rebelx

Marlins Name Change

Recommended Posts

Don't forget the Florida White Sox. The Illinois Legislature made time stop to keep the current World Champions in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was a close call. All those legislators must've been Cubs and Cardinals fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rays never had decent support, even before Naimoli's incompetence was evident.

It's a very sad state of affairs these days when the only sellout a brand-new team can muster is the first game. :rolleyes:

Naimoli is a convenient scapegoat, but at its heart the problem isn't him at all. It's with the fanbase.

Luckily Naimoli sold the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on down we will take the White Sox in Jacksonville :D

" The Teal Sox"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very sad state of affairs these days when the only sellout a brand-new team can muster is the first game.

horse.gif

3x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In hindsight, it's would have been a disaster had the Giants actually moved to Tampa as they were thisclose to doing so.

Weren't they going to be called the St.Pete Giants? I seem to remember a picture of a cap (and maybe a uniform) making the rounds.Anyone have those?

They were going to be the Tampa Bay Giants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very sad state of affairs these days when the only sellout a brand-new team can muster is the first game.

horse.gif

3x

Keep dragging that graphic out. It's the perfect image for Tampa Bay baseball. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a very sad state of affairs these days when the only sellout a brand-new team can muster is the first game.

horse.gif

3x

Keep dragging that graphic out. It's the perfect image for Tampa Bay baseball. :D

As long as you keep dragging out that one sellout stat, I'll keep dragging that graphic out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I've got lots of stats, if you'd like a new one.

The fanbase in Tampa has provided us with a wealth of evidence. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To borrow a phrase, from the great Stephen Colbert, and spin it for this conversation...

"Reality has always had an anti-Tampa Bay Baseball bias"

blasted reality! :cursing: why can't you be fair and balanced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! :D

I guess I need to start watching the Colbert Report....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be odd that the Marlins are using San Antonio to get a new stadium. After all, it was in the 90s, reports were out that the Spurs were looking for a new arena, and the Tamp-St Petersburg area was mentioned quiet often. Also, the Rangers also used the Florida Bay Area as a tool to get their new stadium built. Hmmm, we could have had the Florida Spurs and the Florida Rangers both...but we might end up with the San Antonio Gunslingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a local McDonald's goes under, is the McDonald's corporation responsible for the lease?

No, but McDonald's doesn't enjoy an antitrust exemption. And the state of Major League Baseball's antitrust exemption is precisely the reason that the settlement of individual team leases in the wake of contraction would be the least of Major League Baseball's concerns.

Should contraction be implemented by the powers-that-be at MLB headquarters, you can be sure that the United States Senators and Representatives who represent the pair of markets being contracted would call for a long, hard look into MLB's monopolistic business practices - particularly, the awarding/relocation/contraction of teams. Said review of the antitrust exemption should be more than enough incentive to table contraction once again.

Exactly. Do you think it's a coincidence that Charlie Finley moved the A's in time for the 1968 season and the Royals started play in 1969? Nope...

Condensed version

The Athletics left Kansas City for Oakland after the 1967 season. Major League Baseball, looking to expand to 24 teams, grants Kansas City one of its four expansion teams which would begin play in 1969. The team, which is owned by Ewing M. Kauffman, would be named the Royals.

Closer to full story

When the Kansas City Athletics moved to Oakland after the 1967 season, Kansas City was left without professional baseball for the first time since the 1880s. An enraged Senator Stuart Symington threatened to introduce legislation removing baseball's antitrust exemption unless Kansas City was granted a team in the next round of expansion. MLB complied during the 1967 winter meetings, awarding one of four expansion teams to Kansas City to start play in 1971. Pharmaceutical executive Ewing Kauffman won the bidding for the new Kansas City team, which he named the Royals after the American Royal Livestock Show, which has been held in Kansas City every year since 1899.

However, Symington was not satisfied and pressured MLB to allow the new teams to start play in 1969. Symington's intervention may have contributed to the collapse of one of the Royals' expansion brethren, the Seattle Pilots, who moved to Milwaukee as the Brewers after only one season.

(First from KCRoyals.com, second from wikipedia.)

You really don't think something like this would happen? You're kidding yourself if you really believe that. Jeb Bush had said he would fight anything involving either Florida team, the Minnesota legislature has already sued to keep the Twins in the Homerdome until the lease expires, the Expos are in DC now, who would that leave? I would even go so far as to say that it could be a Bistate deal if the Royals were taken away, that Kansas would join in with Missouri to do something about this if the Royals were one of the two teams, just because they've shown a slight interest in the past in keeping the team in the area if they couldn't get a new lease with Jackson County. No way at all....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it looks like the Marlins might get their stadium after all. :D

So this could be moot....

Are people gonna care anyway? This is a franchise that has won more World Series in the last 10 years than many teams have won in the last half-century (or, century if you're a Cubs fan). That's ridiculous that they have no fan support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree. Marlins attendance is the center of my "Florida expansion of the past decade has been an unmitigated disaster" argument.

But we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would tend to agree. Marlins attendance is the center of my "Florida expansion of the past decade has been an unmitigated disaster" argument.

But we'll see.

The term decade:

In contemporary English, a period of ten (10) years.

Florida Marlins

Established 1993

2006 - 1993 = 13 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he means the 90s as a decade, the past decade before the 00s. So that would entail the Marlins, Devil Rays, Panthers, Lightning, and Jaguars. The Marlins won but have terrible attendance, the Devil Rays are a punchline, the Panthers are just sorta there, the Lightning were a joke until recently and might've been a one-shot deal, and the Jaguars can't sell out eight games in a city that was universally maligned as a horrible Super Bowl site. So yeah, 90s Florida expansion was a disaster.

But look how big those metropolitan areas are! It's surefire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what I meant. "Past decade" = "the decade before our own" = "the 1990s".

Florida expansion in the 1990s can only be viewed as a disaster. Frankly, the Marlins attendance problem astounds me. They've had some great teams - they've won 2 World Series, for crying out loud - but nobody bothers to come out to the ballpark.

In the championship season of 2003, they were 28th in the majors in attendance. They drew 1,303,215 fans, for an average of 16,290 a game. Pathetic. Only Tampa Bay and Montral were worse.

Ah, you say, the real test comes after a championship. Maybe a slow beginning of the season is wrecking the curve. Fans will surely come out to see the reigning world champs, right?

Wrong. In 2004, the Marlins drew 1,723,105 total, 22,091 per game. While an improvement, it still couldn't get them any higher than 26th. Again, pathetic.

I just don't get it. I never thought Tampa Bay was going to be a decent baseball market, but I really thought that Miami would thrive. But after 13 years, as pooter so helpfully pointed out, the evidence is in, and it's not good.

We won't even talk about the Jaguars, who would be a laughingstock except for the fact that there's nothing funny at all about flopping at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But aren't there teams in every league that dwell at the bottom of the attendance tote board every year that people aren't screaming for their demise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.