O'Malley's election to the Hall-tThe LA story

[tonypug]

Here is the LA times story on O'Malley's election to the HOF. Wear your boots.
http://latimes.com/sports/la-sp-omalley4dec04,0,3087047.story?coll-la-home-center

[DODGER DEB]

With all due respect, tonyp, do WE really need to do this?

I thought WE had just about had enough of this travesty....a few weeks ago!

c.

[Shotgun Shuba]

With all due respect, tonyp, do WE really need to do this?

I thought WE had just about had enough of this travesty....a few weeks ago!

c.

I agree, but that quote from Joan Hodges seems very odd to me. Did she really say that? I really doubt she doesn't blame Walter for a lot of it.

[tonypug]

We can't change what happened, but there are a number of interesting things in the article.Peter is quoted as saying, his father tried for 10 years to keep the team from moving. If taken at face value, that means O'Malley even before he had controlling interest had his eyes elsewhere. Perhaps that is why O'Malley forced Rickey out of the picture. Perhaps Rickey was against moving the team from Brooklyn. We can't change history, but I for one will not hide my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. We are all adults and can make our own decision on whether to read the article or not.

[LeoD]

I agree with Tony, if a lie is told often enough some people begin to think its the truth if Joan Hodges, the widow of former Dodgers star Gil Hodges, did tell The Times earlier this year that folks there now blame former city commissioner Robert Moses as well, which I seriously doubt, she may feel that saying that could help Gil get in the HOF, I see no reason why we should get tired of protesting the O'M's election to the HOF. Keep giving them hell Tony.

[MATHA531]

I agree with Tony, if a lie is told often enough some people begin to think its the truth if Joan Hodges, the widow of former Dodgers star Gil Hodges, did tell The Times earlier this year that folks there now blame former city commissioner Robert Moses as well, which I seriously doubt, she may feel that saying that could help Gil get in the HOF, I see no reason why we should get tired of protesting the O'M's election to the HOF. Keep giving them hell Tony.

The lies about Moses being primarily responsible for the theft of the Brooklyn franchise have been repeated so often that many people, even in Brooklyn, have begun to believe there is some truth to it...and then there was the HBO special this past summer...all part of the propaganda barrage that helped propel the slime ball into the Hall of Fame...it was, of course, probably inevitable...repeat a lie often enough and it becomes to some a truth.

[tonypug]

I was about to post something very similar to what LeoD posted in reference to Joan Hodges statement. She may feel that Peter O'Malley has the clout to help get Gil into the HOF. Now that his father is in perhaps Peter will try to do just that. Now wouldn't that be interesting. Hey Matha maybe we should start telling people that Moses was behind the Kennedy assassination.Say it enough times , like you say, and people start believing it.

[LeoD]

I was about to post something very similar to what LeoD posted in reference to Joan Hodges statement. She may feel that Peter O'Malley has the clout to help get Gil into the HOF. Now that his father is in perhaps Peter will try to do just that. Now wouldn't that be interesting. Hey Matha maybe we should start telling people that Moses was behind the Kennedy assassination.Say it enough times , like you say, and people start believing it.

Tony it was the O'M on the Grassy Nole.

[DODGER DEB]

[QUOTE=tonypug;1079711We can't change history, but I for one will not hide my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. We are all adults and can make our own decision on whether to read the article or not.[/QUOTE]

Excuse me! No one will ever say that I have "hid my head in the sand and pretended it didn't happen"....NO ONE! And, of course, you can post whatever you feel like here (within the rules). That was not my point. I was merely suggesting that WE have talked ourselves into a frenzy over this horrible act over many days, and all WE got for it was more aggravation!

This is but one article that was written "out there". I received copies of all of them soon after it happened and all they made me do was want to barf!

c.

[LeoD]

[QUOTE=tonypug;1079711We can't change history, but I for one will not hide my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. We are all adults and can make our own decision on whether to read the article or not.

Excuse me! No one will ever say that I have "hid my head in the sand and pretended it didn't happen"....NO ONE! And, of course, you can post whatever you feel like here (within the rules). That was not my point. I was merely suggesting that WE have talked ourselves into a frenzy over this horrible act over many days, and all WE got for it was more aggravation!

This is but one article that was written "out there". I received copies of all of them soon after it happened and all they made me do was want to barf!

c.[/QUOTE]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Tony and I are us not we.

[DODGER DEB]

[/B]

Excuse me! No one will ever say that I have "hid my head in the sand and pretended it didn't happen"....NO ONE! And, of course, you can post whatever you feel like here (within the rules). That was not my point. I was merely suggesting that WE have talked ourselves into a frenzy over this horrible act over many days, and all WE got for it was more aggravation!

This is but one article that was written "out there". I received copies of all of them soon after it happened and all they made me do was want to barf!

c.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Tony and I are us not we.[/QUOTE]


So you two are now a "twosome".....not that it surprises me! You left BBF together and you came back to BBF together.

c.

[LeoD]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Tony and I are us not we.


So you two are now a "twosome".....not that it surprises me! You left BBF together and you came back to BBF together.

c.[/QUOTE]

Not a " twosome" we just agree sometimes, but if disagreeing with a Mod is against the rules here, just say so and I'll be sure not to do it again.

