OK, I am pretty sure the topic of the new financing proposal for the Marlins baseball-only stadium has been pretty well debated over these two days. However, I want to add another perspective to the topic.

 

One thing that really bothers me, besides the fact there is no definite location, is the disparity between the amount of seats this new stadium is supposed to have (38,000) with the $325 million it is expected to cost to build it. I spent a few hours doing some research on this (I even came up with a table) and found out a few interesting factors. First of all, without making emphasis between stadiums with retractable roof, domes, or open air, if this new stadium has only 38,000 seats it would mean that only one stadium has fewer seats than ours. That would be Fenway Park (Boston) with 34,218 seats (more seats were added before this season), a stadium that was built in 1912 for $650,000. Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs) was built in 1914 for $250,000 and has 38,902 seats, which means our new stadium might have 902 fewer seats. Don't look at the costs right now for these stadiums were built in the early 1900s. Just take into consideration the fact that we are going to have a stadium with more than 4000 seats and less than 900 seats than two stadiums built in the early 20th century... PNC Park (Pirates) was built in 2001 and has a seat-capacity of 38,365 and a cost of $262 million. All the other stadiums are on the average of 40,000+ seats, with at least 7 with 50,000 seats or more.

 

Now, regarding the price, I made emphasis only on those stadiums with retractable roofs. Of these, there is a total of 6 stadiums which are the following:

 

Enron Field/Minute Maid (Houston), built in 2000, 42,000 seats, $250 million

Miller Park (Milwaukee), built in 2001, 43,000 seats, $400 million

Olympic Stadium (Montreal), built in 1976, 43,739 seats, $1 Billion*

Safeco Field (Seattle), built in 1999, 46,621 seats, $517.6 M*

Bank One Ballpark (Phoenix), built in 1998, 48,569 seats, $349 M*

SkyDome (Toronto), built in 1989, 50,516 seats, $500 M

 

Now, we must eliminate Olympic Stadium from this list. Designed for the 1976 Olympic Games, it was not completed on time. Its roof stood half finished until 1987, and two years after it became retractable. Problems with opening and closing it led to its permanent closure, and was removed in 1998 and replaced with an immovable roof. Total costs reached one billion.

 

From the remaining 5 retractable-roof stadiums, SkyDome is the only one with a 50,000+ seat-capacity for $500 million. All the others have an average of 43,000-44,000 seats. Minute Maid Park (Houston) has 42,000 seats and cost $250 million or $75 million less than the new Marlins stadium. It was built in 2000 and prices are expected to be higher now, I can understand that. However, Bank One Ballpark (Arizona) was built in 1998, has 48,569 seats, and cost $349 million: almost 25 million more than what is planned for the Marlins stadium, but with almost 10,000 more seats. Ignore Safeco Field from this list, the people who built it didn?t plan for cost overruns and are still paying $100 million. The newest one is Miller Park (Brewers) and has 43,000 seats and cost $400 million. However, Miller Park also had financing problems and construction accidents which contributed to its final cost and delayed its opening. It was originally intended to cost $250 million.

 

In other words, I find the suggested price too high considering the amount of seats the new stadium is going to have. For that price, I would say that between 42,000 and 45,000 would be a far better number of seats than what we are currently looking at. It seems hard to believe that they are planning a 21st century baseball stadium with the capacity of an early 1900s stadium. Imagine if it was incredibly difficult to get tickets for the World Series in a 67,000+ seats stadium how hard could it be with only 38,000? Any thoughts?

i had posted the same thoughts on another thread. the reason this stadium costs so much is due to the retractable roof.

 

but i still don't like the fact that it'd be the 2nd smallest ballpark in baseball (2nd to fenway).

we need more seats!

I like having a smaller more comfortable stadium. Hopefully we'll keep the teal tower and the triangle but bring the walls in a little, if we do, I hope we keep D. Lee. He could average 40 homers if he stays until 2007!

There are only two things I would want to carry over to a new stadium: The Teal Tower, and the Oasis.

and make it an offensive park?

um...

speaking of walls...

 

a stadium with a large outfield is better for a "speed & pitching" team with a small payroll, while a stadium with a small outfield is better for a "power hitting" team with a large payroll. i could see management's logic when they got rid of preston and tried to build the team for speed & pitching.

