PDA

View Full Version : Marlins Ballpark


GoSox2K3
02-07-2007, 11:34 PM
Don't write them off as going to Vegas, San Antonio, or Portland just yet. Things are looking up again for the on again/off again/on again/off again Miami ballpark.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/baseball/16636993.htm

KRS1
02-08-2007, 12:32 AM
I really hope they stay in or near Miami, because IMO, there is no better alternative out there. Not only that, but it could be a very successful area to have a franchise if only ownership and unmentionable people just stop jerking around the fan base.

Viva Medias B's
02-08-2007, 08:43 AM
Is the general idea still to build the stadium next to the Orange Bowl, or are the Marlins looking to Broward County?

cws05champ
02-08-2007, 08:56 AM
I was a Marlins season ticket holder for the last 3 years...IMO even if they put a new retractable roof stadium in Miami, they will still struggle to draw a decent crowd after the first 2 years. It is just not a baseball town and everyone down here roots for another team from their home city.

I also disagree with the location they are looking at. They should follow the $$ North of Miami where there are more families with disposible income to spend on baseball.

IndianWhiteSox
02-08-2007, 08:56 AM
What I really don't understand is why do all these greedy owners need someone else(their cities) to pay for their houses(Stadiums)? This just drives me nuts, why can't they sell the team to an owner who has more than enough money to pay for a stadium? These are one of the few time that steinbrenner is actually good.

Malgar 12
02-08-2007, 09:04 AM
What I really don't understand is why do all these greedy owners need someone else(their cities) to pay for their houses(Stadiums)? This just drives me nuts, why can't they sell the team to an owner who has more than enough money to pay for a stadium? These are one of the few time that steinbrenner is actually good.

Because they have the leverage. The anti-trust exemption means no other ML team will come to South Florida anytime soon. The owners can effectively hold cities hostage.

Luke
02-08-2007, 10:03 AM
What I really don't understand is why do all these greedy owners need someone else(their cities) to pay for their houses(Stadiums)? This just drives me nuts, why can't they sell the team to an owner who has more than enough money to pay for a stadium? These are one of the few time that steinbrenner is actually good.

Don't give Big Stein too much credit. Per the CBA, they're going to get to deduct building costs from their portion of revenue sharing. So the Yankees will not be paying any luxury tax on their $200 million payroll.

ewokpelts
02-08-2007, 10:45 AM
Don't give Big Stein too much credit. Per the CBA, they're going to get to deduct building costs from their portion of revenue sharing. So the Yankees will not be paying any luxury tax on their $200 million payroll.not the luxury tax, but revenue sharing....since he can claim it as an operating loss

jcw218
02-08-2007, 10:56 AM
But what I don't get is this:

Major League Baseball has been assisting the Marlins for some time with their quest. Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, has been involved in the financing negotiations. He said last month that securing a new ballpark for the Marlins was MLB's top offseason priority.


Aren't there bigger issues that need to be solved rather than where the Marlins play?

Luke
02-08-2007, 11:03 AM
not the luxury tax, but revenue sharing....since he can claim it as an operating loss

That's right...I don't know why I said luxury tax.

GoSox2K3
02-08-2007, 11:44 AM
But what I don't get is this:



Aren't there bigger issues that need to be solved rather than where the Marlins play?

Actually, I'm not surprised that this is a big issue for them. They just went through a difficult process with the Expos where league bought the team, then had difficulty finding a suitable city to relocate to, and then having a hard time getting a stadium deal worked out with D.C.

Getting taxpayers to pay millions for a ballpark means millions more for rich owners and players.

If this and the Oakland ballpark actually get built, the number of teams without a non-baseball friendly ballpark are really going to dwindle. I'm also counting that the new Twins, Yankees, and Mets parks get built too. MLB would be left with only Tampa Bay and Toronto not having great baseball stadium situations.

Of course, spending $$$ on a great ballpark isn't a guarantee of success. Look at Pittsburgh - they have arguably the best ballpark in the league and they're still struggling on and off the field.

ewokpelts
02-08-2007, 12:34 PM
Actually, I'm not surprised that this is a big issue for them. They just went through a difficult process with the Expos where league bought the team, then had difficulty finding a suitable city to relocate to, and then having a hard time getting a stadium deal worked out with D.C.

Getting taxpayers to pay millions for a ballpark means millions more for rich owners and players.

If this and the Oakland ballpark actually get built, the number of teams without a non-baseball friendly ballpark are really going to dwindle. I'm also counting? that the new Twins, Yankees, and Mets parks get built too. MLB would be left with only Tampa Bay and Toronto not having great baseball stadium situations.

