pete@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (11/07/85)
Several months ago I had made a promise to discuss the pending expansion of major league baseball and of the Washington D.C. Baseball Commission's efforts to bring baseball here. Tomorrow and Friday (Nov 7-8) the major leagues planning commission will be meeting with the representatives of the 12 cities hoping to acquire a team. So filling you in now seems appropriate. The National League, under the agreement with the players union, may expand by 2 teams without negotiations; this would bring the 2 leagues even in the number of teams they each have: 14. Major League Baseball has given itself many disclaimers and outs, saying they have no firm timetable and have made no commitment to expand, but Peter Ueberroth has officially released written criteria to the committees of the various cities and will meet with the committees in the coming days to discuss salient points. It is generally thought that MLB would like to expand by 1987. The written criteria are too long to type in, but here are some of the major points. MLB is going to "look seriously" at the following: 1. Significant Community Identification - translated, this means groups of local businesspersons who have strong roots in the area. Multiple-owner situations are preferred to single-owner, and corporate ownership is frowned upon. 2. Location/Demographics - the area must be capable of supporting a club. Population and TV/Radio market, as well as proposed local-network coverage, will be considered. In addition, proximity to existing clubs and possible imdemnification for acquisition of MLB territory will be looked at (this is called 'Buy your way in'). 3. Commitment of 10,000 season tickets for the first five years of operation. /* Begin explanation of situation in D.C. */ As you know, D.C. lost their team in 1971 when the Senators left for Texas. Since then, Washington has had a label as a town that couldn't keep a team. (I feel this is undeserved, and explained why in a lengthy article many months ago; if anyone missed it and would like to have me try to change their mind, I would love to go to bat for DC by sending it to you. I could even post if there was sufficient interest). Since then, there have been various efforts to bring another team here, with the San Diego Padres almost moving here in 1974 until Ray Kroc bought them. There have been no franchise moves since then, we are only now getting to the point where we can discuss expansion again, and it has taken a while for some of the stigma DC bears to wear off. After being rebuffed for all these years and making all the mistakes they possibly could over the years, DC got wise. Peter Ueberroth, at the start of his tenure, said essentially this to DC: "Hey, we've been hearing you bitch for all these years; it's time to put up or shut up. Show me some bucks, some stability. 20,000 season tickets sold before the first pitch is thrown would be impressive". Now, 20,000 is a bit much for any new team, and translates to about 1.6 million in attendance, just from season tickets alone. I think everyone realized that this was unrealistic. DC started up the Baseball Commission and announced its goal of getting non-binding pledges of money for tickets. Many major local banks announced, in cooperation with the Commission, a plan for special interest-bearing accounts that would count towards the ticket-drive. I opened my account last June. Originally, the plan was to sell 10000 by the end of July in time for the mid-summer league meetings,but these were cancelled because of the short mid-season strike. The aid of local businesses was enlisted to raise public support and several press conferences/events were held downtown with great fanfare. 'Baseball in '87 ' became the phrase that was put on buttons, bumper stickers and businesses' walls. Even the phone company ended its weather message with a 'Support Baseball for DC in '87 ' blurb. If you happen to catch the Redskins on TV at RFK stadium, you might see a big 'Baseball in '87 ' message hanging from the upper deck. During the annual Cracker-Jack old-timers game played in RFK, which was broadcast on a delayed basis by CBS, several players wore the '87 buttons on their uniforms. Several prospective owners/groups have come forward. The first was Jack Kent Cooke, who has been seeking a team here for several years; he owns the Redskins, is VERY wealthy, and is committed to this area. He has owned a minor league team, and used to own the LA Lakers, the Kings and the LA Forum before selling them in a package deal when he moved his interests east. He is capable of losing many millions of dollars without feeling it and has been quoted as expecting that to happen. He would like to buy RFK as well, which could be a snafu; at this point, RFK is owned by the federal government, who would like to turn it over to the city. Some feel that selling it to Cooke would give him too much power. Cooke has made numerous overtures to the Giants and Pirates in