• Scam Diego alerts

The San Diego Padres play their last two 2010 games at home today and tomorrow with an average attendance of 26,251. The team has a record of 87-70 and all season has been in the running for the playoffs. Last year's record was 75-82 and the team was out of the running early. Attendance last year averaged 23,699. The 2010 average attendance is hardly impressive, particularly since the team slashed prices this year. Going into the season, the Padres's Fan Cost Index compiled by Team Marketing Report was second lowest in Major League Baseball at $120.60 for four tickets, two beers, four soft drinks, four hot dogs, parking for one car, two programs and two adult-sized hats. The Padres had slashed the prices 30% from 2009. The price index had been above $200 in 2008.

This year's attendance lags behind attendance at Qualcomm. (John Moores had said the team could not survive economically at Qualcomm.) In 2002 at Qualcomm, the team had a miserable 66-96 record, but averaged 27,415 attendees. In 2001 and 2000, when the Padres had losing seasons, Qualcomm attendance averaged more than 29,000. As is typical, attendance was strong when Petco opened: 37,244 in 2004 and 35,429 in 2005. Then it began dropping off.

Other contending big league teams such as the Tampa Bay Rays, Cincinnati Reds and Atlanta Braves have had disappointing attendance this year, according to a story in today's (Sept. 29) New York Times. Obviously, the recession is a factor. But the Padres have to engage in serious introspection: are logistics (downtown parking, traffic jams, etc.) the major problem? And if so, was the building of Petco Park a mistake? (It certainly was a mistake for the City of San Diego, which is being drained to the tune of more than $20 million a year, beyond the original $300 million subsidy.) Qualcomm is one of the best-located stadiums in pro sports -- near expressways with lots of parking. Now the Chargers, too, want to leave there and go downtown. Football has a short season (10 home games, mostly on Sundays) and parking might not be such a problem. But is anybody noodling this out?

It's difficult to make profit estimates of pro sports teams (Moores's divorce makes estimates even harder), but one figure stands out. Forbes Magazine estimates that the Padres are worth $408 million, 15th highest of the 30 teams. But this year's Padres payroll, estimated at $37.8 million, is among a handful of the lowest in Major League Baseball. It certainly looks like somebody is making out very well. SOMEBODY is noodling these numbers out, but pro sports won't let any figures become public. There is a good reason for that: an embarrassment of riches.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

Visduh Sept. 29, 2010 @ 8:02 p.m.

All the foregoing says that there is little or no price elasticity of demand for Pro baseball in San Diego at this time. Was there ever any? One would like to think that a 30% price cut, year over year, would increase the attendance. Is it just that the public is no longer willing to pay much or anything to watch multi-millionaire jocks play a kid's game?

0

Fred Williams Sept. 29, 2010 @ 8:49 p.m.

With IP video, like YouTube, anyone with a web browser and broadband can watch an unlimited array of programming, including live sports from around the world. With unemployment high, and some turning away from conspicuous consumption, it's not just baseball that's lost audiences.

Consider that the stadium concerts of the 80's and 90's have all but disappeared.

With exaggerated terrorism fears too, why would a frightened American willingly put themselves into a large crowd in a confined space?

What are youngsters more likely to play today, anyway? Baseball, or Xbox? Since parents are now taught that every priest and little league coach wants to kidnap their kids, little Johnny and Suzy are in the living room instead of the playing fields. They're not clamoring for Mom and Dad to take them out to the ball park.

These factors all militate against any notion that Moores' and McGrory's ballpark scheme will begin paying for itself when the Great Recession is over. San Diego taxpayers are on the hook for this white elephant.

While everyone agrees that the structure itself is perfectly designed for watching baseball, that makes no difference when the game of baseball is less interesting to the average American with every passing year.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 29, 2010 @ 10:33 p.m.

Response to post #1: Some markets continue to do well. To a great extent, these are teams that have a long history: New York Yankees, e.g. Over the years, baseball has fallen behind football in fan interest, however. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 29, 2010 @ 10:36 p.m.

Response to post #2: These are all very good points. Video sports, rotisserie leagues, etc. grab young people's interest. And that $120 can be spent lots of other places just as exciting -- or more so. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell Sept. 29, 2010 @ 11:13 p.m.

This devastating decline in attendance does not bode well for the anonymous investors who purchased the Padres through a straw owner. The investors could not scrape up enough cash to buy the Padres outright, so they had to buy the team on layaway. A huge balloon payment is due to be paid to Moores in a few years. If attendance continues to plummet, the Padres may decline in value to the point the investors just walk away and give the team back to Moores.

0

Burwell Sept. 29, 2010 @ 11:19 p.m.

Qualcomm is one of the best-located stadiums in pro sports -- near expressways with lots of parking.

===========

Qualcomm is an outstanding facility and will provide at least 70 more years of service to the citizens of San Diego before it needs to be replaced. The properties of concrete are such that Qualcomm now has at least twice the loadbearing capacity it had when it was constructed in 1967.

0

David Dodd Sept. 30, 2010 @ 1:07 a.m.

"Qualcomm is an outstanding facility and will provide at least 70 more years of service to the citizens of San Diego before it needs to be replaced."

Agreed. The San Diego State Aztecs and sellers of motorhomes and several exhibition soccer games are a wonderful use for that ill-conceived dump. It's an outstanding facility for everything except professional football and professional baseball. Multi-purpose stadiums do not work for professional sports, which is why Qualcomm is the only one still used by a professional football team except for Oakland.

And I'm not recommending that San Diego builds a new football stadium, because they cannot afford a professional football team. Let the Chargers go to Los Angeles.

0

David Dodd Sept. 30, 2010 @ 1:25 a.m.

By the way, attendance at PETCO on Wednesday night was 29,400. It's mostly the economy. So far as parking, that's not an excuse. The trolley runs to PETCO, people can park for free at any number of trolley stations and ride the trolley in. A portion of the low turnout is due to the change in ownership; people are less willing to trust new ownership until it has proven itself.

So far as the low payroll, it's certainly POSSIBLE that ownership is raking in MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars in their first year of investment, but I don't think that's likely. It took all Moorad could muster to get the money necessary to buy out Moores, so my guess is that some returns on investment for the co-owners is a necessity. The next two years will say more about this franchise and the new ownership than speculation today would suggest. If the payroll increases slightly on a yearly basis over the next few years until it reaches 70 or 80 million, then I think that ownership is doing right by the franchise. If payroll is kept at its current level, then Padres fans have every right to raise hell.

0

Founder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 8 a.m.

Reply all

The $120 per seat ticket price is the killer in today reality, period!

Add to that, that the Current Owner(s) are not even generous enough to allow kids to enter free to fill up all those empty seats and you get just another BAD deal for San Diego, thanks to all our Leaders wanting to "deal" with the Ultra Wealthy!

Here is my suggestion: I think that the Owner should allow adults with kids and also anyone in uniform, to watch the next five games for free, to fill any un-sold seats; then we will see if the price per ticket is the real issue or if the Stadium was just a Foul Ball...

0

valueinvestingisdead Sept. 30, 2010 @ 8:23 a.m.

Too expensive. Do you realize Dodger Box Seats in 1995 were $9? Now, they are $120? Concessions are beyond insanity. Baseball is not exciting to youth so once the Baby-Boomers are gone, attendance is going to plunge big-time. Hard for kids to get excited because often they latch onto a player then that player moves on for more money. When I grew up, players stayed on teams their entire career.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2010 @ 8:55 a.m.

Multi-purpose stadiums do not work for professional sports, which is why Qualcomm is the only one still used by a professional football team except for Oakland.

Baloney refried-Jack Murphy stadium is one of the BEST in the NFL, it worked great for the Padres for 30+ years..... the ONLY reason there are not other multi purpose stadiums left is b/c the pro teams have hi-jacked and blackballed taxpayers across the nation into fleecing them out of home and food thru taxes for new stadiums they didn't need or deserve......

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 9:45 a.m.

Response to post #5: Good points. Especially "anonymous" investors. We still don't know who they are. Attendance isn't the only economic variable, of course. We need to know how TV and radio income is doing, along with concession sales. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 9:48 a.m.

Response to post #6: College stadiums, such as at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin, are around 100 years old -- older in the case of Michigan, I believe. There have been improvements, of course, and regular maintenance, but a stadium can last a long time. San Diego can hardly claim that its stadium faces rough weather. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 9:54 a.m.

Response to post #7: What's needed is context. And a sense of priorities. In the grand scheme of things, just how important is a football stadium that will be used 10 times a year? And used by a team owned by a billionaire who can well afford to build a stadium with private funds? I went to plenty of Padres games at Qualcomm over the years and thought it was a splendid facility. Our family sat throughout that park and never really had a bad seat. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 9:57 a.m.

Response to post #8: On the other hand, the Padres have had a very good team this year with one of baseball's lowest payrolls. As far as I can tell, this very good low-payroll team was built by a guy named Towers. He was fired. Sigh. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 10:02 a.m.

Response to post #9: That $120 is not the price of a ticket. It's the price of a bunch of things including beer, soft drinks, hot dogs and hats. I think one of the worst things the Padres did was price the Hispanic market out of the ballpark. This was a particular insult with teams having so many Hispanic players. It's too late for any attendance experiments this year (the last three games are in San Francisco), but the team might try some new twists next year. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 10:05 a.m.

Response to post #10: Do you want to see real insanity? Check out prices at the new Yankee Stadium in New York. Not only have taxpayers shelled out money so most can't afford games, the elite are protected from having to mix with the hoi-polloi. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 10:07 a.m.

Response to post #11: Agreed, SP. Again, it's context. Just how important is subsidizing pro sports in the greater scheme of things? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 30, 2010 @ 12:55 p.m.

"..the ONLY reason there are not other multi purpose stadiums left is b/c the pro teams have hi-jacked and blackballed taxpayers across the nation into fleecing them out of home and food thru taxes for new stadiums they didn't need or deserve."

Not necessarily true. Look up RFK stadium (no longer used by the Redskins nor the Nationals), and note that FedEx Field where the Redskins currently play was privately financed. Would the Spanos' build with their own money? Not even if they had enough to do it. But that's a separate issue; multipurpose stadiums don't work because the stadiums compromise the viewing experience, and maintenance is far too costly.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 1:54 p.m.

Response to post #19: Once again: people watch pro football games for 3 hours 10 times a year. There are other things that are more important in this world. If pro football fans can't put up with mediocre sight lines for 30 hours a year, they can do something else during those time periods. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 30, 2010 @ 2:48 p.m.

Re #21: Personally, I couldn't care less, I've turned down free tickets to see the Chargers play, I have no intention of attending another professional football game unless I'm in the press box and being paid to do so. My argument is on behalf of fans that do attend and it is based on their input, and my criteria for judging Qualcomm so harshly comes from personal experience of being inside of the stadium, on the field, numerous times. Note that football fans in Washington D.C. complain about Fed-Ex Field, they miss the experience of RFK Stadium even though the newer venue is much more accommodating for a professional football team. So, you never know.

The Chargers certainly CAN play at Qualcomm for at least another decade, although maintenance costs are beginning to skyrocket. Note that the home opener failed to sell out and now this Sunday's game is going to fail to sell out. This isn't because Qualcomm is not a great venue to watch a game, it is mostly economics and less than stellar opponents.

So far as a new football stadium in San Diego, it isn't going to happen, and I agree with the majority here that believe it shouldn't happen if public funding is part of the equation. My argument about Qualcomm is entirely separate from that issue. I think it is furcated to argue that since a new stadium can't be built then the existing one is just wonderful.

Qualcomm is a useful venue, it simply isn't useful for the Chargers or the Padres. And I watched a lot of Padres games there and had a great time, never complained, but I fully understood why the Padres wanted a new stadium. Like you, I find it reprehensible what Moores was permitted to get away with, but setting that aside along with the way it was financed, PETCO is a far superior venue than Qualcomm for baseball.

0

Don Bauder Sept. 30, 2010 @ 5:42 p.m.

Response to post #21: I can't comment on Petco because I have never watched a game there. But I am still puzzled by the lousy attendance in a year in which the team is contending for the playoffs. Something is seriously wrong. It may not be the venue. It may or may not be logistics -- parking, etc. Certainly, the economy is part of the problem, and prices, even though they have been reduced, have to be a factor. Anybody got ideas? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Sept. 30, 2010 @ 6:53 p.m.

Official Padres attendance for 2010: 2,131,774

For PETCO, since its opening, here are the previous years:

2004 - 3,040,046 2005 - 2,832,039 2006 - 2,659,732 2007 - 2,790,074 2008 - 2,427,535 2009 - 1,922,603

Previous to PETCO, when the stadium was called Jack Murphy, the only times the Padres drew more than 2,131,774 was in 1985 when they drew 2,210,352 and in 1996 when they drew 2,187,886.

During the Qualcomm years, the attendance was as follows:

1997 - 2,089,333 1998 - 2,555,874 1999 - 2,523,538 2000 - 2,423,149 2001 - 2,378,128 2002 - 2,220,416 2003 - 2,030,084

In Qualcomm, the capacity for baseball was 50,000 until 1986 where bleacher additions raised capacity to 58,433 until 1997 when improvements upped the capacity to 67,544. In comparison, the capacity for PETCO is 42,445.

Is there a decrease in attendance at PETCO, excluding last year, in comparison with 2004 through 2008? Yes. Is it drastic? I don't think so. However, there's some data for everyone to chew on.

(Side note: The Padres just lost to the Cubs, the last regular season home game of 2010. They are three games behind San Francisco with three games to play, so they would need a sweep of the Giants starting tomorrow in order to force a one-game play-off at PETCO. To win the wild card, the Padres need for the Braves to lose at least two of their three games hosting the Phillies while the Padres must sweep the Giants. Should the Padres tie the Braves in the standings for the wild card, they would play one game in Atlanta to determine the winner.)

0

Ponzi Sept. 30, 2010 @ 8:32 p.m.

What happened? I thought that new stadiums made winning teams? Or did I get "teams" mixed up with "owners?"

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2010 @ 11:09 p.m.

My argument about Qualcomm is entirely separate from that issue. I think it is furcated to argue that since a new stadium can't be built then the existing one is just wonderful.

According to John Madden, Jack Murphy is one of the BEST facilities in the NFL.

He has stated that on numerous occassions.

0

SurfPuppy619 Sept. 30, 2010 @ 11:11 p.m.

For PETCO, since its opening, here are the previous years:

2004 - 3,040,046 2005 - 2,832,039 =================== My-has Petco been open for 6 years already????

I cant believe that-time flys!

0

David Dodd Sept. 30, 2010 @ 11:31 p.m.

SP - John Madden is a sweet, sweet man. Back in the day, his Raiders beat the snot out of the Chargers continuously so I'm certain he has some great memories there ;)

Yeah, six years for PETCO, amazing isn't it?

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 11:53 a.m.

Response to post #23: The attendance data you cite tell me that Petco certainly has been a bust from the standpoint of attendance -- which is only one measurement to examine. You left out the fact that in many of those latter Qualcomm years, the Padres had very bad teams. They had some bad teams at Petco, too, but new stadiums always do well initially because of the novelty factor. Petco is a failure in another sense, too: the ancillary hotels and condos are doing poorly. One other factor: the $300 million subsidy provided by the City, and the $20 million-plus that the City is coughing up each year because the park is a drain. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 11:54 a.m.

Response to post #24: Yes, you confused winning teams with grinning owners. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 11:55 a.m.

Response to post #25: I have heard him say it. I'm surprised that he didn't get fired after league pressure was applied. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 11:57 a.m.

Response to post #26: Tempus do fugit, don't it. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 11:59 a.m.

Response to post #27: Sweet, sweet man? Hasn't he become the very symbol of violence in NFL broadcasting? Doesn't he clap his hands and exult when one player brutalizes another? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Oct. 1, 2010 @ 12:20 p.m.

Re #32: I'm certain that you missed most of his broadcasts, and also certain that you missed his eulogy of the late great Don Cornell. Madden is retired.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 5:32 p.m.

Response to post #33: I am sure I missed most Madden broadcasts, but I have watched him. It seemed he was always celebrating violence. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 5:34 p.m.

Response to post #34: Dylan Thomas wrote a wonderful poem about time called "Fern Hill." Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Oct. 1, 2010 @ 8:18 p.m.

An interesting, somewhat related side note: I just read in Forbes that Alex Spanos is the 6th richest NFL owner with an estimated 1.1 billion dollars in net worth. No idea if this is accurate. The Chargers team net worth is an estimated 907 million.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 1, 2010 @ 8:48 p.m.

If the Chargers are worth close to a billion Spanos must be worth at least $2 billion............

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 1, 2010 @ 8:53 p.m.

I'm certain that you missed most of his broadcasts, and also certain that you missed his eulogy of the late great Don Cornell

Madden was an assistant coach under Don Coryell at San Diego State College.......when SDSC was a powerhouse....

0

David Dodd Oct. 1, 2010 @ 9:13 p.m.

I honestly have no idea what criteria Forbes used in their calculations. I'm certain the Spanos' aren't making much money currently, as there isn't any "developing" going on.

As for Madden, he was a football guy, and hitting is part of the game. You've never heard a man more concerned about injuries than Madden (Madden serves as special adviser to the Commissioner in exploring ways of providing players with a safer environment that would reduce the risk of head trauma). But, hitting is part of the game. Madden never glorified a hit other than to point out the good, legal ones. When someone lay injured on the field, Madden's tone was somber, remorseful, and hopeful. He won 14 Emmys as a color analyst, I'm pretty sure if he celebrated decapitations on the gridiron it would have been brought to light by now.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:09 p.m.

Response to post #37: In his autobiography, published several years ago, Alex Spanos said he was a billionaire. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:10 p.m.

Response to post #38: Possibly, but remember that his real estate holdings should have lot a lot of value in the current bloodbath. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:11 p.m.

Response to post #39: Wasn't San Diego State a powerhouse in those years partly because it was playing weak teams? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:14 p.m.

Response to post #40: I've heard of concussions and broken backs on the football field, but never a decapitation. Attempted decapitations, yes. Successful ones, no. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:20 p.m.

Don, I was obviously being facetious. It's a violent sport, and it isn't for everyone, I will readily admit that.

0

David Dodd Oct. 1, 2010 @ 10:59 p.m.

Thanks for the link, Crys. Interesting, they don't get specific, but generally try to provide what they feel is an accurate representation. So then, I'm assuming that the 1.1 billion includes the value of the Chargers?

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 2, 2010 @ 8:35 a.m.

He won 14 Emmys as a color analyst,

As a long time Raider fan, growing up in Oakland as a kid, I loved the Raiders (no more) and we all loved John Madden. But he never-ever- showed the kind of personality as a coach, not even close, as he did when he went into the broadcasting booth. Truly amazing...

Alex Spanos was one of the biggest apartment developers on the west coast, he made hundreds of millions as a developer. There is NO WAY he could only have a net worth of $1.1 billion with the Chargers accounting for $900+ million of that total.

I know SMALL developers locally that have a net worth of over $100 million...

0

Don Bauder Oct. 2, 2010 @ 9:10 a.m.

Response to post #45: Football sure as hell isn't for me, although I admit I enjoy watching it. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 2, 2010 @ 11:17 a.m.

I played football all through HS and one year in college, I love playing the game but never watch it on TV or in person....just don't care to watch the game.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 2, 2010 @ 4:24 p.m.

Response to post #50: That may be true of many football couch potatoes. Some of those who played the game watch less than those who didn't. I played basketball all through high school (and spent a lot of time on the bench, too), but watch little basketball on TV. It's been decades since I watched a game in person. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh Oct. 4, 2010 @ 9:32 a.m.

One thing that won't be helping the Padres next season is being knocked out of the playoffs this year. Just a few weeks ago, they looked like a sure thing to make the pennant race. When they started to lose big time, the reason to head to the ballpark in a late-season attendance surge was gone, gone, gone. Was it that their "small" payroll finally showed through?

0

Don Bauder Oct. 4, 2010 @ 9:46 a.m.

Response to post #52: A couple of months ago, there was an interesting story in the Wall Street Journal. Like the dumbbell that I am, I didn't save it. It featured a statistic that attempted to measure whether a team had been lucky. I don't remember whether it was number of late-inning victories or balls that somehow seemed to drop for a hit. In any case, the story stated that the Padres, then riding in first place, had probably been lucky. Balls were dropping safely an inordinate number of times. Possibly the fans sensed this. When I look at all the factors for the poor attendance, though, I keep returning to logistics -- traffic jams downtown, expensive parking that is too distant from the ballpark, scary walks through a deserted neighborhood late at night. I am basing this entirely on what people tell me, because I have never been to Petco. I know it's easy for some people to get there by trolley. But it apparently isn't easy for others. Consider, for example, the person who drives to work downtown, parking all day in a lot or building parking garage. But those will be closed when the game is over. So the person has to find another parking place before the game. This could be a problem. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Oct. 4, 2010 @ 10:26 a.m.

Reply #52 & #53 Visduh - I think you are correct, fans get excited near the end of the Season if their team is doing well and may make it into the Playoffs. When they don't then many regular fans ( not the Season Ticket holder wealthy Fans) deal with their frustration and move on to something else.

Don - Petco is in a weird location and is hard to access unless you have lots of money for parking and Partying before and after the game... When Petco Stadium was planned without a large tailgating Parking area, I believe many loyal fans became frustrated because they could not Party with their friends and family RV's like they do at Qualcomm, which is BIG part of joy of attending a Pro game for all of them!

Petco may indeed, be a great designed Stadium, but it is a lousy venue for all the other things that folks like to do along with a ball game, plus I also have heard many stories of "scary late night walks" by folks that were not able to park close by... With Hi-Def now becoming commonplace, many that once looked forward to catching a ballgame in person, will spend much less money and still be able to have their friends over for a Party at their own place, while showing off their new widescreen TV...

  • I hope Escondido voters read all these comments before next election...
0

Don Bauder Oct. 5, 2010 @ 10:13 p.m.

Response to pot #52: Even at mid-season, someone had bizarre statistical methods to show that the Padres had been lucky. I read it at the time and thought it smacked of quackery. But as things turned out, the statistician might have been right. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 5, 2010 @ 10:16 p.m.

Response to post #54: As I have said, I have never been to a game at Petco or even visited the area during a game, so I cannot comment. But people whom I talk and email with tell me exactly the same thing you do. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 5, 2010 @ 10:18 p.m.

Response to post #54: When you sift out all the variables, one keeps staring at us: lousy logistics at Petco. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Oct. 6, 2010 @ 11:59 a.m.

Response to post #55: I want to throw something else out. Others may want to comment. Petco Park is designed to be a pitcher's park. This gives the team a distinct advantage playing at home if it has a good pitching staff. BUT: do fans want to see pitchers' duels? I know that the really sophisticated baseball fans like pitching and defense, but what about the majority? Don't they want to see home runs and lots of scoring? Let me know if I am wrong. Another problem: if Adrian Gonzalez wants to be a big slugger, and possibly headed for the Hall of Fame, he won't want Petco Park. He will want to play in a hitter's park. Now, the other side of that equation is that a pitcher will probably want to stay at Petco and make a great record. So, summing up, logistics, low-scoring baseball, still-high prices, and the recession may have driven down attendance this year. Somebody tell me whether this analysis is all wet. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Oct. 6, 2010 @ 12:51 p.m.

59

Three up and Three down = Loser inning

NASCAR has action and has lots of "something to watch" beside commercials.

Your comment was a home run!

0

Don Bauder Oct. 6, 2010 @ 6:45 p.m.

Response to post #60: Since I have never watched NASCAR -- and don't intend to do so -- I can't comment. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Oct. 7, 2010 @ 8:29 a.m.

Reply #61 If that's the case, then I agree, you should be car-ful!...

I used NASCAR as an example because that "sport" has seen huge increases in market share of the sports fan business; in fact I bet a "Race Track" would generate far more money for San Diego than another Pro Stadium...

0

Don Bauder Oct. 8, 2010 @ 6:54 p.m.

Response to post #62: Let's get really elegant. How about tractor pulls? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd Oct. 8, 2010 @ 8:11 p.m.

Don: Rather than to continue to remind San Diego how Moores screwed the City of San Diego (with the blessings and assistance of the elected officials of the City of San Diego), why not enlighten everyone by researching and presenting the deal that Moorad made when he agreed to buy out Moores and have that transaction completed by 2014? Stale bread is, well, stale. Fresh bread is, you know, fresh.

Also, your take on next season discounts on tickets would be appreciated (U-T, today's edition). Seems to me that the new ownership of the Padres are doing things the right way; but then of course, I don't want to see PETCO bulldozed and I get the feeling that some would thoroughly enjoy that. Sometimes I get the feeling that the idea of the complete and utter failure of the Padres causes many who enjoy this blog and your column to jump for joy. I'd go into the baby and the bathwater thing, if I thought it would help.

0

Don Bauder Oct. 12, 2010 @ 8:12 a.m.

Response to post #64: Nobody wants Petco bulldozed. Nobody wants it to be a $20 million annual drain on the budget, either, but that's what it is as a result of the lies that were told prior to the 1998 vote. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close