MIAMI - Marlins Park (36,742)

[mrakbaseball]

Originally Posted by Calvin W

Well then how about a friendly wager..... I am willing to bet they average over 18500. You willing to take that bet?

If we want to eliminate some poor teams attendance wise, well Oakland can go. Or how about Pittsburgh? Both have been in the bottom 5 teams for the last five years. Tampa and Kansas City are also bottom dwellers on a regular basis.

I didn't say they would average 18,500 next year, someone else said if they did, the new stadium would still be half-full.
Baseball expanded too much in the 1990s to pay off the collusion lawsuits.

[Alien x]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

If the Marilins draw 18,500 a game next year, in a new ballpark, forget it, the franchise is toast. Contraction talk will intensify. As it should.

Now where did I write that they are going to draw 18,500 a game next year??? I just brought to your attention that the lack of attendance is greatly exaggerated by the size of the present stadium. The franchise that won 2 titles will not get chopped despite your wishes. The biggest problems this franchise had was egos of past owners(and current), rain, rain and more rain (trust me sitting through almost daily rain delays ends your appetite to buy tickets especially when almost all games are televised; the team actually has very good local TV ratings), and that it played in a stadium in which it had no control of its environment or revenue, case in point a home series this year was moved to Seattle just to give time for concert to set up. All this will be the past starting next April so maybe it’s time people find a new pastime to whine about.

p.s. Pittsburgh has(and has had) horrible attendance in its new park should they be chopped?

[fauowls44]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

If the Marilins draw 18,500 a game next year, in a new ballpark, forget it, the franchise is toast. Contraction talk will intensify. As it should.

LOL. Contraction? I take it from your avatar that you are a Mariners fan. You may recall decades of poor attendance history until the mid 90's in Seattle. In fact, by your standards, the Mariners should have been contracted long before SAFECO opened. Prior to 1995, nobody went to the Kingdome. Take a look at 1977-1995...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/mariatte.shtml

[Topher51]

Contraction is only brought up when MLB and the teams in question are trying to get what they want. The last time it was the Twins and the Expos. Minnesota and DC built new stadiums for them, problem solved. Now that the Marlins have a new ballpark there is no way they will be contracted. Once the A's have their new park, that is the last you will hear of it for a few decades.

As for the Pirates, they have averaged about 20,000 fans (give or take) after being terrible for 20 years. That can be forgiven and now that they are playing better, their attendance is on the rise. Half the teams in the MLB average less than 30,000, so being in the low 20's is not that bad. Not every team can get the Yankee's numbers.

[mrakbaseball]

Originally Posted by Alien x

Now where did I write that they are going to draw 18,500 a game next year??? I just brought to your attention that the lack of attendance is greatly exaggerated by the size of the present stadium. The franchise that won 2 titles will not get chopped despite your wishes. The biggest problems this franchise had was egos of past owners(and current), rain, rain and more rain (trust me sitting through almost daily rain delays ends your appetite to buy tickets especially when almost all games are televised; the team actually has very good local TV ratings), and that it played in a stadium in which it had no control of its environment or revenue, case in point a home series this year was moved to Seattle just to give time for concert to set up. All this will be the past starting next April so maybe it’s time people find a new pastime to whine about.

p.s. Pittsburgh has(and has had) horrible attendance in its new park should they be chopped?

What are the expectations for 2012 attendance? What number would be considered a success?

As for Pittsburgh, the Marlins have had more recent success than the Pirates. The Pirates haven't had a winning season since '92. I don't care how nice PNC is, it's tough to draw when the team loses 90-100 games a year.

Originally Posted by fauowls44

LOL. Contraction? I take it from your avatar that you are a Mariners fan. You may recall decades of poor attendance history until the mid 90's in Seattle. In fact, by your standards, the Mariners should have been contracted long before SAFECO opened. Prior to 1995, nobody went to the Kingdome. Take a look at 1977-1995...

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/mariatte.shtml

The point? If the Marlins don't draw next year, or if they draw less than any team that opened a new ballpark since '91, what are you left with? A bunch of wasted money on a franchise that is starved for attention, with an ugly stadium.

[fauowls44]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

What are the expectations for 2012 attendance? What number would be considered a success?

As for Pittsburgh, the Marlins have had more recent success than the Pirates. The Pirates haven't had a winning season since '92. I don't care how nice PNC is, it's tough to draw when the team loses 90-100 games a year.

The point? If the Marlins don't draw next year, or if they draw less than any team that opened a new ballpark since '91, what are you left with? A bunch of wasted money on a franchise that is starved for attention, with an ugly stadium.

The point is that it took the Mariners 14 years to draw over 20,000 fans a game. Were you asking why they existed or if they deserved a new stadium at that point? It took 20 years, two or three of the greatest players who have ever played the game, and a lot of winning before you hit 30,000 a game. The point is that the history of the two markets is actually remarkably similar...Both struggled for the 1st 20 years to draw fans...both played in terrible dual purpose facilities...both struggled for years to get new ballparks built. For you rail on about what a terrible market Miami is for baseball is hypocritical. BTW, don't look now, but the Mariners attendance is quickly plummeting towards those pre-1995 Kingdome numbers. I gaurantee the Marlins will outdraw Seattle next season in our new ballpark.

You talk about understanding Pittsburgh struggling to get fans. All they have gone through is losing. Try drawing fans when a team plays in a terrible ballpark, went through the baseball strike a season after the team started playing, has undergone 2 fire sales of World Championship teams, has had 3 owners, and for most of the first 20 years of the franchise been under the constant threat of moving and/or contraction. That is a tough sell.

By the way, you can talk about the Marlins attendance if you want, but as someone who has toured the new ballpark, I can tell you the place is going to be gorgeous. There is nothing ugly about it.

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

The point? If the Marlins don't draw next year, or if they draw less than any team that opened a new ballpark since '91, what are you left with? A bunch of wasted money on a franchise that is starved for attention, with an ugly stadium.

Why don't we cross that bridge when we get to it...

[en1044]

Originally Posted by slipperydog

Why don't we cross that bridge when we get to it...

I think that's a bridge that should be crossed before construction starts.

[slipperydog]

What, the whole "predicting the future" bridge? Have fun with that. Like the poster said, no one knew whether Mariners or Pirates fans would still show up just because of a new stadium, but no one was talking about contracting them. Can't have double standards. If the city really thought contraction was a realistic proposition, they wouldn't have put up the cash for the stadium. Now, the decision has been made. Marlins aren't going anywhere.

[RaiderATO]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

The point? If the Marlins don't draw next year, or if they draw less than any team that opened a new ballpark since '91, what are you left with? A bunch of wasted money on a franchise that is starved for attention, with an ugly stadium.

I think it's a pretty sexy stadium. Very Miami. Sure, it isn't Camden Yards version 8, but it will work for Miami. It is smaller, sleeker, covered, etc. I don't think that the size will cause much scarcity, but it can't hurt compared to the giant they're in now.

[Alien x]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

What are the expectations for 2012 attendance? What number would be considered a success?

As for Pittsburgh, the Marlins have had more recent success than the Pirates. The Pirates haven't had a winning season since '92. I don't care how nice PNC is, it's tough to draw when the team loses 90-100 games a year.

The point? If the Marlins don't draw next year, or if they draw less than any team that opened a new ballpark since '91, what are you left with? A bunch of wasted money on a franchise that is starved for attention, with an ugly stadium.

All your points are based on flawed assumptions. You have no clue about the market and what it will support. I believe that some of the other poster’s have pointed out the history of the marlins. With all that they somehow managed to draw 20,350 per game in their 19 yrs. playing in a football stadium were more than half of the games had delays caused by rain. Add to that they received no revenue from parking, suits, club seating, and limited revenue from concessions. Your case against the marlins new stadium becomes a moot point.
Pirates haven’t had a winning season in a long time but the franchise is in existence for well over 100 yrs. It is ridicules to say that it’s ok that people don’t show up for a team that has been in the same market for several generations but a team that has been in existence for 19 yrs it’s not ok.
Why would they draw less than any team since 91 according to what facts are you basing this? Wasted money? That depends on your view of using public money for stadium (even though the money comes from a tourist tax which has a limited use clause) but for the team they get a stadium where they will be financially secured ending any stupid talk about franchise stability. Ugly Stadium? Everybody has their opinion but to me it’s absolutely beautiful and a departure from exaggerated retro look which has dominated construction of stadiums in the last 20 yrs. It design fits Miami.

[nyrmetros]

The Pirates were a founder of organized baseball before the merger of MLB.

The franchise joined the National League in its sixth season in 1887 and was competitive from its early years, winning three National League titles from 1901 to 1903, playing in the very first World Series in 1903 and winning their first World Series in 1909 behind Honus Wagner.

