PDA

View Full Version : 2007 All-Star Game


32nd&Wallace
07-03-2006, 05:39 PM
This has been killing me! Anyone know why the next two All-Star games will be played in to back to back NL parks. This year - Pittsburgh and next year SF. This is very strange considering All-Star games have meaning and playing in a NL park does make a difference for the American League. Does this mean 08 and 09 will be in AL parks? Or did Bud Selig award SF and not realize his blunder?

RKMeibalane
07-03-2006, 06:09 PM
This has been killing me! Anyone know why the next two All-Star games will be played in to back to back NL parks. This year - Pittsburgh and next year SF. This is very strange considering All-Star games have meaning and playing in a NL park does make a difference for the American League. Does this mean 08 and 09 will be in AL parks? Or did Bud Selig award SF and not realize his blunder?

Budlight has more or less rejected every tradition held by Major League Baseball, including the alternating of AL and NL sites for the AS Game.

I actually liked John Kruk's suggestion last night, when he said that the DH should be used for this game. Which reminds me, did anyone else want to scream when Karl Ravech immediately objected, saying that the NL would be at a disadvantage. When Kruk questioned him, he said, "Well, uhh... they were during Interleague."

Kruk fired back, "Well, yeah, because NL teams don't normally have a DH-type player around, but in the AS Game, you can pick a player and have him be the DH. You're telling me that having Ryan Howard be a DH for one night is a step back?"

Kruk has said some stupid things over the years, but I was quietly cheering for him when he went after Ravech like that. These ESPN clowns are paid to know things like this, yet they don't have a clue.

Fenway
07-03-2006, 06:19 PM
Bud is under pressure to give the 2008 game to Yankee Stadium as that is the final year of the park and was quoted in USA Today that he alone decides who gets the game.

Daver
07-03-2006, 06:22 PM
Bud is under pressure to give the 2008 game to Yankee Stadium as that is the final year of the park and was quoted in USA Today that he alone decides who gets the game.

Newsflash.

Bud alone makes ALL the decisions for MLB, no matter what they are, he has seen to this by abolishing the league president's position. Every decision made by the league office is made by Bud.

RKMeibalane
07-03-2006, 06:23 PM
Newsflash.

Bud alone makes ALL the decisions for MLB, no matter what they are, he has seen to this by abolishing the league president's position. Every decision made by the league office is made by Bud.

Oh, joy! If the Yankees get the game in '08, I may not even watch.

Fenway
07-03-2006, 06:27 PM
Oh, joy! If the Yankees get the game in '08, I may not even watch.

The game hasn't been in New York since 1977

Believe it or not there is a chance that not only the Yankees get it in 08 but the Mets get it in their new stadium in 09.

Tampa wants the game as well to help with season tickets :tongue:

RKMeibalane
07-03-2006, 06:48 PM
The game hasn't been in New York since 1977

Believe it or not there is a chance that not only the Yankees get it in 08 but the Mets get it in their new stadium in 09.

Tampa wants the game as well to help with season tickets :tongue:

I don't mind seeing the Mets get it, as the media isn't anywhere near as obsessed with them. TB needs to build a new stadium if they want to host an AS Game. There's no way Budlight allows a game to be played in that oversized tuna can.

Brian26
07-03-2006, 07:20 PM
The game hasn't been in New York since 1977

I believe KC and the Yankees are the longest AL franchises to go without an ASG, so they deserve it. The Sox have had two since the last one in New York.

Fenway
07-03-2006, 07:31 PM
I believe KC and the Yankees are the longest AL franchises to go without an ASG, so they deserve it. The Sox have had two since the last one in New York.

I wouldn't mind Yankee Stadium hosting the gamne in 2008. Even though the Stadium was reconstructed in the 70's the field itself holds so many of baseballs memories. That will be lost when the Yankees move next door in 2009, it won't be the same.

