I agree that it's a revenue increaser. The attendance did go up at the end of the season after he was hyped and promoted. With that being said I doubt the additional revenue at the end of last month and the first couple of weeks this season is going to be that big of a deal. The same people you have talked to would still be mentioning Dansby a month from now if he was hyped and promoted then.
There's an argument to be had, no doubt. I have no issue with someone who disagrees with calling Dansby up when we did, and the reasons people have listed as negative consequences are, in fact, negative consequences.
My issue, and the general issue I have with a lot of the criticism of the FO on this board, is that there
is an argument to be had. It's not as simple as, 'Calling Dansby up last year cost us a few draft spots and a year of control, therefore it is a fact that it was a stupid move.'
As Enscheff himself said, it's not as though the Braves' FO didn't know the negative consequences of calling him up. So why would they do it? Well, there are positive consequences as well. I'm just trying to balance the discussion by talking about what those positive consequences may be.
The point you make is a good one, and should be considered. Will revenues increase that much more than would have happened opening a new stadium and then calling Dansby up later? I don't know, to be honest. There is also a risk that ending last year terribly with no hope and then starting this year with a similar roster alienates fans further, and you get the uptick in attendance initially but then they come once or twice and then stop because they don't believe the FO cares about winning.
Winning will generally solve your attendance problems, but in order to complete the rebuild and fill in gaps at the MLB level, we need payroll to increase sooner rather than later. So every little bit counts on some level.
