave the name behind. Somehow, Utah Jazz, Los Angeles Lakers just don't make any sense. (nor does Los Angeles Dodgers of course)

[MATHA531]

Why wouldn't I try to figure out what O'Malley was thinking? He was the one amking the decision whether to stay or leave. My opinion is not that the team couldn't survive in the Brooklyn area, but that the team needed to get out of Ebbets Field. As for O'Malley not wanting municipal ownership-that is a well known fact. That fact (plus a battle of egos with Moses) is most likely what kept the Dodgers out of Flushing. O'Malley wanted a prvately owned stadium in Brooklyn and wasn't going to settle for anything else.

Personally. i don't think the communities feelings should have factored into O'Malley's decision, He was well within his rights to move the franchise if he thought that would be benificial to the franchise's future success. The community didn't do anything serious to aid the Dodgers in the mid 50s.

I've never bought into the notion that a sports franchise was part of the community or that I was an important aspect of a sports franchise by being a fan.

If the Dodgers had remained in New York, O'Malley would have been second bana to the Yankees. How many powerful owners have the Mets ever had? What is the Mets revenue compared to the Yankees?


There is not one iota of proof that your last statement was true. The Dodgers had a more fanatical fan base than the Yankees, were making much more money on their radio/tv contract.

You might be right about a sports franchise being part of the community but that was what mlb tried to tell Congress when they were defending their exemptions from the anti trust laws.

Finally, we keep coming back to one point. O'Malley made a request of Moses that was illegal under the law. Whether he wanted to or not, what was Moses supposed to do? People who build private properties, in general, go out and acquire what they need. Walt Disney did so to build both Disneyland and Disney World. Charlie Ebbets did so to build Ebbets Field. What was keeping O'Malley from doing the same with the Pennsylvania Railroad which owned much of the land? And finally, O'Malley to try to appease the people of Los Angeles that Chavez Ravine was not a land grab on his part, he "traded" the land and Wrigley Field to the city of Los Angeles. He did no such thing in Brooklyn.

And was it honorable on the part of O'Malley to tell the people of Brooklyn that he was trying to keep the franchise in Brooklyn when in 1956 upon the return of the team from Japan, he assured the thieves in Los Angeles that he was coming and to ignore everything he said and did because he had to play in Brooklyn in 1957. Surely that was as devious as anything and morally and ethically wrong.

[penncentralpete]

I don't necessarily disagree with you....yet there simply wasn't as much bitterness expressed about the Giants for whatever the reason. Let me just throw out a thought that I might or might not subscribe to which further caused the bitterness about the Dodgers and not so about the Giants.

For 50 years, from 1903 to 1953, the map of major league baseball had never changed. Within the two leagues, there were 5 two team cities, Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis. Then each league had 3 one team cities...AL Cleveland, Detroit and Washington while in the NL the one team cities were Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and........Brooklyn.

Starting in 1953, four of the five two team cities shed one of its franchises, the weaker one....in 1953 it was Boston, in 1954 it was St. Louis and in 1955 it was Philadelphia (although there are fans from Philly who claim the wrong team left town)...so the departure of the Giants in 1957 simply continued that trend.

However, Brooklyn was a one team town and it was the first time in the modern era of baseball (although I suspect some fans of the AL Baltimore Orioles felt betrayed in 1903 when Ban Johnson felt it necessary to have an AL team in NY and the Orioles moved to NY to become the Highlanders and of course the rest is history) that a city was completly stripped of its major league team (perhaps semantics but from a baseball standpoint, Brooklyn was a separate city from New York.)...

And while we can argue whether the Giants were doing okay in New York or not, there is no doubt the Dodgers in Brooklyn were making a mint and were by far the richest team in baseball when everything was considered.

That might be the difference.

However, I do feel there should be a rule that when a team leaves a city, it should be required to leave the name behind. Somehow, Utah Jazz, Los Angeles Lakers just don't make any sense. (nor does Los Angeles Dodgers of course)
Now this post makes a bunch of sense to me. I can become as emotional as the next guy, but some posts in the history of both this thread and others (regarding the Dodgers' move), gets a bit irrational and unreasonable. Personally, I refer to the Dodgers as just that: The Dodgers. I'm not saying I'm right nor better than anyone (goodness knows, I ain't), but to this old fan, the DODGERS are the DODGERS.

[EdTarbusz]

Finally, we keep coming back to one point. O'Malley made a request of Moses that was illegal under the law. Whether he wanted to or not, what was Moses supposed to do? .

I don't believe that Moses would have cared about legalities if he had supported the Dodgers stadium project. I think he would have either had the law changed or ignored it. He wasn't above ignoring the legal nicities when he had people moved out of their apartments to lower grade housing in odrer to build a freeway.

I think if O'Malley ultimately took the Flushing deal, this would have weakened his position among NL owners because he would have been as as not strong to get a deal that he had been pushing for and to settle for the city offered him.

Personally, I believe that a viable Brooklyn may have kept the Dodgers in Brooklyn. I don't believe thaere was any kind of conspiracy about moving the Dodgers. Just readuing the 1957 Sporting News, it was clear that O'Malley was being courted by LA, and he wasn't being very secret about it. He probably could have said in the summer of 1957, that the team was probably moving because the city won't play ball, but I think that would have made poor business sense, and it would have weakened his standing in his negotiations with LA officials.

[EdTarbusz]

And while we can argue whether the Giants were doing okay in New York or not, there is no doubt the Dodgers in Brooklyn were making a mint and were by far the richest team in baseball when everything was considered.

)

I'm not so sure that the past earning of the DOdgers really matter in discussing the move. The move was about what the Dogers would earn in 1965 or 1975 or 2005, rather than what they earned in 1955. It's easy to say 'look at what the Mets earn now' or that the Dodgers will win 4 pennants (and nealy a fifth) in the next 10 years, but in 1955, 1956 and 1957 that wasn't clear at all. All the hindsight in the world won't change the fact the Dodgers looked like thay might be headed for a decline after the 1956 World Series.

[MATHA531]

Ed..

Moses, as despicable a human being who had ever lived in many respects. to the best of my knowledge never broke the law. The law did allow condemnation for the construction of public facilities such as hospitals, schools, highways even perhaps a municipally owned baseball stadium. But not a privately owned baseball stadium.

Also, it's not clear how O'Malley was to build the ballpark. He claimed a bonanza was available to him via pay television but of course that technology was still at leat 15 years away.

But you didn't answer the question....why didn't O'Malley buy the land at a market price that he needed like Ebbets, Colonel Ruppert, Disney whatever.

I don't know how well you know the NY area. Flatbush/Atlantic was absolutely the worst choice in the world in 1956 for a ballpark. There was and still is no highway nearby and the area, even in 1956, can be a parking lot during rush hours. The perfect location, for a man truly interested in staying and his fan base, was Flushing Meadow.

We can argue this forever. I doubt I will ever be able to change your mind and you will never be able to change my mind.

But I will defend to the death your right to make statements!

Regards....

[jnakamura]

I'm not so sure that the past earning of the DOdgers really matter in discussing the move. The move was about what the Dogers would earn in 1965 or 1975 or 2005, rather than what they earned in 1955. It's easy to say 'look at what the Mets earn now' or that the Dodgers will win 4 pennants (and nealy a fifth) in the next 10 years, but in 1955, 1956 and 1957 that wasn't clear at all. All the hindsight in the world won't change the fact the Dodgers looked like thay might be headed for a decline after the 1956 World Series.

I'm indifferent about the shift of the franchise, except that I feel the name should have been left behind. However, any good businessman has to be looking 20 years into the future. And 20 years after the move the team was considered the model franchise in all of baseball, shattering attendance records and playing in the World Series.

[EdTarbusz]

[QUOTE=MATHA531;1458720]

But you didn't answer the question....why didn't O'Malley buy the land at a market price that he needed like Ebbets, Colonel Ruppert, Disney whatever.

I don't know how well you know the NY area. Flatbush/Atlantic was absolutely the worst choice in the world in 1956 for a ballpark. QUOTE]


I think it's easy to see why O'Malley didn;t buy the land like Ebbets did-he wouldn't have been able to keep it a secret and he would been gouged by the owners of the land.

I don't know the NY area very well, and have never seen the Atlantic/Flatbush area.

Caro's book made it very clear that Moses didn't concern hoself with legalities as he became more powerful. This was made most clear in regards to relocating people during freeway consrtruction. Moses seemed like a lot of powerful polticians: good aims at first but becoming m ore concerned about his power as time went on. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the O'Malley/Moses negotiations had gone on when LaGuardia was Mayor. He sounded like the only Mayor that Moses was unable to bully.

[EdTarbusz]

I'm indifferent about the shift of the franchise, except that I feel the name should have been left behind. However, any good businessman has to be looking 20 years into the future. And 20 years after the move the team was considered the model franchise in all of baseball, shattering attendance records and playing in the World Series.

I don't think leaving the name matters. In my mind, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Los Angeles Dodgers are seperate entities with seprate histories. I would also say that about teams like the Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics and Oakland A's.

[Mongoose]

Why wouldn't I try to figure out what O'Malley was thinking? He was the one amking the decision whether to stay or leave. My opinion is not that the team couldn't survive in the Brooklyn area, but that the team needed to get out of Ebbets Field. As for O'Malley not wanting municipal ownership-that is a well known fact. That fact (plus a battle of egos with Moses) is most likely what kept the Dodgers out of Flushing. O'Malley wanted a prvately owned stadium in Brooklyn and wasn't going to settle for anything else.

Personally. i don't think the communities feelings should have factored into O'Malley's decision, He was well within his rights to move the franchise if he thought that would be benificial to the franchise's future success. The community didn't do anything serious to aid the Dodgers in the mid 50s.

I've never bought into the notion that a sports franchise was part of the community or that I was an important aspect of a sports franchise by being a fan.

If the Dodgers had remained in New York, O'Malley would have been second bana to the Yankees. How many powerful owners have the Mets ever had? What is the Mets revenue compared to the Yankees?

It wasn't a battle of egos; that's a preposterous lying fiction repeated over and over and over in the projects Peter O'Malley keeps generating. His father was simply asking for something that was impossible in a heavily developed part of a borough packed with homes and businesses.

Read the article at this link:

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2007/04/omalley-stadium.html

"The only way to obtain sufficient contiguous acreage for the stadium in that area, and to divest existing owners and users at an affordable price, was by resorting to the sovereign power of condemnation. “Of course,” lawyer O’Malley knew, “The ball club very properly does not have the legal right to condemn land.” His solution to that potential obstacle was to link the construction of a new Dodger stadium to a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of the entire surrounding neighborhood, so that the eminent-domain powers of the sovereign city could be made to serve the real estate demands of his Dodgers.

The project could relocate the Fort Greene meat market (now the site of the Atlantic Center mall and environs), build a new Long Island Rail Road terminal, add parking and eliminate a “traffic intersection that was terrible.” (The solution for the latter isn’t clear from the book.)

Money questions

The problem was that O’Malley wanted the land at about a 90 percent discount, and the site improvements would be costly, too. The city would end up paying $40 million of a $55 million plan, even though O’Malley would build the stadium himself, according to Fetter.

O’Malley tried to enlist Robert Moses to use federal slum clearance funds aimed at housing, but Moses said a ballpark plan “cannot be dressed up as a Title I project.”

While O’Malley compared the Dodgers’ attendance with that of rivals in newer stadiums, Fetter points out that the Dodgers posted numbers “that remained among the highest in baseball” and that Brooklyn had a trump card most rivals lacked; huge television and radio revenue in a large media market. The Dodgers, he reports, were actually the most profitable team in baseball.

Public opposition

Despite the immense nostalgia for the Dodgers exhibited by Brooklynites of a certain vintage, most city leaders, and the public, though not Borough President John Cashmore, actually opposed O'Malley's demands. Even City Council President Abe Stark, the former Brooklyn Borough President who was first famous for his "Hit Sign, Win Suit" sign at Ebbets Field, opposed "the cold war of silence and evasion" practiced by Dodger management."

As for the Dodger's long term viability in the New York area... I don't think you understand the importance of sports in general and baseball in particular here.

That's the problem: you just don't understand New York, or the Brooklyn Dodgers' fan base - it was and is ferociously intense and fanatical. Think about it: more than 50 years later, there's no shortage of people left that care enough to argue with you. Even in the 1920s and 1930s when the Dodgers were fielding losers, attendance was still highly respectable. The Dodgers were in the unusual position of being the focal point of pride for an entire community, and New York in general is baseball crazy.

Just look at Baseball Fever: this forum for a team that's been defunct over 50 years has 3 times the posts the Los Angeles Dodgers' forum does - the New York Mets' forum has 5 times the posts!

O'Malley would have had the NL franchise for the area all to himself. As a Mets fan it pains me to say it, but the Mets have no history and have been a crappy, poorly run organization for almost their entire existance...

And they still have the second highest franchise valuation in baseball!!!

If a well run organization with the Dodgers' historical continuity was here, they'd easily be worth more than the Yankees. In those rare instances when the Mets and Yankees are at parity, the Mets always attract more attention and draw better than the Yankees. New York City is a National League town.

All O'Malley could see was all that free land: the irony is the devious cunning man screwed his community and became a pariah, befouled the mystique of the game as something noble and innocent forever, demolished its hegemony in the media capital of the world... And he personally would have been better off in the long term if he'd simply accepted Robert Moses' generous offer.

Would you please stop defending him?

It's so thoroughly wrong on all levels and tiresome...

[SilentKiller]

The new "owner" of OUR EBBETS FIELD really had NO interest in preserving any part of the ballpark. Kratter's interest was in obtaining the land to build that monster that stands there. IF you were there during the days they threw it down, as I was, you would have understood that.

In 1960 NYC did NOT have a Landmark Preservation Group; it came too late for OUR ballpark, so there was really no one to appeal to, and no way to save OUR ballpark.

In hindsight, perhaps WE (BROOKLYN FANS) should have concentrated more on trying to save, and keep in BROOKLYN, many of the parts of OUR EBBETS FIELD that were OUR HISTORY! The PAIN of watching OUR EBBETS being destroyed still hurts to this day.

OUR Centerfield Flagpole was "donated" to a VFW Hall in Flatbush, and still stands in front of that building. WE have been trying to "buy" it back and have it relocated in Downtown BROOKLYN. OUR Scoreboard was sold to a minor league group in Ashville, NC, and I understsand, destroyed several years ago. I have never been able to find out what happened to OUR BIG WHITE LETTERS that spelled EBBETS FIELD. Several items that were in OUR ROTUNDA, including that spectacular Chandelier are in storage in LA by the O'Malley Family. Many of the seats were sold at auction and they are scattered all over the country.

As for your question about the advertising signs, I think that just came down to WHO bought WHAT and HOW MUCH they paid for it, for THAT season!

BTW, dreifort, thanks for ALL the great photos......I NEVER tire of LOOKING at OUR HOME!

c.

That VFW was converted into a church about 1 or 2 years ago and the flagpole is no longer there. Anyone have any idea where it is now?

[MATHA531]

Great job Mongoose...couldn't have done better myself....we should get together, find a pulitzer prize winning author, and have him write a book to refute the revisionist history.

Incidentally, at the Brooklyn Historical Meeting next Saturday to be addressed by Peter, the author of the book, apparently the host will be Richard Sandomir, the sports media columnist of the New York Times. I sent him an e mail reminding him of many of these points and that he should be sure to see to it that O'Malley doesn't get away with his usual lies, I received a pretty curt response from him saying how do I know what's in the book as it hasn't been published yet, I responded I read the excerpt in SI and his answer was the excerpt does not necessarily reflect a book. I don't know how much he can be counted on to counter the lies O'Malley is sure to throw out. I will make an effort to get there but don't know if I can.

I hope there is a large turnout of Brooklyn people to, in a polite manner, shoot down the revisionist history being thrown out.

[Mongoose]

Great job Mongoose...couldn't have done better myself....we should get together, find a pulitzer prize winning author, and have him write a book to refute the revisionist history.

Incidentally, at the Brooklyn Historical Meeting next Saturday to be addressed by Peter, the author of the book, apparently the host will be Richard Sandomir, the sports media columnist of the New York Times. I sent him an e mail reminding him of many of these points and that he should be sure to see to it that O'Malley doesn't get away with his usual lies, I received a pretty curt response from him saying how do I know what's in the book as it hasn't been published yet, I responded I read the excerpt in SI and his answer was the excerpt does not necessarily reflect a book. I don't know how much he can be counted on to counter the lies O'Malley is sure to throw out. I will make an effort to get there but don't know if I can.

I hope there is a large turnout of Brooklyn people to, in a polite manner, shoot down the revisionist history being thrown out.

Thanks. Coming from you, that means something.

As for suggestion number one: we didn't own a ballclub in a media center, so we wouldn't have the connections in publishing and at HBO that Peter does. Initiating such a project and seeing it through to release might be hard.

As for asking Peter relevent questions... Do you really think he's spent all this time and effort to spit shine his father's memory, just to be confronted with questions he can't answer and publicly shown up? It's going to be a carefully controlled media event. The picture earlier in the thread of the kids carrying the bogus signs blaming Moses almost makes me curious as to what surprises Peter has up his sleeve:

* agents provocateurs pretending to be anti-O'Malley and doing unacceptable things?

* hired ringers in the audience voicing support for him and his father?

Who knows? If anyone thinks he's worked so hard to gild the turd just to let himself look bad, they haven't been paying attention.

[Let's Go Mets!]

It's going to be a carefully controlled media event.

That's right.

It won't surprise me if it's like Alex Rodriquez's recent press conferences, where the Yankees cleverly controlled the media, to take the onus off A-Rod.

[Let's Go Mets!]

Great job Mongoose...couldn't have done better myself....we should get together, find a pulitzer prize winning author, and have him write a book to refute the revisionist history.


That's right. You really, really should.

You guys are great educators.

Please continue to keep the real truth alive!

[Let's Go Mets!]

Just look at Baseball Fever: this forum for a team that's been defunct over 50 years has 3 times the posts the Los Angeles Dodgers' forum does - the New York Mets' forum has 5 times the posts!


Not to mention the New York Yankees leading the way (as usual), with over 44,500 posts.

Current posts as of 10:50 AM:

New York Yankees-----44,511
New York Mets---------22,231
San Francisco Giants---5,414
Los Angeles Dodgers----4,574

The statistics remind me of Darryl Strawberry's recent interview with Mike Francesca, where he said:

"The biggest mistake I ever made in my career was leaving New York to play in Los Angeles. While it's true people come to the ballbark, they arrive late, leave early, and are not really good fans like in New York.".

[qbannik]

Not to mention the New York Yankees leading the way (as usual), with over 44,500 posts.

Current posts as of 10:50 AM:

New York Yankees-----44,511
New York Mets---------22,231
San Francisco Giants---5,414
Los Angeles Dodgers----4,574


Hardly a scientific study. In the same "poll", the Washington Nationals, Toronto Blue Jays and Seattle Mariners forums all individually had more posts than the Chicago White Sox, St. Louis Cardinals, Cleveland Indians and Cincinnati Reds forums.

[VIBaseball]

Great job Mongoose...couldn't have done better myself....we should get together, find a pulitzer prize winning author, and have him write a book to refute the revisionist history.