Ironic Boston got the game in 1999 and at the time it was supposed to be one last big event for Fenway Park as the Red Sox had announced plans for a new park across the street. Now the new ownership has invested millions in the dump and it not going anywhere for propably 20 years or more. They have made it into a theme park with prices to match and people go running there with their money.

All I really remember of the 1999 game was Ted Williams final time at Fenway. There wasn't a dry eye in the park.

Brian26
07-03-2006, 07:48 PM
Ironic Boston got the game in 1999 and at the time it was supposed to be one last big event for Fenway Park as the Red Sox had announced plans for a new park across the street.

I recall some of the renderings. Wasn't the concept to basically rebuild the park almost to the exact dimensions but with just a larger seating capacity? And then preserve the original monster on its site as part of a museum/park?

oeo
07-03-2006, 07:52 PM
This has been killing me! Anyone know why the next two All-Star games will be played in to back to back NL parks. This year - Pittsburgh and next year SF. This is very strange considering All-Star games have meaning and playing in a NL park does make a difference for the American League. Does this mean 08 and 09 will be in AL parks? Or did Bud Selig award SF and not realize his blunder?
If they're going to do this, then they should let the DH start regardless of what stadium they're playing in. Keep guys like David Ortiz out of the starting spot for firstbase when they don't even play that position. Konerko should be starting at firstbase, not a designated hitter.

CLR01
07-03-2006, 08:56 PM
The game hasn't been in New York since 1977

Believe it or not there is a chance that not only the Yankees get it in 08 but the Mets get it in their new stadium in 09.

Tampa wants the game as well to help with season tickets :tongue:


Would the Yanks get it a second time within the first few years of the new place opening? That seems to be the case with every other new park being built.

Lip Man 1
07-03-2006, 09:21 PM
Proud To Be Your Bud is using the All Popularity Contest Game as extortion to cities who refuse to build new or significantly upgrade stadiums for billionare owners.

If you don't build it, we won't come...

Lip

RKMeibalane
07-03-2006, 09:42 PM
Would the Yanks get it a second time within the first few years of the new place opening? That seems to be the case with every other new park being built.

Speaking of new parks, when will the D-backs get it?

Edit: Or the Padres, for that matter? They had the game in '92.

ChiSoxGirl
07-04-2006, 01:29 AM
I was just having this conversation with someone the other day- can't remember who, though. I guess MLB is shying away from alternating between AL and NL ballparks now because they want to showcase the newer ballparks, most of which seem to reside in the NL- Great American Ballpark, The BOB, PNC, Citizens Bank Ballpark, SBC, PetCo, etc.

doogiec
07-04-2006, 09:46 AM
Proud To Be Your Bud is using the All Popularity Contest Game as extortion to cities who refuse to build new or significantly upgrade stadiums for billionare owners.

If you don't build it, we won't come...

Lip

MLB has been giving priority to cities with new stadiums for the All Star Game since the last rash of new parks in the 60's, this is not a Bud Selig creation.

Note the 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 79, 85 All Star Games were all held in stadiums less than three years old, several in their first year. Most of those stadiums were publicly funded. That's not a coincidence.

As much as cities have been willing to give up to get a new stadium, no city is building a $500 million dollar stadium to get an All Star Game.

ewokpelts
07-04-2006, 09:54 AM
As much as cities have been willing to give up to get a new stadium, no city is building a $500 million dollar stadium to get an All Star Game.

au contrare, mon ami........

a $50-60 million economic boost over 5 days does look very attractive to polliticians when they're debating stadium financing....

the brewers "projected" that miller park brought $400 million into the milwaukee economy in 2001 alone(a figure i dispute, but that's what thier accountants told us). The 2002 ASG brought in an additional $55 million over 5 days. 5 days where the 5 county area had increased business in hotels, gas, tolls, sales tax, ect.

If I'm a gullible pollitican, $450 million over a year and a half into southeast wisconsin's economy is a pretty attractive number.

