|
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
Baseball in America
| 
Oct 25 14:43 UTC 2001 |
Baseball Commissioner Pete Selig says he's warming to the idea of
putting two baseball teams out of business. One of the probable
victims is the Montreal Expos, who have been a poor team in business
terms for many years; no surprise there. But the other team picked
for extinction is the Florida Marlins. That's a surprise to me:
the Marlins are one of the most recent expansion teams, beginning
play in 1993, and they play in one of the hottest growth areas of
the country, Miami. And they won a world series in 1997.
From the world series to extinction in only four years. Wow.
|
| 109 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 1 of 109:
|
Oct 25 15:24 UTC 2001 |
I hope they don't do this. They should let the Expos move. The Expos
averaged only like 7,000 fans per game up in montreal, the city there
wont fund a new stadium and they are stuck playing in that awful 1976
olympic stadium. It is not a good situation. Let the Expos move to
Washington D.C., where there have been ownership groups trying to get a
new team for years and where there is an empty stadium (RFK stadium)
where they could play until a new field is built out in the Virginia
suburbs.
The Marlins have bad ownership. Miami is a great market and they won a
world title a few years back. It is not fair to the fans there to take
away their team just a few years after they got it.
Also the big market teams that make all the money should engage in
profit sharing. The Yankees made $100 million this year because of
local tv rights. Montreal barely made $20 million and didnt meet their
$26 million payroll. They lost money. There needs to be profit
sharing if these small market teams are to survive.
|
gull
|
|
response 2 of 109:
|
Oct 25 15:34 UTC 2001 |
Re #1: "The city won't fund a new stadium." I've always wondered why
professional sports that, overall, make millions upon millions of
dollars a year expect tax payers to foot the bill for their places of
business.
|
slynne
|
|
response 3 of 109:
|
Oct 25 15:47 UTC 2001 |
re#2 - because cities that dont fund new stadiums end up losing their
ball clubs like montreal is going to do. it kind of sucks that taxpayers
should subsidize a business like that but having a baseball club play in
one's town can sometimes have advantages that exceed the costs to the
municipality that is paying for the stadium.
|
krj
|
|
response 4 of 109:
|
Oct 25 15:53 UTC 2001 |
This is probably a good a place as any to point to this item from
Toronto's Globe & Mail newspaper:
(Um, the URL is not repostable; try searching for "United Center"
at their site...)
Anyway, the essay says that today's major league sports teams rest
on two economic pillars: the willingness of corporations to
shell out big money for things like stadium naming rights,
season tickets, luxury suites, and TV advertising; and the
willingness of governments to build stadiums and arenas.
And in the aftermath of September 11, it seems most
likely that both of those pillars will sag tremendously if not
collapse.
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 109:
|
Oct 25 15:59 UTC 2001 |
There is a movement afloat here in NYC to replace Yankee Stadium with
a new stadium. Yankee stadium is a baseball cathedral, but it is aging
and doesnt have all those nice things like luxury suites. Steinbrenner
wants it torn down and replaced. The Yankees made $100 million last
year from huge tv rights fees and licensing fees. Yet the plan that
Steinbrenner and Mayor Guiliani have cooked up would have the taxpayers
funding the new stadium. It has become an issue in the mayor's race.
They'll cut funding for public services to pay the city's debts arising
from the WTC towers collapse and recovery effort (all those firefighters and
construction folks down at zero working double time overtime adds up!), but
we'll still pay for the Yankees new field? Talk about misplaced
priorities. Mayor Guiliani is trying to rush this deal through before he
leaves office in January, because his likely successor- Mark Green the
Democratic Public Advocate-- is staunchly opposed to it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 6 of 109:
|
Oct 25 16:58 UTC 2001 |
I know. I was really bummed about the Tigers moving out of Tiger stadium
into the brand new Comerica Park. Blech. No more Tiger baseball for me.
I drive to Toledo for the Mudhens and like them enough to forgive them
having a new downtown ball park.
|
danr
|
|
response 7 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:17 UTC 2001 |
Actually, I'd be happy to see major league baseball lose a few teams.
Many of the players in the majors today are not really "major league"
talent. They're just up in the majors because there aren't enough good
players to go around.
This also leads to teams rushing players into the big leagues to the
detriment of the player's development. I think Brandon Inge is a good
example of this.
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:22 UTC 2001 |
The other problem with the Montreal team, and with a lot of hockey teams, as
I understand it, is the weakness of the Canadian dollar over the past few
years. Canadian teams get their revenue in Canadian dollars but have to
compete for players with American teams whose revenue comes in in American
dollars.
I hope a way can be found to move the Expos to Washington, too. Washington
has badly wanted a baseball team ever since the second incarnation of the
Senators left in (I believe) 1972.
It does seem, as Richard said, that the split between the big market teams
and the small market teams is the real division in baseball. The Yankees
have won 3 (possibly to become 4) championships in a row, and well they
ought, since they can afford to buy as much talent as they can find. I
don't know enough about the economics of the situation to know if
profit-sharing is a good idea, but I wish something would change.
BTW the media just *love* it when the big-market teams win, so they won't be
any help.
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:23 UTC 2001 |
Dan slipped in.
|
brighn
|
|
response 10 of 109:
|
Oct 25 17:24 UTC 2001 |
#2, #3> Except for the bit about people not being killed, what is the
difference in justification between that and similar nonsense during the Roman
Empire? We've got it into our heads that "world class city" means "has lots
of sports teams."
|
jep
|
|
response 11 of 109:
|
Oct 25 18:07 UTC 2001 |
This item is linked from autum 2001 agora to the sports conference.
|
richard
|
|
response 12 of 109:
|
Oct 25 18:07 UTC 2001 |
Montreal also isnt a baseball town. It is a hockey town. There are
some places where certain sports just dont get over. Like football
in L.A., both NFL teams moved away, its not a football town.
And the NBA hasnt worked in Vancouver either. Vancouver isnt a
basketball town.
|
jep
|
|
response 13 of 109:
|
Oct 25 18:45 UTC 2001 |
I agree with Richard. Drawing an average of 7000 fans per game does
show a lack of interest in Montreal for baseball. Folding the Expos
will do very little harm to major league baseball.
The Expos didn't even get many fans when they were contending for the
National League pennant, which I think was in the strike-shortened 1994
season. They just aren't a viable team.
Several things can be done to make a team viable. The team can invest
it's money into scouting and it's minor leagues. Montreal did this a
decade ago, and produced some extremely attractive players, such as
Pedro Martinez. These guys won some games, but as soon as they were
recognized as stars, they bolted for higher-paying clubs. Cleveland
built itself into a winner by building some players in it's farm
system, and then signing them to long-term contracts when they were
young.
A highly motivated owner can purchase the team and pump in lots of
money. This is less common than it used to be, as major league
baseball is a darned expensive hobby, no matter who the owner is. It's
*much* more expensive than it used to be. The Florida Marlins took
their expansion team to the World Series because the owner, Wayne
Huizenga, bought a great group of players. Then he lost interest and
broke the team up, and then sold it. They're now on the right track
for a small-market team, with a good farm system.
A really smart owner can invest even limited money where it really can
count, in a good coach and a good management team. Oakland is a small
market team; they had the 2nd lowest salary in the majors this year,
next to Montreal. But they made the playoffs each of the last two
years. Their general manager, Billy Beane, recognizes talent very
well. Oakland's core talent won't last for long if they can't pay them
a lot, but for right now they're an impressive group.
But there are no indications Montreal has the capability to do any of
these things. And as I said earlier, there's no reason to believe the
fans of the Expos would support their team, even if it was a winner.
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 109:
|
Oct 25 20:25 UTC 2001 |
The answer is to attend minor-league teams (if possible in your area!). My
favorite baseball experiencen was the Toledo Mudhens, and now Lansing has a
team as well (the Lugnuts).
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 15 of 109:
|
Oct 25 20:27 UTC 2001 |
We have the Royals (AAA farm team to Kansas City) here in Omaha.
Formerly the Golden Spikes (yeeuck)
Before that... the Royals.
