Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could they still be at 155th and Eighth?

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

  • tonypug
    replied
    Originally posted by 64Cards
    I'm not up on the exact timetable dealing with the Giant and Dodger moves, although O'malley seemed to pretty much run the NL and do whatever he wanted. If he was comitted to go to LA, he would have done it, if he was assured of making a fortune. And while he could keep Stoneham from going to Minnesota, there's no way he could prevent him from staying in NY, had he wanted to.

    But yeah, if he had been more resourceful, as you mentioned, and more farsighted, he could have moved to a Queens location and done very well, with the Dodgers gone.
    From the very beginning, O'Malley envisioned both teams moving to the west coast. In my opinion had the Giants stayed in New York, the Dodgers would have also stayed. Remember O'Malley kept all his options open. He even re-newed the lease on Ebbets Field through 1960, even though he was quite certain he would be in LA. Stoneham made it very clear he wanted out of the Polo Grounds. When he asked for permission to move, O'Malley knew he could persuade Horace to move west with him. O'Malley spent much time and effort to get Mayor Cristopher of San Francisco and Stoneham together. This was all part of O'Malley's master plan. I don't think he ever had any intention of moving to the wast coast by himself.Stoneham must have thought O'Malley was a great friend, since O'Malley did most of the work and made most of the arrangements.

    Leave a comment:


  • 64Cards
    replied
    Originally posted by EbtsFldGuy
    I agree.

    But I wonder what would have happened had the Giants been owned by someone with a stronger will and more financial resources than Horace Stoneham had. Say a Jerry Jones ( of the Dallas Cowboys) type.

    Might they have stayed?
    I'm not up on the exact timetable dealing with the Giant and Dodger moves, although O'malley seemed to pretty much run the NL and do whatever he wanted. If he was comitted to go to LA, he would have done it, if he was assured of making a fortune. And while he could keep Stoneham from going to Minnesota, there's no way he could prevent him from staying in NY, had he wanted to.

    But yeah, if he had been more resourceful, as you mentioned, and more farsighted, he could have moved to a Queens location and done very well, with the Dodgers gone.

    Leave a comment:


  • EbtsFldGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by tonypug
    Stoneham was offered the Flushing Meadow site that is currently Shea Stadium. He turned it down saying Queens is Brooklyn Dodger territory and didn't feel the Giants would draw well there. There was no way O'Malley was going to let the Giants leaev New York without the Dodgers or letk the Giants remain in New York while he went elsewhere. Remember O'Malley waited for Stoneham to commit to San Francisco well before he commited publicly to LA.
    I agree.

    But I wonder what would have happened had the Giants been owned by someone with a stronger will and more financial resources than Horace Stoneham had. Say a Jerry Jones ( of the Dallas Cowboys) type.

    Might they have stayed?

    Leave a comment:


  • tonypug
    replied
    Originally posted by 64Cards
    An interesting "what if?" scenario. I think if Stoneham, who didn't seem to be too bright, had realized that with the Dodgers leaving, he would be the only NL franchise in NY and very well could have thrived. He would have been regarded as a hero for not taking his team across the continent. I don't expect that very many Brooklyn fans would become Giant fans, but certainly when LA came to the PG to play the Giants, the place would have been packed, some Dodger fans wanting to see their old heroes and others wanting to see them get their brains beat in, because they now had the LA on their caps. But others may have come during the season to see Mays and to see the other NL teams and the Giants were about to come up with some superb talent from their farm system, Marichal, Cepeda, McCovey, the Alous. They had the best overall record in the NL in the 60's. Plus Stoneham would have been able to get a grateful NY to build him a new stadium, at the Shea location, which brings us to part 2 of the question.

