|
|
Post by kersting13 on Apr 26, 2018 11:19:49 GMT -8
I really don't think we need a retractable roof stadium in Portland. It rarely rains hard enough here to cause the stoppage of a baseball game. With a tarped field with all of the modern drainage systems available, I would bet on fewer rainouts in Portland than most other places. The ONLY reason for a retractable roof is to lure fans in during April, and adds a couple hundred million dollars to the price tag. Yeah you're probably right, I looked up who has the most rainy days and seattle is 22nd so maybe portland wouldn't need one. heres the article its from 2012 but still pretty interesting. That article actually lists Seattle as 22nd for total rainfall, not rainy days. If you look at their chart, you'll notice that there's a stark difference between teams East of the Rockies vs West, because we get most of our rain during the winter months, and are relatively dry during the summer. If they listed the rankings by number of "rainy days" in baseball seasons, I'm sure Seattle would rank higher than 22nd. The question would be what is your goal for having the roof? If it's to avoid rainouts, Portland or Seattle don't really need a roof because the rain we get from April - September is typically not intense enough to stop a baseball game from being played on a field that has been tarped and has modern drainage technology. OTOH, if the goal is to get fans into the stadium even when it's a little bit rainy outside ... then it makes sense. Look no further than OSU this weekend - it will rain, but not hard enough to postpone/cancel the games. The fans will be inconvenienced, though. |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Apr 26, 2018 16:00:25 GMT -8
Yeah you're probably right, I looked up who has the most rainy days and seattle is 22nd so maybe portland wouldn't need one. heres the article its from 2012 but still pretty interesting. That article actually lists Seattle as 22nd for total rainfall, not rainy days. If you look at their chart, you'll notice that there's a stark difference between teams East of the Rockies vs West, because we get most of our rain during the winter months, and are relatively dry during the summer. If they listed the rankings by number of "rainy days" in baseball seasons, I'm sure Seattle would rank higher than 22nd. The question would be what is your goal for having the roof? If it's to avoid rainouts, Portland or Seattle don't really need a roof because the rain we get from April - September is typically not intense enough to stop a baseball game from being played on a field that has been tarped and has modern drainage technology. OTOH, if the goal is to get fans into the stadium even when it's a little bit rainy outside ... then it makes sense. Look no further than OSU this weekend - it will rain, but not hard enough to postpone/cancel the games. The fans will be inconvenienced, though. Seattle sits in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains. That is a significant obstacle that helps avoid a lot of rainout risk. Also, the Pac NW is much drier during baseball season, where many cities east of the Mississippi pile up their rain in the summer due to thunderstorm activity. Portland would be a good place for a roof mainly because of the risk of strong east winds from the Gorge during the summer. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 26, 2018 16:25:01 GMT -8
That article actually lists Seattle as 22nd for total rainfall, not rainy days. If you look at their chart, you'll notice that there's a stark difference between teams East of the Rockies vs West, because we get most of our rain during the winter months, and are relatively dry during the summer. If they listed the rankings by number of "rainy days" in baseball seasons, I'm sure Seattle would rank higher than 22nd. The question would be what is your goal for having the roof? If it's to avoid rainouts, Portland or Seattle don't really need a roof because the rain we get from April - September is typically not intense enough to stop a baseball game from being played on a field that has been tarped and has modern drainage technology. OTOH, if the goal is to get fans into the stadium even when it's a little bit rainy outside ... then it makes sense. Look no further than OSU this weekend - it will rain, but not hard enough to postpone/cancel the games. The fans will be inconvenienced, though. Seattle sits in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains. That is a significant obstacle that helps avoid a lot of rainout risk. Also, the Pac NW is much drier during baseball season, where many cities east of the Mississippi pile up their rain in the summer due to thunderstorm activity. Portland would be a good place for a roof mainly because of the risk of strong east winds from the Gorge during the summer. Somewhat. The direct rain shadow for the Olympic Mtns is the San Juan Islands which are markedly drier than Seattle/Everett/Tacoma. But it does still have an influence on Seattle's rainfall numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Apr 28, 2018 20:23:15 GMT -8
PDX is a minor league city all the way. Couldn't even support AAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Apr 29, 2018 8:46:15 GMT -8
