O'Malley vs Moses and the City of New York

[KG Erwin]

Ok, it seems to be an article of faith that Walter O'Malley is an unforgivable villain. Given the power of one Mr. Robert Moses, I wonder is there really WAS a villain?

The borough was in a decline, and attendance was falling. The park needed repair. O'Malley wanted to stay, but Moses refused to give him the area he wanted. It's pretty cut and dried, when you look at the realities of the situation.

How could it have been any different? IMHO, the move was inevitable. LA gave O'Malley everything he wanted. What businessman in his right mind WOULDN'T have made that move?

[DODGER DEB]

Ok, it seems to be an article of faith that Walter O'Malley is an unforgivable villain. Given the power of one Mr. Robert Moses, I wonder is there really WAS a villain?

The borough was in a decline, and attendance was falling. The park needed repair. O'Malley wanted to stay, but Moses refused to give him the area he wanted. It's pretty cut and dried, when you look at the realities of the situation.

How could it have been any different? IMHO, the move was inevitable. LA gave O'Malley everything he wanted. What businessman in his right mind WOULDN'T have made that move?

With all due respect, KG Erwin, you couldn't be more wrong. What you need to do is start reading some of the REAL and ACTUAL history of OUR DODGERS, and what really happened to US, rather than believing (without question) all that revisionist history, like those you mentioned in your first post, which were produced (paid for) and put out there to secure a spot for the Big"O" in the HOF.

Many of US here were actually there, and lived it "up front and personal"...which is very different than what that west coast group (and it's supporter$$) started to push in recent years, with their personal agenda in mind.

c.

[penncentralpete]

Ok, it seems to be an article of faith that Walter O'Malley is an unforgivable villain. Given the power of one Mr. Robert Moses, I wonder is there really WAS a villain?

The borough was in a decline, and attendance was falling. The park needed repair. O'Malley wanted to stay, but Moses refused to give him the area he wanted. It's pretty cut and dried, when you look at the realities of the situation.

How could it have been any different? IMHO, the move was inevitable. LA gave O'Malley everything he wanted. What businessman in his right mind WOULDN'T have made that move?

KG: Regarding the above sentiments....... I guess the best baseball cliche I can use here is: you're way off base! By your own honest admission, you need to read and study the situation much more deeply. Walter O'Malley's move to the west coast is a multi-layered horror story. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the moves made by other owners and clubs before or since. If you have a library card, a computer (this I know you have), a patient and keen mind, investigate deeply and widely. Then get back to us, we'll be here. Saying what you have in this most recent post, proves you have much to learn (no disrespect meant whatsoever here, KG). The study of this subject will hopefully enlighten you on the truth (tragic as it is). The Brooklyn Dodgers and their fans were stabbed in the back by a deceitful, dishonest, brutal prevaricator. Happy reading.

[dodger dynamo]

the whole thing as many can attest to is a complex situation. a very touchy one here. so to get the real truth read it all, both sides then draw your own conclusions. me, as everyone knows, I blame moses, the city officials in ny and la, mlb and most of all the big o' who made the deal. the dodgers did not leave because they were a failing franchise, they left because the powers in ny didn't believe or care that he would and the powers in la gave the state away. o'malley wanted more, more and even more than that. I also can't help but think besides all the riches it was o'malley's way of sticking it to new york for not giving in to him. of course even before serious negotiations began, he'd decided to go. ok, we've hashed all this out before, but that was a quick recap of my beliefs. others can give much more precise insight into the situation, with specific dates, quotes and rules of base ball and law for that matter. now with o'malley gone kg I bear no malice for the team, so I hope my vision is a little clearer than when the big O' was alive and the little o' was running the team. really, sincerely, read, ask questions, form your own opinion, then once you know more about it feel free to express it. then be ready for ours. enjoy your time here. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[KG Erwin]

Yes, and the more I learn, the more complicated it gets. However, for the diehard Brooklyn faithful, it's all cut and dried.

Q: "If you had Hitler, Stalin and O'Malley in a room, and you had a pistol with only two bullets in it, who would you shoot?"

Brooklynite's A: "O'Malley. Twice."

[dodger dynamo]

I guess it comes down to so many people in brooklyn and else where cared deeply that the dodgers were moved. If they had been a non- profitable losing team with no support I guess we could all understand a move and not be bitter. none of the other moved teams are missed this way. I mean we all know in the world of business getting more is justified because it's better for the continuing success of the company, but in this case many and I included, feel and know it just wasn't right. In la they paraded and celebrated, it was like a slap in the face. "ok you supported the team and saw it through many a losing season and now that it's successful and a world champion, we're leaving". yea, we learned 50 yrs. ago life is like that and it still hurts. had we all had, had any real power then, if media was the way it is now, a close scrutinizing eye would have been on that deal and the dodgers would have stayed. the mets are worth more, what does that say? oh, well. batlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[aqib]

I am with Dodger Dynamo, I have repeatedly pointed out that the Mets are worth more than the Dodgers and thats despite the fact that they don't have the history or marketability either.