Gene

VenturaSoxFan23
07-04-2006, 10:50 AM
I was just having this conversation with someone the other day- can't remember who, though. I guess MLB is shying away from alternating between AL and NL ballparks now because they want to showcase the newer ballparks, most of which seem to reside in the NL- Great American Ballpark, The BOB, PNC, Citizens Bank Ballpark, SBC, PetCo, etc.

That's the reason. At least the reason given by the front offices of MLB. The majority of the all-purpose stadiums were also NL parks, so it's no coincidence that they're being torn down for better parks.

Chips
07-04-2006, 10:54 AM
I was just having this conversation with someone the other day- can't remember who, though. I guess MLB is shying away from alternating between AL and NL ballparks now because they want to showcase the newer ballparks, most of which seem to reside in the NL- Great American Ballpark, The BOB, PNC, Citizens Bank Ballpark, SBC, PetCo, etc.

I believe we had this conversation in the Burgh, others were involved as well.

doogiec
07-04-2006, 11:06 AM
au contrare, mon ami........

a $50-60 million economic boost over 5 days does look very attractive to polliticians when they're debating stadium financing....

the brewers "projected" that miller park brought $400 million into the milwaukee economy in 2001 alone(a figure i dispute, but that's what thier accountants told us). The 2002 ASG brought in an additional $55 million over 5 days. 5 days where the 5 county area had increased business in hotels, gas, tolls, sales tax, ect.

If I'm a gullible pollitican, $450 million over a year and a half into southeast wisconsin's economy is a pretty attractive number.

Gene

Using the Brewers' numbers (which I think you agree are inflated) Miller Park will have an $8 billion impact over 20 years. If you take away the one All Star game (also using Brewers' inflated figures), that number drops to $7.95 billion. Do you really think the All Star Game was the reason Miller Park was approved (or even a significant factor)?

My point is not that the All Star game doesn't have an economic impact, because it does. My point is that the economic impact is no where near large enough to swing the decision one way or another, and therefore cannot be used by Bud Selig as an "extortion" scheme, as was suggested by the post I replied to. MLB has used the All Star Game to showcase new (or newly improved) stadiums throughout its history. Its neither extortion or a Selig creation.

Threatening to move a team is closer to "extortion", but teams in all four leagues have been using that threat since before Bud Selig hit puberty, so its a little hard to blame him for that one.

ewokpelts
07-04-2006, 11:58 AM
Using the Brewers' numbers (which I think you agree are inflated) Miller Park will have an $8 billion impact over 20 years. If you take away the one All Star game (also using Brewers' inflated figures), that number drops to $7.95 billion. Do you really think the All Star Game was the reason Miller Park was approved (or even a significant factor)?

My point is not that the All Star game doesn't have an economic impact, because it does. My point is that the economic impact is no where near large enough to swing the decision one way or another, and therefore cannot be used by Bud Selig as an "extortion" scheme, as was suggested by the post I replied to. MLB has used the All Star Game to showcase new (or newly improved) stadiums throughout its history. Its neither extortion or a Selig creation.

Threatening to move a team is closer to "extortion", but teams in all four leagues have been using that threat since before Bud Selig hit puberty, so its a little hard to blame him for that one.

The brewers numbers included the money THEY TOOK IN from tickets, merch, ect. But thier numbers showed an estimated 100-125 million dollars brought in by added tourism dollars(hotels, shopping, ect) to the 5 county region.

BUt my main point is that numbers can be crunched ina way that can convince GULLIBLE polliticians to vote for a stadium.
While the All-Star game is nowhere near the super bowl(which arguably brings in $400 million over 2 weeks), polliticos LOVE events that show off thier city, and more importantly, thier ego. And hey.....they're not paying for it, the taxpayers are!
Gene

TDog
07-04-2006, 12:13 PM
MLB has been giving priority to cities with new stadiums for the All Star Game since the last rash of new parks in the 60's, this is not a Bud Selig creation.

Note the 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 79, 85 All Star Games were all held in stadiums less than three years old, several in their first year. Most of those stadiums were publicly funded. That's not a coincidence.

As much as cities have been willing to give up to get a new stadium, no city is building a $500 million dollar stadium to get an All Star Game.

I agree. For that matter, the Cubs got the All-Star Game as a reward for putting lights up at Wrigley Field. (That was in conjunction with baseball telling the Cubs that World Series games would have to be played at night and the Cubs announcing they would probably take the Cubs home games to St. Louis in such an eventuality.) I would have no problem with the Cubs getting the game in return to moving to a new stadium (or a new city). It's not like the Sox are due for another All-Star Game any time soon.

I think you have to go back to the 1950s for the game being played in consecutive years in AL parks, but if there was a true rotation among teams (as if there should ever be another game played in that thing in Minnesota), more games would be played in NL parks anyway as the NL has more teams.

ewokpelts
07-04-2006, 12:16 PM
I have no problem with the rotation being broken, but you gotta allow the dh to be voted in every year to compensate.

Gene

doogiec
07-04-2006, 12:27 PM
I have no problem with the rotation being broken, but you gotta allow the dh to be voted in every year to compensate.

Gene

Couldn't agree more.

No matter how you feel about the DH rule, it needs to be used in every All Star Game. I can't think of a situation the DH rule is better suited to be used.

Having a pitcher hit in an All Star Game is possibly the stupidest thing MLB currently does. Nobody is paying $200 per ticket to see pitchers bunt, or the #8 batter walked/pitched around. No one is paying $200 to see double switches. Since the team is being constructed for one game, the NL would not have a disadvantage using the DH. Not using the DH makes it more difficult for managers to plan player usage, and keeps deserving players off the team.

Frater Perdurabo
07-04-2006, 01:22 PM
Couldn't agree more.

No matter how you feel about the DH rule, it needs to be used in every All Star Game. I can't think of a situation the DH rule is better suited to be used.

Having a pitcher hit in an All Star Game is possibly the stupidest thing MLB currently does. Nobody is paying $200 per ticket to see pitchers bunt, or the #8 batter walked/pitched around. No one is paying $200 to see double switches. Since the team is being constructed for one game, the NL would not have a disadvantage using the DH. Not using the DH makes it more difficult for managers to plan player usage, and keeps deserving players off the team.

Agreed. There's no doubt that Pujols would be the NL DH. This allows Berkman to start in left with Delgado at first. That makes the NL starting lineup so much better. The DH would prove MORE of an advantage to the NL than the AL with current players simply because of Pujols.

jortafan
07-04-2006, 01:36 PM
No matter how you feel about the DH rule, it needs to be used in every All Star Game. I can't think of a situation the DH rule is better suited to be used.

Actually, I think it should be used in every All-Star and World Series game by the American League team only. Let the National League representatives have their pitchers hit.

For anyone who thinks that puts the National League ballclubs at a disadvantage, I say "tough." National League geeks are the ones who go on and on about how the lack of a DH makes them somehow morally superior. Let them suffer.

ChiSoxGirl
07-04-2006, 05:34 PM
I believe we had this conversation in the Burgh, others were involved as well.

So THAT'S who I was talking to about this!!! I thought maybe it was at Hi-Tops after the game on Wednesday, but couldn't be sure. Thanks, Chips!

Lip Man 1
07-04-2006, 09:21 PM
Doogie:

Afraid not...Bud specifically cited this as the reason for the change in venues. The link to the story was posted here at WSI the last time this subject came up.

Sorry...

Lip

RKMeibalane
07-04-2006, 09:54 PM
Memo to MLB:

Get a real commissioner!

I've often wondered how things would have turned out had Fay Vincent not been forced to resign. Does anyone else think about this?

Oblong
07-04-2006, 10:52 PM
MLB needs a commissioner who has the "best interests of the game" clause in his duties and isn't just a stooge for the owners.

That'll probalby never happen unless somehow congress gets involved and threatens to remove the anti trust exemption unless they do it. Maybe the steroid issues will prompt them to do that. Then again I wish congress would stay out of th steroid issue because it seems kind of unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

*then again if we let Congress get distracted by the small stuff they can't screw up the big stuff.

