In 1995, Jerry Reinsdorf said, "a savvy negotiator creates leverage."
In 2010, Peter Gammons said, MLB teams "need to be able to blackmail" cities.
In 2014, Milwaukee Bucks owner Herb Kohl said, the Sacramento Kings were helped to a new arena "by the drama with it all.”
And now, I've discovered this gem from Penguins legend/owner Mario Lemieux in 2008:
"We had to do a few things to put pressure on the city and the state, but our goal was to remain here in Pittsburgh all the way. Those trips to Kansas City and Vegas and other cities was just to go, and have a nice dinner and come back."
"(Pressure) was felt, and that was the important thing. A lot of things happened throughout the negotiations. Ups and downs. That was just a way for us to put more pressure, and we knew it would work at the end of the day," Lemieux said.Fans should take note of the 100:1 ratio of owner threats to owner relocations.
Noah, did it occur to you that these owners are downplaying their previous threats to leave the market to prevent alienating their fan base any further. Of course they're going to say this is where they always wanted to be. How would it look if Reinsdorf or Lemieux said they wished they were in St Pete or Kansas City.
ReplyDeleteSure. But if you are Mario Lemeiux with a new facility, why does it make more sense to say "we were just trying to scare you!" than saying "we were just doing what's best for the team?"
DeleteBecause one makes it sound as though he never had any intention of leaving Pittsburgh, where the other sounds as though they would have left if they didn't get the money. One makes the Pittsburgh fans feel special, the other makes them feel as though the team remained only for the money (even if that is the true case).
DeleteJust think, does a gold-digger tell her mark that she's only there for the money, or does she say she truly loves them.
Lets look at the 2 most recent examples of teams threatening to leave that the city called their bluff and gave no money to build a stadium/arena. The Montreal Expos and Seattle Supersonics. Its a good thing those were just empty threats, and the teams have remained happily in their crappy stadiums. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
Oakland disagrees with you. I'd say St. Pete does too at this point.
DeleteThere is no shortage of cities that have said no to subsidy demands for years, only to see the bill come down.
Deletethe 100:1 ratio is NOT 100 threats to 1 relocation. it is 100 cave-ins by governments to 1 bluff called. there is a difference.
ReplyDeletethe team doesnt move when the city/region caves in. but when they call the team's bluff, it doesn't turn out well (as David said with the 2 most recent examples in Montreal and Seattle)
the part Noah is missing is that St. Pete, like Montreal and Seattle, seems to have called its team's bluff. for the past 6 years it has denied the Rays the option of looking elsewhere in the area under the assumption that they must play in the Trop until 2027.
calling bluffs, like St. Pete has done, hasn't worked to the region's benefit in recent cases
In some cases, it would appear calling bluffs CAN be beneficial: http://thesportseconomist.com/2014/09/30/the-city-that-said-no-to-baseball/
DeleteMaybe even in the case of St. Pete, where calling a bluff on an ultimatum could result in a better deal later on.
So your beneficial case is a city that lost its team. Sure it may not have spent money on building a stadium, but they still LOST the team. I don't consider this "better". Your basically helping me prove the point that "calling their bluff" will lose the team.
DeleteNoah, the example you provided had Chandler, AZ losing its team anyway.. you could argue that the city "benefited" from this but i thought the issue here was whether the team relocates after the region calls its bluff.
Deleteas with Montreal and Seattle, Chandler ended up losing its team...
OK, then look at the cities such as Oakland and St. Pete that have not caved to teams' demands...and still have their teams.
Deleteoakland and st. pete are not great cases in terms of "still having their teams." despite having 10 and 12 years left at their respective stadiums, these cities are the two that are most talked about when it comes to mlb relocation.
Deletethis is because it is unrealistic to assume the coliseum and the trop are viable long term, and there hasnt been stadium progress in either case due to not caving in to the teams. sure they still have their teams, but can you say that will be true in 5 years with the current stadium situations? i cant
So Noah, what you're telling us is we don't need to worry about the Rays moving because they haven't moved yet. This is really helpful.
DeleteAll I'm saying is the anonymous poster above lends credibility to my "100 threats to every 1 relocation" comment.
Deletehow do i lend credibility to your comment? all i did was disagree with it
DeleteI gotta agree with Anon. What we've seen has been 100 threats with 96 cave ins, 2 moved teams, 2 teams still in limbo (Rays and A's).
DeleteOnce MLB took over running the Expos franchise because no strong owner candidate emerged it was only a matter of time until the franchise would be moved.
DeleteTo most working in the baseball industry Montreal was and still is the dark side of the moon.
MLB has not worked in Tampa Bay and look at the fiasco in Miami and that new stadium. You will eventually lose the Rays. Lets hope tax payers are smart enough not to flush money down the drain for a new stadium. People need to realize that it is time to move on and put MLB in this region out of its misery.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimple oversight not to note the Cobb County scam. Here are two entertaining articles: http://deadspin.com/braves-president-stadium-deal-had-to-be-done-in-secret-1582023678 http://deadspin.com/opponents-barred-from-speaking-as-cobb-county-approves-1582556255
ReplyDelete