|
Post by Hannu Smail on Feb 4, 2014 20:06:17 GMT -6
First, the prospects question. The Jays traded Jacob Marisnick and Justin Nicolino in the Marlins deal. Then they traded Travis d'Arnaud and Noah Syndegaard to the Mets in the Dickey deal. Check where those prospects rank on their new respective teams. Now check where the Jays ranked in the last few years before those deals. They went all-in and the trades didn't work out, thus the low ranking now and the need to rebuild the system with stud prospects. Rolled the dice and lost there.
What did I make up? You said very clearly you'd take Loria over Rogers as owner. That right there sets the alarm bells off as Loria is the worst owner in sports, and a terrible human. It makes it hard, for me, to take the rest of your points in a reasonable manner. Perhaps that's more on me than you, I'll admit to that. But go ahead and google "Miami Marlins stadium scandal" and read up - though I'm sure you already have.
I don't understand how you can say the Jays championship drought makes them the worst organization in the league. That makes little sense. How are your Cubs doing in that regard? How was Boston before 2004? Were they in the running for the abysmal franchise title?
How can you say attendance is not on the rise? I see 3 straight seasons of increases. I agree they probably won't see an average of 30,000+ again due to last season's steaming dump of a year.
Why won't the Jays ever move? For the same reason you say the team sucks. Rogers. The Jays are content for them. They provide 162 nights of programming every year for their TV property, unlimited advertising space, and a platform to pimp all of the products under the Rogers umbrella. Greasy for Jays fans, but the reality. The day the Jays are sold by Rogers to a foreign interest is the day this conversation can even begin. But not before that.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 4, 2014 23:15:23 GMT -6
You know what, I forgot about the Dickey/D'Arnaud trade. My fault. I actually warned Wolfmanick a year ago d'Arnaud could come back to haunt the Jays. Still even with the guys the Jays traded away before that they haven't exactly done a great job developing prospects. Name all the great players the Jays developed the last 20 years besides Halladay. They Jays haven't exactly been the Tampa Rays in terms of developing prospects.
What you made up was you made it sound like I thought Loria was good. That wasn't what I said. Loria is a crap owner and as you say an awful human being along with his ####@@@ stepson David Sampson. Still even as awful as those 2 guys are they did win a world series and they did get a modern retro park(though not the best retro park or the best financed) so someday when the franchise does get a real owner(a rich latin American would be nice) they won't be handicapped and Miami will be able to be the best possible market it can be. Now that don't say much or excuse what these 2 @#### have done but it's something. I'd much rather have that then be stuck in a cookie cutter long term producing lower 1/3rd revenue at best indefinately.
You are responding too emotionally to what I said. My main points still stand. Correct them if they are wrong.
My point on why the Jays are the worst organization wasn't just the 2nd longest playoff drought. It was
1. A long playoff drought in the 4th biggest market. I could see if Toronto had small demographics like a Kansas City(2.3M people) but to have 8.7M and that type of drought is terrible. Especially in the wild card era. A sign of an awful organization.
2. No major moves to shake things up. How can Paul Beeston keep his job? Even the Cubs under the horrible Tribune Company fired Andy MacPhail as club president after too much losing yet Beeston keeps on going. He will still be the Jays president 10-20 years from now. No accountability.
3. No other team in any sport is about to do what the Jays are doing regarding rehabbing/putting lip stick on an old pig. They are giving themselves a horrible handicap long term. Not even good old Jeff has ever done something this stupid. All Jeff's mistakes can be undone in a few years when he sells the team.
4. The only big city team in MLB that produces small market/lower 2/3rd market revenues other than Oakland and unlike the A's they wish to remain that way.
My Cubs have been a horrible organization but they've made the playoff every once in a while. 84,89, 98, 03, 07, 08. They had the best record in 08 but choked in 03 they came close but had some bad luck:) At least for all the losing the Cubs have done they remained a big market revenue wise due to Wrigley Field. Since 98 on at worst the Cubs have drawn 32,000 plus. Currently under new ownership they've done a good job rebuilding the farm system, it's one of the top in baseball plus they've traded for Anthony Rizzo and locked him up long term.
For Boston prior to 04 same thing. Great attendance, lots of playoff appearances, lots of bad luck. Big market revenues!!!
So my point is the Jays not only lose on the field but off the field too revenue wise compare to what they should have given they are the 4th biggest market. It's the entire mentality of the organization that is bad. It starts from the top down. It's lets settle for high 70s low 80s in wins and mid 20,000 attendance and lower 1/3rd revenues in a cookie cutter outdated stadium and lets change nothing up and keep doing the same thing over and over. Hey were the only Canadian team now that's good enough everyone should accept that.
Your 2nd to last paragraph proves my point about Rogers and mediocrity. They probably won't average over 30,000 for a long time. That's terrible for a big market. They will be back to mid 20,000ish in attendance and you don't have a problem with that? Your getting too used to low expectations set by a bad organization/team president.
