Downtown Baseball

There’s a lot of discussion in Kansas City these days about potentially building a new baseball stadium in the city’s downtown area. I for one would be excited to see a new ballpark go up, but I’m not as enthusiastic about it as some of the supporters I’ve been hearing and reading. However, I am getting irritated at the Kansas City Star which is printing overtly negative information about the proposal. Today’s column in the sports page by Jeffrey Flanagan was especially irritating to me, so I’ve rebutted his remarks below.

Here is Flanagan’s column in its entirety:

If the deep thinkers out there really believe a new baseball stadium will revive downtown and create jobs and lure Johnson Countians into the big city, more power to them. They may be right.

Just don’t even start with the argument that a downtown baseball stadium will somehow rescue the Royals and make them more competitive. It won’t.

If a downtown stadium indeed could pump $15 million or $20 million more into the Royals’ payroll, who would notice? George Steinbrenner? The rest of the big-market owners?

Be serious. They’d giggle.

If you haven’t noticed — and the guess here is that the Downtown Council members aren’t paying attention at all — the gap between the small markets and big markets in baseball is off the charts.

In 1994, the gap in payroll between the Royals and Yankees was $4 million. In 1998, the gap was $31 million. In 2002, the gap was $78 million. This season, the gap was a staggering $171 million.

See a trend, anyone?

But the Downtown Council thinks that by adding a downtown stadium by 2009 and by getting the Royals another $15 million or $20 million a year, the team can become more competitive.

Against whom? The Texas Longhorns?

By 2009, Steinbrenner and his big-market buddies will have created a gap that could exceed $300 million, luxury tax be darned.

Friends, we’re going about this all wrong. Trying to catch the Yankees’ payroll through new stadiums and suites and short-lived attendance spikes is futile. It’s like trying to fill the Grand Canyon with a bucket of sand.

To the big boys, their cable revenue trumps your stadium revenue every time.

All that these new stadiums in Pittsburgh and Milwaukee and Detroit have done is pump more wasted money into the players’ salary pool. (Believe me, the Players’ Association loves the idea of new ballparks.) Teams like the Tigers, with a new stadium, can afford to throw away money at Bobby Higginson ($8 million) and Troy Percival ($6 million). The same with the Reds and Eric Milton ($5.3 million).

But these teams aren’t any more competitive because even with shiny new ballparks, small-market teams can’t spend enough to consistently threaten the big boys.

True, any infusion of money into the payroll could help the Royals retain some present players, and there are occasional examples of low-payroll teams making noise in the playoffs.

But it’s not financially wise to invest in a monopolistic market when you’re not part of the monopoly.

Imagine if the Chiefs were in a similar plight as the Royals, and the Giants and Jets had $250 million payrolls to the Chiefs’ $100 million payroll. Wouldn’t fans in this town be screaming for the NFL to level its playing field before they spent one tax dollar on a new stadium?

Fix baseball’s economics, and then we can toss some money away at downtown baseball.

Now I will attempt to address his points:

“If a downtown stadium indeed could pump $15 million or $20 million more into the Royals’ payroll, who would notice? George Steinbrenner? The rest of the big-market owners?

Be serious. They’d giggle.

If you haven’t noticed — and the guess here is that the Downtown Council members aren’t paying attention at all — the gap between the small markets and big markets in baseball is off the charts.”

First, let me say that I agree that baseball’s economics needs fixing. But guess what, Jeffrey? They’re already being fixed. If you haven’t noticed – and the guess here is that you aren’t paying attention at all – your own baseball owner is leading the charge for leveling the baseball playing field. It’s a slow process that started with the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. In addition, the smaller market teams are becoming better at fielding more competitive teams even with their financial disadvantage. Have you noticed who three of the last four World Series Champions have been? You guessed it – supposed “small market” teams (Arizona Diamondbacks, Anaheim Angels, Florida Marlins). Your prototypical big-market team, the Yankees, hasn’t been to the World Series since 2001.

But the Downtown Council thinks that by adding a downtown stadium by 2009 and by getting the Royals another $15 million or $20 million a year, the team can become more competitive.

You don’t think and additional $15 or $20 million for payroll won’t make a difference? You ask if George Steinbrenner would even notice. Who cares if he notices? Add $20 million to the Royals’ 2005 payroll and you’re getting close to doubling it. Add $20 million to next year’s payroll and $50 million becomes $70 million. You don’t think that additional money would help bring ball players to Kansas City? I would bet that there is more than one veteran ball player who would love to be part of the resurgence of a team in a brand new facility.

Friends, we’re going about this all wrong. Trying to catch the Yankees’ payroll through new stadiums and suites and short-lived attendance spikes is futile. It’s like trying to fill the Grand Canyon with a bucket of sand.

Nobody’s trying to catch the Yankees’ payroll. Baseball is not a competition to see who can spend the most. Who cares how much the Yankees’ payroll is? All fans care about is the quality of the play on the field. The Twins, Angels, Indians, Marlins, A’s have all proven that it’s possible to field exciting, competitive teams regardless of the payroll.

All that these new stadiums in Pittsburgh and Milwaukee and Detroit have done is pump more wasted money into the players’ salary pool. (Believe me, the Players’ Association loves the idea of new ballparks.) Teams like the Tigers, with a new stadium, can afford to throw away money at Bobby Higginson ($8 million) and Troy Percival ($6 million). The same with the Reds and Eric Milton ($5.3 million).

But these teams aren’t any more competitive because even with shiny new ballparks, small-market teams can’t spend enough to consistently threaten the big boys.

Again, it’s not about who can spend the most. More important is how intelligently the money can be spent. Are you suggesting we should decide the fate or our community based on the fact that the Tigers and Reds made stupid decisions about signing players? Give me a break!

Imagine if the Chiefs were in a similar plight as the Royals, and the Giants and Jets had $250 million payrolls to the Chiefs’ $100 million payroll. Wouldn’t fans in this town be screaming for the NFL to level its playing field before they spent one tax dollar on a new stadium?

Fix baseball’s economics, and then we can toss some money away at downtown baseball.

The opponents always point at the NFL. Are you suggesting that the NFL has a level playing field? Then why is that three of the last four Super Bowls have been won by the same team? I think there’s potentially an argument that there is more parity in baseball than the NFL.

And why should a city wait around for baseball to determine what’s best for the city as a whole? Maybe we should figure out how to eliminate the lower class before we build any new schools.

The downtown stadium is not about baseball. It’s about the resurgence of downtown Kansas City. If you haven’t noticed, Mr. Flanagan, there is a lot of momentum building in revitalizing downtown. This resurgence is being fueled by visionary folks who didn’t wait around for somebody else to fix something. H&R Block had vision enough to invest in downtown. I didn’t hear anybody complaining that they didn’t renovate their existing headquarters. The voters of Kansas City had vision enough to say yes to a brand new arena downtown. Those two projects helped spur the development of the entertainment district. All of those developers and residents didn’t wait to invest in downtown living. All of those projects will bring many new businesses and much excitement to the area. Adding downtown baseball can only help build the resurgence. Those 40,000 people going downtown 81 times a year will want to eat, drink and shop.

I agree that renovating Kauffman will create a wonderful place for the Royals to play. Kauffman is a beautiful stadium and bringing it up to date is fine. But that does nothing for city as a whole. Why not at least explore the idea of redirecting that money in a way that does more than fix a stadium. It helps build the city as a whole.