I get it. We might not be capable of spending with the Yankees and Red Sox. But if we keep harping on it then it permeates the minds of the players. And we don't want the players to think that we're at any competitive disadvantage.Archer's comments echo the longstanding theory on this blog that ownership's years of lamenting have created a self-fulfilling prophecy, of diminished fan interest in attending games.
If you bash it, they won't come.
Of course, the team's quick willingness to remind fans they may be considering a move to Montreal (as predicted here in 2009) does nothing to stop the attendance death spiral.
But the most interesting thing I read yesterday came from CBSSports.com. It's either the most insightful - or the most ignorant - paragraph on the Rays' future. Indiana-based Matt Snyder suggests he knows when the Rays' renegotiated TV deal - previously set to expire this offseason - will end, even though the team has refused to provide any details:
Getting a better television deal -- their current deal runs through 2018 -- and moving to the Tampa side in an outdoor (retractable roof?) stadium would probably help matters and enable the Rays to push up into the low-20s in payroll and that's probably all they'd need to be more consistently winning.Snyder's suggestion that the Rays' payroll would surpass 6-8 teams - if they only had a new stadium - also seems far-fetched. But weirder things have happened.
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook