Boswell on Attendance

[jim busby]

As I recall, I think the argument was that because of its history, etc., DC deserved a team, and that the Baltimore/DC/VA market could support two teams, in spite of Angelos' opposition. And his mismanagement of the team, and hostility to baseball in Washington, was making DC-area fans even more hostile to the Orioles. I think it's entirely correct that Peter Angelos made a baseball team in DC more attractive for DC-area fans. It's debatable whether DC residents actually want a baseball team--or rather, want to spend half a billion dollars of the city's money to pay for a stadium. Boswell never goes anywhere near that issue, though.

Well, why don't you look at the issue honestly for us, and explain the situation (So I won't squawk). As for the insider info, I don't remember that the Angelos "sabotage" theory was presented as a "scoop"--i.e., Boswell didn't write that he had a source or documentation that proved this--it was just a theory.

My gripe is with Orioles fans who, while normally highly critical of Angelos' management of the team and its personnel issues, for some reason take his side in his fight against the Nationals. Angelos' fight against the Nationals is about one thing only--his income. Without access to the Orioles' books, we have no idea how much money the club loses with a team in DC--or, with the cozy deal he negotiated from MLB and Comcast, whether he's losing ANY money. I don't have the slightest sympathy for tycoons and baseball owners who plead poverty and hardship while screwing over their cities and their teams' fans (and in Peter's case, another team's fans). If the owner of the Baltimore Orioles--and the owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates, for that matter--weren't profiting off the team, they wouldn't be in the business in the first place. And if they're making money, they can afford to improve the team.

Well, you and I undoubtedly are destined to disagree on this, but that's OK, that's what this board is for.

I will not pretend that my memory is so perfect that I can recall exactly what Boswell said. I should have made that clear.

And you are right in this regard: Boswell did argue that the area was large enough to support two teams. (I happen to disagree vehemently with that assertion, and I happen to think that D.C. will not support a team, but that's not the issue I raised, nor is it the issue you raised.)

But as I recall, every time he brought up that argument, he made the point that he thought Angelos was such a boob that he (Angelos) deserved the competition from a team in D.C.

I reject that argument completely, as it implies that, had Angelos been a better owner, D.C. would not have deserved a team. (For the record, I have said many times, that I think Angelos has made many, many mistakes that have grievously wounded the Orioles.)

You ask me to look honestly at the issue. Well, I don't have the time or salary that Thomas Boswell has to do such things, but I think I have presented my side as best I can.

One thing I will bring up, however. At the time the debate was raging over moving the Expos here, Sally Jenkins, a columnist for The Washington Post, wrote at least two columns criticizing the move. Her arguments had nothing to do with the Orioles. Her arguments were that a city so beleaguered had no business spending money to build a ballpark.

She wrote eloquently, and her facts were well-researched. She talked about tragedy of a broken city, and she pointed out that tax money spent on a ballpark was wasted.

You said that "Boswell never goes anywhere near that issue," but that's not so. He wrote at least one column, which I saved for a long time (and cannot find this morning) in which he used the ludicrous argument that because the tax money used to build the ballpark will come from businesses, not individuals, then that tax money is not money that would be available for other city services.

Anyone who has ever looked into the way government works knows that such an argument is fallacious on its face.

If businesses did not have to pay that tax to build the ballpark, then those businesses would have more money to hire more workers, build more buildings themselves, etc., all of which would contribute to the city's general-fund taxes.

Furthermore, it's not as if the city were giving the businesses a choice: "Hey, we want to raise your taxes, and we'll use the money either to hire more teachers, or to build a ballpark. Which do you business owners prefer?"

I'll acknowledge that my use of "scoop" in regard to Boswell's sabotage delusion was careless. But I also will say it was more than a "theory." It was an accusation.

And if I'm a responsible columnist, I'm not going to say, over and over, without offering a shred of proof, that I think So-and-so is doing such-and-such.

I suppose if he had said it once, gotten it out of the way, then not repeated it, I may not be so concerned about it. But we all know the way public relations works: If you say something over and over, and nobody challenges you on it, it becomes accepted as fact.

That's not overtly dishonest, but it's a too tricky to be considered above reproach, in my opinion.

Boswell did, however, report several times that Angelos was on the verge of selling, and that's why he wasn't spending money on payroll. No one ever jumped on that bandwagon with Boswell, just as to my knowledge, no other journalist ever accused Angelos of deliberately sabotaging the team.

Just to be completely clear, I admit (as another poster did) that I am selfish. I wanted no team in D.C., and my motive was so that the Orioles would have the area for themselves.

You seem to think that by rejecting Boswell's assertions, I am defending Peter Angelos's running of the Orioles.

I am not.

I am capable of forming the opinion that both have shown poor judgment.

[SilentJames]

The only one responsible for turning the Orioles into the Royals is peter angelos. If he had put the effort and resources into amateur scouting, international scouting and intelligent free agent acquisitions that he did in trying to prevent the Expos from moving into DC, then the Orioles would be the big market team they were in the 90's and DC would not have been a viable option.

This is wrong. The scouting problems and minor league devastation started with EBW and Eli Jacobs

they are the ones that turned this into a regional team rather than a "baltimore" team. Angelos MADE us a big market team in the 90's, he was the one that signed the paychecks of the top 3 salary teams of the late 90's, but without that minor league backup, when they crublemd, they collapsed.

you can blame Angelos for a lot, but not that - it doesnt jive with the history my friend.

[keysersose]

This is wrong. The scouting problems and minor league devastation started with EBW and Eli Jacobs

they are the ones that turned this into a regional team rather than a "baltimore" team. Angelos MADE us a big market team in the 90's, he was the one that signed the paychecks of the top 3 salary teams of the late 90's, but without that minor league backup, when they crublemd, they collapsed.

you can blame Angelos for a lot, but not that - it doesnt jive with the history my friend.

JEEEZ I hate that excuse. Angelos has been the owner for at least 10 years and scouting, drafting and player evaluations have been horrible. HE is directly responsible for the 8 straight losing seasons.

EBW and Jacobs should be credited for Camden Yards not the destruction of the Orioles. That credit is owned by peter angelos, attorney at law and family.

Given the number of high draft picks the Orioles have had over the past 8 years, having only 4 players in the top 100 of baseball prospects (Markakis inlcuded) and none in the top 10 is direct reflection upon angelos sterling incompetence as an owner.

[johnnyrtw]

I agree with most of you that Boswell's antics regarding Angelos conspiracy theories can get pretty old quick, especially regarding the Nats and tv deals.

However, I think that when he points out the FOs inability to spend on FAs, he is only doing O's fans a service by bringing light to the fact that PA simply isn't getting the job done in terms of putting together a winning team.

I think that his past column was written faily objectively and that if it wasn't his name at the top of the column, people wouldn't have even thought twice about its validity.

[TonySoprano]

This is wrong. The scouting problems and minor league devastation started with EBW and Eli Jacobs

they are the ones that turned this into a regional team rather than a "baltimore" team. Angelos MADE us a big market team in the 90's, he was the one that signed the paychecks of the top 3 salary teams of the late 90's, but without that minor league backup, when they crublemd, they collapsed.

you can blame Angelos for a lot, but not that - it doesnt jive with the history my friend.

Good grief. Camden Yards is the result of EBW's effort to make the team a regional one. It's PA who doesn't associate the name Baltimore with the team.

As you note, Angelos' Orioles were top three in payroll from 1996-1998. However, they have been slipping ever since and sit about at the middle of the pack. Peter Angelos has been on the job for over 12 years. Couldn't a farm system have been rebuilt in that amount of time even with the "devastation" that you claim was brought about by EBW and Jacobs?

[Witchy_Chick]

This argument has probably run it's course by now. I got a little sidetracked at work with.....work. Anyway, since I was in the middle of composing this post anyway, I'm just going ahead with it.

That is what you think, which is fine, but don't discredit the bonds Factor.

His away games this year so far were these.

Padres for three games with a total attendance of 98,548 when thier max capacity for those 3 games is 127,500

Misleading (I think). The Padres-Giants game on 4/4 was postponed. Does paid attendance for a rainout still count? ESPN.com lists OD attendance as 43,767 and game three attendance as 23,721. Still better than our game three attendance.

The Dodgers for 3 games for a total attendance of 156,204 when thier max capacity for those 3 games is 168,000

The per game "drop off" between capacity and actual attendance is 3,932. I don't think that's so bad. Especially considering 4/16 attendance was 47,024 -- for Easter Sunday.

The D-Backs for 3 games for a total attendance of 67,948 when thier max capacity for those 3 is 147,099

The Giants-Dbacks series was (is) actually a four-game series (currently going on; game four is tonight). So far, for the Giants, they've drawn: 21,620; 23,255; 23,083. I don't know how you can attribute those low attendance figures to a "Bonds factor" when the D'backs other home dates have drawn pretty poorly also.

37,355 (Opening Day), 18,664, 18,745 -- all against Colorado

24,512, 25,042, 21,191 -- all against Houston

For comparison's sake, I looked at attendance for the D'Backs/Dodgers/Padres for last year.

D'backs host Dodgers 4/8-4/10 2005 (weekend series)

25,813

30,753

29,796

86,362

D'backs host Giants 5/2-5/4 2005 (weekday series)

25,317

28,072

21,367

74756 total (6,808 higher than this year's weekday series)

Dodgers host Giants 4/12-4/13 2005 (weekday series)

55,892 (Home Opener)

46,514

102,406

Padres host Giants 4/18-4/19 2005 (weekday series)

29,523

29,544

59067

In all this numbers-crunching, I have completely lost my point. hahahhaa And, it's about 20 minutes 'til I leave work for the day. If this is still a viable argument, we can continue the fight after I get home from the game this evening.

Witchy

[jim busby]

I agree with most of you that Boswell's antics regarding Angelos conspiracy theories can get pretty old quick, especially regarding the Nats and tv deals.

However, I think that when he points out the FOs inability to spend on FAs, he is only doing O's fans a service by bringing light to the fact that PA simply isn't getting the job done in terms of putting together a winning team.

I think that his past column was written faily objectively and that if it wasn't his name at the top of the column, people wouldn't have even thought twice about its validity.

If you're referring to today's column, my criticism is that it's just warmed-over Angelos hatred with a new topic on top to make it look somewhat different: the Orioles' plunging attendance.

Certainly, Boswell is intelligent enough that he makes some good points in almost all of his columns. Certainly, anyone with a brain can conclude that Peter Angelos has alienated a large number of fans.

But what rankles, in my opinion, is that he rarely, if ever, has anything new to say on the issues of the Orioles and Peter G. Angelos.

However, as I said in an earlier message, Boswell ends up winning. If you're a columnist, you don't care whether people love you or hate you, you just care whether they read what you wrote. And today, I have read his column twice.

[mojmann]

If you're referring to today's column, my criticism is that it's just warmed-over Angelos hatred with a new topic on top to make it look somewhat different: the Orioles' plunging attendance.

Very true.

What's really going to be sickening is to see how he becomes an apologist for the Nats when they're attendance becomes a joke, as you and I know it will.

My prediction: D.C. will be like Colorado. The first couple years in the new stadium, they'll do fine. Then, boredom will set in and it will drop like a stone.

[Mark Carver]

The only one responsible for turning the Orioles into the Royals is peter angelos. If he had put the effort and resources into amateur scouting, international scouting and intelligent free agent acquisitions that he did in trying to prevent the Expos from moving into DC, then the Orioles would be the big market team they were in the 90's and DC would not have been a viable option.

The only reason the Expos moved to DC, was to keep the politico's in DC off of MLB anti-trust status. It had nothing to do with the Orioles status.

[RShack]

Good grief. Camden Yards is the result of EBW's effort to make the team a regional one. It's PA who doesn't associate the name Baltimore with the team.

Let's not rewrite history TOO much.

* EBW bought the team for $12M, destroyed the organization, and sold the team for $70M. At least he's dead.

* EBW was a DC guy. He noticed the Senators left. He tried to get some DC people to O's games. This is not an indication of being a visionary.

* They took "Baltimore" off the road uniforms when it was a fad to remove the city name. Many teams did that then.

* Jacobs got us OPACY. Willie Don was in love with the KC idea, he wanted to build a vanilla thing in the burbs. Jacobs wanted Ebbetts Field. Jacobs is the OPACY hero.

* Jacobs was too broke to rebuild the organization. He was too broke to keep the team. Enter Angelos.

As you note, Angelos' Orioles were top three in payroll from 1996-1998. However, they have been slipping ever since and sit about at the middle of the pack. Peter Angelos has been on the job for over 12 years. Couldn't a farm system have been rebuilt in that amount of time even with the "devastation" that you claim was brought about by EBW and Jacobs?

* You are correct that PA went for the new-owner quick-fix strategy.

* You are correct that PA should have caught on to a smart strategy *years* sooner than he did. The fact that he did not is his most powerful sin.

* On that score, there is abundant evidence that PA has learned.

* What we don't know yet is if Flanagan can persuade PA to do what Flanagan wants him to do, case by case.

PA is at fault for many things. PA is still a problem. PA is less of a problem than he used to be. We don't yet know if he is a managable problem.

[Mark Carver]

Let's not rewrite history TOO much.

* EBW bought the team for $12M, destroyed the organization, and sold the team for $70M. At least he's dead.

* EBW was a DC guy. He noticed the Senators left. He tried to get some DC people to O's games. This is not an indication of being a visionary.

* They took "Baltimore" off the road uniforms when it was a fad to remove the city name. Many teams did that then.

* Jacobs got us OPACY. Willie Don was in love with the KC idea, he wanted to build a vanilla thing in the burbs. Jacobs wanted Ebbetts Field. Jacobs is the OPACY hero.

* Jacobs was too broke to rebuild the organization. He was too broke to keep the team. Enter Angelos.

Jerry Hoffberger removed Baltimore from the road jersey's.

[mojmann]

* Jacobs got us OPACY. Willie Don was in love with the KC idea, he wanted to build a vanilla thing in the burbs..

WRONG.

Willie Don always favored the Camden Yards location. Always.

The naysayers and some legislative leaders at the time thought a Linthicum location would be good (to attract more people from D.C.)

Here's where I think you're getting confused: Willie Don wanted a huge multi-purpose dome like Skydome in Toronto at the Camden Yards site.

[mojmann]

Jerry Hoffberger removed Baltimore from the road jersey's.

Yes. For the 1972 season ... which, coincidentally perhaps, was the first year without the Senators.

Hmmm ...

[Birds of B'more]

Speaking of rewriting history.......

Let's not rewrite history TOO much.

* EBW bought the team for $12M, destroyed the organization, and sold the team for $70M. At least he's dead.

* EBW was a DC guy. He noticed the Senators left. He tried to get some DC people to O's games. This is not an indication of being a visionary.

* They took "Baltimore" off the road uniforms when it was a fad to remove the city name. Many teams did that then.

* Jacobs got us OPACY. Willie Don was in love with the KC idea, he wanted to build a vanilla thing in the burbs. Jacobs wanted Ebbetts Field. Jacobs is the OPACY hero.

* Jacobs was too broke to rebuild the organization. He was too broke to keep the team. Enter Angelos

1. By "they" you should mean Jerry Hoffberger, as "Baltimore" was removed from the jerseys in 1972 during his ownership.

2. Eli Jacobs had nothing to do with the building of OPACY. Jacobs' only legacy to the stadium, aside from being the owner when it was opened, is the "Oriole Park" in the name. He was insisting on that, while Willie Don wanted Camden Yards...........OPACY wound up being the compromise.

[jim busby]

Speaking of rewriting history.......

1. By "they" you should mean Jerry Hoffberger' date=' as "Baltimore" was removed from the jerseys in 1972 during his ownership.

2. Eli Jacobs had nothing to do with the building of OPACY. Jacobs' only legacy to the stadium, aside from being the owner when it was opened, is the "Oriole Park" in the name. He was insisting on that, while Willie Don wanted Camden Yards...........OPACY wound up being the compromise.[/quote']

I think Jacobs has more to do with the building of the ballpark than you're giving him credit for.

I don't save clippings the way I should, but as I recall, he had some definite ideas about the design, specifically, he wanted the tall scoreboard in RF, as he thought it would be distinctive the way the Green Monster is in Fenway.

In addition, I seem to remember that he was a strong advocate for a creative design in other areas. Those are my memories, however, and I'll be glad to be proven wrong.