TV might be what saves the Jays. That's the one thing the Expos 1.0 didn't have. Still what if long term attendance drops/ratings go down? It could happen. What's the point of being a Blue Jays fan? They don't win and unlike most of the other teams the stadium experience sucks. Rogers might get the idea of hey this team loses too much $$$, our ratings have been dropping from 2013 to 2034, MLB won't give us revenue sharing the government won't build us a new stadium we could have had a retro park back around 2014ish but we choose to subsidize the Buffalo Bills instead of giving the Jays a well deserved new stadium. Nothing we can do now. We will sell to this group from Charlotte since the city has gotten so big. We will take the money from the Jays and spend it on buying/renewing hockey TV deals both locally and nationally and fill our content that way. Won't happen anytime soon obviously but what about a couple decades from now? Think this is crazy. Former Blue Jays/Expos catcher Michael Barrett said the same thing. Basically the Blue Jays are on a bad road and if they are not careful they may wind up as the Expos.
Maybe this is a little drastic but even if the Jays don't move at best they will FOREVER be stuck as a lower 1/3rd market low attendance team in a bad stadium under Rogers that plays in a huge market. For that reason alone Rogers is the worst owner in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Feb 4, 2014 23:57:02 GMT -6
OK, I'm ready to talk like an adult now, haha...
1. You just can't compare the Jays situation with the playoff drought to teams like the Cubs, the Reds, the Pirates, the A's, anyone.... because they've played for years in the AL East, the toughest division in baseball. You can't compete financially with the Yankees and Red Sox, and what the Rays have been able to do is amazing. But as much as everyone tries to emulate what Tampa has done/is doing, nobody can match what they do. It's really remarkable.
2. ... but you're talking like Beeston has been there for years on end! He hasn't been. Sure, he's about 4 or 5 years into his 2nd run (too lazy/tired to look it up), but the club was mismanaged for years before that under Paul Godfrey as club prez (and not sure before him) before Beeston came back, and cleaned house of the management who was running that show of mediocrity (Gord Ash, JP Ricciardi, etc). So what Rogers did was bring back the last guy to have success - he was at the helm for the World Series teams. (edit: he was President from 89-97, left, came back in 2008. So he was hardly responsible for a long stretch of post-92/93 mediocrity)
3. I agree about the Dome. I don't have an easy answer for that one.
4. I don't see how you can assert they are settling/managing for on-field mediocrity. By god, they decimated their well-stocked farm system to take a run at it all last year! They were the Vegas betting favorites, the darlings of the offseason last year, and predicted by MANY baseball pundits as the World Series favorites in 2013. How/why? Because they took on big payroll to try and build a team to do it. And it failed SPECTACULARLY. But I refuse to accept the assertion that they settle for mediocre results. Clearly they were going for it. Now the club is stuck in no-man's land, with big underachieving payroll and a real lack of upcoming talent.
I think the TV tie in with Rogers can help, actually. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the Jays always do big numbers on the broadcasts, and interest (and ratings) spiked in a big way last season when the casual Canadian baseball fan bought into the buzz. Just imagine the success if it actually came to fruition on field. That's why I think Rogers has a vested interest in fielding a winner.
You have so many ifs and buts with such a long timeline (20 years) that you could apply that to any team in the league save the Yankees and Red Sox. What if Tampa doesn't get a new park. What if Oakland doesn't either. What if people decide to quit going to games in San Diego because they never win anyway. Same for the Royals and Indians. What if Wrigley falls down one day. You know? It's easy to say 'what if' and apply a 20 year timeline and say you might be right one day.
What if the Jays add a starting pitcher or two, stay healthy, Jose Reyes wins the batting title, Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion combine for 80 HR, and Brett Lawrie becomes George Brett en route to winning the World Series this year? What if that spurs Rogers into cashing in on the hype and re-visiting the stadium idea? Cuts both ways, this game.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 5, 2014 20:50:07 GMT -6
OK, I'm ready to talk like an adult now, haha...
1. You just can't compare the Jays situation with the playoff drought to teams like the Cubs, the Reds, the Pirates, the A's, anyone.... because they've played for years in the AL East, the toughest division in baseball. You can't compete financially with the Yankees and Red Sox, and what the Rays have been able to do is amazing. But as much as everyone tries to emulate what Tampa has done/is doing, nobody can match what they do. It's really remarkable.
2. ... but you're talking like Beeston has been there for years on end! He hasn't been. Sure, he's about 4 or 5 years into his 2nd run (too lazy/tired to look it up), but the club was mismanaged for years before that under Paul Godfrey as club prez (and not sure before him) before Beeston came back, and cleaned house of the management who was running that show of mediocrity (Gord Ash, JP Ricciardi, etc). So what Rogers did was bring back the last guy to have success - he was at the helm for the World Series teams. (edit: he was President from 89-97, left, came back in 2008. So he was hardly responsible for a long stretch of post-92/93 mediocrity)
3. I agree about the Dome. I don't have an easy answer for that one.
4. I don't see how you can assert they are settling/managing for on-field mediocrity. By god, they decimated their well-stocked farm system to take a run at it all last year! They were the Vegas betting favorites, the darlings of the offseason last year, and predicted by MANY baseball pundits as the World Series favorites in 2013. How/why? Because they took on big payroll to try and build a team to do it. And it failed SPECTACULARLY. But I refuse to accept the assertion that they settle for mediocre results. Clearly they were going for it. Now the club is stuck in no-man's land, with big underachieving payroll and a real lack of upcoming talent.
I think the TV tie in with Rogers can help, actually. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the Jays always do big numbers on the broadcasts, and interest (and ratings) spiked in a big way last season when the casual Canadian baseball fan bought into the buzz. Just imagine the success if it actually came to fruition on field. That's why I think Rogers has a vested interest in fielding a winner.
You have so many ifs and buts with such a long timeline (20 years) that you could apply that to any team in the league save the Yankees and Red Sox. What if Tampa doesn't get a new park. What if Oakland doesn't either. What if people decide to quit going to games in San Diego because they never win anyway. Same for the Royals and Indians. What if Wrigley falls down one day. You know? It's easy to say 'what if' and apply a 20 year timeline and say you might be right one day.
What if the Jays add a starting pitcher or two, stay healthy, Jose Reyes wins the batting title, Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion combine for 80 HR, and Brett Lawrie becomes George Brett en route to winning the World Series this year? What if that spurs Rogers into cashing in on the hype and re-visiting the stadium idea? Cuts both ways, this game.
1. I'd buy this excuse if the Jays were a small market and were stuck with the Yankees and Redsox. But Toronto has no excuse. They are a big market themselves. Now it's not fair to expect Yankee, Dodger, Red Sox or even Cub revenues but they should produce San Francisco, Texas, St. Louis type revenues and be 10th(ish) in revenues. That wouldn't make things 100% even but the gap would be closed greatly. My example on what the Rays do was a bad example because it's impossible almost to expect that but over the last 20 years the Jays should have produced a lot more prospects. Still you bring up an excellent point! Unless you can produce prospects at a Rays type level it's hard to keep up with lower 1/3rd revenue. If that gap closed with a new park you wouldn't have to produce prospects at warp speed. So you have to blame the organization for putting the Jays in that position for no good reason what so ever. The AL east is murder. You can leave any $$$ on the table. 2. You got me on this one. I looked it up last night too and was going to edit that part of my post but you already replied so I went to bed. I thought Beeston was around since like 06. Still his current run sucks(other than bringing back the old time uniforms). No winning, he gambled on a big trade and lost(it seems). He should be held accountable. Especially if things don't improve in a couple more years. And I have to ask, how responsible is Beeston for the 92,93 series and how responsible was Pat Gillick? 3. This is my main point in all this. Even if the Jays do start producing some stud prospects there's going to be a massive gap financially between them and the big boys. For no good reason. Toronto is a big market with great fans. There is no other organization doing something this bizarre. It's just baffling. Hey we play in the AL east with 2 financial giants, plus a prospect producing machine. What can we do to make things harder on ourselves? I know lets dump $250M on a piece of junk and remain a small revenue producing team. Just brilliant! 4. They went for it 1 freaking time in 20 years. I'll give them credit for last year even though it blew up spectacularly but what about all the other years? What about all the future years when the are going to be handicapped by the dome? I actually could see Oakland or Tampa failing. I don't predict it but you never know until a shovel is in the ground anyplace. Cleveland won't move. They've been around since the 1903. They actually got a nice little local TV deal for a small market. Plus Cleveland is going to try and extend the sin tax to do further renovations to their park. Main thing for Cleveland is they have a real park. Same with San Diego. And they have the best small market TV deal in MLB. 60M per year. Since Petco opened they've drawn just under 30,000 average despite having only 3.1M people. Padres have a good shot at becoming the only 1 team market in baseball since I don't see the Chargers getting a new stadium. If KC would have failed they would have done it by now with all the losing. Main thing is they still draw over 20,000(post renovation only, prerenovation YIKES!!!!) despite the 2nd smallest market and constant losing because Kauffman is a cool experience. Main thing for the 3 of these teams is they have real parks, they mostly draw over 20,000 fans and they are ELEGIBLE for revenue sharing. They have 2 safety nets(revenue sharing and the ballpark experience) Toronto don't. They MUST win. Winning is all they will have to sell for a long time IF they can do it which is going to be hard given the division and revenue levels due to the dome. Maybe your right and the Jays will become a prospect producing machine. They better or they could start following the Expos footsteps. I could see it as very easy to give up on the Jays if things don't go right. Last bad stadium-tough division-low revenues. That's a bad combo. Wrigley might fall down actually. It badly needs a renovation. Rooftop owners and Cubs are still fighting over the jumbotron/add signs. If Wrigley does fall down the Cubs can finance their own park. They are a big market. I like your last part a lot and wish the Jays the best just don't think it will come true. If the Jays did win the world series next year yes it would spur short term excitement a few years but soon as the team started losing you'd be back to mediocre crowds/small revenue due to the dome. IF Rogers really does spend $250M it doesn't matter how much the jays win they are going to be stuck there a long time. For the record I really do hope you are right. It's a shame to see what's happening. Toronto is a great market for baseball. The fans are wonderful. None of the big markets in the states would do much better in a similar situation. My guess is they do add either Santana or Jimenez(either one is a bad investment), Reyes will get hurt(Turf and Reyes is a bad combo), Lawrie will be okish but not great, I can see the 80 home run thing though at least 1 of the guys may not finish the year in a Jays uniform. I think Alex A(something) gets fired as GM after the year.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 4, 2014 12:59:32 GMT -6
Rogers Centre looking to make artificial grass a thing of its past The first time professional athletes frolicked on fake grass in a regular-season setting was on April 18, 1966, when the Houston Astros played their home opener at the Astrodome on AstroTurf, the revolutionary artificial surface touted as the next cutting-edge advancement in sports. Ron Taylor, a Toronto native who was a key reliever with the New York âMiracleâ Mets of 1969, was on the Astrosâ pitching staff when the ground-breaking moment occurred. Now a physician in Toronto, Dr. Taylor still recalls stepping out onto the new-fangled surface for the first time â and knowing the marriage between artificial grass and Major League Baseball would be tenuous at best. âI didnât like it,â Dr. Taylor said in a recent interview. âIt was like playing on a gymnasium floor.â Unlike peanuts and popcorn, hotdogs and beer, the combination of synthetic sports fields and the game of baseball has always been an uneasy relationship. After experimenting with artificial surfaces of one sort or another for half a century, most of the 30 teams in the MLB have concluded that â for reasons ranging from the health of their players to the aesthetics of the grand old game â the grass is not always greener on the other side. This year, only two of the 30 Major League teams began the season on synthetic turf: the Tampa Bay Rays, who play at antiquated Tropicana Field, and the Toronto Blue Jays, who are at Rogers Centre, a domed facility where the retractable roof is closed more often than it is open. And with the Rays actively pursuing a new stadium and the Blue Jays hoping to have grass growing indoors at Rogers Centre by the start of the 2018 season, fake fields in baseball could soon go the way of the bullpen golf cart. âUnlike a lot of the other domes that are out there where the roofs are normally left open, this will be the first facility where the grass will actually be growing predominantly in an indoor environment,â said Eric Lyons, an associate professor in turfgrass science and physiology at the University of Guelph. The Blue Jays and the university are close to formalizing a business arrangement that will see the institution oversee the science of getting grass to grow within the stadium. Currently, six MLB stadiums have retractable roofs, with Rogers the only one not sprouting real grass. At Miller Park in Milwaukee, for instance, large panes of glass in the roof allow for sunlight to nourish the turf even while the roof is closed. At Minute Maid Park in Houston, 50,000 square feet of glass in the west wall of the roof serves the same purpose. At Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners, the low light levels of the Pacific Northwest, combined with shadows from the ballpark, necessitated that a sophisticated artificial âgrow lightâ system be incorporated into the stadiumâs design. Andy McNitt is a leading authority on all grasses, both natural and artificial, as the director of the Center for Sports Surface Research at Penn State University. He is also a long-time member of the U.S.-based Sports Turf Managers Association. McNitt sees no reason why the Blue Jays will not be able to lay grass down within Rogers and have it thrive. âItâs going to be a big investment in the lights, but certainly we have the technology to grow grass indoors,â he said. Lyons is planning to set aside an area within Rogers Centre â away from the current playing field â to start growing different species of grass to see what best thrives. âThe idea would be to start to grow and screen several grass systems and to create an environment similar to field level at Rogers Centre with the roof closed,â he said. âAnd then weâd bring in the artificial lights and traffic the different grasses to see how they hold up.â By traffic, Lyons essentially means having the grass walked or run on, or subjected to the sort of treatment it will receive over the duration of a baseball game. There are also machines that can mimic the natural wear and tear on a sports field. Another critical component, he said, will be figuring out the exact lighting to install within Rogers Centre to keep the grass healthy. âWeâll need to find out how much the roof will be open, how much natural light itâs going to get, what the patterns of shade are when we do open the roof,â Lyons said. âWeâre also going to want to know what the levels of light are during the day when the roof is closed.â At the height of its popularity, as many as nine MLB teams were playing on artificial turf in any one season from 1982 to 1995 and again in 1998 and 1999 when the Rays joined the loop, according to data provided by the league. Since then, as teams moved into new venues or existing stadiums were upgraded, ballclubs have reverted back to natural grass as the surface of choice. âBaseballâs always been a traditional sport,â McNitt said. âAnd I think the game started to move away from it primarily when we started to get away from those old multi-use, cookie-cutter stadiums, the old concrete donuts like they used to have in Philadelphia and Cincinnati that housed both football and baseball. And the game is played, primarily outdoors, during the warmer months when the sun is out and real grass just has a better look and feel.âAlso, the game on artificial turf is not the same. The ball bounces higher and scoots faster along the ground. Pitchers, such as Dr. Taylor, loathed the faux grass, as it ultimately resulted in more hits and a higher earned run average. âI threw a sinking fastball and I relied on ground balls to get people out,â Dr. Taylor said. âPlaying on the AstroTurf, the balls travelled faster and a lot of those outs would get through for singles. I really didnât like playing on it at all.â Colby Rasmus, the Blue Jays centre fielder, said from a performance standpoint he doesnât mind playing on artificial surfaces. âThe ball bounces higher off the turf and the ballâs getting to you quicker, which I like,â he said. âIn some of the parks I play in with thick grass, the ball takes forever to get to you.â John McDonald, the former Blue Jay infielder now playing for the Los Angeles Angels, is a defensive specialist who sees artificial turf as an advantage. âOn grass itâs a little tougher to run and the dirt along the base paths gets chewed up a bit and the ball doesnât always have a true bounce,â he said. âOn the turf, everything stays more or less constant and you get a bounce you can trust over time.â The one thing most players agree on is that playing on artificial surfaces extracts more of a physical toll on the body. âYour back gets stiff a little bit,â said Blue Jays shortstop Jose Reyes. âAnd you also feel it in your legs, your knees.â Many players, including Reyes, soak in a tub filled with ice water for 15 to 20 minutes after nearly every game on artificial turf.If the Guelph team works its magic, the Blue Jays will no longer have to cope with the concrete-backed impact of fake turf. And, Lyons notes, the significance of the research could go beyond baseball. âThe more we learn about how to grow plants indoors, the more we learn about how plants grow,â he said. âSo weâre not just helping the Toronto Blue Jays grow grass in a dome. Weâre understanding how plants take carbon dioxide and produce plant material, whether it be food or biofuels or whatever, and how much water it takes to do that and all those things. Thereâs so many great scientific physiological questions we can ask while solving the Toronto Blue Jays problem.â www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/field-of-dreams/article18955544/
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 4, 2014 17:48:28 GMT -6
If indoor places can grow grass, you may ee more places going that way.
may be a decco turf master system too, Grass mixed with fibers that strengthen the grass.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jul 4, 2014 19:06:13 GMT -6
They don't want to fork out the money for a new stadium so they're putting in grass. Players like playing on grass and the sky domes turf is terrible, there's creases so the ball bounces funny the dome needs grass
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 4, 2014 22:41:56 GMT -6
If indoor places can grow grass, you may ee more places going that way. may be a decco turf master system too, Grass mixed with fibers that strengthen the grass. Other than Tampa no place will have turf left. In NFL I don't think we will see switches from turf to grass. Some places host high school/college games a day or 2 before NFL plays. Look at the mud messes New England/Cincinnati had in the early 2000's back when they had grass.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 4, 2014 22:55:40 GMT -6
They don't want to fork out the money for a new stadium so they're putting in grass. Players like playing on grass and the sky domes turf is terrible, there's creases so the ball bounces funny the dome needs grass Not only that but compare to Tampa Toronto's turf it looks worst(or at least it did, they got a new rug this year and I haven't seen it). NFL field turfs don't look that bad. Some almost look like grass when the white lines are in. Not Toronto's. Once the argos move out they should also fill in the vast foul territory with seats bringing fans closer to the field. They should also rip out some of the lower outfield seats and create a forest/picnic/waterfalls area. They should also replace the outfield fence. It looks so 80ish. Question for you. What is the weather like in Toronto early/late season? Do you think it's worst than say Minnesota, Detroit Cleveland etc... If a retro park appeared magically without a roof what would happen early season??? If a dome 100% necessary. I've heard people say it's not needed and people say it's a must. What's your opinion??
|
|
|
Post by Bruinsfan on Jul 5, 2014 7:21:50 GMT -6
If indoor places can grow grass, you may ee more places going that way. may be a decco turf master system too, Grass mixed with fibers that strengthen the grass. Other than Tampa no place will have turf left. In NFL I don't think we will see switches from turf to grass. Some places host high school/college games a day or 2 before NFL plays. Look at the mud messes New England/Cincinnati had in the early 2000's back when they had grass. I think the NFL will look into Decco turf which is real grass with fibers injected in, creates a strong grass surface and it quickly recovers, currently only philly has it. the only indoor facilities with grass are houston and phx. Phx is awesome it gets taken out on mechanical rollers and watered and sunned, houston is terrible they bring it out in panels and it causes injury.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jul 5, 2014 12:30:33 GMT -6
They don't want to fork out the money for a new stadium so they're putting in grass. Players like playing on grass and the sky domes turf is terrible, there's creases so the ball bounces funny the dome needs grass Not only that but compare to Tampa Toronto's turf it looks worst(or at least it did, they got a new rug this year and I haven't seen it). NFL field turfs don't look that bad. Some almost look like grass when the white lines are in. Not Toronto's. Once the argos move out they should also fill in the vast foul territory with seats bringing fans closer to the field. They should also rip out some of the lower outfield seats and create a forest/picnic/waterfalls area. They should also replace the outfield fence. It looks so 80ish. Question for you. What is the weather like in Toronto early/late season? Do you think it's worst than say Minnesota, Detroit Cleveland etc... If a retro park appeared magically without a roof what would happen early season??? If a dome 100% necessary. I've heard people say it's not needed and people say it's a must. What's your opinion?? I wouldn't say it's necessary but it's cold enough out that a closed dome brings in more people. I'm not sitting in the cold watching baseball in April when I can just watch it at home or listen on the radio. But the domes new enough and right in the downtown core that a couple modifications like you listed would be plenty. It's convenient and lots of business is based around the dome I think it's fine that they keep it. Toronto doesn't need a new stadium unless Rogers thinks they can land an nfl team and that's prolly not going to happen. Football isn't a big sell in Toronto the nfl would crush the cfl and the team would go under within 10 years I don't want it here.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 6, 2014 0:55:58 GMT -6
Maybe. But a pretty retro park in the cold may be more attractive. It certainly would be in the summer months and when you factor in the full 81 home games. I still maintain that a retro park would make the Jays an elite team. I just hope the renovations aren't so super expensive that they force the Jays in the dome very long term like 20-30 more years. IF they stay 10-15 years fine. But very long term they need a retro park.
You are right though. The dome does have it's attractive points. It's very well located. If it came down to the dome vs. a suburban retro park I'd go with the dome. The hotel is a cool feature and the dome does have modern amenities like the food places, luxury boxes etc... The dome is good enough where it's NOT going to kill the Blue Jays especially if you replace the worst part of it the turf. That should never be forgotten. It's not poorly located Olympic Stadium with no modern amenities and a falling roof.
Still though your never going to correct the circular shape and horrible site lines and the Jays are NOT ever going to be elite playing in that place. But if the goal is to just have a team ya, the dome is fine with a few fixes.
You don't have to worry about NFL coming. Toronto/Ontario is NOT paying for a 1B plus stadium, no owner is going to be dumb enough to trust Toronto football "fans" to buy expensive PSL's(like San Francisco) and most important the NFL doesn't want to come to Canada or leave Buffalo. So don't worry about the NFL wrecking the CFL.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 3, 2014 0:17:22 GMT -6
Jays hope new turf will be softer for playersThe Toronto Blue Jays will be playing on a new artificial surface in 2015, one they believe will be more comfortable and less taxing on their players. Thatâs a good thing given the widely-held disdain for the old rug â the AstroTurf 3D installed for the 2010 season â which is often blamed for causing excessive wear and tear on the bodies of those who play on it. There are some who feel itâs a deterrent for free agents, and others are adamant the synthetic field contributes to the teamâs health issues, the oft-injured Brett Lawrie, traded Friday to the Oakland Athletics as part of the package for Josh Donaldson, among them. âIt treats my body kind of silly and throws it off,â he said this week during a conference call with Bay Area media, adding later: âI really do feel that turf has a lot to do with (all the injuries). Iâm wound tight, my body is wound tight just being a high-energy guy and being a quick-twitch guy, so for me being on that turf and bouncing around and whatnot, I hear people just saying from walking on it or standing on it from opposing teams, âMan, we were only in there for three days but my body feels terrible.â âWhen you hear those sorts of things and you realize weâre on that stuff every single day, I can only point the finger at it because it makes sense. I really do feel when I go on the road and I play on grass and dirt and whatnot, I feel better. Once you get back into five, six, seven games in a row on that stuff, your body just gets thrown through a bit of a loop. I feel like this is a big step forward for me into being healthy and staying on the field.â The coming season will determine whether or not the switch to natural grass really makes a difference on that front for Lawrie, and the Blue Jays can only hope their new surface provides similar potential benefits. Installation of the new AstroTurf 3D Xtreme, the next generation of their old carpet with redesigned grass fibres, is scheduled to start Jan. 23 and should be completed by early March. While itâs far from ideal, the new rug is slated to serve as a stop-gap until Rogers Centre can be retrofitted for natural grass, a process slated for 2018. Finding the Toronto Argonauts a new home is a key element within that timeline, and the CFL club may yet end up at BMO Field, where they were set to move before funding issues scuttled a plan to bring them over. Itâs the most sensible landing spot for them, and one school of thought is logic will rule the day and the stadiumâs upcoming renovations will allow it to accommodate a CFL playing field. Until all that gets settled, the Blue Jays are trying to do the next best thing for their players, and the new turf is it. âOur turf was starting to get worn down,â says Kelly Keyes, vice-president, building services for the Blue Jays. â(The new one) will be softer for the players, it will be better for their bodies, and the ball wonât roll as fast, it will be much slower.â The difference wonât be only in going from one field to another, but also in the way the new carpet is laid down and handled. The previous surface ended up hardening over time because of the way it compresses while rolled up for Rogers Centreâs other events, causing the grass blades to flatten out. Compounding matters, the mixture of sand and rubber crumbs poured on the turf to make it springier only added to the weight, increasing the pressure on it while sitting and especially while rolled up. A switch this past season to a rubber crumb only mixture helped for a little while, but the surface by then had seen better days. âThe sand adds a lot of weight to it,â explained Keyes. âOur big rolls ranged from 11,000-12,000 pounds.â This time the rolls should weigh about 6,000 pounds. With approximately half of the pressure and a slightly bigger crumb size, the Blue Jays hope the surface wonât compress as much. âIn theory, that should make it a little softer and last longer,â Keyes said. One problem the Blue Jays simply wonât be able to resolve is the toll the frequent placement and removal takes on the turf. The clubâs selection of artificial surfaces is limited by the need for a portable system. Prior to 2010, the Blue Jays for five years used a tray system field made up of roughly 2,000 pieces, and players regularly found odd seams and dead spots that changed after every conversion. The new carpet â 145 rolls, the longest piece measuring 170 feet â will be similar to the old carpet put together with basically the same seaming plan. âThis allows us to continue to be multipurpose,â said Keyes. âThe fibre will be a blend of two different greens so it looks a little sharper and the blades are supposed to be stronger, they shouldnât fall down as quickly as they do right now.â The key matter, however, is whether it makes playing at Rogers Centre less physically taxing for Blue Jays players, and a real reading of that wonât come until well into next season. The surface wonât ever be as forgiving as natural grass, but it needs to be better than the light padding over concrete it became. As for the old surface, it will be returned to AstroTurf so it can be recycled and live on in one of the other carpeting products the manufacturer makes. Few who played on it will be sad to see it go, and many will be eager to wish it good riddance. www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/jays-hope-new-turf-will-be-softer-for-players/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 3, 2014 0:25:21 GMT -6
Some wonderful stuff from the comments section
-BlueBoy
Next to Tropicana Field in Tampa (which my guess won't own a team for too much longer), the Rogers Centre is the WORST place in MLB! Rogers are a bunch of ***. - stop treating Toronto like a minor-league city and build something that winners would be proud of...
-stefancaunter Rogers is the problem. They suckered Toronto into GIVING them the dome (they probably wrote off the 25 million in their complaints department). They suckered the Argos into staying for nothing, long term. They turn a Jays game into a Rogers ad-fest. Cellphone, TV, internet, home security, radio shows, and on and on. I used to go all the time to the Jays. Not since Rogers. Ownership is important, and Rogers is a bad owner. I vote with my money, every year. None for the Jays at the dome. It's a bad facility, which we all paid for dearly back in the 80s, that Rogers makes a ton of money on because they can. No thank you
-Jeff Wilkinson Why don't the Blue Jays just build a new state-of-the-art ballpark. I mean this one is 25 years old and if Jays are considering replacing the field, why not just replace the whole ball park with a new state-of-the-art facility
-Shawn Burrell
Or... you know... you could build a new state of the art OUTDOOR downtown ballpark and let the Argos have the Rogers Centre
-Wade Babula
@shawn Burrell If there were even thinking of building a new stadium (which they arent), i think they would need to take the ideas of Miami or Houston, where there is a vast amount of open light into the stadium while still being able to close it.
-RapAttack
Well this has to be the third article I have read about it not being an issue over the years. It's probably not going to make a difference with the cement floor. With the number of stadiums that have turf it is going to be an issue if the money is similar.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 16, 2015 20:42:11 GMT -6
It's starting to look doubtful the Jays will get grass for the 2018 season. Toronto Blue Jays want grass in the Rogers Centre: An inside look at the difficult growth process it requiresImagine: Sitting before you is a scale model of the Rogers Centre, roughly the size of a round roasting pan. Your challenge: to put a real baseball field in the stadium â natural grass with a dirt infield â by opening day 2018 Your research has been thorough. Experts at the University of Guelph have determined the ideal species of grass. They have it growing on an Ontario sod farm. They say it will flourish indoors with the roof closed. Under the right conditions, that is. Your job is to create those conditions. So open the roof, reach in and toss out that artificial turf, which was new for the 2015 season. Haul out your jackhammer. Rip up the concrete. Install plumbing for irrigation and drainage. Dig some more to accommodate the sod and the dirt infield. Close the roof. Strip that shiny skin from the four mammoth roof panels. Itâs the original PVC membrane, circa 1989, and itâs worn out. While youâre at it, you might figure out a way to replace it with a material that lets in the light. Grass likes natural light, and right now, the closed dome shuts it out. The scientists at Guelph say the grass will grow without natural light, but youâll need lots of artificial light â enormous banks of mobile âgrow lightsâ that sit about 10 feet off the ground and nourish the sod when the field is not in use. Youâll roll them around between games to focus on the worn spots, even after games played with the roof open. One more thing. Grass sweats. (Scientists call it transpiration.). Water from the roots vaporizes from the leaf surface into the air. All of that grass will create a lot of humidity, and youâve got to figure out a way to get rid of that sticky air or the Rogers Centre will become a sweatbox with the roof closed. So youâll need a dehumidifier. Forget Home Depot; you need a really big one.