I think MLB could work here in Portland, but it's obvious we'd be in that same tier that the current A's/Rays are in: The group of teams with very little money to splurge on free agents who have to rely on the draft/development of players before trading star players away for more prospects while hoping to bring it all together once every few years for a run at the playoffs. The MLB economic model is broken, and the big market teams are too valuable and powerful to ever agree to an economic model that will make a semi-level playing field for the smaller-market clubs. It'd be interesting if the owners of all the teams except NYY, NYM, BOS, LAD and CHC decided to leave MLB and start their own league with NFL-style revenue sharing. Yeah, I know - not gonna happen. I agree with the concept but it would have to be driven by the players, now the owners. The players union is odd. They advocate for the top 50 or so players instead of the median player (like every other union in the world). To advocate for the average guy, you need growth in the sport. Bud Selig was fundamentally wrong about contraction. MLB needs six more teams (creates 150 more MLB jobs) with at least one in NYC or the northeast and another team in SoCal. Five of those six teams you mentioned would need to be compensated for a much smaller slice of the pie. But by doing this the pie grows a lot bigger. To get more of the best athletes playing baseball, and not other sports, the financial rewards have to be better. I think this should be done by creating a much higher minimum salary at AAA and AA. Something like 100k at AAA and 60K at AA. And then create some system where service days at those levels count toward the MLB retirement plan. It can't be one for one, but some fraction. This gets back to the players union. They seem to try to help the stars at the expense of the regular players. For this to happen, someone like Jacoby Ellsbury may only get 7 years at 14M per instead of 7 years at 20M per. Will something like this happen? I'm guessing there is a less than 1% chance in the next 20 years. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Apr 29, 2018 10:48:17 GMT -8
It'd be interesting if the owners of all the teams except NYY, NYM, BOS, LAD and CHC decided to leave MLB and start their own league with NFL-style revenue sharing. Yeah, I know - not gonna happen. I agree with the concept but it would have to be driven by the players, now the owners. The players union is odd. They advocate for the top 50 or so players instead of the median player (like every other union in the world). To advocate for the average guy, you need growth in the sport. Bud Selig was fundamentally wrong about contraction. MLB needs six more teams (creates 150 more MLB jobs) with at least one in NYC or the northeast and another team in SoCal. Five of those six teams you mentioned would need to be compensated for a much smaller slice of the pie. But by doing this the pie grows a lot bigger. To get more of the best athletes playing baseball, and not other sports, the financial rewards have to be better. I think this should be done by creating a much higher minimum salary at AAA and AA. Something like 100k at AAA and 60K at AA. And then create some system where service days at those levels count toward the MLB retirement plan. It can't be one for one, but some fraction. This gets back to the players union. They seem to try to help the stars at the expense of the regular players. For this to happen, someone like Jacoby Ellsbury may only get 7 years at 14M per instead of 7 years at 20M per. Will something like this happen? I'm guessing there is a less than 1% chance in the next 20 years. Good points... and as we know the union will never abandon the 'money bag' star players! But, your point could even be taken further. The A and short season A players are treated like indentured servants. Since the majority of major league rosters come up thru the ranks, increasing the financial motivation to stay in "development" and work your way up the system seems reasonable. As it stands now, most kids can hang out in the lower minors and wait their turn. But, once 'family' comes into the picture it is almost impossible to justify sticking around for several years for chances at promotion. But, then again the minors/draft are meat markets to fill out minor league rosters, especially with arms. From the clubs' standpoint they have no real motivation to pay more as attrition takes it's toll, trades, foreign players, and recycling of vets are favored far more by most teams. Those that rise thru the ranks and make a MLB roster do get paid far better, but again face the same sort of attitude. Until they are an established star they are expendable by the next wave of prospects, trade bait, or injury. There is very little patience for most teams and there is always plenty of dreamers to fill spots. MLB doesn't seem to really care at this point if the overall quality of the prospects is diminishing... and would argue the point vehemently. These leagues are just of the attitude that they can't be touched by any type of adversity. And... maybe they are right???! |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Apr 29, 2018 17:53:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Apr 29, 2018 19:01:12 GMT -8
The concept is true. I think the "solutions" listed in that article are all wrong - most of them seem to be set up to help the big money teams that are already at a huge advantage. IMO, the best way to cure MLB problems is to do a better job at revenue sharing. The only way to get to some sort of reasonable level of revenue sharing would be for smaller market teams to have to make a one-time investment in the big market teams for them to give up their higher revenue streams. There's a reason that the Yankees are worth over a $4 billion according to Forbes, while the Rays are worth less than $1 billion. If the NFL hadn't agreed to their revenue sharing structure back some 50 years ago, the Giants would probably be worth 4x what the Buccaneers are. Unfortunately, that's one of those pie-in-the-sky scenarios that will NEVER happen, like College Football re-organizing into something that makes sense. The current ways are too established for the organization to take a step back and make wholesale changes. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 1, 2018 6:47:01 GMT -8
PDX is a minor league city all the way. Couldn't even support AAA. That's absolutely false. The last edition of the Beavers left because they did not have a place to play, with PGE Park being reconfigured for soccer. Their attendance, while not great, was fine. Had Portland built a 10K, baseball-only stadium, as was promised, the Beavers would still be in PDX and probably doing better than ever. Civic/Multnomah/PGE Park was never properly configured for baseball. And Portland has given excellent support to the Hops, who play in one of the lowest classifications in affiliated baseball. |
|