As for the he said he said between O'Malley and Moses since they are both dead no one is every going to get to the bottom of this. Go to the NY Times archive and you get conflicting stories like this one by Roger Kahn which blames Moses:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/opinion/11kahn.html?_r=1&scp=19&sq=walter+o%27malley&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Then you have one like this which shows that O'Malley was in fact into the Flushing Meadows location:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/nyregionopinions/14CIfetter.html?scp=20&sq=walter+o%27malley&st=nyt

I think if the media and internet that exists today had been around then, it would have played out a similar way to the Browns in Cleveland, either O'MAlley would have been forced to sell or Brooklyn would have gotten a new team with the Dodger name.

[willisraverchk77]

I am with Dodger Dynamo, I have repeatedly pointed out that the Mets are worth more than the Dodgers and thats despite the fact that they don't have the history or marketability either.


how do you figure the mets don't have "marketability"?

as far as "worth", those things fluctuate through the years, and i'm sure you realize, when o'malley kicked the bucket in 1979, the dodgers were worth more than the mets. in a few years things may switch the other way, you never know. anyway the la team is hugely successful, so just because "as much" as the 2008 mets, that in no way makes it a "bad move" financially.

one other thing, it's not a sure bet that the brooklyn dodgers, if they had stayed, would be worth exactly the same as the mets are today. that's just speculation.

[EdTarbusz]

My guess is that the Dodgers would be worth more today if the team was still owned by the O'Malley family because of the inferred stability that would be bringing to the organization.

[D6+]

how do you figure the mets don't have "marketability"?

as far as "worth", those things fluctuate through the years, and i'm sure you realize, when o'malley kicked the bucket in 1979, the dodgers were worth more than the mets. in a few years things may switch the other way, you never know. anyway the la team is hugely successful, so just because "as much" as the 2008 mets, that in no way makes it a "bad move" financially.

one other thing, it's not a sure bet that the brooklyn dodgers, if they had stayed, would be worth exactly the same as the mets are today. that's just speculation.


One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is the Mets were at or near the bottom of the National League in 1979 and the previous 2 seasons. Shea Stadium already needing major upgrades ( which occurred when Nelson Doubleday and Fred Wilpon bought the team ) at the beginning of the 1980's In the late 1970's, the Mets were looking to cut costs. Trading Tom Seaver in 1977 alienated a large portion of the Mets fan base. On the other hand, though Los Angeles only won 79 games in 1979 in an injured plagued season, the previous two seasons they went to the World Series.


Though I agree it's speculation, chances are the Brooklyn Dodgers would be worth more today than what the New York Mets are currently. The reason being, the Dodgers had a larger following around the country. The Dodgers were the original " America's Team". The Mets never have been able to capture fans on a national scale like the Dodgers did and the way the Yankees continue to.

[dodger dynamo]

I agree d6+,the brooklyn dodgers had fans all over the country, when I used to see so many references to the dodgers in those old movies, I realized just how many fans they had. I myself used to meet people from all over who were dodger fans and many in particular had been brooklyn dodger fans. also in this particular forum we can't speculate on the coming season, or a brooklyn world series in 2008, or prospects. so we speculate about everything else. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[jayzeeg]

Like most of us I was always blaming Moses for the dodgers leaving, and he is partially to blame, mainly because he just didn't care about baseball (as did not mayor wagner), but the plain and simple truth was that O'malley wanted to move. I have just read a very interesting book by Rudy Marzano called "The Last Years of the Brooklyn Dodgers". really a good read for fans. In it he shows a picture of former supreme court chief justice and then Gov. of California seated in O'malley's box at Ebbets Field during the 1953 world series. It was a first time meeting between the 2 initiated by Gov. Warren. That is when the seed was planted.
I have also read that O'malley fudged attendance numbers to show how fan interest was waning and how people were afraid to come to the park, I find that hard to accept since opposing teams were getting .27 cents per paid admission, I don't think that the rest of the National League would stand for that. I believe it was also stated in the book that according to one owner, the league never wanted the dodgers to move, although the knew the giants had to move, only voted to OK the move because they believed it would give O'malley the leverage needed to get the downtown site for the ballpark. They really never thought he would go.

[aqib]

how do you figure the mets don't have "marketability"?

as far as "worth", those things fluctuate through the years, and i'm sure you realize, when o'malley kicked the bucket in 1979, the dodgers were worth more than the mets. in a few years things may switch the other way, you never know. anyway the la team is hugely successful, so just because "as much" as the 2008 mets, that in no way makes it a "bad move" financially.

one other thing, it's not a sure bet that the brooklyn dodgers, if they had stayed, would be worth exactly the same as the mets are today. that's just speculation.

