PDA

View Full Version : Great American Ball Park Field to Be Auctioned to Fans (pieces of it anyway) 10/2



TeamBoone
10-04-2006, 02:58 AM
Oct. 2, 2006


Great American Ball Park Field to Be Auctioned to Fans
Rob Butcher / Director of Media Relations


CINCINNATI – Reds fans can soon bring a piece of Great American Ball Park to their backyards – literally.

Beginning on tomorrow (Tuesday, October 3) at noon, the Reds Community Fund will sell authentic sod samples from the Reds ballpark exclusively at reds.com.

A total of 150 individual pieces of sod from the ballpark’s playing surface will be auctioned off in 12” x 20” sections. Each section of sod costs $50 and comes with an official certificate of authenticity from Reds Chief Executive Officer Robert H. Castellini and Great American Ball Park Head Groundskeeper Doug A. Gallant. Instructions on how to care for the sod will also be provided.

Buyers will be able to pick up the sod samples at the Fan Zone at Great American Ball Park at a time and date to be determined. Sod samples cannot be shipped, so the RCF encourages local buyers only.

The sod at Great American Ball Park is comprised of five varieties of Kentucky bluegrass and was custom grown for the Reds in Brookville, Ind. It was replaced this year after four seasons of use. Parts of the field have been replaced since its original installation, but never the whole field. This is the first time Great American Ball Park sod pieces will be available for sale to the general public.

In addition to the first Opening Day of Great American Ball in 2003, this field has seen visits by two Presidents (George H.W. Bush in 2003 and George W. Bush in 2006) and one Vice President (Dick Cheney in 2004), the only game in Major League Baseball history with three members of the 500 home-run club (Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa and Ken Griffey Jr. in 2005), the longest recorded home run in Reds history (Adam Dunn’s 535-foot shot in 2004) and countless other ceremonies, milestones, a uniform-number retirement (Sparky Anderson’s No. 10) and four Reds Hall of Fame induction ceremonies.

For more information on the Reds Community Fund, please visit www.redscommunityfund.com. To make a purchase, please visit reds.com.

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/index.php?section=pp&action=show&id=32879

redsfan30
10-04-2006, 10:18 AM
I might just have to do this.

macro
10-04-2006, 11:31 AM
Technically, the blades of grass that will be growing from the sod you get did not exist when all those events happened at GAB. I'm no biologist, but I would assume that the root system has changed since then, as well. So wouldn't you really be getting some sod that is a descendant of the sod that witnessed all those events?

:evil:

I haven't had good luck with playing surface samples. I bought one of those squares of Astroturf from Riverfront, failed to water it properly, and it dried up and died a few weeks later.

MartyFan
10-04-2006, 11:39 AM
WOW! Sign me up!

:rolleyes:

smith288
10-04-2006, 01:11 PM
Wont this stuff just die? Sounds like the Reds are trying to pull a "swamp land in florida" type of scheme.

No offense to those considering, but this is a waste of money. But to each their own.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 01:36 PM
I agree with smith.. No offense to those considering it.. but this seems very cheesy. How much money could they possibly make from doing this? (After paying the expenses to get the sod cut up?) Probably none. Why even bother trying to save the worn out sod? Just till it under and plant new grass. That way those "historic" plant fragments can still be part of the GAB.

dabvu2498
10-04-2006, 01:41 PM
I agree with smith.. No offense to those considering it.. but this seems very cheesy. How much money could they possibly make from doing this? (After paying the expenses to get the sod cut up?) Probably none. Why even bother trying to save the worn out sod? Just till it under and plant new grass. That way those "historic" plant fragments can still be part of the GAB.

150 X $50 = $7500

If they're going to replace the sod, why not sell a few pieces to make a few bucks for a charitable foundation???

PS: It's not really a good idea, agronomically speaking, to lay new sod over "tilled under" sod.

Chip R
10-04-2006, 01:49 PM
I agree with smith.. No offense to those considering it.. but this seems very cheesy. How much money could they possibly make from doing this? (After paying the expenses to get the sod cut up?) Probably none. Why even bother trying to save the worn out sod? Just till it under and plant new grass. That way those "historic" plant fragments can still be part of the GAB.

