rmc523
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by rmc523
-
I like the monument tie in......I took your ideas a step further and threw in a Capitol silhouette at the bottom.
-
I took the liberty of trying to build upon your logo idea, and tried to form an "NY" into something "jet-ish" looking.
-
Still seems like such a stupid concept.
- 3,837 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
Like I said in the other thread: They haven't been able to get a single stadium built for a full-time team. Why on earth would TWO cities pay for new ballparks for a team playing there half the time?? -
Old/New: Maybe it's just that I'm so used to the old one, but I don't like the new one. I can live with the "FURNITURE" below, but the "CITY" doesn't look right. It looks too thin/delicate to me.
-
I mean.....in a perfect world, all 3 markets (Montreal, Tampa Bay, Miami) would be viable markets with near sellout crowds every night, and you wouldn't need any talk of split market teams.
- 3,837 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
I agree with this. That is an interesting thing I didn't think about. The Marlins may get a slight attendance boost, but then they'd suffer record wise from playing those teams as well, meaning they'd be less competitive, which would affect attendance.
- 3,837 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
I don't see why they'd have to sell the Rowdies if they move?
-
We desperately want the Rays to stay in Tampa Bay* *Meanwhile, there is no "plan B" of the Rays staying in the Tampa area full time, and we publicly stated we don't believe the Tampa area can support a team. But yes, please believe us that we want the Rays to stay in Tampa........
- 3,837 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
Oh yeah, seeing the other views, I do remember that plan. Didn't realize it was that same location. I was also taking his "renovating/expanding" Al Lang Stadium at face value, though. That proposal would necessitate tearing what's there down and starting over. That said, any sort of major league ballpark would require getting rid of Bayshore Drive like that plan shows, as there's no room otherwise.
-
The idea that this ISN'T a negotiating tactic ("build us a park or else") is crazy. Not to mention, the league/owners would miss out on an expansion team fee in a "new" city. I also didn't understand his timeline. He was saying ideally this would be set up for 2024, but then said they have the lease through 2027 at the Trop, and they're committed to that too, which would mean either they're paying to not play in the Trop, or it's just a 2027 lease for St. Pete the city, not the Trop specifically?
- 3,837 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
That looks like a "roofed" concept. I agree. I looked it up on maps, and I don't see how they even can expand it. He talked about 30,000 fans watching the team, I don't see how that's possible short of closing off streets, and even then it seems iffy at best.
- 3,837 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
Highlights from the press conference: Basically they haven't talked to either city, they don't have financing, they don't have a name, they want two new open air ballparks from two cities when they can't get money from one for a single park, but Manfred and the owners gave them permission to explore this. He seemed pretty adamant that there's no 'plan B' of keeping the team in Tampa for a full season - not in St. Pete, not in Ybor, or Tampa Bay. He said a renovation/expansion of "Al Lang Stadium" is a possibility for the new Tampa park. He claims it won't be a prolonged exit from Tampa, but I just don't see this working or being a viable thing.
-
Eh, they've been pretty consistently good for the last 11 years. Hmm. Now that I look up the numbers I guess before last year, they did have a 4 year run of roughly .500 baseball. But of the remaining 7 years, 6 of them were 90 wins or more, and the one that wasn't was 84 wins.
- 3,837 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- oakland
- oakland as
- (and 5 more)
-
Well that's why I said it'll take years of consistent ownership fielding competitive teams to overcome that. I don't think it's completely destroyed yet, though I feel the move of getting rid of everyone - while arguably necessary to do a full rebuild - was a bad way to start things off as new owners....it just looked like same old Marlins, but long term they'll hopefully be better. If they do it again, though, may as well close up shop.
-
Well, if the writing is on the wall, they could probably work out some deal where the team would pay a "cancellation" fee of some sort to get out of the agreement. I agree. South Florida will show up for a winning team. I also agree Marlins Park is in a bad location - terrible highway in/out access, in a neighborhood with small streets, nothing around but small homes (no "ballpark village" opportunity), not downtown, etc - but the property was there so that's where it went. I think the Marlins will be ok long term; it'll take years of being competently run without blowing the team up every few years, and obviously success/winning, but I think the market will warm up to them should it those things happen. They've just been raked through the coals every time the start to have a reason to support the team, so people are leery to support them. They could likely use a new one, but it's a different situation than Tampa.
-
The Angels have been discussing a new park, but hardly a stadium issue. The D'backs, like Atlanta seems like they want a new park just to have a new park. Their park is only what, 20 years old? Again, hardly a stadium issue to the degree of Oakland and Tampa.