Incidentally, at the Brooklyn Historical Meeting next Saturday to be addressed by Peter, the author of the book, apparently the host will be Richard Sandomir, the sports media columnist of the New York Times. I sent him an e mail reminding him of many of these points and that he should be sure to see to it that O'Malley doesn't get away with his usual lies, I received a pretty curt response from him saying how do I know what's in the book as it hasn't been published yet, I responded I read the excerpt in SI and his answer was the excerpt does not necessarily reflect a book. I don't know how much he can be counted on to counter the lies O'Malley is sure to throw out. I will make an effort to get there but don't know if I can.

I hope there is a large turnout of Brooklyn people to, in a polite manner, shoot down the revisionist history being thrown out.

Nice pickup about Sandomir, MATHA531...not to mention your follow-through e-mails. Here's a press release:

http://www.brooklynhistory.org/resources/press/bhs_2009_feb_17.pdf

I still hold out hope for Henry D. Fetter's article called "Revising the Revisionists" -- but I don't know when SABR will be publishing it. Meanwhile, I think you've just about delivered a book with your opinions here!

[VIBaseball]

That VFW was converted into a church about 1 or 2 years ago and the flagpole is no longer there. Anyone have any idea where it is now?

This is news to me...possibly Dodger Deb may have heard something, but I am not in touch with her. I'll ask around. I don't get out to 1405 Utica Ave. in East Flatbush so often.

[SilentKiller]

This is news to me...possibly Dodger Deb may have heard something, but I am not in touch with her. I'll ask around. I don't get out to 1405 Utica Ave. in East Flatbush so often.

I live in the neighborhood and it's no longer there.

[Anthony]

I know we are all beating the stadium issue to dead. But in addition to the legal issues (and yes, the O'Malley plan required use of an emminent domain statute designed to facilitate low income housing, not private sports facilities), the Atlantic Avenue site shared many of the same negatives as Ebbets Field. In 1957, the Atlantic Avenue site shared the same urban deterioration issues that the all cities shared. One of O'Malley's main complaints was a lack of parking, yet the Atlantic Avenue site did not have that much more (I believe it had 2500 spots). Further, the site is miles away from the nearest expressway/parkway. As a former resident of Brooklyn Heights, and a current resident of Park Slope, traffic is a nightmare even without a stadium.

Granted, Wrigley Field does well without much on site parking. When I lived in Lincoln Park between 2003-2008 I barely noticed problems when the Cubs played, though my wife's cousin, who lived about 4 blocks from Wrigley complained constantly. The public transport of the Atlantic Avenue site might have made up for the lack of parking. But considering that was one of O'Malley's main complaints, I question his sincerity regarding the Flushing Meadows site.

And while one could argue that O'Malley was a bit ahead of his time in 1955, pushing for a baseball only urban/neighborhood stadium (when the trend was to build cookie cutter stadia in open areas, surrounded by acres of parking), at the time the trend was to make it easier for cars to get places. Today, we lament the end of the trolley but at the time, cars were seen as the future.

The Jets and Giants have been able to retain the city's alligence despite playing in New Jersey -- within a year the Dodgers would have been fine in Flushing.

[Shotgun Shuba]

The crux of the issue is that nobody can really decide what a baseball franchise is. At various times owners and fans adopt different positions to suit their own needs. Is a baseball team any different than a bookstore or coffee shop? They provide a product, provide jobs and charge a price for the service or product they provide. Hershey, PA does not OWN Hershey's Chocolate. The company can move whenever it wants. Joe's Pizza in Canarsie is not owned by Brooklyn, just because they are located there and serve that community. HOWEVER, owners can not say this and then hold a city for ransom for a new ballpark. You can't have it both ways. O'Malley should have used his own money in my theory. If NYC owned the Dodgers then taxpayer money could be allocated for a new ballpark, pending a vote. A big problem with this is that populations are transitory and in theory people who are no longer living in a community can force future residents to pay their debts. As it is, the Dodgers were free to go and didn't really owe Brooklyn any more than O'malley owed them entertainment. He provided an entertainment entity and left for a more lucrative location. It's cynical but true. What is also true, is that baseball, Brooklyn and the lives of millions were made worse by this decision. People can leave their spouses after 50 years of marriage for a trophy husband or wife, it doesn't make it right.