So they break even on doing that. It's kind of like when they decided they needed fake grass in the Astrodome. The owner of the Astros, Judge Roy Hofheinz, talked to the people at Monsanto and they said they could do that and it would cost him so much money. Hofheinz said, "What a coincidence. That's exactly how much I was going to charge you for promoting it."

For someone who complains about the Reds spending money needlessly, I'd think you'd applaud them for finding a way to replace the grass and breaking even while doing it instead of just spending money to replace the grass that could have gone to sign a draft choice or something.

Is it cheesy? Probably. But no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to buy it. If you have a lawn, you could always put it in there in the middle of the lawn and tell people that part of your lawn used to be used at GAB.

smith288
10-04-2006, 01:55 PM
Is it cheesy? Probably. But no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to buy it. If you have a lawn, you could always put it in there in the middle of the lawn and tell people that part of your lawn used to be used at GAB.


That might be a bad idea... The grass in my yard consists mainly of 18% grass, 70% crabgrass, 10% clover and 2% of some weird viney weed that looks sort of like really small lilly pads... all of which would choke the living crap out of the GAB patch.

BuckWoody
10-04-2006, 02:00 PM
Just to point this out, the article did state:

Beginning on tomorrow (Tuesday, October 3) at noon, the Reds Community Fund will sell authentic sod samples from the Reds ballpark exclusively at reds.com.

So at least part of the proceeds are going to charity.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 02:12 PM
150 X $50 = $7500

If they're going to replace the sod, why not sell a few pieces to make a few bucks for a charitable foundation???

PS: It's not really a good idea, agronomically speaking, to lay new sod over "tilled under" sod.


Ok, I didn't realize it was only 150 pieces. I thought they were tearing the whole thing up.

Ok, maybe tilling up wasn't the perfect solution. I'm sure there's a way to lay new sod without cutting up the existing sod into squares suitable for resale.

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 02:15 PM
For someone who complains about the Reds spending money needlessly, I'd think you'd applaud them for finding a way to replace the grass and breaking even while doing it instead of just spending money to replace the grass that could have gone to sign a draft choice or something.


There's a big difference between spending 1.2 million on lobbying and this.

I just think it's cheesey, the point was that this wasn't going to be a big money maker anyhow. I didn't realize that a portion of this money was going to charity (or maybe all of it is).. I did make a mistake there and overlooked that. It's still cheesey, but at least it's for charity, which makes it a lot more palatable.

Are you going to buy a piece, Chip? Just curious.. :)

TeamBoone
10-04-2006, 02:19 PM
Wont this stuff just die? Sounds like the Reds are trying to pull a "swamp land in florida" type of scheme.

No offense to those considering, but this is a waste of money. But to each their own.

If you establish it in a section of your lawn, why would it die? People sod their lawns all the time.

dabvu2498
10-04-2006, 02:20 PM
If you establish it in a section of your lawn, why would it die? People sod their lawns all the time.

This type of turf is a little more specialized than what the average homeowner would buy from a sod farm. I would guess it would die/get taken over rather quickly without extreme care.

TeamBoone
10-04-2006, 02:21 PM
Ok, I didn't realize it was only 150 pieces. I thought they were tearing the whole thing up.


They are tearing the whole thing up, but will sell only 150 pieces.

Chip R
10-04-2006, 03:39 PM
There's a big difference between spending 1.2 million on lobbying and this.

I just think it's cheesey, the point was that this wasn't going to be a big money maker anyhow. I didn't realize that a portion of this money was going to charity (or maybe all of it is).. I did make a mistake there and overlooked that. It's still cheesey, but at least it's for charity, which makes it a lot more palatable.

Are you going to buy a piece, Chip? Just curious.. :)

Perhaps. But there have been cases that have gone to arbitration over the difference of $100K or less. Or let's say you sign a pitcher and he wants a $25K bonus for winning 15 games and you say it's a deal breaker because that $25K went for new grass.

I don't particularly care whether it's cheesey or not. Lots of things about baseball are cheesey but it is all promotion. It keeps the Reds in the minds of the fans during a time when they aren't in the playoffs and the Bengals are doing well.

As for me, I'll pass. The only thing I could do with it is put it in my freezer.

smith288
10-04-2006, 04:10 PM
This type of turf is a little more specialized than what the average homeowner would buy from a sod farm. I would guess it would die/get taken over rather quickly without extreme care.
Yea...especially in MY yard. its a varitable WEED exhibit.

Red Leader
10-04-2006, 04:18 PM
That might be a bad idea... The grass in my yard consists mainly of 18% grass, 70% crabgrass, 10% clover and 2% of some weird viney weed that looks sort of like really small lilly pads... all of which would choke the living crap out of the GAB patch.

:laugh:

You need to PM SunDeck. ASAP.

(my lawn was the same way this spring and into early summer. I've now have it somewhat under control, or so it allows me to believe.)

smith288
10-04-2006, 05:56 PM
:laugh:

You need to PM SunDeck. ASAP.

(my lawn was the same way this spring and into early summer. I've now have it somewhat under control, or so it allows me to believe.)
Its really all about priorities. I dont want to spend the money on all sorts of treatments and time when I have other household things that need more immediate attention.

If there is some free magic pixie dust I can spread on my lawn, im all ears (and the Reds turf aint it)

REDREAD
10-04-2006, 10:15 PM
Perhaps. But there have been cases that have gone to arbitration over the difference of $100K or less..

Yes, because Allen was an idiot



Or let's say you sign a pitcher and he wants a $25K bonus for winning 15 games and you say it's a deal breaker because that $25K went for new grass. .

You have me confused with someone else. Maybe it was Richard Hand that said that grass money should've been spent on players. I never complained about them spending money to plant grass. IIRC, the government kicked in some cash the first time the grass was planted anyhow.




I don't particularly care whether it's cheesey or not. Lots of things about baseball are cheesey but it is all promotion. It keeps the Reds in the minds of the fans during a time when they aren't in the playoffs and the Bengals are doing well.


If the goal is only to get someone to write a column about the Reds, there's better ways. At first I thought they were doing this for themselves. It's different if all the proceeds (or at least most) go to charity. Personally, I question why anyone would want to drive down there and pay $50 for a square of bluegrass that really has no significance at all. The time factor in getting it and then planting it and keeping it watered would be a huge pain. After all, the reason they are ripping it out is because it's worn out, I assume.

I mean, you know they are stretching it when the big selling point is that Pres Bush might've walked on that piece of grass.. I'd be surprised if they sold it all, but I've been known to underestimate what people are willing to spend money and time on.

Chip R
10-05-2006, 10:39 AM
Yes, because Allen was an idiot

Believe it or not, the Reds aren't the only organization that would quibble over a few thousand dollar difference in arbitration figures. I was speaking in generalities not just with the Reds. Sometimes it's trying to make a point. Player Y wants a $10K raise. Organization X says we'll only give you $5K. The organization has and will continue to have arbitration cases. Their feeling is that if they settle with Y, they will look soft to future and current players.



You have me confused with someone else. Maybe it was Richard Hand that said that grass money should've been spent on players. I never complained about them spending money to plant grass. IIRC, the government kicked in some cash the first time the grass was planted anyhow.


Again, just speaking in generalities. When I said you I didn't mean you personally. I just meant if you or anyone else was a GM of a major league team.



If the goal is only to get someone to write a column about the Reds, there's better ways. At first I thought they were doing this for themselves. It's different if all the proceeds (or at least most) go to charity. Personally, I question why anyone would want to drive down there and pay $50 for a square of bluegrass that really has no significance at all. The time factor in getting it and then planting it and keeping it watered would be a huge pain. After all, the reason they are ripping it out is because it's worn out, I assume.

I mean, you know they are stretching it when the big selling point is that Pres Bush might've walked on that piece of grass.. I'd be surprised if they sold it all, but I've been known to underestimate what people are willing to spend money and time on.