I never knew that about Wrigley Field getting the lights due to pressure from MLB. Very interesting.

ewokpelts
07-05-2006, 10:58 AM
Aside from Landis, the Comissioner has ALWAYS, I repeat...ALWAYS...been a tool of the owners.
Giamatti was the NL president before he became comissioner. He always represented the owners interests. If anything, Bud is guilty of forcing change. He has spearheaded the most innovations in the game during his tenure as comissioner.
Gene

batmanZoSo
07-05-2006, 11:08 AM
Oh, joy! If the Yankees get the game in '08, I may not even watch.

As much as I hate the Yankees, I think it would be necessary to give the old stadium one last hurrah. I'll be sad to see it go.

Mr.1Dog
07-05-2006, 11:08 AM
Instead of merely alternating parks for the All Star game, I think there is one simple solution; Play the game in the defending World Series Champion's park. Since the winners of the AL and NL have the managers for each respected all star teams, wouldn't it make sense to have it at the champs house? I digress...

ewokpelts
07-05-2006, 11:12 AM
Instead of merely alternating parks for the All Star game, I think there is one simple solution; Play the game in the defending World Series Champion's park. Since the winners of the AL and NL have the managers for each respected all star teams, wouldn't it make sense to have it at the champs house? I digress...not a bad idea, but the logistics of settin gup an asg in less than 8 months time is insane.....the sox had 3 years to prepare for the 2003 game. there's a LOT of work involved(espacially with fanfest, which has to be booked in a convention center)
Gene

Fenway
07-05-2006, 11:27 AM
I recall some of the renderings. Wasn't the concept to basically rebuild the park almost to the exact dimensions but with just a larger seating capacity? And then preserve the original monster on its site as part of a museum/park?

Exactly. It was supposed to open in 2004. Now Fenway will be around for at least 20 more years, maybe more. They just announced plans to open a restaurant in the bleachers similar to Wrigley.


The restaurant is planned under the bleachers in a large area that previously housed much of the park's sound system -- since distributed around the park -- and the visitors' batting cage. A large grate in center field -- just next to the large garage door -- is expected to be replaced with a window that will look out onto the field.


http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/07/05/boston_sampler/

doogiec
07-05-2006, 11:37 AM
Doogie:

Afraid not...Bud specifically cited this as the reason for the change in venues. The link to the story was posted here at WSI the last time this subject came up.

Sorry...

Lip


Lip-

You stated that Selig was using the All Star game to "extort" new stadiums from taxpayers.


Proud To Be Your Bud is using the All Popularity Contest Game as extortion to cities who refuse to build new or significantly upgrade stadiums for billionare owners.


If that's the case, why would the 2007 game be held in SF? You are aware that PacBell/AT&T was built with private funds? After years of the government refusing to build a public facility? After four referendums were defeated, both in SF and San Jose?

How does awarding the 2007 game to a privately funded facility, in a town that repeatedly refused to build a public facility, accomplish Selig's supposed "extortion" scheme? If he was extorting new stadiums, why not award the 2007 game to Cincinnati, St Louis, San Diego, Anaheim, Phoenix or Philadelphia, all of which have new or remodeled taxpayer funded stadiums? If you’re extorting everyone, why reward the ONE and ONLY city that stood up to the extortion?

And if this is a Selig "extortion" scheme, how do you explain the remarkable number of times the All Star game was held in new/remodeled facilities pre-Selig?

Baseball has always used the ASG to showcase new facilities. It just so happens most of the new facilities are in the NL now. That's not extortion in even the most flippant use of the word. It even makes sense in the overall national marketing of the game.

