Monday, June 15, 2015

The Surprising Rays Stadium Graph the Tampa Bay Times Didn't Print

This weekend, the Tampa Bay Times editorial board opined how the city of St. Pete was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (in opportunity cost) by choosing to keep the Rays at Tropicana Field rather than redevelop the stadium's 85-acre footprint into something else.

I wrote how the editorial was rife with huge - and all-too-convenient - assumptions to bolster the paper's cheerleading for a new stadium in Tampa.

But, for fun, let's use the Times' same assumptions and look at a different chart - one they didn't publish (click to enlarge):
Disclaimer: This uses the same flawed assumptions the Times used in its Sun. editorial
Disclaimer 2: Don't confuse transparency and perspective for advocacy.

Economic assumptions aside, if the Times contends St. Pete would be better off without baseball, you have to assume the same for Downtown Tampa - a city that already has Lightning games, major concerts, arena football, and convention events 75+ times a year.
If St. Pete stands to lose economic impact by simply keeping the Rays, Tampa would stand to lose even more by keeping the Rays and having to pay for a new stadium.  That goes especially for the 2017-2019 years, where the city might potentially be spending money to build a stadium without holding a single event there.

So readers, before you click that "comment" button, remember, this isn't advocating anything other than transparency and perspective.  But if you're going to jump on the Times' editorial bandwagon, you'd better have some better reasons to do so than a silly graph.

A brief history of Times editorials on the Stadium Saga:
The history goes further back than that, but for a good synopsis, watch my 2010 piece on newspapers cheerleading for new stadium projects

   



FOLLOW:
Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

12 comments:

  1. "If St. Pete stands to lose economic impact by simply keeping the Rays, Tampa would stand to lose even more by keeping the Rays and having to pay for a new stadium. "

    Well, if that's the case then, why prolong the agony. Release the Rays from the onerous UA and let them move to Montreal asap!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's what the Rays and the newspaper want you to think. They want you to place less value on the Rays being here, so that you (we) will accept less in exchange for their departure (to Tampa or elsewhere). The ticket nonsense, the statistical cherrypicking nonsense, it's all the same campaign. When they try to make the franchise look undesirable, they are trying to lower the settlement amount. What a bizarre position for the cheerleaders at the Times, who sang such a different song in the late 1980s. Mr. Pransky's willingness to spend the time to call BS on the statistics is much appreciated. Someone out there can do an analysis of the damage to the MLB brand resulting from litigation with one of its host (in the biological sense) cities. That brand damage is quantifiable and ought to be part of the settlement calculation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "That brand damage is quantifiable and ought to be part of the settlement calculation."

    I suppose you could use Washington DC for that - twice seeing they lost their team twice OR ask Montreal what the brand damage was...

    But seriously, if you believe that there will be "brand damage" to MLB if they decide to do what is in the best interest of the sport and get the Rays out of TB, you're drinking too much St Pete's kool-aid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://cnsmaryland.org/2015/04/03/nationals-park-spurs-neighborhoods-growth/

      http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21192667/fox-5-investigates-nationals-park-winner-or-loser

      http://www.mercurynews.com/giantsheadlines/ci_6326258

      http://populous.com/posts/stadiums-that-shape-downtowns-the-impact-of-stadiums-on-urban-redevelopment/

      "We can keep going on proving this blog & it's follows of the same ideology WRONG..."

      Delete
    2. Tampa is going to make lots of money having MLB games 81+ days a year in it's backyard...

      Ask yourself, is there a Pier House or Sky House or Marriott if there isn't an Amalie (St.Pete/Tampa bay Times) Arena? Is there an Arena w/out the Lightning?

      What if St. Pete never got the (Devil) Rays? What would they of done with the Trop?

      Delete
    3. "Tampa is going to make lots of money having MLB games 81+ days a year in it's backyard..."

      Yeah - just like DC has (projected $24M actual $12.5M) and that's with the ball park filled and huge interest in the team... There's ZERO interest in the Rays in St Pete or Tampa.... time to cut the fishing chord and throw them back in the water and let Montreal fish em out!

      Delete
    4. Yes, Dufala, there are Downtown Tampa establishments without the arena....but don't take my word for it....take Charlotte's...or St. Pete's...or Providence's...or Fort Myers'...

      Delete
    5. Wayda try to use Minor League parks to make a Major League point, that's "bush league", lol.
      And of there is "establishments", I said places like "Sky or Pier House"? Fergs? Does Tampa get a player like Vinik w/out the Lightning or does Jax get Khan? Does Tampa get the record breaking "bed tax" w/out Amalie or all the revenue from all the other taxes including property?

      Delete
    6. And to "Anonymous", they said there going to payoff the stadium way ahead of schedule + ALL the development that the park helped, though it took some time...

      It's funny, I keep debunking your Negative Nancy opinions & yinz keep trying...

      I can't wait til' it happens, and people like Noah will have to report positive facts on having MLB in downtown Tampa 10 years from now (5 til' opening & 5 more to have the ball rolling)...

      Delete
    7. Yes, Tampa breaks the bed tax record - most counties around here are even without stadiums. And most people don't come to Tampa for pro sports - they come for weather, conferences, family, etc.

      Delete
  4. I forgot, we suppose to think no investment is worth it & the price of progress never works...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "And to "Anonymous", they said there going to payoff the stadium way ahead of schedule + ALL the development that the park helped, though it took some time..."

    Sure they will..... keep drinking the kool-aid

    ReplyDelete