light of their attendance woes; at times, it has seemed as though the best chance we have is to bring the Giants back east, but that doesn't sit well with many people; we know what it is like to have a team moved out from under you. 2 other groups have emerged, both made up of prominent businessmen whose main interests lie in real estate. These groups have recently merged to form one super-group of five big wallets. Several points against DC are: 1. The bad image DC has been saddled with of having 2 ex-teams, and 2. The proximity of the Baltimore Orioles, 40 miles to the north. There are more points in DC's favor, though: 1. The 5-member group trying to bring ball here fits closely the preferred guidelines set forth by Ueberroth, namely strong wealthy, local multi-ownership. In addition, serving as a minor partner, advisor, spokesman and negotiator is ex-commissioner Bowie Kuhn, who has supported baseball here ever since working at old Griffith Stadium putting the numbers up on the scoreboard. Kuhn is still respected in baseball circles and has many friends among the owners who feel he was railroaded out of baseball by a ruthless few. 2. The proposed expansion is for the National League, so conflict with Baltimore is lessened; the Orioles will not have as much say in the matter as they would if the expansion was for the AL, which is reasonable given that the 2 teams will play different clubs. An interesting sidenote is that Oriole owner Edward Bennett Williams is the ex-president of the Redskins, Cooke's team. Williams pretty much was the whole show while Cooke was out west, but when he came east, Williams was phased out. It might be reasonable to suggest there is animosity between the 2, although both claim that isn't the case. Still, this helps the group of five. 3. The season-ticket drive has netted over 11,000 commitments for season-tickets. 4. Of the 12 teams hoping for baseball, DC has the largest television market, 8th in the country. Apparently ratings are going down and the networks are grumbling about lower payments for the next contract. The owners need the bucks and so are looking for the best markets. Among other candidate cities, Buffalo ranks 34th, Indianapolis 23rd, and Tampa/St. Pete 15th. Denver, which has long been considered a favorite in the race, ranks 19th. 5. There is considerable sentiment in baseball for a team to be in the Nation's Capital. Tommy LaSorda was recently quoted in the Post as hoping to see NL baseball here (this is not meant to suggest that his is the quintessential baseball mind whose word is gospel ;-) ). Even Ronald Reagan has stated his hopes of seeing a team here (this is not meant to suggest that his is a mind whose word is intelligble ;-) ). In addition, DC has the experience of dealing with a major league team and has a place for it to play, which can't be said of a few of the candidate cities. Since the Senators left, a decent subway system, with a stop near the stadium, has improved DC's mass-transit situation. You know how I feel; we deserve baseball here, and I think we have the shot to get it, along with Denver. Here's hoping.... Comments are welcome and I certainly can't prevent you from flamimg at, GASP...the absurdity of giving THOSE PEOPLE (horrors!!) another team. But then, maybe I've helped to change your minds; I hope so. -- Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!pete CSNet: pete@umcp-cs ARPA: pete@mimsy.umd.edu
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (11/08/85)
> > As you know, D.C. lost their team in 1971 when the Senators left for Texas. >Since then, Washington has had a label as a town that couldn't keep a team. >(I feel this is undeserved, and explained why in a lengthy article many months >ago; if anyone missed it and would like to have me try to change their mind, I >would love to go to bat for DC by sending it to you. I could even post if there >was sufficient interest). Since then, there have been various efforts to bring >another team here, with the San Diego Padres almost moving here in 1974 until >Ray Kroc bought them. There have been no franchise moves since then, we are >only now getting to the point where we can discuss expansion again, and it has >taken a while for some of the stigma DC bears to wear off. > Does anybody remember a not-very-good baseball novel a few years ago about a hypothetical team called the Washington Dudes? I believe the novel was called BREAKING BALLS, but I could be confusing it with a *different* not-very-good baseball novel. Anyway, one of the premises in the book was that baseball had (has)not succeeded in Washington in the past because it has largely been marketed to the white upper and middle class population, a large percentage of which has roots (hence, baseball loyalties) in other cities. The Dudes, by contrast, were chiefly marketed to the city's black population, whose roots are there or in southern areas without baseball, and thus became a stunning success! Any validity to that author's analysis of the Washington situation?