Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if......

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

  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    I don't think O'Malley tried to blackmail Brooklyn. I don't think he asked the city for anything that was really out of line. The Dodgers move doesn't seem like it was a closely guarded secret on 1957. After the way negotiations dragged on in 1956 I'm surprised that anyone in Brooklyn was surprised when the move actually happened.
    He asked for the appropriation of private property to hand over to another private entity. Eminent domain was set up to provide for things like schools, hospitals, highways not a privately financed ball park. Why didn't he go out and buy the land on his own the way Charley Ebbets did in 1911-12 to acquire the land needed to build Ebbets Field (or the way Walt Disney acquired the land to build Disney World)? And while the Atlantic/Flatbush location was well served by mass transit as well as the LIRR, there is no highway within 1.5 miles of it....how were the Brooklyn fans who had recently moved to Long Island going to get to the ballpart; obviously it would be necessary to build a spur off the BQE. Who was to pay for that? Traffic in that area during evening rush hours was and remains a big problems. How was that to be resolved?

    Of course we don't know all the answers; everybody who knows the answers has long since left the scene but do bear in mind, there had not been a privately owned ballpark built since 1923 (Yankee Stadium)...the new ballparks in Milwaukee, Baltimore, Kansas City were municipally owned, no different than what Moses proposed for Flushing Meadow. O'Malley had to know that city officials' hands were tied (Robert Wagner, who was Mayor at the time, once when asked why he didn't intercede said if he had, he would have gone to jail).

    What it becomes, of course, is a matter of just who you want to believe and how much you know about New York State law and the borough of Brooklyn, I suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • EdTarbusz
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    Funny...baseball kept claiming its exemption from anti trust law was because it wasn't a business; that ownership of a major league team was a civic responsibility/ Hm.....of course he tried to blackmail Brooklyn. He was a lawyer, we've discussed this ad nauseum here, and had to know that even if Moses were incldined to meet his demands, taxpayer lawsuits would have held up the project for a decade (see what's been going on with the Barclay Center) so he (O'Malley) felt he could make whatever demands he wanted to try to protect his place in history with full knowledge he had agreed in November 1956 with LA city reps that he was coming and that they should ignore anything that happened in Brooklyn in 1957 as he had to do whatever possible to protect whatever attendance he could. I don't think anybody could deny that and if that is your idea of the proper way to do business, we certain have different views of morality!
    I don't think O'Malley tried to blackmail Brooklyn. I don't think he asked the city for anything that was really out of line. The Dodgers move doesn't seem like it was a closely guarded secret on 1957. After the way negotiations dragged on in 1956 I'm surprised that anyone in Brooklyn was surprised when the move actually happened.

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    Maybe it was because I grew up in the 70s and not the 50s that I don't see the Dodgers situation in Brooklyn having any thing to do with morality and that civic pride doesn't mean all that much when it comes to sports franchises (or any business for that matter). I see what O'Malley did as strictly a business venture. I also don't see what O'Malley wanted in Brooklyn as blackmail. I think was strictly a business transaction.
    Funny...baseball kept claiming its exemption from anti trust law was because it wasn't a business; that ownership of a major league team was a civic responsibility/ Hm.....of course he tried to blackmail Brooklyn. He was a lawyer, we've discussed this ad nauseum here, and had to know that even if Moses were incldined to meet his demands, taxpayer lawsuits would have held up the project for a decade (see what's been going on with the Barclay Center) so he (O'Malley) felt he could make whatever demands he wanted to try to protect his place in history with full knowledge he had agreed in November 1956 with LA city reps that he was coming and that they should ignore anything that happened in Brooklyn in 1957 as he had to do whatever possible to protect whatever attendance he could. I don't think anybody could deny that and if that is your idea of the proper way to do business, we certain have different views of morality!

    Leave a comment:


  • EdTarbusz
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    Ed, many many people had a degree of morality and civic pride within themselves, something the greedy O'Malley lacked (I doubt you could argue that point; the Dodgers in the 1950 were still making more moneyh than any other team in baseball including the Yankees thanks to their lucrative radio/tv contract. The Yankees were getting only a fraction of the radio/tv money Brooklyn was getting as they had to share channel 11 with the Giants while 129 Brooklyn games a year, 77 hoe and 52 road with an additional 11 games not needing to be televised by the Dodgers as they were televised by the Giants whereas you hardly ever saw a Yankee road game on television). There was not the slightest danger that would dry up as channel 9 needed the Dodgers or else they would be forced to broadcast Million dollar movie every night of the week. But in any event, after the theft of the team from their rightful home, several other owners were approached with offers to move to New York. Powell Crosle who was not making nearly the money O'Malley was in Cincinnati said no. The owners of the Pirates, not making nearly the amount of moneyh O'[Malley was said no. So don't be so quick to say everybody would have jumped to the immoral (at least to the LA taxpayers as well as the inhabitants of Chavez Ravine) offer by the LA CXity Council.

    And finally by your last statement, it seems you accept the argument it was simply the money and quite frankly the only way to have gotten the Dodgers to stay would have been to accept O'Malley's blackmail. And for this, we listen to the nonsense of how terrible it is what has happened to the LA baseball organization because it represents class. Please.
    Maybe it was because I grew up in the 70s and not the 50s that I don't see the Dodgers situation in Brooklyn having any thing to do with morality and that civic pride doesn't mean all that much when it comes to sports franchises (or any business for that matter). I see what O'Malley did as strictly a business venture. I also don't see what O'Malley wanted in Brooklyn as blackmail. I think was strictly a business transaction.

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    I can't say that I agree with this. I think more owners than not would have taken the offer that O'Malley received from LA. I think the only owners who would have easily walked away were owners who were independently wealthy. In the 1950s I think Topping/Webb, PK Wrigley, Tom Yawkey, Gussie Busch and maybe the Briggs family would have eaily passed on the offer.
    Ed, many many people had a degree of morality and civic pride within themselves, something the greedy O'Malley lacked (I doubt you could argue that point; the Dodgers in the 1950 were still making more moneyh than any other team in baseball including the Yankees thanks to their lucrative radio/tv contract. The Yankees were getting only a fraction of the radio/tv money Brooklyn was getting as they had to share channel 11 with the Giants while 129 Brooklyn games a year, 77 hoe and 52 road with an additional 11 games not needing to be televised by the Dodgers as they were televised by the Giants whereas you hardly ever saw a Yankee road game on television). There was not the slightest danger that would dry up as channel 9 needed the Dodgers or else they would be forced to broadcast Million dollar movie every night of the week. But in any event, after the theft of the team from their rightful home, several other owners were approached with offers to move to New York. Powell Crosle who was not making nearly the money O'Malley was in Cincinnati said no. The owners of the Pirates, not making nearly the amount of moneyh O'[Malley was said no. So don't be so quick to say everybody would have jumped to the immoral (at least to the LA taxpayers as well as the inhabitants of Chavez Ravine) offer by the LA CXity Council.

    And finally by your last statement, it seems you accept the argument it was simply the money and quite frankly the only way to have gotten the Dodgers to stay would have been to accept O'Malley's blackmail. And for this, we listen to the nonsense of how terrible it is what has happened to the LA baseball organization because it represents class. Please.

    Leave a comment:


  • EdTarbusz
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    99% of whomever would have owned the team would not have moved...only a greedy individual wanting to become the nouveau rich like the O'Malley would have pulled such a dastardly deed. Greed triumphs all the time for some people unfortunately.
    I can't say that I agree with this. I think more owners than not would have taken the offer that O'Malley received from LA. I think the only owners who would have easily walked away were owners who were independently wealthy. In the 1950s I think Topping/Webb, PK Wrigley, Tom Yawkey, Gussie Busch and maybe the Briggs family would have eaily passed on the offer.

