“So, why are you so incensed that the Dodgers moved out of Brooklyn?”

[EdTarbusz]

as i have mentioned in a previous thread a while ago, i believe it was lou perini of the braves who said the owners did not want the giants and dodgers to leave new york and brooklyn, but only voted yes to give stoneham and o'malley the ability to put pressure on the city to build the new ballparks. he stated that the owners never thought that they would really move. believable? we will never know.

If this was the case, then the owners were not in touch with reality. They must not have been paying attention in New York very closely.

[EdTarbusz]

The National League required that the City of New York build a brand new stadium as a requirement for a new franchise to be re-admitted. The City's fathers insisted that the new team represent all five boroughs---Queens, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx. The New York Mets logo states just this: "The bridge in the center, symbolizes that the New York Mets, in bringing baseball back to the National League, represent all five boroughs".

As only one team would be re-admitted. That meant Brooklyn would be screwed big time for years of loyal support.

Author D'Antonio conveniently fails to mention this.

D'Antonio didn't neglect to mention the effort to build a stadium at Flushing Meadows. This was where the city of New York wanted the Dodgers to move to. Officials from the Giants have said that the Giants were never approached about moving there. Even if the Dodgers stayed in New York it is extremely doubtful that they would have left Brooklyn.

[BaronSamedi]

Jumping into this thread here: I'm not incensed about the Dodgers' move to Los Angeles at all. Surely this has a lot to do with the fact that I was born 24 years after the move. But as an upstate New York native, it was part of their appeal - supporting a team that has such powerful roots in New York but was no longer in New York City.

[tonypug]

Ed actually a story in The Sporting News said that Horace Stoneham was quietly approached about going to the Flushing Meadow site. He said that Queens was Brooklyn Dodger territory, and that the Giants would not have a fan base there. This was after O'Malley turned down Flushing Meadows.

[EdTarbusz]

Ed actually a story in The Sporting News said that Horace Stoneham was quietly approached about going to the Flushing Meadow site. He said that Queens was Brooklyn Dodger territory, and that the Giants would not have a fan base there. This was after O'Malley turned down Flushing Meadows.

I'll have to look for that. Chub Feeney is on the record saying the Giants were never approached about moving to Flushing.

[tonypug]

I' have it in one of my files. I'll keep an eye out for it. I can understand Feeney saying that, it would make Uncle Horace look even worse if people knew he was given a viable alternative to stay in NYC.

[EdTarbusz]

I' have it in one of my files. I'll keep an eye out for it. I can understand Feeney saying that, it would make Uncle Horace look even worse if people knew he was given a viable alternative to stay in NYC.

Do you remember what year it was from? Was it after the announcement about the move to SF? It would seem likely the city would approach the Giants after the Dodgers declined, unless the city seriously thought that the Dodgers were going to change their demands in the summer of 1957.

[tonypug]

It was 1957, I believe after the National League gave their blessing, but before the official announcement that the Giants were moving.

[EdTarbusz]

It was 1957, I believe after the National League gave their blessing, but before the official announcement that the Giants were moving.

Maybe May or June of 1957?

[DiggerODell]

I' have it in one of my files. I'll keep an eye out for it. I can understand Feeney saying that, it would make Uncle Horace look even worse if people knew he was given a viable alternative to stay in NYC.

Flushing over San Francisco?????? Heaven forbid!!!!! . . . least in my humble opinion ;-)

Now don't no one go getting all thin skinned, I'm speaking tongue and cheek here . . . I grew up near San Francisco. They were the first professional ballclub I ever cheered for and during the earlier part of my youth . . . I thought the Giants had been in SF before the gold rush. I hated the reality of history back then . . . ha!

[tonypug]

Did you take your user name from pitcher Biily "Digger" O'Dell? Stoneham was bamboozeled by O"Malley into going to San Fran. Major league baseball would have been in LA and SF by 1960 at the latest in any event. O'Malley wanted to get to the gold first but wanted to keep the rivalry with the Giants alive. O'Malley handled most of the negotiations between Stoneham and city officials himself.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

O'Malley did block Jint move to Minn./St. Paul by envocing territorial rights, however he had no hand in the SF talks, as far as I know.

[tonypug]

O'Malley is the one who introduced Mayor Christopher to Stoneham. During a meeting O'Malley was said to have drawn up a rough contract on a napkin. O'Malley was the one to take Stoneham to Candlestick point. And of course O'Malley kept whispering in Stonehams ear about keeping the rivalry going on the west coast. To say O'Malley had no hand in the SF talks would be erroneous.

[gbittar]

The reason the fans were so incensed, is that there was still a large baseball market in Brooklyn at the time, and in fact, still is. I don't think there will be a team in Brooklyn any time this century though. The mets have burnt those bridges.

I think this is accurate. The Mets do great homage to the Dodgers in their new ballpark, and you can feel the love from Fred Wilpon. Yet, I wonder why there wasn't the slightest attempt to root the Mets in Brooklyn a couple years ago when they had the chance. You get the feeling that people have accepted Robert Moses prescription of playing in Flushing.