The Big Lie: The Yankees Ran the Dodgers and Giants Out of NY in '57

[mandrake]

I don't know how many people have had to suffer thru current Yankee shill/announcer John Sterling's pronouncements throughout the baseball season that 'his' team ran the two NL teams out of NYC. Many younger Yankee fans accept this as gospel. The facts are something else. Right now, the Yanks are indeed drawing an incredible 4 million plus to the Stadium. However, it was only 10 years ago that Steinbrenner was grumbling that he had to leave the Bronx since they could not draw; the neighborhood was not safe; he had no luxury boxes; and the MTA would not build a commuter train stop for him. The younger Yankee fans also seem to forget that they almost flew the coop after the 1972 season. Diehard/older Yankee fans know the truth, and know how the '65-'72 years really were. Any Yankee fan who recalls the Horace Clarke days is a REAL YANKEE fan.
By '72 attendance went under a million fans. The Stadium was in disrepair. The neighborhood was horrific; much worse than today; and even worse than Ebbets or the Polo Grounds were in '57. Parking was terrible. Fans did not want to take the 4 train or the D train. The city tore down the Bronx part of the third ave El around that time. Channel Eleven's ratings were way below the Mets on Ch 9, so much so that they only broadcast around 50 games compared to 140 for the Mets. The Mets were outdrawing the Yanks by more than 2 to 1 at the gate. The Mets were given what was then thought of as a state of the art dual purpose stadium. where the Jets also played. Meanwhile, the Giants were so upset at the conditions at Yankee Stadium, that they announced they were leaving after the '72 season without even having a home. Mara was never happy there, and he said he was leaving evn though he knew a stadium in NJ would not be ready until 1976. He just could not take the Stadium anymore, nor the neighborhood. And Mara was a Bronx native! The Yankees in 1972 had dwindling attendance;small tv viewership; loss of the football tenant; high crime area; and to make matters worse...the Dodgers were rolling in dough in LA. The Bums had won 3 WS in LA, including a sweep of the Yankees. (The Yankees had sunk to the basement by '66 and had drawn as few as 400 fans to games!!!) Yes, Red Barber did get fired for showing that sparse crowd, if you can call 400 people a crowd, in 1966.
And the Dodgers were drawing 3 million per year. The Yanks in '72 felt that they had made a terrible move by staying in NYC; they felt like the stepchild to the expansion Mets who were given a brand new stadium in a safe place that was easily accesible by subway, LIRR, and automobiles - with parking for 10,000 cars. I would love to be able to call in to Mr Sterling and present these facts to him when he spouts out his nonsense. I guess back in '72 he was off shilling for some other team, because he has no idea of what the Yankees went though during those rough years.

[MATHA531]

We've tried to make this point....as events fade into history those who were there pass on and the only way people can relate to historical things is 2nd hand and 3rd hand reports.

Some who have come to this board have called some of us, myself included, all sorts of names for continuing to bring up the treachery of the fat slob in 1957....my point is I was there...true I was only 11 years old which puts me right on the cusp of actually being able to comprehend and remember what Brooklyn Dodger baseball meant, how baseball was different and just what the fat slob did to all of us....anybody at all younger would probably not have those meories...all they could relate to is what they are told and what they read.

Well I'm 60 now and of course as time goes on those who truly remember are passing from the scene and will be unable to tell the truth and allow lies such as Sterling's or the lies being put out by the renegade organization on the left coast that it wasn't really the fat slob's fault...that poor Walter was done in by a bum named Robert Moses and if Moses had only assisted the fat slob in his"modest" requests, the franchise would not have been removed from where it belonged. And so we try to answer back but our numbers are becoming lesser and lesser and there are really nobody coming along to take our place.

Add to that this is the 50th anniversary of the last season in Brooklyn and this season will be full of those moments you know the last Opening Day at Ebbets Field (and the raising of the 1956 NL pennant), the infamous meeting in Chicago in May 1957 when the fat slob was given permission to steal the franchise from Brooklyn and a moron named Warren Giles, supposedly there to protect the interests of the fans, proclaimed "Who needs New York?"

Then of course as the season rolls along, we will get to the 50th anniversary of the last game ever played at Ebbets Field, the last game ever played by the true Dodger franchise in Philadelphia and the infamous day when the fat slob didn't have the gumption to face the public and simply put up a notice on 08 October 1957 that the Brooklyn Dodger franchise, the only real Dodger franchise, would be no longer. It will be a sad long season getting ourselves ready for the garbage that will come out of the left coast next year celebrating the 50th anniversary of this treachery from their side.

But the long and short of it is we have an obligation as long as we are alive to try to tell the truth of what happened with the full knowledge that at some point in the future, when all our voices are stilled for the last time, the lies will begin to be believed. What is it somebody once said if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth to some people.

So most unfortunately this is what will be happening for the next little while.

[strummer]

In June, 2007, the Museum of the City of New York will present an exhibit celebrating the 50th annivrsary of the era of great New York baseball, 1947 to 1957. Hopefully that exhibit will really show what it was like when New York teams dominated, the sport. Yes, dominated, for in that period only one year, 1948, did New York not have a team in the World Series, and in six years (1947, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1955), both teams in the World Series were from New York. It should also be able to illustrate why there were three outstanding teams in New York, and no one of them, surely not the Yankees, was that much better than the others. Teams change from year to year, as the players do, but no one of those teams was that much better than the others, and certainly did not run the others out of town.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

It is hard to believe that people would believe this crap.

I was born in 1967 and Yankee fan since 1981, but even I know that O'Malley left for LA so he could make more money. Some people may say that was not the reason, but hey, we all know that if an owner wants to move a team, it is because he wants to improve. And in O'Malley's case it was not because small Ebbets Field draw too little attendance.

I have never been a LA Dodgers fan, but I always had a soft spot for the Brooklyn Dodgers (the real Dodgers).

Indeed I am affraid that the upcoming two seasons may be tough for you guys.

[KCGHOST]

John Sterling is simply a [insert pejorative of your choice]. The Dodgers left because they felt they needed a new stadium and the Borough of Brooklyn wouldn't build them one. Once the city fathers came to the realization that they had to do something it was too late. Los Angeles had already surrendered it virtue to O'Malley.

I am not sure why the Giants left. They certainly needed a new facility, too, but it may well have been O'Malley who seduced Stoneham into going to California.

Anyway you cut it the Yankees had nothing to do with it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Thanks to Satellite radio, I got to hear quite a few different teams and their broadcasters this past year. There are some great ones and some not so-great ones. Stirling is the worst. He'll say things that are wholly his biased opinion (he works for the Yankees, so that is forgiven to an extent) as if they were absolute facts and will never provide a single bit of supporting data behind it. This is one such example.

[MattM]

John Sterling is simply a [insert pejorative of your choice]. The Dodgers left because they felt they needed a new stadium and the Borough of Brooklyn wouldn't build them one. Once the city fathers came to the realization that they had to do something it was too late. Los Angeles had already surrendered it virtue to O'Malley.

I am not sure why the Giants left. They certainly needed a new facility, too, but it may well have been O'Malley who seduced Stoneham into going to California.

Anyway you cut it the Yankees had nothing to do with it.

Stoneham was going to move the team with or without the Dodgers. Attendance had severely dropped since 1954, and the Giants wanted a new stadium. The Polo Grounds were old, and a hard place to watch a game, and the area around 155'th and Harlem was a nightmare. Stoneham wanted a new stadium, but the city woudln't give in, and basically gave the impression his team was not wanted. His plan was to get the team out to Minnesota where the farm team, the Millers, played. Unfortunately for Stoneham, O'Malley touted Candlestick. Of course, the day he took him there, there was relatively no wind, and the location right on the bay seemed beautiful. O'Malley promised Stoneham all the revenues and whatnot, since they would be the only 2 teams on the left-coast.

[MattM]

John Sterling is simply a [insert pejorative of your choice]. The Dodgers left because they felt they needed a new stadium and the Borough of Brooklyn wouldn't build them one. Once the city fathers came to the realization that they had to do something it was too late. Los Angeles had already surrendered it virtue to O'Malley.

I am not sure why the Giants left. They certainly needed a new facility, too, but it may well have been O'Malley who seduced Stoneham into going to California.

Anyway you cut it the Yankees had nothing to do with it.

I wish I would have heard that clip. STerling calls a great game, but his catch-phrases and banter make me want to vomit.

I agree with the first post, and find it funny that STerling forgets even the early 1990's where the team was struggling at the gates, and yet they were still being outdrawn by the Mets, who dismantled their 86 team, and were playing like the 62 Mets in some aspects.

Attendance is like a roller coaster. It has its highs and lows. When a team is good, people flock to the stadium, but when the team is playing like the Bad News Bears, people stay away. Banwagon fans is the phrase, and I think Mr. Sterling forgets that.

I'm a Yankee fan, but I really dislike that elietist attitude. Michael Kay really comes off like a pompous ass at times too when he talks about the team, and how great they are.

Enough with my rant, statistics don't lie, and the Dodgers still belong in Brooklyn.

[mandrake]

I'm a Yankee fan, but I really dislike that elietist attitude. Michael Kay really comes off like a pompous ass at times too when he talks about the team, and how great they are.



Don't get me wrong, I respect all real Yankee fans. I know some older Yankee fans who claim most of the fun in baseball left in 57. When the Giants came back to the Stadium for an exhibition game, pre-Mets, they sold the stadium out. Most real Yankee fans I know detest the phony Kay and the often fired Stering (I lost track with Sterling's teams. I think he started in the WHA;then jumped to the Islanders where he called everyone by their first name, on radio mind you, where you had no idea what was going on; to the Atlanta franchises-Braves, Flames, Hawks...and eventually landed in the Bronx after the Yankee Brass had hired/fired a whole slew of people in the booths).
The NY press, especially Phil Mushnick, will usually write about one of Sterling's stupid statements, and he will then bash them on the radio. I don't know who has the worst home run call: Kay's "see ya" or Sterling's "it is high, it is far, it is gone". Makes one long for the days of Bill White and the Scooter.

[MattM]

Don't get me wrong, I respect all real Yankee fans. I know some older Yankee fans who claim most of the fun in baseball left in 57. When the Giants came back to the Stadium for an exhibition game, pre-Mets, they sold the stadium out. Most real Yankee fans I know detest the phony Kay and the often fired Stering (I lost track with Sterling's teams. I think he started in the WHA;then jumped to the Islanders where he called everyone by their first name, on radio mind you, where you had no idea what was going on; to the Atlanta franchises-Braves, Flames, Hawks...and eventually landed in the Bronx after the Yankee Brass had hired/fired a whole slew of people in the booths).
The NY press, especially Phil Mushnick, will usually write about one of Sterling's stupid statements, and he will then bash them on the radio. I don't know who has the worst home run call: Kay's "see ya" or Sterling's "it is high, it is far, it is gone". Makes one long for the days of Bill White and the Scooter.

I really enjoy Sterlings call of the game. I think he does a good job of describing the game to you, but it's his catch phrases that just annoy me. Michael Kay really comes off like an elitist on all his broadcasts. I find it funny that he preaches journalistic integrity, and when the steroid scandal came about a year or two ago, he said that he had inside sources that claimed Roger Clemens was doping. Turns out, Kay was wrong, and looked like a jackass.

Anyways, Sterling is an idiot for that comment. Plain and simple.

[tonypug]

John Sterling and Michael Kay are not announcers I would listen to for fair and balanced commentary. Its all right to be a homer but at least have your facts straight. O'Malley ran the Dodgers out of New York and he took the Giants with him. The Yankees had nothing to do with it. You were either a National League fan or an American League fan. When the Dodgers and Giants left, the Yankees expected attendence to jump, that never happened.

[MattM]

John Sterling and Michael Kay are not announcers I would listen to for fair and balanced commentary. Its all right to be a homer but at least have your facts straight. O'Malley ran the Dodgers out of New York and he took the Giants with him. The Yankees had nothing to do with it. You were either a National League fan or an American League fan. When the Dodgers and Giants left, the Yankees expected attendence to jump, that never happened.

Would anyone happen to know the exact quote that Sterling used? I'd love to send him an email and question him.

[mandrake]

Would anyone happen to know the exact quote that Sterling used? I'd love to send him an email and question him.

To the best of my ability, Sterling said straight out that the Yankees ran the Dodgers and Giants out of NYC. He has said it several times, especially during interleague play. I have the MLB package and I love baseball.

Speaking of NY announcers, please say a prayer for Bobby Murcer tonight .I have always enjoyed his call of the game. A very classy person !!!!!!

[tonypug]

To the best of my ability, Sterling said straight out that the Yankees ran the Dodgers and Giants out of NYC. He has said it several times, especially during interleague play. I have the MLB package and I love baseball.

Speaking of NY announcers, please say a prayer for Bobby Murcer tonight .I have always enjoyed his call of the game. A very classy person !!!!!!
Simply put, Sterling is an idiot. I join you in wishing Bobby Murcer well.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Simply put, Sterling is an idiot. I join you in wishing Bobby Murcer well.
I'll echo both statements.

[LouGehrig]

This thread exemplifies why this site is the best of all, with the most knowlegeable fans of all.

I have been a Yankees fan since 1951. It reached the point a few years ago that Sterling's announcing was so horrible that I will not listen to the Yankees on the radio, which is difficult at times, but that's the way it must remain until Sterling leaves.

I did not know, since I never listen to him anymore, that he made the idiotic, inaccurate statement about Brooklyn having its team stolen. It is typical of Sterling.

A reference was made to the early 1970s. At that time, Sterling did a call in show on WMCA radio, which carried the Yankees games for a few years.

I called him up after he said that Hank Aaron was the greatest player of all time. It was pretty easy to get through since Sterling did not have a large following.

When I told him that most fans thought that Babe Ruth was a greater player than Aaron, Sterling said that racism must have played a role in their evaluation of the two players and that HE had never seen Ruth play, so Aaron HAD to be better because he didin't know how accurate newspaper and other written accounts of Ruth's skills were.

I then asked Sterling, since he never saw the Civil War or WWI, if he thought what he knew about them were accurate. He hung up.

Now, since Sterling was in New York during the Yankees era of pennant drought, he knew how the Mets dominated New York. It was a terrible era until CBS sold to George.

Sterling does NOT give a good play by play. He is terrible. A good play by play announcer describes plays as the occur. Sterling recaps what has happened. He cannot describe most plays as they occur.

Forget Bill White and Phil. Yes, they were great, but imagine Mel Allen, Red Barber, and Jim Woods as our announcers. It could not have been better. Woods was released so that Phil could take over after he was let go on Old Timers day in 1956, a game I attended.

Mel Allen helped Rizzuto tremendously, and by the early 1960s, Rizzuto was really pretty good, but then something happened, Mel no longer was wanted, and Rizzuto's play by play skills eroded. He was still fun to listen to, but only on television

[tonypug]

Red Barber and Mel Allen together, it didn't get any better then that. I hated the Yankees yet loved listening to Barber and Allen especially on the radio. As I said before Sterling is an idiot. How he has lasted this long, I don't know. Its almost as bad as Issiah Thomas being retained By James Dolan.

[callingit]

But the long and short of it is we have an obligation as long as we are alive to try to tell the truth of what happened with the full knowledge that at some point in the future, when all our voices are stilled for the last time, the lies will begin to be believed. What is it somebody once said if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth to some people.



this is why the impetus of baseball legend lies with passing the game and its memories on from father to son, grandfather father to grandson, and greatgandfather to great grandchildren. When the stories are passed on in the lore of the land, the truth remains the truth. I tell my kids the same stories my father & uncles told me about Lou Gehrig and Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, Sandy Koufax, The Duke, et al. I have them reading young reader books about baseball and it's heroes--Dan Gutman's books are TERRIFIC!!!!--so they understand why and how baseball has influenced the culture of America. don't get me wrong, I'm not ramming The Game down their throats: (:crazy ) they see it in my work and research, and love going to the ballparks. It's always around, though, ready for them when they are ready for it.

This past Sunday I took them out to 155th and Harlem River Drive and toured around the Polo Grounds and gave them an imaginary tour of the stadium. I took them up onto the Bluffs and showed them where Yankee Stadium peeked through the buildings from just acrosss the river. They'd seen the photographs in the books I read, heard the stories and the films, and now they've seen where it took place. My daughter was delighted when she spotted the staircase down from the bluffs before me, and my son was disappointed to know we could never come there and actually watch a game. Later I showed them the photographs again, this time explaining where we stood, showing them what used to be there, and why it wasn't there any more. We will make this same pilgramage to Ebbets Field later in a week or two

I grew up in the Bronx in the early 70's and will second everything Mandrake claimed in starting this thread. The South Bronx was a maelstrom of decay and degeneration. Living just three subway stops from the Stadium, I went to games all the time, sitting in the bleachers with my summer camp group or getting passed into the upper deck grandstand because one of our camp counselors worked the section's concession stand on weekends. You know there's something wrong with the team you root for if Mike Kekich and Lindy McDaniel are the pitchers you idolize, while getting the imitation Johnny Ellis bat at giveaway day makes your heart flutter. If you remember Rich Coggins, you should've studied harder in school. Then came Bill Lee & Graig Nettles, and the pride in pinstripes was reborn. The real turning point in the Steinbrenner Era came when The Boss was reinstated from his suspension in the early 90's. He became a man who'd learned his lesson, (mostly) changed his ways, and the result has been fourteen years of enjoyable, fiercely competitive baseball with new on-field heroes writing new chapters to the neverending story of the Evil Empire almost every week.


To the best of my knowledge NO ONE in Yankee land, be it fan, player or executive, has ever claimed sending the Jints and Bums to the baseball equivalent of Exile Island. Why wouldn't the Yanks welcome the intra-city competition: we usually came out on top.

History is written by the victors, and the Left Coasters won't surrender until a week after world peace is declared, so we must hold the truth close at heart and pass it on so it always remains the truth. There are two sides to the story, but Sterling's claims (and I'll admit to never actually hearing them come out of his mouth) are no more than trashy romances designed by and entertaining to someone in love with himself.

[EbtsFldGuy]

What ran the Dodgers out of NY in 1957?

This just in:

The insatiable appetite for wealth that was Walter O'Malley.

There you have it.

[MATHA531]

What ran the Dodgers out of NY in 1957?

This just in:

The insatiable appetite for wealth that was Walter O'Malley.

There you have it.

In other words the greed of a demented individual.

[EbtsFldGuy]

In other words the greed of a demented individual.

I don't think I'd cast it just that way.

[tonypug]

In other words the greed of a demented individual.
I wouldn't call him demented. Cold and calculating, yes, and immensely greedy.

[SONOFSOJO]

I'm afraid that Yankee haters are doing exactly what they accuse Yankee fans of doing - trying to refute an argument by totally changing the subject. By claiming that the Yankees had nothing to do with the Dodgers and Giants giving up on New York, the original post cites the METS' attendance figures over a decade later and how more MET games were televised than Yankee games for a brief period during the 1970s. Pray tell - what does this have to do with 1957 - when the Yankees drew nearly as many fans as both NY national league teams combined AND outdrew the Giants by well over 2-1???

Then you skillfully try to gloss over the urban blight problem that definitely existed at Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds in 1957 by referring to the condition of Yankee Stadium and the surrounding area...15 YEARS LATER!!

And when all else fails, you then segway into a John Sterling bash-a-thon. As a Yankee fan, I have no problem admitting that I'm not nuts about Sterling. But why does Skip Caray get a pass? Milo Hamilton? At least Sterling refers to the team he covers as "the Yankees," not "we" or "us" like those two do. And while were on the quasi-subject of the Mets, what about Gary Cohen, who reacts to a Mets homer like he's a winning contestant on a 1970's episode of the "Price is Right" but sounds as if he'd just seen a family member murdered in front of his very eyes when an opposing player does? I think any true fan would prefer the bygone days of more objective announcers, but they are sadly a dying breed (I miss Frank Messer, for one thing).

And then there's what you failed to mention: The Yankees sure weren't happy with their surroundings in the early '70's...but guess what, THEY DIDN'T LEAVE...even at a time when the Mets were having one of their couple of very fleeting moments in the New York spotlight. (BTW, the Yankees outdrew the Mets cumulatively during the 1980's...even though the Mets were the only team of the two to win a World Series that decade!).

Oh, and for good measure, the claim that Yankee attendance declined after the Dodgers and Giants left is either a lie or based on lousy research. Yankee attendance jumped 22 percent between 1958 and 1961 - their first and last years as the only MLB team in town before the Mets arrived. (Source: baseballreference.com)

If a Yankee fan reacted to last year's playoff loss to Detroit by saying, "Well, we've won 26 championships, so it doesn't mean anything," you'd be all over the person like Borat on Pam Anderson's lingerie drawer. But if you're going to bash the Yankees on one point or another, why not stick to the issue you're arguing.

[MattM]

I'm afraid that Yankee haters are doing exactly what they accuse Yankee fans of doing - trying to refute an argument by totally changing the subject. By claiming that the Yankees had nothing to do with the Dodgers and Giants giving up on New York, the original post cites the METS' attendance figures over a decade later and how more MET games were televised than Yankee games for a brief period during the 1970s. Pray tell - what does this have to do with 1957 - when the Yankees drew nearly as many fans as both NY national league teams combined AND outdrew the Giants by well over 2-1???

Then you skillfully try to gloss over the urban blight problem that definitely existed at Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds in 1957 by referring to the condition of Yankee Stadium and the surrounding area...15 YEARS LATER!!

And when all else fails, you then segway into a John Sterling bash-a-thon. As a Yankee fan, I have no problem admitting that I'm not nuts about Sterling. But why does Skip Caray get a pass? Milo Hamilton? At least Sterling refers to the team he covers as "the Yankees," not "we" or "us" like those two do. And while were on the quasi-subject of the Mets, what about Gary Cohen, who reacts to a Mets homer like he's a winning contestant on a 1970's episode of the "Price is Right" but sounds as if he'd just seen a family member murdered in front of his very eyes when an opposing player does? I think any true fan would prefer the bygone days of more objective announcers, but they are sadly a dying breed (I miss Frank Messer, for one thing).

And then there's what you failed to mention: The Yankees sure weren't happy with their surroundings in the early '70's...but guess what, THEY DIDN'T LEAVE...even at a time when the Mets were having one of their couple of very fleeting moments in the New York spotlight. (BTW, the Yankees outdrew the Mets cumulatively during the 1980's...even though the Mets were the only team of the two to win a World Series that decade!).

Oh, and for good measure, the claim that Yankee attendance declined after the Dodgers and Giants left is either a lie or based on lousy research. Yankee attendance jumped 22 percent between 1958 and 1961 - their first and last years as the only MLB team in town before the Mets arrived. (Source: baseballreference.com)

If a Yankee fan reacted to last year's playoff loss to Detroit by saying, "Well, we've won 26 championships, so it doesn't mean anything," you'd be all over the person like Borat on Pam Anderson's lingerie drawer. But if you're going to bash the Yankees on one point or another, why not stick to the issue you're arguing.

I stated in my earlier post that I am a fan of the Yankees, and have been since I was a little boy, and yes, you're correct about the Yankees attendance being higher in 58-61, but I believe that people in this post were referring to the years after Stengel was fired, Houk moved up to the GM, and Berra, also fired, went with Stengel to the Mets, as a player-coach. Yankee Stadium could fit well over 70,000 people, whereas Ebbets Field was only capable of some 38,000(?), and the Polo Grounds was much more.

Alot of people here don't like JOhn Sterling, since he makes alot of comments regarding the Yankees, and he never backs them up with proof. He also tries too damn hard with those god-awful catch prhases. "The Giambino, Melky Milked one!" YUCK! Stick to calling the game. Michael Kay has been a real supporter of journalistic integrity, and when the whole steroid debale (Rafael Palmero) came about, he said that "there was another person involved, and it would bring baseball to its knees to divulge the persons name." Many felt he was referring to Clemens, now playing in Houston. It later came out that Kay's source was incorrect, and he didn't apologize for making the hurried comment.

As for comparing conditions of Ebbets, PG, & Yankee, let's put it like this. Ebbets Field as I'm sure you know, is now a bad area. Not nearly as bad as it was in the 1970's, but I remember watching on one of the Dodger DVD's, Buzzy Bavasi was talking with O'Malley about Brooklyn deteriorating, and how alot of people were moving away from the "big-city" life (Brooklyn being a borough), and going out to Long Island. O'Malley said something like, "look outside the office, and there's a bunch of Puerto Ricans standing outside waiting for work. We have to get out of here." Now, I'm rambling a bit, but this was the 1950's, and the area was changing. Maybe O'Malley was a bigot, but he did feel that Flatbush Avenue was not what it was fifteen years earlier.

The Polo Grounds really doesn't need explaning. I'm sure PoloGrounds1957 can tell you more than I can, but, located on 155'th in Harlem, the area was becoming a high-crime rate in the 1950's, only to get worse whent he Mets moved in during the 1962 season, due to the fact that there was all low-income apartment complexes around the stadium. Now, most people wouldn't go above 96'th street, let alone 155'th and Amsterdam to see the site.

Yes, the Yankees didn't leave Yankee Stadium, but Steinbrenner was seeking another site for the Yankees since it didn't look like NYC was willing to foot the bill. He said there was interest in New Jersey. Honestly, you think if Steinbrenner had the chance for greener pastures he woudlnt' do it? He's a business man afterall. That new stadium has the businessman in mind, and not the everday fan. (luxury boxes are doubled)

you'd be all over the person like Borat on Pam Anderson's lingerie drawer. But if you're

I'm guessing you're expecting the big laugh on that one.

[SNAP]

Dont waste your time on that idiot.

I don't know how many people have had to suffer thru current Yankee shill/announcer John Sterling's pronouncements throughout the baseball season that 'his' team ran the two NL teams out of NYC. Many younger Yankee fans accept this as gospel. The facts are something else. Right now, the Yanks are indeed drawing an incredible 4 million plus to the Stadium. However, it was only 10 years ago that Steinbrenner was grumbling that he had to leave the Bronx since they could not draw; the neighborhood was not safe; he had no luxury boxes; and the MTA would not build a commuter train stop for him. The younger Yankee fans also seem to forget that they almost flew the coop after the 1972 season. Diehard/older Yankee fans know the truth, and know how the '65-'72 years really were. Any Yankee fan who recalls the Horace Clarke days is a REAL YANKEE fan.
By '72 attendance went under a million fans. The Stadium was in disrepair. The neighborhood was horrific; much worse than today; and even worse than Ebbets or the Polo Grounds were in '57. Parking was terrible. Fans did not want to take the 4 train or the D train. The city tore down the Bronx part of the third ave El around that time. Channel Eleven's ratings were way below the Mets on Ch 9, so much so that they only broadcast around 50 games compared to 140 for the Mets. The Mets were outdrawing the Yanks by more than 2 to 1 at the gate. The Mets were given what was then thought of as a state of the art dual purpose stadium. where the Jets also played. Meanwhile, the Giants were so upset at the conditions at Yankee Stadium, that they announced they were leaving after the '72 season without even having a home. Mara was never happy there, and he said he was leaving evn though he knew a stadium in NJ would not be ready until 1976. He just could not take the Stadium anymore, nor the neighborhood. And Mara was a Bronx native! The Yankees in 1972 had dwindling attendance;small tv viewership; loss of the football tenant; high crime area; and to make matters worse...the Dodgers were rolling in dough in LA. The Bums had won 3 WS in LA, including a sweep of the Yankees. (The Yankees had sunk to the basement by '66 and had drawn as few as 400 fans to games!!!) Yes, Red Barber did get fired for showing that sparse crowd, if you can call 400 people a crowd, in 1966.
And the Dodgers were drawing 3 million per year. The Yanks in '72 felt that they had made a terrible move by staying in NYC; they felt like the stepchild to the expansion Mets who were given a brand new stadium in a safe place that was easily accesible by subway, LIRR, and automobiles - with parking for 10,000 cars. I would love to be able to call in to Mr Sterling and present these facts to him when he spouts out his nonsense. I guess back in '72 he was off shilling for some other team, because he has no idea of what the Yankees went though during those rough years.

[SNAP]

That's correct............I believe NYY attendance went down in the 5 years Brooklyn and the Giants were gone......Sterling's A JERK and a professional one at that.

John Sterling is simply a [insert pejorative of your choice]. The Dodgers left because they felt they needed a new stadium and the Borough of Brooklyn wouldn't build them one. Once the city fathers came to the realization that they had to do something it was too late. Los Angeles had already surrendered it virtue to O'Malley.

I am not sure why the Giants left. They certainly needed a new facility, too, but it may well have been O'Malley who seduced Stoneham into going to California.

Anyway you cut it the Yankees had nothing to do with it.

[Lprof]

I wouldn't call him demented. Cold and calculating, yes, and immensely greedy.
As much as I hate the man, and have no doubt that as I write he is turning on a spit in hell, I suppose from a pure business sense it was the right move. There was a scholarly book written a while back, published by Oxford University Press, called something like "The Dodgers Move West," which lays much of the blame at the door of the maniacal Robert Moses, who refused to allow a new stadium to be built in Brooklyn. I cannot imagine, however, that that would have kept the Dodgers. One thing, however, is clear: The Yankees had nothing to do with it. The teams didn't appeal to the same type of fan. I was 11 when the Dodgers moved, and actually made an effort for about two years to root for the Yankees (after all, they transferred to WMGM--the Dodger station). But I just couldn't do it. I would listen to their games just to have a baseball game on. I drifted for the next two years. I am sure O'Malley is now paying for his sins.

[Lprof]

That's correct............I believe NYY attendance went down in the 5 years Brooklyn and the Giants were gone......Sterling's an ass and a professional one at that.

I recall reading that Stoneham, who wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, was ticked off about very low attendance, and had flirted with the idea of moving to Minneapolis, but O'Malley convinced him SF would make more sense, with the Dodgers moving to LA.

By the way, is anybody old enough to remember the NY area broadcasts of Les Keiter's recreated Giants games, done off a ticker but made to sound as if he was at the ball game, throughout 1958? The Phillies also broadcast all their home games into NYC for 1958, but the next year the Yankees threatened to broadcast their games into Philly, so the Phillies stopped.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Stoneham was going to move the team with or without the Dodgers. Attendance had severely dropped since 1954, and the Giants wanted a new stadium. The Polo Grounds were old, and a hard place to watch a game, and the area around 155'th and Harlem was a nightmare. Stoneham wanted a new stadium, but the city woudln't give in, and basically gave the impression his team was not wanted. .

There was nothing wrong with the polo grounds. the stadium was in great shape as far as the structure.the giants could have stayed there at a renovated polo grounds just like what happened to yankee stadium across the river.But yes the area around the PG was getting run down at that time and still is today.now if the polo grounds was renovated instead of being torn down the area around the stadium would have been renovated and improved.and with all of the police around the stadium things would have been okay. like i have said before if the yankees still can be playing across the river then baseball still could be played today at the polo grounds.another thing is that the city had talked for a while about taking the property that the polo grounds stood on and build low income apartments.that is one reason why the new york football giants left the polo grounds over its uncertain future.and the baseball giants knew that the city wanted the property also. if the city of new york had not turned there backs on the historic polo grounds she would have stood alot longer.its to bad that she was not given the same treatment as what happened to yankee stadium in the 1970s.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

I am not sure why the Giants left. They certainly needed a new facility, too,
.

This is one thing that really gets under my skin when i hear and read this about the polo grounds.please read my previous post about the polo grounds.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Polo Grounds 1957 is on solid grounds with his logic.

Some sports experiencds since 1957 make his case. In addition to the White Sox staying put in the dangerous South Side, the Tigers remaining where they did, and two reconstructions and one replacement of Yankee Stadium in the South Bronx, there is a lesson to be learned from the NJ Devils opting to go to a new facility in Newark, a city not known for its safety.

Sure, both the PG and EF could have been saved. Would have required two things: (1) desire of the owners to do so (Likely for Stoneham, unlikely for O'M) and (2) the fiscal will of NYC to make major improvements to the park and area - doubtful, I believe, in 1957.

Just one fan's opinion, here.

What think ye?

[MATHA531]

We'll come back to this and think in terms of 1957 not 2007....

Was it the city of New York's responsibility or any municipality for that matter to maintain or provide for owners of private enterprises and/or the properties (in this case baseball parks) they owned?

There is little question in my mind, Ebbets Field could have remained a viable place to play baseball for at least anotehr decade if not more. It was not falling apart (to his credit, the fat slob piece of human slime did make an effort to maintain the park)...the problem understandably was the ability of those who left the city to get to the weekday games.....think of it...in the 40's hubby comes home, sits down to dinner, off on the BMT or the trolley to the ball yard...now surban hubby goes home on the LIRR, sits down to dinner and there is no mass transit or trolley car to take him to the ball yard and of course there would not be time to drive over and where would he park the car anyway...this ultimately is the same problem the NJ Devils have right now...the reality is their attendance is not as much lower than the Rangers as people think..the only problem is they don't attract the corporate crowd the way the Rangers do...the you know I have a couple of tickets to tonight's game let's go directly from work (usually in Manhattan) to the game and then we'll get on the train home whereas if one wants to go to a Devil game first they go home pick up the car drive to the Meadowlands...doesn't work...with the new arena in Newark, they'll be able to take the train right over from midtown Manhattan and then public transportation home.

But then again, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park have survived even though they attract the same suburbanites Ebbets Field used to and could have and neither of those two have abundant parking...most of the masses aririve by public transport.

No it wasn't the ballparks.

[EbtsFldGuy]

I agree that it was not the responsibility of NYC to make the improvements, BUT had they not done so to Yankee Stadium, for example, the team may be gone from the Bronx by now.

Same thing for the PG and EF.

EF suffered from one other difficulty. It was not easily accessible by public transport for suburbanites - and particularly the former Brooklynlites who'd moved to Long Island. True, there was a subway, but it required travel through a system that was increasingly dangerous. Same with the PG, although the trip there from midtown Manhattan was more direct than to EF.

Yes, the parks themselves could have continued, but more amenities were needed for the franchises to be solvent in those venues, I believe.

[MATHA531]

I agree that it was not the responsibility of NYC to make the improvements, BUT had they not done so to Yankee Stadium, for example, the team may be gone from the Bronx by now.

Same thing for the PG and EF.

EF suffered from one other difficulty. It was not easily accessible by public transport for suburbanites - and particularly the former Brooklynlites who'd moved to Long Island. True, there was a subway, but it required travel through a system that was increasingly dangerous. Same with the PG, although the trip there from midtown Manhattan was more direct than to EF.

Yes, the parks themselves could have continued, but more amenities were needed for the franchises to be solvent in those venues, I believe.

My point was that because of the theft of the Brooklyn franchise from its fans who loved it and the feeling that if it could happen to Brooklyn fans, it could happen to anybody, municipalities began to compete with each other and it became sort of the responsibility of municipalities to cater to the extortion of owners of franchises who simply threatened to leave for greener pastures and extort taxpayers' money for their demands. This is what Yankee ownership did to get the city to pay for the improvements to Yankee Stadium and on and on it went and still goes and this is sort of accepted today.

My opinions on all this are hard for Johnny come lately fans (not accusing you of being one of course) to understand when the Bob Moses thing is brought up and one of the reasons so many now are being brainwashed that poor Walter O'Malley was forced to move the franchise because Bob Moses would not fall for his extortion being practiced by O'Malley and of course the absolute disgusting betrayal of the taxpayers of Los Angeles by the city goverment of Los Angeles in their pursuit of the franchise. Now if you want to say this is the American way, competition and all that and the City of New York should have realized it, perhaps. But the city of New York was playing by 1957 rules, the city of Los Angeles was playing by rules of its own making. It's easy to sit back and blame Robert Moses and the city government of New York for ineptitude (and I was too young to be one of those feeling that way) but then again....

1. There was the little problem of New York State law which made it very plain that to apply eminent domain in this case was illegal as in against the law. Nobody today can understand it.

2. O'Malley was going to pay for the ballpark (on the backs of the people, supposedly, who would deposit nickels into little boxes on their televisions when he took the games off of free television; despite the fact the technology did not exist in 1956. But who was going to pay for the road work necessary to bring a branch of the BQE close enough to the ball park so as not to cause traffic paralysis in the downtown Brooklyn area on weekday nights as people headed for the ballpark fought homeward bound rush hour traffic?

Studies done today by some, in conjunction with the proposed arena in the same location have shown what a nightmare having a ball park there would have been.

[tonypug]

Just to throw my two cents in again. Horace Stoneham wanted out of New York, attendence was down and the Giants were running third, in a three team race for fans in New York City. THe other owners felt that no city should have three teams, and would have been happy with the Giants moving. Only one owner was unhappy with the Goants plan to move, and that was O'Malley. In 1956, Stoneham asked the National League for permission to move to Minneapolis. In those days in order for a team to recieve permission to move it had to be a unanimous vote. Its not hard to figure out who voted against the move. There wasn't anything wrong with the Polo Grounds, its just that fans weren't going to games.Robert Moses didn't prevent O'Malley from buying land and building a ballpark in Brooklyn. O'Malley could have bought the land in a private sale. He basically wanted NYC to give him the land. Nelson Rockefeller in 1957 offered to buy the land, give it to O'Malley for 20 years before O'Malley had to re-pay the loan. O'Malley said no.The city of LA gave Chaves Ravine to O'Malley in exchange for Wrigley Field in LA. Had O'Malley offered to give the Ebbets Field land to NYC in exchange for the land he wanted, perhaps something could have been worked out . By the time Ebbets Field was sold in late 1956, O'Malley was already headed to LA. All of his talking throughout 1957 was just trying to get all he could out of LA.

[MattM]

There was nothing wrong with the polo grounds. the stadium was in great shape as far as the structure.the giants could have stayed there at a renovated polo grounds just like what happened to yankee stadium across the river.But yes the area around the PG was getting run down at that time and still is today.now if the polo grounds was renovated instead of being torn down the area around the stadium would have been renovated and improved.and with all of the police around the stadium things would have been okay. like i have said before if the yankees still can be playing across the river then baseball still could be played today at the polo grounds.another thing is that the city had talked for a while about taking the property that the polo grounds stood on and build low income apartments.that is one reason why the new york football giants left the polo grounds over its uncertain future.and the baseball giants knew that the city wanted the property also. if the city of new york had not turned there backs on the historic polo grounds she would have stood alot longer.its to bad that she was not given the same treatment as what happened to yankee stadium in the 1970s.

Donald-

You're right. I guess I forgot to say that the PG themself were structurally sound. It's just that NYC honestly did not care to keep the Giants in Brooklyn. The area surrounding the PG's is another story though.

[MATHA531]

Donald-

You're right. I guess I forgot to say that the PG themself were structurally sound. It's just that NYC honestly did not care to keep the Giants in Brooklyn. The area surrounding the PG's is another story though.

I think you meant to say keep the Giants in New York.

The Giants one has to understand were a completely different matter. They had lost their fan base caught between the Yankees and the Dodgers...they were drawing barely over half a million a year...they were bleeding money. Stoneham had every right to move that franchise and the reality is there was little crying about that. At least he was very open about it and the move of the franchise was announced in August 1957 and when asked what he should tell the kids who were fans of the Giants, he rightfully said he feels bad about the kids but where have their fathers been in recent years. Of course his mistake was going to San Francisco and falling for that abortion of a park called Candlestick Park; the franchise would have flourished in Minneapolis where it should have been moved.

[MattM]

I think you meant to say keep the Giants in New York.

The Giants one has to understand were a completely different matter. They had lost their fan base caught between the Yankees and the Dodgers...they were drawing barely over half a million a year...they were bleeding money. Stoneham had every right to move that franchise and the reality is there was little crying about that. At least he was very open about it and the move of the franchise was announced in August 1957 and when asked what he should tell the kids who were fans of the Giants, he rightfully said he feels bad about the kids but where have their fathers been in recent years. Of course his mistake was going to San Francisco and falling for that abortion of a park called Candlestick Park; the franchise would have flourished in Minneapolis where it should have been moved.

Freudian slip, I meant NY. :)

It was weird that the Giants, who only 3 years prior to their move, had won a World SEries, and had several bonus-babies waiting to get the call to the majors, and yet they couldn't draw at the gate. Was it just because of the area, or were the Yanks and Bums just taking the Giant fanbase? They were baseballs team in the first half of the 20'th century, but they lost that title to the Yankees.

[EbtsFldGuy]

I agree with Matha and TonyPug in most of what they've said. No point to rehash that.

The Giants WERE a special case, though. I don't quarrel with Horace Stoneham's desire to move, since the facts were on his side.

Travel to the PG was dangerous, especially for night games. If you parked a car there anywhere but in the few spaces at the park, you were inviting a mugging or worse.

Same thing in the stands at times. My Dad took me to see the Dodgers play there on a Friday night and we wound up in left field sitting in front of a couple. Fortunately, we rooted for the Dodgers and in particular Jackie Robinson, who had a good game. This couple kept patting me on the head - I was about 11, I'd guess. When they left, we turned and saw an empty liquor bottle that they had evidently drained during the game.
I can only imagine what could have happened had our loyalties been elsewhere.

The area remained dangerous. Witness the murders in about 1971 of the two NYPD officers, Piagentini and Jones, on the grounds of the PG Houses.

Could the area around the PG have been stablized for Giants games? Sure, as they were during the 2 years the Mets played there in 1962 and 1963. By then, however, NYC had learned its lesson about losing 2 teams, and it had made a huge effort to return NL ball to town. They had no choice but to make the Mets stay at the PG productive and safe.

In short, Stoneham was an earnest owner of good faith. Same can't be said for the other, avaricious, lad, however.

[Johnny Thinslow]

This is one thing that really gets under my skin when i hear and read this about the polo grounds.please read my previous post about the polo grounds.

The Polo Grounds was an incredible dump. The seats were uncomfortable. To view what was going on, you had to swivel your neck at least 45 degrees.

Could the Polo Grounds have been given a facelift? Certainly. Would it have been worth it? That depends on who was doing the facelift. But it needed more than a facelift. It needed new knees, hip grafts, hair implants, breast implants, and probably an entirely new skeleton. Also, its skin was so badly pock-marked that one might have thought it was already using what Bonds was to popularize. The Stoneham brains were also in dire need of a transplant.

Other than these minor flaws, the Polo Grounds was truly wonderful and probably could have lasted at least another few days.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

The Polo Grounds was an incredible dump. The seats were uncomfortable. To view what was going on, you had to swivel your neck at least 45 degrees.

Could the Polo Grounds have been given a facelift? Certainly. Would it have been worth it? That depends on who was doing the facelift. But it needed more than a facelift. It needed new knees, hip grafts, hair implants, breast implants, and probably an entirely new skeleton. Also, its skin was so badly pock-marked that one might have thought it was already using what Bonds was to popularize. The Stoneham brains were also in dire need of a transplant.

Other than these minor flaws, the Polo Grounds was truly wonderful and probably could have lasted at least another few days.

You have the right to your opinion but i have talked to many fans and baseball players who were there and was told that there was nothing wrong with the polo grounds and i have even heard this from brooklyn dodger fans also.

[D6+]

In reading this thread, a question comes to mind. Did Robert Moses give the New York Giants the same offer to move to the current Shea Stadium site as he with the Brooklyn Dodgers?

[MattM]

In reading this thread, a question comes to mind. Did Robert Moses give the New York Giants the same offer to move to the current Shea Stadium site as he with the Brooklyn Dodgers?

From what I remember, the offer did not stand for the Giants. They were no longer baseballs team, and they didn't have a stong fanbase anymore. I really can't remember why, but the city just did not want the Giants. Moses himself, was not a baseball fan, which explains why O'Malley balked at the idea of the Dodgers going to Queens.

[Lprof]

Polo Grounds 1957 is on solid grounds with his logic.

Some sports experiencds since 1957 make his case. In addition to the White Sox staying put in the dangerous South Side, the Tigers remaining where they did, and two reconstructions and one replacement of Yankee Stadium in the South Bronx, there is a lesson to be learned from the NJ Devils opting to go to a new facility in Newark, a city not known for its safety.

Sure, both the PG and EF could have been saved. Would have required two things: (1) desire of the owners to do so (Likely for Stoneham, unlikely for O'M) and (2) the fiscal will of NYC to make major improvements to the park and area - doubtful, I believe, in 1957.

Just one fan's opinion, here.

What think ye?

Point of personal privilege from a long time White Sox fan and Chicago resident: it is a gross overstatement to refer to "the dangerous South Side" where the Sox play. Last I heard, there was more crime around Wrigley on the north side. True, there is not a lot to do around the Cell, but that is the point: unlike Cub fans, Sox fans go to see a game. Wrigley Field would sell out if they turned the seats around.

[MATHA531]

In reading this thread, a question comes to mind. Did Robert Moses give the New York Giants the same offer to move to the current Shea Stadium site as he with the Brooklyn Dodgers?

I believe Horace S. made it clear he had no interest in staying...the franchise was losing money and there was really very little chance of a turn around...the Giants had simply lost their fan base and the attitude was basically good riddance. As adamant as I am about the transfer of the Brooklyn franchise being by far the most disgusting to the fans moment in the history of baseball, franchise shifts when teams are losing money are absolutely 100% justified.

But Horace S. made a terrible mistake, listening to the bs thrown at him by the fat slob; the franchise would have soared to much greater heights if it had transferred to where it should have namely Minneapolis.....

[tonypug]

In reading this thread, a question comes to mind. Did Robert Moses give the New York Giants the same offer to move to the current Shea Stadium site as he with the Brooklyn Dodgers?

In fact, Horace Stoneham was made the same offer for the Flushing Meadow site. He turned it down saying, Queens and Long Island was Brooklyn Dodger territory and was afraid fans wouldn't travel there to see the Giants . This was in an article printed in the Sporting News.

[HDH]

I try to listen to as many baseball games as possible on XM. For Yankee games, I always hope they are away so I can hear the opposing team's announcers. Both the Yankee announcers are flat out horrible. In particular the man. Its April and he has to over do every win. FIRE him and the woman too. They both have their "facts" wrong.

[DaBigMotor]

the Giants were so upset at the conditions at Yankee Stadium, that they announced they were leaving after the '72 season without even having a home. Mara was never happy there, and he said he was leaving evn though he knew a stadium in NJ would not be ready until 1976. He just could not take the Stadium anymore, nor the neighborhood. And Mara was a Bronx native!


This TOTALLY contradicts what I read here, in the Monday, Sep. 06, 1971 edition of TIME magazine. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943881,00.html)

The Giants announced that they were leaving Yankee Stadium, effective at the end of their lease, the end of the 1974 season.

But feeling spurned by The Giants, the city basically EVICTED them from Yankee Stadium during the 1973 season, to begin renovations. They were FORCED to leave.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

I believe Horace S. made it clear he had no interest in staying...the franchise was losing money and there was really very little chance of a turn around...the Giants had simply lost their fan base and the attitude was basically good riddance. As adamant as I am about the transfer of the Brooklyn franchise being by far the most disgusting to the fans moment in the history of baseball, franchise shifts when teams are losing money are absolutely 100% justified.

But Horace S. made a terrible mistake, listening to the bs thrown at him by the fat slob; the franchise would have soared to much greater heights if it had transferred to where it should have namely Minneapolis.....
The location wasn't Stoneham's downfall, it was The Stick. The heating system never once worked and the tests for wind were done in the AM, but the ferocious gales would begin at 3PM.
Had Horrace stuck to his guns and moved to Minny, said fat slob [not you this time, Bruce]would not have been unable to move to LA.

[mandrake]

This TOTALLY contradicts what I read here, in the Monday, Sep. 06, 1971 edition of TIME magazine. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943881,00.html)

The Giants announced that they were leaving Yankee Stadium, effective at the end of their lease, the end of the 1974 season.

But feeling spurned by The Giants, the city basically EVICTED them from Yankee Stadium during the 1973 season, to begin renovations. They were FORCED to leave.

Well, I started this thread back in 2006, so I am shocked that it still lives. I have no doubt that you are accurate as far as quoting that TIME article. I am sure there are plenty of articles with differing versions. When Mara passed away, there were loads of Mara articles (most very positive).

From different sources, here is what I gathered. By 1956, the area around the Polo Grounds was a disaster. The Football Giants were getting loads of complaints from ticket holders, not the least of concerned a lack of parking/walking over from Yankee Stadium lots, etc. Even though the PG was ideal for football, Mara was unsure of what the future of the PG was. They moved to Yankee Stadium even though the old baseball field was poor for football. Excellent box seats for baseball could turn out terrible for football. Some of the best football seats were temporary bleachers set up along the sidelines near RF. By 1971, Mara had it with the stadium and the sliding neighborhood. NJ was trying to make a deal with the Giants and the Yankees. Mayor Lindsay decided to give the Yankees whatever it took to get them to stay (81 home dates vs 7 for football then). A new Yankee stadium would be designed for baseball only, with no regards for football. (The Jets tried a few exhibition games there in 1976 but it was a disaster) Mara felt slighted. He knew there would be no place for his Giants to play until 1976. He was going to leave after the 1973 season, but NYC gave him the boot as soon as the '73Yankees season ended. The Giants were forced to go to New Haven for the rest of 73 and all of 74. The City refused to let them into Shea. After nearly two seasons of forcing the fans to New Haven, the outcry was so great that the Beame administration forced the Mets to take in the Giants just like they did for the Yankees. There was real animosity for the rest of Mara's life towards the NYC politicians. NY NEVER attempted to get the Giants back; but they constantly tried to get the Jets back. Whether it was the Dome in Flushing, or the West Side Bloomberg Stadium, NYC always tried to get the Jets back. They never attempted to get the Giants back.

[EdTarbusz]

As much as I hate the man, and have no doubt that as I write he is turning on a spit in hell, I suppose from a pure business sense it was the right move. There was a scholarly book written a while back, published by Oxford University Press, called something like "The Dodgers Move West," which lays much of the blame at the door of the maniacal Robert Moses, who refused to allow a new stadium to be built in Brooklyn.

The basic premise of The Dodgers Move West, by Neil Sullivan, was that municipal stadiums were bad for baseball and encouraged franchise shifts. Sullivan thought that New York officials went to far in trying to keep the Dodgers in new York by offering them tenancy at Shea Stadium. By contract, he thought LA officials showed restraint by not offering to build a stadium for the Dodgers. My interpretation of that book was that it wasn't so much Robert Moses, but the New York Board of Estimate that cost Brooklyn the Dodgers. I think that Sullivan believes that if Brooklyn had been an independent political entity, O'Malley would have been able to obtain a suitable site and been able to build his stadium.

[mandrake]

I know this is off topic from the 2006 thread, but I read the Time Article from 1971. It mentioned the $24 million cost that Lindsey estimated. Anyway, I found this on the web site Wikipedia:

The cost of the 1970s renovations, $160 million, was originally borne by New York City and is now being paid off by New York State. At the time, many referred to Yankee Stadium as the House That Lindsay Rebuilt, because the costly renovations were approved by New York City's Board of Estimate, based on the insistence of Mayor John Lindsay. Lindsay had orchestrated the city's purchase of Yankee Stadium from Rice University (the university in Houston, Texas owned the stadium thanks to a bequeathment from John William Cox '27) and the nine-acre parcel of property the Stadium occupies from the Knights of Columbus, also the recipients of a gift by Cox.

Several new restrooms were added throughout the stadium, along with three elevators. The southern border of the Stadium, 157th Street, was closed to cars and became part of the Stadium's property. The city also seized property on the southern side of this street for a four-story parking garage (about 2,300 parking spaces) to suit the increasingly suburban crowd who the Yankees were hoping to attract. No money was spent to help the residents and business owners of the neighborhood, fueling the sometimes uneasy relationship between the Yankees and their neighbors.



Seizing property ????? Wasn't this illegal when the Slimeball wanted the land near Atlantic Terminal?????

[MATHA531]

The basic premise of The Dodgers Move West, by Neil Sullivan, was that municipal stadiums were bad for baseball and encouraged franchise shifts. Sullivan thought that New York officials went to far in trying to keep the Dodgers in new York by offering them tenancy at Shea Stadium. By contract, he thought LA officials showed restraint by not offering to build a stadium for the Dodgers. My interpretation of that book was that it wasn't so much Robert Moses, but the New York Board of Estimate that cost Brooklyn the Dodgers. I think that Sullivan believes that if Brooklyn had been an independent political entity, O'Malley would have been able to obtain a suitable site and been able to build his stadium.

Let's get it straight...only one sub-human cost Brooklyn the Dodgers and he continues to rot in hell...the Atlantic Avenue project was doomed from the start...wrong location, not near any highway (can you imagine a Friday night game in June) but most importantly, which is conveniently ignored by most, what O'Malley demanded was illegal under New York State law...the property was not public property but belonged to the Pennsylvania Railroad...New York State law, a bit more enlightened than California law apparently, did not then nor today allow the usage of eminent domain to strip a private entity of its property to benefit another private entity....could Moses have ignored the law...sure...and would have been the subject of taxpayer suits that would have delayed the project indefinitely (see Ratner, Bruce whereas the property is now in the public domain and free for the MTA to dispose of as it sees fit)....O'Malley as a lawyer knew that ..

There are few so called sportsman, if any, who would have done what O'Malley did...Ebbets Field certainly could have lasted another decade (see Wrigley Field, Fenway Park) whiile the whole thing was figured out during which time the Brooklyn Dodgers would have continued to lead the NL in revenue as they did for the 11 years immediately preceding the theft of the franchise.

And if it was a "visionary" move, how come the New York Met franchise, playing at the same location O'Malley could have had in Flushing, a perfect location for the fans who he claimed he wished to serve with ample parking and highway access, is worth far more today than the Los Angeles National League baseball team according to the Forbes Magazine ranking of professional sports franchises?

But then again wasn't it another villain of the 20th century, who once said repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a fact?

[EdTarbusz]

Chavez Ravine was owned by the city of Los Angeles. After WWII, it was rezoned for public housing via Title I. Public housing was not a popular concept in southern Claifornia, and the land was returned to the city via referendum in 1952, IIRC. The city's claim to the land was strong enough that two taxpayer suits (one orinating from the San Diego Padres) were dismissed, and Dodger Stadium was able to go up.

I don't understand how the value of the Meys is germane to this discussion. O'Malley got two things in LA that he couldn't get in Brooklyn: he got his privately owned stadium, and he became one of the most powerful owners in the game. If he had had any real political clout in NY, I think the Dodgers would have stayed. You keep talking about Moses's hands being tied by the law, but if Moses had supported this project, what would stopped him from having a special law passed in Albany to allow the project? Or even easier, just declare the project as being for the public good and allowing it under Title I.

OI also think that seeing that the Brooklyn Dodgers would continue to be a leader in NL revenue is a bit of a stretch. As the team was aging, and its chances to play in the World Series, revenues would have gone down dramatically, I think, in the same way that the New York Giants revenues declined. The fact remains that the Brooklyn Dodgers were not drawing a good attendance, and the team was aging, the liklihood of becoming a good draw was less and less likely.

As far as your statement about lies, I thnk Brooklyn fans are as guilty of thi as anyone. They can't accept the fact that this was more than one owner who left an alledgedly great situation, just to make more money. The name-calling and talk of hell, doesn't really make your caseany better, either, in my opinion.

[MATHA531]

You have to throw out 1957 of course in discussing Brooklyn Dodger attendance....for the time, Brooklyn Dodger attendance was as good as anybody's....and the Dodgers had sources of revenue that were not necessarilhy tied to attendance (they received more money from their television/radio rights than anybody...

And there is absolutely no defense of the fact that O'Malley knew in October 1956 he was gone.....he agreed with LA city officials after the Dodgers trip to Japan when the team stopped off in LA and he was helicoptered over Chavez Ravine...everything thereafter as far as Brooklyn was concerned was a lie...you know that....on that grounds alone, the lies he told to the fans in Brooklyn disqualifies him from Hall of Fame consideration (see Rose, Pete and Jackson, Joe)....

The theft of the Brooklyn franchise remains one of the black marks in the history of baseball...the fact that major league baseball could tell fans who supported a team through thick and thin you're not worthy of having a major league franchise was wrong then and remains wrong today.....this helped contribute to the decline of mlb as the national pastime because it's no coincidence that the nfl began its ascent in 1958.

Need I add in the fact, and this too is indisputable, that Brooklyn is the only American municipality that was stripped of its major league baseball team and never had it restored and Brooklyn remains in the top 5 of population of American municipalities...(and please none of this New York City and Brooklyn are one and the same...Brooklyn was a member of the National League before the City of New York was formed and remains today a completely separate political subdivision of New York State). Simple question, Ed, did the Brooklyn fans then deserve that? Where was the Commissioner of Baseball supposedly there to protect the best interests of baseball...what did he do to protect the Brooklyn fans?

Why couldn't Ebbets Field have lasted another decade? After all, it was no older than Wrigley Field and Fenway Park both of which are still going strong today...oh we'll hear the decaying neighborhood nonsense....but part of what destroyed the neighborhood (which is poised for a recovery a la other parts of Brooklyn of course) were the ugly apartment houses that arose on the site of Ebbets Field...who knows what would have transpired if the Dodgers would have remained there?

The man was a fiend and a liar and we all stand by our opinion of what a piece of garbage he was.

[six4three]

Just noticed this blast from the past, posted 12-22-2006, 03:56 PM:

I really enjoy Sterlings call of the game. I think he does a good job of describing the game to you, but it's his catch phrases that just annoy me. Michael Kay really comes off like an elitist on all his broadcasts. I find it funny that he preaches journalistic integrity, and when the steroid scandal came about a year or two ago, he said that he had inside sources that claimed Roger Clemens was doping. Turns out, Kay was wrong, and looked like a jackass.


I can't stand either Sterling or Kay. But looks like his inside sources were right after all....

[mandrake]

This TOTALLY contradicts what I read here, in the Monday, Sep. 06, 1971 edition of TIME magazine. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943881,00.html)

The Giants announced that they were leaving Yankee Stadium, effective at the end of their lease, the end of the 1974 season.

But feeling spurned by The Giants, the city basically EVICTED them from Yankee Stadium during the 1973 season, to begin renovations. They were FORCED to leave.

A year and a half after starting this...........

OK, now that this thread has been brought back to life, it has gone in a few different directions. First, if you read this article that you referenced it clearly verifies everything about the plight of the Yankkes back then. It even mentions that they were thinking of moving (New Orleans, Toronto).

Second, it was mentioned by another poster that I was hating the Yankees. I most certainly am not and do not hate them. I just wanted to point out history. In 1972, Michael Burke and Co had deep regrets that they stayed in NYC while the Dodgers were making a mint. That is a fact. Unless you went there back in the late 60's, you can not imagine how far the Yankees had fallen.

Third, I do not know if Sterling and company ever retracted that statement, as I will not listen to their radio. The final straw was when I was literally stuck in traffic on the Deegan when Ms Waldman went into her hysterics when Clemens announced he was returning. After that day, I said "that's enough". Since I have XM radio, I listen to the other teams call ! So I have no idea who their radio announcers actually are right now.

Fourth, I still like Bobby Murcer. As a player, an announcer, as a person. He either came to the Yankees 10 years too late as a player, or ten years too early. He gave the fans something to cheer when there was not much there.

Fifth, it is not Yankee bashing to admit there were ONLY 413 FANS present against the White Sox in 1966. I have never heard of anything like this. Two years after a 7 game world series ?? Unless you were one of those 413, a Yankee fan should be able to explain this.


Finally, in my previous post (#52) I pointed out that NYC used eminent domain to take private property and give it to the Stadium, including closing a street and building a parking garage for 2300 cars. Yet they could not/would not do this for the Dodgers (or Giants) beacuse it was illegal???

[aqib]

A year and a half after starting this...........

OK, now that this thread has been brought back to life, it has gone in a few different directions. First, if you read this article that you referenced it clearly verifies everything about the plight of the Yankkes back then. It even mentions that they were thinking of moving (New Orleans, Toronto).

Finally, in my previous post (#52) I pointed out that NYC used eminent domain to take private property and give it to the Stadium, including closing a street and building a parking garage for 2300 cars. Yet they could not/would not do this for the Dodgers (or Giants) beacuse it was illegal???

Yankees to Toronto? Never heard that one. The Giants were all set to go in the mid 70s until Bob Laurie stepped in.

As for the last paragraph you are talking about different times (i.e. dealing with different sets of laws). In the last eminant domain case in front of the Supreme Court what O'Malley wanted to do (have the city give him the meat market land) would be perfectly fine. I suppose that the reason it was done for the Yankees is that the stadium ownership had been with the city and therefore it was public use as far as the law was concerned.

[mandrake]

Yankees to Toronto? Never heard that one. The Giants were all set to go in the mid 70s until Bob Laurie stepped in.

As for the last paragraph you are talking about different times (i.e. dealing with different sets of laws). In the last eminant domain case in front of the Supreme Court what O'Malley wanted to do (have the city give him the meat market land) would be perfectly fine. I suppose that the reason it was done for the Yankees is that the stadium ownership had been with the city and therefore it was public use as far as the law was concerned.

This is from the Time article from 1971 that was linked by the poster #48:The Giants' move put President Michael Burke of the Yankees on the spot. "It's a whole new equation without the Giants," he admitted. "We shall now have to take new and realistic readings of our options." Implicit in that statement is the prospect of moving the Yankees' franchise to New Orleans, Dallas or even Toronto if New York decides not to improve the stadium for a single tenant. The "House that Ruth Built" has grown shabby with age, and so have its Bronx surroundings. Its oddly angled playing field is particularly poor for football watching, and parking facilities are terrible. The plant is still serviceable, though it needs a full-scale face-lifting, but if only the Yankees play there, the city might never recoup its planned $24 million investment.

BTW that 'investment' gre to at least 160 million !

[dodger dynamo]

What I want to know is, why didn't O'malley just buy the land from the rail road if that's where he really wanted to build?. (they weren't really using it at the time) He could have asked the city for some help in this. All he would have needed then was approval to build. The price of ebbets field surely could have helped offset this. So I think it does come down to getting more without having to give away anything. More roads can always be built especially if you don't care whose house or business you tear down (moses was guilty as sin in that regard) Also the big O' gained more political clout, which he did not have in NY. Nobody told O'malley to go, he just went. With the giants gone, the only Nl game in town would have been the dodgers. The giants fans would have had some where to go to see the giants, when they returned. I think the revenue would have gone up some. Battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[aqib]

What I want to know is, why didn't O'malley just buy the land from the rail road if that's where he really wanted to build?. (they weren't really using it at the time) He could have asked the city for some help in this. All he would have needed then was approval to build. The price of ebbets field surely could have helped offset this. So I think it does come down to getting more without having to give away anything. More roads can always be built especially if you don't care whose house or business you tear down (moses was guilty as sin in that regard) Also the big O' gained more political clout, which he did not have in NY. Nobody told O'malley to go, he just went. With the giants gone, the only Nl game in town would have been the dodgers. The giants fans would have had some where to go to see the giants, when they returned. I think the revenue would have gone up some. Battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

Its one of two things:

1) He was determined to go to LA, either due to the perception that LA was going to boom while NY was going to decline or he was just mad at NY

2) He lost control of his faculties and ceased to be able to think rationally.

If you look at the last couple of proposals out of NY and the what he eventually wound up getting in LA (remember they struggled to close the deal once he got there), objectively you have to consider the NY deal better. He wound up spending $22 million on Chavez Ravine and having to go threw a ballot issue to get the stadium contract approved. Whereas the last couple of offers from NY included Nelson Rockefeller buying him the land he wanted in the first place. By 1957 it was pretty much over but he went around toying with people.

[EdTarbusz]

What I want to know is, why didn't O'malley just buy the land from the rail road if that's where he really wanted to build?. (they weren't really using it at the time) He could have asked the city for some help in this. All he would have needed then was approval to build.

This is exactly what O'Malley tried to do, and he was rebuffed by city leaders.

[EdTarbusz]

Simple question, Ed, did the Brooklyn fans then deserve that? Where was the Commissioner of Baseball supposedly there to protect the best interests of baseball...what did he do to protect the Brooklyn fans?

Why couldn't Ebbets Field have lasted another decade? After all, it was no older than Wrigley Field and Fenway Park both of which are still going strong today...oh we'll hear the decaying neighborhood nonsense....but part of what destroyed the neighborhood (which is poised for a recovery a la other parts of Brooklyn of course) were the ugly apartment houses that arose on the site of Ebbets Field...who knows what would have transpired if the Dodgers would have remained there?

.

I don't know what the fans in Brooklyn deserved, but the fact remains that it wasn't their call. It was the owners call, and I think that was the Commissioner's position as well. I think if more Dodger fans actually made the trip to Ebbets Field, then there may have been a different outcome. I also think there may have been a different outcome if Brooklyn had been an independent entity in in 1956.

I don't know if Ebbets Field would have been viable into the 60s. With its lack of parking and the difficulty in getting there, I'm not sure if it would have been. Maybe a million fans thought it was, but the one guy whos opinion mattered the most thought it was an albatross and wanted out of there.

[aqib]

This is exactly what O'Malley tried to do, and he was rebuffed by city leaders.

No he wanted the city to condemn the land so he could buy it on the cheap, he wasn't prepared to pay market rates.

[EdTarbusz]

No he wanted the city to condemn the land so he could buy it on the cheap, he wasn't prepared to pay market rates.

He wanted the city to pay market value for the land, and then sell it to him for market value. O'Malley wasn't looking for a handout, but he didn't want to be gouged either.

[aqib]

I don't know what the fans in Brooklyn deserved, but the fact remains that it wasn't their call. It was the owners call, and I think that was the Commissioner's position as well. I think if more Dodger fans actually made the trip to Ebbets Field, then there may have been a different outcome. I also think there may have been a different outcome if Brooklyn had been an independent entity in in 1956.

I don't know if Ebbets Field would have been viable into the 60s. With its lack of parking and the difficulty in getting there, I'm not sure if it would have been. Maybe a million fans thought it was, but the one guy whos opinion mattered the most thought it was an albatross and wanted out of there.

But again the Dodgers made money through TV and radio rights that were unmatached around MLB. Also, the options weren't only stay in Ebbets Field or go to LA. There was the Queens option there was also the option to take over the Polo Grounds once the Giants left, and by the end he had offers for land in Brooklyn too. There was no need to go to LA and even if he did he should have left name in Brooklyn, just like the old Milwaukee Brewers, Baltimore Orioles, and Washington Senators.

[EdTarbusz]

But again the Dodgers made money through TV and radio rights that were unmatached around MLB. Also, the options weren't only stay in Ebbets Field or go to LA. There was the Queens option there was also the option to take over the Polo Grounds once the Giants left, and by the end he had offers for land in Brooklyn too. There was no need to go to LA and even if he did he should have left name in Brooklyn, just like the old Milwaukee Brewers, Baltimore Orioles, and Washington Senators.

I think that if there had been a viable alternative in Brooklyn, that the Dodgers would have stayed there. I don't understand why the name Dodgers should have been left in Brooklyn. What exactly would that have done?

Also, why woulld the Dodgers move to the Polo Grounds? That would have been even less desriable than staying in Ebbets Field.

The Dodgers were making money via TV, but how long do you think that would have lasted? As the players skills were eroding, the Dodgers may have become less of a draw, which would pulled advertising rates down. The owners handled the TV situation very badly in the 1950s and TV monsy may have dried up very quickly.

[penncentralpete]

QUOTE:. "I don't understand why the name Dodgers should have been left in Brooklyn. What exactly would that have done?"

THAT, would have made the New York Mets THE BROOKLYN DODGERS!!!!!!!

[aqib]

I think that if there had been a viable alternative in Brooklyn, that the Dodgers would have stayed there. I don't understand why the name Dodgers should have been left in Brooklyn. What exactly would that have done?

Also, why woulld the Dodgers move to the Polo Grounds? That would have been even less desriable than staying in Ebbets Field.

The Dodgers were making money via TV, but how long do you think that would have lasted? As the players skills were eroding, the Dodgers may have become less of a draw, which would pulled advertising rates down. The owners handled the TV situation very badly in the 1950s and TV monsy may have dried up very quickly.

Why would Queens have been so bad. Its proven over the last 40+ years to be perfectly fine for what was the Dodgers historical fan base. As for leaving the name it would have done exactly what it did for the Cleveland Browns fans, who no longer care about Art Modell or at worst the Washington or Milwaukee fans who got to revive the name or at least keep the history. The Polo Grounds thing was a proposal that was given to them after the Giants announced they were leaving. It was a bigger venue and could have been temporary as the Dodgers took over whatever was left of the Giants fan base.

As for the TV money lasting, remember TV was still relatively new and getting bigger. How many people heard the 1955 world series on the radio but got TVs in the years that followed. Its not like TVs were a passing fad for god sakes. If you want to say that O'Malley didn't fully process the impending power of TV thats fine but to say thats its something that would have gone away is not acurate.

[MATHA531]

I think that if there had been a viable alternative in Brooklyn, that the Dodgers would have stayed there. I don't understand why the name Dodgers should have been left in Brooklyn. What exactly would that have done?

Also, why woulld the Dodgers move to the Polo Grounds? That would have been even less desriable than staying in Ebbets Field.

The Dodgers were making money via TV, but how long do you think that would have lasted? As the players skills were eroding, the Dodgers may have become less of a draw, which would pulled advertising rates down. The owners handled the TV situation very badly in the 1950s and TV monsy may have dried up very quickly.

Ed, several times in your posts you have stated that as the Dodger talent eroded, fans would have stopped coming and the radio/tv money would have dried up...

Yet history shows they would have won the pennant in 1959, lost a 2 out of 3 playoff for the pennant in 1962, won the pennant in 1963, won pennants in 1965 and 1966 so that argument is wrong.

Yes Ebbets Field had limited parking and limited highway access from the fan base that had by and large moved to Long Island but then again so did Atlantic Yards (what it's called today)...there a lot of evidence to suggest (I will grant some of it comes from groups adamantly opposed to moving the Nets there) that it was not the right place for a ballpark...no highway access and limited parking...Ebbets Field was very well served by public transportation (although not the LIRR)..I wonder how many of these transplanted fans would have wanted to take the LIRR in for a Friday evening game...you know it's not like the subway which runs every 5 or 6 minutes..LIRR trains might run 90 minutes apart.

And of course the Mets signed a very lucrative radio/tv contract when they were formed in 1962 although there was a big big difference...the main sponsor was Rheingold (my beer is rheingold the dry beer) not Schaefer (the one beer to have when you're having more than one).....

Everybody is so quick to dismiss the Queens suggestion...as a kid I was not happy about it but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, in many respects, Bob Moses was correct, it was the perfect place for a ballpark for the Dodgers well served by highways from Long Island with oodles of parking and good mass transit....and the Met argument about their value relative to the Los Angeles National League baseball team is very appropriate as that is where the Dodgers would be playing today.

And there is great value in a name...if the Brooklyn Dodgers whether the original franchise or the expansion franchise were playing there, we would have our history (Pee Wee, Jackie, Campy, Duke, Gil) just like the Cleveland fans have their history (Jim Brown had nothing to do with the Baltimore Ravens) which is important to many of us.

And my final argument as to just what kind of a disgrace as a human being O'Malley was, his first act in Los Angeles was to take the games off television...and of course who can forget opening Chavez Ravine Stadium without water fountains...all the better to force people to buy soda pop and beer to go with their Los Angeles National League baseball team dogs.

Sorry Ed, your arguments, in all due respect, are all wet.

[EdTarbusz]

Yet history shows they would have won the pennant in 1959, lost a 2 out of 3 playoff for the pennant in 1962, won the pennant in 1963, won pennants in 1965 and 1966 so that argument is wrong.

.

History shows that that is true. Unfortunately, that information was unavailable in 1957. In 1957, the Dodgers gave every indivcation of being a team on the decline. The 1940s version of the DOdgers was put together for Dodger Stadium, not the Ebbets Field bandbox. How many people in Brooklyn could have realistically predicted the ascendency of Sandy Koufax? Not many, I would guess.

If O'Malley could have built his own stadium in Queens, then I think it's likely that the Dodgers would still be there.

I'm a Clevelander, and believe me when I tell you the current incarnation of Browns have no claim on players like Jim Brown, no matter what the NFL. The Cleveland Browns that I grew up with no longer exist. The Ravens have a better claim on that history than the current Browns do.

Call me all wet if you like, but as a businss decision, moving the Dodgers was a smart move.

[MATHA531]

So Ed, as a Clevelander, how do you feel about Art Modell (although it cannot be the same thing, obviously as the NFL left the name in Cleveland and promised you an expansion team within 3 years and kept their promise...Brooklyn never got and never will have a major league team again)....

[LetsGoMets687]

QUOTE:. "I don't understand why the name Dodgers should have been left in Brooklyn. What exactly would that have done?"

THAT, would have made the New York Mets THE BROOKLYN DODGERS!!!!!!!

They wouldn't have been the Brooklyn Dodgers. No expansion team in Queens was going to have the name Brooklyn. The Mets might have taken the name Dodgers, but that's not a given as it is assumed in this forum in my opinion. Anyway, I have a hard time believing anyone would have considered leaving the Dodgers name behind if the Giants were keeping theirs and moving as well.

[EdTarbusz]

So Ed, as a Clevelander, how do you feel about Art Modell (although it cannot be the same thing, obviously as the NFL left the name in Cleveland and promised you an expansion team within 3 years and kept their promise...Brooklyn never got and never will have a major league team again)....

I don't care one way or the other about Art Modell. I also don't find it very difficult to understand why he packed up and went to Baltimore. I don't understand the magic about leaving the name. Having an expansion team with the same name means nothing.

[penncentralpete]

They wouldn't have been the Brooklyn Dodgers. No expansion team in Queens was going to have the name Brooklyn. The Mets might have taken the name Dodgers, but that's not a given as it is assumed in this forum in my opinion. Anyway, I have a hard time believing anyone would have considered leaving the Dodgers name behind if the Giants were keeping theirs and moving as well.

What I SHOULD have stated was: "that COULD" have made the Mets the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Mets were not in Queens, they were in New York City (Polo Grounds) in '62 and '63. And IF the Giants left THEIR name behind, the Mets COULD have been the New York Giants!!! Alas, we'll never know........

[aqib]

History shows that that is true. Unfortunately, that information was unavailable in 1957. In 1957, the Dodgers gave every indivcation of being a team on the decline. The 1940s version of the DOdgers was put together for Dodger Stadium, not the Ebbets Field bandbox. How many people in Brooklyn could have realistically predicted the ascendency of Sandy Koufax? Not many, I would guess.

If O'Malley could have built his own stadium in Queens, then I think it's likely that the Dodgers would still be there.

I'm a Clevelander, and believe me when I tell you the current incarnation of Browns have no claim on players like Jim Brown, no matter what the NFL. The Cleveland Browns that I grew up with no longer exist. The Ravens have a better claim on that history than the current Browns do.

Call me all wet if you like, but as a businss decision, moving the Dodgers was a smart move.


Ed,

First of all there was a lot of information available to O'Malley at the time. TV and media revenues becoming a bigger part of sports business model was clearly at hand. TV while still new was getting into more and more households. Even if he didn't know Koufax, Drysdale, etc would blossum the way they did he had the most well developed farm system in baseball

As for the current vs. former Browns, I am a Clevelander like yourself (albeit a transplant from elsewhere) and a Browns season ticket holder. I can tell you you are in the extreme minority in that view. Most fans view the move and hiatus as a mere blip in the rearview mirror. A generation from now no one will know who Art Modell is, whereas fans who came along a generation later know who O'Malley is.

I still disagree with the it was a good business move line. I still beleive that financially a Brooklyn Dodger franchise in NYC would be more financially successful than an LA Dodger franchise.

[EdTarbusz]

Most fans that I know view the current Browns as a pale imitator of the earlier Browns. I think the Dodgers move was good business move.O'Malley became a leading voice in the NL, which he was not able to do in NY. The Dodgers also got a much better regarding the Stagium then they would have in NY.

As you say, TV became more imprtant, but I don't beleive there was any real model of it in the 50s. The owners had no coherent policy regarding TV and probably thought it would be as ruinous for the Majors as it was for the Minors.

[LetsGoMets687]

What I SHOULD have stated was: "that COULD" have made the Mets the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Mets were not in Queens, they were in New York City (Polo Grounds) in '62 and '63. And IF the Giants left THEIR name behind, the Mets COULD have been the New York Giants!!! Alas, we'll never know........

Even before the Mets were born, it was known their home would be in Queens. They only played in Harlem while their home was being built across the river. Any NL expansion team was going to play in Queens no matter what.

[aqib]

Most fans that I know view the current Browns as a pale imitator of the earlier Browns.

Again, I would have to say that thats a minority of the fans and largely due to the teams lack of on field success since the return. It may also be a generational thing. This past season the crowd was rocking week after week and it was Browns mania on par with anything in the past. Would it have been better if Modell had to sell to a local buyer and their have been no hiatus at all? Absolutely. But compare our outcome with the Brooklyn situation, you would have to say our was better.

[dodger dynamo]

See this is where the term "visionary" comes into question. O'malley's vision as it turns out was short sighted. He gained a lot up front, no doubt, but in the long run the mets are worth more and the yanks who stayed in NY have been pretty successful in the last 15 yrs. While the Brooklyn dodgers who moved may be making a few bucks, but they haven't really won anything of significance for a long time. Brooklyn merchandise sells pretty well for a team that ceased calling itself that 50 yrs. ago. So I guess where money is concerned and short term success, o'malley made out great for himself, I think the dodgers are paying for the mistake now. The same mistake that Brooklyn fans have been suffering with so long. Oh, o'malley didn't make a mistake for himself oh, no, he got what he wanted. For the dodgers though, I believe it was a mistake. As for on field success, no reason to believe the same franchise wouldn't have put pennant and ws championship teams on the field in Brooklyn or Ny in 59,(62 1st place tie)63,65,66. With that kind of success (and not having to build a fan base from the ground up) the brooklyn dodgers would be worth more than the NL team in La and very well possibly the mets (If they existed, at all) Brooklyn the city is making a comeback too. So we never know what might happen. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo.

[mandrake]

Harry Truman said there were 3 types of lies :Lies, Damn lies, and statistics. When you look at attendance, things could always change in a season or two. Unless it is a long term trend, attendance can swing wildly from one season to another. Who is to say that the Giants, and the Dodgers, attendance would not have rebounded if they stayed ? Look at Yankee attendance in 1972/73 and then look at it doubling in 1976. Check out Cubs attendance from the 50's up until 1967..it was dismal. Check out how the Chisox outdrew the Cubs from 1951 thru 1967 (cumulative) and then they almost moved out of Chi town by 1969. Check out the Red Sox in the early 1960's, then look at 1967-1973. Check out the Detroit Tigers in the late 60s, even though their city burnt to the ground in '67 they packed them in the late 60's and early 70's.

If OMalley stayed in Brooklyn, he would have ended up making a mint even though a team like the Senators would have made a ton of quick money by moving to LA instead; much like the Braves made quick money in Milwaukee than faded badly. The Jints should have headed over to NJ with the football team. They would have established a fan base there, like the Devils have done (the Devils will never, ever be the Rangers, but they have established a fan base despite themselves)

OMalley was greedy and jealous of the Braves, even though their success was short lived. Stoneham panicked, plain and simple. And despite a two year drop off at the gate, the Giants were making a mint from radio and TV. This is why Stoneham always regretted moving !!!!! He admitted his MISTAKE. That makes him OK in my book. The fat slob never admitted his mistake. And that is why I can't stand the sight of him.

