PDA

View Full Version : Joe Torre quits his MLB job to pursue Dodger ownership bid


DumpJerry
01-04-2012, 11:34 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-torre-quits-mlb-to-pursue-dodgers-ownership-20120104,0,4422808.story

Noneck
01-04-2012, 12:10 PM
Probably also wants to be at Santa Anita and Del Mar. I dont blame him.

thomas35forever
01-04-2012, 12:53 PM
That would be interesting.

Fenway
01-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Might also be a signal who Selig wants as owner.

Golden Sox
01-04-2012, 01:35 PM
Is it possible that somebody from the East Coast might buy the Dodgers and move them back to Brooklyn? When the O'Malley family sold the team years ago, one group of investors from the East Coast wanted to buy the Dodgers and move them back to the East Coast.

Fenway
01-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Is it possible that somebody from the East Coast might buy the Dodgers and move them back to Brooklyn? When the O'Malley family sold the team years ago, one group of investors from the East Coast wanted to buy the Dodgers and move them back to the East Coast.

http://wordyninja.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/brooklyn-sign.jpg

LITTLE NELL
01-04-2012, 01:51 PM
Is it possible that somebody from the East Coast might buy the Dodgers and move them back to Brooklyn? When the O'Malley family sold the team years ago, one group of investors from the East Coast wanted to buy the Dodgers and move them back to the East Coast.


Yankees and especially the Mets would nix that idea real quick.
Boston Dodgers has a nice ring to it.

TDog
01-04-2012, 02:41 PM
Is it possible that somebody from the East Coast might buy the Dodgers and move them back to Brooklyn? When the O'Malley family sold the team years ago, one group of investors from the East Coast wanted to buy the Dodgers and move them back to the East Coast.


Brooklyn has changed quite a bit in the last half century, and not for the better. Some people blame the Dodgers in part for moving, but the Dodgers' move was, in part, reactive.

But if you were to start from scratch and build major league baseball, and there weren't already a stadium in The Bronx, you wouldn't locate a team there.

And the Los Angeles Dodgers aren't going anywhere.

doublem23
01-04-2012, 02:54 PM
Brooklyn has changed quite a bit in the last half century, and not for the better. Some people blame the Dodgers in part for moving, but the Dodgers' move was, in part, reactive.

Ha, what exactly is wrong with Brooklyn?

downstairs
01-04-2012, 02:58 PM
From Uni Watch, the guy that runs the site posted this:

Joe Torre has announced that heís joining a group that attempting to buy the Dodgers. If heís successful, heíll have been all of the following:
- Player
- Manager (and briefly player/manager!)
- Broadcaster
- League executive
- Owner
Thatís a pretty rare combination. Has anyone else ever pulled off all of those?

downstairs
01-04-2012, 02:59 PM
Ha, what exactly is wrong with Brooklyn?

Exactly. I've known many people that live there, all thought it was a great place to live.

palehozenychicty
01-04-2012, 03:02 PM
Exactly. I've known many people that live there, all thought it was a great place to live.

He may be talking about the gentrification, marked with the rise of Barclays Center. That's happening worldwide, though.

Anyhow, Brooklyn is a great place to live.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

TDog
01-04-2012, 04:06 PM
Ha, what exactly is wrong with Brooklyn?

I didn't mean to strike a nerve. Actually, when Brooklyn got a major league team, it was the fourth-largest city in the US. There was a book by Elliot Willensky, When Brooklyn Was the World, 1920-1957 (ISBN 0517558580) that explains what Brooklyn was. Willensky, a Brooklyn native, actually blamed the Dodgers, at least in part, for Brooklyn's decline. But O'Malley saw the need to leave Brooklyn, and it hasn't evolved into a major corner of New York City since.

Today there should be no question that Los Angeles would be a better place than Brooklyn to have your baseball team.

Fenway
01-04-2012, 04:18 PM
I didn't mean to strike a nerve. Actually, when Brooklyn got a major league team, it was the fourth-largest city in the US. There was a book by Elliot Willensky, When Brooklyn Was the World, 1920-1957 (ISBN 0517558580) that explains what Brooklyn was. Willensky, a Brooklyn native, actually blamed the Dodgers, at least in part, for Brooklyn's decline. But O'Malley saw the need to leave Brooklyn, and it hasn't evolved into a major corner of New York City since.

