I've been trying to figure out how to express my feelings about how Kansas City has approached the idea of building a new baseball stadium downtown.
C.J. Janovy put it perfectly in his recent column in the Pitch. Read it here: http://pitch.com/Issues/2005-10-27/news/janovy.html.
Monday, October 31, 2005
"DePodesta is an Idiot"
I was listening to the Home Plate channel on my XM MyFi radio while mowing the lawn Saturday. The host, Holden Kushner (who I believe was a Kansas City radio guy for a while), was soliciting calls regarding the rumored firing of Dodger’s GM Paul DePodesta (The rumor came true later in the weekend).
Most callers were Dodgers fans who were glad to see DePodesta go. I believe most Dodgers fans got a bad taste in their mouths when DePodesta traded fan favorite Paul LoDuca to the Marlins. From that point forward, DePodesta was probably running uphill and it would have taken a World Series title to win favor with the fans.
It’s unfortunate because DePodesta is still a very intelligent and promising baseball GM. One day he will get another chance and will probably make the Dodgers sorry for their impatience with him.
This story reminds me of when I was in Surprise, AZ for Royals Spring Training this past March. Several of us fans were waiting for Jose Lima to come over and sign autographs. Lima pitched for the Dodgers the previous year and had a great game in the playoffs pitching a complete game shutout against the Cardinals. Several of the fans waiting there were Dodgers fans who loved Lima. When Lima finally made his way over to sign autographs, one Dodgers fan was chatting with Lima about DePodesta letting Lima go. Lima’s comment was “DePodesta is an idiot.”
Lima went on to pitch terribly for the Royals in 2005 (5-16, 6.99 ERA). I guess DePodesta wasn’t such an idiot after all.
Most callers were Dodgers fans who were glad to see DePodesta go. I believe most Dodgers fans got a bad taste in their mouths when DePodesta traded fan favorite Paul LoDuca to the Marlins. From that point forward, DePodesta was probably running uphill and it would have taken a World Series title to win favor with the fans.
It’s unfortunate because DePodesta is still a very intelligent and promising baseball GM. One day he will get another chance and will probably make the Dodgers sorry for their impatience with him.
This story reminds me of when I was in Surprise, AZ for Royals Spring Training this past March. Several of us fans were waiting for Jose Lima to come over and sign autographs. Lima pitched for the Dodgers the previous year and had a great game in the playoffs pitching a complete game shutout against the Cardinals. Several of the fans waiting there were Dodgers fans who loved Lima. When Lima finally made his way over to sign autographs, one Dodgers fan was chatting with Lima about DePodesta letting Lima go. Lima’s comment was “DePodesta is an idiot.”
Lima went on to pitch terribly for the Royals in 2005 (5-16, 6.99 ERA). I guess DePodesta wasn’t such an idiot after all.
Friday, October 14, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Finally, it’s over…
The Royals finally concluded their worst ever season Sunday with a 7-2 loss to the Toronto Blue Jays.
After the game, they fired pitching coach Guy Hansen and bench coach Bob Schaefer, both moves that I agree with.
The pitching has been awful this year under Hansen. When he arrived, he tried to change the delivery of almost every pitcher on the staff. Brian Anderson ended up hurt and missed half the season. Scott Sullivan never pitched this year. He tried to change Zack Greinke’s delivery and Greinke had a terrible season. I remember early in the season when former Royals pitcher Mike Boddicker was doing the Royals pre game show on the radio. Boddicker was not shy about expressing his feelings about Hansen. He made it clear that he felt Hansen was not the right guy for this staff. He said that Hansen always feels like he has to change things, even if things are going alright. I was also annoyed by Hansen’s frequent trips to the mound.
Schaefer, to me, represented the Royals of the past five years: a bumbling, losing team that batted out of order and made a mockery of Major League Baseball. Maybe it’s unfair to characterize Schaefer that way, but… Well, we certainly do wish the best for Schaefer and Hansen.
The Royals also announced their intentions to release Terrence Long. Where’s the Lima announcement???
The Kansas City Star featured an article over the weekend that discussed Buddy Bell’s plan for starting over in 2006. Believe me, players, management and fans alike are all hoping for a fresh start this season. Only 126 days until pitchers and catchers report.
After the game, they fired pitching coach Guy Hansen and bench coach Bob Schaefer, both moves that I agree with.
The pitching has been awful this year under Hansen. When he arrived, he tried to change the delivery of almost every pitcher on the staff. Brian Anderson ended up hurt and missed half the season. Scott Sullivan never pitched this year. He tried to change Zack Greinke’s delivery and Greinke had a terrible season. I remember early in the season when former Royals pitcher Mike Boddicker was doing the Royals pre game show on the radio. Boddicker was not shy about expressing his feelings about Hansen. He made it clear that he felt Hansen was not the right guy for this staff. He said that Hansen always feels like he has to change things, even if things are going alright. I was also annoyed by Hansen’s frequent trips to the mound.
Schaefer, to me, represented the Royals of the past five years: a bumbling, losing team that batted out of order and made a mockery of Major League Baseball. Maybe it’s unfair to characterize Schaefer that way, but… Well, we certainly do wish the best for Schaefer and Hansen.
The Royals also announced their intentions to release Terrence Long. Where’s the Lima announcement???
The Kansas City Star featured an article over the weekend that discussed Buddy Bell’s plan for starting over in 2006. Believe me, players, management and fans alike are all hoping for a fresh start this season. Only 126 days until pitchers and catchers report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
