Splicetoday

Sports
Sep 22, 2008, 05:24AM

Save The Marlins!

Although the Florida Marlins have made progress in soaking residents for a publicly funded new stadium, history says it won’t happen. Move the team and end a disgraceful MLB chapter.

Dolphin stadium.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

A typical half-filled day at the ballpark for the Fish.

The sorry state of the Florida Marlins wasn’t the lead story in sports sections across the country on Sept. 4—nothing competes with the Yanks’ blessedly dismal disarray or Serial Senior Citizen Basher Manny Ramirez carrying the Dodgers to a division title—but the fact that the day before the Marlins drew a total of 600 fans for an afternoon game at the hideous Dolphin Stadium was fairly astonishing. Aside from Josh Beckett closing out the Yanks in the ’03 World Series, I’d never given much thought to the sorry franchise until the beginning of this season when my son got mixed up in a fantasy league at school and ended up with several Marlins. All of a sudden, when he wasn’t rooting for the Bosox, the nattering in between innings while we surfed the MLB Extra Innings package was all about Hanley Ramirez, Dan Uggla, Jeremy Hermida, Cody Ross, Kevin Gregg and Joe Nelson. I’m not a National League fan, so my familiarity with these players (aside from Hanley, who was a top Sox prospect traded to Florida in the Beckett/Mike Lowell deal) was slim.

Since then, my interest has perked up about the club, and last Saturday night I watched a heartbreaking Marlins loss to the Phillies, which essentially ended their attempt to pull an ’07 Rockies and win a berth in postseason. And, in fairness, that game did attract some 28,000 fans, but the reality is simple: the Marlins need to move to another city. I’m aware that the Florida Supreme Court has apparently paved the way for the Marlins owners to construct a new taxpayer-funded stadium in Miami’s Little Havana, but anyone who’s followed the long battle about the relocation has to be dubious that it’ll ever come to fruition. (As I said, I haven’t tracked the Marlins before this year on the field, but any baseball fan would be captivated, or repulsed, at the team’s low payroll, awful attendance and seemingly annual auctions for their best players.)

Back in 1999, while on a trip to Miami, my older son and I did go to a Marlins game, and with the possible exception of the now-abandoned (again) RFK Stadium in Washington, DC, I’ve never been to a worse venue for baseball. Not only did it take an hour to get there from our South Beach hotel, but also there couldn’t have been more than 2000 people in the stands, and most of them were entirely bored. So sure, if the team’s owners can bamboozle the state into a risky deal—there’s been no indication so far that businesses would pop up in Little Havana and thus jobs created, justifying (sort of) the burden on the pockets of residents—a half-hearted mazel tov is in order. But in today’s economic climate, I find it hard to believe that this transaction will ever be completed, and meanwhile, while MLB continues to sock away immense revenues, the Marlins players and their tiny base of fans will be left to flounder.

About a month ago, before the flurry of legal action in Florida, I bandied about possible cities where the Marlins could go with Craig Calcaterra and, as he’s more knowledgeable about the economic ramifications of relocation—Calcaterra’s a lawyer by day—he immediately shot down my favorite choice: Mexico City. It seemed like a natural, with the enormous population, the welcome recent influx of Mexican players, and because, at least to me, it’s a world-class city. There was some romanticism on my part, as I remembered having a blast as a 19-year-old going to my first bullfight there with a college buddy, and both of us feeling intoxicated not only by the Tecate beers but the raucous, sold-out crowd that was unlike any other sporting event I’d ever attended. Calcaterra sensibly said: “I think Mexico City would create a huge competitive problem because the elevation is so damn high (7300 feet above sea level). It took Colorado nearly 15 years to figure out how to win in that park and it’s still not easy, so trying to make Mexico City work from a roster construction perspective would be a nightmare.”

We both agreed that Brooklyn or Northern New Jersey would turn the Marlins into a cash cow, but that the owners of the Yanks and Mets would never let that happen. Remember that when the Dodgers left Brooklyn over 50 years ago due to lousy crowds and Walter O’Malley’s prescience of exploiting the burgeoning California market, attendance just wasn’t at the same level as today. The Yankees, who once again drew more than four million spectators in ’08, often played to relatively paltry crowds, even in 1961, when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s home run record.

South of the border once again, I also like the idea of Monterrey in northern Mexico, which has a metro population of three million, but the exchange rate discrepancies would raise a stink with the players’ union and probably scotch such a deal. One can dream of the day when MLB expands to Havana, but with relations between Cuba and the U.S. still rancorous after Fidel’s long regime, that’s a way off.

There’s San Antonio, another huge Texan city that could fit the bill; or, ESPN’s Rob Neyer’s personal favorite, Portland, Oregon, but I doubt either of those cities have the oomph to build a successful franchise. Which brings me to Las Vegas, a daring move that’s as controversial as exciting. First problem is that MLB commissioner Bud Selig—who has a problem with billionaire Mark Cuban buying the Cubs, for crying out loud—would never go for it, too much vice for his taste. But as a proponent of legalized gambling throughout the United States, I find Las Vegas very intriguing. Calcaterra takes an opposite view, with the reasonable argument that casino owners, currently slumping because of the economy would object, believing that tourists attending Las Vegas Marlins games 81 times a year would cut into their revenues. As for the locals, he points that so many people there work nights in the gambling business and wouldn’t be able to attend games. I’d counter that an increase in tourism for baseball-starved fans would more than compensate, and also create more jobs, but Selig’s ingrained prudishness probably makes a move to Vegas moot anyway.

One thing is almost certain: the Marlins players are getting screwed and the franchise (which, since its inception in ’93 has won two World Championships, and has more than intermittently fielded competitive teams) would prosper by saying adios to Florida.

_____________

A follow-up: The Yankees’ finale at their “cathedral” was as vain as I'd expected. Amidst all the hoopla and tears and reminiscences on Sept. 21—coming to a crescendo after a full season of misty eulogies—let’s remember that the Steinbrenners’ motivation for a new ballpark was based purely on increased cash flow. Jeez, the new Yankee Stadium is across the street from the current version. The New York Times’ Dave Anderson, on Sunday, was by far the most eloquent on the subject. As Anderson says, this was purely a financial move and doesn’t deserve much “fuss.”

I couldn’t stomach all the pre-game ceremonies on ESPN for the curtain-fall, but have to admit that while watching the Yanks beat the Orioles, by far the most engaging 15 minutes was when Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford spoke in the broadcaster booth with Jon Miller and Joe Morgan. Ford especially was a riot, spinning yarns of the old days, alluding to his carousing with Mickey Mantle, and gently sparring with Yogi about historic plays at the Stadium. Forty years from now, when the new Yankee Stadium is about to fall, I simply can’t imagine Derek Jeter and Andy Pettitte gabbing with the same unassuming charm.

Discussion
  • Maybe I'm wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in this article. It claims that there would be no support for a new downtown ballpark, yet the author's first hand experience says that the stadium's location and non-baseball specific design were among the worst part of the experience. Wouldn't a new stadium be just the ticket then? While the claims of job creation are greatly exaggerated, there is little argument that a new stadium brings larger crowds and a better fan experience, at least until the novelty wears off. Ultimately, the success of the team is the #1 factor, and I'd say that Florida fans are jaded by the frequent fire sales and loss of key personnel. I think a new stadium would solve a lot of those issues--how much the taxpayers should pay is another issue. As for MLB in Las Vegas, my inclination is that the substantial competition from other sources keeps it from being a good MLB market. Miami is a good market but has never had the chance to be successful. I also think that the MLB is wary to make another move after the stadium debacle surrounding the Washington Nationals.

    Responses to this comment
  • DT: As always, I respect your opinions on baseball. I don't think I contradicted myself, however. Reading the Miami Herald and Miami Business Journal, for examples, gives evidence that the proposed stadium in Little Havana is attracting almost no interest from the retailers that would create jobs and help make the franchise a success. Also, there doesn't appear to be a real baseball culture in Florida (particularly Miami), which is odd, since so many teams have their spring training camps there.

    Responses to this comment
  • I agree with regard to Yankee Stadium. It's so funny how people are acting like Yankee Stadium is about to die of natural causes, and that death was unavoidable. I remember when I first heard that the Yankees were going to build a new stadium; I was shocked. I just always assumed that Fenway and Yankee Stadium would stay in use until the point where they absolutely had to be retired. Don't get me wrong - I love new stadiums, and I love that we are phasing out the shitty multipurpose stadiums of the 70s. But I don't love new stadiums as much as I love old, classic stadiums.

    Responses to this comment
  • My mistake Russ, your article is talking about Business support surrounding a new stadium and I was referring to fan support. Ultimately, public dollars are only justified if there is ancillary development or some other public benefit for the stadium. However, I think that the success of the franchise is dependent on a new stadium, and that once a stadium is built, businesses will ultimately sprout around it. However, Miami plenty of problems with it--namely the distraction called the beach that pulls people away, spring training, which gives cheap, intimate access to players and a population base dominated by ex-pats from other parts of the country. Still, I think that baseball in Miami could be successful with a new stadium, because as long as there is a pleasurable fan experience to be had and the price is competitive, people will come to the games.

    Responses to this comment
  • I've been to the Marlins' stadium, way back in 2000, and I have to agree that it really does blow. It just wasn't built for baseball. The Marlins are a waste of time and money, that revenue should either be put into the Rays or into an entirely new team. "The American Expos" certainly isn't a misnomer.

    Responses to this comment
  • I love that you gave the new Yankee Stadium a shelf life of just 40 years. $1.3 billion for just 4 decades of (probable) misery seems like some rich justice for such grandiose extravagance from the Steinbrenners.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm a casual baseball fan who lives in Miami, and I go see the Marlins maybe once a year. People don't understand how twisted the politics are here; sure, it looks like Little Havana will the site for a new stadium. And Gore will eventually get his recount for the 2000 election. And, I don't feel like helping to foot the bill for a stadium on behalf of millionaires.

    Responses to this comment
  • There seem to be so many stadiums and teams that just act as more of an eyesore and a money drain than profitable franchises. I feel that a consolidation of the MLB is in order, maybe ditch the two league system and cut down all the non-profitable or semi-profitable teams? I'm sure the MLB is doing well, but maybe an economical slimming down of the league is due to make even more money for the teams, the owners, and the players.

    Responses to this comment
  • PumpkinTime, a slimming down of the teams would definitely make more money for the teams, owners and players, and would result in higher prices for fans and sponsors. Not only is MLB very profitable but the teams are extremely profitable as well (when you take into account Regional Sports Network deals, concession subsidiaries, the ability to depreciate player salaries over time etc.) No offense, but I couldn't think of a worse idea for the health of the sport than contraction, although the owners would love it because it would just line their pockets.

    Responses to this comment
  • Living in Boston, I hate the baseball season. Fenway Park is cherished here, there and everywhere, and to me it's an eyesore. The Red Sox dominate conversation and don't even go near the Fens when there's a game there. I'm sure some fans are nice, but the amount of hooligans and drunks are not to believed

    Responses to this comment
  • Alison: If you don't mind my asking, what about Fenway is an eyesore to you? I've always considered it to be a wonderful example of a stadium that is well integrated into the surrounding area and has adapted and grown in conjunction with the area--unlike many stadiums that are lonely behemoths in a concrete jungle.

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh, the park itself is fine, and I don't have much knowledge about other baseball places, but I was really referring the rowdy fans before and after the games. It's not an area you want to be near unless you're an obsessive fan who lives and breathes the damn Red Sox.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm kind of like you, I couldn't care less about the National league. But, when we got Beckett in 05, I started to notice the marlins. It seems like they breed good, young players, then just trade them away.

    Responses to this comment
  • The term "lousey crowds" in Brooklyn is wrong. Back then over a million was about the average. from 1952-1956 the dodgers were the 2nd most profitable team in all of baseball and Only the braves drew more at the gate, because of the novelty of the move from boston this "abberation" would soon fade away and the braves would move again. O'malley (check the facts)just saw more money. The dodgers were profitable and their crowds respectable. I mean comparing one million plus to 4 million isn't a true picture, back then over a million, as I stated was the average. The dodgers were better than average at the gate. As for the Marlins, yes they'd make a mint in Brooklyn or northern NJ. eventually the mets and yanks may not have a choice in letting a 3rd team into the area, the pressure is mounting.

    Responses to this comment
  • I appreciate dodger1958's comment, and agree that comparing baseball crowds in the 1950s to the modern era is somewhat misleading. However, in checking the facts (again), in 1955, the Brooklyn Dodgers drew only an average of 13,423 fans at Ebbets Field. And this was with a great team! O'Malley wanted to stay in Brooklyn, and build a new stadium there, but city officials wouldn't approve any location. So, stymied, he moved the team to L.A. Finally, I completely agree the Marlins would make a ton of money in Brooklyn or northern Jersey, and hope dodger1958 is correct that pressure will force the owners of the Mets and Yankees to not block that move.

    Responses to this comment
  • If the MLB commissioner had any sense he'd lobby to have the Marlins move the NY metro area, where 3 million fans would come out each year. Much more chance of success than Mexico or Las Vegas or Portland.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment