Ema2R Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Hanley Ramirez and Jeffrey Loria (Getty Images North America via @daylife) The Miami Marlins’ 2012 reinvention – new name, new uniforms, new ballpark, new players, and a very entertaining new manager – has the club on course to set a modern record. A record for lowest attendance for the first year of a new ballpark in the 21st century. Miami’s trade of Hanley Ramirez to the Dodgers – a deal that, given the paucity of talent the team got in return was clearly aimed at offloading the remaining $38 million on the third baseman’s contract – is the clearest sign yet that a new ballpark was never going to cure what ails the South Florida baseball market. The Ramirez deal evokes memories of past frustrations Marlins fans endured when they watched the team bid adieu to talented players like A.J. Burnett,Miguel Cabrera , Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell, presumably because the club’s outdated ballpark, Sun Life Stadium, wasn’t generating enough revenue to keep them. Fans stayed away in droves – why get excited about up and coming players when you know they won’t be staying long? A new $600 million ballpark, financed mostly with public money, was supposed to change all that. It hasn’t, which is why the Ramirez deal isn’t particularly stunning, unfortunately. The Marlins are on pace to draw 2.2 million fans this season, a nice percentage increase from last year’s paltry 1.5 million but still a figure that would distinguish them as the worst-drawing club at a new ballpark since the start of the modern buiding era that kicked off with Chicago‘s new Comiskey Park and Baltimore‘s Camden Yards in the early 1990s. The last club to draw less over a full season: the 1982 Minnesota Twins, who got under a million when they moved into the Metrodome ( the 1994Cleveland Indians,who moved into Jacobs Field in a strike-shortened year, and the 1999 Seattle Mariners, who opened Safeco Field in mid-season, drew less than the Marlins in those partial years). All this despite the fact that the Marlins play in MLB’s eighth-largest market (fourth-largest among one-team towns). And with the team now going nowhere and dumping Ramirez, the final tally will probably be less. Teams opening new parks generally expect better. Six franchises (Giants, Phillies, Twins, Padres, Yankees and Mets) eclipsed the 3 million mark in attendance the year each opened a new yard. All of them realized major gains from the prior year except for the Mets and Yankees. There’s a reason for the New York clubs being exceptions – both had drawn over 4 million during strong 2008 seasons in their old stadiums, and both built new business plans around lower capacity and higher prices for 2009 (a plan that worked out better for the Yankees, as the Mets quickly crashed on the field and watched Bernie Madoff drain their financial reserves). Other clubs that came up short of 3 million, nearly all of which play in markets smaller than Miami, still outdid the Marlins projected total. The Milwaukee Brewers drew 2.8 million fans when they opened Miller Park in 2001, up from 1.5 million at Country Stadium the previous year. The Pittsburgh Pirates jumped to 2.4 million at PNC Park the same season, an improvement from 1.7 million at Three Rivers Stadium. The Cincinnati Reds (2003) and Washington Nationals (2008) drew 2.3 million fans when they opened – not great but still better than the 2012 Marlins, a club thought to have better prospects on the field in addition to a bigger market. It may be time to admit that the market just isn’t making it. South Florida’s weather and plethora of recreation choices make baseball a tough sell. Median income is low. The Marlins’ park still lacks a naming rights sponsor – what does it say that no company stepped up to tap into the local excitement of the reinvented Marlins? Basically, that there’s little excitement. Meantime, the club’s television deal with Fox Sports Florida, which doesn’t expire until after the 2020 season, pays less than $20 million annually. Ramirez, once the young prospect the Marlins got from the Red Sox for Lowell and Beckett in 2006, was supposed to be the one who stayed. But now he’s gone. Owner Jeff Loria might love to follow him, but he’s probably stuck where he is. Who’s going to tolerate turning a $600 million, publicly funded stadium into a white elephant after one season? http://www.forbes.co.../?feed=rss_home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Should we be surprised? Marlins are last in attendance nearly every year. The FO new the only way to change that was to WIN. The way they've been playing it's hard for me to even watch them on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ema2R Posted July 29, 2012 Author Share Posted July 29, 2012 Sorry guys could post the entire title. It should be: Miami Marlins Drawing Fewest Fans At A First-Year Ballpark In Three Decades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnellders Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Seems he is forgetting some of these other ballparks have 10,000 more seats which translates to another 800,000 fans a season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 entire title. It should be: Miami Marlins Drawing Fewest Fans At A First-Year Ballpark In Three Decades Whoever wrote the title, probably some editor (writers rarely get to write their titles) obviously didn't actually read the article. What it says is: A record for lowest attendance for the first year of a new ballpark in the 21st century. That would be the last 12 years, not the last 3 decades. Confirming that is: The last club to draw less over a full season: the 1982 Minnesota Twins (...) the 1994 Cleveland Indians (...) the 1999 Seattle Mariners. That would be 3 teams who drew less than the Marlins in new stadiums in the last 30 years. Hardly consistent with the title. There's another factual problem. Marlins' attendance