Of course, spending $$$ on a great ballpark isn't a guarantee of success. Look at Pittsburgh - they have arguably the best ballpark in the league and they're still struggling on and off the field.um...twins/yanks/mets ARE having stadiums built, same as oakland

Mr.1Dog
02-08-2007, 12:42 PM
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/miabpk03.jpg

Looks like it could be a nice park.

GoSox2K3
02-08-2007, 12:57 PM
um...twins/yanks/mets ARE having stadiums built, same as oakland

um...yes that why I said I was counting them. What did you want me to say - that I wasn't counting them as getting new ballparks?:?: They haven't been built yet, but funding is secured and the NY parks have broken ground.

I haven't heard if Oakland's is quite a done deal yet.

C-Dawg
02-08-2007, 01:07 PM
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/miabpk03.jpg

Looks like it could be a nice park.

OMG Its Minute Maid Park II !

oeo
02-08-2007, 01:53 PM
OMG Its Minute Maid Park II !

That's exactly what I thought when I saw it.

eriqjaffe
02-08-2007, 02:39 PM
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it.Actually, my first thought was, "OMG, the first base line is UNDERNEATH THE SEATS!"

Hitmen77
02-08-2007, 03:53 PM
If this and the Oakland ballpark actually get built, the number of teams without a non-baseball friendly ballpark are really going to dwindle. I'm also counting that the new Twins, Yankees, and Mets parks get built too. MLB would be left with only Tampa Bay and Toronto not having great baseball stadium situations.

Of course, spending $$$ on a great ballpark isn't a guarantee of success. Look at Pittsburgh - they have arguably the best ballpark in the league and they're still struggling on and off the field.

Plus, Kansas City's Kaufmann stadium will undergo renovations over the next few years. The Royals website gives details of what they are adding. Looks pretty nice. Again, like with Pittsburgh, I don't know if it'll do anything to make them more competitive.

ma-gaga
02-08-2007, 05:59 PM
The Twins stadium is kind of in flux right now. They've already passed the bill and as of January 1st, started collecting the money (and I must say that the $0.03 on every $20 is just KILLING me :rolleyes: ).

However, Hennepin County is limited to how much it can pay for the site, and the owners of the proposed space are making a cash grab.

So, right now the land is in limbo. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

The "emminent domain" process has started, and an independant arbitrator will set the value of the land. If it's less than $13mm, the county will buy it. If it's greater than $15mm, it sounds like the Twins will be looking for another location.

There's a nice little article about it HERE. (http://citypages.com/databank/28/1366/article15117.asp)

My gut says it's part of the process. I guess we'll see what happens.

ewokpelts
02-09-2007, 01:51 AM
Plus, Kansas City's Kaufmann stadium will undergo renovations over the next few years. The Royals website gives details of what they are adding. Looks pretty nice. Again, like with Pittsburgh, I don't know if it'll do anything to make them more competitive.it got them an all-star game between 2010-2014

IndianWhiteSox
02-09-2007, 02:21 AM
Actually, I'm not surprised that this is a big issue for them. They just went through a difficult process with the Expos where league bought the team, then had difficulty finding a suitable city to relocate to, and then having a hard time getting a stadium deal worked out with D.C.

Getting taxpayers to pay millions for a ballpark means millions more for rich owners and players.

If this and the Oakland ballpark actually get built, the number of teams without a non-baseball friendly ballpark are really going to dwindle. I'm also counting that the new Twins, Yankees, and Mets parks get built too. MLB would be left with only Tampa Bay and Toronto not having great baseball stadium situations.

I thought that the Blue Jays new stadium was the first stadium that started the new stadium trend.

Don't give Big Stein too much credit. Per the CBA, they're going to get to deduct building costs from their portion of revenue sharing. So the Yankees will not be paying any luxury tax on their $200 million payroll.

It's still his own money and not the taxpayers dollars that is paying for his own stadium.

Plus, Kansas City's Kaufmann stadium will undergo renovations over the next few years. The Royals website gives details of what they are adding. Looks pretty nice. Again, like with Pittsburgh, I don't know if it'll do anything to make them more competitive.

The Marilns still have one of the best farm systems in all of baseball, the problem is just selling recent success to their fans. The Marlins can compete regardless.

ewokpelts
02-09-2007, 07:44 AM
[quote=IndianWhiteSox;1481550]I thought that the Blue Jays new stadium was the first stadium that started the new stadium trend.



[quote]but sadly...it's now an ancient relic

SouthSide_HitMen
02-09-2007, 08:22 AM
They've already passed the bill and as of January 1st, started collecting the money (and I must say that the $0.03 on every $20 is just KILLING me :rolleyes: ).

I can think of only a handful of dumber ideas than government creating an additional regressive tax to pay for the capital costs of a billionaire's private corporation. One off the top of my head would be to use the tax proceeds to pay for nuclear missiles to be used at Carl Pohlad's discretion. I'll need more time to come up with a second idea.

If West received 3 cents from every WSI member each day he would receive about $80,000 per year. Your county has a multiple in the hundreds of the number of people on this site. Pohlad has done the math and his investment in lobbyists to pass this regressive tax (pennies for every $20 received from the citizens) is why he has over $2.6 billion (107th on Forbes list) and the residents who are paying his expenses are happy putting him into the Top 100.

:dollarbill:

"By comparison, Pohlad makes me look like a humanitarian. I paid for my own stadium because I didn't have the gall to ask taxpayers to subsidize me, a billionaire. I just make the suckers buy my liquior if they purchase it in Illinois."

itsnotrequired
02-09-2007, 08:50 AM
If West received 3 cents from every WSI member each day he would receive about $80,000 per year.

Then he can finally get that solid-gold rocket car he's had his eyes on lo these many years.

:cool:

C-Dawg
02-09-2007, 03:28 PM
I thought that the Blue Jays new stadium was the first stadium that started the new stadium trend.





Yes there are a few ballparks that fell in there before the retro-ballpark craze began. I'm sure everyone in Toronto and Minnesota thought their ballparks were wonderful, albeit for very short periods of time.

Kansas City is an interesting case however; their park is clean and simple with good sightlines, but it looks like the 70s design that it is. I'm curious to see how they rehab it.

Fenway
02-09-2007, 04:09 PM
Yes there are a few ballparks that fell in there before the retro-ballpark craze began. I'm sure everyone in Toronto and Minnesota thought their ballparks were wonderful, albeit for very short periods of time.

Kansas City is an interesting case however; their park is clean and simple with good sightlines, but it looks like the 70s design that it is. I'm curious to see how they rehab it.

Kansas City in many ways just followed the lead of Dodger Stadium a park that is 46 years old but is still very nice.

Probably the worse of them all was Stade Olympique in Montreal which helped destroy the franchise. Nobody wanted to be indoors in the summer in Quebec

Hitmen77
02-09-2007, 05:41 PM
I thought that the Blue Jays new stadium was the first stadium that started the new stadium trend.

Yes there are a few ballparks that fell in there before the retro-ballpark craze began. I'm sure everyone in Toronto and Minnesota thought their ballparks were wonderful, albeit for very short periods of time.

Kansas City is an interesting case however; their park is clean and simple with good sightlines, but it looks like the 70s design that it is. I'm curious to see how they rehab it.

The Skydome was hailed as a modern marvel ballpark when it opened in '89. It was very popular and IIRC the Blue Jays drew something 4 million fans in those early years which included 2 world championships. But, as retro baseball only parks sprung up around the league, Skydome (now Rogers Centre) didn't seem so nice anymore. A big problem is that it's a multipurpose stadium with fake grass.

Kaufmann Stadium, Dodger Stadium, and Angel Stadium were probably the only baseball-only parks built between the old-time parks and the 1990s. No coincidence that they're still around. Of course, they butchered "Anaheim Stadium" in the 80s by making it multipurpose for the Rams, but they returned it to baseball-only with a nice renovation about 10 years ago. Hopefully the rehab in KC will breath new life into that place since it has always been a good ballpark.

Hitmen77
02-09-2007, 05:48 PM
Kansas City in many ways just followed the lead of Dodger Stadium a park that is 46 years old but is still very nice.

Probably the worse of them all was Stade Olympique in Montreal which helped destroy the franchise. Nobody wanted to be indoors in the summer in Quebec

Interestingly, I think the Dodgers are about to pass the point where they've played in Dodger Stadium (opened 1962) longer than they played in Ebbets Field (1913-1957).

hsnterprize
02-10-2007, 10:44 AM
The Skydome was hailed as a modern marvel ballpark when it opened in '89. It was very popular and IIRC the Blue Jays drew something 4 million fans in those early years which included 2 world championships. But, as retro baseball only parks sprung up around the league, Skydome (now Rogers Centre) didn't seem so nice anymore. A big problem is that it's a multipurpose stadium with fake grass.



I'd read that the Rogers Centre (i.e., Skydome) was going through a series of renovations similar to what U.S. Cellular Field went through to make the place more "baseball friendly". Including the current renovations we can see like the new HD screen in center field, they added new L.E.D. ribbons on their facades, and those TV screen-like features on the outfield fences. I also read they're planning on doing work to improve the concourses and ultimately change the color of the seats from blue to green.

One day I'd read on the Rogers Centre website a Q&A on why there isn't natural grass on the floor there. Moderators answered there were too many events at that building to facilitate natural grass (i.e., Blue Jays baseball, Toronto Argonauts football, trade shows, concerts, etc.)