For the record, here is Selig’s exact quote (from the press conference awarding the 2007 ASG to a privately financed facility) that you referenced (which agrees exactly with what I said in my previous post):
"We do love the All-Star Game as a showcase for our new venues," Selig said, noting that this year's game is in Detroit's four-year-old Comerica Park on July 12. "I'll try and alternate the game (between leagues) if I can, but this is a great way to show off our new (ballparks)."
I’m not denying that baseball is rewarding teams with new facilities. That’s obvious. What I’m denying is your claim that this is a Selig “extortion” scheme. Baseball’s been rewarding new facilities with the ASG regularly over the last 45 years. And the fact that Selig broke the rotation to give the ASG to a privately funded stadium proves the ASG is not being used to “extort” taxpayers as you claim. If so, SF would be at the bottom of the list.

ewokpelts
07-05-2006, 12:00 PM
Lip-

You stated that Selig was using the All Star game to "extort" new stadiums from taxpayers.



If that's the case, why would the 2007 game be held in SF? You are aware that PacBell/AT&T was built with private funds? After years of the government refusing to build a public facility? After four referendums were defeated, both in SF and San Jose?

How does awarding the 2007 game to a privately funded facility, in a town that repeatedly refused to build a public facility, accomplish Selig's supposed "extortion" scheme? If he was extorting new stadiums, why not award the 2007 game to Cincinnati, St Louis, San Diego, Anaheim, Phoenix or Philadelphia, all of which have new or remodeled taxpayer funded stadiums? If you’re extorting everyone, why reward the ONE and ONLY city that stood up to the extortion?

And if this is a Selig "extortion" scheme, how do you explain the remarkable number of times the All Star game was held in new/remodeled facilities pre-Selig?

Baseball has always used the ASG to showcase new facilities. It just so happens most of the new facilities are in the NL now. That's not extortion in even the most flippant use of the word. It even makes sense in the overall national marketing of the game.

For the record, here is Selig’s exact quote (from the press conference awarding the 2007 ASG to a privately financed facility) that you referenced (which agrees exactly with what I said in my previous post):
"We do love the All-Star Game as a showcase for our new venues," Selig said, noting that this year's game is in Detroit's four-year-old Comerica Park on July 12. "I'll try and alternate the game (between leagues) if I can, but this is a great way to show off our new (ballparks)."
I’m not denying that baseball is rewarding teams with new facilities. That’s obvious. What I’m denying is your claim that this is a Selig “extortion” scheme. Baseball’s been rewarding new facilities with the ASG regularly over the last 45 years. And the fact that Selig broke the rotation to give the ASG to a privately funded stadium proves the ASG is not being used to “extort” taxpayers as you claim. If so, SF would be at the bottom of the list.the giants wanted 2006, since they could tie in barroid's exploits as part of the festivities.....but selig punished the giants for paying for thier own stadium, by giving them a year when barry was 99.9% sure to NOT be on the giants.
Gene

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2006, 12:03 PM
but selig punished the giants for paying for thier own stadium, by giving them a year when barry was 99.9% sure to NOT be on the giants.
Gene

:whoflungpoo

Selig may be a poor commissioner and may be bad for baseball. But come on already. From some of the hatred he gets, we might as well blame him for AIDS, cancer, childhood obesity, 9/11 and the Columbia disaster.

Selig has no reason to punish a team for using private financing to build a new stadium. If he really wanted to punish them, he would not have awarded an All-Star game to San Francisco at all.

doogiec
07-05-2006, 12:09 PM
the giants wanted 2006, since they could tie in barroid's exploits as part of the festivities.....but selig punished the giants for paying for thier own stadium, by giving them a year when barry was 99.9% sure to NOT be on the giants.
Gene

Why not punish the Giants by NEVER giving them an ASG, with seven or eight other deserving candidates?

Are you saying that Bud is only evil in even numbered years?

ewokpelts
07-05-2006, 12:28 PM
Why not punish the Giants by NEVER giving them an ASG, with seven or eight other deserving candidates?

Are you saying that Bud is only evil in even numbered years?it's kinda like yelling at your dog for pooping on the rug...you're mad, but you're not going to put them to sleep for it....

mcgowan has been an otherwise "good" owner. selig pretty much melvined the giants...he knows that if SF kept getting passed up for an asg, the national media would ride his ass...after all , it IS a beautiful park.....

Gene

LuvSox
07-05-2006, 12:40 PM
Exactly. It was supposed to open in 2004. Now Fenway will be around for at least 20 more years, maybe more. They just announced plans to open a restaurant in the bleachers similar to Wrigley.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED by that news.

champagne030
07-05-2006, 01:07 PM
Lip-

You stated that Selig was using the All Star game to "extort" new stadiums from taxpayers.



If that's the case, why would the 2007 game be held in SF? You are aware that PacBell/AT&T was built with private funds? After years of the government refusing to build a public facility? After four referendums were defeated, both in SF and San Jose?

How does awarding the 2007 game to a privately funded facility, in a town that repeatedly refused to build a public facility, accomplish Selig's supposed "extortion" scheme? If he was extorting new stadiums, why not award the 2007 game to Cincinnati, St Louis, San Diego, Anaheim, Phoenix or Philadelphia, all of which have new or remodeled taxpayer funded stadiums? If you’re extorting everyone, why reward the ONE and ONLY city that stood up to the extortion?

And if this is a Selig "extortion" scheme, how do you explain the remarkable number of times the All Star game was held in new/remodeled facilities pre-Selig?

Baseball has always used the ASG to showcase new facilities. It just so happens most of the new facilities are in the NL now. That's not extortion in even the most flippant use of the word. It even makes sense in the overall national marketing of the game.

For the record, here is Selig’s exact quote (from the press conference awarding the 2007 ASG to a privately financed facility) that you referenced (which agrees exactly with what I said in my previous post):
"We do love the All-Star Game as a showcase for our new venues," Selig said, noting that this year's game is in Detroit's four-year-old Comerica Park on July 12. "I'll try and alternate the game (between leagues) if I can, but this is a great way to show off our new (ballparks)."
I’m not denying that baseball is rewarding teams with new facilities. That’s obvious. What I’m denying is your claim that this is a Selig “extortion” scheme. Baseball’s been rewarding new facilities with the ASG regularly over the last 45 years. And the fact that Selig broke the rotation to give the ASG to a privately funded stadium proves the ASG is not being used to “extort” taxpayers as you claim. If so, SF would be at the bottom of the list.

SURPRISE, Ariz. -- Kansas City is an All-Star city again.
Commissioner Bud Selig announced on Wednesday that a Major League All-Star Game will be held in Kansas City between 2010 and 2014. The awarding of the game is contingent on the passage of a sales tax on April 4 to finance Kauffman Stadium improvements.

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060322&content_id=1359278&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc

BTW - The sales tax increase passed.

Lip Man 1
07-05-2006, 04:11 PM
Doogie:

You can search through the archives to find the link to the story that specifically quotes Selig as stating the reason for the change.

Yes it's called extortion.

And Fay Vincent wasn't an owner's flunky which is why they got him out of there as soon as possible. Read John Helyar's 'The Lords Of The Realm.'

Lip

doogiec
07-06-2006, 06:54 AM
<
Doogie:

You can search through the archives to find the link to the story that specifically quotes Selig as stating the reason for the change.

Yes it's called extortion.

And Fay Vincent wasn't an owner's flunky which is why they got him out of there as soon as possible. Read John Helyar's 'The Lords Of The Realm.'

Lip

Lip-

Fay Vincent awarded two ASG's during his tenure- including one to the new publicly funded ballpark in Baltimore (announced by Vincent in mid 1992).

Is he an extortionist also?

How about Bowie Kuhn and General Eckert, both of whom did the same thing repeatedly? Both extortionists by your definition.

I did search for your link, and posted Selig's quote in my previous reply. He admits that new facilities are more likely to get ASG's. I could have told you that in the 1960's.

How about the NFL, which recently moved the 2015 Super Bowl from KC because voters did not approve the roof referendum? Actually, they make cities compete for the Super Bowl every year, so they must be extortionists also. Same with the NCAA Final Four, NBA ASG and NHL ASG, all of which are frequently held in newer arenas.

