Tribe Attendance
by mauichuck on May 15, 2010 7:50 PM EDT
Email
Print
We spend a great deal of time on this site discussing contracts and such – all of which are an important part of the business side of baseball. But lately we’ve been ignoring the Culone in the parlor – attendance. We’re dead last in average attendance so far this year and not by a little bit. The next-to-last team, Toronto, is drawing 4% more fans than we are. The team with currently has the best attendance in baseball, Philly, has an attendance average that is more than 300% of the Tribes gate.
Here’s the grim numbers:
|
TEAM |
GMS |
TOTAL |
AVG |
|
16 |
721,076 |
45,067 |
|
|
13 |
576,418 |
44,339 |
|
|
16 |
699,987 |
43,749 |
|
|
21 |
824,146 |
39,245 |
|
|
16 |
624,008 |
39,000 |
|
|
18 |
696,174 |
38,676 |
|
|
17 |
655,269 |
38,545 |
|
|
23 |
862,419 |
37,496 |
|
|
19 |
679,997 |
35,789 |
|
|
16 |
558,396 |
34,899 |
|
|
21 |
669,722 |
31,891 |
|
|
14 |
413,099 |
29,507 |
|
|
13 |
378,652 |
29,127 |
|
|
17 |
470,147 |
27,655 |
|
|
18 |
466,836 |
25,935 |
|
|
20 |
515,090 |
25,754 |
|
|
22 |
563,276 |
25,603 |
|
|
18 |
445,546 |
24,752 |
|
|
16 |
373,829 |
23,364 |
|
|
17 |
394,886 |
23,228 |
|
|
19 |
434,012 |
22,842 |
|
|
16 |
360,858 |
22,553 |
|
|
19 |
393,339 |
20,702 |
|
|
16 |
321,702 |
20,106 |
|
|
19 |
370,043 |
19,475 |
|
|
18 |
316,169 |
17,564 |
|
|
18 |
298,571 |
16,587 |
|
|
20 |
328,302 |
16,415 |
|
|
18 |
274,548 |
15,252 |
|
|
14 |
205,250 |
14,660 |
And here’s why it’s important – as if you didn’t all ready know – the Indians’ ability to compete is related to its income. Attendance is awful, income plummets, the quality of the product on the field declines and our record gets worse which leads to falling attendance etc. In other words a baseball death spiral.
I have no idea how to turn this around, all I know is that it's bad for Indians baseball.
524 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As optimistic as any other happy Northeast Ohioan, I think that Lebron’s departure is the only thing that can revive the Indians. (Good thing, for the last 10 years, we remained faithful to the Browns, whose stadium is already crumbling and have never won a game in a more-or-less discredited sport.)
never won a game in a more-or-less discredited sport
Huh? wha? You mean Super Bowl not game, right? Cuz, you know, they did beat the Steelers last year, and then there was ‘64 NFL Championship and all those Otto Graham years – or don’t they count?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I have had similar thoughts about LeBron’s departure helping the Tribe, but have refrained from saying them out loud in order to avoid getting punched.
I don’t necessarily agree that Browns Stadium is crumbling. Outside of a plumbing disaster a few years back, what makes you say that?
Despite the Browns and Cavs woes, I don’t think their bad fortune will net the Indians much gate money. Additionally one thing that is expected by many affect Indians ticket sales negatively is the entertainment dollars the new casino will divert from all of the teams. This article lays some of it out nicely.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
the Browns, whose stadium is already crumbling and have never won a game in a more-or-less discredited sport.
this made me laugh. that’s ridiculous.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I worked for a structural engineering firm that was doing repairs on Browns stadium. Our structural guys were disgusted with the state of the stadium. The ramps are falling apart cause the saw cuts in the concrete weren’t sealed properly – rain is rusting the decking. So – not ridiculous, then?
I think it’s the last line that’s throwing people off. I’m pretty sure that came out wrong. I know you to like the football, whereas I might utter something like your unintentional phrasing.
Oh.
I’m sorry to sound like such a turd, but I do think football is somewhat of a joke, although I think everyone knows that and it’s fun anyway. Anyway, I just ooze pessimism right now, and you know that my nature is to be optimistic. I’m pretty scared for the Cleve.
The ludicrous pagentry in all forms, the faux-intellectualizing, Chris Berman and Keyshawn, homerun-bomb passing, the death of the wrap-up.
The horrifying tv timeouts, the far-away suite-centric stadiums (credit: Bill Simmons on last point).
Couldn’t you make some of the exact same complaints about baseball?
by Buckeye Brad on May 16, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Marching bands? half-nekkid cheerleaders?
No, baseball is not half the carnival football is – especially pro football.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
No, but they have Steely McBeam, which may, in fact, be worse.
Marte = Victory
by woodsmeister on May 16, 2010 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
This why they ain’t “America’s Team”. Instead of cowboy hats, boots and bare midriff vests, Steelers cheerleaders would hafta wear babuskas, galoshes and bowling shirts.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on May 16, 2010 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
When Steelers are involved?
I’m with you. I’ll text you some of the best ones I could come up with.
by NickFantana on May 17, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
But I was responding to the complaints he listed. Obviously baseball and football are different games, and the in-game experiences are different, but stadiums pushing fans farther away from the field, the ESPNization of the game into a few highlight packages, stadiums focusing on “entertainment” and not the game on the field, are all problems that baseball has just as much as football.
by Buckeye Brad on May 17, 2010 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions
This sounds like a complaint about MLB centered around the death of bunting and fundamentals and the idiocy of – well – Chris Berman.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on May 17, 2010 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Cleve will be fine. Downtown is lovely right now.
We’re headed to a point where we could probably shed one of our sport clubs. I hope it’s the football team, since I have no interest in it, but I’m not fond of Gilbert (for his business and for bringing us a casino), so it wouldn’t bother me if he failed.
I don’t think it’ll be the football team, and I think the Tribe can weather the storm. That leaves us with the Cavs, at risk of losing half of their franchise value—if not more—as a candidate for the sacrifice.
The casino is the dumbest thing that’s ever happened in this town. I can’t believe we fell for it. In spite of it, everything will eventually be fine.
100% agreement.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry jhon, but the team in jeopardy is not the Browns or the Cavs – it’s the Indians.
We lost the Browns due to both Model’s poor financial management and lack of resources. Kinda like how Baltimore lost the Colts and LA lost the Rams. It’s not just the financial stability of the club but also the owner’s ability/willingness to lose money. The Browns are cash cow for whoever owns them and Gilbert – despite or maybe even because he’s indirectly in the housing business – has the cash to “weather the storm.”
I see the Dolan’s as having neither the resources nor the willingness to take the financial ass-whipping I see on the horizon. Hope I’m wrong.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on May 16, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t see it. I think the Tribe is sort of stuck here, with no market to receive it. Baseball clubs don’t move around anymore. No place is really dying to have baseball. Dolan will take an ass-whooping in the near-term, but he can make this work here.
There are many places for a basketball team to relocate to, however, and more of a recent history of mobility.
If a team moves, my money’s on the Cavs. If LeBron’s already gone, there won’t even be much of a fight. Seattle’s still open, right?
Baseball clubs have never really moved around much. How many re-locations have there ever been? Ten?
Dodgers, Giants, Senators/Rangers, Senators/Twins, A’s (twice), Braves (twice), Pilots/Brewers, Brewers/Browns/Orioles, Expos/Nats. That might be the whole list.
Exactly one relocation in the past 40 years — the expansion era — largely because there basically are no markets left. Most of the relocations have involved Washington, Milwaukee or Seattle, which all currently have teams. Several of them involved second franchises in the same market, and there is no market that is likely to get a second franchise at this point (although NYC could get a third).
Three more moves involved spreading MLB out to California, and they expanded into Florida. Until/unless they’re willing to put a team in another country, geographic expansion is done.
Original Orioles/Highlanders/Yankees. That, plus the Angels move from Los Angeles to Anaheim, which doesn’t really count, is the whole list.
Portland? San Antonio? Las Vegas? Really, those are the only three reasonably feasible markets I can think of and each of them would have significant issues.
Marte = Victory
by woodsmeister on May 17, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking either Charlotte or Tennessee, especially if the Braves lose their luster.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
They look nearly ready at first glance, but there’s a lot of work to be done in those untested markets to get them all ready, and the recent economic growth has to prove sturdy. North Carolina is probably vital enough to support baseball—if they want it—but they’ll have to see what it looks like after the recession. Some folks in Portland think they’re ready, but they’re hardly a movement.
If you’re an owner, does either place have vastly more to offer right now than fill-in-the-blank-locale?
We all know that New York and several other places could/would/should consume more major league baseball per capita than they already do, but realistically no new teams are going to penetrate those markets.
30 teams, 27.5 cities. That’s what we’ve got, that’s how it shall be… for a while, anyway.
I don’t know if North Carolina would support a major league baseball team. Minor league ball seems to do very well here, so maybe there would be a lot of interest, but I don’t hear a lot of “why don’t we have a major league baseball team” in the greater Raleigh area.
-Erik
Raleigh would be the smallest market in MLB, even smaller than Milwaukee. If NC were considered, Charlotte seems more likely, presuming they’d consider putting another team in the non-Florida Southeast. The biggest unserved population centers are Orlando, Charlotte and Portland.
My impression is that Charlotte is bleeding badly with the collapse of the banks there. I might be wrong, though.
It would be a blemish on the record of our esteemed commissioner if one of the legacy franchises—a charter member of the American League—were to have to move.
Las Vegas also has issues with gambling, which is why there are no MLB or NFL franchises there.
Selig might just be the worst baseball commisioner in my lifetime.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s not really up to the owners to decide. The commissioner is supposed to represent the best interests of baseball, not the best interests of the owners.
I suspect that’s not what it says in Bud Selig’s job description as written by the owners who hired him.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 19, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought the commissioner worked for the owners?
by Buckeye Brad on May 19, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Let’s say a consortium of landholders hire a forester to oversee their properties. The forester works a deal to sell all the timber to China. The owners are elated, and the forest is cleared in a fortnight. This is good for the owners of the forest, but not so good for the forest itself, or for those who rely upon the forest for their livelihoods or wellbeing.
So, is this a good forester? Does he work for the owners or to preserve the forest? Baseball is not your typical American business —I won’t venture further into political territory than to suggest laissez faire is not appropriate when it comes to a sport that enjoys special regulatory exceptions—and the game itself is not really the property of 30 rich men.
That just doesn’t fit here. Baseball, despite our frustratons, hasn’t been clear cut. Unfortunately, it could probably lose the bottom 4 franchises or so and still roll along.
Like I said elsewhere, if you look at the last decade or so, you’ll see that the top 10 payroll teams generally get 5 playoff spots, and the otther 20 teams get the remaining 3 spots. That’s a very rough sketch, but given that there’s a pretty good correlation with market size, MLB might think those numbers are perfect.
The problem is that you’re not talking about the overall economic health of the game, you’re talking about some spiritiual notion of what the game should be. I hear you, but Bud’s job is the first thing.
by dgcambridge on May 19, 2010 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that you’re not talking about the overall economic health of the game, you’re talking about some spiritiual notion of what the game should be. I hear you, but Bud’s job is the first thing.
Says who? His job is to act as a steward and to represent the best interests of the game, not to maximize profits for 30 owners.
Sure, it would be nice if the commissioner always did what was best for the game of baseball — and the fans — just like it would be nice if the player’s union also did what was best for the game, but that’s not the way it works. Of course they want the game to grow and be good for the fans, but they also each have their own self-interest.
by Buckeye Brad on May 19, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
But if we’re in a race, and we’re both bitten by cobras…
by VA tribe fan on May 19, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Selig has some very impressive accomplishments. The painting of him as a cartoon villain reflects, I believe, a real lack of reflection and consideration of the question.
I don’t think there’s any need to paint him as a cartoon figure. A sober assessment of his accomplishments is pretty bad.
A lot of what he gets credit for—e.g., MLB Advanced Media—were technological trends that would have happened under Bowie Kuhn.
Selig had the fortune to be the commissioner during one of the greatest economic expansions in history. Again, if Peter Ueberroth had been there, pretty much the same would have happened. Let’s give him credit for what he accomplished, not for what he stumbled into.
Selig was also the pointman for all the labor-hawk owners (Reinsdorf, et al.). He oversaw two of the worst strikes in professional sports. He cheapened the game after the 1994 strike by juicing the ball, permitting performance-enhancing drugs and stacking the deck to favor the Yankees and Red Sox.
His postseason reforms have been both good and bad. Selig’s relentless pandering to advertisers debased his product, cheapened the competition (with all the days off during the playoffs) and drove away many potential fans.
Well, I see some of these things differently.
I think the maturation of the mass media market happened to him, and that and basic free agency (and Steinbrenner’s hubris) are what caused the Yankees hegemony. Selig gained more ground on revenue sharing and salary taxes than every previous commissioner combined, and yes, I think it took a 1994 strike to do it.
Yes, we had big economic expansion for most of a decade, but at the same time, Selig was extracting concessions from local governments and the players alike.
As an aside, as of next year, he has eliminated having pitchers bat in the All-Star Game. Finally!
Finally, there are hundreds of very valuable media properties in the world, and few if any have been exploited and monetized on the Internet as effectively as baseball broadcasts have been. MLB has gotten right, for the most part, what nearly every other media industry has gotten wrong — notably newspapers, TV networks, magazines and record companies — and have vastly outpaced other pro sports in this area.
Some of this no doubt is due to the nature of the fan base and the sport, but still, MLBAM is a model of getting both the concept and execution right, and Selig owns it — and it’s a big net positive with regard to revenue equality, possibly even holding the keys to solving it entirely.
He didn’t stack the deck in favor of the Yankees and Red Sox — it was already stacked that way. From what I know, baseball has implimented more revenue sharing over his watch then they’ve ever had in their history.
by Buckeye Brad on May 19, 2010 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Selig at what? $20M a year, has done little to level the playing field. He’s done next to nothing to install a salary cap or revenue sharing.
His inaction has led to the decline in baseball’s status as “America’s Game”. Football blew past baseball in the 80s and now basketball is poised to supplant baseball in second place, all the while Mr. Selig plays his violin.
He’s a joke.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Well, this is just incorrect. He’s instituted a lot of revenue sharing as well as a relatively modest luxury tax. It isn’t “nothing.” It happens that the media market changed in a way that basically canceled out these improvements, but is that Selig’s fault?
OK, you say he’s helped – to a limited extent – level the playing field. You think that the “modest luxury tax” has helped to do that. So how do you explain the the fact that one team – the Jackasses – has a aggregate team salary of $206M – wait forget about them, the top five payrolls average almost $148M while the bottom five average a little short of $51M. Damn near a 300% difference in payrolls between the top five and the bottom five in a 30 team collection. Later, when I get the time, we’ll look at how rapidly that disparity has widened under Selig’s “leadership”.
Can you name another team sport with that kinda discrepancy in payroll?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The difference is actually almost 200%, not almost 300%.
Can you name another team sport with that kinda discrepancy in payroll?
Soccer, the most popular sport in the world.
Come on, four billion!
That’s what I thought, but I was waiting for someone who knows more about soccer to jump in.
by Buckeye Brad on May 21, 2010 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
True, but in every country but the US, soccer leagues have a promotion/relegation system that keeps it kind of exciting. Those low-payroll teams have no chance to win the premier league, but they’re fighting every game to stave off the drop.
In MLB, teams like the Royals and Pirates and (sigh) Indians are just chained to the rich bastards with essentially nothing to play for most of the time.
First, there probably should be a significant disparity in payroll between the absolute top and bottom, because different teams are on different roster-building timetables. So that is not an inherently bad thing.
Second, I think it is no coincidence that the Red Sox are spending right around the current luxury tax threshold, which is $170 million. It is pretty clear to me that the Yankees and Red Sox would have gone even higher if the tax were not there.
The Yankees are paying players $206 million, but spending $220 million to do it. Clearly they would spend the whole $220 on players directly if they could and probably more. My point is only that the tax is having a constraining effect on payrolls, but just not enough to keep a couple of teams from doubling the median.
So basically your argument is that the huge disparity that exists in baseball salaries is a "natural" phenomenon since team’s are in different development cycles (BTW, when should the Yankees/BoSox start their rebuilding program?) But how does that explain the fact that baseball is the only American sport (that’s right junkballer) where this grotesque distortion exists?
This slavish devotion to short term profits at the cost of long-term vibility is what’s killed many an American industry. Eventually it’s gonna kill baseball too.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But how does that explain the fact that baseball is the only American sport (that’s right junkballer) where this grotesque distortion exists?
Because no one cares enough to change it. That’s why. All the talk is nothing but whining background noise to the people in position to actually make a difference.
Soccer gets away with it because it is run better (generally) than baseball ever has been, is more popular, and uses a very profitable promotion/relegation system. Without those factors, no sport can withstand the top heavy structure without becoming what baseball is today.
Soccer, and by far more than that. It’s also far more lucrative as a whole than football or basketball.
I know nothing of soccer, but here’s this: The 4-division English league was disbanded in 1991, and the Premier League created. Wiki:
The newly formed top division would have commercial independence from the Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League license to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe.In the 18 seasons of the Premier League, Man U has 11 titles, Chelsea and Arsenal 3 each. Fun!
by YoDaddyWags on May 21, 2010 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
And I would note that Chelsea did the double this year.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on May 21, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s still a four tier setup, it just operates a bit differently. The “problem” with soccer finances as such is that the owners dump in tremendous amounts of money. No American owner currently chooses to deficit spend like that. And yes, as Erik points out, we did the double this year.
Out of curiosity, I’m sure you have a proper hate for the Yankees and MLB payroll disparities. How do you reconcile this with being a Chelsea fan?
United are the Yankees, Chelsea are the really rich Indians. I thought that was obvious.
In reality, I don’t claim to reconcile it. My family is originally from just south of the Chelsea district of London, so junballer and I are Chelsea fans. They were miserable for years, and struggled to stay up. Abramovich dumped loads of money into the team and now we are the best in England. (If no longer one of the two richest).
The economics of European football are just so vastly different that it is hard to compare it to MLB. In twenty years, Chelsea could pull a Leeds while City and Crystal Palace rake in the wins and the cash. It’s cyclical, but there’s always something to play for.
I won’t hold it against you. I’m a big soccer (football) fan, but I have no particularly strong rooting interest. I just like watching it played well, which means I end up watching the good sides more often than not.
I will watch the World Cup and roots for the US, but I guarantee the best matches will not feature the US team.
I’m throwing my support if the US loses to the Ivory Coast.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I’m actually a Germany supporter which, historically, is kind of the exact opposite of cheering for England.
Come on, four billion!
Although you’ll be fairly safe should the game go to penalties.
by LondonTribe on May 25, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, given that the House of Windsor started out as the House of Hanover…
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 25, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. They’re all cousins. I think we in the US should steer clear of this European morass.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
There has been talk about places like Mexico City or San Juan, to get in to the Latin markets. Those moves might still be years away, though.
by Buckeye Brad on May 17, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s a good goal for down the road. It would be great if baseball could expand all over South America too, but there is obviously a lot of progress that needs to be made… more in some places than in others.
We have a small European contingent here too who I’m sure would love to see some Tribe ball in England.
I would, of course, love to see MLB in England but short of spring training exhibitions I cannot see it (I appreciate you weren’t suggesting that it was going to happen either).
The disruption to the regular schedule would be too great, and the game is simply not embedded enough in the British sporting pysche. There isn’t the ready made fanbase like there is for, say, the NFL.
NBA on the other hand could probably support a franchise here if it was done right – Deng on the roster, based at the O2 arena and some factoring for travel.
There are 750,000 Americans in South East England too, so you’d get numbers there too, no doubt.
It is really possible that either city could support a major league franchise financially, to a scale commensurate with the other clubs?
Well, I have absolutely no idea, which is why I said those moves might still be years away. But I can certainly see it happening eventually.
by Buckeye Brad on May 17, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
According to a Grupo Financiero Banamex report in 2008, Mexico City’s population of 8.84 million people has a per capita income of $25,258 USD, which is about on par with Cleveland Heights and less than $1,000 behind the New York-Newark urbanized area taken as a whole. It’s also about $1,500 behind Minneapolis-St. Paul and has four times as many people. I’m admittedly super-ignorant of the status of the other factors that would go into placing and supporting a franchise there, but it doesn’t seem unfeasible from the income angle.
Come on, four billion!
And as a result of all the work abroad, American football is getting more and more popular. I bought a six-pack in Mexico City in 2007 and it had NFL helmets on each can. NFL hats are very popular as well.
I would guess baseball would draw more in Santo Domingo or Caracas than Mexico City.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 18, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
So I guess you feel that Selig’s threat to contract the Twins was all smoke?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Let’s start with the Rays.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 18, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve got a better idea: start with the Twins, White Sox, and Tigers (we can leave the Royals).
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s much more likely that the Tribe get contracted than the Rays.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Please elaborate.
(Seriously, don’t. I was kidding about the Rays.)
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 19, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m all for finishing 50-112 so we can get Longoria in the contraction draft.
"I call myself common sense" —Manny Acta
by westbrook on May 20, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do they? I don’t know. Pittsburgh performs similarly to Cleveland in most respects, and is only in slightly better shape than Cleveland as a whole. I criss-crossed Cleveland several times today (left my credit card at the hotel—oops). Cleveland—particularly at its core—is visually appealing, and everywhere I go I see signs of new investments. You know that line at the end of the Tourism vid, “we’re not Detroit!” I work in Detroit, and believe me, it’s true (and even in Detroit, there are a few good things going on). We’re positioned to improve because 1) the real economic pain has already happened and, 2) people aren’t leaving anymore. We’ve already "survived,’ so you can feel good about moving back here. Any day now, right?
Take a hard look at what the casinos have done for Detroit. One of them (Greektown) kind of spoiled one of the handful of functioning districts in the city, and the others have been worse. All of these are money sinks that ultimately transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes into a few concentrations—most of them . “Entertainment” dollars my ass! Incidentally, did you hear that someone I went to high school with was shot dead outside of one of these?
If all that wasn’t bad enough, all our city got out of the deal is a license fee and the prospect of a few more crappy jobs. The inevitable result is a depletion of our total resources, not the net wealth generation sold to us (remember, these are only transfers… there’s too much competition for a casino to amount to a sustainable basic industry). This is sort of a big old common sense “duh,” and I assume that I’m preaching to the choir. But anyway, to hell with Gilbert, and to hell with his Cavs. Cleveland is going to keep improving, but won’t be because of the casino.
As I said earlier, I tend to think that things staked on personal choices aren’t “wrong,” even if I think they’re stupid. That’s how I feel about football. It don’t need it to change for me to like it. Football can stay just as it is, and I can just ignore it. Whatever losses is consumes is small on a per person basis, and a football addiction probably isn’t crippling.
Casinos are different, which is why we have the time honored wisdom of regulating (usually prohibiting) them in most places. On one hand, people have a right to be stupid and waste their money… but these have a tendency to lead people to catastrophic failures, and it can thus become my problem.
I laughed at first at the “we must keep our gaming dollars in Ohio,” pitch the casino people gave us—I couldn’t believe that could be said with a straight face—but they found enough morons to believe it. A pity. More pain. It will pass.
Football’s not addicting you say? There’s a whole sub rosa industry in Cleveland based on football betting. It’s addicting – legally or illegally – just like casino gambling.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
long response re- casinos.
/deleted- politics.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Yet, jhon’s somewhat political casino rant is allowed to stand.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
I honestly try to keep it contained as I walk that line. Can we discuss it here without ideology, or should we exchange emails?
No. I don’t necessarily have a differing view … or any dogs in the fight, so to speak.
I was just trying to honestly assess the moderators’ guidelines in determining what stays and what goes.
Thanks for the civil offer, though.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
You may be confused. Ryan Kelsey is not Ryan Richards, site mod. No post was actually deleted. Ryan Kelsey was just making a joke, I guess.
Two Ryans on one blog is way too confusing. I think one of them should be forced to leave.
by Buckeye Brad on May 17, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Pretty easy to tell them apart when Adam pitches in like he did just there.
by NickFantana on May 17, 2010 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah it was a semi-joke. I started a long response, but then realized that it was way overly political. There are obvious and intelligent opinions re- casinos that sharply differ from what jhon said. I feel fine leaving it at that.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Yes, I can see that it’s debatable, but maybe I’ve already gone far enough off-topic. If you want to continue it by email or something I’m open to it—I don’t know anyone who would debate this with me among my personal contacts, so I actually am interested in hearing an alternative viewpoint. I just want to add one more thing that troubles me about casinos, and I’ll be brief:
Several days ago I learned something that I think is very interesting and very dark about the Detroit casinos. It has to do with a program that takes a fraction of the casino revenues and offers them to small business as loans (I sat in on a conference about this for prospective borrows). These kinds of programs are necessary to make the casino more palatable to voters, right? This all sounds okay, but ironically most of the new businesses turn out to be 1) debt collectors and repo men or 2) credit sharks. The loans the program offers are 4% or more above prime rates. Empty promises.
Hm, SBN needs a private message feature. you have an e-mail address you wouldn’t mind posting?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I would not have made it a link, and put some other stuff in their like “at” instead of @, just to be safe.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
True. Thankfully it’s only a temporary account, useful for give out my real email. I made the switch to gmail last year after 12 or so years with hotmail, and I haven’t looked back.
Good then.
I usually create a spam account (one that I don’t mind using to get coupons, etc) and then a real account that I only give to precious few.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
Heaven forbid engineers allows something to be built beyond the bare minimum of materials & strength in the first place these days. Who sets these guidelines? Is anything built in the last 25 years going to be around by the time it gets to be about 25 years old?
I don’t think anything at Steelyard Commons is built to outlast the tax abatements. I know 3 of the stores already have a leaky roof.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the idea, if I remember right, is that the bid was wrong / project ran over and they just ran out of money to seal the ramps. 10 years later they’re paying the same guys for worse repairs.
You’d almost think it’s by design considering the same firms so often get the repair jobs.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno joe, I usta work for Turner – albeit a long, long time ago – the GC on the Browns stadium and they were much too smart to cut that small of a corner. The liability would be huge. Plus they got some female lawyer as the Cleveland VP now.
It just doesn’t make much sense.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Orlando’s basketball arena is only like 12 years old and they’re replacing it already. America is disposable now. I hate that.
Planned obsolescence … in gigantic buildings. What will they think of next.
This will all seem a lot less clever once we lack the money to rebuild.
Well, local governments can always start promoting smoking and drinking….
by kennesawmountainwahoo on May 17, 2010 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Suburban thinking never saved an urban core until now…
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I hate to agree with this kind of pessimism but it is true. attendance for the indians DID significantly drop when lebron came to town even though I don’t believe the product on the field was comparably worse.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Or, to a rhetoric geek, post hoc ergo propter hoc
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 21, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
2001: indians attendance third. Browns finish 7-9 but 3-13 the year before…people were not expecting a good product for the browns so there was little fan interest.
2002: the browns were coming off of a 7-9 season. Indians had a mediocre season and missed the playoffs. Browns made the playoffs that year. Indians still finish 7th in total attendance.
2003: Indians got a bit worse. There were high expectations for the browns following their playoff season. There was anticipation for lebron coming to cleveland. Indians finish 23rd in total attendance.
Especially in football and basketball, fan interest is based on expectations. There will always be a good fan interest in cleveland for the browns when they suck but it will increase when they make the playoffs.
Lebron coming to Cleveland INSTANTLY created mass interest in the team. The attendance numbers jumped from last in the league to just outside the top 10, which is where they stayed for the next couple years.
The thing is, you have to look at this in an economic sense. going to sports games are a luxury good that are largely based on income. people only have a certain amount of money to spend on “luxury” goods and have to figure out opportunity costs such as which teams are more worth seeing live and which ones would they rather watch on Television.
In a perfect world where money wasn’t an issue, the indians attendance would not have gone down so rapidly once lebron arrived. However people can only spend so much. The cavs were the new kid on the block (in a way) as far as cleveland sports and were the hot ticket. Lebron bring trememdous value to the franchise. Signing lebron automatically made the franchise worth about 80-90 million more. With the browns also in town jockeying for fans, the cavs were still among the NBA leaders in attendance. the problem was, someone had to go and that was the indians.
its not a coincidence, its economics and understanding that going to sports games to most people is a luxury good.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
This still does not prove that LeBron is directly responsible for the Indians’ attendance decline.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 21, 2010 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m honestly not sure what would prove it, but then again, I don’t think there is a direct causal relationship. I will stipulate that going to a professional sports game is a luxury and subject to basic economic forces. I will also stipulate that the coming of LeBron created a vast demand for Cavs tickets that was previously not there. I concur that LeBron James’ presence has been a factor in Indians’ attendance, but I think implying that it is somehow singular ignores other variables.
Some of these factors would include fan disaffection with the breakup of the mid-90s AL Central juggernaut as Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome left through free agency and the “Dolan is cheap” mythos became established, followed by the subsequent rebuilding. Another factor would be the constant buildup of expectations followed by disappointing onfield performance. The selling off of players the fans identified with hasn’t helped either. There are plenty of Indians-related reasons to account for attendance decline, and that’s before you get to economic, demographic and weather factors.
The following table shows Tribe attendance by year and the number of Indians wins:
Year Attendance Wins
2001 3,182,523 91 (playoffs)
2002 2,616,940 74
2003 1,730,002 68
2004 1,814,401 80
2005 1,973,185 93
2006 1,998,070 78
2007 2,275,911 96 (playoffs)
2008 2,169,760 81
2009 1,766,242 65
The drop started in 2002 when the dismantling of the team started and then there was a huge drop from 2002 to 2003 after Jim Thome left. LBJ didn’t play a minute for the Cavs before November 2003 after baseball season was over.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 21, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure anyone is claiming that Lebron is a singular cause.
I would add to this the note that both Juan Gonzalez (proxy for Manny) and Roberto Alomar left after 2001. Did that contribute more to the 2001-2002 drop, or did the lack of late-season walkups in 2002 after the Colon deal?
The drop from 2002 to 2003 probably had more to do with the 74 wins in 2002 — and the Colon deal openly portrayed as a 2003 white-flag — than Thome’s departure, but as with Lebron, it is probably impossible to establish a firm basis for causality.
I look at the 2005-2006 numbers — basically the same — and wonder if we didn’t lose some 250,000 in ticket sales simply by missing the playoffs in 2005.
I look at the 2005-2006 numbers — basically the same — and wonder if we didn’t lose some 250,000 in ticket sales simply by missing the playoffs in 2005.
I think that’s quite possible, based on what I’ve read about the residual effect of playoff appearances.
Yes, that. I think, however, that there are situations where a team can have a nice run at contention, miss the playoffs, and still get at least part of the benefit of increased expectations the following season.
The way the 2005 Indians did it, however, was not one of those ways. Strictly anecdotally, it seemed as though they lost whatever benefit they might have gotten from a close-but-no-cigar finish by blowing it in the final week, going 1-6. Had they finished with 89 wins and never been within two games, I think they would have been viewed more favorably. This is horribly unfair, but so are a lot of things.
This is horribly unfair, but so are a lot of things.
Foremost, being a fan of the Cleveland Indians.
I agree. Had the Tribe closed to within one game with a furious 5-1 close—and still ended with 93 wins—they would have gotten quite a boost in 2006. The way the final week played out, with characteristic Cleveland pusillanimity, simply confirmed the worst fears of a wary fanbase.
This still does not prove that LeBron is directly responsible for the Indians’ attendance decline.
but I didn’t say he was directly responsible. I pointed out that him coming to cleveland was a large factor in the indians going from 7th in attendance to 23rd in one year. He directly was not responsible because he directly did not tell people to stop going to indians games. However, because going to sports games is a luxury good (very elastic in demand, cheaper substitutes like watching TV) AND lebron coming to the cavs had a direct effect on their attendance numbers, Lebron coming to cleveland DID have an effect on attendance at indians games, albeit an indirect one as opposed to a direct one.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
So, what you’re saying is that people didn’t buy tickets to Indians games in the summer of 2003 because they were saving their money to see LeBron James play in November? None of those other things like Jim Thome leaving and the Indians’ declining performance in the middle of a rebuild had anything to do with it?
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 21, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
None of those other things like Jim Thome leaving and the Indians’ declining performance in the middle of a rebuild had anything to do with it?
Did I say that? No. I said, that people have limited amounts of money and that lebron being in cleveland WAS a factor. I did not say that these things weren’t factors.
To show the difference lebron and the cavs have made, I will compare similar years for the indians.
-2001 and 2007 were similar years. both were good teams, playoff teams with popular players. However, there was a large discrepancy in attendance. the 2007 indians were 17th % of stadium filled and 21st in total attendance. In 2001, the indians were 4th in total attendance, and 3rd in % of stadium full. similar seasons, similar popularity of players, similar performance, different results at the box office. As a comparison between the years, the 2001 cavs were near the bottom 10 in attendance in the NBA whereas the 2007 cavs were 3rd overall, drawing more fans than the spurs, lakers, or suns.
-2002 and 2006 were also similar years for baseball. both didn’t have the success of 2001 or 2007 but had much of the same players. in 2006, the indians were 25th in total attendance and 22nd in % full. the indians were 12th in
-2003 when lebron was first starting out here, the indians probably had more recognizable faces than in 2009…however, they were just as bad. Still, they were only marginally better in attendance.
Tell me then, if the collapse in attendance in 2003 was purely based off of declining performance and getting rid of thome, what happened in 2007. if it was purely based off of what you say, the indians would see similar attendance numbers in 2007 as they would in 2001. they had just as good of a team and just as recognizable players. However, 2001 didn’t have lebron james, and the cavs being near the top in the NBA in attendance…SO, that is the main reason, IMO, why there is a major difference in attendance between ’01 and ’07.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
You really think LeBron, and not the fact that 2001 came at the tail end of a run of sustained excellence, was the “main reason” there was a major difference between 2001’s and 2007’s attendance numbers? I find that argument difficult to swallow.
Come on, four billion!
do you really think that the difference between one year of excellence and the last year in a run of excellence (albeit the last 2 years they had already started to fade a bit too) is 30% less of the stadium filled, or 12,000 seats per game (or over 950,000 fans the whole year)? I find that argument hard to swallow.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
No, but that and vastly different economic climate might explain it.
by Jay on May 21, 2010 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So is that economic climate that much different in Detroit? or St. Louis?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
the 2007 economic climate was still good. the housing bubble did not start to affect the economic climate majorly until the end of 2007/beginning of 2008.
If anything, you can argue that 2001 was a worse economic climate. in 2001, the market was crashing because of the burst of the “dot com” bubble which was quickly deflating. If you compare economic indicators from 2001 to beginning of 2007, 2007 will look like the better financial year.
yeah, there was a different economic climate…one that would favor more ticket sales in 2007
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Well, this is a load of crap. We were in a recession for most of the past decade, it just didn’t become near-depression until late 2008.
we were not in a recession for most of the decade. The economy was actually doing well and crashed in the 4th quarter of 2007. I have been even looking at economic indicators. they show a very slow, but still existing rise in the economy between 2002 and 2007, starting about (in most cases) the second fiscal quarter of 2002 and ending in the 4th fiscal quarter of 2007. We were in a minor recession from 2000-2002 because of the housing bubble. After that, the economy slowly healed, but it did not heal in a very healthy way (at least long term).
The Stock market didn’t become near depression of 2008, but we had been in a major recession for almost a year at that point.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Last sentence was my main point. Things were not going all that great before the big mortgage crash.
things were not great, but things were not particularly bad. in an economic sense, if you look at the market, the GDP, and economic indicators, from the 4th quarter of 2006 through the 3rd quarter in 2007, it didn’t have significant growth.
However, the market was not going down..at least not till sometime in the late 3rd/early 4th quarter of 2007…that is when the economic indicators started to fall…then early 2008, the mortgates were going down fairly fast, but didn’t fully crash and burn until the market did in late 208.
Things were not going all that great before the big mortgage crash.
this is totally true, however it seems to imply that 2007 and part of 2006, the recession had already started. things weren’t great but that does not mean it was a recession.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
You keep saying “the market,” but “the market” is not what it used to be, in terms of predicting how many people have how much disposable income to spend.
“The market” has been going up for most of the past year, but if unemployment is still over 10%, that’s a problem for a business like the Cleveland Indians. The unemployed are not only not going to ballgames, a lot of them aren’t even getting STO!
yes. this is true…and I agree that there wasn’t much growth in 2006 and 2007 and that disposable income was pretty much stagnant. however, from the numbers i saw, there was a tiny bit of growth, but not enough to call it anything all that significant.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
The U.S. wasn’t not in a recession by technical definition for most of the decade, but:
1.) Ohio probably was as a whole, and northern ohio sure the heck was.
2.) Compared to the 90’s, locally and nationally, the 00’s economy was tragic. And that was before the 08 stuff.
3.) Housing bubble and tech bubble were peanuts compared to (if not simply symptoms of) manufacturing losses, outsourcing, and deregulation.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I don’t really buy this. While to an extent, you could say that the economy was a bubble, there was strong economic gain from 2004 through late 2007 with all time highs being reached in equity markets and the Fed Funds rate peaking at 5.25%. That is indicative of a pretty strong economy.
Better look at median family disposable income. Salaries were stagnating, and household costs (gas, food, health care) were rising up sharply. In the Cleveland market, there are only so many bankers to fill 40,000 seats.
Household cost is a good way to look at it from a pure economics standpoint, but practically, it takes more than small shifts in real income for people to change behavior; it takes drastic changes. To that point, the national unemployment rate was 4.6 in August 2007. It was 6.1 in August 2008 and 9.6 in August 2009.
I didn’t look hard enough to find a graph for Northern Ohio specifically, although those numbers may very well not strongly correlate.
The point being, of course, is that 2007 seemed like a time of economic well-being at the time, bubble or no.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 23, 2010 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
yes…there was little growth in salaries from 2003-2006. From what i could tell, it basically stagnated in late 2006 until the mortgage bubble…this is true, but there wasn’t a true recession in any form until late 2007…not that 2006 was a particularly successful year.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Again, it’s not just stagnated salaries, it’s skyrocketing costs. Manhattan talks about “small shifts in real income,” but between 2001 and 2007, your typical family of four saw the annual cost of health care alone rise between $5,000 and $10,000. If incomes are stagnating, I’m saying, hell yes, that’s costing the Indians more in ticket sales than Lebron.
and i can agree it did affect ticket sales significantly…there are so many factors at play here its very hard to try to pinpoint how much effect each one had, but the combination of
a) the difference between the 2001 team and 2007 team in personnel and expectations
b) the Lebron factor
c) less income to use on tickets.
definitely all did a ton to make it happen.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Where does that come from?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 23, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
2001 and 2007 were NOT similar years. In 2001 the Indians were coming off of being in the playoffs for five of the past six years and were expected to be a playoff contender out of the gate In 2007, the Indians were coming off of a disappointing season where they were expected to contend and didn’t and, in fact, had not made the playoffs in any of the last 5 seasons.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 21, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, let’s look at the long view here.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 21, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
so the difference in this is clearly 12,000 fans a game…because if the indians had made the playoffs the couple years before, there would be 12,000 more fans per game in 2007 like there was in 2001?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
From 03-04 (LeBron’s first year) to 08-09, the Cavs averaged 19,608 fans at each home game. The six seasons prior to that, they averaged 14,616 fans. That is a difference of 4,992 fans per game, or 204,672 (4,992 fans * 41 home games) fans per season. If you only want to look at the years in question, the difference in the Cavs attendance between 2001 and 2007 is 4,563 fans per game, or 187,073 fans that season. You’re going to tell me that those 204,672 or 187,073 fans going to Cavs games knocked 906,612 fans off the Tribe’s attendance in 2007? Surely you have to recognize that there are other, greater factors in play. Don’t persist in making a fool of yourself.
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on May 22, 2010 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The extremism of views here is what’s most foolish.
It isn’t an all-or-nothing question. I doubt there’s an economist who would tell you that greatly improved Cavs ticket sales has zero effect on Indians ticket sales, yet that seems to be what you’re arguing here.
I don’t mean to argue that an extra 200k people going to Cavs games has no impact on Tribe attendance; I’m just saying that other factors have greater impact. Bross09 seems to believe that LeBron’s presence is what is dragging our attendance down and his departure will send it right back up to the previous level. To me, this is obviously untrue, and I’m trying to illustrate exactly why I believe that.
Come on, four billion!
II never meant that lebron was the sole reason our attendance is dragging. I thought it was definitely a significant factor but it would be stupid to believe that if lebron left and the team was successful, we would start having strings of sellouts again.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I can agree with this. I don’t believe i ever argued that lebron was the only factor and if it came across that way, my bad. I agree no economist would say it has zero effect…just like no economist would say anything had an all-or-nothing effect.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
attendance for the indians DID significantly drop when lebron came to town even though I don’t believe the product on the field was comparably worse.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 22, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
So it was a big factor, but not the only factor. What the hell is everyone arguing about? Everyone takes things so literally all of a sudden.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 23, 2010 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
but I never said lebron was the only factor. Whenever I directly talked in here about his factor in the difference, I describe him as a “main”, “big”, or “very significant” factor. never did I use such terms as polarizing.
With the quote you highlighted, I never said that lebron was the one and only factor, nor was that at all the intention. All i said was that attendance did drop when he came to town…you are reading more into it than is there.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
But it’s strongly implied. Otherwise, why mention it at all?
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 23, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
if you see it as strongly implied or truly saying something about causality, like I said, you are reading too much into it.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
You might as well say that Indians attendance declined after George Bush was elected president, or 9/11 or after Tom Cruise divorced Nichole Kidman. Post hoc ergo propter hoc</em. If you weren’t implying some sort of causality, then why even make the connection?
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 23, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you really think there’s a productive answer beyond what’s already been said, and if not, do you really think this was a productive question?
Nope. I’ve crossed the line. I apologize for beating this dead horse.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 23, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Thid is both OT and hard to believe, but I saw Nichole Kidman jogging in my neighborhood not once but twice last week. She’s filming a movie over here – along with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Anniston – and she’s staying in some Hollywood lawyer’s winter home near mine.
Life on Maui is good.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
lets look at this from a cost standpoint because choosing where to go is about opportunity cost.
I know many people who in 2007, would have rather gone to 2 cavs games than 1 indians game…and for a family of 4, the price was about doubled.
if you apply the Fan Cost Index of the Cavs in 2007, to the additional fans they gained, you get 15-16 million dollars in revenue.
If you take the number of fans lost by the indians and apply the FCI from 2007, they lost in revenue, about 34 million dollars.
Surely you have to recognize that there are other, greater factors in play.