[dodger dynamo]

on the rest of it Im staying out of it. on the joan hodges statement, gil may or may not have confided his true feeling about o'malley to her, he did after all keep much to himself. we don't know what o'malley, both o'malley's may or may not have done for her and the hodges family after gils death. If gil thought she was doing it to get him in the hall of fame. I can just imagine what he would think, and what he would say to her. again he may not have vocalized his true feelings at all. we just don't have all the information. why she had the need or desire to say anything at all is the puzzle. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[joeclark]

joeclark replies to dodger dynamo: I doubt that Joan Hodges said that about Bob Moses
just to get Gil Hodges into Cooperstown. Look I don't believe that Moses had anything
to do with Brooklyn's move to L.A. in 1958. But I got to tell ya, there are lot's of very
credible people who believe that he did. One is the person who has authored three acclaimed books on the late former President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Before he authored
"The Path To Power" in either 1981 or 1982, he had authored a book

titled "The Power Broker: Bob Moses And The Fall Of New York" there are those who were involved in the making the documentary on "Dem Bumz" earlier this year. O'Malley
was no saint; according to a credible book about "Happy Chandler's" tenure as Commissioner of Baseball O'Malley as head of a utility based in Brooklyn was guilty of price gouging and un-fair labor practies. BUT HE WAS NOT THE REASON THE DODGERS LEFT.

[dodger dynamo]

oh, jc you know from my other posts that I think everybody played some part in the dodgers move, but o'malley was the guy who did the deal and pulled the trigger. I would hope mrs. hodges only said what she said because it was what she believes right or wrong with no ulterior motives. which is probably the truth, but it would be nice though to really know all the facts behind and around her statement. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[MATHA531]

joeclark replies to dodger dynamo: I doubt that Joan Hodges said that about Bob Moses
just to get Gil Hodges into Cooperstown. Look I don't believe that Moses had anything
to do with Brooklyn's move to L.A. in 1958. But I got to tell ya, there are lot's of very
credible people who believe that he did. One is the person who has authored three acclaimed books on the late former President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Before he authored
"The Path To Power" in either 1981 or 1982, he had authored a book

titled "The Power Broker: Bob Moses And The Fall Of New York" there are those who were involved in the making the documentary on "Dem Bumz" earlier this year. O'Malley
was no saint; according to a credible book about "Happy Chandler's" tenure as Commissioner of Baseball O'Malley as head of a utility based in Brooklyn was guilty of price gouging and un-fair labor practies. BUT HE WAS NOT THE REASON THE DODGERS LEFT.

Joe...again get your facts straight. In the book the Power Broker, a book of over 700 pages, there was one brief mention of the Brooklyn Dodger situation. As far as the HBO "documentary" it leaves out the whole eminent domain part of the story i.e. New York State law 100% prohibited the type of land grab the slimeball wanted. As a lawyer, the slimeball had to know that. Atlantic Avenue was from start to finish a charade, a play to history. Quite frankly, knowing what we know now, it would have been a poor choice. There was then and remains today no highway going into the location...the only highway remotely near is the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, more than a mile away and jammed to the rafters during almost all hours of the day. How were the fans from Long Island to get there? The LIRR sounds nice but from my experience suburbanites do not particularly want to rely on a train after a night game that could end at 2230 or later (games started at 2000 in those days)....as it turned out, Moses was absolutely right (I know it's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight)...probably the best place for the Dodgers was the location of Shea Stadium (and believe me I know the Brooklyn/Queens argument)....we now know today that Coney Island would have been a viable locaton (but the Belt Parkway while very very close would probably be inadequate to service all the cars after and before a Friday night game) but yes there are 5 subway lines literally stopping by the door.

The other locations with lots of land (Starett City location today and Floyd Bennet Field) would have been good, again right off the Belt Parkway, but lacked public transportation. And the slimeball, being the aristocrat he was, couldn't care less about poor people getting to the games via public transportation...there is none into Chavez Ravine Stadium now is there....you don't drive, you might find a couple of buses from downtown LA but no mass transit, no subway lines, no light rail....and he didn't give a damn.

But then you end your statement by saying the simeball wasn't respoinsible for the theft of the Brooklyn franchise...give me a break...he was the only one responsible, one of the few pieces of human trash who would have done this to a community in the name of greed.

And they elect trash like this to the Baseball Hall of Fame...it is a sad commentary on what the baseball Hall of Fame means in this day and age.

[donzblock]

The HOF means nothing. Visit Cooperstown and keep your hands in your pockets. The nicest part of Cooperstown is a used bookstore run by a Willis Monig: tons of used books and aisles to get lost in.

Coney Island would have worked with the renovated and improved Stillwell Avenue that is there now.

Since nothing loves a vacuum, O'Malley certainly does belong in Cooperstown. An enterprising person, perhaps Mr. Oreck, could name a pocket vacuum after him. In fact, O'Malley would be a perfect brand name for any vacuum.

I love the nobody-tried-harder-than-Om-to-keep-the-Dodgers-in-Brooklyn angle. In a similar vein, nobody tried harder than Horace Stoneham to make tea the national beverage, nobody tried harder than John Lindsay not to run for president while he was making a hash of the mayoralty, and nobody tried harder than Mike Quill to make the subway fare free. I can still see O'Malley biking through the back streets of Brooklyn looking for possible locations for his new stadium. Nobody but close family knew that Walter took these trips and that he loved to bike while puffing on his cigar. After miles and miles of biking, Brooklyn-loving Walter would end up at Cookie's on Avenue U and have a good old fashioned cheeseburger with french fries and a coke. The man was all Brooklyn. Sometimes, the Big OM was so upset at the end of one of his unsuccessful jaunts that he could eat only one cheeseburger.

[KCGHOST]

I don't see anything to get fired up over the article. People's minds change over time. It can well be that O'Malley's original intent was to get a new stadium built, but as time went by he developed an interest in L.A. Undoubtedly this interest was spurred on by the pot-of-gold LA offered him.

We probably should ban threads on O'Malley anyway. Too many people here refuse to engage in any rational discussion of the man.

[tonypug]

I don't see anything to get fired up over the article. People's minds change over time. It can well be that O'Malley's original intent was to get a new stadium built, but as time went by he developed an interest in L.A. Undoubtedly this interest was spurred on by the pot-of-gold LA offered him.

We probably should ban threads on O'Malley anyway. Too many people here refuse to engage in any rational discussion of the man.

What would you like to discuss about O'Malley? There are many rational people here more then willing to have rational discussions about O'Malley.

[Bill Burgess]

Putting Walter O'Malley in the Hall of Fame is just another example of the political side of the Hall. He will join Landis, Comiskey, and Ban Johnson. All undeserving people.

Being in the Hall means nothing to me. The presence of so many undeserving people just sullies the honor for the truly deserving. And makes it impossible for the Hall of Fame to honor the deserving.

The Hall of Fame can now honor no one. It has forfeited that ability, to the truly discerning. And it further shows the total 100% lack of caring, sensitivity of the moguls of the sport.

Does anyone still believe that baseball moguls care about the fans? If they ever did, how could Happy Chandler ever have allowed such a vile abuser like Walter O'Malley kidnap a team from its rightful fan base?

And to actually have the chutzpah to go ahead and enshrine such a scumbag into the Hall is such a travesty of decency, that true fans should start onlilne protests, and boycott the Hall of Fame. Hit them where it hurts. In their pocketbooks. And boycott the newspapers of whatever writers voted to enshrine such an undeserving scoundrel.

In 1976, sports writer Harold Francis Parrott wrote a book called 'The Lords of Baseball'. Harold had started as a Brooklyn sports writer, and then became a Brooklyn team employee. He went west with the team in 1958, and O'Malley fired him in 1963. Harold then spent the rest of his life bad-mouthing him. His book was mostly aimed at the fat slob. I think he got it right, and is required reading for all O'Malley critics, by one on the inside, and knew the inside scoop.

Did I go over the top? I certainly hope so. This issue deserves no less. And if I knew how to, I would have gone much further over the top too.

[Bill Burgess]

Here is my write-up of Harold Parrott. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=912992&postcount=11

He started on the Brooklyn Eagle, 1931-43, then was hired to serve as the Traveling Secretary of the Dodgers, January 1, 1944-1958. Next he was appointed the Dodgers' director of ticket sales, 1958-63.

When O'Malley fired him, he then spent the rest of his life, outing, lambasting, and exposing the corrupt inner workings of O'Malley's office.

His Lords of Baseball, 1976, was his expose of the Fat Slob.

[tonypug]

Here is my write-up of Harold Parrott. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=912992&postcount=11

He started on the Brooklyn Eagle, 1931-43, then was hired to serve as the Traveling Secretary of the Dodgers, January 1, 1944-1958. Next he was appointed the Dodgers' director of ticket sales, 1958-63.

When O'Malley fired him, he then spent the rest of his life, outing, lambasting, and exposing the corrupt inner workings of O'Malley's office.

His Lords of Baseball, 1976, was his expose of the Fat Slob.In recent years Parrott's children had the book released again. It is a very revealing and interesting book. One of the very few things ever written about O'Malley,that llaid bare many of his callous acts.

[Bill Burgess]

Would anyone who knows the story of how the fat slob usurped Branch Rickey please open a Walter O'Malley Thread in History? It is truly a historical subject.

I know you guys have a lot here, but we in History don't. Promise, no deletions. See? I learn.

[metfan13]

Would anyone who knows the story of how the fat slob usurped Branch Rickey please open a Walter O'Malley Thread in History? It is truly a historical subject.

I know you guys have a lot here, but we in History don't. Promise, no deletions. See? I learn.

But could it be done in history without the childish namecalling?

[leecemark]

--If it can't, keep it out. The type of "discussion" O'Malley tends to inspire would not be tolerated in the history forum. The thread would have a short shelf life and suspensions for the participants would be likely if it followed the usual path. Consider this fair warning.

[Bill Burgess]

But could it be done in history without the childish namecalling?
Yes, I could do without the fat slob stuff. But I would still be harsh in my criticisms. After all, kidnapping a team is a very serious offense to the fans of Brooklyn.

Branch Rickey's legacy.
1. Farm system
2. Bringing the black ballplayer into the MLs.

Walter O'Malley's legacy.
1. Stabbing Dodger President in the back to usurp his position.
2. Stabbing Brooklyn fans.

In both cases, O'Malley acted in secrecy, until his intended victim was legally blind-sided.

Bear in mind also, that O'Malley had the choice to sell the team to Brooklyn, and go west and start from scratch. The way many expansion teams did. The old-fashioned way of hard work. He could have taken The High Road, and done no harm. He had choices. He took the easy way out, and harmed the most loyal fans in balldom, who had led the league in attendance.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

--If it can't, keep it out. The type of "discussion" O'Malley tends to inspire would not be tolerated in the history forum. The thread would have a short shelf life and suspensions for the participants would be likely if it followed the usual path. Consider this fair warning.

This thread reflects "history" just fine, thank you. However, leecemark, fear not. We are all considering your "fair warning." :laugh:blah:
BTW, referring to O'Malley as a "fat slob" is an insult to fat slobs everywhere.

[donzblock]

--If it can't, keep it out. The type of "discussion" O'Malley tends to inspire would not be tolerated in the history forum. The thread would have a short shelf life and suspensions for the participants would be likely if it followed the usual path. Consider this fair warning.
How awful that this forum cannot emulate the history forum. I know for a fact that O'Malley did not die fat with stains on his bib. There is nothing quite like a threat to make people see reason and realize that they should not be calling O'Malley a fat slob. I have never called O'Malley a fat slob, never. I have known so many people who were fatter and slobbier. To call O"Malley a fat slob is to denigrate fatter slobs, and that would not be right.

Thank you so much for the fair warning, leecemark. Surely, a person of O'Malley's ilk deserves words that are deeper than "fat slob." I kind of like the way Harold Parrott often referred to O'Malley in "The Lords of Baseball." Parrott was always referring to O'Malley's enormous posterior. I am sure there are other features about Walter that we could allude to if we but knew them. Did the Big OM have smelly feet? Did he have halitosis? Did he suffer from body odor? O'Malley's girth is verifiable and therefore an easy target, but a little research will surely reveal other aspects of the man that will bring out the poet in O'Malleyologists.

[DODGER DEB]

Well, Bill Burgess did infact post a thread today on his History Forum, "Walter O'Malley Thread"... and WE BROOKLYN FANS, once again, are being attacked and stomped on because WE don't have undying love for the Big "O" like Elvis, and some other so-called experts on what happened to US.

It just never stops!

c.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

Well, Bill Burgess did infact post a thread today on his History Forum, "Walter O'Malley Thread"... and WE BROOKLYN FANS, once again, are being attacked and stomped on because WE don't have undying love for the Big "O" like Elvis, and some other so-called experts on what happened to US.

It just never stops!

c.

That thread is pretty useless. I mean: both O'Malley haters and lovers will never come together.

Elvis is blaming you guys for not wanting to see the whole picture of O'Malley. For only wanting to cherry pick the bad things he did. So why is he only highlighting the good things he did?

[DODGER DEB]

That thread is pretty useless. I mean: both O'Malley haters and lovers will never come together.

Elvis is blaming you guys for not wanting to see the whole picture of O'Malley. For only wanting to cherry pick the bad things he did. So why is he only highlighting the good things he did?

Because, YBF, that is what Elvis always does! Despite what he says, Elvis knows so little about that man....so very little!

Most of what he has written as good things, and quotes from OUR players, are simply NOT true! The very things he accuses US of, he is guilty of himself. What perplexes me is this undying love affair he has with the Big 'O". Makes no sense, but I must admit, is very curious!

To be continued, I am sure!

c.

[MSUlaxer27]

[/B]

Because, YBF, that is what Elvis always does! Despite what he says, Elvis knows so little about that man....so very little!

Most of what he has written as good things, and quotes from OUR players, are simply NOT true! The very things he accuses US of, he is guilty of himself. What perplexes me is this undying love affair he has with the Big 'O". Makes no sense, but I must admit, is very curious!

To be continued, I am sure!

c.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say Elvis has a "love affair" but O'Malley was instrumental in bringing Major League baseball to the west coast. If you live on the west coast and are a Dodger fan, what O'Malley did was a good thing. There are two sides to every story.

Now maybe it would have been more fair to award the "expansion" franchise to L.A. and leave the Dodgers alone (I hope we can all agree that the Giants were leaving(whether to Minnesota or points elsewhere) no matter what. Franchise shifts always suck to the jilted party, but to the new city it's the best thing that could happen.

It seems many Brooklyn Dodger fans like to compare O'Malley to Hitler and Stalin (two genocidal mass murderers). To my knowledge O'Malley never executed anyone. He made a business decision that was unpopular in Brooklyn and widely popular in L.A.

[Bill Burgess]

That thread is pretty useless. I mean: both O'Malley haters and lovers will never come together.

Elvis is blaming you guys for not wanting to see the whole picture of O'Malley. For only wanting to cherry pick the bad things he did. So why is he only highlighting the good things he did?
It's easy to criticize. The point of the thread was not to be pro/con or praise/rip.