The goal isn't necessarily to get someone to write an article about the Reds. It's informing the public that they have GAB grass for sale. Now if it gets people to take their minds off the Bengals and playoffs for a little bit and on to the Reds, all the better. Plus Joe and Jane Reds Fan and the kids go down to the park to buy the grass they might decide to spend a few bucks in the gift shop and/or go through the Reds HOF and museum.

It's not something that I personally would want to do but that's up to the individual. And are they stretching things? Yeah, but that's all part of salesmanship. Anyone who has done some thinking knows that that isn't the actual grass President Bush walked on. Of course that could have been the actual sod but you get the point. Sometimes you sell the sizzle instead of the steak. It's like that Seinfeld episode where George bought a car because he thought the actor Jon Voight used to own it when in fact it was someone else with the same name. The seller wasn't lying when he said Jon Voight owned the car. George assumed it was the actor. Is it the seller's fault George was an idiot? Is it the Reds fault that some schmo bought some grass and tells his neighbors that President Bush once walked on that grass?

REDREAD
10-05-2006, 01:34 PM
Is it the Reds fault that some schmo bought some grass and tells his neighbors that President Bush once walked on that grass?

Actually, that sums up the attitude Allen has had for the fans for quite some time. He views the fans as suckers who would blindly support their team with their money, regardless of the quality of the product.

That attitude is a big reason why this franchise is in the mess that it's in now.
Instead of trying to grow this franchise (in both W-L and fan base), Allen's line of thinking was "cut payroll, cut player developemnt, cut draft funding, raise ticket prices, and with revenue sharing, we still make our revenue target of X".

I do agree with you that you have to go to arbitration sometimes. But it was assanine to go to arb with Casey over that relatively small amount. All it did was sour relations with Casey, and Casey ended up winning anyhow. Plus it likely cost the Reds money longterm. When the Reds were negotiating that contract with Casey in 2002, I'm sure he remembered the Reds pettiness and drove a much harder bargain. Despite what Allen said about it being a great contract, the Reds gave Casey way too much money for the player he is.

johngalt
10-05-2006, 01:58 PM
That attitude is a big reason why this franchise is in the mess that it's in now.
Instead of trying to grow this franchise (in both W-L and fan base), Allen's line of thinking was "cut payroll, cut player developemnt, cut draft funding, raise ticket prices, and with revenue sharing, we still make our revenue target of X".


Here we go again with the "John Allen is the son of Satan" argument.

Seriously, how can you honestly sit here post after post and thump on John Allen for carrying out orders from Carl Lindner? Carl Lindner was the owner of the team. Carl Lindner wanted to operate the team as a revenue generator rather than a winner. Carl Lindner is the one who gave the orders.

So how does that become John Allen's fault? Should he have said, "You know, Carl, you shouldn't cut all these expenses. The fans want to win at all costs." and risked getting fired for it?

dabvu2498
10-05-2006, 02:01 PM
Hard to believe a thread about an attempt at charity by the Reds organization could turn into this kind of discussion.

REDREAD
10-05-2006, 02:04 PM
So how does that become John Allen's fault? Should he have said, "You know, Carl, you shouldn't cut all these expenses. The fans want to win at all costs." and risked getting fired for it?

Some of the blame does fall on John Allen's shoulder's. Not 100%, but he was a willing partner in crime with Lindner.

In fact, there were times when Allen was so bad, Lindner had to reign him in and smack him.

For example, how can you defend Allen attempting to weasel out of the Reds' commitment to build the Reds hall of fame? Remember Allen's statement that the Reds were in no hurry to build it because it wasn't a revenue generator? I'm sure his plan was to procrastinate as long as possible to help the bottom line. Lindner actually had to do a lot of damage control there.

That's one indisputable bad act that was solely originated by Allen. It was obvious that wasn't Lindner's idea. There are more, but that's an easy one to prove my point that Allen was solely responsible for some of the evil that took place during the Lindner era.

JEA
10-05-2006, 04:10 PM
For example, how can you defend Allen attempting to weasel out of the Reds' commitment to build the Reds hall of fame? Remember Allen's statement that the Reds were in no hurry to build it because it wasn't a revenue generator? I'm sure his plan was to procrastinate as long as possible to help the bottom line. Lindner actually had to do a lot of damage control there.

That's one indisputable bad act that was solely originated by Allen. It was obvious that wasn't Lindner's idea. There are more, but that's an easy one to prove my point that Allen was solely responsible for some of the evil that took place during the Lindner era.

Or Lindner, a notorious penny-pincher who has never cared one bit about making Great American Ball Park a fan attraction, didn't like the negative attention that the Reds were getting when John Erardi reported that the museum may open later than expected, so he made sure that John Allen got to take the fall for it.

But that can't be right, can it? I mean, Lindner was known as a guy who got things done at any cost, right? He just threw around money, but that dang John Allen tried to trick him into saving it, huh? Hell, I bet we would have had a $100 million payroll if Allen hadn't kept Lindner from stepping in to get things done, I'm sure.

JEA
10-05-2006, 04:58 PM
By the way, the cheesiness of this auction isn't exclusive to the Reds.

A friend of mine has a jar of "Wrigley Field" dirt on his desk that he bought from the Cubs gift shop for $10 (another reason Cubs fans are idiots).

Cubs-authenticated infield dirt coin (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=201505188&SearchEngine=Froogle&SearchTerm=201505188&Type=PE&Category=Sport&dcaid=17379)

Red Sox-authenticated Fenway Park infield dirt (http://shop.mlb.com/sm-highland-mint-boston-red-sox-fenway-park-infield-dirt-photo--pi-1430289.html)

Fenway Park championship sod (https://secure.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/fan_forum/sod_form.jsp)

I'm sure there's similar stuff out there. And if it raises $7,500 for the Reds community foundation and people are willing to buy it, more power to them.

Frankly, I don't think it's any dumber than waiting in line for an hour to get a plastic doll with a bobbling head. ;)

Chip R
10-05-2006, 05:04 PM
Frankly, I don't think it's any dumber than waiting in line for an hour to get a plastic doll with a bobbling head. ;)


Yep. Bobblehead dolls aren't cheesy at all. :p:

johngalt
10-06-2006, 12:01 AM
Some of the blame does fall on John Allen's shoulder's. Not 100%, but he was a willing partner in crime with Lindner.

He was a man in a job that listened to his boss's orders. I doubt very many people at all would risk losing a rewarding job they had worked very hard to get just to prove some kind of vague point about how much the owner should be spending.


For example, how can you defend Allen attempting to weasel out of the Reds' commitment to build the Reds hall of fame? Remember Allen's statement that the Reds were in no hurry to build it because it wasn't a revenue generator? I'm sure his plan was to procrastinate as long as possible to help the bottom line. Lindner actually had to do a lot of damage control there.

Again, another case where you somehow jump to the conclusion that John Allen was some kind of autonomous executive who could usurp Lindner's authority.

You surmise that John Allen intentionally dragged his feet in completing the Hall of Fame because he alone determined it wouldn't be a money generator and thought it would be a waste of time to complete. All this on his own without consulting the owner of the team and his boss about what he would like to see happen.

I propose that Carl Lindner told John Allen and other people on the project that the Hall of Fame was lower on the priority list than some aspects of the ballpark and thus some of the planning was put on the backburner. Once it was reported in the media that the Hall of Fame was going to open down the line and people were disappointed and upset, Lindner - a person noted to have thin skin when it comes to public backlash - switched gears and told the Reds brass to "get it done."

Now, honestly, which of these scenarios sounds more plausible given Lindner's tenure with the team and the way he's operated every single business he's been a part of?

The bottom line is that John Allen was ALWAYS put in the public eye to be Lindner's representative, thus taking the fall for the old man's numerous mistakes and PR disasters. That's the only reason Allen gets a bad rap.

Notice the difference with Castellini? He's the one making the statements. He's the one at press conferences. He's the one talking to reporters. You know why? Because he saw what happened with Lindner and all the flack he took for hiding away and making Allen be the bad guy. Castellini has no problem taking the credit or the blame for every decision he makes. If Lindner had been the same, you and most of the general public would have a much different perception of John Allen than the erroneous impression we've received.