PDA

View Full Version : Nationals Opener Invaded by Phillies Fans



redsmetz
04-08-2010, 08:43 AM
Just 140 miles away, Phillies fans flocked to the Nationals Opening Day game. Much like our headache with Cubs fans infesting GABP, the Nationals opener seemed like an away game. Kasten notes correctly that multiple 100 loss seasons leave fans staying home, and notes that improving the team will put local fans in the seats. Same goes for Cincy. Like in Cincinnati, teams are intent on selling tickets, period, and correctly so. I remember someone asking Castellini about this at RedsFest. The answer is for local fans to buy the tickets themselves. Here's Washington Post article about the experience.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040603939.html

redsfan30
04-08-2010, 10:43 AM
I read this article on Yahoo last night and came away wondering what the big deal was. Sure it had to be annoying for the Nationals fans to listen to a ballpark full of Phillies fans, but the idea is to sell tickets...plain and simple.

Same principal here with Cubs "fans". It can drive a Reds fan to violence but at the end of the day if the team makes money off 60,000 Cubs "fans" then more power to them.

Blitz Dorsey
04-08-2010, 10:56 AM
Never should have put a team back in Washington. Already didn't work once before and you have other teams in very close proximity (Baltimore, Philly). The D.C. area is much bigger than when the Senators left, but still. Never should have put a team back in Washington, IMO. And I said it at the time. This isn't hindsight 20/20. Why not spread out the teams a little bit? There needs to be a fifth team in the AL West to balance things out (6 teams in the NL Central and 4 in the AL West ... what???). They should have put a team in Portland.

I know there would always need to be an interleague game going on for there to be 15 teams in the NL and 15 in the AL, but it's still a joke that the AL West only has four teams (only have to be better than 3 teams to win a division title) and the NL Central has six teams.

TRF
04-08-2010, 11:22 AM
OKC is drawing very well as an NBA franchise.

just sayin'.

redsmetz
04-08-2010, 11:27 AM
I read this article on Yahoo last night and came away wondering what the big deal was. Sure it had to be annoying for the Nationals fans to listen to a ballpark full of Phillies fans, but the idea is to sell tickets...plain and simple.

Same principal here with Cubs "fans". It can drive a Reds fan to violence but at the end of the day if the team makes money off 60,000 Cubs "fans" then more power to them.

As I noted, Castellini made this very point. It's better to sell tickets than not. And if you're there to see the opponent, you're going to cheer for them. If you don't want it, then buy the tickets yourself.

I disagree with Blitz though. I think DC will ultimately support a club there. It's not like other areas don't have teams within close proximity to themselves. The current ownership of the Nats blew several years before getting a real GM and a vision for the future. They have an excellent GM now and they'll be making some noise within a year or two, I think.

Eric_the_Red
04-08-2010, 11:49 AM
OKC is drawing very well as an NBA franchise.

just sayin'.

Aren't they also winning?

Hap
04-08-2010, 12:03 PM
and somewhere...............

jim bowden is laughing and thumbing his nose.............

savafan
04-08-2010, 12:09 PM
I disagree with Blitz though. I think DC will ultimately support a club there. It's not like other areas don't have teams within close proximity to themselves. The current ownership of the Nats blew several years before getting a real GM and a vision for the future. They have an excellent GM now and they'll be making some noise within a year or two, I think.

I agree. Was in DC last summer, and met with a lot of excited Nationals fans.

cumberlandreds
04-08-2010, 12:24 PM
I live in the DC area and they will be supported well when they become respectable. I think they are headed in the right direction. It's just going to take some time to build depth in their farm system.

westofyou
04-08-2010, 02:09 PM
OKC is drawing very well as an NBA franchise.

just sayin'.

Won't happen in my lifetime

pedro
04-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Won't happen in my lifetime

The OKC metro area has about 800,000 less people than Portland.

TRF
04-08-2010, 02:19 PM
The OKC metro area has about 800,000 less people than Portland.

