PDA

View Full Version : Dodgers' Move from Brooklyn to Los Angeles


Viva Medias B's
05-30-2006, 11:21 PM
After the game, I caught an interesting Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... on ESPN Classic. Tonight's topic was Walter O'Malley's move of the Brooklyn Dodgers to Los Angeles after the 1957 season. For years, O'Malley has been reviled for the move. In case you did not see it, reasons two through five were:

5) Horace Greeley, whose "Go West, young man" maxim provided the concept of moving to the West
4) William Levitt, whose creation of Levittown on Long Island helped create the urban exodus into suburbia. It helped contribue to the decline of the Flatbush neighborhood where Ebbetts Field was located.
3) Braves move from Boston to Milwaukee, which showed how viable a franchise could become in a new location.
2) Los Angeles, which gave O'Malley an offer he could not refuse mainly because of Reason No. 1Reason No. 1 was Robert Moses. For those of you not old enough, Robert Moses was probably the most powerful figure in New York during most of the 20th Century (please no political hijack hijinks!). He basically oversaw all major construction in New York City from about the Great Depression to the early '70s. From the Empire State Building to the Triboro Bridge to expressways (that destroyed neighborhoods) to the Guggenheim Museum to the World Trade Center, it was Robert Moses who made them all possible.

O'Malley wanted out of Flatbush because of the neighborhood it has become. Apparently, he wanted to build a privately financed stadium at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush in Brooklyn. However, building czar Moses said no. Moses wanted to build the new stadium for the Dodgers in a place in Queens near LaGuardia International Airport. Gee, I wonder what is there today.

O'Malley refused to move the Dodgers to Queens. He felt they should be in Brooklyn instead...or Los Angeles if the right deal came. So when O'Malley could not have his first choice, he moved the team to Los Angeles.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-30-2006, 11:30 PM
Based on what I have read from Veeck and others, O'Malley would have knocked over his mother if she stood in the way of the millions of dollars a move to the West Coast would bring him (and his fellow partner Stoneham).

The National League was dying to beat the American League out to the Coast and get the market rights (The Angels had to bend over big time with major concessions to O'Malley when they were awarded a team in 1961).

Maybe I am wrong but Moses' decision gave him a final excuse on leaving Brooklyn for good.

TheKittle
05-31-2006, 12:10 AM
O'malley is a greedy bastard. When the DUMP dodger stadium was built, he didn't put any drinking fountains in. Why? So people would have to buy soda and beer.

I ****ing hate o'malley and everything about dodger blue.

EdHerman12
05-31-2006, 07:47 AM
Any yet when the Mets build their new stadium it's supposed to be very similar to good 'ol Ebbets Field....O'Malley didn'y do anything any different than anyone else would. He was just an early visionist....and yes greed played a large part, but the when doesn't it????

GO SOX1

PaulDrake
05-31-2006, 08:54 AM
Call me naive, but I think if the city of New York had provided O'Malley the means to build that domed stadium on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn he wouldn't have moved the team. By the way, I saw the show referenced here. It was well done IMHO. Everyone always wants to play the blame game, but events like this usually are complicated and years in the making. Because of demographics it was inevitable that the West Coast was going to get MLB baseball, and that the NE was going to lose some of its teams.

Unregistered
05-31-2006, 09:53 AM
Apparently, he wanted to build a privately financed stadium at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush in Brooklyn. However, building czar Moses said no.
Ironically enough, that's basically where the new Nets stadium is going to go.

Irishsox1
05-31-2006, 11:16 AM
A huge reason that the ESPN show kinda hit on was the changing racial structure of Brooklyn and New York in general. After WWII New York went through a massive change and you throw in housing projects, limited jobs for minorities up from the south, the welfare program, people that didn't care about baseball or taking there family there and the writing was on the wall to head out of town. Of course the Dodgers could have stayed, but it would be almost commercial suicide to wait out the storm in Brooklyn rather than head out to Queens or L.A.

I know what people are saying, the Sox and Cubs waited out the storm and now look at them. My answer is Chicago never got as out of control with all the crap that New York went through. In Chicago there are almost NO high rise public housing left, currently in New York the housing projects are still standing and occupied. That's a mess that might not never get fixed.

I'm sorry but if LA came calling, I would have taken the offer. O'Malley was a typical cheapskate owner, but he made the right call given his limited options. Also, the numbers back this up:

Dodgers attendence

1966-- 2,617,029
1965-- 2,553,577
1964-- 2,228,751
1963-- 2,538,602

Yankees attendence

1966-- 1,124,648
1965-- 1,213,552
1964-- 1,305,638
1963-- 1,308,920

But for the most part attendence in baseball from 1965 to the last 1970's was down. It didn't really start to pick up until the early 1980's.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-31-2006, 12:18 PM
I'm sorry but if LA came calling, I would have taken the offer. O'Malley was a typical cheapskate owner, but he made the right call given his limited options. Also, the numbers back this up:

Dodgers attendence

1966-- 2,617,029
1965-- 2,553,577
1964-- 2,228,751
1963-- 2,538,602

Yankees attendence

1966-- 1,124,648
1965-- 1,213,552
1964-- 1,305,638
1963-- 1,308,920

But for the most part attendence in baseball from 1965 to the last 1970's was down. It didn't really start to pick up until the early 1980's.

The writing was on the wall in the early 1950s.

Brooklyn attendance -
1946 - 1949 - 1.4 mil - 1.8 mil (2 pennants)
1950 - 1957 - 1.0 mil - 1.3 mil (4 pennants, 1 World Series).

Regardless, the Disney company claiming Moses had anything to do with the Dodgers leaving is revisionist history. If you want to "blame any politician blame Ike and his Interstate Highway system that allowed working middle class people to leave the city for larger nicer homes in the suburbs.

PaulDrake
05-31-2006, 01:03 PM
I recommend this book for great background information on not just the Dodgers, but also the Giants and Yankees of that era.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0299196941/104-7790301-8625555?v=glance&n=283155

RedHeadPaleHoser
05-31-2006, 01:36 PM
I know what people are saying, the Sox and Cubs waited out the storm and now look at them. My answer is Chicago never got as out of control with all the crap that New York went through. In Chicago there are almost NO high rise public housing left, currently in New York the housing projects are still standing and occupied. That's a mess that might not never get fixed.

While this is a true statement, it carries the stigma of low rent neighborhoods; when the Cell was built we all heard about the "bullet holes in the seats" stories....and during the WS run there was another article about the "neighborhood".

While Chicago did not run the parallel path NY did about supporting its baseball teams, there are polar opposites of PERCEPTION that may not stem back to the post war era, but still exist today.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2006, 01:48 PM
The writing was on the wall in the early 1950s.

Brooklyn attendance -
1946 - 1949 - 1.4 mil - 1.8 mil (2 pennants)
1950 - 1957 - 1.0 mil - 1.3 mil (4 pennants, 1 World Series).


Interesting point, though Milwaukee attendance may have really driven the point home for O'Malley. Between '53, the Braves' first year in Milwaukee, and '57, the Dodgers last year in Brooklyn, the Braves drew more than 2 million four times (and 1.8 million their first year in County Stadium). I'm guessing Walter O'Malley concluded quickly he couldn't compete with that in Ebbets Field . . .

TheKittle
05-31-2006, 02:14 PM
A huge reason that the ESPN show kinda hit on was the changing racial structure of Brooklyn and New York in general. After WWII New York went through a massive change and you throw in housing projects, limited jobs for minorities up from the south, the welfare program, people that didn't care about baseball or taking there family there and the writing was on the wall to head out of town. Of course the Dodgers could have stayed, but it would be almost commercial suicide to wait out the storm in Brooklyn rather than head out to Queens or L.A.

I know what people are saying, the Sox and Cubs waited out the storm and now look at them. My answer is Chicago never got as out of control with all the crap that New York went through. In Chicago there are almost NO high rise public housing left, currently in New York the housing projects are still standing and occupied. That's a mess that might not never get fixed.

I'm sorry but if LA came calling, I would have taken the offer. O'Malley was a typical cheapskate owner, but he made the right call given his limited options. Also, the numbers back this up:

Dodgers attendence

1966-- 2,617,029
1965-- 2,553,577
1964-- 2,228,751
1963-- 2,538,602

Yankees attendence

1966-- 1,124,648
1965-- 1,213,552
1964-- 1,305,638
1963-- 1,308,920

But for the most part attendence in baseball from 1965 to the last 1970's was down. It didn't really start to pick up until the early 1980's.

So if another city offered the Sox a new stadium, more fans, more money, then you wouldn't blame JR for moving the team? I think not.

Why couldn't MLB just expand to the West Coast? The cheap bastard o'malley would have gotten a share of the expansion fee. Oh that's right, he wanted all the money, which he got when the LA Angels came into the AL in 61.

Irishsox1
05-31-2006, 03:32 PM
So if another city offered the Sox a new stadium, more fans, more money, then you wouldn't blame JR for moving the team? I think not.

Why couldn't MLB just expand to the West Coast? The cheap bastard o'malley would have gotten a share of the expansion fee. Oh that's right, he wanted all the money, which he got when the LA Angels came into the AL in 61.

When Reisndorf almost moved the Sox to St. Pete I thought it was a bad idea because the market was a lot smaller. Brooklyn to Los Angeles is a lateral move if not a step up with less competition. But the power of Moses can not be understated. The guy had way too much power, could not be removed from office and didn't care about baseball, Brooklyn or the fans. All he knew was that people were pestering him about a baseball stadium and he wanted to built one in Queens. He couldn't have cared less who played there, as long as the fans took the expressways.

As for expansion, this of course makes sense, why not just expand and start teams in Californa? Well, the problem with this is that current MLB owners had a lot more pull than new team owners or expansion teams that didn't exist. The Giants wanted out of NY badly, and the Dodgers when pushed finally moved. Moses could have got the land in Brooklyn, but he didn't care. He had the worlds fair in Queens in 1964 and he was going to build a stadium there...take it or leave it. All I'm saying is that if I owned the Dodgers and I was faced with dealing with Robert Moses, I would have moved to LA. Of course, LA turned into the second largest TV market with almost little competition.

As for no water fountains at Dodger Stadium, that was true and that was a pimpy move.

SouthSide_HitMen
05-31-2006, 03:50 PM
But the power of Moses can not be understated. The guy had way too much power, could not be removed from office and didn't care about baseball, Brooklyn or the fans. All he knew was that people were pestering him about a baseball stadium and he wanted to built one in Queens. He couldn't have cared less who played there, as long as the fans took the expressways.

As for expansion, this of course makes sense, why not just expand and start teams in Californa? Well, the problem with this is that current MLB owners had a lot more pull than new team owners or expansion teams that didn't exist. The Giants wanted out of NY badly, and the Dodgers when pushed finally moved.

This is false. O'Malley ruled the NL and Stoneham came along for the ride (not the otherway around as you noted and I'm assuming Disney Co. painted it). O'Malley controlled the Commissioners Office as well. Veeck gave a full picture of what was going on behind the scenes in Veeck as in Wreck. O'Malley blocked others from moving until he was able to move his team, secure a massive land grab in Los Angeles and own the rights to the market guaranteeing a second payday a few years later when Gene Autry rode in to town.

Other sources include:

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/O/OMalley_Walter.stm

O'Malley saw real limits to the Dodger situation in Brooklyn. Ebbets Field (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/E/Ebbets_Field.stm) was small, seating under 35,000 (three-million-attendance requires an average game attendance of nearly 37,000), without adequate parking, and in a deteriorating neighborhood. O'Malley lobbied local politicians for a new stadium in downtown Brooklyn. In the meantime, he started serious discussions with the city of Los Angeles. When he was able to strike a deal for a valuable parcel of real estate tucked in the hills above downtown called Chavez Ravine, he agreed to build his own stadium and move the team to the West Coast. In the meantime, he brokered the marriage of his rivals, the New York Giants (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/N/New_York_Giants.stm), with the city of San Francisco. In a brilliant business stroke, O'Malley had moved baseball's greatest rivalry from New York to California. The presence of both teams made it easier for the other NL owners to support the move because the then long and novel West Coast flight would cover two road series each time. The Giants' move was officially announced first -- they were in a truly weak financial condition where economic motivation was compelling. But O'Malley had orchestrated the move.

Irishsox1
05-31-2006, 04:30 PM
I don't know a lot about the structure of power within the NL back in the 1950's and I'm interested in finding out a lot more, but I do know a lot about Robert Moses. I don't recommend actually sitting down and reading the entire book since it's 1,344 pages, but it's an interesting and very in depth book about Robert Moses (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394720245/sr=8-3/qid=1149110595/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-6115875-7907003?%5Fencoding=UTF8) called The Power Broker.

Also, there are a couple of baseball books that go after Moses as the real villain on why the Dodgers moved, but this one was very good:

The Last Good Season: Brooklyn, The Dodgers and their final penant race together (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385501528/ref=wl_it_dp/103-6115875-7907003?%5Fencoding=UTF8&colid=2SKDVR85VOK0C&coliid=IU3YKX8LRTIWJ&v=glance&n=283155)

TheKittle
05-31-2006, 05:12 PM
When Reisndorf almost moved the Sox to St. Pete I thought it was a bad idea because the market was a lot smaller. Brooklyn to Los Angeles is a lateral move if not a step up with less competition. But the power of Moses can not be understated. The guy had way too much power, could not be removed from office and didn't care about baseball, Brooklyn or the fans. All he knew was that people were pestering him about a baseball stadium and he wanted to built one in Queens. He couldn't have cared less who played there, as long as the fans took the expressways.

As for expansion, this of course makes sense, why not just expand and start teams in Californa? Well, the problem with this is that current MLB owners had a lot more pull than new team owners or expansion teams that didn't exist. The Giants wanted out of NY badly, and the Dodgers when pushed finally moved. Moses could have got the land in Brooklyn, but he didn't care. He had the worlds fair in Queens in 1964 and he was going to build a stadium there...take it or leave it. All I'm saying is that if I owned the Dodgers and I was faced with dealing with Robert Moses, I would have moved to LA. Of course, LA turned into the second largest TV market with almost little competition.

As for no water fountains at Dodger Stadium, that was true and that was a pimpy move.

One thing I see you doing is comparing the LA of today with the LA of the late 50's. LA in 58 didn't have the population it does now. LA also wasn't growing as FAST back then as it is now.

BTW market size means nothing. LA is the second largest city in the US but doesn't have a football team and doesn't really want a football team. 12 years without a team and people aren't crying for a team. The NFL can move a team or start up an expansion team in LA but they won't sell out and I know LA people won't pay the PSL.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2006, 05:33 PM
One thing I see you doing is comparing the LA of today with the LA of the late 50's. LA in 58 didn't have the population it does now. LA also wasn't growing as FAST back then as it is now.

BTW market size means nothing. LA is the second largest city in the US but doesn't have a football team and doesn't really want a football team. 12 years without a team and people aren't crying for a team. The NFL can move a team or start up an expansion team in LA but they won't sell out and I know LA people won't pay the PSL.

Actually, while having a smaller population then, So Cal grew much faster in the 1950s than it has in recent years (see, for example, http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/download/pdf/GV1950_2025.pdf).

Also, from what little I recall about this issue (which means I may be wrong!), the chief reason the NFL hasn't gone back to L.A. is because no public body (e.g., neither the city nor the county) there will subsidize a stadium for it, not because nobody will pay the PSL. Few things made me prouder to be an Angeleno when I lived there for a few years a few years ago. Of course, things may have changed since then . . .

TheKittle
05-31-2006, 07:15 PM
Actually, while having a smaller population then, So Cal grew much faster in the 1950s than it has in recent years (see, for example, http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/download/pdf/GV1950_2025.pdf).

Also, from what little I recall about this issue (which means I may be wrong!), the chief reason the NFL hasn't gone back to L.A. is because no public body (e.g., neither the city nor the county) there will subsidize a stadium for it, not because nobody will pay the PSL. Few things made me prouder to be an Angeleno when I lived there for a few years a few years ago. Of course, things may have changed since then . . .

