What was the stupidest thing the three Johns did?

[Hawk]

Not only that, but how are they supposed to go about doing it?

Fans would crap themselves if Liberty took some of the budget and 'invested' into the community.

If you moved a baseball team to Atlanta, you wouldn't put it where Turner Field currently is. They took the location because they got the stadium for free. This is their chance to go where they want to go, so they're taking it.

If you're upset with someone for them leaving the city, it should overwhelmingly be the city itself, not the team.

It's not really that foreign of a concept; you scratch my back, I scratch yours. The City of Atlanta agrees to relax some form of taxation or zoning or revenue sharing and in turn the Braves make an 'investment' into the community by the way of a dual-use facility or a restaurant or simply expanding/rehabbing some of the areas around the stadium. Both parties benefit.

---

I don't think Cobb is even necessarily where the Braves 'want to go' -- it just so happens that the county's taxpayers were duped into paying for an extortionately high percentage of the new stadium and the team was given a sweetheart deal (full control of all revenue streams, free land, etc.) that some teams (St. Louis/Miami/Oakland) looked for/have been looking for for a very long time. In that sense, the move was a no-brainer. But in many other respects it is almost woeful.

 

[DirkPiggler]

It would have just made sense for the city to build a rail that goes to the TED like the airport rather than build a new stadium...

Both the city and team are at fault on this IMO. Braves could've wagered a public battle with the city to get a MARTA rail built plus have them sell the land to the team around the stadium so they could develop. That'd be a win win for everybody.

Adding a MARTA spur would have helped, but the location still wouldn't have been an ideal fit.

I don't know if you've ever been to a game in St. Louis, but they have an excellent set up for their stadium downtown. You can park your car at the hotel when you get to town, and not have to get into it again until you leave. Lodging, dining, and entertainment options are plentiful within easy walking distance. A Braves stadium sitting somewhere near the Georgia Dome could be the same type of attraction. While this wouldn't have helped with the problem of getting fans from the north suburbs to weeknight games, it might have helped draw in more out-of-town casual fans. People who are in town on vacation to see the other attractions would be more likely to take in a game if the stadium is easily accessible. Plus it could have helped spur even more downtown development, bringing in even more out-of-towners, etc.

 

[yeezus]

It's not really that foreign of a concept; you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

the thing about my back is, it's located on my dick.

 

[Hawk]

It would have made sense for the city to have built the Braves a stadium downtown, somewhere accessible both by MARTA and foot traffic. An entertainment district/ ballpark village like they're building in Cobb County would have been good for the team and the city. Not sure how it would have affected attendance - building out north might still have been the better solution for ticket sales.

Everybody likes to talk about how the Braves chief money-making demographic is North of Atlanta, but I feel like Metro/South Atlanta is one hugely untapped (read: racial) demo. I know the team probably (hopefully) did an ungodly amount of market research before choosing to uproot, but this move alienates several huge swaths of the fanbase.

The petite bourgeoisie are always going to come to baseball games.

 

[zitothebrave]

Well, it definitely was not trading Heyward for Miller.

My opinion is still the same. From a value perspective the Braves won, getting 4 years of Miller is almost certainly worth more than 1 year of Heyward. But from a marketing standpoint it is a disaster cause it send out a massive white flag and you're trading the face of the Franchise. If he walks via free agency he gets painted as a greedy traitor (see Glavine, Thomas) and the franchise looks less bad. Now the team looks like one who cares about saving money more than winning. And attendance will reflect it.

 

[thethe]

My opinion is still the same. From a value perspective the Braves won, getting 4 years of Miller is almost certainly worth more than 1 year of Heyward. But from a marketing standpoint it is a disaster cause it send out a massive white flag and you're trading the face of the Franchise. If he walks via free agency he gets painted as a greedy traitor (see Glavine, Thomas) and the franchise looks less bad. Now the team looks like one who cares about saving money more than winning. And attendance will reflect it.

The team cares about winning by TRADING Heyward.

 

[smootness]

It's not really that foreign of a concept; you scratch my back, I scratch yours. The City of Atlanta agrees to relax some form of taxation or zoning or revenue sharing and in turn the Braves make an 'investment' into the community by the way of a dual-use facility or a restaurant or simply expanding/rehabbing some of the areas around the stadium. Both parties benefit.

The Braves should 'rehab' the area around the stadium? That doesn't even make sense...what does that mean? They should build some better housing and develop the city?

Again, not their job and not something they can realistically do.

Building one restaurant would do zero to the area. You have to improve the area itself before just throwing new businesses into it.

 

[Hawk]

I don't know if you've ever been to a game in St. Louis, but they have an excellent set up for their stadium downtown. You can park your car at the hotel when you get to town, and not have to get into it again until you leave. Lodging, dining, and entertainment options are plentiful within easy walking distance.

I agree.

I read that the Braves chose Populous (architectural firm designing Cobb Stadium) because they liked the work that they did in St. Louis, hoping some of that magic rubs off in this development.

RE: Georgia Dome -- there has been so much development in those 10 square blocks of the city over the past two decades (centennial park/cnn center/aquarium/new stadium) but nothing seems to have taken in a way that has truly impacted the surrounding area. It's amazing really.

 

[smootness]

seriously? so every pro sports team has the right to hold their city hostage because their free 20 year old stadium isn't good enough? get the f out.

Hold the city hostage? How did the Braves do that? They saw that the city had done nothing in 50 years to help develop the area around the stadium, so they left. They didn't involve the city in that decision, they just did it.

It's not about the stadium, though Turner Field isn't great as a baseball-specific facility. It's about trying to egg more people at games consistently. The Braves feel they can do that better in the new location, and I agree.

 

[Hawk]

The Braves should 'rehab' the area around the stadium? That doesn't even make sense...what does that mean? They should build some better housing and develop the city?

Again, not their job and not something they can realistically do.

Building one restaurant would do zero to the area. You have to improve the area itself before just throwing new businesses into it.

Rehab. As in rehabilitate. You know, like plant trees, redesign public space utilized by fans, etc. There is a literal goldmine of highly utilizable real estate around Turner Field. For a variety of purposes.

I'm not suggesting that the team actively go and fix-up homes in the neighborhood. Don't be ludicrous.

Hypothetically, this would be a comprehensive plan to revitalize the area around the park, spearheaded by both the City and the team. It's great PR and, again, both parties benefit financially from such an undertaking.

Flash redevelopment is one of the primary reasons cities invest in professional sports teams.

But money talks, I think everybody here understands that.

 

[Hawk]

It's about trying to egg more people at games consistently. The Braves feel they can do that better in the new location, and I agree.

So in order to do this they slash the new stadium's capacity by almost 10,000 seats?

It's more about trying to maximize the spending habits of the average fan. A fan that they have targeted to be middle-class and white.

It's a money grab.

It seems like a lot of people are OK with that because they assume the money will be siphoned back onto the on-field product.

 

[smootness]

Rehab. As in rehabilitate. You know, like plant trees, redesign public space utilized by fans, etc. There is a literal goldmine of highly utilizable real estate around Turner Field. For a variety of purposes.

I'm not suggesting that the team actively go and fix-up homes in the neighborhood. Don't be ludicrous.

Hypothetically, this would be a comprehensive plan to revitalize the area around the park, spearheaded by both the City and the team. It's great PR and, again, both parties benefit financially from such an undertaking.

Flash redevelopment is one of the primary reasons cities invest in professional sports teams.

But money talks, I think everybody here understands that.

Well, again, it has to be the city who begins that process. Building a few trees does nothing to improve the area if the demographics remain the same.

You think the Braves haven't suggested or asked the city to help improve that area? The city clearly didn't feel it important to spend a dime to improve it. So again, if you're upset it should definitely be with the city first.

Would anyone ever suggest that the Lions or Tigers do something to turn Detroit around? No, because it makes no sense.

 

[smootness]

So in order to do this they slash the new stadium's capacity by almost 10,000 seats?

It's more about trying to maximize the spending habits of the average fan. A fan that they have targeted to be middle-class and white.

It's a money grab.

It seems like a lot of people are OK with that because they assume the money will be siphoned back onto the on-field product.

Well, sure. It is to increase attendance, as reducing overall capacity won't make that impossible by any means. But regardless, it is to increase revenues, yes.

Yes, I assume payroll will go up as revenues go up. And yes, I also realize that the inverse is true as well, so payroll needs to start going up even before revenues increase. But I don't know why any Braves fan would call for revenues to stay down, as though that way, payroll would definitely go up.

 

[Hawk]

Well, again, it has to be the city who begins that process. Building a few trees does nothing to improve the area if the demographics remain the same.

You think the Braves haven't suggested or asked the city to help improve that area? The city clearly didn't feel it important to spend a dime to improve it. So again, if you're upset it should definitely be with the city first.

Would anyone ever suggest that the Lions or Tigers do something to turn Detroit around? No, because it makes no sense.

"If the demographics remain the same..."

Eh, I'm not really sure I'd go with that language. Sounds like gentrification.

---

I don't dispute that the City is responsible for a great deal of the blame behind why the Braves are leaving Turner Field -- but I do think that cooler heads should have prevailed, and that the Braves might have been more creative in trying to work out a deal instead of marching in and demanding the same deal, atleast fiscally, that Cobb offered ... and then quickly accepting the framework of the Cobb deal once the ATL mayor hedged so as to avoid any sort of public outcry.

You use Detroit as an example, and it's an extreme one.