The point of the thread is to document what happened. If a pro-O'Malley member is dominating, perhaps it is because few members are stepping up and documenting what he did terrible. I wanted a thread that didn't have bashing but documentation.

Why can't members say what must be said, in a civil, courteous, and in-depth manner. I won't ask anyone to go there and step up, because obviously, no one wants to.

But why knock the thread if only one viewpoint is being represented. Whose fault is that? Mine? I bow to no member in my contempt for the man, but I'm one of the few who is representing my viewpoint. And few are voting in the poll too. I suppose that is my fault too.

Easy to knock others trying to do a good job. I knew I'd catch it from both sides. Just knew it.

[donzblock]

You're catching nothing but praise from me. At this time of the year, stations like QVC would love to have an O'Malley puffing away on a treadmill. "Tired of being a big fat slob?" I can hear an announcer saying. "Join the Big OM on the Meltaway Treadaway and watch those aberrations of obesity evaporate."

"How does it feel to be working out on the Meltaway, OM?"

"It feels, Lisa," Walter will say, "as if I am covering enough distance to go coast to coast. I'm burning so many calories that it feels like I'm on a beach in Malibu!"

And so it goes.

[donzblock]

I don't know if I would go so far as to say Elvis has a "love affair" but O'Malley was instrumental in bringing Major League baseball to the west coast. If you live on the west coast and are a Dodger fan, what O'Malley did was a good thing. There are two sides to every story.
There are rarely only two sides to every story. The West Coast could have acquired a team without O'Malley doing a bad thing to Brooklyn.

Now maybe it would have been more fair to award the "expansion" franchise to L.A. and leave the Dodgers alone (I hope we can all agree that the Giants were leaving(whether to Minnesota or points elsewhere) no matter what. Franchise shifts always suck to the jilted party, but to the new city it's the best thing that could happen.
Your "maybe" should be a "definitely." And franchise shifts do not always suck to the jilted party. St. Louis could not support the Browns. Millions did not mourn their moving.


Many Brooklyn Dodger fans like to compare O'Malley to Hitler and Stalin (two genocidal mass murderers). To my knowledge O'Malley never executed anyone. He made a business decision that was unpopular in Brooklyn and widely popular in L.A.
O'Malley is not equal to Hitler and Stalin? Please explain in more detail. We just do not understand.

[Bill Burgess]

You're catching nothing but praise from me.
Thank you, donzblock, for your kind words. And thank you for posting in my little thread. My first thread on O'Malley.

If anyone is reading it, here is my last post.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1083960&postcount=84

I said I wouldn't ask anyone here to go there and post, but I'm going back on my word. Why are you guys letting Elvis put on a one-man clinic?

I'm not inviting the usual roast, but I do need, the thread needs - quality documentation. That means, 'Say what MUST be said, but do it in an acceptable, diplomatic language. Not the language of hate roasting, but the facts.

I would especially welcome the behind the scenes details of how he plotted to acquire the McGeever/Smith votes, dates, names, etc. Smith died in July 10, 1950. And also any pertinent details concerning the book, The Lords of Baseball, 1976.

Not 'bashing', in the old-fashioned sense, but the true facts, details, the historical case.

And I believe that only members of this thread have those details, in the depth that is historicallly required. This isn't for Bill Burgess, but whoever reads that thread in the future. Think not of individual members, but the work. This is the kind of documentation that only shlevine42, Dodger Deb, Bklyn Boy since 1936, Ebtsfldguy, strummer, tonypug and the rest of the usual cast still know. So much revisionism has taken place that few still know the truth.

THE WORK is very important to me! And I know it is to you, too.

Why you choose to remain on the sidelines, and allow the same old boiler-plate pulp fiction to hold the center stage is bewildering. But I guess you all have your reasons. So be it, friends. So be it.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

There are rarely only two sides to every story. The West Coast could have acquired a team without O'Malley doing a bad thing to Brooklyn.

I can't tell if LA could have gotten an expansion team in those years. So, as an outsider, I have to admit that O'Malley did a good thing for baseball by moving two teams to the West Coast. But what bothers me most about this, is the way HOW he did it; deceiving Brooklyn's fans, leaving grown up men crying.


Your "maybe" should be a "definitely." And franchise shifts do not always suck to the jilted party. St. Louis could not support the Browns. Millions did not mourn their moving.

But what about the Browns fans? What about the Braves fans? What about the Athletics fans. What about the Senators fans (2x). What about the Expos fans? Their situation wasn't any other than yours IMO. It just s%#ks to see your favorite team move.


O'Malley is not equal to Hitler and Stalin? Please explain in more detail. We just do not understand.

Like MSUlaxer27 said: "O'Malley wasn't responsible for any homicide." How bad the guy was according to you AND me, you can never compare him with dictators that were responsible for the death of millions of people.

Please don't get me wrong. It may look like that I am choosing the side of the O'Malley lovers. That is absolutely NOT the case. I let the negative parts of O'Malley's behaviour prevail. I still think that the Dodgers belong in Brooklyn and nowhere else. But all I want to do here is to show that there are more sides to this dispute. I can understand that it is hard for you to accept, but O'Malley did something extraordinary for baseball by bringing MLB to the West Coast. But again, it is the way how he did it that bothers me.

