Assorted other baseball comments

On Wednesday night's public input session on what to do with the Tropicana Field site IF it were redeveloped: [Times photo | Edmund D. Fountain]

My wife and I attended, as well. We were separated, sent to different tables. Probably a good thing, because we came away with two totally different experiences. At our table, there was adamant expression of our frustration with the guidelines for the meeting – that nothing should be said regarding the “new” stadium... The gentleman next to me called the entire process “a scam” because we were playing right into the Rays’ hands by proposing development ideas based on the stadium being razed. That’s why we were united in our recommendation that any new site development include a stadium. Ain’t St. Pete politics fun? -- Paul Cooper

Most of the tables I visited included "keep it as a stadium" as an option. But, even that was a little rigged, since "keep stadium" was only ONE out of all the options that got "votes." But really, that's the first decision to be made -- keep it as a stadium, or build a new one? Then and only then do we decide what to do with the Trop! So, it was kind of a fake weighting of the "keep as a stadium" option. If they try later to claim the event was some sort of proof for support for change, I think we should blow the whistle big-time. But I suppose until then we should have good faith that they would simply include the public comments as the "what if" the way it was pitched.

Like it or not, I suspect you are being anointed as the Keeper of the Castle when it comes to protecting the taxpayers from the owner and management of the Rays.  To say that the Rays would love to pull the wool over the taxpayers eyes, would certainly be a major understatement. -- John Garner, Treasure Island

I don't know if I am cut out for being keeper of the castle, though. Really, all I keep saying is that I want to see the numbers up front, and for the taxpayers to have iron-clad protection. Without that iron-clad protection, there ain't no way the city should enter into this deal. On the other hand, there are lots of other folks are opposed to the stadium because it's waterfront, outdoors, because of environment, parking and all that kind of stuff  -- I'm not. Heck, I'm a fan, I'll go if it's there.

So now this losing franchise wants a shiny new stadium. The owners haven't put a winning (or even a substantially improved) team on the field for ten years now yet they pine for this new stadium which will hold only 34,000.  I suppose if they must watch a loosing team at least the yuppies pushing for this stadium will enjoy the waterfront view. This is not about honoring a commitment to produce a competitive team, this is about procuring a new toy to solve a problem. -- J. Blomgren

And also, along those lines:

Why don't the owners of the Rays take the money to be used for the stadium and buy some good athletes like George Steinbrenner does? Maybe if the Rays would win some games and become contenders for the World Series, people will start going to the games at the Trop! Then they could talk about a new stadium and the public would embrace the idea. -- Jim Thurmann

Well, sure, that's ONE way...

If the Trop's for sale and worth potentially $300M+, then theoretically 1/2 of the site could be sold for $150M+ we could PAY OFF the Trop! The premise of the downtown proposal is voluminous parking is not required - therefore, 1/2 of the site is extraneous and can be sold. Now, the benefits - we keep baseball, the City and County budget requirements and public subsidy are eliminated, the Trop with considerable remaining value is preserved. -- Dave Shanks

I dunno, Dave, whether the magic wand that is supposed to make the parking problem nonexistent would still work west of, say, 4th Street...