And they have an NBA franchise. Plus Tulsa is just up the road. In this part of the country, 100 miles is not a great distance to travel. Amarillo is a 4 hour drive, but its still closer than Dallas or Denver. And the area supports two major universities.

It will happen eventually. Especially if the NBA franchise is successful.

westofyou
04-08-2010, 02:21 PM
And they have an NBA franchise. Plus Tulsa is just up the road. In this part of the country, 100 miles is not a great distance to travel. Amarillo is a 4 hour drive, but its still closer than Dallas or Denver.

It will happen eventually. Especially if the NBA franchise is successful.
Tulsa and Amarillo will not excite the MLB owners, even if they could steal an NBA team from a bigger city.

pedro
04-08-2010, 02:23 PM
And they have an NBA franchise. Plus Tulsa is just up the road. In this part of the country, 100 miles is not a great distance to travel. Amarillo is a 4 hour drive, but its still closer than Dallas or Denver. And the area supports two major universities.

It will happen eventually. Especially if the NBA franchise is successful.

Maybe in 20-30 years. FWIW, Portland's not getting a team anytime soon either.

KronoRed
04-08-2010, 03:08 PM
Supporting an NBA team 41 times a year is a lot different then supporting a baseball team 81 times, 18000 is a sell out for the NBA, for baseball the place is over half empty.

Baseball is tapped out on markets that can actually support a team, if the Nats win the place will be full of people.

Oh and Thunder? I think we're tapped out on good nicknames as well ;)

westofyou
04-08-2010, 03:12 PM
Supporting an NBA team 41 times a year is a lot different then supporting a baseball team 81 times, 18000 is a sell out for the NBA, for baseball the place is over half empty.

Baseball is tapped out on markets that can actually support a team, if the Nats win the place will be full of people.

Oh and Thunder? I think we're tapped out on good nicknames as well ;)

Not only that I can get in a car in Tulsa and in
4 hours be in Dallas (Rangers) or KC (Royals)
8 hours to Houston (Astros)
6 hours St. Louis (Cards)
10 hours Denver (Rockies)

There's 5 no votes for any franchise in Tulsa

Tom Servo
04-08-2010, 03:14 PM
Everyone knows North Carolina should get an MLB team.

KronoRed
04-08-2010, 03:22 PM
Everyone knows North Carolina should get an MLB team.

As a recent transplant to the state I can say no, no they shouldn't.

TRF
04-08-2010, 03:26 PM
Not only that I can get in a car in Tulsa and in
4 hours be in Dallas (Rangers) or KC (Royals)
8 hours to Houston (Astros)
6 hours St. Louis (Cards)
10 hours Denver (Rockies)

There's 5 no votes for any franchise in Tulsa

How many no votes were there for the Nats? Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYx2, Boston all right there.

See, as the population increases it will be the local economies that determine whether new sports franchises come to fruition. And the economy in Texas/OK hasn't been hit as hard as the rest of the country. California has 5 MLB teams, is smaller than TX, though it has 10M more people. I think the area can support a third team. OKC or San Antonio make sense. I'm not saying Portland Or Carolina don't, I just think another expansion is inevitable. In fact, I think Canada could see another team. Maybe Vancouver.

Having a team in OKC likely wouldn't affect the Rangers one bit. Certainly not the Cards, Royals or Astros. The Rockies? No. Denver has all of their own state, western Kansas, Utah, Northern New Mexico, and probably a good chunk of Wyoming.

It's not like these cities are getting smaller.

Tom Servo
04-08-2010, 03:33 PM
As a recent transplant to the state I can say no, no they shouldn't.
Shhh, Krono. I know that, but the rest of the U.S. doesn't.

Strikes Out Looking
04-08-2010, 03:34 PM
I'm very happy to have a NL team in my backyard (ok, 30 minutes without traffic)--but when I go and they play the Reds, I root for the Reds. The Phillie phlap isn't any different than what will go on in Cincy this weekend when the losers from the north side of Chicago show up to root for the fading franchise.

Once [if] the Nats start to win on a regular basis, this will be less of a problem as there will be more season ticket holders. The same is true in Cincy or wherever loser Cub fans show up.

westofyou
04-08-2010, 04:04 PM
How many no votes were there for the Nats? Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYx2, Boston all right there.