 

IMO, this new stadium should also be built to cater to a team with a small payroll. we need to use this to our advantage as much as possible, so lets make it the biggest outfield in MLB.

The idea of a smaller ballpark is that when the bandwagoners jump off, the stadium won't look so empty with 15,000 in it. :lol

True. But if we keep the it the way the stadium is right now, I think we NEED a power hitting lefty.

agreed-alot of other teams do things to thier park for thier advantage-we should do the same.

You don't need more seats, Just like THe Phillies, The Marlins are going smaller instead of a huge 50,000 . I'd take comfort over Quantity anyday plus it means more parking spaces which could fix the problem of fans coming in late for games because of Traffic outside.

why would we need a power hitting lefty?-the wall in right field is far away-whil the wall in left is short-although we need another power guy-y does it have 2 b a lefty-a righty will be better since its shorter to left field.

Because we've been wanting a power hitting lefty for a while now and it's the only thing that we lack in our line-up. Not guy that hits 20-25 homers a year but someone who has occasional pop like.... TODD WALKER. The guy I've been wanting us to get since the World Series ended.

The guy I've been wanting us to get since the World Series ended.

You've been saying that for a long time, I guess... :lol

ok walker would be good for us-but its not bc hes a lefty.

him bieng a lefty has nothing to do with it.

BTW: Walker hit 13 home runs in 2003 at Fenway.

 

How do you think he'll fair at Pro Player!?

You've been saying that for a long time, I guess...

Yeah. A couple days now..... >_>

 

BTW: Walker hit 13 home runs in 2003 at Fenway.

 

How do you think he'll fair at Pro Player!?

 

He hit 6 homers in Fenway.

well look at it this way JP is a lefty-and look at how many hrs he hit at the Pro this past year-lol.

lmao. I think Walker would be a good addition though. He can hit the homer run, he doesn't strik out a lot, had lots of RBI's, and is what we need, A LEFTY. It makes all the sense in the world if we get him.

lmao. I think Walker would be a good addition though. He can hit the homer run, he doesn't strik out a lot, had lots of RBI's, and is what we need, A LEFTY. It makes all the sense in the world if we get him.

His numbers are padded because of the protection he had in the Boston batting order.

 

He would have no power at the Pro.

 

He doesn't K alot, but he doesn't walk, either.

You don't need more seats, Just like THe Phillies, The Marlins are going smaller instead of a huge 50,000 . I'd take comfort over Quantity anyday plus it means more parking spaces which could fix the problem of fans coming in late for games because of Traffic outside.

 

They'll then be complaining about how they can't raise enough revenue, becuase they don't have enough seats. Hell, the Red Sox are complaining about how few seats they have. They don't have to be able to seat 60,000, but 38,000 is ridiculoulsy small and short-sighted.

if theres gonna be 38,000 seats then im guessing the outfield should be spacious............

i had posted the same thoughts on another thread. the reason this stadium costs so much is due to the retractable roof.

 

but i still don't like the fact that it'd be the 2nd smallest ballpark in baseball (2nd to fenway).

Yes, I understand the difference is the retractable roof. That's why I only included in my last part of the analysis those retractable-roof stadiums built since 1998. The thing is that not only this park is going to be the 2nd-fewest in capacity, but that is going to be so in the year 2007, when your fan base (if the team remains competitive) is supposed to have increased in relation to 2004. 38,000 seats are not enough right now, neither they are going to be 3 or 4 years down the road. Simple as that...

His numbers are padded because of the protection he had in the Boston batting order.

 

He would have no power at the Pro.

 

He doesn't K alot, but he doesn't walk, either.

 

Seriously, our line-up 0wnz the Red Sox line up. We played against the NL East where every team, even the Mets, have good pitching. They have the Blue Jays, Devil Rays, and Orioles. He would have minimal power at the Pro and it's not like all 162 games are here.

but 38,000 is ridiculoulsy small and short-sighted.

The Red Sox are complaining because they sell-out just about every night, and have the most loyal fans in the game.

 

WE have trouble getting 20K to a game. 38,000 is not a ridiculously small number at all, at least for this franchise.