revisionist histOry
man. all-star break is longest three days ever isn't it? wayward O thought about posting a 'state of Os' report but so many others have done that! no need to repeat about how jay gibbons cannot hit baseball!
so instead wayward O has very special treat. please enjoy timely email interview with lifelong baseball fan who was "dere" when Dodgers left Brooklyn and who begs to differ with those currently floating revisionist idea that Robert Moses was actually greatest villain.
without further ado:
the wayward O: There is a lot of sportsyack in Big Apple this week about HBO show about Brooklyn Dodgers. From what I understand about show, Robert Moses is new goat and Walter O'Malley and former Mayor Wagner are being touted as victims of a planner with too much power who had a vision for baseball in Flushing, Queens. Wachoo say?
sponsort: The record is clear - as early as 1953 O'Malley was conspiring to move da Bums. He nearly had a deal with Minneapolis but reneged (which is why they later got the Senators). He bought the land for Dodger Stadium secretly. He is, indisputably, the villain of the story who broke the hearts of several generations. And you could look it up.
t.w.O.: So you're saying even as O'Malley pleaded with NYC for new stadium, he was laying groundwork to build own stadium in California, right? And it follows that he could easily have:
1) torn down Ebbetts
2) played for a year or two somewhere nearby while new stadium went up
3) moved back in to new park on old site
Since he had money to build in L.A.
sponsort: The record that has come out since the move shows clearly that O'Malley was stringing Brooklyn along for years. Oh sure - if NYC had come up with a mammoth sweetheart deal, he could have dumped the Chavez Ravine site in L.A. (just like he did the site in Minneapolis). Peter Goldenbock's book "Bums" documented all this more than a decade ago (along with the infamous agreement by L.A. officials to keep quiet about all of it so as not to rule up the fans in Brooklyn).
I think the height of O'Malley's perfidy was convincing the owner of the NY [Baseball] Giants (Horace Stoneham) to announce that he was moving the Giants to S.F. before the Dodgers announced and BEFORE STONEHAM EVEN KNEW WHERE THE GIANTS WOULD PLAY. Of course S.F. ended up with a terrible deal, and a lousy stadium (Candlestick) and has never won a WS. As far as logistics goes, O'Malley already had the Dodgers playing some regular season games in Jersey City as early as '55 or '56 (not sure of exact date).
And since the Dodgers were only drawing 20,000 or less at Ebbett's Field, he wasn't losing any money by doing so. I don't recall that tearing down the old park and re-building was ever a viable option. Ebbett's Field stood on a tiny space with no parking at all.
I believe that everyone agreed a new site was needed. As far as money goes, recall that O'Malley got an amazing deal in L.A. As I recall, he basically got the land for free and had to pay only for the stadium construction. And while we are on the O'Malley topic (in this Jackie Robinson anniversary year) remember that he is the man who traded Jackie to the Giants in '57. Luckily for all that is decent Jackie retired instead.
t.w.O.: So, how do you think Rob't Moses fits into puzzle? Was it a situation where each man used other man and each gave own version of events? Moses clearly did not want O'Malley to built new park at Flatbush & Atlantic ... others are still fighting over that site to this day.
sponsort: I do not know any details of the role of Moses. I know from my reading that he was in the mix, and that he was a supreme egoist. For that reason I suspect that he would have loved to keep one or both of the National League teams somewhere in NYC. What I really DO know is that O'Malley smelled $$ on the West Coast (the arrival of cross country flights in the late 1950s made travel feasible). He wanted to be the first, but in order to succeed he had to become a traitor to Brooklyn. And he was - with malice aforethought, and he took Willie Mays and the Gi'nts along for the ride.
t.w.O.: I think it may be a case where both men are villains. I tend to think Moses thought a new Dodger stadium in Brooklyn would compromise his vision for the huge complex in Flushing, Queens, which now includes Shea and the Tennis Center.
sponsort: Sorry, but I can not defend the idea that both were villains - Moses was trying to keep the Dodgers in NY. Instead of moving the Dodgers a few miles east O'Malley moved them 3,000 miles west .
What's wrong with this picture? I think I just figured out what's going on here. L.A. apologists have been lobbying to put O'Malley into the Hall of Fame (Executive Wing).