Today there should be no question that Los Angeles would be a better place than Brooklyn to have your baseball team.

I think history has shown that O'Malley did want to stay in Brooklyn and certainly wanted a new domed ballpark at the LIRR Terminal. Robert Moses wanted the new ballpark in Flushing Meadows and in the 1950's Moses always got what he wanted.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/stpages/bkln.html

O'Malley scoffed at the idea of a Brooklyn team playing in Queens and then he worked on the Giants to move west with him.

The new Nets arena is where O'Malley wanted to be. Only now has anything ever been done to the site.

doublem23
01-04-2012, 04:33 PM
I didn't mean to strike a nerve. Actually, when Brooklyn got a major league team, it was the fourth-largest city in the US. There was a book by Elliot Willensky, When Brooklyn Was the World, 1920-1957 (ISBN 0517558580) that explains what Brooklyn was. Willensky, a Brooklyn native, actually blamed the Dodgers, at least in part, for Brooklyn's decline. But O'Malley saw the need to leave Brooklyn, and it hasn't evolved into a major corner of New York City since.

Today there should be no question that Los Angeles would be a better place than Brooklyn to have your baseball team.

Yeah, except that since the Dodgers left, Brooklyn has become the most populous New York City burough and, after three straight decades of population gain, is nearing it's mid-century high point, remarkable for any Northern/Eastern city. No question LA is probably a better place to make money for your baseball team, only questioning the dubious opinion that Brooklyn in the 1950s is better than Brooklyn today.

#1swisher
01-04-2012, 04:34 PM
It's confirmed that Joe Torres' group is led by real estate developer Rick Caruso.
Good Luck, Joe!

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/04/joe-torre-resigns-from-his-mlb-post-to-join-in-a-bid-on-the-dodgers/

TDog
01-04-2012, 04:51 PM
Yeah, except that since the Dodgers left, Brooklyn has become the most populous New York City burough and, after three straight decades of population gain, is nearing it's mid-century high point, remarkable for any Northern/Eastern city. No question LA is probably a better place to make money for your baseball team, only questioning the dubious opinion that Brooklyn in the 1950s is better than Brooklyn today.

Brooklyn in the 1950s was culturally more important than Brooklyn is today, population notwithstanding. Based on everything I have read, Brooklyn residents today are more likely today to identify themselves as New Yorkers than with Brookyn than they were 60 years ago.

It is unrealistic to believe that an MLB team could be relocated to metropolitan New York City. But if you move a team to NYC, you probably wouldn't put it in Brooklyn. You would be more likely to put it in New Jersey.

But as I initially noted, if you didn't have a stadium (which happens to be a baseball shrine) in The Bronx, and you were starting from scratch in locating major league baseball teams, you wouldn't put one in the Bronx.

DSpivack
01-04-2012, 04:55 PM
Yeah, except that since the Dodgers left, Brooklyn has become the most populous New York City burough and, after three straight decades of population gain, is nearing it's mid-century high point, remarkable for any Northern/Eastern city. No question LA is probably a better place to make money for your baseball team, only questioning the dubious opinion that Brooklyn in the 1950s is better than Brooklyn today.

Brookyln has been the most populous borough since the 1920s.

Also, it has nearly as many people as Chicago.

BleacherBandit
01-04-2012, 04:57 PM
Brooklyn in the 1950s was culturally more important than Brooklyn is today, population notwithstanding. Based on everything I have read, Brooklyn residents today are more likely today to identify themselves as New Yorkers than with Brooklyn than they were 60 years ago.

It is unrealistic to believe that an MLB team could be relocated to metropolitan New York City. But if you move a team to NYC, you probably wouldn't put it in Brooklyn. You would be more likely to put it in New Jersey.

But as I initially noted, if you didn't have a stadium (which happens to be a baseball shrine) in The Bronx, and you were starting from scratch in locating major league baseball teams, you wouldn't put one in the Bronx.

You are correlating the identification of Brooklynites with the borough's importance. Notwithstanding the fact that "importance" is a highly subjective and therefore meaningless qualification. Maybe the borough isn't as culturally salient and diversified as it was 50 years ago, but I don't know if you're arguing that.

#1swisher
01-04-2012, 05:09 PM
JonHeymanCBS

gamblin' man: torre leaves lucrative (2M per) MLB job for a maybe
with dodgers. on CBSSports (http://jon-heyman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/33714192/34190060)

#1swisher
01-04-2012, 05:24 PM
I didn't mean to strike a nerve. Actually, when Brooklyn got a major league team, it was the fourth-largest city in the US. There was a book by Elliot Willensky, When Brooklyn Was the World, 1920-1957 (ISBN 0517558580) that explains what Brooklyn was. Willensky, a Brooklyn native, actually blamed the Dodgers, at least in part, for Brooklyn's decline. But O'Malley saw the need to leave Brooklyn, and it hasn't evolved into a major corner of New York City since.

Today there should be no question that Los Angeles would be a better place than Brooklyn to have your baseball team.

Torre says same in this article.

In Rick Caruso I have found a partner who appreciates that the Dodgers are a treasured LA institution.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2012/01/rick-caruso-joe-torre-announce-dodgers-bid.html

Fenway
01-04-2012, 05:44 PM
Brooklyn has gentrified in a big way - Bay Ridge, Red Hook and Bensonhurst are much nicer now than 20-30 years ago. Bedford-Stuyvesant is also getting safer.
Brooklyn also has the best subway service into Manhattan.... ( Queens thanks to Robert Moses is horribly underserved )

O'Malley even 60 years later is hard to read. Dodgers and Giants ( and to some extent ) the Yankees saw attendance flatten out in the 50's because all three teams televised ALL home games. Yankees on 11, Dodgers on 9 and Giants on 5. He made sure there was little free TV in LA when he moved.

NY had 3 non-network VHF's stations, something that Chicago didn't ( and historians believe Tribune was responsible for both as they were given the third NY channel ( and in Chicago the only one ) and the FCC had to move around allocations in Providence.

You won't see a third team in NY anytime soon - especially when the Mets are in a freefall. The Wilpon family being linked to Bernie Madoff is a PR nightmare especially with the Jewish community.

Golden Sox
01-04-2012, 06:39 PM
I always found it interesting that the city of New York offered the Brooklyn Dodgers a new stadium in Queens, but didn't offer the New York Giants anything. If New York had offered the Giants the stadium in Queens, would the Giants still be in New York today? O'Malley was not difficult to read. He wanted to build his own stadium in Brooklyn and he wanted the land it was to be built upon given to him for nothing. New York told him no and then offered to build a stadium for the Dodgers in Queens, of which the Dodgers would of leased. LA then offered him the land in LA for nothing and O'Malley then moved the team to LA. If LA would not of bribed him like they did, O'Malley would of taken the offer of New York. Bill Veeck (in one of his books) said it most accurately by calling the Dodgers move to LA a land grab on O'Malleys part.

Fenway
01-04-2012, 06:49 PM
I always found it interesting that the city of New York offered the Brooklyn Dodgers a new stadium in Queens, but didn't offer the New York Giants anything. If New York had offered the Giants the stadium in Queens, would the Giants still be in New York today? O'Malley was not difficult to read. He wanted to build his own stadium in Brooklyn and he wanted the land it was to be built upon given to him for nothing. New York told him no and then offered to build a stadium for the Dodgers in Queens, of which the Dodgers would of leased. LA then offered him the land in LA for nothing and O'Malley then moved the team to LA. If LA would not of bribed him like they did, O'Malley would of taken the offer of New York. Bill Veeck (in one of his books) said it most accurately by calling the Dodgers move to LA a land grab on O'Malleys part.

Moses wanted the Giants to move into Yankee Stadium

November 6, 1953
Mr. Horace C. Stoneham
President
National Exhibition Co.
100 West 42 Street
New York 36, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Stoneham:

The newspapers have carried numerous stories in the past year to the effect that various baseball clubs were considered transferring their franchises to other cities. While I have not read any announcement to that effect about the New York Giants, it seemed quite obvious from the attendance figures that the maintenance of a separate stadium must be a terrific drain on the ball club.

You are familiar with the housing project which the City built just north of the Polo Grounds. The site, occupied by the Polo Grounds itself and the parking field adjacent thereto, being one of the last large open spaces in Manhattan, would make an excellent site for additional housing.

