Worse Opening Day?

[AustinHoya03]

So, to top 2005's "we're going to open the season at 4AM PDT," Major League baseball schedules one game on an April evening in Chicago. At first glance, it's a matchup between two of the most exciting young teams in baseball. But the April weather in Chicago failed to cooperate (imagine that, rain in the Midwest in April), and ruined AustinHoya03's sunny evening in Texas. Maybe it's time to go back to just having one opening day, with most teams competing, instead of a "featured game." Because with nothing else to switch to ESPN showed 3 straight hours of Rob Schneider visiting Giants training camp, increasing my general dislike of Bud, Barry, Sabean, and the Worldwide Leader.

Luckily, today has been much better.

[TBird41]

There shouldn't be an "feature game" before opening day. Opening Day should be considered sacred.

[DFW HOYA]

You know who's really having a bad opening day? The Florida Marlins, because it may be all downhill from here.

The Marlins will start as many as seven rookies and maintain a team payroll of $14.6 million. A half dozen Yankees make more on their own than the entire Florida team.

The Marlins finished 28th in the majors in attendance, which is sure to drop even further with news that the owners are now seriously considering a move to San Antonio, which is the AA home of the Seattle Mariners.

[Joe Hoya]

I vote for the my fantasy baseball team. Four opening-day starters on the roster should be a good thing...until Chris Carpenter throws up an ERA of 7.20, and Carlos Zambrano a 9.64.
I love baseball!!

[HoyaTejano]

DFW, if the Marlins move to SA, what will they call themselves??

That Schneider thing was toxic. I would have rather watched the tarp on the field at the Cell.

[DFW HOYA]

San Antonio baseball teams have traditionally been called the Missions, but I don't know if that trademark passes MLB muster.

A lot of East Coast people would be surprised to know that SA is the 8th largest city in the US, 500,000 more than San Francisco and over twice the population of Boston. Ft. Worth has eclipsed Washington DC, Arlington now has more people than St. Louis (!) and Austin has more people than Seattle...and that's not necessarily a good thing.

It's not flyover country anymore, folks.

[HoyaTejano]

Another pertinent issue is where the heck would the Marlins even play? The Missions' stadium isn't anywhere close to MLB standards.

[AustinHoya03]

San Antonio has proposed building a new park over by the SBC, ahem, AT&T Center, although it would probably be wiser to build the thing further north, where San Antonio's middle-class population center is moving. This would also encourage Austinites like me to drive down to the games.

This thing looks serious. I was in San Antonio for a wedding two weekends ago and people there are very optimistic. The local media seems to think the move will happen also. What's more, SA Mayor Phil Hardberger and members of the SA City Council were Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria's guests for Opening Day yesterday.

As for the name, I don't know what will happen to the current Missions -- would Seattle have to relocate them? If so, I've always thought Missions was a pretty cool, unique name for a ballclub.

As for the current Marlins, they're not good, but not completely terrible. I don't really buy into Spring Training stats, but FWIW I think they did have the best record in the Grapefruit League. A few of their rookies are pegged to be budding stars, and Atlanta did okay with a young and talented lineup last season. You can't really blame Loria -- since he's been the owner fan support for his team has been tepid even when they've been good/spent more money/won the World Series. City support hasn't been great either. I'm not a huge fan of taxpayer-financed stadiums but Miami seems to not want to even consider the idea.

MLB in South Florida has really been a complete disaster, and it's a mistake the league has made twice. I would think the commisioner's office and the other owners would be supportive of a move to a city that will build a new stadium and whose citizens are fanatically supportive of their only other professional franchise.

[Jack]

dfw said:

San Antonio baseball teams have traditionally been called the Missions, but I don't know if that trademark passes MLB muster.

A lot of East Coast people would be surprised to know that SA is the 8th largest city in the US, 500,000 more than San Francisco and over twice the population of Boston. Ft. Worth has eclipsed Washington DC, Arlington now has more people than St. Louis (!) and Austin has more people than Seattle...and that's not necessarily a good thing.

It's not flyover country anymore, folks.

Nice, but the only honest comparison is media markets, and SA's is not even close to Boston or the Bay Area or DC metro. Maybe a fine place for a baseball team, maybe support them better than S. Florida, but it's not exactly like the Dodgers moving to LA.

[AustinHoya03]

jack said:

dfw said:

San Antonio baseball teams have traditionally been called the Missions, but I don't know if that trademark passes MLB muster.

A lot of East Coast people would be surprised to know that SA is the 8th largest city in the US, 500,000 more than San Francisco and over twice the population of Boston. Ft. Worth has eclipsed Washington DC, Arlington now has more people than St. Louis (!) and Austin has more people than Seattle...and that's not necessarily a good thing.

It's not flyover country anymore, folks.

Nice, but the only honest comparison is media markets, and SA's is not even close to Boston or the Bay Area or DC metro. Maybe a fine place for a baseball team, maybe support them better than S. Florida, but it's not exactly like the Dodgers moving to LA.

Yeah, DFW's post is slightly misleading. One reason Boston sits so low on the most populous US cities totem pole is that there's nowhere for it to grow/nothing for it to annex. Down here, most cities went on expansion rampages in the 1980s/90s, and cities like San Antonio are much larger in area. I would guess the Boston metro area is still larger in terms of population than the San Antonio metro area, though they're probably close at this juncture. Having said all that, DFW's final point is dead-on. We're growing, and outside the major cities, the east coast and the rust belt are dying.

San Antonio has been growing rapidly for years despite having little economic backbone. More corporations have started moving offices there in the last decade, and the hope is that San Antonio will soon compete with Dallas and Houston not just in population but in national clout. (Also, a lot of middle-class California and Florida residents are moving to SA in order to escape overpriced real estate markets.) I should say that I have never really liked San Antonio, despite the fact that my girlfriend of 3 years hails from there, but the city is finally starting to get a few things right and emerge from its repuation as a horribly managed mess of a town. Loria is probably not looking at San Antonio as L.A., but as a city whose ability to support his baseball team can only grow. The Rio Grande Valley is growing fast, too, which I think will mean growth for the SA media market.

[HoyaTejano]

I concur with many of AustinHoya's points there. Being from Laredo, having TWO pro teams within a 150-mile trip of my hometown is amazing. You tell me that 10 years ago and I laugh in your face -- I thought the Spurs would be the only thing in South Texas, ever. Now my hometown has a minor league hockey team and there is a possibility that going to see the "Marmissions" play the Cubs is a day trip.

As with most larger cities, SA has its fun parts and its not so fun parts. My uncle lived on Broadway, so he was in proximity to Incarnate Word and Alamo Heights, which I enjoy visiting.

[miamihoya]

i think your all getting way ahead of yourselves. Its true that Jeffrey Loria has been granted permission from Selig to seek relocation and has met with several cities (among them San Antonio), but its still not a sure thing they are leaving. Marlins officials meet on a weekly basis with miami politicians, and are trying to work something out for a stadium. Considering the old stadium deal fell apart over a relatively low $30million, something could be worked out. Seems like Hialieah is the frontrunner right now for a possible stadium location.

As for baseball being a failure in South Florida, thats a misleading statement. I truly believe that it can work with a proper stadium. If politicians get there act together, baseball has all the potential in the world to suceed in miami. The reality is that you need a retractable roof, because it rains on a nearly daily basis, so people are reluctant to drive to Dolphins Stadium, when chances are the game will be rained out. I don't know how many times I've sat in a puddle of rain at midsummer games. Yet the audience is clearly there. The 75,000 fans that showed up for the playoffs in 2003 haven't dissappeared. Its a market rich with Cubans, Venezuelans, and Dominicans who love their baseball.

As for this years team, they may appear like a joke on paper, but don't count them out. The talent is definatley there (as they proved tonite by putting up 11 runs on Andy Pettitte). Don't forget that everyone counted out the 2003 team too. So I don't know maybe i'm just a blind marlins fan who refuses to quit on the team, but I see a bright future for baseball in South Florida. If not, we will always have our two championships.

[AustinHoya03]

Here's a link to attendance figures:

sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2005&seasonType=2

If you look through past seasons, you'll find that Tampa and Florida are perennially at or near the bottom of the list. Other teams with "bad stadiums," such as the Mets and the Cardinals, tend to do much better. And doesn't Atlanta get a lot of rain in the summer, too? Yet the Braves do well in attendance. How much could a retractable-roof stadium actually increase attendance in S. Florida? Last season, last-place Tampa's average attendance (14,052), was way behind the average attendance of the 28th place team, Florida (22,792). Even if Tampa built a new stadium that brought in 5,000 more fans a game, they'd still be dead last in attendance.

[SFHoya99]

dfw said:

San Antonio baseball teams have traditionally been called the Missions, but I don't know if that trademark passes MLB muster.

A lot of East Coast people would be surprised to know that SA is the 8th largest city in the US, 500,000 more than San Francisco and over twice the population of Boston. Ft. Worth has eclipsed Washington DC, Arlington now has more people than St. Louis (!) and Austin has more people than Seattle...and that's not necessarily a good thing.

It's not flyover country anymore, folks.

Yawn. San Francisco is only forty nine square miles (famous 7x7). I can draw lines on a map to make almost any city reasonably sized.

San Antonio would be one of the smallest media markets in the majors.

I don't think anyone thinks of flyover country when they think of Texas, but I'm always happy at the hidden inferiority complex that your state has.

I'm sure San Antonio will do better than South Florida in the short term, but I'm not sure it is going to be a great long term choice.

[miamihoya]

austinhoya03 said:

Here's a link to attendance figures:

sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2005&seasonType=2

If you look through past seasons, you'll find that Tampa and Florida are perennially at or near the bottom of the list. Other teams with "bad stadiums," such as the Mets and the Cardinals, tend to do much better. And doesn't Atlanta get a lot of rain in the summer, too? Yet the Braves do well in attendance. How much could a retractable-roof stadium actually increase attendance in S. Florida? Last season, last-place Tampa's average attendance (14,052), was way behind the average attendance of the 28th place team, Florida (22,792). Even if Tampa built a new stadium that brought in 5,000 more fans a game, they'd still be dead last in attendance.