through 53 home games is 1,506,167 or 28,418/game, an annual rate of 2,301,877. Not 2.2 million, as the article claims. http://espn.go.com/m.../_/sort/homePct Anyway, getting back to 12, not 30 years, there's: The Pittsburgh Pirates jumped to 2.4 million at PNC Park the same season [2001] (...) The Cincinnati Reds (2003) and Washington Nationals (2008) drew 2.3 million fans when they opened That would be 3 teams who drew the same or similar numbers (within ~1K/game) in new stadiums in the 21st century. And, it's quite possible, even likely that those 2 or 3 teams will turn out to have drawn less in the last 12 years -- the season is only 60% over. Who knows what promotions the Marlins will come up with to juice attendance? They might even win some games with a combination of new talent and existing talent fearing for their jobs. In any case, 2 or 3 teams with lower attendance in new stadiums in the last 12 years would make the article look even sillier than it already does. The title claim of 30 years is obviously not true, nor is the actual claim of 12 years -- 12 years not only ain't over, the Marlins equal 2 of those 3 teams at this point. Finally, shall we examine the state of the economy when all of those other stadiums opened? Nope, that would be beyond the limited scope of this ridiculous article -- the purpose of which is to trash the Marlins. Forbes can't be bothered to mention that only the Nationals opened a stadium in an economy similar to when the Marlins opened -- namely, the same crud economy we've experienced since 2008. That couldn't possibly depress attendance a bit, could it? The Forbes hack even tried to hide the fact that most of the stadium is being paid for by tourists. He called them "taxpayers" -- which they certainly are -- without mentioning the hotel bed tax or the fact that it is paid almost exclusively by tourists who aren't local taxpayers, the favorite whipping-boy of many of the intentionally ignorant slobs and liars who write about this team. See how they do that? Other than of all those major errors, it's a superb article. If I printed it out, I'd certainly consider it worthy of serving as something my dog could relieve herself on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoBob27 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Seems he is forgetting some of these other ballparks have 10,000 more seats which translates to another 800,000 fans a season. If those other clubs were selling out (they weren't), or if you figured attendance by how many people don't show up (very silly), this statement would be worth noting. It just means they had 10,000 more empty seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoBob27 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 entire title. It should be: Miami Marlins Drawing Fewest Fans At A First-Year Ballpark In Three Decades Whoever wrote the title, probably some editor (writers rarely get to write their titles) obviously didn't actually read the article. What it says is: A record for lowest attendance for the first year of a new ballpark in the 21st century. That would be the last 12 years, not the last 3 decades. Confirming that is: The last club to draw less over a full season: the 1982 Minnesota Twins (...) the 1994 Cleveland Indians (...) the 1999 Seattle Mariners. That would be 3 teams who drew less than the Marlins in new stadiums in the last 30 years. Hardly consistent with the title. The article is definetly going far one way. You are going far the other way. The Indians were a strike shortened season and the Mariners moved in at mid season, yet you are counting those as full seasons. I think the 3 decades is factual. Plus, I think the 2.2 mil estimate is going to be on the high side. But, just to be fair, let's reopen this discussion AFTER the season. And no, you can't say we outdrew 29 other teams' half season totals with our full season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I think the 3 decades is factual. Huh? It's quite obviously not true and not the least bit factual. Read what I said again. After you get past the 30 year BS to the 12 year BS, then we can talk. Plus, I think the 2.2 mil estimate is going to be on the high side. The actual number is 2.3, not 2.2. Whether that is high remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Some clown headline-writer at Forbes says we have the worst new-stadium attendance in 30 years. Totally false. The article itself clearly says otherwise. The article claims we have the worst attendance for new stadiums in 12 years, with 40% of the season yet to go, using an underestimate of attendance. Likely false, and even if true, it's by a few dozen fans per game. Who would possibly care about such a distinction, other than the usual suspects who love to trash the Marlins? No matter what the morons in the press concoct in the way of bogus attacks, the Marlins are here for the next 35-40 years. They need to get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Punisher Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I'm sorry to say this cause I was born and raised in Florida, but Florida fans are mostly made out of Bandwagon fans. I'm sorry, it doesn't reflect any of you obviously but look at the Miami Heat, they always had fans but once they got the BIG 3, suddenly eve facebook had people you never knew were there when it was just Wade and Haslem. Same with the Marlins, at the start of the season people were all over the network sites raving, and now they have disappeared. It's looking more and more like baseball in South Florida may need to come to an end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdy_0513 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I didnt read the article because it was clear what direction it was going. When we were winning, we drew crowds. When we started losing, that changed. We're not the Cubs...Miami isnt going to fill a stadium consistently for a sh*tty team...pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I didnt read the article because it was clear what direction it was going. When we were winning, we drew crowds. When we started losing, that changed. We're not the Cubs...Miami isnt going to fill a stadium consistently for a sh*tty team...pretty simple. If the Marlins win they draw crows and if they lose then they don't...But before either of that happened people didn't show up even to check out the new stadium. Opening day was sold out but after that the Marlins second highest attendance was last week for camp day. Absolutely pathetic. How could a team not sell out their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. games at a new ballpark? The Marlins are to blame for not winning-but the fans are also to blame because they didn't really show up from the beginning to give them support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcFishFan Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Seems he is forgetting some of these other ballparks have 10,000 more seats which translates to another 800,000 fans a season. Only relevant if the Marlins were coming close to selling out what seats they have. Which they aren't. In fact, the fact that the Marlins new stadium have 10,000 fewer seats should -- in theory -- stoke demand because of the reduced supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poptart Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 The article claims we have the worst attendance for new stadiums in 12 years, with 40% of the season yet to go, using an underestimate of attendance. attendance is going to be awwwwwful for the rest of the season. seen any $1 tickets on stubhub? I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeroFishOne Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 The team cant really be relocated at this point can it, if attendance continues around the same for years. (can some one clarify?) Maybe Loria gets pissed off and sales the team. That should make tHe FO haters happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 The article claims we have the worst attendance for new stadiums in 12 years, with 40% of the season yet to go, using an underestimate of attendance. attendance is going to be awwwwwful for the rest of the season. seen any $1 tickets on stubhub? I have. Yeah, but then you have to pay like $6 because of the service fee. Better off just going to the stadium and buying a tic there for a buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canada-marlin24 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Im at the game now. Still filling in but not overwhelming for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchoftheday Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 how can the marlins and FO expect to have fans in the stands ... thanks for spending the money for 2 - 3 months then off loading it like you always do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yokofox33 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 how can the marlins and FO expect to have fans in the stands ... thanks for spending the money for 2 - 3 months then off loading it like you always do. We've always spent money and then traded those players off 3 months later? Last time I checked Reyes, Buehrle, and Bell are still on the team... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Attendance on Friday night was 23k. That's pretty pathetic for a weekend night, but totally understandable considering how terrible the Marlins offense has been. I really can't blame fans for not going to the games now-only blame them for not showing up in April before the struggles really began. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchoftheday Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 how can the marlins and FO expect to have fans in the stands ... thanks for spending the money for 2 - 3 months then off loading it like you always do. We've always spent money and then traded those players off 3 months later? Last time I checked Reyes, Buehrle, and Bell are still on the team... Just the offloading part not the spending money Marlins will NEVER have the support of the fans ... NEVER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 how can the marlins and FO expect to have fans in the stands ... thanks for spending the money for 2 - 3 months then off loading it like you always do. They should've kept the same exact crappy team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I think if the Marlins were scoring a lot of runs but losing because of their pitching than attendance would be a lot better. People enjoy offense-seeing runs scored. Watching your team lose 10-8 feels a lot better than watching them lose 3-1. Excluding the 9-5 win against the Cubs, in the last 19 games the Marlins have scored just 36 runs. That's less than 2 runs per game. Just awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I think if the Marlins were scoring a lot of runs but losing because of their pitching than attendance would be a lot better. People enjoy offense-seeing runs scored. Watching your team lose 10-8 feels a lot better than watching them lose 3-1. Excluding the 9-5 win against the Cubs, in the last 19 games the Marlins have scored just 36 runs. That's less than 2 runs per game. Just awful. I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchoftheday Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 how can the marlins and FO expect to have fans in the stands ... thanks for spending the money for 2 - 3 months then off loading it like you always do. They should've kept the same exact crappy team. at least give it a chance to not be a crappy team Reyes has underperformed Bell has underperformed Lomo has underperformed Gaby Sanchez has underperformed JJ has underperformed Hanley has underperformed thats half of your position players, your star ace and your closer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.