To me one way to prove people want a NFL team is to vote to build a new stadium. LA hasn't built a public stadium in a long time. Staples was a private venture though the city did provide for roads etc.

PSL's just line the pockets of greedy bastard owners. They RARE pay for the building of a stadium. That NFL team in St. Louis made millions from PSL's even though that stadium was already built.

BTW that bastard owner of the Panthers is said to have started the PSL (Public Stealing License) craze.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2006, 08:08 PM
To me one way to prove people want a NFL team is to vote to build a new stadium. LA hasn't built a public stadium in a long time. Staples was a private venture though the city did provide for roads etc.

PSL's just line the pockets of greedy bastard owners. They RARE pay for the building of a stadium. That NFL team in St. Louis made millions from PSL's even though that stadium was already built.

BTW that bastard owner of the Panthers is said to have started the PSL (Public Stealing License) craze.

My apologies; I misinterpreted your original comment on PSLs.

Still, I'm not sure how strong an indicator public funding of a venue is for a particular sport. For example, Staples Center (or, perhaps more precisely, the arena that eventually became Staples Center) was, with the support of (former) Mayor Richard Riordan, to be a publicly-financed arena. But then Joel Wachs, formerly of the city council, and others helped thwart it. At that point, the project's backers turned to private financing. I doubt that meant Angelenos wanted to turn their backs on the NBA (and the Lakers)--only that they didn't want to pay for a new arena. (Maybe they did want to turn their backs on the NHL :wink: . . .) Similarly, I don't think the lack of public financing for a NFL stadium by itself means Angelenos don't want a team, only that they don't want to pay for it through taxes. The mood as I recall (but possibly misinterpret) it was that the NFL needed L.A. more than L.A. needed the NFL.

To be sure, I would agree with you there are other indicators that L.A. wouldn't be a good NFL market. As I recall, the Rams and, especially, Raiders weren't selling out in their last years there. And while Angelenos may have good reasons not to publicly finance a team there, the NFL has good reasons not to be in the entertainment capital of the world. Average TV ratings (again as I recall) for the NFL in that market aren't all that different than they are elsewhere and weren't all that different in the years shortly after the Raiders and Rams left than they were beforehand. Furthermore, because there's no team there, L.A. football fans can get more games on TV. Putting a ****ty expansion team there would change all that . . .

TheKittle
05-31-2006, 08:32 PM
My apologies; I misinterpreted your original comment on PSLs.

Still, I'm not sure how strong an indicator public funding of a venue is for a particular sport. For example, Staples Center (or, perhaps more precisely, the arena that eventually became Staples Center) was, with the support of (former) Mayor Richard Riordan, to be a publicly-financed arena. But then Joel Wachs, formerly of the city council, and others helped thwart it. At that point, the project's backers turned to private financing. I doubt that meant Angelenos wanted to turn their backs on the NBA (and the Lakers)--only that they didn't want to pay for a new arena. (Maybe they did want to turn their backs on the NHL :wink: . . .) Similarly, I don't think the lack of public financing for a NFL stadium by itself means Angelenos don't want a team, only that they don't want to pay for it through taxes. The mood as I recall (but possibly misinterpret) it was that the NFL needed L.A. more than L.A. needed the NFL.

To be sure, I would agree with you there are other indicators that L.A. wouldn't be a good NFL market. As I recall, the Rams and, especially, Raiders weren't selling out in their last years there. And while Angelenos may have good reasons not to publicly finance a team there, the NFL has good reasons not to be in the entertainment capital of the world. Average TV ratings (again as I recall) for the NFL in that market aren't all that different than they are elsewhere and weren't all that different in the years shortly after the Raiders and Rams left than they were beforehand. Furthermore, because there's no team there, L.A. football fans can get more games on TV. Putting a ****ty expansion team there would change all that . . .

I know we are getting a little off topic. But the NFL doesn't need a team in LA. Look at the TV deal they just signed. Hell look at the one that just expired!! Both signed without a team in LA. Look at the value of NFL teams!!! How much did that jerk owner buy the Deadskins from the bigger jerk owner? Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys in 88-89 and now his team is worth more than double what he paid for it.

