View Single Post
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 4:29 PM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
this is extortion. their current stadium is only 22 years old. did the team really threaten to leave arlington if they didn't get a new stadium?
A little research will tell you that there is more to the story. On the surface it looks like solely greed ans possibly extortion, but the truth is that the current ballpark was built a few years too early.

The stadium was built 4 years prior to the boom in construction of retractable roof stadiums. The only one at the time was Skydome in Toronto, which was an anomaly (and really doesn't compare to the later retractable roofs).

Not only was the stadium built at the wrong time, but the design exaggerates the summer weather; Large grand Stands, enclosed outfield stands (with building), etc.

Pitchers hate pitching there in the summer, players hate the excruciating heat, and fans suffer.

Excerpt From Stadium's Wikipedia Page:
Despite being hailed as a wonderful venue in its infant years, articles in The Dallas Morning News began to suggest that the ballpark would have been better served by having a dome or retractable roof – much like Minute Maid Park, the home of the Houston Astros – due to the often oppressive heat that settles over Texas during baseball season, with temperatures on the field being in excess of 110°. Many argue that the intense heat is a liability in attracting players, particularly starting pitchers.[14]
That being said, it is questionable that retractable roof technology was a good candidate at the time the stadium was constructed, when modern mechanical retractable-roof ballparks like Chase Field, Safeco Field, Minute Maid Park, and Miller Park would not open until several years after it.

14) "If Rangers Can't Curb Ballpark Heat, They'll Likely Lose Ace Cliff Lee". The Dallas Morning News. August 12, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. The current stadium probably does put the Rangers at a disadvantage to retaining certain players and attracting fans, but at the same time the increased revenue streams related to those things as well as having a shiny new stadium is very attractive to owners.

If you want extortion or rather unnecessary spending, look not farther than the Atlanta Braves quest and success to landing a new stadium (Turner field is even newer than the Ballpark at Arlington). The Braves cited that the most of their fans live on the North Side of Atlanta and in-turn need the Ballpark to be located there. If that was a valid argument, half of the teams in Baseball with downtown stadiums could justify a move to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote