Gil Hodges and Walter O'Malley

[MSUlaxer27]

If in order to get Gil Hodges into the Hall of Fame it meant that O'Malley goes in as well, would you take the trade-off? In other words, both or neither.

[MSUlaxer27]

Jut as I suspected...It's all about you guy's proving about about much the "Brooklyn" Dodgers were "robbed". You guys don't really care if Gil gets in the hall... You just want to be able to go to Cooperstown and prove how much you were wronged in 57. It's not about Gil getting in...but about you all be able to prove that the Dodgers shouldn't have left.

[MATHA531]

What an absurd asinine statement...what does one thing have to do with the other?

[Mariano_Rivera]

Jut as I suspected...It's all about you guy's proving about about much the "Brooklyn" Dodgers were "robbed". You guys don't really care if Gil gets in the hall... You just want to be able to go to Cooperstown and prove how much you were wronged in 57. It's not about Gil getting in...but about you all be able to prove that the Dodgers shouldn't have left.

1 person has voted p[ossibly you yourself. That's hardly a good somple

[MattM]

Jut as I suspected...It's all about you guy's proving about about much the "Brooklyn" Dodgers were "robbed". You guys don't really care if Gil gets in the hall... You just want to be able to go to Cooperstown and prove how much you were wronged in 57. It's not about Gil getting in...but about you all be able to prove that the Dodgers shouldn't have left.

Wow, just wow.

Perhaps you take a look at the thread regarding Gil's induction into the hall of fame. Most of the people in that thread wanted to see him get his long-overdue recognition. It had nothing to do with Brooklyn being robbed in 57. Gil had another 15.5 years of baseball after the Dodgers moved (Another WS as a player, 1 as a manager, and other achievements) Gil deserves a call because he was a good player, and more than that, he was a true teammate, which is rare in todays game. If Gil went in as a Senator, Met, Brooklyn, or Los Angeles Dodger I'd be happy for him and his family, because he deserved it, and his career has been undershadowed in my opinion, and I'm sure most on the board feel this way. It just happens that Gil gets alot of respect in this area of the forums because he lived in Brooklyn even after the Dodgers moved.

I detect a tad bit of sarcasm when you say Brooklyn was "robbed." Well, you might want to read up on the clashes O'Malley had with the city of New YOrk, and more specifically, Robert Moses. He was intent on leaving as early as 1956. Both O'Malley and Moses definately had alot to answer for when they met the maker, that's for sure. Or how it's common fact that Stoneham was coerced into moving into that awful Candlestick area. Stoneham wanted to move to Minnesota since the Millers played there.

Look at what the move did to Brooklyn, and how the whole area deteriorated. All the cafe's and local establishments were forced to shut down. No baseball = no revenue. AGain, most writers who baseball have said that there were no fans like Dodger fans. They stuck with that team through all the bad, and the few good moments the franchise had. How many franchises are referred to by their fans as "our bums?" Several baseball historians have agreed that the game was no longer Americas past-time after that, since it proved that loyalty to a city was nothing when paired against the all mighty dollar.

Man, if you're going to try and bash us here, or call us babies, at least back it up with some facts.

[MSUlaxer27]

I have begun to develop the opinion that (not a fact but my own opinion) a lot of the support for Gil Hodges going into the Hall of Fame is about fans of the Brooklyn Dodgers getting their last shot in the limelight (much like what they complain about Vin Scully and Tommy Lasorda trying to do in LA for O'Malley). In other words showing up at Cooperstown in droves wearing gear and memoribilia to prove to MLB that it made a horrible mistake in allowing the Dodgers to move (See it's been 50 years and we're still fans). Gil Hodges is the "Brooklyn" Dodger to have any shot to get into the hall. As the people who actually remember seeing the Brooks play in person become fewer and fewer this is the last shot to get national sports media attention on the Brooklyn Dodgers. In an attempt to find out if this was really the case I posed the question would you put Gil Hodges in the Hall if it meant that O'Malley would go in with him. My thought was that if you really believed that (or were a fan of) Hodges belonged in the hall you would take the trade-off. If you just wanted the Brooklyn Dodgers in the limelight you wouldn't. Over 40 people looked at it and not a single person commented or voted. Not even another anti O'Malley screed.

I don't think that Gil Hodges is a hall of famer. Great guy, wonderful family man but not a Hall of Famer. I back it up by his page at baseball reference as proof: http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hodgegi01.shtml

Not a single player comparable to him statically is in the Hall of Fame nor ever mentioned in Hall of Fame talk. Yes there are worse players in the hall but that's not a reason to enshrine another one. Just my opinion.

[MATHA531]

...but you can't leave out Hodges' role as a manager of the Mets on top of his playing career. Does Bill Mazeroski belong in the HOF....I agree it's a debateable issue but believe me to me it is not a trade off...I sincerely believe Hodges belongs...at least I saw him play and have a frame of reference.

[MSUlaxer27]

Thank you. I can respect that. I don't think he belongs even if you add the managerial record. Granted he managed only expansion teams but he's managerial record is under .500. Maz was one of the worst selections ever.

[MattM]

Jut as I suspected...It's all about you guy's proving about about much the "Brooklyn" Dodgers were "robbed". You guys don't really care if Gil gets in the hall... You just want to be able to go to Cooperstown and prove how much you were wronged in 57. It's not about Gil getting in...but about you all be able to prove that the Dodgers shouldn't have left.

Long winded response---

Just wondering, did you write up this response because no one responded to your poll?

Look, a good majority of the people who post on these boards grew up with the Dodgers, and saw Hodges play. I personally did not, but my reasons for wanting him in the Hall are from what I've read, stories from those who have played with and met the man. We talked about this in the HOF discussion thread, and although Hodges stats aren't of comparision to other 1'st basemen like Stan Musial or Lou Gehrig, stats don't tell you everything. Had Hodges not been in the line-up in game 7 of the 1955 WS, the Yanks would have won as Hodges drove in both runs I believe (Yes I understand that's 1 game).
Hodges number isn't retired in Los Angeles. Don't you think he deserves some sort of recognition for the team that he played most of his career for?

In response to your notion that Brooklyn wasn't robbed of the Dodgers, I have to disagree. While MOses was certainly no saint, he did offer present-day Shea Stadium to O'Malley, who declined it. O'Malley wanted the area that is present-day Flatbush train station. Well, problem is that there are all houses there, so he wanted Moses to do what he had done before. Kick the residents out, and build the park right outside the train station. Moses wasn't a baseball fan, and he told O'Malley that he had no intention of giving him that land. If O'Malley wanted it, he had to partially fund it ($6million) by selling the lease to Ebbets Field. Honestly, both men are at fault, but O'Malley made every excuse in the book when he was asked why the Dodgers were moving. He was pinning himself as the victim. Well, years later, we have the records here in NY that show he was a liar, and a manipulator. If you think the people here need to get over it, then why is it that history books around the country and general media refer to the moving of the Baltimore Colts and the Brooklyn Dodgers as a robbery? He is portrayed as a typical business man who stole baseball. Why is it that when baseball left Brooklyn, the area surrounding Ebbets Field became a war zone? People moved away. They had nothing left. Hey, I'm only 24, and I long for the days of my grandfather. I'd much rather root for the Brooklyn Dodgers than the Yankees or Mets.

Oh and a little food for thought, why isn't O'Malley in already? Could it be his "great" rapport he had with other owners in the league?

[EbtsFldGuy]

Long winded response---

Just wondering, did you write up this response because no one responded to your poll?

Look, a good majority of the people who post on these boards grew up with the Dodgers, and saw Hodges play. I personally did not, but my reasons for wanting him in the Hall are from what I've read, stories from those who have played with and met the man. We talked about this in the HOF discussion thread, and although Hodges stats aren't of comparision to other 1'st basemen like Stan Musial or Lou Gehrig, stats don't tell you everything. Had Hodges not been in the line-up in game 7 of the 1955 WS, the Yanks would have won as Hodges drove in both runs I believe (Yes I understand that's 1 game).
Hodges number isn't retired in Los Angeles. Don't you think he deserves some sort of recognition for the team that he played most of his career for?

In response to your notion that Brooklyn wasn't robbed of the Dodgers, I have to disagree. While MOses was certainly no saint, he did offer present-day Shea Stadium to O'Malley, who declined it. O'Malley wanted the area that is present-day Flatbush train station. Well, problem is that there are all houses there, so he wanted Moses to do what he had done before. Kick the residents out, and build the park right outside the train station. Moses wasn't a baseball fan, and he told O'Malley that he had no intention of giving him that land. If O'Malley wanted it, he had to partially fund it ($6million) by selling the lease to Ebbets Field. Honestly, both men are at fault, but O'Malley made every excuse in the book when he was asked why the Dodgers were moving. He was pinning himself as the victim. Well, years later, we have the records here in NY that show he was a liar, and a manipulator. If you think the people here need to get over it, then why is it that history books around the country and general media refer to the moving of the Baltimore Colts and the Brooklyn Dodgers as a robbery? He is portrayed as a typical business man who stole baseball. Why is it that when baseball left Brooklyn, the area surrounding Ebbets Field became a war zone? People moved away. They had nothing left. Hey, I'm only 24, and I long for the days of my grandfather. I'd much rather root for the Brooklyn Dodgers than the Yankees or Mets.

Oh and a little food for thought, why isn't O'Malley in already? Could it be his "great" rapport he had with other owners in the league?

Some insightful points, Matt - especially about what became of the area surrounding Ebbets Field.

[MSUlaxer27]

Long winded response---

Just wondering, did you write up this response because no one responded to your poll?

Look, a good majority of the people who post on these boards grew up with the Dodgers, and saw Hodges play. I personally did not, but my reasons for wanting him in the Hall are from what I've read, stories from those who have played with and met the man. We talked about this in the HOF discussion thread, and although Hodges stats aren't of comparision to other 1'st basemen like Stan Musial or Lou Gehrig, stats don't tell you everything. Had Hodges not been in the line-up in game 7 of the 1955 WS, the Yanks would have won as Hodges drove in both runs I believe (Yes I understand that's 1 game).
Hodges number isn't retired in Los Angeles. Don't you think he deserves some sort of recognition for the team that he played most of his career for?

In response to your notion that Brooklyn wasn't robbed of the Dodgers, I have to disagree. While MOses was certainly no saint, he did offer present-day Shea Stadium to O'Malley, who declined it. O'Malley wanted the area that is present-day Flatbush train station. Well, problem is that there are all houses there, so he wanted Moses to do what he had done before. Kick the residents out, and build the park right outside the train station. Moses wasn't a baseball fan, and he told O'Malley that he had no intention of giving him that land. If O'Malley wanted it, he had to partially fund it ($6million) by selling the lease to Ebbets Field. Honestly, both men are at fault, but O'Malley made every excuse in the book when he was asked why the Dodgers were moving. He was pinning himself as the victim. Well, years later, we have the records here in NY that show he was a liar, and a manipulator. If you think the people here need to get over it, then why is it that history books around the country and general media refer to the moving of the Baltimore Colts and the Brooklyn Dodgers as a robbery? He is portrayed as a typical business man who stole baseball. Why is it that when baseball left Brooklyn, the area surrounding Ebbets Field became a war zone? People moved away. They had nothing left. Hey, I'm only 24, and I long for the days of my grandfather. I'd much rather root for the Brooklyn Dodgers than the Yankees or Mets.

Oh and a little food for thought, why isn't O'Malley in already? Could it be his "great" rapport he had with other owners in the league?

People were moving away both before and after the Dodgers left. The exodus out of Brooklyn had more to do with the postwar economic expansion, opening of communities (ie Levittown) on Long Island, Staten Island & NJ, and Moses carving up the borough with highways and arbitrarily placing housing projects than to O'Malley's decision to move the Dodgers.

I can't know this for a fact, because I don't think anyone every did a survey of those that were leaving the borough (or nyc in general). People weren't just leaving the neighborhood around Ebbets or the Polo grounds, they were leaving the city in general. I think you give O'Malley too much credit for the severe downturn Brooklyn experienced from the 60's through the late 90's. There were many socio-economic reasons and people responsible.

As far as O'Malley in the hall, I don't think he belongs. I really don't think any owners belong in. It looks to me that there are only 2 owners who are in the hall who did not play and/or manage as well (Comiskey, Griffith and Mack all played and managed) Bill Veeck and Tom Yawkey. It is interesting to me that while we deify Jackie Robinson, the owner who actually took the chance and signed him (or allowed him to be signed since Branch probably did the actual signing) O'Malley isn't in, while Yawkey, who did everything he could do to keep the Red Sox segregated is. Just seems a little inconsistent. The owners don't vote on the hall of fame so O'Malley's relationship with them really has no impact on his election.

Quite honestly I don't think either Hodges or O'Malley are Hall of Famers, just my opinion. If they are elected good for them...if not, I won't lose any sleep.

[MattM]

People were moving away both before and after the Dodgers left. The exodus out of Brooklyn had more to do with the postwar economic expansion, opening of communities (ie Levittown) on Long Island, Staten Island & NJ, and Moses carving up the borough with highways and arbitrarily placing housing projects than to O'Malley's decision to move the Dodgers.

I can't know this for a fact, because I don't think anyone every did a survey of those that were leaving the borough (or nyc in general). People weren't just leaving the neighborhood around Ebbets or the Polo grounds, they were leaving the city in general. I think you give O'Malley too much credit for the severe downturn Brooklyn experienced from the 60's through the late 90's. There were many socio-economic reasons and people responsible.

As far as O'Malley in the hall, I don't think he belongs. I really don't think any owners belong in. It looks to me that there are only 2 owners who are in the hall who did not play and/or manage as well (Comiskey, Griffith and Mack all played and managed) Bill Veeck and Tom Yawkey. It is interesting to me that while we deify Jackie Robinson, the owner who actually took the chance and signed him (or allowed him to be signed since Branch probably did the actual signing) O'Malley isn't in, while Yawkey, who did everything he could do to keep the Red Sox segregated is. Just seems a little inconsistent. The owners don't vote on the hall of fame so O'Malley's relationship with them really has no impact on his election.

Quite honestly I don't think either Hodges or O'Malley are Hall of Famers, just my opinion. If they are elected good for them...if not, I won't lose any sleep.

I hear you on some of your points. I just want to point a few things out.

Yes, after 1945 there was a diaspora from the city to more rural Long Island. However, the area surrounding the Polo Grounds had been low-income since the late 1940's. The Giants and the Polo Grounds were both considered as the crown-jewels of baseball. Once the low-income houses were placed around the stadium, that was when people started to go away. It had nothing to do with MOses, or O'Malley trying to screw one another.

I don't think any fact, or anything I could say would give O'Malley enough of the "credit" he deserves for ruining the borough of Brooklyn. You really don't understand how much people here loved the franchise. I'm sure you've heard it, but until you actually talk to the people who lived and breathed blue, you realize that when the Dodgers went west, people wanted to move away from the busy life of the borough (Brooklyn is not considered a city). Also, when the team died, take a look at all the businesses that shut down. Breweries, restaurants, you name it, if it was surrounding the area of Flatbush and Sullivan, or within a few quarter miles, it either went the way of the dinosaur, or was severely hurt. Of course they moved towards Long Island, there was nothing left here. People identified with baseball and the Dodgers, and to lose them, was a loss of identity.

[MSUlaxer27]

I hear you on some of your points. I just want to point a few things out.

Yes, after 1945 there was a diaspora from the city to more rural Long Island. However, the area surrounding the Polo Grounds had been low-income since the late 1940's. The Giants and the Polo Grounds were both considered as the crown-jewels of baseball. Once the low-income houses were placed around the stadium, that was when people started to go away. It had nothing to do with MOses, or O'Malley trying to screw one another.

I don't think any fact, or anything I could say would give O'Malley enough of the "credit" he deserves for ruining the borough of Brooklyn. You really don't understand how much people here loved the franchise. I'm sure you've heard it, but until you actually talk to the people who lived and breathed blue, you realize that when the Dodgers went west, people wanted to move away from the busy life of the borough (Brooklyn is not considered a city). Also, when the team died, take a look at all the businesses that shut down. Breweries, restaurants, you name it, if it was surrounding the area of Flatbush and Sullivan, or within a few quarter miles, it either went the way of the dinosaur, or was severely hurt. Of course they moved towards Long Island, there was nothing left here. People identified with baseball and the Dodgers, and to lose them, was a loss of identity.

I think you make the assumption that I don't know New York. I was born on Long Island and have lived in Queens or Manhattan for the last 7 years. I've been a Met fan for my sports rooting life...so I've talked to many former Giants and Dodgers fans. I can never understand what they went through but I have listened and empathized. I do understand that for some Brooklynites the loss of the Dodgers was a major loss of identity.

I don't claim to be a expert in anyway shape or form but I do know NYC and Long Island history. The breweries in Brooklyn were crushed by prohibition more than the loss of the Dodgers. The loss of the Dodgers had an impact on the immediate area surrounding Ebbets as far a game day related businesses but the Brooklyn dockyards were closing, manufacturing jobs were moving away (or expanding on Long Island like Grumann), quite simply there was a major post war shift occurring in NYC that had little to do with sports teams. When my grandfather got back from World War II he moved his new family out to Rockville Centre for a bigger house with a yard from his brownstone in Bed Stuy (which in his words was already beginning to change in a way he didn't like).

Let's also talk about the elephant in the room in New York...Race. As blacks moved into formerly white middle class neighborhoods the white middle class fled the city. This again had nothing to do with the Dodgers leaving and did have an impact on makeup up of Brooklyn.

I'm older than you are (but not old enough to see the Dodgers or Giants in NY) and I heard all my life about O'Malley being the worst person in New York history. I made a choice to look into this claim. O'Malley may have moved the Dodgers later even if he got the Atlantic Avenue site he wanted, we'll never know. I don't think he was as evil as everyone makes him out to be. There were more factors to the decline of Brooklyn than the loss of the Dodgers. We won't ever know but based on all the other factors it is possible or even likely Brooklyn would have declined even if the Dodgers stayed.

Again, these are my opinions...I just think it's untrue to say that one man (whether that's Moses or O'Malley) single handedly destroyed the borough of Brooklyn.

There were many factors that led to the decline of the boroughs from the 1950's through the 70's (when NYC went bankrupt). In some ways I think this has made our city much stronger...we don't allow one person to have as much power as we gave Moses (if we did there would be a stadium going up over the west side rail yards & Grand Central wouldn't be with us anymore). We appreciate and try to protect those things (buildings, teams & neighborhoods etc.) that are important to us.

[MATHA531]

You're most assuredly right about one thing, you say you're not old enough to have seen the Dodgers play iin Brooklyn so you just don't understand what the team meant to the people of Brooklyn and also to the people who moved a few miles from Brooklyn and who still rooted for the team and made the fat slob lots of money and to me, that will always be the bottom line more so then anything else.

The Brooklyn Dodgers were still making money, lots of money, head over heels. They were still one of the most profitable franchises in baseball. Nobody can force anybody to lose money or should they. Thus, from that view point the transfers of the Braves, Brown, Athletics and Giants were totally 100% justified. The transfer of the Brooklyn franchise was something completely else and that fact is shown by the large number of people who still show they care...I wonder how many passionate Boston Brave, St. Louis Brown, Philadelphia Athletics, New York Giant, Milwaukee Braves, Washington Senators, Kansas City Athletics, Seattle Pilots, Montreal Expos fans there still are out there who feel they were wronged.

The facts remain that the 3 most disgusting franchise shifts of the 20th century were the Dodgers, the Baltimore Colts and the Cleveland Browns but at least the last 2 received replacement teams. Brooklyn never has and never will despite the fact it remains in the top 5 of population of American municipalities. It is for this and many other reasons that have been pointed out by me and others here that the responsibility for what happened to the Dodgers resides with one individual and one individual alone.

[MSUlaxer27]

You're most assuredly right about one thing, you say you're not old enough to have seen the Dodgers play iin Brooklyn so you just don't understand what the team meant to the people of Brooklyn and also to the people who moved a few miles from Brooklyn and who still rooted for the team and made the fat slob lots of money and to me, that will always be the bottom line more so then anything else.

The Brooklyn Dodgers were still making money, lots of money, head over heels. They were still one of the most profitable franchises in baseball. Nobody can force anybody to lose money or should they. Thus, from that view point the transfers of the Braves, Brown, Athletics and Giants were totally 100% justified. The transfer of the Brooklyn franchise was something completely else and that fact is shown by the large number of people who still show they care...I wonder how many passionate Boston Brave, St. Louis Brown, Philadelphia Athletics, New York Giant, Milwaukee Braves, Washington Senators, Kansas City Athletics, Seattle Pilots, Montreal Expos fans there still are out there who feel they were wronged.

The facts remain that the 3 most disgusting franchise shifts of the 20th century were the Dodgers, the Baltimore Colts and the Cleveland Browns but at least the last 2 received replacement teams. Brooklyn never has and never will despite the fact it remains in the top 5 of population of American municipalities. It is for this and many other reasons that have been pointed out by me and others here that the responsibility for what happened to the Dodgers resides with one individual and one individual alone.

You're right. No one who wasn't there can ever understand the travesty that befell the fine residents and fans of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The only information about Brooklyn and the Dodgers history are those sources which you personally approve. We should accept the true gospel of the facts as you lucky survivors of the travesty are benevolent enough to bestow upon us. I apologize for attempting to draw my own conclusions from the materials I have read and the people with whom I have spoken.

[MATHA531]

You're right. No one who wasn't there can ever understand the travesty that befell the fine residents and fans of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The only information about Brooklyn and the Dodgers history are those sources which you personally approve. We should accept the true gospel of the facts as you lucky survivors of the travesty are benevolent enough to bestow upon us. I apologize for attempting to draw my own conclusions from the materials I have read and the people with whom I have spoken.

I don't know if your response is what you feel or is sarcastic. I don't begrudge you forming your own opinions based on what you read and people you talk to.

I stay out of the socio-economic arguments about the decline of Brooklyn. Obviously, one has to consider, as noted, the chicken and the egg syndrom. To simply say the history of Brooklyn would have been the same whether the franchise was stolen or not really is something we will never know.

And there were other solutions of course. Why not the location of Shea Stadium...teams change their names to cities they don't necessariloy represent. The Los Angeles Angels of anaheim are a perfect example...they play outside the corporate boundaries of either the city of Los Angeles and even the County of Los Angeles...we have teams named for states (the late California Angels, the current Texas Rangers, the Miami oops Florida Marlins and then of course there's the Salt Lake City Jazz. Why couldn't the Brooklyn Dodgers have played in Flushing Meadow. Everybody over the years has criticized the deal the city of New York made with the Mets (although I will admit part of what the Mets were able to wrangle from the City administration was because of the Giants and Dodgers departure)....or what about the oodles of land that were available in nearby Nassau County...say instead of Belmont Race Track in Elmont, just blocks from the city line, how about a baseball stadium. Oh yes, that means the fat slob might have had to spend his own money, of which he had quite a bit, to acquire the land rather than trying to hold up the taxpayers of NY to pay for the land, to exercise eminent domain, illegally according to New York State law, to wrest land from the Pennsylvania Rail Road so he could build his stadium by taking the games off of free television, a tradition of Brooklyn Dodger baseball all through the 50's as every home game was on free over the air television. Why didn't he go out and buy the land himself? And never once did he offer to trade the land he owned where Ebbets Field was to the city as compensation for spending hard earned taxpayer dollars; instead making a deal with somebody to sell the land to in order to build high rise apartments yet when he moved to Los Angeles, he had no problems with exchanging the land where Wrigley Field was for the land at Chavez Ravine. Of course the people who lived at Chavez Ravine for many years didn't count, now did they?

The issues are complex to understand in the light of 21st century knowledge and attitude of course. It really is very hard for anybody to understand what baseball meant to Brooklyn in the 1950's if you weren't there and lived it. Yes we know, baseball was always a business but not to the degree that the fat sslimey piece of human garbage showed it to be when he thumbed his nose at millions of Brooklyn Dodger fans throughout the world for the sake of a few extra dollars and by his actions...well of course Chavez Ravine Stadium opened without water fountains. An oversight? Or an attempt to make people sitting in the hot Los Angeles sun go running out to buy cold sodas? Or the fact as soon as he got to Los Angeles, this "sportsman's" first act was to take the games off television...or instead of playing a couple of years in a real ball park, despite the fact it had limited seating capacity,oving to the Coliseum where he made a travesty of the game with the screen in left field and ridiculous distances to right field and fans sitting literally miles from the action...that was the sign of a true sportsman interested in the fans.

I know I've made several of these points before and I'm sorry for the regulars here who get tired of reading them; I get tired of pointing them out too. But as we age and many of us leave the scene, the myth of Robert Moses forcing poor misunderstood Walter O'Malley to get up and take a historic franchise who will perhaps not being a founding member of the National League and I was corrected on that a while ago, were a member of the National League during the 19th century, 3,000 miles from its true home will begin to take effect from the writing and rants of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. And then and only then will this slime ball find his way into the Hall of Fame a place he clearly has no business being anywhere near.

JMHO but based on personal observations not something I've read.

[KCGHOST]

Well, four votes hardly constitutes a basis for any kind of rational opinion. As a guess I would say that the "Neither" votes are by people like me who don't think either should be in so we have no problem voting. The total dearth of votes makes one suspect that the choice of the majority is for Hodges and against O'Malley and the only choices presented are unacceptable.

[MattM]

Again, these are my opinions...I just think it's untrue to say that one man (whether that's Moses or O'Malley) single handedly destroyed the borough of Brooklyn.

There were many factors that led to the decline of the boroughs from the 1950's through the 70's (when NYC went bankrupt). In some ways I think this has made our city much stronger...we don't allow one person to have as much power as we gave Moses (if we did there would be a stadium going up over the west side rail yards & Grand Central wouldn't be with us anymore). We appreciate and try to protect those things (buildings, teams & neighborhoods etc.) that are important to us.

I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the statement that in NY we try to protect thigns that are important to us. I'm just going to stick with Brooklyn on this one and point out some important buildings that are going to be taken away from us in the not too distant future. Look at the area around Coney Island. The Merry-go-round is gone. No one seemed to care too much about that. Rumor has it that someone bought the land, and is planning on rebuilding it. Sounds good right? Problem is, the developers plans include "moving" Nathans. Thi means tearing down the building that has stood there for nearly 100 years. Or how about the statue of Minerva in Greenwood Cemetary that people have wanted taken down for years? It's only a matter of time before it's gone. Honestly, in NY, we could give a damn about protecting buildings that are important to us if it gets in the way of progress.

[SNAP]

Excellent point about Shea, Matha. I thought O'Malley was offered the land that Shea sits on but declined by saying: "How can we call ourselves the Brooklyn Dodgers if we play in Queens." That was total bs on his part because he wanted out and probably had the deal w/LA already cinched. He may not be totally to blame for all this but he was the one who was responsible for keeping everybody in the dark. It was the $$$, pure and simple.

I don't know if your response is what you feel or is sarcastic. I don't begrudge you forming your own opinions based on what you read and people you talk to.

I stay out of the socio-economic arguments about the decline of Brooklyn. Obviously, one has to consider, as noted, the chicken and the egg syndrom. To simply say the history of Brooklyn would have been the same whether the franchise was stolen or not really is something we will never know.

And there were other solutions of course. Why not the location of Shea Stadium...teams change their names to cities they don't necessariloy represent. The Los Angeles Angels of anaheim are a perfect example...they play outside the corporate boundaries of either the city of Los Angeles and even the County of Los Angeles...we have teams named for states (the late California Angels, the current Texas Rangers, the Miami oops Florida Marlins and then of course there's the Salt Lake City Jazz. Why couldn't the Brooklyn Dodgers have played in Flushing Meadow. Everybody over the years has criticized the deal the city of New York made with the Mets (although I will admit part of what the Mets were able to wrangle from the City administration was because of the Giants and Dodgers departure)....or what about the oodles of land that were available in nearby Nassau County...say instead of Belmont Race Track in Elmont, just blocks from the city line, how about a baseball stadium. Oh yes, that means the fat slob might have had to spend his own money, of which he had quite a bit, to acquire the land rather than trying to hold up the taxpayers of NY to pay for the land, to exercise eminent domain, illegally according to New York State law, to wrest land from the Pennsylvania Rail Road so he could build his stadium by taking the games off of free television, a tradition of Brooklyn Dodger baseball all through the 50's as every home game was on free over the air television. Why didn't he go out and buy the land himself? And never once did he offer to trade the land he owned where Ebbets Field was to the city as compensation for spending hard earned taxpayer dollars; instead making a deal with somebody to sell the land to in order to build high rise apartments yet when he moved to Los Angeles, he had no problems with exchanging the land where Wrigley Field was for the land at Chavez Ravine. Of course the people who lived at Chavez Ravine for many years didn't count, now did they?

The issues are complex to understand in the light of 21st century knowledge and attitude of course. It really is very hard for anybody to understand what baseball meant to Brooklyn in the 1950's if you weren't there and lived it. Yes we know, baseball was always a business but not to the degree that the fat sslimey piece of human garbage showed it to be when he thumbed his nose at millions of Brooklyn Dodger fans throughout the world for the sake of a few extra dollars and by his actions...well of course Chavez Ravine Stadium opened without water fountains. An oversight? Or an attempt to make people sitting in the hot Los Angeles sun go running out to buy cold sodas? Or the fact as soon as he got to Los Angeles, this "sportsman's" first act was to take the games off television...or instead of playing a couple of years in a real ball park, despite the fact it had limited seating capacity,oving to the Coliseum where he made a travesty of the game with the screen in left field and ridiculous distances to right field and fans sitting literally miles from the action...that was the sign of a true sportsman interested in the fans.

I know I've made several of these points before and I'm sorry for the regulars here who get tired of reading them; I get tired of pointing them out too. But as we age and many of us leave the scene, the myth of Robert Moses forcing poor misunderstood Walter O'Malley to get up and take a historic franchise who will perhaps not being a founding member of the National League and I was corrected on that a while ago, were a member of the National League during the 19th century, 3,000 miles from its true home will begin to take effect from the writing and rants of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. And then and only then will this slime ball find his way into the Hall of Fame a place he clearly has no business being anywhere near.

JMHO but based on personal observations not something I've read.

[D6+]

Excellent point about Shea, Matha. I thought O'Malley was offered the land that Shea sits on but declined by saying: "How can we call ourselves the Brooklyn Dodgers if we play in Queens." That was total bs on his part because he wanted out and probably had the deal w/LA already cinched. He may not be totally to blame for all this but he was the one who was responsible for keeping everybody in the dark. It was the $$$, pure and simple.


In addition to what you and Matha expressed, if the Dodgers would have moved to Queens, Nassau County, or anywhere in the NY Metro area, it would have made it much easier for the team to eventually move back to Brooklyn. The Dodgers would have still been in the NYC territory, hence not owing mega compensation to other MLB franchises in the area. The New Jersey Nets for example don't have to pay the Knicks compensation when they move to Brooklyn in two or three years.

[D6+]

If in order to get Gil Hodges into the Hall of Fame it meant that O'Malley goes in as well, would you take the trade-off? In other words, both or neither.

Like Matha mentioned in this thread, one has nothing to do with the other. Personally though, as much as I would like to see Gil Hodges get into the HOF, it's even more important that Walter O' Malley doesn't get into the HOF. The HOF would lose all credibility from my perspective and the perspective of many others, if O' Malley was voted into the HOF.

The truth of the matter is MLB expansion to the West Coast was inevitable. Travel by train was being replaced by air travel. Regardless of whether O' Malley hijacked the Dodgers 3000 miles away, it was a matter of time before Los Angeles was going to get a franchise. Not to mention San Francisco was inevitably going to get a franchise.

What's much more significant though is O' Malley took away a very successful franchise in a Borough that has around 2.5 million people. In the United States largest market. Costing MLB baseball countless fans and setting the stage of MLB eventually falling way behind the NFL in popularity.