LA fans, if there are any, need to get off their high horses and do the Cleveland Crybaby way to get a NFL team. But there isn't any passion for the NFL here.

The Rams sold out games in the mid to late 80's when they were a playoff team. But since the 89 NFC Championship game and the phantom sack suffered by "Chris Everrett" the Rams slowly turned into a bad team and LA just won't support a bad team.

Viva Medias B's
05-31-2006, 09:24 PM
I don't know a lot about the structure of power within the NL back in the 1950's and I'm interested in finding out a lot more, but I do know a lot about Robert Moses. I don't recommend actually sitting down and reading the entire book since it's 1,344 pages, but it's an interesting and very in depth book about Robert Moses (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394720245/sr=8-3/qid=1149110595/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-6115875-7907003?%5Fencoding=UTF8) called The Power Broker.

Also, there are a couple of baseball books that go after Moses as the real villain on why the Dodgers moved, but this one was very good:

The Last Good Season: Brooklyn, The Dodgers and their final penant race together (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385501528/ref=wl_it_dp/103-6115875-7907003?%5Fencoding=UTF8&colid=2SKDVR85VOK0C&coliid=IU3YKX8LRTIWJ&v=glance&n=283155)

The author of the Robert Moses book, Robert A. Caro, was featured in the ESPN Classic program. Also, Caro appears prominently in the PBS documentary New York (like Shelby Foote did in PBS' The Civil War). New York covers the reign of Robert Moses extensively. Moses was easily the most impactful figure in New York City's modern history.

Johnny Mostil
05-31-2006, 09:36 PM
I know we are getting a little off topic. But the NFL doesn't need a team in LA. Look at the TV deal they just signed. Hell look at the one that just expired!! Both signed without a team in LA. Look at the value of NFL teams!!! How much did that jerk owner buy the Deadskins from the bigger jerk owner? Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys in 88-89 and now his team is worth more than double what he paid for it.

LA fans, if there are any, need to get off their high horses and do the Cleveland Crybaby way to get a NFL team. But there isn't any passion for the NFL here.

The Rams sold out games in the mid to late 80's when they were a playoff team. But since the 89 NFC Championship game and the phantom sack suffered by "Chris Everrett" the Rams slowly turned into a bad team and LA just won't support a bad team.

You're right. A good NFL team in L.A. would be good for the league, but a bad one would be worse than none.

A bit more back on topic . . . Caro's biography of Moses is one of the best political biographies I've ever read. I'd love to hear what he has to say about this topic. Unfortunately, I don't recall much about it in The Power Broker, and just now I didn't find any index entries in it on "Brooklyn Dodgers," "Ebbets Field," or "Flatbush." The entry for "O'Malley, Walter," leads to the following cryptic passage on pp. 1018-1019:


. . . during these two years [1957-58] this public official [Moses] . . . killed, over the efforts of Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley, plans for a City Sports Authority that might have kept the Dodgers and Giants in New York, and began happily to plan the housing projects that he had wanted on the sites of the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field all along . . .


I surmise ESPN had much more on this . . .

Viva Medias B's
05-31-2006, 09:46 PM
Caro's biography of Moses is one of the best political biographies I've ever read. I'd love to hear what he has to say about this topic. . .

As I said, Caro was on the ESPN Classic program. What exactly he said I do not know, but he did substantiate Moses' role in the Dodgers' move.

wdelaney72
06-01-2006, 08:35 AM
As I recall, the Rams and, especially, Raiders weren't selling out in their last years there.

You have to look a bit at the history of L.A. Football. It's not quite that simple.
Strike 1: Rams move out of L.A. Coliseum and into Anaheim.
Strike 2: Coliseum is a steaming pile of crap for a stadium and located in an AWFUL neighborhood.
Strike 3: The Raiders at the end of their L.A. run were terrible.
Strike 4: The economy in L.A. in the early 90's was AWFUL... worse than the rest of the US.

All of these factors contributed to the decline of L.A. NFL football attendance. Lots of Rams fans resented the move of the team to Anaheim. The Rams never recovered from the backlash, which is why their attendance became so spotty (unless they were a playoff team).

