i hope the team uses this whole ordeal to start playing with a chip on their shoulder and goes out to win like 16 of 20.  but the clevelander in me can't help but think that this weirdness is a harbinger of total disaster...

I know its a rush decision, but it seems like playing the game in a non-mlb city would actually bring bigger crowds.

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20070409&content_id=1 888059&vkey=pr_cle&fext=.jsp&c_id=cle

Hello everyone,

I heard about this while checking out The Weather Channel, believe it or not.  I was expecting Jennifer Lopez (that is her name by the way, and no, not THAT one,) to say that the series was being moved to Anaheim.  When I heard Milwaukee, I'm like "Duh, what was that?"  

I'm over the initial shock, but actually, it seems like we might have a better crowd than some are expecting, and that might not be that big of a surprise - the Brewers fans get to see two teams they normally wouldn't see, and two of the better ones in the AL.  And, recall that Milwaukee used to be an AL city - they might appreciate some games where pitchers don't have to hit.  :-)  

Plus, if the Brewers were feuding with the Angels in ST, they might just adopt the Indians as their team for 3 days, certainly not a bad thing.  :-)

Just my 2 cents.  

If can mold this into a team-building experience,
he may come out the better for it.

If he can't, he is doomed.

RyDogg66 and oden - I echo IndyDave's sentiments when I say, "thanks for coming out" and for providing the info. - greatly appreciated!

I'm hopeful there will be nice turnouts for those games - I think we might be pleasantly surprised, and by the sounds of it, the Brewers fans will support us more than the Angels, so we might have a bit of a home feel.  

And like I said before, the Brewers' fans will get to see two of the better AL teams, something that hasn't occurred there in over 10 years, since Milwaukee was in the AL, so I think there could be a nice turnout.

Just my 2 cents.  :-)

The recent weather problems make me think back to the decisions to not put retractable roofs on our stadiums, which is looking more and more like dumb decisions in my opinion.

A retractable roof wouldn't have detracted from the ballpark or the outdoor experience, yet would allow the Indians to contend with this troublesome weather without having to move home games.

As for the Browns, Browns' Stadium would be up for Super Bowls, which would have paid for the roofs many times over.

As for cost, at the time Gateway and Browns' Stadium was built, Cleveland was thriving, so I think the cost analysis didn't take everything into account - yes, the initial cost would have been a lot, but between having Super Bowls and other indoor events all year round, as well as preventing scheduling nightmares for the Indians in April like this year, the revenue would have far outweighted the costs in the long run, which makes me think that those decisions to not have roofs on those two stadiums were two of the biggest mistakes Cleveland politicians (specifically, Mayor Mike White) have made in regards to our city's financial well-being over the last 15 years.

From what I understand, they could still add roofs to those two stadiums, but they won't do it, supposedly due to the cost, which would be harder to swallow now because it would cost more due to the higher cost of materials and manpower in the 2000s compared to the 1990s, plus the fact that Cleveland is no longer thriving, but in the long run, Cleveland would likely benefit from the added revenue from Super Bowls, other events, and the lack of Indians' postponements (in regards to the vendors and the downtown establishments.)

Just my 2 cents.  :-)