[mrakbaseball]

Originally Posted by Alien x

All your points are based on flawed assumptions. You have no clue about the market and what it will support. I believe that some of the other poster’s have pointed out the history of the marlins. With all that they somehow managed to draw 20,350 per game in their 19 yrs. playing in a football stadium were more than half of the games had delays caused by rain. Add to that they received no revenue from parking, suits, club seating, and limited revenue from concessions. Your case against the marlins new stadium becomes a moot point.
Pirates haven’t had a winning season in a long time but the franchise is in existence for well over 100 yrs. It is ridicules to say that it’s ok that people don’t show up for a team that has been in the same market for several generations but a team that has been in existence for 19 yrs it’s not ok.
Why would they draw less than any team since 91 according to what facts are you basing this? Wasted money? That depends on your view of using public money for stadium (even though the money comes from a tourist tax which has a limited use clause) but for the team they get a stadium where they will be financially secured ending any stupid talk about franchise stability. Ugly Stadium? Everybody has their opinion but to me it’s absolutely beautiful and a departure from exaggerated retro look which has dominated construction of stadiums in the last 20 yrs. It design fits Miami.

About the Miami market, didn't they sell out games for this past year's NBA Finals only on the day of the game?

About the Marlins previous and current attendance isssues and stadium issues. You validate my statement about it being foolish for MLB to expand in the Miami market, without a baseball stadium in place. 20,350 a game is nothing.

Bottom line, Florida as it turns out is essentially a spring training state, with both the Rays and Marlins having all sorts of problems, and even the Cactus League is far more convenient and beneficial for everyone. The Miami metro area has more than twice the population than Pittsburgh.

[Alien x]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

About the Miami market, didn't they sell out games for this past year's NBA Finals only on the day of the game?

About the Marlins previous and current attendance isssues and stadium issues. You validate my statement about it being foolish for MLB to expand in the Miami market, without a baseball stadium in place. 20,350 a game is nothing.

Bottom line, Florida as it turns out is essentially a spring training state, with both the Rays and Marlins having all sorts of problems, and even the Cactus League is far more convenient and beneficial for everyone. The Miami metro area has more than twice the population than Pittsburgh.

It's pointless to even respond to you. So please enlighten us what is the avg. crowd for first 19 yrs of operation for the expansion since the 1960. How about the mariners?
Validate what? The franchise is going to be financially sound what was foolish? You points are not base on anything except your hatred of S. Florida.

[redspork02]

I love how u can see the American flag thru the park "window" on top the Hospital.
Good job Miami!

[mrakbaseball]

Originally Posted by Alien x

It's pointless to even respond to you. So please enlighten us what is the avg. crowd for first 19 yrs of operation for the expansion since the 1960. How about the mariners?
Validate what? The franchise is going to be financially sound what was foolish? You points are not base on anything except your hatred of S. Florida.

Why go back to 1960? The Marlins began in 1993. The Rockies began the same year. Let's compare them. The Rockies played 2 seasons at a football venue and already had plans to move into sparkling baseball-only Coors Field in year 3. The Rockies' attendance dwarfs the Marlins. Expanding into Denver was a wise decision, expanding into south Florida, with no baseball stadium on the immediate horizon wasn't. You say the Marlins will be financially sound? How do you know? You've seen their books? They'll be financially sound because of a tiny payroll? Again, what are the forecasts for attendance at their new ballpark?

[slipperydog]

I don't think this stadium will be a waste of money. Their current stadium is a terrible place to watch baseball, especially with regards to the weather. Finally having their own home will be of tremendous help in being able to attract and retain their fans (namely those that helped sell out Pro Player Stadium for the World Series).

[Alien x]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

Why go back to 1960? The Marlins began in 1993. The Rockies began the same year. Let's compare them. The Rockies played 2 seasons at a football venue and already had plans to move into sparkling baseball-only Coors Field in year 3. The Rockies' attendance dwarfs the Marlins. Expanding into Denver was a wise decision, expanding into south Florida, with no baseball stadium on the immediate horizon wasn't. You say the Marlins will be financially sound? How do you know? You've seen their books? They'll be financially sound because of a tiny payroll? Again, what are the forecasts for attendance at their new ballpark?

You prove my point, for you it all about the Marlins. Other teams are a wise choice Marlins are not, we got that. Only valid issues to use are yours. Well guess what it's not your problem and thank God no one cares what you think.

Oh by the way Marlins 2 Rings Mariners + Rockies 0 rings

[fauowls44]

Originally Posted by mrakbaseball

Why go back to 1960? The Marlins began in 1993. The Rockies began the same year. Let's compare them. The Rockies played 2 seasons at a football venue and already had plans to move into sparkling baseball-only Coors Field in year 3. The Rockies' attendance dwarfs the Marlins. Expanding into Denver was a wise decision, expanding into south Florida, with no baseball stadium on the immediate horizon wasn't. You say the Marlins will be financially sound? How do you know? You've seen their books? They'll be financially sound because of a tiny payroll? Again, what are the forecasts for attendance at their new ballpark?

