Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,533,106 times
Reputation: 2038
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01
Montreal was a baseball town for years, being a major stop in the International league in the 1950s.
However, when you play in a stadium that was NEVER designed to be a baseball stadium (Stade Olympique), a management that is utterly and completely INCOMPETENT and unwilling to spend a penny, what do you expect?
EXAMPLES:
I am in Montreal for a day in 2000 on a marginal baseball day. I buy my ticket. And as I leave the line, an Expos employee hands me a sheet of paper telling me that there are no refunds on the tickets if the game is canceled.
It was a promotions day. Did I get a ball or a bat or a hat? No, I received an electrical outlet cover. NO KIDDING.
For YEARS, the Expos did NOT broadcast their games ... IN ENGLISH. The few years that they did, the station could not be heard as far as Cornwall, ON.
In 1980, I was there the day that Tim Raines made his major league debut. The crowd was over 30k and very enthusiastic. Of course, they had guys like Raines, Valentine, Dawson, Torrez and the like.
On the employee telling about about the cancelations/refunds. Maybe they were just left out the part where if the game goes on for more than 4.5 innings with the Expos ahead, yes, you would not get a refund. So they could have been right, just incomplete.
The Expos, save for 2000 and part of 2001, have always been on radio in English. I picked up the station in Saratoga Springs on AM, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
It broke my heart to see the Expos move, but I think they should have gone to some place else than DC. DC basically already had the Orioles and other towns like Charlotte or Portland, would have made more sense.
I do think they have more folks using blackberries to check their e-mail than any other club. The city is loaded, loaded with workaholics.
We had a 20 game plan last year. We did not renew it for this season. The team record was not really a reason why we didn't renew. Reasons we decided not to renew were:
* Prices. I felt the seats we paid for were not worth the money. We had also prepaid what I later thought was too much for parking. We found we did better buying tickets and parking passes for other games at discounts through other sources such as eBay or Craigslist. Example: We have 4 tickets ($55 face value for each ticket) and Lot C parking ($35 face value) for later this month and only paid $70 for them. Concessions are high, even compared to other parks we've been to, and the workers there seemed to be either confused, rude, or could care less about what they are doing.
* Etiquette. We became tired of people entering and exiting rows, standing in aisles, or standing in front of you to great their buddies from work during action on the field. Our ushers were almost as bad. Numerous times I had to ask an usher or the usher and his vendor friend to move out of the way or back to the tunnel entrance so that I could see home plate.
* Annoying, inconsistent employees. For example, many fans don't realize that you can take water and some food into the park. Ironically, you can read about it under their "Prohibited Items" list:
The following items are prohibited inside of Nationals Park:
Metal, plastic or glass containers of any kind (except for factory-sealed, plastic water bottles, no larger than 1 liter and juice boxes). Only one bottle of water per person will be permitted.
Food items not in adherence to the following policy: All food items must be contained in single serving bags within a soft-sided container or cooler, that does not exceed 16" x 16" x 8".
Apparently, not all security personnel at the gates realize this. Usually things were fine, but there were a few times when we had to explain the rule to security, or find another employee who would verify the rule.
We also had issues with ushers in the stands. For example, we went to a game in Sept. with my parents that was not in our plan. We tried out a different section and had row 1 seats, but didn't realize the foul pole would partially block our view. Of course at a Nats game in Sept. there were maybe, literally, 12 people in our section. When we first got there, usher #1 said, "If that is in your way, feel free to move over a few seats. " Heck, I would have thought that even if he didn't suggest it. So, in the third we moved across the aisle to the next section. Within seconds usher #2 was asking to see our tickets. Nobody was around us! He said we paid for certain seats and had to sit in those seats. There was more conversation, but in short he was a real d--k.
On the employee telling about about the cancelations/refunds. Maybe they were just left out the part where if the game goes on for more than 4.5 innings with the Expos ahead, yes, you would not get a refund. So they could have been right, just incomplete.
The Expos, save for 2000 and part of 2001, have always been on radio in English. I picked up the station in Saratoga Springs on AM, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
It broke my heart to see the Expos move, but I think they should have gone to some place else than DC. DC basically already had the Orioles and other towns like Charlotte or Portland, would have made more sense.
In 2000, the Expos had NO English broadcasts for the radio AS WELL AS no TV contract. When they returned in 2001, they were on a low wattage radio station that sis not cover their fan base.
In 2000, Lurie signed the contracr with the French station the day before the opening day.
Do realize that any move to Louisville, Columbus, or Indianapolis would probably require the approval of the Cincinnati Reds due to their close proximity.
The Nats problem is a lack of wins. If they were a good team, the attendance would be better. But Americans don't like losers and the Redskins have basically had a three decade period all to themselves in that market (the Wizards a non-factor and the Capitals an afterthought) once the expansion Senators fled to Texas.
As an illustration, look at Anaheim. When they were mostly awful, you could stroll up to the box office on game day and get a seat by the third base dugout and maybe only 8-10,000 folks would show up in total. Now that they are consistent competitors with a World Series title under their belts, Anaheim Stadium is just about full every night.
Cleveland starts losing, the fans disappeared after nearly three straight seasons of sellouts. Even the Yankees, during their fallow period in the late 1960's through the mid-70's had trouble drawing. In fact,. most years they were outdrawn by the Mets. So if the Nats start winning then the fans will come to the park in a town that is comprised of frontrunners by its nature.
It was not a mistake to bring MLB back to Washington. Even though I don't think Washington will ever be a great baseball market, it still will be (and already is) a more viable baseball market than a number of markets out there, including Tampa Bay, Miami, Pittsburgh, possibly Phoenix and/or Kansas City, and perhaps a few other markets.
It was not a mistake to bring MLB back to Washington. Even though I don't think Washington will ever be a great baseball market, it still will be (and already is) a more viable baseball market than a number of markets out there, including Tampa Bay, Miami, Pittsburgh, possibly Phoenix and/or Kansas City, and perhaps a few other markets.
I don't think Washington is better than any of those markets, except Miami. Tampa doesn't draw great, but at least somewhat respectable now that they have a winning team. Pittsburgh has historically been a great baseball market, but the fans have become tired of their losing ways and inept management...if the Pirates became a contending team again, I think the fans would come back, Arizona isn't great, but they draw OK, same for KC (and KC hasn't had a winner in years). Washington has lost multiple teams, yet they keep coming back for more, they don't learn a lesson. I think DC is so transient, and people already have their allegiances from wherever they moved from, plus the DC-area natives were probably already Orioles fans.
I think the Nats would be better off in a number of cities...Buffalo, Louisville, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Portland, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Norfolk, etc. etc.
Right now Washington is 24th in the league in home attendance, avg of 23,813 per game. For a team with the worst record in baseball, that's not too bad. It could be worse.
The teams with worse attendance are Toronto, Tampa, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Florida, and Oakland.
I don't think Washington is better than any of those markets, except Miami. Tampa doesn't draw great, but at least somewhat respectable now that they have a winning team. Pittsburgh has historically been a great baseball market, but the fans have become tired of their losing ways and inept management...if the Pirates became a contending team again, I think the fans would come back, Arizona isn't great, but they draw OK, same for KC (and KC hasn't had a winner in years). Washington has lost multiple teams, yet they keep coming back for more, they don't learn a lesson. I think DC is so transient, and people already have their allegiances from wherever they moved from, plus the DC-area natives were probably already Orioles fans.
I think the Nats would be better off in a number of cities...Buffalo, Louisville, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Portland, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Norfolk, etc. etc.
A few thoughts:
1) Washington IS a transient market, but Tampa Bay, Miami, and Phoenix are all even more transient than Washington. Both Tampa Bay and Phoenix are also smaller than Washington. Finally, all 3 teams have tickets and other expenses that are much lower for attending a game than Washington does. If the Nationals didn't charge such a ridiculous amount for parking, or have very high ticket costs for lower deck seats and concessions, I think their attendance would be higher.