I didn't say the Mets had no marketability, its just they don't have the marketability the Dodgers do. They don't have the history, tradition, etc. You see with the new CitiField its basically got Dodger monuments all over the place, from the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, the Duke's Grill, etc.

My argument about how the move panned out financially, is simply that its not the "slam dunk he had to do it" move that O'Malley apologists keep saying it was. This isn't like the Expos leaving Montreal and tripling the value of the team, or the Braves leaving Boston/As leaving Philly, where 2 team cities had to become 1 team cities due to the lack of market to support two teams. O'Malley could have stayed in NY and been just as, if not more, successful financially than he was by going to LA.

[EdTarbusz]

I didn't say the Mets had no marketability, its just they don't have the marketability the Dodgers do. They don't have the history, tradition, etc. You see with the new CitiField its basically got Dodger monuments all over the place, from the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, the Duke's Grill, etc.

My argument about how the move panned out financially, is simply that its not the "slam dunk he had to do it" move that O'Malley apologists keep saying it was. This isn't like the Expos leaving Montreal and tripling the value of the team, or the Braves leaving Boston/As leaving Philly, where 2 team cities had to become 1 team cities due to the lack of market to support two teams. O'Malley could have stayed in NY and been just as, if not more, successful financially than he was by going to LA.

I don't think that O'Malley thought that the Dodgers could not suceed financially in New York (specifically in Brooklyn). I think that he believed they could not suceed financially in Ebbets Field. When you compare the inducement that were made in LA compared to the ones from NYC, I doubt if many businessmen would have made a different choice than the onr he made.

[EdTarbusz]

I have just read a very interesting book by Rudy Marzano called "The Last Years of the Brooklyn Dodgers". really a good read for fans. In it he shows a picture of former supreme court chief justice and then Gov. of California seated in O'malley's box at Ebbets Field during the 1953 world series. It was a first time meeting between the 2 initiated by Gov. Warren. That is when the seed was planted.
.

This sounds like a bit of a stretch. There are probably photos of Walter O'Malley with California dignitaries taken even earlier than 1953. If this is what Marzano wrote, then he should check his facrs. Warren was governor first. In fact, his first day as Chief Justice was the day that game 6 of the 1953 World Series was played.

Is this book better than Marzano's last one? In his book about the 1940s Dodgers, he spent a lot of time discussing the Yankees.

[aqib]

I don't think that O'Malley thought that the Dodgers could not suceed financially in New York (specifically in Brooklyn). I think that he believed they could not suceed financially in Ebbets Field. When you compare the inducement that were made in LA compared to the ones from NYC, I doubt if many businessmen would have made a different choice than the onr he made.

Everyone had moved on from Ebbets Field mentally, and the question was not if the Dodgers would get a new park but where it would go (Atlantic/Flatbush vs the current Shea site). I just don't buy the argument that LA was a no brainer over the Shea Stadium site. Given how financially successful the Mets have been it would be wrong to say that the Dodgers wouldn't have been successful.

[EdTarbusz]

Everyone had moved on from Ebbets Field mentally, and the question was not if the Dodgers would get a new park but where it would go (Atlantic/Flatbush vs the current Shea site). I just don't buy the argument that LA was a no brainer over the Shea Stadium site. Given how financially successful the Mets have been it would be wrong to say that the Dodgers wouldn't have been successful.

In my opinion, the move to LA was naything but a no-brainer. LA offered little that was guaranteed, and O'Malley was taking a big risk in moving there. Looking back it doesn't look like much of a risk, but in 1957 the Dodgers had no suitable place to play in LA, and Dodger Stadium was anything but a given. I think that if, as late as the 1957 World Series, O'Malley had been given a favorable deal at Shea, the Dodgers would have stayed in New York. If this had happened, another NL team wouold have had to move to LA.

[Gary Dunaier]

I didn't say the Mets had no marketability, its just they don't have the marketability the Dodgers do. They don't have the history, tradition, etc. You see with the new CitiField its basically got Dodger monuments all over the place, from the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, the Duke's Grill, etc.
I think Citi Field has all that Dodger stuff more because Fred Wilpon is a Brooklyn Dodger fan than anything else.

[MATHA531]

There are still several things unclear even today about the Dodgers to Flushing Meadow thing...

1. There are strong implications in all of the books that O'Malley laughed when Moses suggested Flushing Meadows with the infamous statement, "How can I call them the Brooklyn Dodgers if they played in Queens?"

2. Did O'Malley and Moses try to negotiate a lease...or was O'Malley's heart simply set on owning a ball park and expecting the City of New York to give him the land at taxpayer's expense at no or little cost to him????

I have always been of the school of thought that Shea Stadium's location would have worked real well (I think Dodger Deb disagrees)...do remember that the Mets' lease at Shea was considered to be totally out of line in favor of the team; now whether city officials panicked when the Dodgers and Giants left and gave the Mets a deal they were not going to give to O'Malley is another question in this sordid affair.

The bottom line still remains that O'Malley saw the opportunity to get rich in LA with the promise of land and his own ball park....we can argue from now till the chickens come home to roost whether this was the right thing that should have been done from a sporting viewpoint. I tend to feel O'Malley remains the scoundrel in all this...Moses had certain civic responsibilities and also NYS law to have to account for regarding eminent domain.

I guess we'll never know.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

In my opinion, the move to LA was naything but a no-brainer. LA offered little that was guaranteed, and O'Malley was taking a big risk in moving there. Looking back it doesn't look like much of a risk, but in 1957 the Dodgers had no suitable place to play in LA, and Dodger Stadium was anything but a given. I think that if, as late as the 1957 World Series, O'Malley had been given a favorable deal at Shea, the Dodgers would have stayed in New York. If this had happened, another NL team wouold have had to move to LA.
If the Dodgers had stayed:
< The Giants would have moved to Minnesota.
< There would have been no Continental League to force the issue of expansion.
< The wonderful Pacific Coast League would have continued to flourish.
< We fans wouldn't have been watching a watered down product all these years.

[dodger dynamo]

enos slaughter once said, I'm knocking in a hundred rus a year and batting over .300 and I'm worried about somebody taking my job. back then there were fewer jobs for better talent. the true stars today, steroids aside, just dominate the guys that wouldn't be in the league if there were only 16 or 20 teams. the landscape of base ball, would have seen the inevitable expansion to the west, that's only logical. some like the a's would have moved, as they did. all arguments aside though can we all agree that the dodgers really didn't need to move west to continue their success, they just moved anyway. battlin bake the dodger dynamo

[Perseus71]

Let's face it, at the end of the day, the Dodgers, had they stayed in New York, would have been worth nearly as much as the Yankees. Instead, the Mets are worth about as much as the Dodgers and Giants combined. That is sad and I have to ask the question,"How do you take a sports team out of the #1 market in the country and think you can do better?"

To me O'Malley and Stonehem were both idiots for what they did and took the easy way out by leaving town. And, the funny thing is that the Mets are now capitalizing on the Dodgers history with a new ebbets like ballpark and references to NY's National League players of the past. If the Dodgers were smart they could have marketed this angle, but, instead, they turn their heads away from Brooklyn.

[SNAP]

There are still several things unclear even today about the Dodgers to Flushing Meadow thing...

1. There are strong implications in all of the books that O'Malley laughed when Moses suggested Flushing Meadows with the infamous statement, "How can I call them the Brooklyn Dodgers if they played in Queens?"

2. Did O'Malley and Moses try to negotiate a lease...or was O'Malley's heart simply set on owning a ball park and expecting the City of New York to give him the land at taxpayer's expense at no or little cost to him????

I have always been of the school of thought that Shea Stadium's location would have worked real well (I think Dodger Deb disagrees)...do remember that the Mets' lease at Shea was considered to be totally out of line in favor of the team; now whether city officials panicked when the Dodgers and Giants left and gave the Mets a deal they were not going to give to O'Malley is another question in this sordid affair.

The bottom line still remains that O'Malley saw the opportunity to get rich in LA with the promise of land and his own ball park....we can argue from now till the chickens come home to roost whether this was the right thing that should have been done from a sporting viewpoint. I tend to feel O'Malley remains the scoundrel in all this...Moses had certain civic responsibilities and also NYS law to have to account for regarding eminent domain.

I guess we'll never know.

Not mention the fact that many fans had made the exodus to the suburbs on LI which is a lot closer to Shea than it was to Ebbets Field. Shea wouldve been a good move because there would have been a lot more parking spaces and no problem w/a declining neighborhood.
I
cant imagine what the Dodgers must be paying in property taxes out there now. Probably way more than they would have paid to lease Shea.

[willisraverchk77]

I
cant imagine what the Dodgers must be paying in property taxes out there now. Probably way more than they would have paid to lease Shea.

:noidea so it's better to rent a ballpark from the city than to own one? you are forgetting all the other revenue they don't have to share with a landlord like other teams would.

[SNAP]

:noidea so it's better to rent than to own?

I guess that would depend on the situation............I wonder how many MLB teams actually own their stadium.

[aqib]

I guess that would depend on the situation............I wonder how many MLB teams actually own their stadium.

It depends on the terms of the lease. A lot of times teams pay $0 in rent and no property taxes. Sometimes cities pick up the tab for maintenance, etc. Also to the extent that other events are held in the stadium it depends on how those are split.

[MATHA531]

The reality is for years, the Mets lease with the city was considered one of the best in sports (for the team that is!)....as part of the arrangements the Mets had the right to keep the Jets from playing any home games at Shea until the baseball season ended (in October)...thus the Jets had to play their first four or five games every season on the road (the Yankees had made a similar arrangement when the NY Football Giants moved in in 1958)...it took a long while and threats from the Jets to move (which they ultimately did) for the Mets (as personified by one of the most vile people in baseball history second only to the fat slob, M. Donald Grant) to allow the Jets to play home games before the end of the baseball season.

But of course we'll never know, now will we, as the fat slob had already made an agreement with the La La land officials, was looking for something to exonerate him in history (and with the assistance of such as HBO but it took 49.5 years); the fat slob knew damn well that Moses was powerless to apply eminent domain to the land owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad of which the LIRR was a 100% subsidiary (interestingly enough, a couple of people on the current Atlantic Yards sight are suing under the same law) and the fat slob being a lawyer had to know that...and when Moses offered to negotiate over the Shea Stadium site which would have been, in retrospect the perfect solution for all concerned, the fat slob uttered his famous words, "How can they be the Brooklyn Dodgers if they play in Queens?" (nobody asked him how they could be the Brooklyn Dodgers if they played in Los Angeles)...this eminent domain thing is not trivial; while I have no doubt Moses was not enamored to help the fat slob, the fact is legally nothing could be done and if he had agreed, the same kind of suits that have held up the Atlantic Yards project today but even worse would have tied the matter up in litigation for a decade. But as noted, it's a moot point; the fat slob had made agreements to move the team long before 1957...

[whoisonit]

Good points all through matha.

It's remarkable that this whole 'it was Moses!' canard has taken hold at all. It's been well documented the fix was in, as the plans had been laid years earlier between ownership and LA officials. I have always held that the Dodger owner has never been vilified enough. He was responsible for both NL teams leaving, not just his own.

btw - MDG was a vile entity. It seems the atrocities he commited have been forgotten.

[SNAP]

Good points all through matha.

It's remarkable that this whole 'it was Moses!' canard has taken hold at all. It's been well documented the fix was in, as the plans had been laid years earlier between ownership and LA officials. I have always held that the Dodger owner has never been vilified enough. He was responsible for both NL teams leaving, not just his own.

btw - MDG was a vile entity. It seems the atrocities he commited have been forgotten.

Real Met fans will always despise that rat. How a good & decent woman like Joan Payson would keep a creep like that around always amazed me.
He always reminded of the actor Charles Lane(just died at 101) who always played the bad banker always looking to foreclose on the old widow.

[EdTarbusz]

With all due respect, KG Erwin, you couldn't be more wrong. What you need to do is start reading some of the REAL and ACTUAL history of OUR DODGERS, and what really happened to US, rather than believing (without question) all that revisionist history, like those you mentioned in your first post, which were produced (paid for) and put out there to secure a spot for the Big"O" in the HOF.

Many of US here were actually there, and lived it "up front and personal"...which is very different than what that west coast group (and it's supporter$$) started to push in recent years, with their personal agenda in mind.

c.

I'm wondering what 'revisionist' history you're talking about? The first book that I remember saying that O'Malley may have had good reason to move was the original Bill James Historical Abstract, which I believe that I first read in 1985. Neil Sullivan's book, which is probably the best researched look at the move, came out in 1987. The critical view of Robert Moses and the politicans in regards to the Dodgers move has been around for over 20 years. This isn't a new thesis.

[EdTarbusz]

Good points all through matha.

It's remarkable that this whole 'it was Moses!' canard has taken hold at all. It's been well documented the fix was in, as the plans had been laid years earlier between ownership and LA officials. I have always held that the Dodger owner has never been vilified enough. He was responsible for both NL teams leaving, not just his own.

btw - MDG was a vile entity. It seems the atrocities he commited have been forgotten.

I have to ask these questions again: If the fix was in and the plans were in place for years, why was the move performed in such a slap-dash fashion? Why wasn't the Dodger Stadium referendum held before the Dodgers (or any other team ) moved to LA? Why did the Dodgers move without even having a venue in LA lined up?

The Giants were moving out of town, with or without the Dodgers. I also believe that without a stdium, the Dodgers would have left Brooklyn, even if they couldn't move to LA.

[MATHA531]

I have to ask these questions again: If the fix was in and the plans were in place for years, why was the move performed in such a slap-dash fashion? Why wasn't the Dodger Stadium referendum held before the Dodgers (or any other team ) moved to LA? Why did the Dodgers move without even having a venue in LA lined up?

The Giants were moving out of town, with or without the Dodgers. I also believe that without a stdium, the Dodgers would have left Brooklyn, even if they couldn't move to LA.

The lack of a referendum before 1958 and the lack of a stadium issue is not proof of when the fat slob made the final decision....the fact is he entertained the LA city officials at the 1956 World Series (what a disgrace that was wouldn't you agree) and on the Dodgers trip to Japan after the 1956World Series, the plane stopped in LA to allow him to helicpter over the future site of Chavez Ravine Stadium so we cal all agree that everything that happened in 1957 was a lie....

But the revisionist history remains and there is no getting around several important points...

1. The Brooklyn franchise was the biggest money maker in the NL through even the 1957 season when everybody knew they were history. And some idiots look at the record books, see the Dodgers "only" drew 1,000,000 in 1957 saying see the interest was gone...check out what other teams were drawing...and of course the Dodgers were collecting a pretty penny from channel 9 to televise all their home games and 2/3 of the road games on free televisioin (that's all we had in 1957), they had great deals for the pre and post game shows on channel 9, they were fetchng plenty of money from WMGM and their auxillary radio network...money not one of the other NL teams could come close to matching.

2. If he had to own his own park, then it was up to him to acquire the land. The fact is, and you can't get around this, the laws of New York State clearly prohibited Moses, Wagner or anybody else from stealing the land from the owners at Atlantic Yards and many still don't understand that in 1956, this land was not public property but belong to the Pennsylvania RR which was prepared to fight tooth and nail to make sure it got its just due for the land so even if one takes the attitude Moses could get anything he wanted, there would have been plenty of taxpayer suits (and it only takes 1) that would have delayed the project indefinitely...it is still my belief, of course I can'[t prove it, that Atlantic Yards (it wasn't called that then) was a smoke screen for the fat slob's true intentions. And to say Moses never offered the fat slob anything is not true; he was offered the chance to play in Flushing Meadow at the intersection of 3 highways, a subway line and a railroad line...the fat slob never even gave that a thought...he was determined to have somebody kiss his rear end...give him land somewhere so he could build his own ballpark.

3. No matter what, this still remains the most blatant anti sports thing that was ever done closely matched by what was done to Cleveland and Baltimore in the NFL...but at least those municipalities got their teams back, one of them even retained the name of its team and as far as I am concerned and the Baltimore Ravens can say anything they want, Jim Brown was and always will be a Cleveland Brown, not a Baltimore Raven. Brooklyn, which on its own was the third largest municipality in the country never got its team back, its history and traditions were stolen and are still being used by the imposter organization on the left coast...when they try to tell everybody of the exploits of such as Pee Wee Reese (at least he played a season there), Jackie Robinson who never played a day in lala land and the rest, it makes one sick.

My problem remains the same with this in trying to discuss it rationally...in 1956, baseball tried to tell us it was a sport for the fans and the most loyal fans in bseball were screwed for business reasons that in the long run may not simply be true...as noted several times the New York Met franchise playing at Shea Stadium and soon to be playing at a modern state of the art 21st century park is worth more today than the Los Angeles National League baseball club, that is a fact...all this could have and should have been O'Malley's and if you want to continue to believe it was a very smart business decision, that is your right obviously. But nobody can argue that iwasn't a knife in the idea that baseball was there for the fans.

It was a wrong decision in 1958, it's even a worse decision today. Facts are facts and right is right and wrong is wrong.

[SNAP]

Outstanding stuff Matha. What do you mean when you say that the Yards were a smoke screen for the Pig's true intentions......that he already knew he was moving and that he knew he'd never get that spot at the Yards??

As I've said before.......Shea would have been perfect. It's a lot closer to LI which is where a good portion of Brooklyn's white population was moving and there was very easy access to Shea from LI. He would have made a fortune.

[MATHA531]

Look, the evidence strongly suggests that some time in1956, the fat slob made the decision to screw the fans in Brooklyn who so much enriched his personal fortune for what he perceived to be great and greener pastures on the left coast...but he still had to play the 1957 season in Brooklyn..he had nothing to keep him from telling lie after lie despite the fact he bought a plane, he bought the LA franchise from Phil Wrigley and even after the infamous NL meeting in Chicago in May 1957, he still claimed there was a chance of the team staying in Brooklyn if only the city officials would bow to his blackmail, break the law, and seize the private property of another entity. His heart was in Brooklyn, he said. So why didn't he work something out with the Pennsylvania Railroad to buy the land??? Nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer to that; all they do is blame Moses for not breaking NYS law which was as clear as anything could be that to seize the land was a violaton of the law..period and end of discussion on that one.

Atlantic Yards wasn't even the right place...there is no highway all that near to it...his dream or supposed dream is a better word is that all the folks who had moved ot Long Island would forsake their cars and take the LIRR to the games..there were really no provisions for parking. And if you know anything about downtown Brooklyn, can you imagine a Friday night game with the crush of people trying to leave the city, the crush of people returning from work without a highway anywhere near Atlantic Yards? It simply, and it is so easy to see today, was not the right place for a ballpark.

OTOH, of course the location of Shea Stadium was perfect in every respect as far as public transportation, ample parking, 3 major highways whatever. But he wouldn't have been able to own the ballpark, he would have had to lease and to this fat piece of human garbage, he had to have his own park. It didn't matter what he was doing to the fans of Brooklyn, he, Walter F. O'Malley (you can decide for yourself what the middle initial stands for) had to have his own park...and unfortunately the city father in lala land who didn't give a damn about any sense of what was right, whether it be to kick the people off the land at Chavez Ravine were willing to give him the land he wanted...there was nothing the City of New York could do about it...only the hope he was a decent human being or the baseball officials, supposedly entrusted with the duty to protect the best interests of baseball, could stop it...and the Commissioner of baseball really took the bull by the horns when he said, "It's a league matter. Besides the fans can root for the Yankees." Then there was a cretin named Warren Giles, the President of the National League you know the one who thought the best place to keep the National League office was in Cincinnati who utter the famous words when asked how the NL could allow itself not to have a team in New York, "Who needs New York?'

Yes, these people really stepped up for the fans of Brooklyn who had made the fat slob a very rich man; only that wasn't good enough for this sub human piece of garbage.

The rest, as we now know, is very sad history.

[SNAP]

Again, outstanding stuff. I was born in 1957 and grew up in Brooklyn and I know about the area around Atlantic Av. It would have been a terrible place to put a park. Just as little parking as Ebbets and a decaying neighborhood as well. And you're right, if I lived on LI I cetrtainly would NOT take the train in........let alone drive. And I certainly cant buy his "we're not the Brooklyn Dodgers if we play in Queens" arguement. The die was already cast that he was gone and this was just another lame excuse to not accept any offers outside of Brooklyn. He actually thought like a politician in the fact that they think we're all stupid and will believe anything they say.

Wasnt his expertise in real estate??

What was the infamous Chicago meeting??

Thanks,
Steve

[EdTarbusz]

The Dodgers were one of the biggest money making teams, but what people tend to gloss over is the fact that in four of the seven years that O'Malley owned the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Dodgers added post-season money to their coffers by playing in extended World Series. My belief is that as the team was aging, team officials were worried about being passed by the Braves with their much better attendance.

O'Malley wanted to pay fair market value for the Atlantic Avenue site, and he would not have been able to do that with assistance from city hall. As noted, it wasn't near a freeway, and the thought was most fans would come in by train, which meant no tolls paid to Moses's department. The thought that Moses was hamstrung by the law is almost laughable to me. Sullivan stated that Caro's bio of Moses showed that Moses could play fast and loose with the law when it suited his purposes. I'm trying to obtain a copy of the Moses bio, but I tend to believe Sullivan.

[whoisonit]

Sullivan stated that Caro's bio of Moses showed that Moses could play fast and loose with the law when it suited his purposes.

This is true.
Moses, a civil servant, wielded power as if he were a third world dictator. His behavior is incomprehensible to contemporary citizens.

Moses, particularly since the publication of Caro's bio, has become synonomus with hubris, racism, bad government, & corruption. He is a pariah, a boogyman. This makes him an easy scapegoat for those whose agenda has been the cleaning up and burnishing the reputation and behavior of the Dodger's owner. This is what makes the 'it was Moses !' story-line so appaling. It's akin to trying to pin every unsolved murder and missing persons case on Ted Bundy. Sure he is the most prolific serial killer we all know, but he didn't kill everybody. Moses was an arogant man with a multitude of sins, but he didn't kill the Dodgers. O'Malley alone wore the blood stained gloves and Bruno Magli shoes for that one.

[EdTarbusz]

It wasn't just Moses. The city leaders of New York were less interested in keeping the Dodgers in Brooklyn than the city leaders of LA were in bringing the Dodgers west.

[whoisonit]

It wasn't just Moses.

What wasn't ?
Moses' hands are clean when it comes to the spiriting away of Brooklyn's fanchise.

[MATHA531]

Ed...you and I are just going to have to differ on this...when Charlie Ebbets built Ebbets Field, he went out and acquired the land...when Col. Ruppert built Yankee Stadium, he went out and acquired the land...if the fat slob so badly wanted the land and the park, why didn't he go and buy the land from the Penn RR? (or was he hoping that through the use of eminent domain, the city could acquire the land for less than its worth and then sell it to O'Malley for less than it was worth)

As far as the Caro book and Moses, do you know this book is around 700 pages long and there is only one paragraph in there having anything to do with the theft of the Brooklyn franchise.....