See, as the population increases it will be the local economies that determine whether new sports franchises come to fruition. And the economy in Texas/OK hasn't been hit as hard as the rest of the country. California has 5 MLB teams, is smaller than TX, though it has 10M more people. I think the area can support a third team. OKC or San Antonio make sense. I'm not saying Portland Or Carolina don't, I just think another expansion is inevitable. In fact, I think Canada could see another team. Maybe Vancouver.

Having a team in OKC likely wouldn't affect the Rangers one bit. Certainly not the Cards, Royals or Astros. The Rockies? No. Denver has all of their own state, western Kansas, Utah, Northern New Mexico, and probably a good chunk of Wyoming.

It's not like these cities are getting smaller.

The population of the eastern seaboard region, extending from Maine to Florida, is approximately 111,508,688 (about 36% of the country's total population) if you cut it off at DC it's still darn impressive, maybe 25% . Population of Oklahoma is 3.7 million.

Vancouver will never get a MLB team, they have Seattle and a different dollar

bucksfan2
04-08-2010, 04:17 PM
Not only that I can get in a car in Tulsa and in
4 hours be in Dallas (Rangers) or KC (Royals)
8 hours to Houston (Astros)
6 hours St. Louis (Cards)
10 hours Denver (Rockies)

There's 5 no votes for any franchise in Tulsa

I think your stretching it here. I would imagine that teams would have a problem with cities within a daily round trip distance. Somewhere around 2-3 hours. I can see the the Rangers and Royals be opposed to a team in Tulsa but thats about it.

Colin Cowherd brings this up from time to time on his show. He talks about the cities and their relative market size. He mentions quite a bit the size of airports as a good indicator of the market as well as if the city could handle more. But recently he was talking about Arizona and why that city has struggles with the DBacks. His issue was the lack of corporate support in Phoenix. I think that could be an issue with Tulsa and for that matter most of the untapped baseball markets. I think that baseball would be better off with a 3rd team in NY as opposed to a team in Tulsa.

westofyou
04-08-2010, 04:22 PM
I think your stretching it here. I would imagine that teams would have a problem with cities within a daily round trip distance. Somewhere around 2-3 hours. I can see the the Rangers and Royals be opposed to a team in Tulsa but thats about it.

Colin Cowherd brings this up from time to time on his show. He talks about the cities and their relative market size. He mentions quite a bit the size of airports as a good indicator of the market as well as if the city could handle more. But recently he was talking about Arizona and why that city has struggles with the DBacks. His issue was the lack of corporate support in Phoenix. I think that could be an issue with Tulsa and for that matter most of the untapped baseball markets. I think that baseball would be better off with a 3rd team in NY as opposed to a team in Tulsa.

That really was just to show how close MLB is already to the state, but you hit the nail on the head with corporate sponsership, Oregon has very few Fortune 500 companies and that is a major hurdle for any pro team that might want to relocate here.

As for Oklahoma I suppose they are in a similar setup

bucksfan2
04-08-2010, 04:32 PM
That really was just to show how close MLB is already to the state, but you hit the nail on the head with corporate sponsership, Oregon has very few Fortune 500 companies and that is a major hurdle for any pro team that might want to relocate here.

As for Oklahoma I suppose they are in a similar setup

I had always thought Portland would be a good spot for a baseball team. Granted they don't have a whole lot of Fortune 500 companies but they do have Phil Knight and Paul Allen (didn't realize that he already owned both the Blazers and Seahawks) as well as many tech billionaires living close by. Could you imagine Phil Knight owning a MLB team instead of the Ducks athletic dept?

I didn't realize that Portland was only around 600,000 people and I don't believe its metro area is all that large.

TRF
04-08-2010, 04:41 PM
That really was just to show how close MLB is already to the state, but you hit the nail on the head with corporate sponsership, Oregon has very few Fortune 500 companies and that is a major hurdle for any pro team that might want to relocate here.

As for Oklahoma I suppose they are in a similar setup

Oklahoma City has more than a few big time tech corporations. I don't think that would be too much of an issue. I also don't think OKC is clamoring for an MLB team, but if the NBA is successful there, anything is possible.

Really all a field needs to have is about 40,000 seats. OKC could draw 25,000 a night, at least initially. Put them in the AL, and you have a natural regional rivalry with TX and KC. that's a win-win for all three cities. Realign the divisions and it would be more interesting. Does KC have anything resembling a rivalry now? They are in the AL Central, but pretty far from most of the teams in the division. Cleveland/KC in the same division makes no sense to me.

Of course it isn't likely to happen, but new franchises tend to jumpstart revenue for all involved. what matters is support, developing a new fanbase, and owners that are prepared to lose, at least initially. But I wouldn't be shocked to see TB moving to any of the three locations mentioned in this thread.

pedro
04-08-2010, 05:04 PM
I had always thought Portland would be a good spot for a baseball team. Granted they don't have a whole lot of Fortune 500 companies but they do have Phil Knight and Paul Allen (didn't realize that he already owned both the Blazers and Seahawks) as well as many tech billionaires living close by. Could you imagine Phil Knight owning a MLB team instead of the Ducks athletic dept?

I didn't realize that Portland was only around 600,000 people and I don't believe its metro area is all that large.

The metro area is roughly 2.1 million

cincinnati chili
04-09-2010, 12:02 AM
I think baseball should expand to another 2 or 6 teams and a lot of the cities mentioned would be good candidates, but the conventional wisdom says we should contract 2-4 teams. Once the owners get busted for colluding this past offseason (which I'm pretty sure they did), we might just get 2 more teams to pay off the legal bills with expansion fees. (For those who don't know, this is why we have the DBacks and Rays).

Notably, the metro area of Montreal is 3.8 million people, larger than all the markets mentioned other than D.C. At one time there were passionate Expo fans, and the team was in the top 1/3 in attendance through most of the 1980s. It's amazing what bad ownership and failed extortion attempts will do to alienate a fan base.

oregonred
04-09-2010, 12:37 AM
North Texas and Texas itself is a population and economic beast that will soon mandate a third MLB franchise. Dallas is now the #5 metro area at 6.5M (+ 1.5M since 2000) and Houston is #7 (+1.1M since 2000). Austin itself will be over 2M and a top 25 market by 2020. Texas is easily #1 for Fortune 500 and as the US energy hub with a low state tax burden is becoming an economic powerhouse. It's like Florida, but with actual jobs and industry minus the seasonal tourists who create havoc with the infrastructure and development.

By 2030, Dallas should pass Chicago and become the #3 market at about 10M people. Houston will be close behind at 8-9M.

A franchise in OKC to give North Texas access to another teams or Austin/San Antonio will almost be a must by 2030. OKC has some powerhouse companies, much more so than Oregon, could be a viable option for a third Texas tied franchise. Oil barons like toys too.

At this point, NC could not support anything but a small market franchise, but that will change when population rolls mandate that a rapidly growing sunbelt state with 12M people by 2020 must have a franchise somewhere.

The best candidate now is easily at least one additional NYC/NJ franchise. Next would probably be somewhere in NC (Greensboro, as the middle population point, but also the worst of the Charlotte, Piedmont and Triangle that could support a team). I'd say Charlotte to tap into the Greenville SC and Columbia markets. Then I would say another team in Boston (assuming no third team in NYC) and then Austin/San Antonio followed by Portland. Vegas is out due to population growth shift to out migration and at least another decade of major economic issues.

oregonred
04-09-2010, 12:57 AM
While looking at the US population projections since 2000, it is interesting to note that the Cincinnati area is #15 (out of 30) in population growth % amongst MLB franchises.

Cinci has grown 8.1% since 2000, adding about 170,000 people to the region. Faster than the following regions (NY, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Bay Area, Boston, Detroit, St Louis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Milwaukee) and on par with San Diego, Miami, Minneapolis, Seattle and Kansas City. Florida has slowed considerably and like California it is only immigration that is keeping the state growing at all.

Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Riverside CA, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Austin, San Antonio and until recently Vegas, Orlando and Tampa are adding people like nobody's business. Nashville, Portland, Denver, Sacramento, Seattle and Salt Lake are the steady growers (12-20% since 2000) and false rust belt stereotypical outposts Indianapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, Minneapolis are all between 10-15% growers with Cinci not that far behind at 8.1%.

bucksfan2
04-09-2010, 10:43 AM
While looking at the US population projections since 2000, it is interesting to note that the Cincinnati area is #15 (out of 30) in population growth % amongst MLB franchises.

There was a section in the Cincinnati Enquirer a month or so ago about the Cincinnati Dayton region. They said within the next 5 years they will be considered a metropolis instead of two different cities. Sports wise that metro area would no longer be considered a small market area and it would be considered one of the top 15 metro areas in the country. Unfortunately I don't see any increase of population in that area, just more urban sprawl along with two cities being combined into one.

Hindsight being 20/20 but it makes you wonder if the debate shouldn't have been Broadway Commons vs. Riverfront rather West Chester vs. Riverfront for GABP.

Eric_the_Red
04-09-2010, 10:54 AM
Hindsight being 20/20 but it makes you wonder if the debate shouldn't have been Broadway Commons vs. Riverfront rather West Chester vs. Riverfront for GABP.

If the Reds played five minutes down the road, my bank account would be in trouble.

Roy Tucker
04-09-2010, 10:56 AM
Hindsight being 20/20 but it makes you wonder if the debate shouldn't have been Broadway Commons vs. Riverfront rather West Chester vs. Riverfront for GABP.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19651222&id=qHwoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UskEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2631,5091020

bucksfan2
04-09-2010, 11:09 AM
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1873&dat=19651222&id=qHwoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UskEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2631,5091020

It looks like thats football which is a different animal all together.

Don't get me wrong I think aesthetically the two stadiums on the Riverfront make sense. It may make even more sense if the Banks ever gets developed. But if you had built the Stadium in West Chester your roughly 25 minutes from the river, 40 minutes from Dayton, and 90 minutes from Columbus. This doesn't really take into consideration all the burbs propping up along 75 and 675 between Cincy and Dayton. As a population center for the Reds fan base it should be in that area.

Roy Tucker
04-09-2010, 11:17 AM
It looks like thats football which is a different animal all together.

Don't get me wrong I think aesthetically the two stadiums on the Riverfront make sense. It may make even more sense if the Banks ever gets developed. But if you had built the Stadium in West Chester your roughly 25 minutes from the river, 40 minutes from Dayton, and 90 minutes from Columbus. This doesn't really take into consideration all the burbs propping up along 75 and 675 between Cincy and Dayton. As a population center for the Reds fan base it should be in that area.

Maybe the link didn't work the way I thought.

It was a newspaper article from 1965 where Bill Dewitt, then-owner of the Reds, proposed a combined-use stadium in Blue Ash, i.e. a north-of-the-city stadium site has been discussed before.

bucksfan2
04-09-2010, 11:24 AM
Maybe the link didn't work the way I thought.

It was a newspaper article from 1965 where Bill Dewitt, then-owner of the Reds, proposed a combined-use stadium in Blue Ash, i.e. a north-of-the-city stadium site has been discussed before.

Oh I read it completely wrong. I thought it was talking about PBS and GABP not what then became Riverfront stadium. Guess I should have read the whole think instead of skimming it.

Yachtzee
04-09-2010, 05:28 PM
All these hopes and dreams of putting teams in new cities are just that until the owners bite the bullet and create a new system of revenue sharing that ensures financial stability for all teams and creates incentives for all owners to try to put winners out on the field. For all this talk of growing cities, not one single city is going to grow enough to compete with the Northeastern portion of the US as a market. Washington was a smart move as it is on the southern end of the Northeast Corridor Megalopolis. Give that team some time to recover from the time it was owned by MLB and you might see the team build a substantial following in its market.