If you include Anaheim, the LA area supports 2 hockey teams, 2 basketball teams, 2 baseball teams, and 2 high profile NCAA football programs. An NFL team would do very well in L.A. It will happen soon enough, there just waiting for the billionaire club to figure out a way to do a stadium at the public's expense.

:cleo "Within 5 years, a newly renovated L.A. Coliseum (with corporte sponsor's name) will be home to the Los Angeles Jaguars."

Johnny Mostil
06-01-2006, 09:38 AM
You have to look a bit at the history of L.A. Football. It's not quite that simple.
Strike 1: Rams move out of L.A. Coliseum and into Anaheim.
Strike 2: Coliseum is a steaming pile of crap for a stadium and located in an AWFUL neighborhood.
Strike 3: The Raiders at the end of their L.A. run were terrible.
Strike 4: The economy in L.A. in the early 90's was AWFUL... worse than the rest of the US.

All of these factors contributed to the decline of L.A. NFL football attendance. Lots of Rams fans resented the move of the team to Anaheim. The Rams never recovered from the backlash, which is why their attendance became so spotty (unless they were a playoff team).

If you include Anaheim, the LA area supports 2 hockey teams, 2 basketball teams, 2 baseball teams, and 2 high profile NCAA football programs. An NFL team would do very well in L.A. It will happen soon enough, there just waiting for the billionaire club to figure out a way to do a stadium at the public's expense.

:cleo "Within 5 years, a newly renovated L.A. Coliseum (with corporte sponsor's name) will be home to the Los Angeles Jaguars."

Yeah, but . . . USC has to contend with strike two above and does (and did) better in attendance, no? (Of course, they've dominated in recent years, but that's the point--they won, and they therefore draw.)

Also, I'm not sure the Raiders were all that terrible at the end of their L.A. run, though I'll admit they weren't great (e.g., 12-4 in 1990, 9-7 in 1991, 7-9 in 1992, 10-6 in 1993, and 9-7 in 1994, their last year there--an aggregate regular-season record better than that for the Raiders, or the Bears, of the last five years . . .).

Irishsox1
06-01-2006, 11:20 AM
As I said, Caro was on the ESPN Classic program. What exactly he said I do not know, but he did substantiate Moses' role in the Dodgers' move.

On the ESPN show, Caro said that Moses had too much power and that nobody could have stopped O'Malley from building the dome stadium in Brooklyn except Moses....which is what happened. He also said that Moses cleared land for private developers all the time, but because it was O'Malley's idea to put the stadium in Brooklyn and not Moses', then Moses blocked it.

TheKittle
06-01-2006, 02:17 PM
You have to look a bit at the history of L.A. Football. It's not quite that simple.
Strike 1: Rams move out of L.A. Coliseum and into Anaheim.
Strike 2: Coliseum is a steaming pile of crap for a stadium and located in an AWFUL neighborhood.
Strike 3: The Raiders at the end of their L.A. run were terrible.
Strike 4: The economy in L.A. in the early 90's was AWFUL... worse than the rest of the US.

All of these factors contributed to the decline of L.A. NFL football attendance. Lots of Rams fans resented the move of the team to Anaheim. The Rams never recovered from the backlash, which is why their attendance became so spotty (unless they were a playoff team).

If you include Anaheim, the LA area supports 2 hockey teams, 2 basketball teams, 2 baseball teams, and 2 high profile NCAA football programs. An NFL team would do very well in L.A. It will happen soon enough, there just waiting for the billionaire club to figure out a way to do a stadium at the public's expense.

:cleo "Within 5 years, a newly renovated L.A. Coliseum (with corporte sponsor's name) will be home to the Los Angeles Jaguars."

1. There was no backlash of Rams fans for moving to Anaheim. Were some Rams fans upset at the longer drive to Anaheim? Of course, but they didn't abandon the Rams. The Rams actually filled up Anaheim Stadium until the early 90's.

2. The area around the Coliseum isn't a "bad" neighborhood. It's just like the neighborhood surrounding Comiskey Park.

3. The economy in LA was bad but not terrible.

4. I know you didn't write about USC. But don't use the attendance at USC as a guide. In 2000 when they sucked, hell 2001 the first year of the Fraud Carroll's, they were lucky to draw 50,000. The attendance figures are inflated because they have a big home game every year. One year ND and the next year UCLA.

5. The REAL factor is that the Rams and Raiders didn't put good products on the field, especially the Rams. They screwed up the Dickerson deal and she never took a win at all costs mentally, like the 49ers did.

wdelaney72
06-01-2006, 03:36 PM
1. There was no backlash of Rams fans for moving to Anaheim. Were some Rams fans upset at the longer drive to Anaheim? Of course, but they didn't abandon the Rams. The Rams actually filled up Anaheim Stadium until the early 90's.
Based on conversations I had with some of the locals back in the 90's, I disagree.

2. The area around the Coliseum isn't a "bad" neighborhood. It's just like the neighborhood surrounding Comiskey Park.
Agreed.

3. The economy in LA was bad but not terrible.
The entire country in the early 90's was in a recession. As the US began recovering, the California real estate market still deteriorated. Trust me, my Mother lost A LOT of money during this period. I completely disagree.


5. The REAL factor is that the Rams and Raiders didn't put good products on the field, especially the Rams. They screwed up the Dickerson deal and she never took a win at all costs mentally, like the 49ers did.
Agreed.

Keep in mind, the point I was trying to make is, an NFL franchise could do VERY well in Los Angeles. I was more reacting to the fact that many argue L.A. can't/won't support pro football.

Johnny Mostil
06-01-2006, 04:14 PM
4. I know you didn't write about USC. But don't use the attendance at USC as a guide. In 2000 when they sucked, hell 2001 the first year of the Fraud Carroll's, they were lucky to draw 50,000. The attendance figures are inflated because they have a big home game every year. One year ND and the next year UCLA.


Since 1998, the average attendance at USC home games has been at least 57K. (See http://www.kenn.com/sports/football/ncaa/teams.html#USC.) Even assuming sellouts (92K?) for ND or UCLA, that's still an average of more than 50K for every other game in their worst seasons. (Edit: in recent seasons, it's been closer to 90K.)

Regardless, my point wasn't exactly whether USC is a good barometer for NFL attendance. It was that a good team will draw in the Coliseum, no matter what one thinks of the facility or neighborhood (and I agree neither might be considered favorable).

Johnny Mostil
06-01-2006, 04:20 PM
As the US began recovering, the California real estate market still deteriorated. Trust me, my Mother lost A LOT of money during this period. I completely disagree.

I just checked average home sales prices for the West Side ZIP code where I lived: $328K in 1992 (all Y2K$), $223K in 1995, and $430K in 2002. Yowza. I recall folks in the mid-1990s wanting to move "back East" that couldn't. Anyway, after seeing that roller coaster, there aren't as many things in life that faze me . . .

SouthSide_HitMen
06-01-2006, 05:13 PM
I just checked average home sales prices for the West Side ZIP code where I lived: $328K in 1992 (all Y2K$), $223K in 1995, and $430K in 2002. Yowza. I recall folks in the mid-1990s wanting to move "back East" that couldn't. Anyway, after seeing that roller coaster, there aren't as many things in life that faze me . . .

Do you have a link for the home / zip code. Not challenging your figures - just want it for my personal usage. Thanks.

Johnny Mostil
06-01-2006, 05:24 PM
Do you have a link for the home / zip code. Not challenging your figures - just want it for my personal usage. Thanks.

Subscription data source. If you want me to check one or two ZIP codes for you, I'd be glad to do so and send it along with the full citation information. If you want more than that, then I can send you subscription information. PM me; I'm not here every day, but get by often enough . . .

wdelaney72
06-02-2006, 09:57 AM
I just checked average home sales prices for the West Side ZIP code where I lived: $328K in 1992 (all Y2K$), $223K in 1995, and $430K in 2002. Yowza. I recall folks in the mid-1990s wanting to move "back East" that couldn't. Anyway, after seeing that roller coaster, there aren't as many things in life that faze me . . .

Yep, my Mom had a place in Torrance. Purchsed in 91 or 92. For her job was forced to move to New Jersey in 95 and lost a boat-load on the sale.