HBO's Ghosts of Flatbush

[budbowl77]

The HBO special was one sided to make O'Malley look like the good guy.

btw: Robert Moses was head of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority at the time of the Dodgers move to LA. It's not his fault the Dodgers left Brooklyn the buck stops with O'Malley, his son can spin it all he wants..

Yes, it is Moses' fault the team left for LA. All he had to do was "yes" and the Dodgers would have stayed in Brooklyn. O'Malley did all he could, but he couldn't get Moses to say "yes", which left him with no other choice then to move to LA.

The buck stopped with Robert Moses. He's the one who should carry the blame for the Dodgers moving to LA, not Walter O'Malley.

Wow, what happened to hearing both sides of the story?? What happened to being impartial? You got sucked in hook, line and sinker man by an HBO special...wow man, wow...

Why should I give a rat's a$$ about what you have to say anyway? You admittedly like to be "the fly in the ointment ", the guy who likes to stir things up, for no other reason then to cause controversy. If we were all blaming O'Malley and letting Moses off the hook, you would be the first to blame Moses.

FTR though, I am being impartial. Between the two of us, I'm the only one looking at both sides of the story. Essentially, as a non New Yorker, I'm able to look at the Dodgers/Brooklyn/Los Angeles situation and not have emotion cloud my judgement.

Bottom line? O'Malley wanted to keep the team in Brooklyn. Ebbets Field was an out-of-date facility. He did everything he could to get a new stadium built in Brooklyn. Robert Moses was the only man he had to convince, and Moses essentially told O'Malley a new stadium in Brooklyn was out of the question.

So left with an out-of-date facility in Brooklyn, no hope for a new stadium in Brooklyn, and a golden offer from LA, what was he suppose to do?

In the end O'Malley did everything he could to get the a stadium built in Brooklyn and Robert Moses did all he could to make sure it never happened. Moses, being the second most powerful man in NYC at the time (perhaps the most powerful man in the city regarding what got built where), won the battle, and killed the possibility of a new stadium in Brooklyn.

It was Robert Moses who drove the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, not Walter O'Malley. O'Malley took the only real option available to him.

Take my opinion and like it beeyotch.

[budbowl77]

Why should I give a rat's a$$ about what you have to say anyway? You admittedly like to be "the fly in the ointment ", the guy who likes to stir things up, for no other reason then to cause controversy. If we were all blaming O'Malley and letting Moses off the hook, you would be the first to blame Moses.

First off, fly in the ointment or not, the truth is the truth. Moses was using his power as head of the Triboro to generate income and become a power broker within NYC without ever being elected. He wanted to be the guy behind the scenes that no one could bring down. Problem was that toll roads only give you so much clout. End of the day if you look at the neighborhoods that Moses destroyed with a flick of a pen and not even caring you'd realize the arrogance of the man. O'Malley didn't care either way though if Moses helped him or not. Moses just made it easier for O'Malley to jet off to the left coast and greener pastures. You tell me what O'Malley wanted more, New York City with its competition against the Yankees and Giants or the entirety of the Southern California market with no major league teams within 1,000 miles. O'Malley USED Moses to get what he wanted. O'Malley wanted a new ballpark and if he couldn't get it in Brookyln, he'd take it in Los Angeles. He blamed Moses for making it untenable in Flatbush, but scapegoating someone doesn't make it true.

FTR though, I am being impartial. Between the two of us, I'm the only one looking at both sides of the story. Essentially, as a non New Yorker, I'm able to look at the Dodgers/Brooklyn/Los Angeles situation and not have emotion cloud my judgement.

Bottom line? O'Malley wanted to keep the team in Brooklyn. Ebbets Field was an out-of-date facility. He did everything he could to get a new stadium built in Brooklyn. Robert Moses was the only man he had to convince, and Moses essentially told O'Malley a new stadium in Brooklyn was out of the question.

So left with an out-of-date facility in Brooklyn, no hope for a new stadium in Brooklyn, and a golden offer from LA, what was he suppose to do?

In the end O'Malley did everything he could to get the a stadium built in Brooklyn and Robert Moses did all he could to make sure it never happened. Moses, being the second most powerful man in NYC at the time (perhaps the most powerful man in the city regarding what got built where), won the battle, and killed the possibility of a new stadium in Brooklyn.

It was Robert Moses who drove the Dodgers out of Brooklyn, not Walter O'Malley. O'Malley took the only real option available to him.

Bottom line, O'Malley had the funds at his disposal to build a new park on his own if he wanted. He was nothing more than a sign of the future and our owners today that try to nickle and dime every cent they can get out of a city in terms of building them a ballpark for free and a cushy lease and naming rights and everything else. That's why the Dodgers left, not Moses or anything else. O'Malley was a good businessman and took what he could get, even if it meant screwing over someone else. Now if only the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund got a good arena offer in Alabama to host the Leasts, you'd get my point.

[winghaz]

I got to thinking about how the image of the Dodgers changed from the move to Brooklyn to Los Angeles.

In Brooklyn, they were the bums, the blue-collar team (especially as opposed to the white-collar Yankees), the team of the working class, the team of the inner cities. You would see them in the crowd on the Ed Sullivan Show.

In L.A., they became Hollywood's Team, the team of the sports-shirted crowd, the team of the suburbs, the team of the surfer dudes and bikini babes. They embodied Southern California. You would see them making guest appearances in sitcoms such as Mr. Ed or the Beverly Hillbillies. You'd never see any of the Angels show up on the sitcoms. The Dodgers were, and still are, the embodiment of L.A. and Southern California.

[Your Name Here]

O'Malley's effort to build a new ballpark proceeded from a false assumption: that the Dodgers needed a new ballpark. Ebbets Field was not old - and if it were falling apart, that's O'Malley's fault. The Dodgers averaged a million and a half during this era and were profitable. Fenway Park opened the year before, and there's no longer any talk of its replacement.

This reminds me of the "Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame Art Modell." Certainly you can't fault him for moving the Browns to Baltimore. Any businessman would've taken that offer in a second. You can however fault him for buying the team in the first place.

[The_Admiral]

I got to thinking about how the image of the Dodgers changed from the move to Brooklyn to Los Angeles.

In Brooklyn, they were the bums, the blue-collar team (especially as opposed to the white-collar Yankees), the team of the working class, the team of the inner cities. You would see them in the crowd on the Ed Sullivan Show.

In L.A., they became Hollywood's Team, the team of the sports-shirted crowd, the team of the suburbs, the team of the surfer dudes and bikini babes. They embodied Southern California. You would see them making guest appearances in sitcoms such as Mr. Ed or the Beverly Hillbillies. You'd never see any of the Angels show up on the sitcoms. The Dodgers were, and still are, the embodiment of L.A. and Southern California.

That's a great point. Nice post.

[njmeadowlanders]

To steer away from the whole O'Malley/Moses debate for a second--look at those proposed field dimensions...

...it's like a little league field--no gaps, but the same distance to the wall all throughout fair territory. 380' all around...I'm sure those probably would've been changed and whatnot, but still different...

[Mac the Knife]

O'Malley's effort to build a new ballpark proceeded from a false assumption: that the Dodgers needed a new ballpark. Ebbets Field was not old - and if it were falling apart, that's O'Malley's fault. The Dodgers averaged a million and a half during this era and were profitable. Fenway Park opened the year before, and there's no longer any talk of its replacement.

This reminds me of the "Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame Art Modell." Certainly you can't fault him for moving the Browns to Baltimore. Any businessman would've taken that offer in a second. You can however fault him for buying the team in the first place.

You obviously didn't see this program. Ebbets Field wasn't old, but it was in disrepair to an extent and incapable of being expanded beyond its 1957 size. It also had parking accommodations for all of around 700 cars, which is about the same number you'd see surrounding a large grocery store.

Can't fault Art Modell? Are you high? The Browns move was a product of one thing - Modell's utter incompetence as a businessman. He drained the team's revenue and pissed it away year after year - and did the exact same thing in Baltimore until he had to borrow out the ass to stay afloat... and ultimately, sell the franchise. Know of what you speak before you do so.

[leopard88]

I finally had the chance to see the second hour of the special last night, so I can speak with a little more knowledge.

While the documentary didn't hold to the official Brooklyn story line that it was all O'Malley's fault, I also don't think it made him look blameless either. Instead, the documentary just pointed out that there was at least one other person who's role merits consideration, though the overall review of both of their roles was fairly cursory.

My wife, who wouldn't know Walter O'Malley from Walter Alston from Walter Cronkite, summed it up best. She said it just sounded like two stubborn men who refused to budge. O'Malley wouldn't accept a stadium in Queens and Moses wouldn't accept a stadium in Brooklyn. If either had decided to blink, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For the record, as a Baltimore fan, I have seen both sides of franchise relocation. While by no means does that make me some sort of authority on the subject, I think it does make me sensitive to the perceptions and feelings of fans in cities both gaining and losing teams. As much as I hate Robert Irsay, I know Baltimore and Maryland weren't blameless in the move of the Colts. I also know Art Modell wasn't blameless in the move of the Ravens. Those two experiences have taught/reminded me that, like most things in the life, the moving of sports franchises is almost never a black-and-white proposition. This documentary tried to remind us all of that same lesson.

[Swiss]

Thats the one thing I learned yesterday. I too blamed O'Malley, but looking at that it was clearly Moses fault, O'Malley should have been allowed to build that Stadium at Flatbush and Atlantic Aves. Oh how different things could have been, could you imagine.

Hey Tank, if you like reading books of baseball history, let's get The Last Good Season of Michael Shapiro.

Like alots of people I used to believe O'Malley as the bad guy of the moving stuff... but learning it from that book and The Dodgers 120 Years (of Glenn Stout) it's very obvious that Moses was the SOB.

The Last Good Season tells the 1956 pennant race of the Dogs but also tells all the facts that ended with the fateful move to California next year. You can find there how Moses was too insensitive about the impact of a move: not being a mayor, Moses thought too many about buildings and not the souls of the people...

[Luigi74]

If the Dodgers moved to Flushing or New Jersey wouldnt all of those old timer's still be upset because the team was no longer in Brooklyn.

[cappital92]

If the Dodgers moved to Flushing or New Jersey wouldnt all of those old timer's still be upset because the team was no longer in Brooklyn.

Not really, because the Dodgers would only be a half-hour subway ride, unlike LA, which is a four hour plane ride.

[Swiss]

If the Dodgers moved to Flushing or New Jersey wouldnt all of those old timer's still be upset because the team was no longer in Brooklyn.

Not really, because the Dodgers would only be a half-hour subway ride, unlike LA, which is a four hour plane ride.

That's why lots of Brooklyn Dodgers fans are current Mets fans...

[JQK]

O'Mally began the era of the terrorist owner. Negotions could have continued, and yes, Ebbets was becoming a dump and the neighborhood was changing, but it wasn't falling apart. Basically, Walter got impatient and said "Build it, or i'm gone".

Moses obviously didn't take to threats too well, and he had his own ideas. So he stuck to his guns, because before O'Mally, teams uprooting and bolting, especially a team as woven into the community fabric as the Dodgers were, was relativly unheard of.

If O'Mally stayed and negotiated more, let things take their course, he may have gotten what he wanted, where he wanted. It was a matter of Walter getting impatient, and L.A. whoring themselves to get ANY team willing, that pushed the Dodgers. (By the way, the Dodgers and L.A. kinda :censored: all over a bunch of latinos living in the barrio at Chavez Ravine... no mention of that in the HBO documentary... kinda interesting)

The problem is everyone is seeing this from modern eyes... if you were around back then, with no knowledge of how sports business is run today, you would have been just as shocked and disgusted with O'Mally's move. Today it's fine, it's commonplace. But it all had a start, and Walter O'Mally was indeed the first terrorist Owner. He ripped out fans hearts, played with their emotions, let them believe that there was a chance that they would stay where there really wasn't... he ripped the soul out of Brooklyn.