And let's grant your thought for one second that Moses was able to circumvent the law, looking at what has been going on today with the Atlantic Yards property where indeed it is public property (the MTA being a quasi government agency and the LIRR is now part of the MTA), don't you think there would have been some lawsuits as there are now which would have delayed the project and still have given the sub human slob the excuse he was clearly looking for to move to lala land??

Like I say, call it a brilliant business decision, call it whatever you want, it was still the biggest black mark in sports history the way the Brooklyn fans were treated by O'Malley, Warren Giles and Ford Frick and there is nobody, who does any sort of job researching the true facts, who can come to any other conclusion.

One other thought to you Ed, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, do you think many other owners would have pulled this garbage? If Branch Rickey were still running the Dodgers, do you think he would have moved to LA that way?

[EdTarbusz]

I think that O'Malley wanted that land at fair market value. Acquiring it the way that Ebbets and Ruppert did was unrealisitic, without assistance from city hall. I don't think that O'Malley was looking for a hand-out from the City of New York.

As far as the Caro book, I want to see what Moses would do to get around the law when he wanted to get something done. I think that from Moses's POV, the Dodger situation was extremely minor and had more to do with the Board of Estimate then with him.

I don't know what another owner would have done. Rickey denounced the moved, but he didn't have to deal with declining attendence that O'Malley, and with his noted love for a buck, I think he may have done the same thing that O'Malley did. I think some owners may have stuck it out and some would have moved. If the teams fortunes eroded in the early 60s, I don't think the Dodgers would have lasted much longer in Brooklyn, Some owners may have went to Shea. I think others would have listened to overtures from other cities.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

The Giants were moving out of town, with or without the Dodgers.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember that they needed a unanimous voting by the other MLB owners (if I am well informed about that). And since O'Malley vetoed the move to Minnesota, I dare to doubt that they would move without the Dodgers.

[EdTarbusz]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember that they needed a unanimous voting by the other MLB owners (if I am well informed about that). And since O'Malley vetoed the move to Minnesota, I dare to doubt that they would move without the Dodgers.

Up until now, outside of this forum, I've never seen the results of any vote regarding the Giants moving to Minneapolis (or any O'Malley veto).

[MATHA531]

The Giants had totally lost their fan base and were drawing an anemic 600,00 or so to the Polo Grounds...all the talk was they were moving to Minneapolis....however while there was a great deal of talk about the theft of the Brooklyn franchise to LA, there was hardly much talk about the Giants.....the first time it came up was at the NL meeting in May 1957 when the NL voted unanimously to allow the transfer of the two franchises to LA and SF respectively....obvously behind the scenes the fat slob had talked the Giants owner into the advantages of moving to San Francisco over Minneapolis and Stoneham went along with him which turned out to be a big mistake.

[EdTarbusz]

The Giants had totally lost their fan base and were drawing an anemic 600,00 or so to the Polo Grounds...all the talk was they were moving to Minneapolis....however while there was a great deal of talk about the theft of the Brooklyn franchise to LA, there was hardly much talk about the Giants.....the first time it came up was at the NL meeting in May 1957 when the NL voted unanimously to allow the transfer of the two franchises to LA and SF respectively....obvously behind the scenes the fat slob had talked the Giants owner into the advantages of moving to San Francisco over Minneapolis and Stoneham went along with him which turned out to be a big mistake.

In 1955 or 1956, O'Malley told NYC officials that if the Dodgers left town the Gianst would die on the vine because almost 50% of their attendence came in the 11 home games that they played against the Dodgers. By the the time the May, 1957 meeting, the Giants had been actively pursued by the city of San Francisco. I don't think they moved there strictly because of O'Malley maneuvering.

[MATHA531]

In 1955 or 1956, O'Malley told NYC officials that if the Dodgers left town the Gianst would die on the vine because almost 50% of their attendence came in the 11 home games that they played against the Dodgers. By the the time the May, 1957 meeting, the Giants had been actively pursued by the city of San Francisco. I don't think they moved there strictly because of O'Malley maneuvering.


In order to sell his treachery, there were some objections about the cost of going out to the left coast, O'Malley needed a team in San Francisco....the Giants owned the Minneapolis franchise and were all set to move to Minneapolis when O'Malley brokered the deal, sold Stoneham on the importance of continuing their rivalry on the left coast...there is no question in my mind that if the Dodgers had remained, the Giants would have moved ot Minneapolis...it made much more sense and as it turned out there would have been no Candlestick Park debacle and the Giants would have been much better off.