And what bothers me about the thread in the History part is that some persons are blaming others for only highlighting the negative side, while they do exactly the same by only showing the positive side of O'Malley.

So don't worry, I am on your side, but I am trying to see things in perspective.

[aqib]

I can understand that it is hard for you to accept, but O'Malley did something extraordinary for baseball by bringing MLB to the West Coast. But again, it is the way how he did it that bothers me.



The issue with this is that you are assuming baseball would not have gotten to the west coast without him. The Washington Senators were meeting with LA officials when O'Malley was sitting a few rows back and sent a note saying "don't do anything until you talk to me." Once he got there the AL expanded to LA and the As moved as well. The O'Malley family acts like he is the reason that happened. He wasn't he just rode the wave and was the first to hit the beach.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

The issue with this is that you are assuming baseball would not have gotten to the west coast without him. The Washington Senators were meeting with LA officials when O'Malley was sitting a few rows back and sent a note saying "don't do anything until you talk to me." Once he got there the AL expanded to LA and the As moved as well. The O'Malley family acts like he is the reason that happened. He wasn't he just rode the wave and was the first to hit the beach.

If you read my comment in red, you can see that I don't assume that he was the reason for the West Coast getting MLB baseball.

Like I said: "I am trying to see things in perspective". And that is not always easy.

[tonypug]

Thank you, donzblock, for your kind words. And thank you for posting in my little thread. My first thread on O'Malley.

If anyone is reading it, here is my last post.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1083960&postcount=84

I said I wouldn't ask anyone here to go there and post, but I'm going back on my word. Why are you guys letting Elvis put on a one-man clinic?

I'm not inviting the usual roast, but I do need, the thread needs - quality documentation. That means, 'Say what MUST be said, but do it in an acceptable, diplomatic language. Not the language of hate roasting, but the facts.

I would especially welcome the behind the scenes details of how he plotted to acquire the McGeever/Smith votes, dates, names, etc. Smith died in May, 1950. And also any pertinent details concerning the book, The Lords of Baseball, 1976.

Not 'bashing', in the old-fashioned sense, but the true facts, details, the historical case.

And I believe that only members of this thread have those details, in the depth that is historicallly required. This isn't for Bill Burgess, but whoever reads that thread in the future. Think not of individual members, but the work. This is the kind of documentation that only shlevine42, Dodger Deb, Bklyn Boy since 1936, Ebtsfldguy, strummer, tonypug and the rest of the usual cast still know. So much revisionism has taken place that few still know the truth.

THE WORK is very important to me! And I know it is to you, too.

Why you choose to remain on the sidelines, and allow the same old boiler-plate pulp fiction to hold the center stage is bewildering. But I guess you all have your reasons. So be it, friends. So be it.Bill let me explain why I am hesitant to post on the O'Malley thread in The History forum. Right off the bat Leecemark is running around threatening suspensions and deletions. I for one don't need that kind of aggravation. I have never posted in such a way to get suspended or deleted, and don't need to be threatened by Leecemark. I picture him just waiting for an excuse to suspend and delete. Thats ridiculous. I know some people are offended by the Hitler, Stalin comparisons, when talking about O'Malley, those are the sort of emotions that are brought out. That comparison was made by two very respected journalists, by the way. I prefer to compare him to the married man in Brooklyn with three young children who starts an affair with a younger more exciting woman in LA. After lots of flirting and denial, he leaves his family in Brooklyn and moves to LA. Naturally the woman he left in Brooklyn and her family hate him. The new womans family thinks he's a great guy, a wonderful man and help him out financially, while he does nothing to support his family in Brooklyn. You are going to have two decidedly different sets of emotions. Unless you truly try to comprehend what happened in Brooklyn, you never will understand. That woman who was left in Brooklyn will never forgive or forget, and neither will a lot of other people and their families.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill let me explain why I am hesitant to post on the O'Malley thread in The History forum. Right off the bat Leecemark is running around threatening suspensions and deletions. I for one don't need that kind of aggravation. I have never posted in such a way to get suspended or deleted, and don't need to be threatened by Leecemark. I picture him just waiting for an excuse to suspend and delete. Thats ridiculous.
Don't worry about him. He is just afraid that blood will be spilt.
I know some people are offended by the Hitler, Stalin comparisons, when talking about O'Malley, those are the sort of emotions that are brought out. That comparison was made by two very respected journalists, by the way. I prefer to compare him to the married man in Brooklyn with three young children who starts an affair with a younger more exciting woman in LA. After lots of flirting and denial, he leaves his family in Brooklyn and moves to LA. Naturally the woman he left in Brooklyn and her family hate him. The new womans family thinks he's a great guy, a wonderful man and help him out financially, while he does nothing to support his family in Brooklyn. You are going to have two decidedly different sets of emotions. Unless you truly try to comprehend what happened in Brooklyn, you never will understand. That woman who was left in Brooklyn will never forgive or forget, and neither will a lot of other people and their families.
I understand your sentiments completely. I really do. I don't prefer the Hitler/Stalin comparison, not because they are too dramatic, but because I want to be effective and change minds. Did you ever notice that the more effective speakers are those who avoid the dramatic stuff. People feel they can trust impartial, objective people. So, in order to get our message out, despite our true emotions, we must learn to control our more emotional imagery, and speak the language of the people in the middle, whose minds are still open.

I want this man nailed. I want him indicted for the selfish, heartless person he was. But if I come right out and beat the hell out of him verbally, I will be less effective than if I subdue my heart, and give the evidence. I want a world-class thread that will reach out to the O'Malley supporters, and show them how they have been duped by a master fraud. I want the case laid bare, so that it will be self-evident. A bashing, or public hanging can not accomplish that. Only a scholarly, academic piece can change minds, and effect education. I need the documentation that only this forum can deliver. To have me try is to send the batboy to hit in the World Series. But what can I do until the real team takes the field.

Here are my last 2 posts.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1084310&postcount=95

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1084310&postcount=95

I hope you can see from my posts that I want documentation. I feel I'm in court testifying. I must give evidence. DNA, fingerprints, and not simply, "I hate his guts!"

I want posts that compete with the best stuff in the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report. I want the very best we're capable of.

By the way, Elvis self-destructed. He was rebuked by leecemark and he got so upset, he deleted all his posts. Some of his articles he posted were good, but most were not. I hope you decide to contribute your well-constructed pearls, without bashing. But to indict him from a very great height, chock-full of details, nuance, dates, names, quotes, anecdotes from The Lords of Baseball, etc.

But even if you don't visit me over there, I understand. You have your well-taken reasons, Tony.

[MSUlaxer27]

There are rarely only two sides to every story. The West Coast could have acquired a team without O'Malley doing a bad thing to Brooklyn.


Your "maybe" should be a "definitely." And franchise shifts do not always suck to the jilted party. St. Louis could not support the Browns. Millions did not mourn their moving.



O'Malley is not equal to Hitler and Stalin? Please explain in more detail. We just do not understand.


There may be more than two parties involved but there are only two sides to this story LA's and Brooklyn's. Yes, the west coast "would" have eventually acquired a team but I don't think it would have been through expansion. Somebody was moving (so fans somewhere were going to be unhappy, if it's not fair to happen to Brooklyn it's not fair for any area to lose a franchise). Again for LA this was a great thing. They didn't get a crappy franchise but one that was very successful. MLB had no desire to expand until their hand was forced (by ironically enough for this story, the shift of the NY franchises). Somebody was going to LA before MLB would expand. MLB owners have usually for the most part acted like greedy little children...do you think they were going to let "expansion" owners take over one of the most lucrative markets?

Franchise moves always suck for the jilted party, as hard as it may be to believe, there were Browns, A's and Braves fans who very sad, disappointed and even heart broken that their teams were leaving them.

The demographic shift was on to the west and out of "inner city" urban areas. It is total conjecture but maybe the Dodgers wouldn't have experienced the success they had in the 1960's without moving to the coast. There were successful in Brooklyn to be sure. The Dodgers were/are making money hand over fist in LA and that has allowed them to maintain that success. It is almost a chicken and egg question, but did Brooklyn decline because the Dodgers left or was Brooklyn declining and the Dodgers saw the writing on the wall? Again the franchise shift was great for LA and the franchise itself but bad for Brooklyn fans.

On your last statement, I'm not quite sure how to respond: Brooklyn lost a "baseball team" and maybe it's last bit of civic "independence". But, last I checked O'Malley never ordered Brooklyn families into gas chambers and ovens or starved them to death or deported them to Siberia. O'Malley doesn't belong in the same sentence, paragraph, chapter or even book as Hitler and Stalin. Quite frankly it's offensive to seriously suggest otherwise.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

It's an old joke, but you're in a room with Hitler, Stalin and the Fat Slob O. You've a gun, but only two bullets. What do you do? Shoot Walter twice, just in case.
Humor is derived from tragedy + time + exaggeration. Since there will never be enough time to see anything funny about the Dodgers [or ANY team] moving and one can't exaggerate how hated Walter O'Malley still is...

[donzblock]

There may be more than two parties involved but there are only two sides to this story LA's and Brooklyn's.
There are only two sides to this story?

Side One: O'Malley could not get a new field in Brooklyn; therefore, he had to move to LA.

Side Two: O'Malley could not get a new field in Brooklyn; therefore, he should have renovated Ebbets Field and stayed.

Side Three: O'Malley could have gotten a new field in Brooklyn; it would not have been easy, but eventually he would have gotten one, and he owed it to the fans of Brooklyn to stay and work a little bit harder to get that field.

Side Four: Stoneham should have called O'Malley's bluff and stayed.

Side Five: Stoneham should have moved to Minneapolis.

Side Six: O'Malley should have moved to Queens.

Side Seven: LA would have gotten an expansion team eventually. That statement seems unassailable. O'Malley did not open up the West; the West was already wide open, waiting for business, waiting to sell itself to any john from either league.

Side Eight: O'Malley should have sold the team to a Brooklyn consortium and purchased a West Coast franchise.

Do you want more? To say that there are only two sides to this story is to oversimplify grossly.