OK. Imagine the Rockies ran into a situation where they had a series of owners and failed ballpark deals and got stuck playing in Mile High Stadium with a lease that did not allow them to earn revenue from parking, concessions, advertising, or premium seating. In those 19 years, they compensated for the lack of revenue by trading popular players and rebuilding every few seasons. Throw into the mix the constant threat that the team would move due to their inability to secure a stadium deal. What kind of attendance would the Rockies have had? As it is, they are only a few seasons removed from drawing about 23,000 a game in the midst of a few bad years on the field. Attendance is cyclical and it goes up and down depending mostly on performance. The Marlins have had to combine this with playing in an open air, football stadium where weather was/is a major issue during the summer.

I don't know what your issue is with the Marlins, but this market can and will support Major League Baseball. Franchise stability and a baseball only facility without the threat of rain and uncomfortable heat and humidity will go a long way in solving the team's attendance problems. Throughout history, there are any number of examples of teams that have thrived once they get out of poor stadium situations...including your team. I'm not sure why you have decided that Seattle deserved a team and Miami doesn't since the Mariners attendance history, up until they got into Safeco, was just as bleak as the Marlins has been playing in Sun Life. The assumption that Seattle would become a good baseball city and Miami can't is ridiculous.

[mrakbaseball]

Originally Posted by Alien x

You prove my point, for you it all about the Marlins. Other teams are a wise choice Marlins are not, we got that. Only valid issues to use are yours. Well guess what it's not your problem and thank God no one cares what you think.

Oh by the way Marlins 2 Rings Mariners + Rockies 0 rings

You've never addressed my questions about the Marlins's forecasts for attendance. Language issue?

Originally Posted by fauowls44

OK. Imagine the Rockies ran into a situation where they had a series of owners and failed ballpark deals and got stuck playing in Mile High Stadium with a lease that did not allow them to earn revenue from parking, concessions, advertising, or premium seating. In those 19 years, they compensated for the lack of revenue by trading popular players and rebuilding every few seasons. Throw into the mix the constant threat that the team would move due to their inability to secure a stadium deal. What kind of attendance would the Rockies have had? As it is, they are only a few seasons removed from drawing about 23,000 a game in the midst of a few bad years on the field. Attendance is cyclical and it goes up and down depending mostly on performance. The Marlins have had to combine this with playing in an open air, football stadium where weather was/is a major issue during the summer.

I don't know what your issue is with the Marlins, but this market can and will support Major League Baseball. Franchise stability and a baseball only facility without the threat of rain and uncomfortable heat and humidity will go a long way in solving the team's attendance problems. Throughout history, there are any number of examples of teams that have thrived once they get out of poor stadium situations...including your team. I'm not sure why you have decided that Seattle deserved a team and Miami doesn't since the Mariners attendance history, up until they got into Safeco, was just as bleak as the Marlins has been playing in Sun Life. The assumption that Seattle would become a good baseball city and Miami can't is ridiculous.

When Denver was awarded the MLB franchise that became the Rockies, they already had plans and financing to build beautiful Coors Field. Miami had no plans to build a baseball park and their new ballpark will open in the Marlins' 20th season. Denver was a good choice Miami, not so much.

The Mariners historically have been a bad franchise. The 1980s were a mess. Bad owners, drab indoor stadium shared with a football team and occasionally a basketball team. The worst winning percantage. Threats to move elsewhere. The Mariners didn't have a winning season until 1991, their 15th. Why is Seattle deserving of a MLB franchise and why was Miami a poor choice to expand? Well, the Mariners have Safeco Field. The Mariners have had better attendance than the Marlins despite the Marlins 2 World Series titles. Marlins have all sorts of excuses. The Marlins have never had as good prolonged attendance as Seattle. The Mariners averaged better than 30,000 people a game for 12 consecutive seasons. ('96-'07). Why compare Miami to Seattle?
Let's compare the Pirates and the Marlins since someone earlier brought up Pittsburgh. Gorgeous PNC Park debuted in 2001 and the Pirates drew 2,464,870 that season. Can Miami, which is a much larger market than Pittsburgh match or exceed that in 2012? The 2 stadiums will have a similar capacity. Prove me wrong Miami. Show me that you deserve a MLB franchise afterall.