Giants move was quiet

[EbtsFldGuy]

TonyPug's posts raise an interesting question that has been marginally considered from time to time on this and the Brooklyn Dodgers board: i.e. the effect of the safety of the neighborhood on the longevity of the stadium.

There are examples both ways. The Phillies HAD to leave Connie Mack because North Philly had deteriorated to the point that fan attendance was so negatively affected. Yet the White Sox not only stayed in a bad part of the South Side, but built a new park there. And there is Detroit, and Cleveland before the city rebuilt itself and its reputation.

The Polo Grounds neighborhood in 1957 was worse than Ebbets Field's (Crown Heights/Flatbush), but the Mets drew well for the two years they were there in 1962 & 1963. And the Bronx near Yankee Stadium has not been the best of places for years.

Yet there has always been an ample police presence at Yankee Stadium on game days and there have been improvements in parking, transit, etc.

I believe the same could have been done for the PG, but EF would have been harder, because of its location. Still, I am convinced that both parks could exist today, with proper financing and adjustmets. Whether they were suitable for the now-indispendable luxury box construction is another matter.

Nonetheless, how interesting is it that Giants and Dodger fans are still ruing the moves 49 years later.

Shows the impact those teams had in NYC and beyond. I'd bet that there is no such passion left in Boston (for the Braves), or St. Louis ( for the Browns). There is a Phila A's website, however.

End of my Sunday morning musings.

[tonypug]

TonyPug's posts raise an interesting question that has been marginally considered from time to time on this and the Brooklyn Dodgers board: i.e. the effect of the safety of the neighborhood on the longevity of the stadium.

There are examples both ways. The Phillies HAD to leave Connie Mack because North Philly had deteriorated to the point that fan attendance was so negatively affected. Yet the White Sox not only stayed in a bad part of the South Side, but built a new park there. And there is Detroit, and Cleveland before the city rebuilt itself and its reputation.

The Polo Grounds neighborhood in 1957 was worse than Ebbets Field's (Crown Heights/Flatbush), but the Mets drew well for the two years they were there in 1962 & 1963. And the Bronx near Yankee Stadium has not been the best of places for years.

Yet there has always been an ample police presence at Yankee Stadium on game days and there have been improvements in parking, transit, etc.

I believe the same could have been done for the PG, but EF would have been harder, because of its location. Still, I am convinced that both parks could exist today, with proper financing and adjustmets. Whether they were suitable for the now-indispendable luxury box construction is another matter.

Nonetheless, how interesting is it that Giants and Dodger fans are still ruing the moves 49 years later.

Shows the impact those teams had in NYC and beyond. I'd bet that there is no such passion left in Boston (for the Braves), or St. Louis ( for the Browns). There is a Phila A's website, however.

End of my Sunday morning musings.

Not bad for a Sunday morning. I was 10 when the teams left for the west coast. I remember going to both Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds from 1954 on.I never felt insecure, but of course I was always in the company of my father and older brother.Ebbets Field and Brooklyn were doomed because O'Malley was looking to move well before 1957. O'Malley had no intention of using any of his own money to build a new stadium. The Giants were a different situation. The Dodgers were still making a healthy profit despite what O'Malley tried to say. The Giants were having real financial problems. The Polo Grounds could have been renovated, but the question was would it have nade a difference. Stoneham didn't think it would make a difference. O'Malley encoraged the talk about safety and security issues, it helped his cause.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Were I a professor in an MBA program, here's an assignment I'd give to each student:

Make an economic case for the Dodgers (or Giants) leaving NY in 1957.

Then make the opposite case.

Would make for interesting reading, I suspect.

[tonypug]

Interesting concept. I would enroll in that course just to do the project.

[aqib]

Were I a professor in an MBA program, here's an assignment I'd give to each student:

Make an economic case for the Dodgers (or Giants) leaving NY in 1957.

Then make the opposite case.

Would make for interesting reading, I suspect.

That would have made getting my MBA so much more fun, but I am sure anyone who made too strong of a case FOR the Dodgers move would fail in my school because I went to NYU. The University president is John Sexton the same one who was in the HBO documentary telling the story of how his Catholic school teacher wouldn't let them listen to game 7 of the 1955 series as a punishment. Towards the end of the movie he says "Walter O'Malley is in the 7th layer of Dante's h**l with some of the most vile people of the 20th century." So I am pretty sure if I wanted to graduate my case would have to say "yeah the Giants should go because who likes the Giants anyway, they were a bunch of cheaters and we all hate the Giants, but the Dodgers they should stay"

[nl1899fan]

Compared to the Brooklyn Dodgers move to LA which was in the newspapers every day, there was very little written about the Giants move to SF. O'Malley was always being quoted, nothing much was ever said about Stoneham. Was it that nobody believed Stoneham would move, or that none of the City fathers cared if they did. I remember stories about Stoneham begging to come to meetings with the city fathers and O'Malley, but he was never invited. How come?

I never have understood this myself. It seemed like New York didn't care if the Giants left-very little is written about this half of the double move west.
Pretty ironic, since the Giants were once THE team in town until that Babe Ruth guy showed up.

The city bigshots probably figured if the Giants left the Dodgers wouldn't dare to do so too even though the signs were all there and the NL insisted that a move west would be a package deal. True the Giants were in bad shape by 1957 but more effort should have been made to keep them-had they stayed put two more years the Giants would have done well financially in New York when Cepeda, Mc Covey, Marichal and the rest came up.

[Perseus71]

I just wanted to add in that the Giants also were talked about in a move to Denver, before the expansion team got awarded to them. The Denver Post, at the time, put the "D" on the baseball cap and put Denver in the Giants logo. Quite sickening to tell you the truth... The Denver Giants?

The Giants have a nice home now, but like I said in the Dodger forum,"How do you leave the #1 market in the country?" The Mets are worth more than the Dodgers and Giants combined, so the NY National League team gets the last laugh. Plus a better stadium now!

[Ottman]

I'm too young to remember the Giants and the Dodgers playing in New York although my father has 8mm film of the Cardinals and Mets playing at the Polo Grounds in 1963. I find the whole Giant/Dodger move extremely interesting. There seems to be a myriad of reasons and theories. Can anyone recommend a book that definitively deals with the subject? Does such a book exist, and if not one should be written!