I have no direct knowledge about the matter, but it would seem to me that the owners of the New York Yankees would welcome the idea of having another club in a different league use their park as has been done successfully in other places. To an outsider, it would appear that it would certainly save money for both clubs.

I don't know how many years your lease has to go on the Coogan property or what other stumbling blocks there might be in the way of this proposal. I should like very much to know whether you have considered such a consolidation and whether you consider it feasible and desirable. Is there any possibility of such a consolidation becoming effective by the next baseball season?

Cordially, Robert Moses, Co-Ordinator.


http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/12-01-389.pdf

Golden Sox
01-04-2012, 09:23 PM
Buzzi Bavasi said Walter O'Malley took a vote of his Brooklyn Dodgers Board Of Directors as to whether they wanted to move to LA or stay in New York. They all voted to stay in New York. Due to the fact that O'Malley was the CEO of the Dodgers, his vote, the only one that mattered, voted for moving to LA.

doublem23
01-05-2012, 08:15 AM
Actually, when Brooklyn got a major league team, it was the fourth-largest city in the US. There was a book by Elliot Willensky, When Brooklyn Was the World, 1920-1957 (ISBN 0517558580) that explains what Brooklyn was. Willensky, a Brooklyn native, actually blamed the Dodgers, at least in part, for Brooklyn's decline. But O'Malley saw the need to leave Brooklyn, and it hasn't evolved into a major corner of New York City since.

You're aware that Brooklyn, if it were still an independent city, would be the 4th largest city in the country today, right?

TDog
01-05-2012, 08:51 PM
You are correlating the identification of Brooklynites with the borough's importance. Notwithstanding the fact that "importance" is a highly subjective and therefore meaningless qualification. Maybe the borough isn't as culturally salient and diversified as it was 50 years ago, but I don't know if you're arguing that.

This hijack is tangential to my point, which no one, including Joe Torre seems to disagree with. Brooklyn was deserving of a baseball team in the 1950s. My father grew up a Brooklyn Dodgers fan. The Dodgers were a regional team and grew into the team for a segment of America because they were the first to integrate. But today, the people of Brooklyn have two New York teams. There isn't a vacuum that would be filled by putting a team in Brooklyn the way there was in the 1950s.

I am not arguing anything anti-Brooklyn. I am really not arguing anything except that this isn't 1957, and Brooklyn doesn't need a major league baseball team. It doesn't deserve a team simply because it is more populous than Queens or The Bronx. Where New York teams play isn't nearly as important as it would have been in the 1950s. Some years ago, I was told the NFL had two New York teams, and neither played their games in New York.

SephClone89
01-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Some years ago, I was told the NFL had two New York teams, and neither played their games in New York.

...What does that even mean?

I understand you don't like football at all. I don't care for it either, but are you actually implying that you only know that the NFL has two teams called "New York" because someone told you that "some years ago?"

Fenway
01-05-2012, 11:27 PM
Vin Scully has said his single proudest moment as a broadcaster was when he said in 1955

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THE BROOKLYN DODGERS ARE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD

2 years later they were gone

http://www.nydailynewspix.com/sales/sales_image.php?name=6up07lvq.jpg&id=119245&lb=-1&size=medium

TDog
01-06-2012, 12:30 AM
...What does that even mean?

I understand you don't like football at all. I don't care for it either, but are you actually implying that you only know that the NFL has two teams called "New York" because someone told you that "some years ago?"

That means that I was upset enough at people ignoring discussion of the validity of my point to nit-pick on small things they misinterpreted that I forgot to proofread my post to assure that I was saying I was told the NFL had two "New York" teams playing in New Jersey.

SephClone89
01-06-2012, 06:23 PM
That means that I was upset enough at people ignoring discussion of the validity of my point to nit-pick on small things they misinterpreted that I forgot to proofread my post to assure that I was saying I was told the NFL had two "New York" teams playing in New Jersey.

Honestly, I appreciate your often unique perspective on baseball, but being just a little more concise would go a long way towards getting your ideas across.

Fenway
01-06-2012, 06:36 PM
There is only one NFL team in the State of New York and they play in the lovely town of Orchard Park.