Very fun to attend.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 16 of 109:
|
Oct 25 23:44 UTC 2001 |
Detroit's new home of the Tigers is one of the few stadium
build without a massive amount of city or state dollars. Is this
true?
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 109:
|
Oct 26 04:28 UTC 2001 |
Re #15: Did they wear golden spikes on their shoes?
Re #13: Where did the TIgers place on the list of the lowest payed teams?
|
danr
|
|
response 18 of 109:
|
Oct 26 12:56 UTC 2001 |
Another discouraging thing about the way major league baseball is
currently set up is that the so-called "minor market" teams are really
acting as farm teams for the bigger boys. Teams like Montreal and
Kansas City (I think Detroit is kind of on the fence here) find and
develop talent only to have them jump to a "major market" team as soon
as they are eligible for free agency.
I'm not sure it will ever be possible for those teams to accumulate
enough talent to actually contend for a title. And if you never have
the hope of contending, what's the point? Why should fans go to games
in which the home team gets regularly creamed?
|
aruba
|
|
response 19 of 109:
|
Oct 26 15:41 UTC 2001 |
Well, Cubs fans have made a virtue out of losing, somehow. But it's true
that the Cubs have had plenty of good seasons, even if they haven't won any
world series since 1909. So I basically agree.
|
drew
|
|
response 20 of 109:
|
Oct 26 18:25 UTC 2001 |
In any baseball league, it's a mathematical certainty that one of the teams
is going to finish last.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 21 of 109:
|
Oct 26 18:41 UTC 2001 |
(it isn't possible for two or more teams to finish last?) :-p
|
drew
|
|
response 22 of 109:
|
Oct 26 20:22 UTC 2001 |
No, not to my knowledge. They don't allow tie-games; that's what extra innings
are all about. Well, maybe I'll amend that to "at least one team".
|
polygon
|
|
response 23 of 109:
|
Oct 26 20:27 UTC 2001 |
Games may not be tied, but overall records can easily be. So, yeah,
you could easily have multiple teams finish last.
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 109:
|
Oct 26 21:31 UTC 2001 |
Detroit is a very good sports town, and specifically a very good
baseball town. It is definitely possible to have a contender in
Detroit.
I'm not sure where they placed on the total salary list (a list which
varies through the season anyway, as teams make trades and players get
injured); probably somewhat below the average. They cut salary from
last year. That was because Tom Ilitch had some sticker shock over the
price of Comerica Park. Ilitch personally paid a *lot* more for the
ballpark than most owners; I think he might have paid more than any
other owner ever has.
The Tigers have been in a downward spiral for 15 years; they traded
some great prospects (example" John Smoltz) to take a shot at winning
it all in 1987, then tried to buy a contender in the early 1990's, when
for a couple of years they had the highest salary in baseball, then
around the time Tom Monaghan bought the team, they decided they had to
build from the ground up and discovered they had almost no quality
prospects in their whole minor league system.
It's been an uphill struggle to build a good farm system. Partially
this requires luck; they've had some good prospects who didn't pan out
or who got injured. Partly it requires talent recognition; the Tigers
have not had many really good drafts. It takes about 4 years to take
a "normal" 1st or 2nd round draft choice and make him into a major
league player, assuming normal luck and normal ability to draft 1st and
2nd rounders.
Players haven't come up through the minors and bolted from the Tigers;
they have never made it up through the minors, gotten injured, or been
traded for guys who never made it as major leaguers. Other than Travis
Fryman, who was a star 3B for the Tigers and then just wasn't re-
signed, there haven't been any impact major leaguers who left the
Tigers for free agent opportunities.
The Tigers are in a tough spot now, and there's little for them to do
but to place blame. They have big expenses from Comerica Park, and
declining expectations (and support) from their fans. Their farm
system now seems more promising than it has in years, but honestly,
that's not saying a lot.
If they spend a lot of money on players and put together a winning
team, I am confident they could fill the ballpark. But without the
support of the fan base, they don't feel they have the money to spend.
Without the contender, the fan base doesn't feel compelled to go to the
ballpark.
|