Yes, there are other factors in play. I am not arguing that. Nothing is ever simply A causes B and C does nothing. I am arguing that A had a major factor at causing B. the gain in revenue by the Cavs is 44% of the loss in revenue sustained by the indians.
money doesn’t just appear. when one team is gaining revenue, another team is in general losing revenue. especially when we are talking of difference of over 10 million dollars.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I feel like this is a pretty reasonable approach to it. Assuming that some people who went to the Cavs games would never go see the Tribe, maybe 1/3 of the Tribe’s attendance woes have anything to do with LeBron. Let him go to his beloved New York though, for all I care.
Come on, four billion!
Let him go to his beloved New York though, for all I care.
I’m never gonna convince anyone otherwise, but I just do not and will not ever understand people wanting LeBron to leave
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 22, 2010 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t actually think he does, I’m just bitter about his wearing a Yankees cap to games.
Come on, four billion!
Who isn’t? Still not a reason to want the most transcendent athlete in decades to leave your city. Seems some folks think you can’t be a LeBron fan and a Tribe fan… well, I am, so how do you explain that? Am I less of a Tribe fan?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 23, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sure you’re a great Tribe fan, but I really just don’t care about the NBA. LeBron comes off to me as kind of a douche, and it rubs me the wrong way when the national media fawns all over him and then acts like that serves as giving Cleveland its due. Finally, I don’t want “our” first championship in eons to be the Cavs winning the NBA; I want to see the Browns or Indians bring it home. This stuff is probably based more in emotion than logic, but I won’t miss him when he’s gone.
Come on, four billion!
i was dragged kicking and screaming out of the Cleveland area as a nine-year-old, before the Cavs existed, and I never had a primary basketball affiliation. My affections rotated around where i lived, so I’ve rooted for the Bucks, the Bulls, the Sonics, the Knicks, with some mighty fun teams, but only one champeenship, the ‘79 Supes. It’s incredibly difficult to win a championship. To voluntarily shed one of the great players is competitive suicide, and I’d bet nobody actually associated with the Cavs is advocating doing so. LeBron wears a Yankee cap. I’m sorry he feels that way, I’m surprised he doesn’t take the time to think through why the Yankees are A Bad Thing, as Martha Stewart might say, but it’s basketball. I acknowledge the right of other people to their opinions and peccadilloes, and when the 2012 Tribe parades downtown celebrating their miraculous WS title, I expect King James will be cheerfully eating crow as he and the Cavs begin their attempt at a repeat championship. And it’ll be great.
Once again JB you and I are in violent agreement. James – I think – views himself as above petty regionalism. While I embrace it wholeheartedly. He isn’t a fan of the local sports clubs – even the soccer ones, if we got one – then I ain’t a fan of his. Simple
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
James – I think – views himself as above petty regionalism.
Well, that goes against almost everything LeBron has ever said and done, so either you haven’t been paying attention or you just don’t care if your views are backed up by any factual evidence. Everyone who knows LeBron says that he’s a very loyal guy. He has repeated many times that his goal as a child was to put Akron on the map. He has his first MVP ceremony at SVSM high school and his second at the UA arena. He still visits his old high school often and built his huge mansion outside Akron. He has always proclaimed his loyalty to NE Ohio. There is absolutely no reason to say he thinks he is “above petty regionalism.” That simply has no basis in facts.
Sure, he’s also a superstar who loves the media’s attention, like most star athletes, so he enjoys all the “where is LeBron going this summer” discussion, but that doesn’t make him a terrible person. After all, who wouldn’t love to be recruited and told how much we’re wanted? Many of us would be doing the same thing in his position.
And I know you think he’s not “loyal” because he grew up a Yankees fan — and, yes, that’s kinda douchy — but not everyone sees that the way you do. There are many, many kids in this country who grow up rooting for the Yankees because they’re popular and they’re not all bad people, and it doesn’t signify that they love their hometown any less. Once again, you manage to overlook all other evidence and make judgements based on the fact that he grew up a Yankees fan, as if nothing else he says or does matters. As I said, either you’re not paying attention or you just don’t care to know the truth.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don’t forget the Cowboy thing too. And yer right, after the declaration of Yankee love – during the ALDS no less(!) – nothing else matters.
Look you can appologize for LeStunod all you want. He’s a jackass and a poor representation of my community. Maybe you like him and the rest of his “posse”. I’ll be celebrating when he signs with the Knicks.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m not apologizing, I’m stating facts. You can choose to ignore them and continue your misguided beliefs all you want.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Just throwing this out there- living in Maui is more anti-cleveland than cheering for a baseball team from new york.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on May 24, 2010 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Really? I mean, this is pretty extremely subjective and I was just throwing some stuff out there to get a rise out of chuck, but I stand by my point.
Put another way,
Cold weather is more Cleveland than baseball.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Rooting for a New York baseball team is simply beyond the pale. How that somehow compares with merely living somewhere else is beyond me.
Don’t forget the Cowboy thing too
so, because he dreamed of sports success and desired to be great, its a crime to like good teams? look at what his favorite teams were growing up? the bulls, the Yankees, and the Cowboys. they were the best in their sports, plus all their championship teams were filled with generally good guys.
He’s a jackass and a poor representation of my community.
IF he wasn’t a yankees fan, would you still think this? I doubt it. What has he done, besides don a yankees cap that has been a terrible representation?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Allow me to say that there is really only one person on this board who can actually pull off this kind of comment, and the rest of us should probably not try.
Allow me to say, without being ironic,
This whole thread is making me quite catatonic.
The mish-mash of logic is too macaronic;
Its lumbering movement is too, too tectonic.
The diamonds it offers are slightly zirconic;
If this is what love’s like, let’s keep it platonic.
by YoDaddyWags on May 26, 2010 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
These themes go and end the same
The same the same, what’s the fuss?
A road less traveled beside an awful game
For a few to clumsily discuss
Hey, was that a Gertrude citation?
Who is he with this gift for word play?
Utility unknown, sure, but a new addition
All the same, Way goes on to way on to way…
Now I enter again, the ungifted cynic
Isn’t the first time, hopefully the last
How repulsive; writes an untidy limerick
Let’s blame him for this quarrelling morass
Too far! Now comes your peace ship beckon
Preaching "don’t behave like the old Europeans"
Disarmed, I’ve only one message to leave, I reckon
That indeed, most of these things will never happen
I don’t like Yankee fans, Cowboy fans, Laker fans and Notre Dame fans from Cleveland.
And yeah, he – or more specifically his friend Maverick – are horrible representatives of Northeast Ohio.
As my dad usta say, watch what people do and don’t listen to what they say.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
thats true. I don’t hate cowboy fans that much and am personally indifferent to yankees fans. I understand the dislike of a guy because of what teams he is a fan of, I just don’t see the reason for irrational hatred that some hear have shown about lebron.
(p.s. and when I say I am personally indifferent to yankees fans, I hate the organization, but there are some yankees fans I don’t hate…however there are some I hate with a passion)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
And yeah, he – or more specifically his friend Maverick – are horrible representatives of Northeast Ohio.
Absurdly overstated and completely ridiculous. Jeffrey Dahmer was a horrible representative of NE Ohio. People who cheer for out of state teams are just a bit misguided. Get a grip on reality.
I want all three of them – Dalmer, Carter and James the hell outta NE Ohio. How’s that?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s comparing apples to cars. Your pathological dislike of LeBron has severely clouded your judgment. If you love Cleveland like you claim to, you need to recognize that he is currently one of its most marketable commodities.
by Brad D on May 27, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
James – I think – views himself as above petty regionalism. While I embrace it wholeheartedly.
Interesting, seeing as how only one of you actually live in the Cleveland area currently…
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Turk I’m the only guy you know – check that I’m the only guy you’ve ever heard of - that plans to move to Cleveland from Maui when he retires.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Haha, ya know I’m kidding with you. I know I won’t convince you to like LeBron, but I’d never seriously question your love for Cleveland.
Hell, I can’t talk either. I’m moving another 3000 miles away.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m with Turk, I’m not seriously questioning your love for Cleveland. I’m just throwing out there that the love for Cleveland’s baseball team isn’t the biggest deal in the world in terms of love for the region and the city.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I think, given his age and life story, it’s amazing he isn’t a lot more of a douche. Outside of his sports fandom, where he’s just about the douchiest guy I’ve ever heard of, I think he’s a pretty impressive guy.
I agree. Also! Raab likes Lebron, so that’s saying something isn’t it? I think James has reason to have been a very pissed off kid and he just…isn’t.
You need to read this, the title of which tells you everything you need to know.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Outside of his sports fandom, where he’s just about the douchiest guy I’ve ever heard of, I think he’s a pretty impressive guy.
Completely agree.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Look, I feel about the Browns the way you feel about the Cavs, but I’d be stupid to call Jim Brown a douche and act like he wasn’t the greatest athlete the city has ever seen. Also, I can’t believe the sentiment of not wanting to see another team win before the Tribe. Sure, I’d like to see a Tribe ring first and foremost, but I want the city to win above all else, so whichever team can bring that — I’m all in.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. When you haven’t won a championship in 46 years then I don’t see how you can be picky. Hoping for the best athlete to play in Cleveland since Jim Brown to leave just because you don’t care about that sport is absolutely ridiculous and, frankly, is a lot more anti-Cleveland than LeBron rooting for the Yankees.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow. I wrote what I wrote and just read this. It’s nice to know I’m not alone in wanting LeBron—though I like him and appreciate his contributions to our city—to leave.
Some of you folks absolutely astound me. Especially you, John, who claims to care about the city and want it to excel.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Right. Whether you care about basketball or not, there is no possible way that LeBron leaving the Cavs helps the city of Cleveland and northeast Ohio.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Is that really true, Brad? Can your imagination really not consider any possible* way, not even a little, that losing a sports star, then that same sports team, could be a good thing?
No, I cannot think of any possible way that losing the best basketball player on the planet — and someone who brings millions of dollars of business to the city — would be good for Cleveland. But, please, enlighten me.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
So snarky, Brad!
I think there are pros and cons – it’s up to you to decide if its more pro than con. Detroit has four sports teams, Seattle has two. Having major revenue-grabbing sports franchise is not the same thing as economic health.
Sports culture, in general, isn’t the same thing as economic health. Expensive publicly-funded stadiums that garner private dollars. What about the fact that we are losing the Cleveland Orchestra to Miami?
So snarky, Brad!
Then I guess I learned well from you.
I think there are pros and cons – it’s up to you to decide if its more pro than con.
I’m still waiting to hear one “pro” to LeBron leaving Cleveland. Just one.
Sports culture, in general, isn’t the same thing as economic health. Expensive publicly-funded stadiums that garner private dollars.
But the Cavs already have an arena, which is relatively new, so there won’t be any public funds going towards that because it’s already been spent. Now, it would beneficial to the city if that arena was put to good use bringing in people and money.
What about the fact that we are losing the Cleveland Orchestra to Miami?
That would be bad as well, but I really don’t see how that fits in to this discussion. Are these events mutually exclusive — either LeBron stays or the Orchestra stays? Do we have to choose between the two?
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s disarm – and prevent this from becoming shrill.
It’s arguable that Cleveland would not have three major sports teams if the lines were cast today. I would wager that the prescence of sports teams is an indicator of a city’s economic health more than a contributor toward it. Sports are a good way to build regional identity, but ultimately I don’t see how pricey entertainment dollars faithfully committed to one of three major sports teams benefits the whole. Sports are probably a pricey luxury.
Sure, having the Cavs creates a few jobs – ushers, stadia employees, etc. But what does that help for the growing income gap? How does wealth concentration – coupled with a permanent civic commitment of tax dollars to a private org – help the city in the long-run?
And this is from a guy who wants LeBron to stay, but it’s not as Dayton Dogg says that you have to “love Cleveland or not.” Because, let me assure you Dayton Dogg, you questioning Jhon’s commitment to Cleveland is an absolute joke. Although I know you didn’t mean to be personal.
You say:
Whether you care about basketball or not, there is no possible way that LeBron leaving the Cavs helps the city of Cleveland and northeast Ohio.
Let’s hear why.
I don’t think I ever questioned Jhon’s or anyone’s commitment to Cleveland. Maybe you are confusing me with Brad.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
…“if you love Cleveland, you want Lebron…” leaves little room for the holy spirit, or those who love Cleveland and don’t want Lebron.
This is what Brad and I are dumbfounded by. Explain why people who love Cleveland would want LeBron to leave. Use an argument that doesn’t include a Yankees hat. Ready? Go!
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, rejecting absolutes shouldn’t be dumbfounding, and I do want Lebron to stay, but look upward at my 5:19 PM post for my thoughts on why the Cavs aren’t necessarily good for Cleveland.
Well, rejecting absolutes shouldn’t be dumbfounding
You can be cute about it all you want, but you still haven’t presented a good reason to want LeBron gone. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you guys in this case.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I list – intelligently or unintelligently – a few questions about whether the Cavs are good for the Cleve in my 5:19 PM post (did you read it?).
And Brad hasn’t had a chance to respond yet, but for the sake of debate I’d like to hear your proof or case for why a.) having Lebron is good and b.) why losing him can only be 100% bad.
I didn’t see a 5:19 post. Do you mean 8:19? I read that one, but thanks for the patronizing note assuming I wouldn’t.
Look, I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I have no idea where to find economic data to support my “LeBron is good for Cleveland” argument. I can point to numbers here or there but, like the Tribe’s attendance, you can’t point to any one single factor responsible.
I wonder, seriously, how you can quantify the effect of having the world’s best basketball player representing your city? How can you quantify the sense of pride that comes with saying, “the best basketball player on earth is a Clevelander. Look, we’re not all rejects!”
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh. It shows up at 5:19 on my comp. No character assumptions: you hadn’t outlined why my reasons were wrong in my previous post, so I didn’t know how to handle “you still haven’t presented a good reason.”
I think you are asking a good question: how do we prove either side? Lack of proof alone leaves the door wide open for debate – and keeps the “conclusive” door shut.
My sense of pride does not come from Lebron – I’m sure yours doesn’t either – and I’d say that I would definitely be a reject if my status as reject was dependent on the success of Cleveland sports.
Agreed. Likewise, my pride in Cleveland doesn’t stem solely from LeBron. Admittedly, I’m making a largely symbolic argument. I will always root for something that brings Cleveland positive recognition, whether that’s a player, team, company, political candidate, artist, whatever. Just so happens LeBron is the best we’ve got right now, and that’s not to slight the other fine people in the city.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I was able to find some evidence of some of the effects lebron has had.
This from 2004 in an ESPN article
James’ rise in the NBA meant 40 to 70 more rooms were filled on game nights at the Radisson Hotel across from the arena. That’s gross revenue of approximately $300,000, according to Vern Fuller, the president of the hotel’s ownership group
and thats just ONE hotel.
and this
“LeBron has pumped new life into this economy,” said Geoff Rose, director of operations for The Winking Lizard Tavern, a bar located a few doors down from the hotel. "There’s a lot more foot traffic and a lot more energy from this community and the people that now come in from out of town.
There is a great number of people coming to see lebron that is hard to quantify. I lived in buffalo last school year. one of my friends has family in cleveland. he went to about 3 cleveland cavs games because he wanted to see leron. i knew several other people who did the same…and this if from a market that really isn’t into basketball.
I also found this from a very intelligent blog about sports
In short, while some might find it ludicrous to think that LeBron’s departure could harm Cleveland, I think it could. More generally, I think sports teams affect municipalities in ways that are difficult to capture quantitatively but are, nonetheless, important. This is one of many issues I hope to understand better and analyze more thoroughly in the years ahead.
the guy supposedly also wrote an undergrad thesis at harvard about sport subisidies. He does agree that it is hard to quantify too, but there is definitely an impact.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Bross, it would help if you provided a link to the young genius blogger you mention.
I’m not going to get dragged back into this, but here’s a fun little quote from Gilbert uttered at the time of the O’Neil acquisition:
So the franchise made the ultimate risk-reward play this summer. They traded for Shaquille O’Neal, banking that a 37-year-old almost-certain Hall of Famer will help James find titles and contentment. Preferably next June. "I suppose if you were a poker player, it’d be the all-in moment, right?" Gilbert said with a soft chuckle.
What you’re quoting Vern Fuller? Christ I hope that iron-gloved, banjo-hitter can run a hotel better than he could play second base.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Why is having LeBron good? Oh, I don’t know, maybe because he’s the best basketball player on the planet, and any team which has him is an instant championship contender. Which, from a sports fan’s perspective, is a big deal, especially in a city that hasn’t won a title since 1964. And he brings pride to NE Ohio, because he’s one of ours who made it big and has stayed in Cleveland because he likes it here. Because it’s nice to have the best of something in the world in Cleveland, just like it’s nice to have the Cleveland Clinic. Not to mention the pure joy of watching him play 82 games a year. As far as economically, it’s obvious that if he leaves then attendance will fall for the Cavs which will affect the businesses around the arena.
But your entire argument above only discusses why sports teams in general might not be good for the city, so then why not hope for the Indians and Browns to leave town as well? Why just the Cavs? Also, LeBron leaving town certainly doesn’t mean that the Cavs would leave as well, so you entire argument may be invalid anyways.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
But the Indians are OK drawing 12,000 per game?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Jimmeny Christmas! I typed out this whole post and frickin’ lost it. Imma try to reproduce it. If it magically appears later, I apologize.
As a Cleveland sports fan, I definitely agree with you on your assessment of Lebron’s play. I love watching Lebron. I consider it a privilege to have the best basketball player on Earth. He single-handedly makes being a Cleveland sports fan that much more fun.
But the Clinic (aside from saving lives) contributes in funding/research to CSU and CWRU, and also employs 30k. And not as underemployed ushers, underemployment being merely a less-aggressive cancer than unemployment.
I don’t know if losing the Cavs kills downtown sports bars, and if it did, I don’t know if losing downtown sports bars would have a net economic drag when all factors post-departure are considered.
My argument certainly hinges on sports in general as you correctly point out. Granted that Cleveland (much to my personal chagrin) probably cannot support three major teams right now, who should be the team to get the axe? Pragmatically, my vote is Cavs if it came down to it (although I’d rather have a Cavs team with Lebron than a Browns team, whether he stays or not his career can only be so long). So I could see how losing Lebron (if it precipitated the fall of the Cavs) might be tough-love good for Cleveland, only because losing any one of the three teams might be tough-love good for Cleveland.
I think that in extremely lean times, it’s possible for being a Cleveland sports fan and being a Cleveland city fan do not overlap perfectly.
But the Clinic (aside from saving lives) contributes in funding/research to CSU and CWRU, and also employs 30k
yes, if we lost the clinic, the city may actually collapse…however, you can’t compare much to the economic factor that the clinic has in cleveland. It is the largest employer by far in cleveland and is one of the (if not the) largest employer in the STATE.
we are not talking about theoretical situations where because the city can’t support 3 teams fully, they have to axe one. The conversation was purely (if I remember) about if lebron leaving would have an effect on the economy…which It would.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
BTW, if you ever need real medical care, stay the hell out of the CC and go straight to University Hospital.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I disagree. I have been to both and I thought the care at the clinic was a bit better.
not that UH is any slouch. in most cities in the US, it would be the best hospital in the city by far, but it has to go up against the CC…
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Couldn’t get this in under Jay and bross’s comment so I’ll post it here.
You can get good care for most diseases and just about any hospital in Cleveland – except, maybe St. Vincent’s – but the CC is the Derek Jeter of medical care. They made their rep decades ago when Crile started it and René Favaloro did the first coronary bypass. CC is a profit driven factory, albeit staffed with a few well known researchers. But the house staff can’t hold a candle to the docs at UH.
Plus, if you wanna get a real ass-kicker of a MRSA infection, have your procedure done at the CC.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
CC is a profit driven factory That is Non-Profit
I don’t see how they are a profit factory. they charge fees to cover basic costs. The money they do end up making (through things like sometimes underestimating the amount of patients in a given year) goes into 2 things
a) improved and more buildings to give better care.
b) R&D
So no money is going to people’s dividends, no money is going into CEO’s pockets.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
All right, let’s talk – briefly – about how teaching hospitals acquire house staff. At the top of the heap is the attending staff – fully trained, experienced physicians. These are the guys who admit their own patients, teach, and – usually – do some research – mostly clinical research. These are the guys who oversee patient therapy. Not exactly separate from this bunch are docs – often MD/PhD types – who spend the vast majority of their time in the lab and sometimes mentor a few – very few – of the house staff/grad students in laboratory medical research. These guys rarely see patients and have little if anything to do with patient care. The Cleveland Clinic – for the most part – has built its current reputation on the laboratory guys not the clinical guys – this is a vast over-simplification, but this is a 2" piece.
Now the front line docs – the ones who actually take care of patients – are the house staff. Mostly these are the guys in training, overseen by the attending. The doc you see in the middle of the night is most often a senior resident or fellow – not one of the attending staff. As a young doc – like Mario – you get your first resident/intern assignment through something called "The Match". That’s where you pick out your top five choices for residency and the teaching hospitals make their order of hiring preference – kinda like the "young doctor draft" and you "match". UH – according to one of my goomba’s who’s involved in this doctor "draft" – has consistently attracted better qualified doc’s than the CC.
To improve their "draft" the CC has been struggling to start their own medical school – kinda like a developmental league – to improve the quality of "draftees". Since often med school graduates tend to wanna "stay at home".
So bottom line: UH’s house staff is better than CC’s. Their laboratory research is as good if not better than UH’s, but their house staff is weaker.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
according to one of my goomba’s who’s involved in this doctor “draft” – has consistently attracted better qualified doc’s than the CC.
are we talking about straight out of med school? straight out of area med schools? or straight out of state med schools?
When I was living in Western New York, I would sometimes have conversations with Med Students. Most of them were looking at hospitals in the city (many lived near there) such as Sloan Kettering and others. They were also looking at the Cleveland Clinic for an option. Many were very qualified people coming out of Med School. One or two were looking at UH, but only as more of a safety school.
I do not know whether what you bring is 100% right or what I bring. They may be both right, and they may just be looking at the “draft” in a statewide kind of thing.
I also have had a lot of friends who parents were doctors over the years (thats what happens when you live on the east side). Most of them worked at the Clinic. Just about all of these friends had lived somewhere else, so they moved when their parents transferred hospitals.
I would like to see the numbers of highly qualified doctors who have an established career coming to cleveland and whether they more go to the clinic or UH. Granted, my friends’ parents is a small sample size, but if it is any indication, the clinic would have the advantage there.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
For some reason I couldn’t get the “link” icon, so here’s some data for all you numbers geeks: http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
bross, did you click on the link I provided? This should at least help to explain it. The Match is national. Every teaching hospital in the US of A participates. As a senior med student (or foreign born doc or DO) you can apply for residencies/internships any where you want. Say you’re attending OSU you can apply to Einstein, Stanford, Yale and Barnes, but you should always throw in a Cleveland Metro General – “safety” hospital. Just like applying for college outta high school. So to answer your question it’s for all the med schools across the country.
Now a quick word on howta read that link I gave you. You’ll note that the American trained MDs have a higher match rate than the foreign MDs and the DOs. That’s cuz American MDs are considered – on the whole – better qualified than DOs and foreign docs. The foreign doc thing – sorry Mario – is changing, but on the whole American trained MDs are more attractive.
Now go take a look at the CC’s house staff. See more DOs and foreign docs? That’s indicative of a less attractive/desirable training program.
One other thing: CC is profit driven, UH is science driven. A simplification sure, but how the hell can I claim this you ask? Well here’s a coupla clues. CC didn’t have a ER until the early 90s IIRC. Why? Cuz patients brought to the ER – especially from the neighborhood CC resides in – are more often than not indigent. In the end having an ER in that neighborhood – like UH and Mt. Sinai – will cost you money. The CC is not interested in providing medical services to that community if they can’t make a buck at it.
I’ll cut this rant short cuz I’m sure I’m boring all the baseball fans to death.
You get sick and wanna go to the CC, that’s fine by me. But just let me tell you, when I needed open heart surgery, I flew back to Columbus for my procedure, cuz I trust those guys.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Chuck
I’ve always thought of CC as not really being a hospital, in the traditional sense of the word.
It’s the place you go if you’re sick (perhaps chronically) and you need longer-term treatment that require some type of specialized care.
Maybe it’s the name “clinic” that lends itself to this. No ER for a long time? Frankly that doesn’t surprise me at all.
At least that’s my perception of the place. Am I off base?
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
But just let me tell you, when I needed open heart surgery, I flew back to Columbus for my procedure, cuz I trust those guys.
Wait a minute, Chuck, wasn’t one of the reasons that you mentioned for Columbus being a “hellhole” was that it didn’t have any great hospitals (like Cleveland does)? Maybe it was Jay that said that, but I thought it was you.
by Buckeye Brad on May 28, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Culture, he said.
This damned thread simply will not die! At any rate, I want to go to a Clippers game while Santana is still there so bad. The new park does look beautiful.
He said that, but he also said something about Columbus not having a great hospital. I remember, because I replied that the doctors at OSU Med Center did a fantastic job of putting me back together after my really bad car accident three years ago (and I had some pretty bad injuries that required some rather rare procedures done to me). So I don’t know what consitutes a great hospital, but in my opinion they’re pretty damn good.
by Buckeye Brad on May 28, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, we met in a nice little Eyetalian (I hope I spelled that right) joint in C-bus when he was in town for his surgery.
As far as me, I am doing much better now. Thanks for asking. I actually can’t believe how well I’m walking now; it’s really a miracle what those docs did to me. And I shouldn’t need any more surgeries for quite a few years (hopefully) so I’m happy about that.
by Buckeye Brad on May 28, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Now I’m curious as to what Eyetalian joint in Columbus that Chuck would consider worthy.
"The delusional get what they deserve." - afh4
by woodsmeister on May 28, 2010 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s a very small place called Verdi on 315 just north of I-270. It’s at the southern end of a little plaza on the right side of the highway. I don’t think many people know about it, but it’s got great food.
by Buckeye Brad on May 28, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
What do you expect to be proven? I saw that LeBron may leave and a) everything will be fine, except for Gilbert and the Cavs and the most committed fans and b) You might even find trace consolation in the consequences (most relevant revived interest in Indians baseball. This isn’t all about raw ticket sales, with are only one indication of total interest, and from that the home team will profit).
I offer a hopeful message: it’ll all be okay.
Tell me, if LeBron leaves, is that a greater tragedy than what befell National City or AmTrust? Or BP (leaving the city, nevermind the Gulf disaster) LTV leaving, Arcelor Mittal ceasing production? TRW? The Figgie Int’l debacle? The near total death of our auto industries? Jones Day moving its headquarters? On and on—all of those events are more tragic and materially significant.
Symbolically, well, we have no shortage of negative symbolism. Symbolism is more your thing.
Symbolism is more your thing.
Damn right it is. And why shouldn’t I cling to keeping the NBA’s best player after so many big-name companies, as you enumerated, have seen fit to abandon the city or otherwise failed. Why shouldn’t I root for LeBron to not be added to that list?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
jhon, you’re changing your story. You didn’t just say that LeBron will leave and everything will be fine, you said that “we’d be better off with him gone.” That’s a completely different statement.
I never said that the city of Cleveland will collapse because LeBron leaves town, but I still don’t see how that can possibly be a good thing, and you haven’t given any (outside of the possible small increase in Indians ticket sales).
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a completely different statement.
No Brad, I know you love to play “gotcha,” but these aren’t exclusive statements. We’ll be fine. So fine, I think (because the pros outweigh the cons, in my estimation) that we’ll be marginally better off, just like the family that switches to basic cable to make ends meet.
We’re at an impasse. And that’s fine!
I just don’t see any possibly way LeBron leaving makes us better off. A few thousand more Indians tickets sold does not outweigh the loss of a transcendent sports personality like LBJ.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
What do you mean that I love to play “gotcha”? I’m not doing that — you started out making one argument then turned it around to something else. Nobody said that Cleveland is going to fall apart without LeBron, but that doesn’t mean we’re better off without him.
What exactly are the pros of LeBron leaving? Possibly a few more fans at Indians games? That the Cavs may — may — leave town in another decade or two? That’s all?
How about the pros — that he’s the best player in his sport, and the best chance to bring a championship to a city and fans that badly need one. Not to mention the economic impact lost to downtown businesses.
How exactly do the pros outweigh the cons? You haven’t answered that, and you’ve changed the argumen then insulted me to avoid answering it.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
No one has made a conclusive argument that LeBron leaving would provide ANY good for the city.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes – I’m not stating anything as conclusive, which is what you’re doing. I’m not asking you to prove or disprove anything I’m saying because I know it’s not conclusive. But the fact that it’s out there guarantees debate.
I never said that I knew what the economic impact was, but you certainly have to acknowledge that there will be some loss if LeBron leaves. Attendance will go down, which will hurt the bars and restaurants around the arena. And no playoff games would hurt even more, because every additional game is more money coming in to the city. It would be foolish to say that losing LeBron would have NO impact on the city’s businesses. I don’t think anyone can seriously make that argument.
But even ignoring that, it’s the fact that LeBron is the best chance for a Cleveland sports team to win a championship in most of our lifetimes. I don’t know how that can be overlooked. Even if you ignore the economics of it, there are plenty of reasons to want LeBron to stay as a Cleveland sports fan.
Even if Cleveland can’t hold three sports team long term, is that a reason for wanting LeBron to leave right now? He’s in the prime of his career — can’t he win a few championships first and then leave? After all, he’ll probably leave some day — not many athletes play their whole career in one place any more — and that’s fine, but wouldn’t you like to see him help us win a few titles before he leaves? That’s what I just don’t understand — what possibly benefit would him leaving NOW bring to Cleveland? If the Cavs can’t be sustained long term then they’ll leave eventually, but they aren’t going anywhere in the near future so how does it help us for their best player — and the best player this city has seen in 40+ years — to leave? I’m just dumbfounded because I’ve never heard anyone else make this argument.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Lebron leaving will have an impact on bars and businesses and families and individuals. I’m not denying that – in fact that’s the basis of my argument – I’m just not sure which side of the fence it falls on when it’s all said and done.
A fan of the city of Cleveland can’t ever ignore the economic implication. That was the genesis of this debate: someone said a fan of Cleveland wants Lebron, someone else said not-so-fast, not definitely, not necessarily.
I don’t want Lebron to leave. I want him to stick around and win those championships you’re talking about. But if he did leave, my crystal ball says the Cavs are done, and that same crystal ball says that ensures the future of the Browns + Indians right now – it ensures a future that is certainly in question.
We’re only having this conversation because Lebron is at the precipice, and if he bounces, we might still come out stronger. It might leave those precious extra dollars spread out among the hundreds of thousands or millions of NE Ohioans right now – or tomorrow or in a few months. Might not though.
my crystal ball says the Cavs are done
that is quite possible but not at all a guarantee. it could also take 15 years or so for this to happen. This is the only way I see lebron leaving to not affect the city in a large way; if the cavs leave. however, in that situation I think they would need to leave very soon.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
but you (and I believe others) have talked about the economic pros of lebron leaving. where are they??? the loss of business downtown? the large loss in the little tourism we have?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I think the argument revolves around how much of the PUBLIC resources get drained into satisfying the sports franchises. Prime real estate utilized at ridiculously low rates, tax breaks, construction, traffic, law enforcement, etc. All drains on government coffers, and the benefits go directly into local businesses — which is good, but does it really balance out? That’s the question.
Sports franchises have become indistinguishable in many ways from direct government stimulus on the economy, and the question really comes down to, one, do the voters want it, and two, does it actually end up having a positive effect, after you consider the tax dollars invested or forgiven?
yes and this is nice…but the basic assumption that it will be a benefit to the city is that the team is GUARANTEED to leave, sometimes soon or eventually. I look at it as a possibility, but you just can’t guarantee anything like that.
Though I will agree. if the franchise plummets and has several bad seasons, then they leave, it could be an economic gain in the long run…but this is banking on a lot of scenarios all to go right.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Nothing is guaranteed to happen. Maybe we discover a trillion barrels worth of oil beneath Lake Erie? The gold dispensing ATMs are soon to follow, and even Chuck can’t afford to move back home except for business trips, where he goes golfing on an artificial island jetty in the Lake constructed in the form of our smiling Wahoo.
Or, maybe, LeBron stays and it all works out.
It seems like whenever somebody challenges you on something, your reaction is to be flip and ignore the question. I think the chances that Lebron leaves and the team follows are relatively slim.
I agree that the combined chances are slim. If LeBron leaves—let’s call it 50-50, who really knows—the chance of the team leaving increases. Things were very bleak before ’Bron get here. I remember Ricky Davis. I was watching then.
My gut is starting to tell me that LeBron’s staying, not that it matters what my gut says.
Obviously the chances of the team increase if lebron leaves…thats because the chances of the team leaving right now with lebron under contract are minimal or nonexistant.
an increase in chance from 0% to 2% makes it more likely than before, but doesn’t make it a likely scenario.
I would highly doubt the chances of it even happening in the next 20 years are 50-50 if lebron leaves.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Also, I can’t tell much about the business, since Quicken Loans isn’t publically traded, but I can see where they’re sitting on some REO (real estate owned). I mean, I’m literally sitting here looking right at it.
It’s the mortgage business. But who knows? Maybe they go the way of so many other loan produces, or ride on out of this on top of the industry. I really don’t know.
its probably not a greater tragedy, but your point actually strengthens why lebron may be more needed than you think. how can someone root for lebron to leave after all the crap thats been kicked in our face with companies leaving and such?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
What if someone who loves Cleveland doesn’t really care if he leaves or he stays?
I am open to the argument that Cleveland isn’t a town that can support three big-league teams and shouldn’t try to be one anymore. Cleveland needs to work on being a big small city rather than a small big city.
What if someone who loves Cleveland doesn’t really care if he leaves or he stays?
Not caring is one thing. It’s almost classic Cleveland mentality to not care — the sort of fatalism we’ve all been bred to have. Actively wanting him to leave is an entirely different story, and one I can’t wrap my head around.
Cleveland needs to work on being a big small city rather than a small big city.
This is a fun debate, and I agree with you here. Fascinates me greatly as a future planner.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Something smart needs to be done with these American industrial cities. Places like Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland. Places with mostly intact infrastructure that could accommodate twice as many people. You rarely sit in traffic.
Yup. That’s my aim in getting this education. I know there’s a solution out there.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 25, 2010 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions
You should ask the wise politicians who had a helping hand in destroying these cities.
Also, chasing manufacturing dollars in Cleveland, Ohio in a global economy is a fool’s errand.
The leadership (both corporate and political) lacked vision when they needed it most. The ground was changing under their feet the entire time and they were still playing an antiquated game.
On the plus side, Chrysler is adding 1,100 new jobs in Detroit for new Jeep production — of course they’re new hires making half what the old guys did — but they are jobs nonetheless.
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
To be fair, I’ve moved out of Cleveland several times when a promising opportunity surfaced elsewhere. I love Cleveland, but most of all because my family’s there; and for the sake of family and my future I look after myself first.
I don’t mean that in a Clemens or CC way either, and I can prove it: I make, like, no money.
I haven’t done anything in Cleveland yet. That’s a long term project, I hope. I’m focused on doing well at my current work.
I don’t tthink Dayton Dogg was after me or anyone in particular, except for teasing Chuck a lil bit.
I’m in a peaceful mood because I think I just had a mini heat stroke. Walked into a coffee shop and blacked out on a couch. I need those Cleveland winters. I’d be a dead man in Maui.
You know, of course, that it never gets above 90 here and rarely below 60.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Much shorter flight from LA than DC. I may have to come out and bug ya sometime this year, Chuck.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 25, 2010 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Much appreciated. One of these days I’ll make it out there.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 25, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I want CSU and CWRU to excel above all else.
I wanted LeBron and the Cavs to succeed. It was nice while it lasted. LeBron had a good run, but 1) he flaunted that cap, 2) distracted us from the Tribe, and 3) plays for a team whose owner has ideas about business that I’m not fond of.
Here’s my Cleveland pessimism: I think LeBron will somehow end up staying precisely because we’d be better off with him gone.
So this is basically about getting back at Dan Gilbert because you don’t like the idea of casinos in Cleveland. Otherwise, I don’t see any way that you can seriously think that Cleveland would be better off if LeBron left.
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Young couples will still go on dates at Murray Hill. Ignatius and Eds will still beat the crap out of each other. People will shop at Legacy Village’s Crate and Barrel. Miracles will be worked at the Cleveland Clinic. Picnics at Edgewater. The Airshow. The Soap Box Derby.
Life will go on basically unchanged.
or?
We’re all gonna die.
I never said that the city will die if LeBron leaves, so please don’t take this to that extreme. I just don’t understand how it can possibly be good for the city to lose its biggest sports star (and our best chance for a championship).
by Buckeye Brad on May 24, 2010 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
We won’t lose him forever. We can sign him again as he fades into retirement.
Kidding. I have a vague sense of faith that with LBJs departure there would come yet unseen mitigating factors, and that’s enough for me to be at peace with him leaving (in fact I prefer that). If he stays after all, it won’t affect me much.
There are good and bad dimensions to most things. Except for a Bavasi trade, of course, which can only come out one-sided.
jhon…NO ONE is taking the side that we are all going to die.
this is a false dilemma here. you say that there are 2 options and 2 sides being argued.
a) that life will go unchanged and nothing will happen
b) we are all going to die and its going to be the apocalypse.
No one is arguing point b. I would like to add point C which is many like turk and brad are arguing
c) the loss of lebron will result in a loss of tourism and will have a negative effect (big or small) on the economy of cleveland because of it.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
first of all, the quantity of tourism is hard to prove. it is definitely there and you have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to realize it.
I also gave you a quote that having lebron in town increased ONE hotel’s revenue by 300,000. that is ONE business’ increase in revenue in 2004. Since then, lebron has gotten better, more people have attended more games, and there has been a stronger national interest in the cavs.
Lebron caused an increase in revenue of one hotel by 300,000 in one year…imagine what he did for just that one hotel in the 7 he has been here…and like I said, thats just one business.
I was able to find some stats
http://www.positivelycleveland.com/media_center/industry_stats/
so, if you look, just between 2005 and 2007, the estimated additional total sales is about 300 million dollars. There were also an increase in 1 million overnight visitors.
There was also a large jump in 2007 for overnight visitors when compared to 2006. 2007 is the year the cavs faced the spurs in the finals. it was also a year that had a large increase in attendance (though attendance was already high). during this time, attendance did increase at the Q and so did total sales in the city.
That is the closest one can find to statistics that show the effect of tourism.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Bross, you really screwed up your reading of those stats. You’d better look again. Room demand in Cleveland declined between 2005 and 2007, and the total increase in overnight visits in that same three year period is 0.9 million in a 20 county area.
wait…so an increase in a million tourists a year is insignificant because of the size, but a decrease in 10,000 rooms rented demanded in the same area is significant?
I am not saying these stats prove anything. it is the best we can come up with to providing numbers. the number of people coming to the city did increase and so did tourism revenue…that still doesn’t prove anything, I admit that. the lebron factor is there, but like I did say, it is very hard to measure.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Not to mention that you haven’t isolated the LeBron Effect, nor have you acknowledged what percentage of that effect that is real economic growth and not merely a transfer of capital. This must also be weighed the effect against the costs (traffic, law enforcement), of the city to sustain it. It’s not easy to do. For example, every time there’s a special event and parking is at a premium, people will chose not to go downtown for its other attractions, because the cost of parking has a great effect on trip generation. I offer that only as one example of the complexity of this problem.
Not to mention that you haven’t isolated the LeBron Effect,
yep…its nearly impossible to do. maybe someone with a degree (MS/PHD) in economics could tell us, but thats not me. I know we can’t truly isolate the lebron effect, I am just trying to show that it exists in some form of numbers and not just in our minds and with what we witness in the city.
I do agree about the point of special event parking, and yes, that does show why this is so complex…I never pretend for it to be easy.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
1) he flaunted that cap, 2) distracted us from the Tribe, and 3) plays for a team whose owner has ideas about business that I’m not fond of.
I find this hilarious
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Hope so, for your sake. For Cleveland’s sake, I hope I’m the one laughing.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 24, 2010 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
You may be happier, but those reasons will still be dumb.
by dgcambridge on May 25, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah. I never meant for it to seem like I said the cavs success was the only factor. there are too many variables for you to be able to pinpoint directly something like that.
I honestly don’t care either and I do follow the cavs. Its not like I want him to leave, but I don’t think I would care as much as I did last year at this time if he left.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Those 204,000 basketball tickets are fan-cost-index wise equivalent to 300,000 – 400,000 baseball tickets, but of course, most of those people wouldn’t simply substitute baseball consumption for basketball under different circumstances. The greater effect is probably on merchandise sales—people buying Cavs gear as opposed to Tribe stuffs. Advertising budgets directed more at the Cavs than the Tribe.
I think bross has a point; I think LeBron and the Cavs’ gain is, to some extent, a loss to the Tribe. I’m not smart enough to think of account for every angle of the problem and put an attendance figure / dollar value on it, but I think it’s significant enough that I’m at the point of rooting for LeBron to leave town (that and I think Chuck’s been right all along).
There’s difficulty in digging up support for either side in this argument; all the studies I’ve read find little direct economic impact of a sports franchise on a city, outside of SIC 79: Amusement & Recreation Services, Hospitality, Tourism and Recreation—so those downtown bars and restaurants would be indeed be hurt by a Cavs attendance dropoff. Sports franchises are cited as revenue leaks, because the bulk of their expenditures are on salaries to people who live elsewhere and save their money at higher rates than most; of course, LeBron, being local, would not be that kind of money drain.
Cities with sports franchises have lower wages and higher rents than other cities; this is likely due to the amenity factor, as the sports teams (and other desirable civic features) tend to make people willing to earn less and to pay more to be in that city.
But it is in the non-pecuniary areas that the balance gets tipped in LBJ’s favor: the studies that correlate winning with greater identification of fan to team, and then correlate that greater identification with better psychological health, and the subsequent impact of that happiness on general health and productivity.
It seems clear that, if the choice for Cleveland was fund a new arena or let James walk, the right answer would be: see ya. But it seems equally clear that, if the choice is to keep James and remain a winning and potential championship-caliber franchise, or let him walk and see the Cavs deteriorate, with some marginal benefit to the gate receipts of the other sports teams, the right answer is: keep him.
the subsequent impact of that happiness on general health and productivity
.
Are you reading from Zimbalist or Rosentraub? That this vague happiness principle is the strongest argument in support of our sports. It has been a little while since i read this lit… I might have their essays around here somewhere.
It is my having less to do with sports would be better for Cleveland’s psychological health. But that aside, I hope at the very least that people who are in knots about whether that one guy will stay or go will keep things in perspective; it might not be the epic catastrophe they fear. This message is actually meant to be positive.
You know what would be best for Cleveland’s “psychological health”?
Cheaper beer – the working man’s Prozac.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s either vague happiness principles on one hand, or vague economic correlations on the other.
No, these are from Davis & End 2004, Baade Baumann & Matheson 2007, Humphreys and Coates 1999 2002 and later. Nobody gets anywhere with economic analyses—the Supersonics, when they were trying to get out of Seattle and into Oklahoma City, were hilariously both employing Humphreys in Seattle courts to discredit positive impacts and simultaneously waving economic impact statements at the OK City folks proclaiming an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars, if they’d only fund an arena. Most folks doing these studies agree that psychological studies would be more fruitful in determining the positive or negative impact of sports franchises. It is your opinion that Cleveland would be better off keeping sports at arm’s length, and maybe you’re right about losers like our beloved Tribe. But winners, and the Cavs count, make people happy. You grumpy, tired, dehydrated and bitter baseball fans shouldn’t rain on everybody else’s parade.
And cheaper beer would help, too.
Well duh, it’s my opinion. And the Cavs aren’t currently winning anything, so we can probably stop talking about them. Attempts at scolding aside, thanks for your contribution.
You’re arguing a minority opinion forcefully. When you say
Here’s my Cleveland pessimism: I think LeBron will somehow end up staying precisely because we’d be better off with him gone.it’s not too much to ask you to bring in some supporting data, if you want to sway other’s opinions. I know you possess a lot of knowledge about urban issues, and you’ll get some automatic slack from me, but the data that I’ve read seems to trend in the opposite direction from you. When you say it won’t be catastrophic, Cleveland will survive, there are worse things to lose: sure. I buy it. But better off without him? I haven’t seen any arguments that I’m buying, yet.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I understand that Cleveland will survive if LeBron leaves, and I don’t think anyone here has said or implied anything to the contrary. But that doesn’t mean that we’d be better off if he left; that’s a completely different argument (which I pointed out to jhon and he told me that I was playing “gotcha”). I still haven’t heard a good argument for why we’d be better off without him.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
The argument in this thread seems to be (1) if LeBron leaves, then (2) the Cavs will eventually fold/move/go away, which will then (3) allow the city to allocate scarce resources that would otherwise be devoted to the Cavs to civic activities deemed to be more worthy than basketball. Also, people might go to more Indians games. There are assumptions in there that seem unlikely to me.
Kansas City lost the Kings after the 1985 season, and I was looking at data to see how it might have affected the city, if at all. I haven’t found any easy-to-mine piles of numbers, which always surprises me in this age, but if Cleveland becomes Cavalierless, tracking KC might provide some clues as to what to expect. Maybe.
but if Cleveland becomes Cavalierless, tracking KC might provide some clues as to what to expect
So . . . the Indians become like the Royals? Then LeBron must stay at all costs!
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
(1) if LeBron leaves, then (2) the Cavs will eventually fold/move/go away
I see it as
(1) if lebron leaves (2) the cavs MAY eventually fold/move/go away.
that is a big question mark in my opinion. it is entirely possible and not that improbable that the cavs get another star, through free agency or the draft, and end up being a mediocre team for 15 years or so, and have good enough attendance to not move, but not good at all.
people also assume that the cavs will suddenly move right away if lebron leaves…what if it takes 20 years?
to say lebron leaving is good because the cavs will move/fold and the city doesn’t have 3 teams is wild speculation. it is speculating that
a) the team would actually eventually fold
b) the team would fold very quickly
c) the team would be terrible without lebron and would not get another good player to bring in attendance.
I just don’t see any likelihood at this point, even if lebron leaves, of the cavs moving anytime soon.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Point taken. You know, just shooting the bull here in this marketplace of ideas, as its been called before. Some ideas take hold immediately, some take a while, and others become memes.
There’s a part of me that wants him to stay, and for everything to be rich and splendid and winning. I don’t actually want the dismal task of arguing that we’d be better off without LeBron. You’re probably right, anyway, that at least in the short run his departure would be a loss to the city, albeit one that I feel, in the grand scheme, isn’t such a big deal. In the longer run, trading some quantity of sports* with other concerns is something an outcome in a big small city that struggles to support its outsized institutions.
*Just not baseball. I can’t stand the thought, personally, even if it made sense.
The only thing going on in this thread that I have professional experience with is the “downsizing” city—whatever we want to call—stuff. That should offer a big hint about what I currently do (but I only play a minor role). It seems that we’re all on the same page with this. Good luck to you, Turk. I assume you’re going to UCLA? Is Cervero still teaching there?
Massive Typo
“trading some quantity of sports* with other concerns is something an outcome…”
is an outcome I’m personally cool with, I mean.
Never been to KC. I forgot the Kings were ever there. I’d guess that most others have too.
Thanks, man. But no, Cervero’s at Berkeley now. I do get Shoup, though. He’s supposed to be a rockstar.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on May 25, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The shame of it is, in so many ways including economic benefit and management comptency, we had the “right two teams” in the least decade. And then the Browns came back and ruined everything.
by Jay on May 26, 2010 2:52 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Well duh, it’s my opinion. And the Cavs aren’t currently winning anything
but they are winning MUCH MUCH more than the indians or the browns and are our most successful and most profitable franchise right now.
with the same argument, lets get rid of the browns and indians. much fewer people travel from other states to see THESE teams when compared to lebron (although the browns do have browns backers who come to a lot of games)
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Two questions:
Isn’t the correlation between sports franchises and low-wage/high-rent just because franchises tend to be in high cities, which have lower wages and higher rents?
So you’re telling me it’s good for one’s psychological health to be a Tribe fan?
But seriously, being a Tribe fan and part of some community of fellow sufferers like LGT probably is better for your psychological health.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2010 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
As to the first question, I haven’t slogged through the methodology. Comparable cities with and without NFL franchises show an average of 8% higher rent and 2% lower wages, and studies of NBA cities/non NBA cities support that, but it’s a SSS, obviously, with many other possible factors.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
It seems clear that, if the choice for Cleveland was fund a new arena or let James walk, the right answer would be: see ya.
what? if we had to choose between a new stadium and keeping the team successful, we should choose scrapping the fairly brand new Q? you even said that sports franchise success can have a positive influence. I don’t see any positives about a new stadium. we don’t need one and all it would do is just cost the city money and
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
My point here is that there are no studies that indicate that the allocation of public monies to build a new sports stadium or arena is offset by equal monetary returns to that community.
Cleveland is not in that situation. I am not advocating the Q be replaced with a new facility.
If, hypothetically, an NBA owner said to a city: use public money to build me a stadium, or my big-name star will walk away, the fiscally sensible response of said hypothetical city should be: No, thanks.
attendance [sic] for the indians DID significantly drop whenlebron came tothe WNBA’s Rockers left town even though I don’t believe the product on the field was comparably worse.
This statement is equally true. Do you think bringing the Rockers back will boost Indians attendance?
Come on, four billion!
attendance [sic] for the indians DID significantly drop whenlebron came tothe WNBA’s Rockers left town even though I don’t believe the product on the field was comparably worse.
This statement is equally true. Do you think bringing the Rockers back will boost Indians attendance?
Come on, four billion!
but did the rockers suddenly jump from dead last in the league to near the top 10 in attendance in one year?
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
I haven’t looked into it, but I’m betting the didn’t draw many fans once they folded. If they did, I guess you win this one.
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on May 21, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So when LeBron leaves – I can hardly wait! – you’re betting that the Indians attendence will remain the same. Is that right? If that’s your position, then I’m in agreement.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m betting that, if/when LeBron leaves, his departure will not be a factor in the Indians’ attendance numbers. If other factors hold where they are, attendance isn’t going to see the boost that bross09’s argument would necessarily expect.
Come on, four billion!
I’m betting that, if LeBron is gone, the Indians have a better shot to pick up extra ticket sales in a season in which they are contending, and in any season following a playoff appearance. I’m not sure it makes any difference when everyone expects the team to suck and/or when the team actually does suck.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
so you are saying that
-if lebron leaves cleveland
-If the indians get stars that fans would like (like CC and Pronk, etc..) similar to what we had in 207
-If the indians were as good as they were in 2007
-The economy was in a similar situation as 2007
the indians would still not draw more fans than 2007? that economic logic is tough to swallow.
It probably wouldn’t happen in 2010 if these factors were in place, because the economy was much better off.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
There are obviously a whole lot of factors that influenced the Tribe’s attendance drop (the fact that we started to suck chief among them). Lebron is probably a factor, but a small one. If Lebron left and the Indians were in contention for several years in a row, attendance would rise, but mostly because the Indians were good, and in small part because the Cavs were not. Attendance will never reach the late-90s levels again.
Those are things we can all agree on, right?
Now that the Cavs seasons is over and school’s close to being out, I think attendance will get a slight bump as the “let’s see a baseball game” crowd starts showing up. But yeah, I do think this is a major problem.
Yup. Flying in from NYC next month, taking my entire Ohio based family to the Wednesday Met game(11 tix) and then hitting up the Thursday game (after eating at Superior Pho).
by Les Fleurs Du Mal on May 19, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Shouldn’t every other team be expecting to get a similar bump? If the alarming thing is being 30th out of 30 teams in average attendance, we will not be in much better shape after this “bump”.
Also consider that we’ve had a surprisingly mild spring, with no snow or sleet games to speak of. This seems to be a purely on-field performance based reaction to me, I don’t think school or weather or other off field factors have much to do with it.
by millionairesrow on May 17, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I would think the “summer bump” would be more pronounced in the northern cities where the weather in April and May can get pretty cold. Also, not every baseball city has an NBA team, let alone one with as large of a following (currently) as the Cavs.
by Buckeye Brad on May 17, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a couple thoughts that have been bouncing around the old skull. 1) I’m concerned that Shapiro comes across as a bad businessman and doesn’t know it due to a two-way communication failure. I mean, his goal is to produce a championship, and I think he believes that were he to achieve that, attendance would follow. Therefore, he reasonably scanned the horizons and rightfully determined that the “windows of opportunity” was the best strategy to achieve that.
However, I’m very, very concerned that there may have been a faulty assumption there. It seems that average fans, which are needed to fill seats and sell advertising, don’t like, appreciate, or understand this approach, and may actually prefer teams that project to less highs and lows, and lends itself to more delusion by Joe and Jane Average (i.e., keeping household names around, those not named Russel). I’m sure we at LGT prefer Shapiro’s method (if not some of his individual moves), but they may actually put more butts in the seats with more average teams with less growth potential. Now, I understand that they could end up losing even more money this way because it would necessitate the signing of terrible free agent contracts, thus validating Shapiro’s approach.
2) I’m really concerned that the Indians just don’t know how to market their wares. I only judge this based on advertising that I hear on the radio, but I don’t live in Cleveland, so I really can’t say. Is there a concerted effort at games to get people up to speed on farm system depth, or to introduce the newer statistical analyses that drive the front office, or otherwise get people to look deeper than W-L? I recognize that this would require a mammoth effort, but it seems that alligning the fanbase with the team’s philosophy is going to be key to rebuilding the fanbase. The info is there for people to find, but how is the FO making people want to find it (other than boredom and disappointment with the parent club)?
3) Shouldn’t Tampa Bay move to Portland? I mean c’mon, I need an AL baseball team. SeattleVinny – thought you might get away from the Mariners by moving down here, didn’t you. TB to the West. Does that screw up baseball to have 4 in the East and 5 in the West? Somebody tell me what the issues are there.
Holy crap, I read that wrong. I can’t believe TB gets 23000 a game. Portland might not do a lot better than that. Waahhh, I want baseball. I should just move to Cleveland and help out.
Tropicana Field is probably the worst facility in baseball, but I hate domes and acknowledge my biases. It’s also the least convenient for the fanbase, and the Rays would almost certainly do better if the stadium was on the other side of the Bay.
Or the Oakland Coliseum.
Marte = Victory
by woodsmeister on May 17, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I lived down the street from that stadium for a summer and went to a bunch of games. It’s not so bad, all things considered. I mean, it’s bad, but I see no reason why an ugly stadium should keep you from going to see an awesome baseball team.
exactly.
Tampa bay is 21st in average attendance, and 20th I believe in % of stadium full on average. And they have been a good team in 2009, 2008 and this current year.
I do worry too because even though this is their 3rd good season in a row and they should be popular, they are only a couple spots better in attendance (were 23rd last year). So far though, they actually have LESS attendance than last year and they are a successful, first place team. Plus, if you go back to 2008, they have not significantly increased their attendance (maybe by a few hundred a game)
Add this to the fact that their payroll since 2008 years has increased by 28 million including 9 million this past offseason. They did have the money before to increase because they were drawing more fans a game in 2008 compared to 2007, but they seemed to have plateaued as far as fan interest while their payroll goes up. if they again try to increase their payroll, I fear disaster for that franchise in the long run.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Aren’t 1.) and 2.) mutually exclusive? I mean, if you posit that the team should market to the casual fan, how can you turn around and get those same fans as interested in, say, de la Cruz’s or Hagadone’s next starts as we are?
Also, what’s at the end of this supposed “death spiral”? Where exactly is the team going to move? And if poor attendance and futility on the field are the benchmarks for relocation, wouldn’t K.C. and Pittsburgh be considered ahead of the Indians, based on the past decade or two?
I was suggesting Tampa Bay move, not the Tribe. The Tribe has a nice stadium and a history of a supportive fanbase.
I wasn’t proposing trying to do 1, only suggesting that “the plan” may have misinterpreted the Indians’ fanbase as wanting a winner, when what they really don’t want is a rebuild. I suggested 2 as an additional step that needs to be emphasized if you’re going to continue the “windows of opportunity” strategy.
I understand the Portland thing was tongue in cheek. I was just commenting on the general concept of relocation. It seems as though the assumption is that the Indians’ current woes are marching the franchise towards some sort of unhappy end- which I can only imagine would be relocation. I was just musing as to whether or not such a thing was even a logical possibility.
And I actually agree with you that 2.) seems like a great strategy. The problem is that I don’t think it would work with a fanbase that can simultaneously dismiss out of hand planning for the future while staying away from the park in droves because all the good players will be gone eventually anyway.
To point #2:
I do not believe the Indians marketing department even considers spending their time on the portion of their demographic that would be considered “baseball fans.” Truth be told what puts baseball fans in the seat? Baseball. That is already covered by the Indians fielding a team and the other team showing up. It’s Shapiro’s department that is responsible for the quality of baseball and I doubt the marketing department has any input on that side. Obviously better baseball is the only thing that gets more baseball fans through the gate.