Bottom Line.

[JQK]

If the Dodgers moved to Flushing or New Jersey wouldnt all of those old timer's still be upset because the team was no longer in Brooklyn.

Not really, because the Dodgers would only be a half-hour subway ride, unlike LA, which is a four hour plane ride.

That's why lots of Brooklyn Dodgers fans are current Mets fans...

Honestly, most just stopped watching baseball.... my whole mother's side of the family were Dodger fans. Not a one of them has watched baseball since the move, and most anyone i know that was around and fans of the Brooklyn Dodgers back then, they don't watch pro ball at all...

[leopard88]

The problem is everyone is seeing this from modern eyes... if you were around back then, with no knowledge of how sports business is run today, you would have been just as shocked and disgusted with O'Mally's move. Today it's fine, it's commonplace. But it all had a start, and Walter O'Mally was indeed the first terrorist Owner. He ripped out fans hearts, played with their emotions, let them believe that there was a chance that they would stay where there really wasn't... he ripped the soul out of Brooklyn.

I disagree with your contention that O'Malley "let them believe that there was a chance that they would stay where there really wasn't." I believe he was sincere in wanting to stay in Brooklyn, however that willingness obviously had its limits (as proven by his ultimate decision to move).

On the other hand, your point about seeing this through "modern eyes" is a very good one. Few, if any, of us were around in 1957, so it is very difficult to put ourselves in the position of fans of that era without being impacted by our experiences since then. The Dodgers obviously weren't the first major league team to move, since the Braves, Browns and A's had beaten them to the punch (and NFL teams were still playing musical chairs up until the early 1950s). However, they were the first team with a relatively recent track record of good fan support to move, which must have come as a shock even though the process seems to have played out like a slow burn in the last year or two (at least judging by the HBO documentary).

[slapshot]

(By the way, the Dodgers and L.A. kinda :censored: all over a bunch of latinos living in the barrio at Chavez Ravine... no mention of that in the HBO documentary... kinda interesting)

HBO didn't mention it, but PBS did. Interesting documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/

[B-Rich]

(By the way, the Dodgers and L.A. kinda :censored: all over a bunch of latinos living in the barrio at Chavez Ravine... no mention of that in the HBO documentary... kinda interesting)

HBO didn't mention it, but PBS did. Interesting documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/

Man, I'd like to see that documentary. It's not on in the next two weeks-- had it already played before?

At any rate, there was a discrepancy in the website "history":

Los Angeles was also a rapidly growing city in the 1950s. Despite its expanding population, the city had yet to host a major-league sports team.

Either they meant to use the word baseball instead of sports, or they conveniently forgot about the NFL Rams, who had been there since 1946.

[JQK]

(By the way, the Dodgers and L.A. kinda :censored: all over a bunch of latinos living in the barrio at Chavez Ravine... no mention of that in the HBO documentary... kinda interesting)

HBO didn't mention it, but PBS did. Interesting documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/

Man, I'd like to see that documentary. It's not on in the next two weeks-- had it already played before?

At any rate, there was a discrepancy in the website "history":

Los Angeles was also a rapidly growing city in the 1950s. Despite its expanding population, the city had yet to host a major-league sports team.

Either they meant to use the word baseball instead of sports, or they conveniently forgot about the NFL Rams, who had been there since 1946.

You must remember, before the 1956 NFL Championship Game, the NFL was looked upon much like the MLS is seen in this country today. It was a second rate league, faaaaaar behind College Football in popularity, and not even touching baseball...

[Swiss]

(By the way, the Dodgers and L.A. kinda :censored: all over a bunch of latinos living in the barrio at Chavez Ravine... no mention of that in the HBO documentary... kinda interesting)

HBO didn't mention it, but PBS did. Interesting documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/

The book The Dodgers 120 Years of Glenn Stout covers that history.