How about San Diego (Gas Lamp Quarter)? Pittsburgh (North Shore)? San Francisco? Cleveland? Miami? Seattle? Why was urban revitalization so important (and eventually extremely successful) for those teams?

 

[Hawk]

But I don't know why any Braves fan would call for revenues to stay down, as though that way, payroll would definitely go up.

Has anyone actually said that?

Or are you just drawing the conclusion that staying at Turner Field would have been an economic death rattle?

 

[zitothebrave]

So in order to do this they slash the new stadium's capacity by almost 10,000 seats?.

Most ballparks are smaller than Turner field. Turner Field is infact the 3rd largest stadium capacity wise in the majors. Behind Dodger and Coors. 41,500 puts it right aroudn Comerica, Nationals Park, Citi, Miller, AT&T, Minute Maid, GAB, Wrigley, and US Cellular. Baseball stadiums should be on the smaller side. Makes it more intimate and allows for better sightlines.

 

[Hawk]

Most ballparks are smaller than Turner field. Turner Field is infact the 3rd largest stadium capacity wise in the majors. Behind Dodger and Coors. 41,500 puts it right aroudn Comerica, Nationals Park, Citi, Miller, AT&T, Minute Maid, GAB, Wrigley, and US Cellular. Baseball stadiums should be on the smaller side. Makes it more intimate and allows for better sightlines.

Yes, I understand the business logic in reducing capacity but the post I quoted intonated that the goal was to get more people to the stadium.

It isn't exactly.

It's all about cost control. 40K coveted seats? Perfect. Controllable and predictable (expensive) ticket prices.

I'll keep my $500 front row upper-deck behind the home dugout season tickets at Turner, thank you. I'll probably end up paying $500 to go to three games at SunTrust.

By the way, Turner Field has spectacular sightlines. Better than many of the smaller stadiums I've been to IMO.

Intimacy is just a keyword for waiting in line for concessions and bathrooms. People rave about AT&T Park, and it is gorgeous, but it's like a sardine can.

 

[zitothebrave]

Yes, I understand the business logic in reducing capacity but the post I quoted intonated that the goal was to get more people to the stadium.

It isn't exactly.

It's all about cost control. 40K coveted seats? Perfect. Controllable and predictable (expensive) ticket prices.

I'll keep my $500 front row upper-deck behind the home dugout season tickets at Turner, thank you. I'll probably end up paying $500 to go to three games at SunTrust.

By the way, Turner Field has spectacular sightlines. Better than many of the smaller stadiums I've been to IMO.

Intimacy is just a keyword for waiting in line for concessions and bathrooms. People rave about AT&T Park, and it is gorgeous, but it's like a sardine can.

Valid points. I just agree with that overall direction.

When you look at the best ballpark lists. 2 basically always sit at th etop. PNC and AT&T. I think there's a good reason for that. It's cause of the overall experience there.

I get your attachment to Turner, but I think long term it will be similar to people's attachment in Philly to Veterans Stadium. Both CBP and Lincoln Financial are way better stadiums. But there's an emotional attachment. And I largely agree with you that the move was 100% about the money, I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing, but I also think that sports teams are a massive drain on a local economy. Detroit isn't making bank cause the Tigers and Redwings are.

 

[smootness]

"If the demographics remain the same..."

Eh, I'm not really sure I'd go with that language. Sounds like gentrification.

---

I don't dispute that the City is responsible for a great deal of the blame behind why the Braves are leaving Turner Field -- but I do think that cooler heads should have prevailed, and that the Braves might have been more creative in trying to work out a deal instead of marching in and demanding the same deal, atleast fiscally, that Cobb offered ... and then quickly accepting the framework of the Cobb deal once the ATL mayor hedged so as to avoid any sort of public outcry.

You use Detroit as an example, and it's an extreme one.

How about San Diego (Gas Lamp Quarter)? Pittsburgh (North Shore)? San Francisco? Cleveland? Miami? Seattle? Why was urban revitalization so important (and eventually extremely successful) for those teams?

I wasn't talking about race. But when people talk about improving an area of a city, they generally ultimately mean changing demographics (I'm talking mostly economically here).

With regard to the cities you mentioned, the only one I know much about is Pittsburgh...and they moved their stadium from a bad part of the city to a better location that they could more easily invest in...so pretty much exactly what the Braves are doing. People are just upset because it's not going to be located downtown, but it won't be far away, either.

I still don't understand how anyone thinks the Braves can stay in the same location and improve it just by throwing in a few restaurants.

 

[smootness]

Has anyone actually said that?

Or are you just drawing the conclusion that staying at Turner Field would have been an economic death rattle?

You said fans seem to be ok with revenues increasing because they think it will be put back into the team, and said it as though you don't agree.

So I have to assume you're ok with revenues staying as they are.