    I think to thrive, he would have needed a new ballpark. I agree with Donald, there probably wasn't too much wrong with the PG that some housekeeping and makeovers couldn't take care of. But the perception, either real or imagined, that it wasn't a safe location was huge, plus as mentioned, a large population shift had taken place in NY after WW2, towards Long Island, making the location at Shea adventageous. And while I love the old classic ballparks, in the late 50's and 60's, the trend was for city planners and architects to get rid of a lot of classic structures and buildings and to go with more modernistic looking structures. Fans weren't exactly flocking to the classic old ballparks in the 50's and 60's. I think in the late 70's, a lot of folks woke up and realized what had been done to a lot of great and classic buildings around the country and it seems that there has been a lot of rehabbing and saving some great buidings and mercifully, a lot of eyesores that were built in the 60's are coming down.
    Stoneham was offered the Flushing Meadow site that is currently Shea Stadium. He turned it down saying Queens is Brooklyn Dodger territory and didn't feel the Giants would draw well there. There was no way O'Malley was going to let the Giants leaev New York without the Dodgers or letk the Giants remain in New York while he went elsewhere. Remember O'Malley waited for Stoneham to commit to San Francisco well before he commited publicly to LA.

    Leave a comment:


  • POLO GROUNDS 1957
    replied
    polo grounds

    Originally posted by DODGER DEB
    You are quite welcome, PG1957.

    I am not sure just when it was taken. Does anyone remember when the Chesterfield sign was replaced?

    c.
    The last year that the polo grounds had the chesterfield ad on the clubhouse wall was 1955. so this photo is from either 1956 or 1957. i wonder how long after the giants left the polo grounds did the knickerbocker beer sign stay. i have seen photos of the PG from 1958 and the beer ad was still there.

    Leave a comment:


  • rcl986@aol.com
    replied
    Great photos Deb.
    I honestly don't think O'Malley could have gotten permission to relocate to the west coast alone. I think one of the considerations at the time was the cost of teams traveling to the coast. Making only one stop on the West Coast and still having to come to New York might have been expensive for some teams at that time and probably would have also given the schedule makers some indigestion. I don't think any of the other teams were interested in making the move leaving only O'Malley's arch rival the Giants who, had already talked about going to Minneapolis. Unfortunately for all of us, we lost both teams
    Last edited by [email protected]; 01-02-2006, 03:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DODGER DEB
    replied
    Originally posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957
    Thanks for posting the photo is great. with the knickerbocker beer ad on the clubhouse wall out in centerfield this photo is from either 1956 or 1957.
    You are quite welcome, PG1957.

    I am not sure just when it was taken. Does anyone remember when the Chesterfield sign was replaced?

    c.

    Leave a comment:


  • POLO GROUNDS 1957
    replied
    polo grounds

    Originally posted by DODGER DEB
    Here is another great shot of batting practice at the Polo Grounds, 155th Street and Eighth Avenue....




    From an eBay listing.

    c.
    Thanks for posting the photo is great. with the knickerbocker beer ad on the clubhouse wall out in centerfield this photo is from either 1956 or 1957.

    Leave a comment:


  • DODGER DEB
    replied
    Here is another great shot of batting practice at the Polo Grounds, 155th Street and Eighth Avenue....




    From an eBay listing.

    c.

    Leave a comment:


  • 64Cards
    replied
    Originally posted by EbtsFldGuy
    Good discussion, guys. Many good thoughts.

    Let me add two other twists to the question.

    1. Suppose that only the Dodgers moved after the 1957 season (I agree that the NL likely would not have permitted that to happen), would the Giants have attracted their fans in enough numbers to make the attendance good enough to stave off their own flight from NY?

    2. And if so, would the Polo Grounds be their home today?

    A blessed and happy 2006 to you all!
    An interesting "what if?" scenario. I think if Stoneham, who didn't seem to be too bright, had realized that with the Dodgers leaving, he would be the only NL franchise in NY and very well could have thrived. He would have been regarded as a hero for not taking his team across the continent. I don't expect that very many Brooklyn fans would become Giant fans, but certainly when LA came to the PG to play the Giants, the place would have been packed, some Dodger fans wanting to see their old heroes and others wanting to see them get their brains beat in, because they now had the LA on their caps. But others may have come during the season to see Mays and to see the other NL teams and the Giants were about to come up with some superb talent from their farm system, Marichal, Cepeda, McCovey, the Alous. They had the best overall record in the NL in the 60's. Plus Stoneham would have been able to get a grateful NY to build him a new stadium, at the Shea location, which brings us to part 2 of the question.

    I think to thrive, he would have needed a new ballpark. I agree with Donald, there probably wasn't too much wrong with the PG that some housekeeping and makeovers couldn't take care of. But the perception, either real or imagined, that it wasn't a safe location was huge, plus as mentioned, a large population shift had taken place in NY after WW2, towards Long Island, making the location at Shea adventageous. And while I love the old classic ballparks, in the late 50's and 60's, the trend was for city planners and architects to get rid of a lot of classic structures and buildings and to go with more modernistic looking structures. Fans weren't exactly flocking to the classic old ballparks in the 50's and 60's. I think in the late 70's, a lot of folks woke up and realized what had been done to a lot of great and classic buildings around the country and it seems that there has been a lot of rehabbing and saving some great buidings and mercifully, a lot of eyesores that were built in the 60's are coming down.

    Leave a comment:


  • tonypug
    replied
    Originally posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957
    Yes horace stoneham wanted out of the polo grounds because of the drop in attendance but if the giants had stayed after a couple good seasons with great attendance with the giants teams in the 1960s he would have changed his mind. I can just see the 1962 world series between the new york giants and the new york yankees with 55,000 fans at the polo grounds. i never did like candlestick park. seals stadium looked nice in photos that i have seen. and i have heard from people who went to seals stadium that said it was a nice park.but to me the polo grounds will always be the home of the giants.
    Donald you are a lover of the old classic baseball parks, as I am, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Polo Grounds was the home of the New York Giants and will always be remembered as such.Willie Mays cavorting in center field and loseing his cap as he flew around the bases will always be a fond memory for me. Even though many of these actions hurt my Brooklyn Dodgers. Unfortunatly Horace Stoneham lost his love for the ballpark. It woud have been something to see McCovey and Cepeda hit in that ballpark though.

    Leave a comment:


  • POLO GROUNDS 1957
    replied
    horace stoneham

    Originally posted by chiefpaddy
    The problem with this train of thought is Horace Stoneham was convinced he had to leave the Polo Grounds. He origonally asked for permission to move his team to Minneapolis. This was before O'Malley started his westward move talk. He was turned down, no doubt O'Malley led the opposition. He was then thinking of moving in with the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. As long as Horace owned the Giants, the Polo Grounds was not in their future, even had they stayed in New York.
    Yes horace stoneham wanted out of the polo grounds because of the drop in attendance but if the giants had stayed after a couple good seasons with great attendance with the giants teams in the 1960s he would have changed his mind. I can just see the 1962 world series between the new york giants and the new york yankees with 55,000 fans at the polo grounds. i never did like candlestick park. seals stadium looked nice in photos that i have seen. and i have heard from people who went to seals stadium that said it was a nice park.but to me the polo grounds will always be the home of the giants.

    Leave a comment:


  • chiefpaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by POLO GROUNDS 1957
    I think that the giants would have made it if only brooklyn had moved. look at how good the giants were after they left new york. they would have had no problem filling the polo grounds.
    The problem with this train of thought is Horace Stoneham was convinced he had to leave the Polo Grounds. He origonally asked for permission to move his team to Minneapolis. This was before O'Malley started his westward move talk. He was turned down, no doubt O'Malley led the opposition. He was then thinking of moving in with the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. As long as Horace owned the Giants, the Polo Grounds was not in their future, even had they stayed in New York.

    Leave a comment:


  • POLO GROUNDS 1957
    replied
    giants

    Originally posted by EbtsFldGuy
    Good discussion, guys. Many good thoughts.

    Let me add two other twists to the question.

    1. Suppose that only the Dodgers moved after the 1957 season (I agree that the NL likely would not have permitted that to happen), would the Giants have attracted their fans in enough numbers to make the attendance good enough to stave off their own flight from NY?

    2. And if so, would the Polo Grounds be their home today?

    A blessed and happy 2006 to you all!
    I think that the giants would have made it if only brooklyn had moved. look at how good the giants were after they left new york. they would have had no problem filling the polo grounds.

    Leave a comment:


  • EbtsFldGuy
    replied
    Good discussion, guys. Many good thoughts.

    Let me add two other twists to the question.

    1. Suppose that only the Dodgers moved after the 1957 season (I agree that the NL likely would not have permitted that to happen), would the Giants have attracted their fans in enough numbers to make the attendance good enough to stave off their own flight from NY?

    2. And if so, would the Polo Grounds be their home today?

    A blessed and happy 2006 to you all!

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X