[MATHA531]

Harry Truman said there were 3 types of lies :Lies, Damn lies, and statistics. When you look at attendance, things could always change in a season or two. Unless it is a long term trend, attendance can swing wildly from one season to another. Who is to say that the Giants, and the Dodgers, attendance would not have rebounded if they stayed ? Look at Yankee attendance in 1972/73 and then look at it doubling in 1976. Check out Cubs attendance from the 50's up until 1967..it was dismal. Check out how the Chisox outdrew the Cubs from 1951 thru 1967 (cumulative) and then they almost moved out of Chi town by 1969. Check out the Red Sox in the early 1960's, then look at 1967-1973. Check out the Detroit Tigers in the late 60s, even though their city burnt to the ground in '67 they packed them in the late 60's and early 70's.

If OMalley stayed in Brooklyn, he would have ended up making a mint even though a team like the Senators would have made a ton of quick money by moving to LA instead; much like the Braves made quick money in Milwaukee than faded badly. The Jints should have headed over to NJ with the football team. They would have established a fan base there, like the Devils have done (the Devils will never, ever be the Rangers, but they have established a fan base despite themselves)

OMalley was greedy and jealous of the Braves, even though their success was short lived. Stoneham panicked, plain and simple. And despite a two year drop off at the gate, the Giants were making a mint from radio and TV. This is why Stoneham always regretted moving !!!!! He admitted his MISTAKE. That makes him OK in my book. The fat slob never admitted his mistake. And that is why I can't stand the sight of him.


The other thing, and lots of people just don't get this, is that Dodger attendance at Ebbets Field was not poor...drawing 1,000,000 in that day and age was considered good....the Braves were an aberation as we all know now in perfect 20-20 hindsight. Even in their lame duck season, when everybody knew they were history, they still drew over 1,000,000.

And of course other things were different then...you didn't have 77 home openings...almost every Sunday was a scheduled double header...the fat slob got rid of them when he stole the franchise from Brooklyn...every Saturday was Ladies Day when any female was admitted to the ballpark for a 50¢ service charge...not counted in the paid attendance...every Saturday had many kids attending the game for free..not counted in paid attendance then (but counted today BTW).....despite the fact, as has been noted countless times, every Brooklyn home game was on FREE like in FREE television; something of course the piece of garbage took away from his new fans in lala land...this great sportsman intereted in the welfare of his fans, give me a break.

The one statistic nobody can quarrel with is that during the 11 year period from 1947 to 1957, the Brooklyn Dodgers had the greatest attendance in the National League, although it declined from its immediate post year highs in 1947 as it did in every single other major league franchise..(Milwaukee was the exception but as we know, as stated above, that was to be very short lived..and Dodger revenue from radio/tv far exsceeded the Braves....so those who try to defend him, must answer those questions first and none of this garbage well as the team aged, they would start to have a decline in revenue. Nobody can prove that.

Once and for all, the theft of the Brooklyn franchise was then and remains today one of the blackest moments in the history of baseball. and it has nothing to do with baseball on the left coast....expansion teams should have been given to LA and San Francisco. No fair minded person can dispute that. It put to rest this notion that baseball was anything other than a business, in complete opposition to the garbage that was fed to us in order to keep their anti trust exemption. It also helped, to what extent I can't prove, pave the way for the demise of baseball as the national pastime and the ascent of the NFL when fans saw that if Brooklyn fans could be screwed the way they were, then nobody was safe.

I defy anybody to try to show these facts are wrong.

And of course, what we can see today, with what the value of the Mets has become, playing under the same "hideous" lease Moses was trying to negotiate with the slimeball, are worth far more than the imposter organizatino trying to tell the world they are the Dodgers playing in lala land.

[DODGER DEB]

The other thing, and lots of people just don't get this, is that Dodger attendance at Ebbets Field was not poor...drawing 1,000,000 in that day and age was considered good....the Braves were an aberation as we all know now in perfect 20-20 hindsight. Even in their lame duck season, when everybody knew they were history, they still drew over 1,000,000.

And of course other things were different then...you didn't have 77 home openings...almost every Sunday was a scheduled double header...the fat slob got rid of them when he stole the franchise from Brooklyn...every Saturday was Ladies Day when any female was admitted to the ballpark for a 50¢ service charge...not counted in the paid attendance...every Saturday had many kids attending the game for free..not counted in paid attendance then (but counted today BTW).....despite the fact, as has been noted countless times, every Brooklyn home game was on FREE like in FREE television; something of course the piece of garbage took away from his new fans in lala land...this great sportsman intereted in the welfare of his fans, give me a break.

The one statistic nobody can quarrel with is that during the 11 year period from 1947 to 1957, the Brooklyn Dodgers had the greatest attendance in the National League, although it declined from its immediate post year highs in 1947 as it did in every single other major league franchise..(Milwaukee was the exception but as we know, as stated above, that was to be very short lived..and Dodger revenue from radio/tv far exsceeded the Braves....so those who try to defend him, must answer those questions first and none of this garbage well as the team aged, they would start to have a decline in revenue. Nobody can prove that.

Once and for all, the theft of the Brooklyn franchise was then and remains today one of the blackest moments in the history of baseball. and it has nothing to do with baseball on the left coast....expansion teams should have been given to LA and San Francisco. No fair minded person can dispute that. It put to rest this notion that baseball was anything other than a business, in complete opposition to the garbage that was fed to us in order to keep their anti trust exemption. It also helped, to what extent I can't prove, pave the way for the demise of baseball as the national pastime and the ascent of the NFL when fans saw that if Brooklyn fans could be screwed the way they were, then nobody was safe.

I defy anybody to try to show these facts are wrong.

And of course, what we can see today, with what the value of the Mets has become, playing under the same "hideous" lease Moses was trying to negotiate with the slimeball, are worth far more than the imposter organizatino trying to tell the world they are the Dodgers playing in lala land.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, guys, for making a truly solid case of ALL THE FACTS! :applaud::applaud::applaud:

There has never been a doubt in my mind that the Big "O" would have enjoyed success like he never dreamed was possible and would have put him atop the Baseball world for many, many years....and made him a true visionary. All he needed was a little more patience, and lot more faith, the kind that WE loyal fans always had in OUR DODGERS. And, when Peter sold them he would have more than doubled the $$$$ he received for them. No doubt about that fact, either!

c.

[Imgran]

The two modern franchises in New York are so rich that I have a VERY hard time believing that a third franchise, and especially one with the Dodgers' history, could not have made a good life for itself indefinitely with the special Brookyln identity on top of its New Yorkness.

[KCGHOST]

Guys, we can loathe O'Malley all we want, but at the time the deal was made to move to L.A. and a for at least the first 35 years of the move (and probably up to the time the family sold the club) O'Malley's move to the west coast was a fianancial windfall for him and his family. Only in very recent years have the Mets become more valuable than the Imposters.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

Guys, we can loathe O'Malley all we want, but at the time the deal was made to move to L.A. and a for at least the first 35 years of the move (and probably up to the time the family sold the club) O'Malley's move to the west coast was a fianancial windfall for him and his family. Only in very recent years have the Mets become more valuable than the Imposters.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Had the Dodgers stayed they'd now be worth more than the Mets and would have, from the get go.
The Mets, remember, replaced the Dodgers and Giants [for that matter] without ever "replacing" them. Why? Because nothing could ever replace, not only the innocence of the times we grew up, or the New York Giant/Brooklyn Dodger rivalry. Nothing ever will.

[Perseus71]

The Mets really came out on top in terms of VALUE and prestige. It's funny to think that the Giants are worth almost half as much as the Mets or that the Dodgers are several hundred million less...

As for a third PRO team in NYC, it can never happen again. The Mets and Yankees both have prosperous minor league teams in the city of NY (4 pro baseball teams) that make a lot of money! Pretty amazing, right? Why give it to some Major League franchise? It's would be foolish and a dumb business move, just like deciding not to create a new marketplace in California.

Look at the Giants? They haven't won a championship since they left NY and now they are valued less than their NY successor the Mets. Just goes to show you that anything from New York will always have more value than from any other city in the world.

Had the Dodgers stayed they would have been worth a billion today... I still think both NL NY owners had trouble competing with the Yankees for NY attention and, no doubt, wanted to get out of the Yankee shadow. O'Malley and Stonehem knew they couldn't compete on that level day to day.

[MATHA531]

We've come around in a circle on this...I don't think the Yankees were O'Malley's prime concern from what I've read (although who really what was inside the monster's mind)...he claimed it was the Miluwakee Braves that he was having difficulty competing against because of the limited facilities at Ebbets Field...he also implied several times that televising of the games had hurt him badly in Brooklyn and one of the ways he claimed he was going to finance his new ballpark in Brooklyn was by taking the Brooklyn games off free television and instituting some sort of pay tv deal; despite the fact the technology did not exist in 1956 and would not exist for another decade. (BTW another indication that there really was never going to be a baseball stadium privately financed at Atlantic Yards abut that's a whole different kettle of fish)

There is also this myth right now that NY is a Yankee town by a large majority; the reality is that during the 80's the Mets were the team (which of course could have and should have been the Dodgers)....

[EdTarbusz]

Did the Dodgers ever compete with the Yankees and Giants for fans? It's always seemed to me that New York fans were pretty balkanized in who they rooted for and there was little if no crossover. The Yankees did not benefit at the box-office by having the city to themselves from 1958-61.

[Imgran]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Had the Dodgers stayed they'd now be worth more than the Mets and would have, from the get go.
The Mets, remember, replaced the Dodgers and Giants [for that matter] without ever "replacing" them. Why? Because nothing could ever replace, not only the innocence of the times we grew up, or the New York Giant/Brooklyn Dodger rivalry. Nothing ever will.
I think I agree. Having two major league teams competing in the same city in the modern unbalanced schedule era would have been incredible and it's a dang shame baseball missed out on it. 38 rivalry games a year all in the same town? That's a huge loss for the city of New York.

It's a pity that the possibility of expansion back into Brooklyn by an MLB team is such a dead hope. You know the Mets would fight it tooth and claw, which is a shame because it might just be the best thing that ever happened to them -- because they'd be part of a twosome of rivals who since the "home" crowds would both be so close together would probably grow to become the biggest sports draw in New York by a lot, especially when both teams are good.

What historians who just point to O'Malley's success in LA miss out on is that an expansion club would have had a lot of the same success in the long run -- look at the Angels for Exhibit A. So you would have enriched baseball that much more if you'd kept the Dodgers (and Giants) in Brooklyn and simply established a new NL club in LA.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

I think I agree. Having two major league teams competing in the same city in the modern unbalanced schedule era would have been incredible and it's a dang shame baseball missed out on it. 38 rivalry games a year all in the same town? That's a huge loss for the city of New York.

It's a pity that the possibility of expansion back into Brooklyn by an MLB team is such a dead hope. You know the Mets would fight it tooth and claw, which is a shame because it might just be the best thing that ever happened to them -- because they'd be part of a twosome of rivals who since the "home" crowds would both be so close together would probably grow to become the biggest sports draw in New York by a lot, especially when both teams are good.

What historians who just point to O'Malley's success in LA miss out on is that an expansion club would have had a lot of the same success in the long run -- look at the Angels for Exhibit A. So you would have enriched baseball that much more if you'd kept the Dodgers (and Giants) in Brooklyn and simply established a new NL club in LA.

We've covered it, you and I, Imgran.

[Imgran]

It's more than that though. These days the Yankees take all the credit for baseball's rich history in New York but they weren't even there first. THe Yankees started their history in Baltimore after all. Far more on New York's baseball tradition owes to the Giants-Dodgers rivalry and how it steeped a town in a sport. The Yonx just inherited what was already there. The Yankees/Red Sox rivalry, and even the Yankee dynasties, had nothing on the Dodgers-Giants rivalry and what it meant to NY. It was a joke to think that the Mets and the Mets alone could replace that.