Franchise moves always suck for the jilted party, as hard as it may be to believe, there were Browns, A's and Braves fans who very sad, disappointed and even heart broken that their teams were leaving them.
Boston and St. Louis could not support two teams. The jilted ones were very few. Brooklyn could support its team, and the jilted ones numbered in the millions.

On your last statement, I'm not quite sure how to respond: Brooklyn lost a "baseball team" and maybe it's last bit of civic "independence". But, last I checked O'Malley never ordered Brooklyn families into gas chambers and ovens or starved them to death or deported them to Siberia. O'Malley doesn't belong in the same sentence, paragraph, chapter or even book as Hitler and Stalin. Quite frankly it's offensive to seriously suggest otherwise.
O'Malley never ordered families into gas chambers, never starved people to death, never deported them to Siberia? Did my history teachers in Midwood misinform me? Now I suppose you are going to tell me that Swift was wrong when he wrote that "a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragout."

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

It occurred to me [quit a while ago] that had the carpetbaggers not taken with them the names Dodgers and Giants things would have been better. Both SF and LA include OUR teams in their "franchise history" and that rubs me raw, every day.
Aside, had Stoneham stuck to his guns and moved to Minneapolis, I doubt if one team on the west coast would have worked... Ifs and butts, candy and nuts.

[Bill Burgess]

Franchise moves always suck for the jilted party, as hard as it may be to believe, there were Browns, A's and Braves fans who very sad, disappointed and even heart broken that their teams were leaving them.
I'm not quite convinced that the comparison is apt. Look at the attendance for the Browns, A's, Braves and Dodgers. I have showed that Brooklyn maintained its fan base with flying colors.

Over a million fans/season, despite TV, declining ballpark/neighborhood, fans moving away, etc.

Could the Browns, A's or Braves say the same thing? Did they keep on supporting their teams? Maybe those cities stopped being able to support 2 teams. Maybe without a team that was a contender, the fans stopped turning out, and without that fan revenue, they couldn't turn things around.

Not sure if it was the same thing at all. But I'm open to discussion on it. Do you have Total Baseball and can show the attendance figures?

Boston Braves drew over 1m fans/season from 1947-49, then slumped to 950,000 for 1950, 490,000 for 1951, and finally 280,000 for 1951. Maybe the fans knew they were leaving in that last season. Looks like it.

In their last 3 seasons of 1951-53, the St. Louis Browns drew 290,000, 520,000, and 300,000.

In their last 4 seasons in Philadelphia, the A's drew 465,000, 630,000, 360,000, and 300,000.

Pretty dismal attendance, if you asked me. Not at all comparable to the Dodgers.

[tonypug]

It occurred to me [quit a while ago] that had the carpetbaggers not taken with them the names Dodgers and Giants things would have been better. Both SF and LA include OUR teams in their "franchise history" and that rubs me raw, every day.
Aside, had Stoneham stuck to his guns and moved to Minneapolis, I doubt if one team on the west coast would have worked... Ifs and butts, candy and nuts.In 1956 Stoneham asked the National League for permission to move the Giants to Minneapolis. He was turned down. All eight National League owners had to vote yes for a team to re-locate. O'Malley wasn't going to let Horace go anywhere other then where he wanted him to go, and that was the west coast, when O'Malley was sure that La was ready for him to plunder.

[tonypug]

I'm not quite convinced that the comparison is apt. Look at the attendance for the Browns, A's, Braves and Dodgers. I have showed that Brooklyn maintained its fan base with flying colors.

Over a million fans/season, despite TV, declining ballpark/neighborhood, fans moving away, etc.

Could the Browns, A's or Braves say the same thing? Did they keep on supporting their teams? Maybe those cities stopped being able to support 2 teams. Maybe without a team that was a contender, the fans stopped turning out, and without that fan revenue, they couldn't turn things around.

Not sure if it was the same thing at all. But I'm open to discussion on it. Do you have Total Baseball and can show the attendance figures?

Boston Braves drew over 1m fans/season from 1947-49, then slumped to 950,000 for 1950, 490,000 for 1951, and finally 280,000 for 1951. Maybe the fans knew they were leaving in that last season. Looks like it.

In their last 3 seasons of 1951-53, the St. Louis Browns drew 290,000, 520,000, and 300,000.

In their last 4 seasons in Philadelphia, the A's drew 465,000, 630,000, 360,000, and 300,000.

Pretty dismal attendance, if you asked me. Not at all comparable to the Dodgers.

In the case of the Boston Braves, Lou Perini wanted to stay in Boston one more year, he was putting together a very good young team and wanted to give the fans of Boston one more season to support their team. Bill Veeck was itching to move the Browns to Milwaukee, and was pushing hard, it was already almost spring training before Perini asked for and was given permission to move. So, no the fans were not aware the team was going to move. The fans of St. Louis just didn't support the team, and Veeck who was not liked by the other owners, kept being blocked from moving his franchise. He was forced to sell, so the franchise could be moved. In 1957 a season when most Brooklynites knew in their hearts that the team was probably going to move, and I was one of them, still hoped for a miracle and supported the team to the tune of 1,000,000 admissions.