Now youâre ready to install the grass. Assuming, of course, that your engineers surmounted all of those challenges and you have the budget to make it happen. *** Except for the 2018 deadline, all of the foregoing is fantasy. The grass is not growing. The University of Guelph has not begun the serious business of testing grass species. The Jaysâ engineering team continues to investigate the enormously complex logistical challenges. They have visited stadiums in Milwaukee, Miami and Arizona, among others, to see how officials there have dealt with airflow and light issues. Of course, there is a fundamental difference between the Rogers Centre and those facilities. Those other stadiums are baseball parks, engineered to grow grass. The Rogers Centre is a multi-use indoor entertainment facility engineered nearly three decades ago without grass in mind. For a year or so, Guelph has been eager to strike a formal working agreement with the Jays. That deal might get done âwithin a week, give or take,â said Stephen Brooks, the Jays senior vice-president of business operations. It has been a long time coming. For three years, Blue Jays president Paul Beeston has spoken publicly about putting grass in the Rogers Centre. According to documents obtained by Blue Jays fan David Dowe through a Freedom of Information request, the Jays and Guelph officials have been in discussions since December 2013, when Guelph gave the club a detailed research proposal with timelines. Dowe, who lives in Burlington, submitted his FOI request to Guelph, seeking details of the universityâs discussions with the Jays. He received a series of emails with most of the information redacted, but showing that discussions have been ongoing for more than a year and that Guelph politely nudged the Jays about settling a formal agreement in January, April, May, June and September last year. Asked whether the negotiations are stalled, Brooks demurred. âI wouldnât characterize it as a standstill,â he said. âThis is a big project that has lots of moving parts. It requires negotiations between the two parties. It requires us to work through internally what that means to our business. Those things take time.â The FOI request went to Guelph but the Blue Jays also took part in the redaction process. Brooks said the blacked-out sections covered âfinancial discussions between the parties and matters of a proprietary nature.â One of the financial issues: How much the Jays would pay Guelph for the grass-roots research. In an interview, Brooks seemed confident that the 2018 deadline is achievable. But given the complexity of reverse-engineering a 26-year-old stadium, he added a caveat. âWeâre going through a process that is uncharted territory,â he said. âWe donât necessarily know yet what weâre going to find out about what has to be done from a humidity perspective, or from an airflow perspective. Thatâs going to resolve itself as we work through this. âWeâre targeting 2018. Could that change? As we go through this process, things could change. We donât know just yet.â Eric Lyons is eager to see the agreement signed so he can get started. The associate professor at Guelph will lead the research into testing various grass species, measuring the levels of humidity they produce and how they respond to artificial light, as well as their ability to withstand the rigors of a baseball season. Lyons grew up near Pittsburgh and remains an ardent (and long-suffering) Pirates fan. He admits he might become a Blue Jays fan too. Mainly, heâs a fan of science and turf grass. âIâm a scientist. I love baseball, I love sports, I love turf grass,â he said. âWhy wouldnât I want to do this?â He envisions a two-stage process. The first, ending in May 2016, would generate the results of his research â the right grass for the job. Meanwhile, the Jays would continue their retrofit research. After Lyons submits his final report, it would be up to the Jays to decide whether to take the project forward. âGrowing this many plants indoors is going to require a huge investment in infrastructure,â Lyons said. âYou can do these things cheaply. You can do them in a way that wonât last, or you can do them right. And [the Jays] want to know the cost of doing it right. Thatâs what theyâve expressed to me.â Ideally, he would finish tests to determine the appropriate species and start growing it for the Rogers Centre this fall, for harvest in 2017. Then he would test it in a simulated environment under artificial light. If all goes well, it would be installed early in 2018 and groomed for opening day. Like most clubs, the Jays would likely need to replace it at least once during the season, he said. Growing the new sod in a warmer climate south of the border might speed up the maturation process, but creates potential problems as well. Truck transportation would take at least a day and any holdups at the border â importing plants is no breeze â could leave the sod in poor shape. âI would grow it in Canada with a sod producer that is prepared to set up a system so that you can harvest sod in the winter under frozen ground,â Lyons said. âSo we would have to set up hoop houses, heat them up, thaw the ground and harvest. That would be very expensive.â Among the hurdles the Jays face, dealing with humidity may be the biggest.
âIf itâs hot and humid in that stadium, no oneâs going to want to go a game,â he said.Assuming the Jays can handle the required retrofit, Lyons is confident the grass will flourish, and that players and fans will love it. âWe can do this,â he said. âI am certain that we can. Itâs just whether or not itâs feasible for the Blue Jays to want to do it. Thatâs what weâre going to help them answer. âThe question is, how much is it going to cost?â news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/13/toronto-blue-jays-want-grass-in-the-rogers-centre-an-inside-look-at-the-difficult-growth-process-it-requires/
|
|