They believe that his "leadership" in bringing baseball to the West Coast makes him deserving (even though baseball on the West Coast was going to happen in any event). [It's] probably part of a campaign to rehabilitate O'Malley and get him elected to the H.o.F. Well it WON'T WORK and will be OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!
so instead wayward O has very special treat. please enjoy timely email interview with lifelong baseball fan who was "dere" when Dodgers left Brooklyn and who begs to differ with those currently floating revisionist idea that Robert Moses was actually greatest villain.
without further ado:
the wayward O: There is a lot of sportsyack in Big Apple this week about HBO show about Brooklyn Dodgers. From what I understand about show, Robert Moses is new goat and Walter O'Malley and former Mayor Wagner are being touted as victims of a planner with too much power who had a vision for baseball in Flushing, Queens. Wachoo say?
sponsort: The record is clear - as early as 1953 O'Malley was conspiring to move da Bums. He nearly had a deal with Minneapolis but reneged (which is why they later got the Senators). He bought the land for Dodger Stadium secretly. He is, indisputably, the villain of the story who broke the hearts of several generations. And you could look it up.
t.w.O.: So you're saying even as O'Malley pleaded with NYC for new stadium, he was laying groundwork to build own stadium in California, right? And it follows that he could easily have:
1) torn down Ebbetts
2) played for a year or two somewhere nearby while new stadium went up
3) moved back in to new park on old site
Since he had money to build in L.A.
sponsort: The record that has come out since the move shows clearly that O'Malley was stringing Brooklyn along for years. Oh sure - if NYC had come up with a mammoth sweetheart deal, he could have dumped the Chavez Ravine site in L.A. (just like he did the site in Minneapolis). Peter Goldenbock's book "Bums" documented all this more than a decade ago (along with the infamous agreement by L.A. officials to keep quiet about all of it so as not to rule up the fans in Brooklyn).
I think the height of O'Malley's perfidy was convincing the owner of the NY [Baseball] Giants (Horace Stoneham) to announce that he was moving the Giants to S.F. before the Dodgers announced and BEFORE STONEHAM EVEN KNEW WHERE THE GIANTS WOULD PLAY. Of course S.F. ended up with a terrible deal, and a lousy stadium (Candlestick) and has never won a WS. As far as logistics goes, O'Malley already had the Dodgers playing some regular season games in Jersey City as early as '55 or '56 (not sure of exact date).
And since the Dodgers were only drawing 20,000 or less at Ebbett's Field, he wasn't losing any money by doing so. I don't recall that tearing down the old park and re-building was ever a viable option. Ebbett's Field stood on a tiny space with no parking at all.
I believe that everyone agreed a new site was needed. As far as money goes, recall that O'Malley got an amazing deal in L.A. As I recall, he basically got the land for free and had to pay only for the stadium construction. And while we are on the O'Malley topic (in this Jackie Robinson anniversary year) remember that he is the man who traded Jackie to the Giants in '57. Luckily for all that is decent Jackie retired instead.
t.w.O.: So, how do you think Rob't Moses fits into puzzle? Was it a situation where each man used other man and each gave own version of events? Moses clearly did not want O'Malley to built new park at Flatbush & Atlantic ... others are still fighting over that site to this day.
sponsort: I do not know any details of the role of Moses. I know from my reading that he was in the mix, and that he was a supreme egoist. For that reason I suspect that he would have loved to keep one or both of the National League teams somewhere in NYC. What I really DO know is that O'Malley smelled $$ on the West Coast (the arrival of cross country flights in the late 1950s made travel feasible). He wanted to be the first, but in order to succeed he had to become a traitor to Brooklyn. And he was - with malice aforethought, and he took Willie Mays and the Gi'nts along for the ride.
t.w.O.: I think it may be a case where both men are villains. I tend to think Moses thought a new Dodger stadium in Brooklyn would compromise his vision for the huge complex in Flushing, Queens, which now includes Shea and the Tennis Center.
sponsort: Sorry, but I can not defend the idea that both were villains - Moses was trying to keep the Dodgers in NY. Instead of moving the Dodgers a few miles east O'Malley moved them 3,000 miles west .
What's wrong with this picture? I think I just figured out what's going on here. L.A. apologists have been lobbying to put O'Malley into the Hall of Fame (Executive Wing).
They believe that his "leadership" in bringing baseball to the West Coast makes him deserving (even though baseball on the West Coast was going to happen in any event). [It's] probably part of a campaign to rehabilitate O'Malley and get him elected to the H.o.F. Well it WON'T WORK and will be OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!
Labels: arOund the big leagues
posted by the wayward o at
3:49 PM
1 Comments:
where does wayward stand on "Take Back the Yard or whatever thingy"?
-brO
Post a Comment
<< Home