I'm not saying that the attendence figures in South Florida are anything to be spectacularly proud of, but its not the major reason the team is moving. Jeffrey Loria (the team owner) has consistently said that the issue at hand is the current lease the marlins have a pro player with Wayne Huizenga (the devil of sports ownership) cannot be sustained, because it leads to a annual loss of about $20 million dollars and Huizenga repeatedly has threatened to kick them out. Add into that the issue with rain, and Loria feels that the only way to keep the franchise in South Florida is to build a baseball-only retractable roof stadium. Would the attendence improve significantly? Probably not. But the new stadium would house about 35,000 fans, so even with the current 22,000 average, it would be a decent figure. No one is talking about moving KC, Pitt, or TB with similar or worse figures. So what I'm trying to say is its not a problem of baseball failing in South Florida or fans not caring, but an issue of politics and ownership. If they can figure it out, baseball can succeed.

[AustinHoya03]

miamihoya said:

I'm not saying that the attendence figures in South Florida are anything to be spectacularly proud of, but its not the major reason the team is moving. Jeffrey Loria (the team owner) has consistently said that the issue at hand is the current lease the marlins have a pro player with Wayne Huizenga (the devil of sports ownership) cannot be sustained, because it leads to a annual loss of about $20 million dollars and Huizenga repeatedly has threatened to kick them out. Add into that the issue with rain, and Loria feels that the only way to keep the franchise in South Florida is to build a baseball-only retractable roof stadium. Would the attendence improve significantly? Probably not. But the new stadium would house about 35,000 fans, so even with the current 22,000 average, it would be a decent figure. No one is talking about moving KC, Pitt, or TB with similar or worse figures. So what I'm trying to say is its not a problem of baseball failing in South Florida or fans not caring, but an issue of politics and ownership. If they can figure it out, baseball can succeed.

Tough to compare KC, Pitt, and TB to Miami. Miami is in the 12th largest metropolitan area in the country, while KC is in the 25th, Pittsburgh is in the 21st, and TB is in the 20th. The KC metro area has less than 1/2 of the population of the Miami area. But, FWIW, I'm pretty sure the Pittsburgh owners threatened a move before PNC got built, and I'm pretty sure moving the Royals was discussed after Mr. Kaufmann died.

I realize the stadium lease is a big problem for the Marlins (and I think it extends to 2010, another problem), but low attendance is a problem, too, given Miami's size and the allegedly "baseball-friendly" population.

[Deleted]

Austin, I totally agree with you for the most part, but Miamihoya is onto something.

I've been to two Bills games against the Dolphins in Miami, and that stadium is DEFINITELY a HUGE deterrent to attracting people. Its horrible to watch ANY game there (unless you're in the lower bowl for football), the neighborhood ain't the best, access is terrible... just sucks all around.

I've spent a lot of time in Miami (family and friends) and I'm pretty sure a nicer stadium in a nicer area would draw much, much larger crowds. They gave the Heat top real estate, they should try and work with the Marlins a bit better.

And yes... the need a dome/retractable roof.

[miamihoya]

Austin, I agree attendence has been and, given the triple-a team we are fielding now, will continue to be a problem. But as Buffalohoya points out, the Heat and Panthers used to suffer from a similar situation back when they played in the aweful miami arena. They both managed to get local support (Heat in Miami and Panthers in Broward) to build newer, nicer stadiums in better, friendlier locations (American Airlines Arena is only three blocks away from Miami arena, but trust me the difference is huge since its now on the waterfront). Since the move, the heat specifically (don't really follow hockey or the panthers) has been able to turn around its fortunes both financially and on the court. The idea is that a new arena will improve the teams finances (no need to pay a ridiculous lease), thus they can field a competitive team (i.e. bring in Shaq), and when you do this, fans will come. It's no longer easy to get tickets to a Heat game the way it used to be. The general sentiment is that a new retractable roof stadium will have a similar effect for the Marlins. Is it a sure thing? NO. But its also not a sure thing that moving to San Antonio will bring in any more fans than South Florida in the long run. Building a sucessful franchise is always a tricky thing. Again, hopefully miami politicians can make this work, because it would be a shame to lose a team that has brought as many championships to the area as the Dolphins, Heat, and Panthers combined.

[Jack]

Meanwhile the Mets are about to build a new ballpark modeled on Ebbets Field with their own money. Yankees are doing the same thing (including the Ebbets Field nod). Of course it is a lot easier to build with your own money when you have your own money, even moreso when MLB cuts you a huge break on revenue sharing as a result.

sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2399327

[Deleted]

Yankees and Ebbets Field?

The new Yankee Stadium is actually going to look more like the OLD Yankee Stadium. Limestone, revamped facade, that Federal-style (I think) architecture.