    Leave a comment:


  • EdTarbusz
    replied
    Originally posted by VIBaseball View Post
    That was MATHA's point, Ed -- there are plenty of contemporary hits. Here's just one:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...s+browns&hl=en
    This is the first one I've ever seen that was from 1941. It's interesting that the war doesn't seem to a determining factor in rejecting the move according to the columnist. A few days later it may have been after Germany declared war on the US.
    Last edited by EdTarbusz; 05-05-2011, 04:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • VIBaseball
    replied
    Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    I know there are lots of hits, but I've never seen a contemporary account of it.
    That was MATHA's point, Ed -- there are plenty of contemporary hits. Here's just one:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...s+browns&hl=en

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by aqib View Post
    I thought about the Bill Shea scenario. I think he would have kept the Dodgers in NYC somehow. As for if they would be in Flushing Meadows today, do you think that there may have been a push to get them back into Brooklyn somewhere?
    99% of whomever would have owned the team would not have moved...only a greedy individual wanting to become the nouveau rich like the O'Malley would have pulled such a dastardly deed. Greed triumphs all the time for some people unfortunately.

    Leave a comment:


  • aqib
    replied
    I thought about the Bill Shea scenario. I think he would have kept the Dodgers in NYC somehow. As for if they would be in Flushing Meadows today, do you think that there may have been a push to get them back into Brooklyn somewhere?

    Leave a comment:


  • EdTarbusz
    replied
    Originally posted by MATHA531 View Post
    Do a google search on St. Louis Browns and December 8, 1941....lots and lots of hits.
    I know there are lots of hits, but I've never seen a contemporary account of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    replied
    Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
    I've always thought that the 1941 story is a baseball urban legend. I don't think it was mentioned anywhere until 1952. I also don't understand why the Pearl Harbor attack would cause the meeting to be canceled. If anything I think the meeting would be more urgent because the owners would need to try to figure out how the war was going to affect them. I could see the meeting being canceled if it was held on the west coast, but not in Chicago. There was a real effort to bring the Browns to LA in 1948-49 but the PCL threw up so many road blocks that it obviously never happened.

    When O'Malley came to the Dodgers did it coincide with the arrival of Rickey? Did the Brooklyn Trust Company wait until MacPhail was gone or did O'Malley arrive before MacPhail left for the war?
    Do a google search on St. Louis Browns and December 8, 1941....lots and lots of hits.

    Leave a comment:


  • EdTarbusz
    replied
    I've always thought that the 1941 story is a baseball urban legend. I don't think it was mentioned anywhere until 1952. I also don't understand why the Pearl Harbor attack would cause the meeting to be canceled. If anything I think the meeting would be more urgent because the owners would need to try to figure out how the war was going to affect them. I could see the meeting being canceled if it was held on the west coast, but not in Chicago. There was a real effort to bring the Browns to LA in 1948-49 but the PCL threw up so many road blocks that it obviously never happened.

    When O'Malley came to the Dodgers did it coincide with the arrival of Rickey? Did the Brooklyn Trust Company wait until MacPhail was gone or did O'Malley arrive before MacPhail left for the war?

    Leave a comment:


  • MATHA531
    started a topic What if......

    What if......

    This has come up before here somewhere but I was listening today to an interview with Jeff Greenfield who wrote one of those what if books about JFK being killed in the interval after his election and before assuming office and all that would have been different. Well there are two what ifs that might be interesting discussion for us concerning the re-location of the Brooklyn franchise.

    1. I have read in several different places the American League had scheduled a meeting to vote on a proposal to re-locate the St. Louis Browns franchise in Los Angeles and a meeting was to be held in Chicago to vote on this proposal on...........08 December 1941. The meeting was not held because of other events that occurred the day before. Now I've never been able despite scouring the internet to confirm whether this indeed was true. But if so, then one could clearly add Admiral Yamamoto to the list of dispicable people, Walter O'Malley of course leads the list but also Warren Giles as well as Ford Frick as people responsible for the demise of the only real Dodger franchise.

    2. There is also the story of the Brooklyn Trust Company, a bank long since consigned to history, which held a lot of markers on the Dodgers and Ebbets Field in the late 30's or was it the early 40's and to protect their investment, wanted to send one of the young lawyers in their foreclosure department to sit in on meetings of the directors of the Brooklyn National League baseball club. There were 2 lawyers working in the office at that time. One was a guy named Bill Shea. The other was Walter O'Malley. Too bad for the Brooklyn fans the bank chose O'Malley for this. Had they chosen Bill Shea I am sure the Dodgers would be playing in Flushing Meadow today!

    The difference between right and wrong in history can hinge on decisions such as these!

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X