2) Pittsburgh historically has NOT been a great baseball market or even a good or average baseball market, at least over the last 40+ years. When the Pirates had excellent teams in the 1970's, their attendance was mediocre. When they had excellent teams 1990-1992, their attendance was mediocre. They've only drawn over 1.9 million fans THREE times in their entire history, which is one less time than the Nationals have done that in their first 4 years in DC (and I don't think DC is a good baseball market either). The Pirates obviously have been below average or worse for a long time now, but they also have more promotions than any other MLB team that I'm aware of and their tickets are the second-cheapest in baseball, only behind the Arizona Diamondbacks. (In addition, most good seats to Pirates games, including seats right behind the dugout or behind home plate in the back 2/3 of the lower deck, are $35 face value or less, almost definitely the cheapest cost in baseball.) Despite all that, the Pirates' attendance still is terrible. Washington, in part because it is a much larger and wealthier market than Pittsburgh (and Tampa Bay and to a lesser degree Phoenix), is a considerably better baseball market than Pittsburgh IMO.
3) Kansas City is one of the smallest markets in MLB. When the Royals are good, as they were in the 1980's, they draw very solidly (2.3-2.4 million fans in a market the size of Kansas City is very good), but like Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay, KC isn't as viable a baseball market as DC is because DC is a lot bigger.
4) Washington lost the Senators I after the 1960 season and the Senators II after the 1971 season; the latter of those seasons was almost 40 years ago. To use what happened in 1960 or 1971 in sports as a basis about what should be done now in sports is, to be blunt, stupid. I mean, Philadelphia lost the Warriors in the early 1960's, does that mean the 76ers shouldn't have come to Philadelphia? Baltimore lost the Colts in 1984 (and had very poor attendance their last few years in Baltimore), does that mean the Ravens shouldn't have come to Baltimore (assuming you aren't from Cleveland/NE Ohio)? New York lost the Dodgers and Giants in 1957 because those teams thought they'd be more economically successful in California. Does that mean the Mets shouldn't have placed in New York? Chicago lost its first NBA team in the early 1960's due to disinterest. Does that mean Michael Jordan should have never played a home game in the NBA in Chicago? These examples don't even address the fact that the Washington metro area is a much, much larger area and more wealthy area in 2009 (or 2005) than it was in 1971, much less 1960. I think the DC metro area is literally twice as big now as it was in the early 1970's.
4) I know from first-hand experience that while a number of DC area natives are Orioles fans, the vast majority of them are not Orioles fans.
5) Let's compare DC to all the potential markets mentioned above:
*Buffalo - western New York, much like western Pennsylvania, is losing population, and it's much smaller than Washington. There is talk about the Bills eventually leaving Buffalo (which I think would be sacrilegious), and the Bills play 10 home games a year, not 81 home games. Buffalo also has already lost an NBA team more recently than Washington lost either version of the Senators (when the Buffalo Braves moved to San Diego and became the Clippers in the late 1970's). In addition to all of the above, Toronto isn't far away (and is a much larger city) and would cut into Buffalo's fanbase.
*Louisville - if Louisville isn't big enough to support an NFL team or an NBA team, then it isn't big enough to support a MLB team. (I think most people would agree that is the most challenging for a metro area to support a MLB team, due to the large number of home games.) Louisville is also close to Cincinnati (about 105 miles), which would be a challenge for a marginally-sized market (and Cincinnati is not a huge market either so the Reds would be hurt too).
*Indianapolis - Indiana's capital city is on the small side to support 2 major league teams (the Colts and Pacers) and would be significantly stretched if MLB was added to the mix. Like Louisville, Indy is close to Cincinnati (about 115 miles) and a MLB team there would create the same problems, both for itself and the Reds.