Adding teams to places like OKC, Portland, Vegas, etc. just creates more teams competing with the small to mid markets for affordable talent but does nothing to level the field between the haves and the have nots. If you want more Pittsburghs and Kansas Cities, go ahead and put more teams in markets on the bottom end of the spectrum. If MLB wants to expand without changing its revenue structure, the only way is to put more teams in NY-NJ-CT to try and carve out their own market from the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies. That region could probably support 2-3 more teams that, if run and marketed properly, would have a lot better chance of competing with the Yankees and Red Sox than a team in OKC, or even teams in established markets like Cleveland, Cincinnati, or even St. Louis. It doesn't just have a large population, but a large population density. I imagine a new team in that area would sell out a ton of games, if only because they'll be so close to other teams that they'll sell out to visiting fans. As they got better, they'd start drawing more fans of their own.

TRF
04-09-2010, 05:40 PM
For every team crying small market woes, I give you the Twins and Marlins and Rays. Small markets that win big and are prepared to lose big when looking at the big picture.

The Pirates don't lose because of their market or their economy. They lose because they are stupid. Blunt but true. They seem to be getting smarter, thankfully. Trading McLouth for anything and bringing up McCutchen was pretty smart. But overall? d-u-m-b. Have been for almost 20 years.

pedro
04-09-2010, 05:59 PM
For every team crying small market woes, I give you the Twins and Marlins and Rays. Small markets that win big and are prepared to lose big when looking at the big picture.

The Pirates don't lose because of their market or their economy. They lose because they are stupid. Blunt but true. They seem to be getting smarter, thankfully. Trading McLouth for anything and bringing up McCutchen was pretty smart. But overall? d-u-m-b. Have been for almost 20 years.

Minneapolis isn't really a small market. They're the 16th largest metro area in country and there are 20 Fortune 50 companies headquartered there.

Yachtzee
04-09-2010, 06:11 PM
For every team crying small market woes, I give you the Twins and Marlins and Rays. Small markets that win big and are prepared to lose big when looking at the big picture.

The Pirates don't lose because of their market or their economy. They lose because they are stupid. Blunt but true. They seem to be getting smarter, thankfully. Trading McLouth for anything and bringing up McCutchen was pretty smart. But overall? d-u-m-b. Have been for almost 20 years.

The Twins, Marlins and Rays are a lot closer to Pittsburgh than they are to the New York and Boston. They will always, a-l-w-a-y-s, have to be smart with their money in order to compete, and even then it will be a cyclical deal where they make a run and then sell off their best players. There is no room for error. If they should happen to have a few bad seasons and make a wrong trade or two, they really could be hurting.

I've said this before, but look at Cleveland. They have long been considered to be one of the smartest run organizations in baseball. They have a fantastic farm system (I've watched the Akron Aeros compete for the Eastern League title every year. They are always stacked). They have their own TV network. They sold out 455 consecutive games in the '90s. They do everything you could ask a mid-to-small market to do to succeed. Yet, once their talented players hit their prime, the Indians only have a small window for success before those players head off to the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies.

I actually think that MLB could support teams in places like OKC or Portland or Vegas, and I think you could have dynasties in places like Minnesota or Florida or Cincinnati, but only if the revenue structure of baseball is changed so that all teams have the same opportunity for failure or success based on their ability to build teams rather than how much they're willing to spend. The only other option, as I see it, is to remove territorial restrictions and allow owners to move teams to any market area where they feel they can succeed, which will likely result in some teams moving into larger existing markets that already have teams (especially NYC-NJ). But adding teams to new markets under the current league structure is only going to hurt teams like Minnesota and Tampa and Miami by adding competition for draft picks and affordable talent. Moving current teams to OKC or Portland amounts to shuffling deck chairs.

KronoRed
04-09-2010, 09:17 PM
Hindsight being 20/20 but it makes you wonder if the debate shouldn't have been Broadway Commons vs. Riverfront rather West Chester vs. Riverfront for GABP.
Maybe the next place will be there, but if the only way to get there is I-75 it won't matter because it will be empty.