Jump to content

rmc523

Members
  • Posts

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rmc523

  1. On 4/14/2022 at 8:55 PM, DCarp1231 said:

    If there’s no other comments on SF, I’ll move onto the next team-

     

    Back east with this one…

     

    New York Jets

    FQWJi6sVsAMTDnJ?format=jpg&name=medium
     

    I wanted to incorporate a different approach to the “NY” monograms that have been made so popular by present and past New York teams as well as featuring pilot wings instead of more commonly use jet imagery.

     

    C&C welcome as always!

     

     

    I took the liberty of trying to build upon your logo idea, and tried to form an "NY" into something "jet-ish" looking.

     

    HPjjgnk.jpg

     

    • Like 2
  2. Old/New:

     

    Image result for city furniture logo

     

    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.

  3. 4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

    In a perfect world, that's the best solution - I suggested as much a few pages ago - but there's myriad reasons it's impossible, one of which being Miami's investment in the Marlins stadium, two being Tampa/St. Pete's reluctance to build a new stadium. The true "Florida" Marlins in AL East would be great, but... 

     

    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.

    • Like 1
  4. On 6/28/2019 at 6:34 PM, Marlins93 said:

    It is starting to seem like the bizarre Montreal-St. Pete split proposal isn't a ploy to gain leverage for public financing of a new ballpark in the Tampa area, but rather to generate buzz and build momentum for a relocation to Montreal. Why else would Sternberg publicly question the viability of the Tampa market for baseball? How can you walk back on that and expect a deal to be made?

     

    The Marlins were publicly exploring relocation circa 2005-2006 when ballpark financing reached a standstill, but I don't recall them throwing the market under the bus. If anything, they were denouncing the local and state governments for not being supportive enough.

     

    I agree with this.

     

    On 6/28/2019 at 6:40 PM, Gothamite said:

     

    Being in the AL East, they play an outsized number of games against the Yankees and Red Sox, the two most popular teams in Tampa Bay.  I’ve often wondered how those games skew the Rays’ TV ratings. 

     

    That is an interesting thing I didn't think about.

     

    On 6/30/2019 at 10:12 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

     

    My guess is there would be some reel line mint, if not at first, but eventually.  I think I said this before, but it's killing multiple birds with one stone:

    1) Marlins to AL East, where their attendance woud get a boost from Red Sox and Yankees games, and 

    2) MTL to NL East, where they'd get their old rivals back, and get a boost (if needed, and presumably) from road-tripping NY and Phila fans.  They'd also be more competitive in this scenario.

     

    I think all parties involved would jump at this scenario.

     

    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.

    • Like 2
  5. 18 hours ago, Survival79 said:

     

    You're welcome! Here's an email the team just sent out.

     

    Subject: Tampa Bay Rays Sister City Concept

     

    spacer.png

     

     

     

     

    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........

    • Like 4
  6. 12 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

    Back around 2008, there were talks to build a stadium at this site.

     

    rays2.jpg

     

    06.jpg

     

    57_cgi-ballpark-shot-_-low-sml.jpg

     

    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.

     

    DF7y4qF.jpgrays2.jpg

  7. 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?

    • Like 1
  8. 8 minutes ago, Survival79 said:

     

    spacer.png

     

    That looks like a "roofed" concept.

     

    7 minutes ago, chrysleraspen08 said:

     

    I'm the furthest thing from an expert on this, but I don't think that would work as a major league park, unless they're going to spend the money (probably at least 200-300 million) to only play there for 5 years because they're contractually obligated. The stadium only seats around 7,500 and is situated between 2 large roads and a concert hall. Even if they were to expand it, I can't see them being able to fit more than 20,000 seats there, which is well below MLB standards.

     

    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.

     

     

    DF7y4qF.jpg

     

    • Like 1
  9. 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.

  10. 17 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

    The interest is definitely there. The Rays consistently get high TV ratings, and I always see a bunch of people with Rays shirts or hats on.

     

    I'd say it's a mix of terrible location, terrible stadium in general, and (for most of their history) terrible team. Many still think of the Rays as a bottom of the table team, one not worth paying as much as they charge to see - even in seasons like this, where they aren't bad.

     

    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.

    • Like 1
  11. 52 minutes ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

    I agree that Miami has potential, but they desperately need a competent owner, and one that doesn't just **** all over the fans' goodwill with constant fire sales and just a distinct like of connecting with the fans. And what you said here is the same point I made: owners may have screwed the city over for good - every time the team is burned to the ground, it makes it harder for fans to stick with the team, knowing that after any success, the team will be destroyed, so there's no reason to get attached to any of the players. 

     

    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.

  12. 19 hours ago, ~Bear said:

    Is there anyway the Rays could relocate before 2027? The news of splitting cities can't help attendance. People aren't going to show up any more than the abysmal numbers they are now if they think the team's in lame-duck mode. 

     

    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.

     

    19 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

    Of coursed I'm biased, but I think the Rays fans have more to be ashamed of than Marlins fans right now when it comes to attendance. I understand the ballpark location argument (but I'd argue that Marlins Park is poorly located too), but at least the Rays have had competent ownership, no history of soul crushing firesales (despite still losing franchise players like Price and Longoria), and are a competitive team on the field. If the Marlins were playing so well that they were first in their division up until several days ago, their attendance figures would most definitely be better than what the Rays are pulling so far this season, although not necessarily sell outs by any stretch.

     

    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.

     

    18 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

    For certain, but no matter the reason, attendance woes are still attendance woes. I'm sure if the Marlins were consistently better we wouldn't be having this discussion, but it's still possible that baseball in Miami has been contaminated like Tampa Bay. Incompetent ownership and fire sales aplenty has harmed the goodwill between fans and the team, and even if a better owner took over, that relationship may be permanently damaged. Moving the team to a new fanbase will not only change the suitors for the team (I'm sure people would rather own the Miami franchise than the Charlotte one), but it wipes the slate clean for the team to build trust between it and the fans. The Marlins have done really nothing to reward long-time fans, even with two World Series wins, since right after they win they just burn it to the ground. Even if it's the owners' fault, the goodwill may be gone. It's like a nuclear explosion: one mistake can make the soil infertile for years to come.

     

    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.

     

    13 hours ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

     

    In fairness to the Angel's their ballpark is the 4th or 5th oldest in the league. Just cause someone gets a boob job and some lipo in their 50's , doesn't make them younger. 

     

    They've had a well know rat problem at the stadium. And while enjoy going to games there. I can see why they really could use a new stadium. A lot of bad awkward sightlines from it being a multipurpose previously in life.

     

    They could likely use a new one, but it's a different situation than Tampa.

  13. 29 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

    Don't the Angels and Diamondbacks have stadium issues themselves?  I am thinking that the Angels will at least remain in the Los Angeles area. 

     

    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.

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.