*San Antonio - the Alamo City actually is a semi-viable market, but it does have a relatively transient population, which is always worrisome for a smaller market in any sport but especially MLB. The biggest argument San Antonio has going for it is Austin (the reverse is also true, if you consider Austin a viable market), which is nearly as large a metro area, is only about 85 miles away. On the flip side, Austin is even more transient than San Antonio. If San Antonio and Austin were closer together (say 40 miles, similar to the Washington-Baltimore distance), then I think an argument could be made that the combined market would be better than DC, but as it is I think DC is still a better market.
*Portland - IMO, Portland is the next-most viable U.S. market for MLB among markets that don't have a MLB team. Though Portland is marginally-sized for a MLB team, it is large enough to support another major league pro sports team (though the NFL would make more sense). It also has a decent secondary market population, both in northwest Oregon and southwest Washington, to draw from (though to be honest that secondary market population is on the small side). Having said the above, Washington is over twice as large as Portland (and Baltimore also is a little larger than Portland), and Portland would be much more likely to be very marginal attendance-wise if the team was weak. (As an exhibit, look at the Seattle Mariners' attendance in their down years and subtract maybe 25-30% off those numbers.) DC is a better market than Portland IMO.
*Nashville - back to the markets that make little sense. Nashville, like Indianapolis but even moreso, is marginal for 2 pro sports teams and would be really, really marginal for 3 pro sports teams. It is also a somewhat transient market.
*Charlotte - what I said about Nashville also applies to Charlotte, though Charlotte is a slightly better choice than the Music City IMO. Having said that, look at the Bobcats' attendance in what most people consider a good basketball area, and don't forget the Hornets moved from Charlotte less than 10 years ago. DC is much better choice.
*Raleigh - the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area would be an even worse choice than Charlotte or Nashville IMO. It is smaller than either of those other 2 markets (I believe), and I'm pretty sure it is a more transient market than either of those other 2 markets.
*Norfolk - what I said above about Louisville (about not having other major league pro sports teams) also applies here, and the Hampton Roads area is a highly transient area because of the large U.S. Navy presence. That area also lacks a significant corporate base, and is a pain to get around because of its geography. Like Louisville, I could see a major league team in another sport coming to the area at some point, but not a MLB team. (I'll also note the Virginia Squires in the ABA played in the Norfolk area at one time but eventually folded.)
6) My final point - IMO the main reasons why the Washington Senators I & II failed in DC all those years ago were A) the Senators generally weren't very good, due in part to underfunded or misdirected ownership and B) Washington was genuinely a small market for most of the time the Senators played in DC. We think today of Washington being a big city, a Northeast Corridor city, but for the first half to two-thirds of the 1900's Washington was an oversized Southern town, distinctly smaller than even Baltimore, much less Philadelphia, New York, or Boston. The Senators were at a market disadvantage. On top of that, long-time owner Clark Griffith was a former player/manager and didn't have non-baseball money to prop him up. When his nephew/adopted son Calvin took over, it didn't take long for him to start looking at other markets (and ultimately the Twin Cities). The Senators II owner, Bob Short, wasn't committed to Washington and had the highest ticket prices in baseball, despite the mediocre team the Senators had every year except 1969.
Again, I don't think Washington is a good baseball market, but it was the BEST market available to MLB, by a healthy margin IMO, when the Montreal Expos were relocated. And despite the attendance issues the Nationals have, DC already is and will likely continue to be a more viable market than a handful of other MLB markets.
Do realize that any move to Louisville, Columbus, or Indianapolis would probably require the approval of the Cincinnati Reds due to their close proximity.
Actually, if a MLB team were to be located in any of those three cities (which interestingly are all almost the exact same distance from Cincinnati), the Reds' approval would not be required. MLB teams have a 75 mile territorial rule with regard to other MLB teams being located in their area (and a 35 mile territorial rule with regard to affiliated minor league teams being located in their area).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
