Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

O'Malley vs Moses and the City of New York

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • O'Malley vs Moses and the City of New York

    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?

  • #2
    Originally posted by KG Erwin View Post
    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.
    Last edited by DODGER DEB; 02-12-2008, 04:47 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by KG Erwin View Post
      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.
      you can take the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the DODGERS
      http://brooklyndodgermemories.freeforums.org/

      Comment


      • #4
        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
        Last edited by dodger dynamo; 02-12-2008, 07:22 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          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."

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              Conflicting Viewpoints

              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/op...yt&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/op...7malley&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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by aqib View Post
                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.
                Last edited by willisraverchk77; 02-16-2008, 01:57 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by willisraverchk77 View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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
                      Last edited by dodger dynamo; 02-17-2008, 01:36 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        O'malley Vs. Moses And The City Of New York

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by willisraverchk77 View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by aqib View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jayzeeg View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X