Peter O'Malley

[Paulmcall]

Does anyone have much information about Peter O'Malley?
I know he took over the Dodgers from his dad and sold them to Murdock for a record sum but litlle else.
I understand he returned the 1955 championship banner to Brooklyn saying , It belonged there".
Michael Casey appreciated the championship ring he received from O'Malley for his late father Hugh.
Other than that, I can't seem to find out much.
Any ideas?

[MetsFan11368]

As you said, he took the money and ran. He didn't thrive on running a baseball team. He was not was a chip off the old block.

[donzblock]

He certainly wasn't.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by MetsFan11368

As you said, he took the money and ran. He didn't thrive on running a baseball team. He was not was a chip off the old block.

Baloney. Then why did he not sell the team in the 70s when his father died instead of hanging onto the business for 20 years?

[Shotgun Shuba]

Interesting side note: Roger Kahn wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times in 2000 in which he stated that a NY state group which was convened to bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn(when they were put up for sale by Peter O'Malley) made an offer HIGHER than Murdoch's. Peter O'Malley felt the myth of NY City kicking the Dodgers out was more valuable than the millions more in profit. Makes you think doesn't it?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Shotgun Shuba

Interesting side note: Roger Kahn wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times in 2000 in which he stated that a NY state group which was convened to bring the Dodgers back to Brooklyn(when they were put up for sale by Peter O'Malley) made an offer HIGHER than Murdoch's. Peter O'Malley felt the myth of NY City kicking the Dodgers out was more valuable than the millions more in profit. Makes you think doesn't it?

No rational mind would ever think about pulling the Dodgers out of Los Angeles nor sell to anyone who would. For what rational reason? How many teams own their own stadium including the land and are the most sucessful attendance draw in MLB?

Suppose some foriegn corporation offered Steinbrenner a couple of billion dollars to buy the Yankees and move them to Portland - Would anyone in their right mind expect him to say, "Yeah, sure OK."

[EbtsFldGuy]

Don't know much about Peter O'M, but what little I do says he is a decent guy.

He had no hand in the move. He was young then, and did not work for the team in any signficant role, if at all.

His gesture of returning the 55 flag to Brooklyn was kind, as were his good words about his youth here.

Of course he would not try to get the team out of LA.

Nor would MB let that happen.

Finally, needless to say, both NY teams would fight to prevent that, as well.

[MATHA531]

Originally Posted by Elvis9045

No rational mind would ever think about pulling the Dodgers out of Los Angeles nor sell to anyone who would. For what rational reason? How many teams own their own stadium including the land and are the most sucessful attendance draw in MLB?

Suppose some foriegn corporation offered Steinbrenner a couple of billion dollars to buy the Yankees and move them to Portland - Would anyone in their right mind expect him to say, "Yeah, sure OK."

Elvis....my dear sparring friend:::

Read your post and substitute the word Brooklyn for Los Angeles::::that is what we thought in 1957....say some rich Japanese industrialist comes along and offers zillions for the Los Angeles National League baseball team....and then says it is time for baseball to open up the international market and announces he will be moving the team to Tokyo and then entices say the Arizona Diamondbacks to move to Kyoto so there would be 2 teams in the Orient to cut down travel expenses.....and the Commissioner of Baseball says, who needs Los Angeles...after all there is still a major league baseball team in the general area.

But do not worry, they are not coming back to Brooklyn:::Uncles Fred and George will see to that.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by MATHA531

Elvis....my dear sparring friend:::

Read your post and substitute the word Brooklyn for Los Angeles::::that is what we thought in 1957....say some rich Japanese industrialist comes along and offers zillions for the Los Angeles National League baseball team....and then says it is time for baseball to open up the international market and announces he will be moving the team to Tokyo and then entices say the Arizona Diamondbacks to move to Kyoto so there would be 2 teams in the Orient to cut down travel expenses.....and the Commissioner of Baseball says, who needs Los Angeles...after all there is still a major league baseball team in the general area.

But do not worry, they are not coming back to Brooklyn:::Uncles Fred and George will see to that.

Hi Matha. The thing about substituting the words is that it wouldn't really fit. Brooklyn was not drawing 45,000 fans a game year after year after year like L.A.. Although the attendance was good at Ebbets Field (relatively speaking), the Yankees were the #1 draw in the NY metro area. The Dodgers attendance in the 50s was about on par with the Tigers and Cards and White Sox, and they never drew as well as the Braves or Indians during their winning years in Cleveland or Milwaukee. The Red Sox also out drew the Dodgers in the 50s. The Dodgers had a healthy attendance in Brooklyn, but not record setting as it has always been in L.A.. The "substituting" analogy would be much more accurate with the Rams move out of Anaheim, than the Dodgers moving out of Los Angeles.

Also the adjusted land/property value of the two ballparks is not comparable by a longshot.

And unlike many here, I think MLB will indeed eventually return to Brooklyn, however, it won't be anytime soon. Stranger things have happened.

[MATHA531]

Originally Posted by Elvis9045

Hi Matha. The thing about substituting the words is that it wouldn't really fit. Brooklyn was not drawing 45,000 fans a game year after year after year like L.A.. Although the attendance was good at Ebbets Field (relatively speaking), the Yankees were the #1 draw in the NY metro area. The Dodgers attendance in the 50s was about on par with the Tigers and Cards and White Sox, and they never drew as well as the Braves or Indians during their winning years in Cleveland or Milwaukee. The Red Sox also out drew the Dodgers in the 50s. The Dodgers had a healthy attendance in Brooklyn, but not record setting as it has always been in L.A.. The "substituting" analogy would be much more accurate with the Rams move out of Anaheim, than the Dodgers moving out of Los Angeles.

Also the adjusted land/property value of the two ballparks is not comparable by a longshot.

And unlike many here, I think MLB will indeed eventually return to Brooklyn, however, it won't be anytime soon. Stranger things have happened.

Elvis..

You can't compare attendance figures from the 50's to those of today..suffice it to say that during the 11 year period from 1947 to 1957, the Brooklyn Dodgers were the 2nd biggest money makers in baseball to the Yankees in much the same way the Los Angeles National League baseball team is 2nd to the Yankees on the whole..

The Milwaukee situation, as we know today, was an abberation (although the big O used this as one of his excuses for his greed).....and you have to consider Brooklyn Dodger attendance figures did not take into consideration the fact they played many mid week afternoon games which working people could not attend, that every home game was on free television (as well as 2/3 of the road games not counting the 11 road games in New York), every Saturday was Ladies Day (50¢ service fee which didn't count in attendance figures), Knothole gang freebies (my cub scout pack went two or three times a season), Sunday double headers almost every Sunday, rain out make ups usually re-scheduled as 1 admission double headers rather than 2 separate admissions etc.

I think the analogy, my personal opinion, holds given the nature of baseball in the 1950's and the nature of baseball today, two completely different things.