I go to a lot of games (6 so far this year) and have felt like a second class citizen in the ballpark for some time. Promotions are intended to snag “entertainment” dollars, and the marketing department is appealing to the people that will come downtown and spend money. An example of a promotion that offended me as a baseball fan from this year took place on April 17th. The Indians had a 4.05pm start and the Cavs had a 3pm playoff game at the Q at 3pm. In order to snag some entertainment dollars from people who were likely sports fans to say the least, the Indians offered to let Cavs fans with tickets from the Cavs game in for $5 to watch the remainder of the Tribe game. That was a great idea that I had no problem with. What did upset me was the additional promotion offered up. As described on the radio, at the end of the Cavs game, every fan in the stadium could buy a beer and a hot dog for $8. Now that’s a deal as beers are $7.75 and hot dogs are $4.25 essentially equaling a free hot dog or a half price beer. I go to lots of games and almost always buy an overpriced beer, or two, or three depending on the mood in the ballpark. As a diehard, I go to lots of games and spend lots of cash at the park. in my mind, I’ve earned a discount considering all the bad ballgames I’ve watched to the end. As Cavs fans began to trickle into the park, I grabbed my buddy and went in search of my beer. After about an inning and a half of visiting a handful of concession stands that knew nothing of the beer/hot dog deal, Guest Services, an ATM (because the deal was cash only) and eventually the only stand in the park that had the deal, I declined the promotion. Turns out it was for a kid-size hot dog and a 12 oz. beer. Which wasn’t exactly a good deal by my math. What upset me most was that I missed an inning and a half of baseball. I was treated rudely by guest services and felt a little childish for trying to save a couple bucks. It wasn’t my idea. It was theirs. Sad things is, I’ll still go to the park despite that fiasco of a promotion. They know baseball fans will come regardless.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but they’re not, really. I mean, the Tribe is dead last, and it sounds like they deserve it. That was sort of what I was getting at, though admitting my impression was one of an outsider. Your experience suggests that they only reinforce the negative marketing and product with bad service. Going to a bad baseball game should be one of the most fun things you can do. What a shame.
I think that speaks to the economy and, as much as I hate to say it, the decline of baseball’s popularity. I love watching a good game in a mostly empty stadium because at least you know the people there are all baseball fans. The 2007 play-offs were pretty amazing for that same reason. Baseball fans filled the stadium for those games unlike in the 90s, when I was completely shut-out due to finances. I’ll never forget trying to scalp into an ALCS game and not having enough money in hand—let alone in my bank account—to get in because some goon was sitting in the seat trying to figure out who the players were. I remember watching folks casually stroll into the park into the third and fourth inning. Despite the scalper prices dropping, they were still way too high for me—a college freshman—to consider. I loved those teams and play-off runs, and enjoy nothing more than a sellout, but will never miss the overabundance of casual fans during the period when Jacob’s Field was “the place to be” even with the understanding that that was a key component to those payrolls.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Basketball is the same thing now. When I’ve been lucky to sit in good seats at a Blazers game (which generally is a great crowd), they’re populated with D-bags who never look up from their iphone to enjoy their $300 seats. And woe is the fan that actually wants to relish the game, because you’re bombarded with insulting “entertainment” the entire time. I feel so old bitching about the state of sports, but it’s all gone so wrong, from ESPN to outrageous money, to monetizing everything, to ruining amateur sports. Whatever.
That’s one of the positives of baseball though. Outside of a few markets and new ballparks, it’s a thinking fan’s game. I go to NFL games and can say that a.) football fans and baseball fans have completely different etiquette and that b.) I prefer baseball fans. I like to drink beer and make noise and prefer loud fans that say clever things. You can always spot the football fans at a baseball game, but rarely the converse. I’m glad that NASCAR and the NBA give people other options to blow off steam. Baseball is the better for it despite ownerships desire to bring in the masses. I like the direction that baseball fandom is going (minus Philly, c’mon guys get with the program.)
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I generally agree with you. Some basketball and football fans have surprised me in the last couple years with the sophistication of their understanding, but they are the vast minority, moreso than I’ve noticed in baseball. I really hope baseball can even partially fix it’s payroll discrepancies. It deserves it.
I don’t mean to say that NBA/NFL fans don’t know what they are watching, I think they have trouble seeing how they are acting. Some of NBA fans in the first couple rows can easily be argued to be the biggest jack-asses in sports.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I will miss them. I miss them every time I see Martinez in a Red Sox uniform, or Trevor Crowe in an Indians uniform, or Santana in a Clippers uniform. However much less fun you may have, we need those dollars. It’s a revenue business.
Isn’t it more fun when the Jake is rocking, anyway? That’s always been my experience.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 16, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t it more fun when the Jake is rocking, anyway? That’s always been my experience.
That was my point. It was rockin’ in the 07 playoffs without casual fans. I recognize that those very, very causal fans—or more accurately corporations who bought the suites—back in the 90s payed for all the John Hart payrolls, but I can also say the silver lining of seasons like this one is the fact that baseball fans rule the house—as it should be. I also recognize that the Browns are back (if in name only) and the economy has changed drastically from those years. Those fans aren’t coming back under present circumstances. I’m not going to lament their absence, I’m going to enjoy it. If they do return, I’ll happily endure with the hope that it means years of contention. That would be a nice problem to have.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
OK. I’m behind this.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on May 16, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s always fun. Baseball experts, novices, little leaguers on an outing – even jackasses that are there to root for the Red Sox or Yankees. As long as they’re buying tickets to up our revenue, I say let ‘em all in. It’s still the most fun you’ll ever have with your clothes on.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on May 16, 2010 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
ill just stay home
and listen to it on the radio i cant break anything really at the Prog lmao hey man i dont think the indians are half bad this year Go Tribe!!!!!!!!!!
It's all good!
Is this satire? Is it even possible to completely ignore punctuation yet finish up with 10 exclamation points?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 16, 2010 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This kind of thinking is why a psuedonym is necessary.
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on May 17, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Punctuation is so 2009.
You guys must still be living in the 20th Century.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
What century is 2009 part of?
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on May 17, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
I bet we don’t finish at the bottom of that list, but if we do you can chalk up the Vic & Lee trades as the biggest factor. The Cavs did cut into some of the games in May. People may not directly bought Cavs tickets instead, but opted to stay home and watch the game.
I’m interested to see how the numbers shift after the summer holiday series and the two series against the most obnoxious fanbases in baseball.
You can guarantee we’ll be in the bottom 5 though.
Are their figures for how much suite sales are down and corporate sponsorship? The attendance is better for Detroit, but their corporate sponsorship down just as much, if not more, as the Tribe.
Has anyone seen promos the Fan Cave on the suite level at the Jake? It’s a prime suite converted into some kind of gaudy rec room with a pool table and wacky colored decorations, because, you know, the game itself isn’t enough entertainment to drop four figures on a suite. It’s available on a game-by-game basis.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 17, 2010 8:43 AM EDT reply actions
Looks like several teams are in the same boat as Cleveland. At least we have an excuse – the team has been playing poorly. What about Oakland, Florida, and Toronto? Those teams have been competitive and yet attendance is not much better.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
I wonder how accurate managements’ model was on lost attendance from the trades of Martinez and Lee. Seeing CC Sabathia face off against Cliff Lee in Game 1 of the World Series last year was a real sucker punch to the fan base. From a pure attendance perspective, I wonder if the Indians would have been better off retaining Lee for 2009 and 2010 and getting nothing back in a trade. It would not have helped the long term chances of winning, but it might have been a way to bridge the lack of interest in the club until younger players reached the majors.
Seeing CC Sabathia face off against Cliff Lee in Game 1 of the World Series last year was a real sucker punch to the fan base.
Nobody models for that. The unlikelihood of those two teams facing off, plus the championship series lining up in a way that both guys were available for Game One.
If they could have foreseen that would happen? It would still be hard to hold back from acquiring those four players. Holding on to Lee for another year, for a July 2010 trade, would have been more risky, but how much less damaging?
I agree that no one could have predicted the matchup of Lee and Sabathia, but there had to be some estimate on what trading Lee and Martinez would cost in lost attendance in 2010. Based on that estimate, how surprised is management with the turn out in 2010?
I think the difference is a lot less than you think. Either way, you had to figure the team was headed for less than 70 wins and a fourth- or fifth-place finish. And either way, nobody was going to be picking the Indians to contend in 2010 — with Lee and Martinez, yes, but without Masterson, Donald, Marson, Carrasco, and probably Talbot.
So how much better was attendance going to be? Enough even to pay the $22 million difference in payroll?
Through 14 games, the Tribe’s attendance is down 6,585 per game from 2009 (when they still had Lee and Martinez, of course). That’s 533,385 for 81 games. At an average ticket price of $22.15, lost ticket sales are $11.8 million. The team gets other revenue from fans, but are the margins enough that they make up the difference? I doubt it.
Good point. And we would clearly have still sucked. More importantly, we would keep sucking, as we watched them leave with nothing in return.
Not to get too nit-picky, but last year we did have a home Red Sox series in April, that probably skews the numbers a bit compared to this year.
by millionairesrow on May 19, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Using your numbers, I think most of that $11.8 million would flow to the bottom line as their is a minimal variable cost to filling one more seat. Profitability from other sources should be high (concessions margins are good – $6.25 for a beer?!?). But beyond that, there will also be the impact on the present value of future media contracts to consider (how are television ratings affected?). When aggregating these sources of value, I think they would cover the $22 million in payroll. However, this would not address the long term problem that come 2011 (presuming no trades), with no talent in the pipeline, the drop-off in fan interest would be just as bad as it is now and there would be no crop of talent coming in to rejuvenate the fan base.
As an alternative solution, perhaps they trade one player, Martinez (with Santana already in the system). The team then retains a Cy-Young award winner, has a small crop of talent coming in a few years, and at least every fifth game could compete with everyone.
Although concessions are operated by Sportservice, which, depending on the contract, keeps the profit from concession food/drinks.
Interesting, I didn’t know that. How are contracts with Sportservice typically structured – does the team get any upside from increased concession sales?
I am not sure of the specific contract terms for Sportservice, but another competitor in the industry is Aramark, which handles concession operations for sports teams as well. Their contracts are structured in two ways: 1) Profit/loss contracts in which Aramark receives all of the sales, but takes care of all the expenses, which sometimes includes a commission to the client, 2) Client interest contracts in which Aramark just manages the concession operations and receives a management fee (usually calculated as a percentage of sales) and an incentive fee based on the performance under the contract. Around 3/4 of Aramark’s sales in this segment come from profit/loss contracts and the other 1/4 comes from client interest contracts. That said, I am not sure which contract type Sportservice would use for Progressive Field.
you are also assuming that the tribe’s attendance this year would be exactly the same as 2009 if Victor and Cliff were still here.
personally, I highly doubt that because even if they WERE still here, I would be less inclined this year to see a game then last.
Not that my opinion is the only one that matters, but assuming this is a very big assumption.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
The one thought I had to myself at the Jake a few weeks ago was “The people who were here 10+ years ago who currently don’t attend games…what exactly has changed for them?”
Now if it’s only a matter of them deciding that the Indians suck and that they don’t want to attend for that reason, well that’s fair.
But I assume that the northeastern Ohio population has been studied thoroughly to look at what seqeuences of events in the 90s were leading them to the Jake. Friends deciding as a group to come, work events, pre-drinks, dates, whatever…do we know of any results of those studies? Have they happened? Was it just the allure of the new ballpark? A perpetual motion machine of people trying to get a limited good (ticket to a sold out show)? Because I believe there’s more to making the Jake “the place to be” beyond a winning ballclub….the NFL illustrates this perfectly, as many terrible teams continue to sell out.
Will the Indians draw enough against the Reds this weekend to escape last place in attendance if not last place in the AL Central standings?
Oakland, Pittsburgh and Toronto all have average attendance more than 10% above the Indians.
attendance
I thought I would add the perspective of a long-time fan (I’ve gone to 15-20 games a year since 1957) who goes to games regularly.
The small firm which I owned, from which I recently retired, and for which I still work part time has had four lower boxes since 1992. We renew every year because we are fans and use the tickets to entertain clients. (Under current law, they are 50% deductible.) And, yes, we can still find plenty of people who like going to games even under current circumstances.
The seats—a block of 4 in the first and second rows—cost us $9396 for the 2010 season. This includes $972 (or $3 per ticket) of so-called "loaded value", which is not optional. The loaded value is redeemed in the form of a $3 discount on the first purchase of any food or drink item at a concession stand. It doesn’t carry over from game to game. The $9396 price represents a 21% discount from the cost of the same tickets on a single-game basis.
This season the Indians offered us as season ticket holders the free use of a loge for any one game if we paid the entire price of the four tickets on October 30, 2009 instead of in three installments commencing that date. We did this and are going to have a well-located loge for one of the Mets games.
We have gotten to know other season ticket holders over the years, and many seem to be determined to stay the course. We aren’t naïve about what is going on in the sport. We understand that baseball is rigged in favor of the big market teams but believe that the Indians can be rebuilt into a club that can compete for several-year stretches as Tampa Bay is doing now (it had terrible attendance for years and still built a good team)—or as the Tribe itself did in 2005 and 2007. Besides, the alternative to supporting the team might be having to confront the possibility of losing it.
(I well remember the days when keeping the team in Cleveland was a major preoccupation of everyone who followed it. For all the negative aspects of the current economic arrangements in baseball, I think that revenue sharing has greatly diminished the chance of small market teams moving.)
As to whether the poor attendance this season will cause a death spiral, my own sense—based on the revenue our 4 tickets produce for the Indians—is that adding another 7,000 fans per game (which would place us about 20th in attendance) would not in and of itself produce enough additional revenue to make the team competitive. It would still take luck in the area of talent selection (and, in my opinion, a lot of it is just luck) and even more luck in the area of injuries.
by mainstreetfan on May 25, 2010 9:38 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
I agree with JB above; thanks for sharing that.
by Buckeye Brad on May 25, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow — the opinion of a guy who actually spends a lot of money on the team! We hardly get any of that here.
Sadly, true. An interesting perception in this post: that revenue sharing has diminished the chance of small market teams moving. We’ve danced around that notion of late, but haven’t seen it put so succinctly. Is our fear mostly then of being contracted?
-Erik
My fear is mostly of being consistently irrelevant, a la the Pirates.
by NickFantana on May 26, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