You're confusing extortion with competition. And you're blaming Selig for a practice used by every sports league for decades.

BTW, you still haven't explained why Selig awarded the 2007 game to a privately financed facility in a city that refused for 10 years to build a taxpayer financed ballpark, if his goal is to extort taxpayer money.

I actually do agree that Vincent was a far better commissioner than Selig. But that doesn't make every decision Selig makes from now until the end of time inherently evil.

SoxFan64
07-06-2006, 03:32 PM
Proud To Be Your Bud is using the All Popularity Contest Game as extortion to cities who refuse to build new or significantly upgrade stadiums for billionare owners.

If you don't build it, we won't come...
Which is why the All Star game will be in National League parks for two straight years. Bud did mention that there was a precedent for having the same league host the game in successive years. In 1950-51, both games were hosted by the AL and in 1952-53, both games were hosted by the NL.

So if Bud is handing out the All Star game as a reward he probably made some commitment when getting new parks in place in Pittsburgh and SF. I do not know this for a fact but it does not some sense.

When KC voters were voting on a bond issue to upgrade Royals Stadium and Arrowhead, Bud was quoted as saying that with the upgrades to Royal Stadium, KC would get an All Star game sometime early in the next decade.

Bud Sends All Star Game to KC (http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060322&content_id=1359278&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc)

So I can envision all star games in NY before and after the new stadiums go up and perhaps a deal with the folks in the Oakland area or Miami if they approve new stadiums.

SoxFan64

ewokpelts
07-06-2006, 04:03 PM
Which is why the All Star game will be in National League parks for two straight years. Bud did mention that there was a precedent for having the same league host the game in successive years. In 1950-51, both games were hosted by the AL and in 1952-53, both games were hosted by the NL.

So if Bud is handing out the All Star game as a reward he probably made some commitment when getting new parks in place in Pittsburgh and SF. I do not know this for a fact but it does not some sense.

When KC voters were voting on a bond issue to upgrade Royals Stadium and Arrowhead, Bud was quoted as saying that with the upgrades to Royal Stadium, KC would get an All Star game sometime early in the next decade.

Bud Sends All Star Game to KC (http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060322&content_id=1359278&vkey=news_kc&fext=.jsp&c_id=kc)

So I can envision all star games in NY before and after the new stadiums go up and perhaps a deal with the folks in the Oakland area or Miami if they approve new stadiums.

SoxFan64And dont forget that there were TWO all star game a year for 3-4 years...... the first one was a money run for the leagues, and the 2nd one was to raise money for retired player's pensions

Hitmen77
07-07-2006, 11:04 AM
Couldn't agree more.

No matter how you feel about the DH rule, it needs to be used in every All Star Game. I can't think of a situation the DH rule is better suited to be used.

Having a pitcher hit in an All Star Game is possibly the stupidest thing MLB currently does. Nobody is paying $200 per ticket to see pitchers bunt, or the #8 batter walked/pitched around. No one is paying $200 to see double switches. Since the team is being constructed for one game, the NL would not have a disadvantage using the DH. Not using the DH makes it more difficult for managers to plan player usage, and keeps deserving players off the team.

I agree - they should use a DH at every all-star game.

Having a DH is not a disadvantage to the NL since they can easily fill that position with any position player. Each year there are always deserving players either not chosen for the game, or chosen but not played in the game. Having a DH provides more opportunity to showcase MLB talent. To waste those at bats by having pitchers hit is just stupid.

Also, having a DH at each game would avoid ridiculous situations where a person who just about NEVER plays 1B is elected to start 1B at the All-Star Game. If you want a good laugh, go to mlb.com and click on their link for the All-Star rosters. Then click "starters". There they have pictures of each of the position players taken playing defense....or I should say they show 15 of the 16 starters in fielding position. Then there's the picture of Ortiz standing there with a bat on his shoulder. What a joke.