The Tampa Bay Rays

[King Bootz]

We aren't trading him to the Yankees.

Dodgers or Cubs then. The thing is, not a lot of teams can afford to pay guys like this who are gonna sign mega deals and that's why they always get guys like this -not because their prospects are worth a shit. Make no mistake I'm glad this happened but I'm rather certain we're just gonna flake out in a few years with him like we did with Longoria.

This is literally too good to be true. To say we never do this is far from an exaggeration

You're forgetting we signed Longoria to a 9 year deal his rookie year in 08. It wasn't the size of this contract, but he was extended long term nonetheless. 5 years into that deal with 4 years left on it, we added 6 more years, making it a 10 year deal in 2012.

He wasn't traded until after the 2017 season, when he was 32 and had been with the team for 10 years. I'd hardly call that flaking out after a few years. He spent his peak years here and it's clear we got the best version of him. San Francisco has regretted trading for him. He is not the player he once was.

[acmillis]

But you know what though? This means our window is wide open. I don't know what we're paying Randy but we need to keep him around long term. In his small sample size he's proven to be an elite playoff performer. Between those two and Meadows I think we can at least temporarily outscore a degree of our pitching problems

Randy is either under team control or arbitration eligible through the 2026 season, so it's possible we can keep a strong core (if they remain strong) for at least half a decade.

[Swashbuckler]

But you know what though? This means our window is wide open. I don't know what we're paying Randy but we need to keep him around long term. In his small sample size he's proven to be an elite playoff performer. Between those two and Meadows I think we can at least temporarily outscore a degree of our pitching problems

Randy is either under team control or arbitration eligible through the 2026 season, so it's possible we can keep a strong core (if they remain strong) for at least half a decade.

Winning the World Series is incredibly difficult. We might not do it in the next 5 years and hence I'd like to see Randy locked up in a similar fashion too. But different bridge (figuratively and literally in contract terms) different time. I think he's just really good under pressure in the playoffs and that'll serve us well going forward. But anyway back to Franco, his contract speaks to the potential that the Bay Area can have a big name player like this. I do think our capacity for a payroll is greater than we thought. But that's gonna be a Tampa thing. It was always gonna be a Tampa thing. I think the Rays can Moneyball a $100 million team in Tampa but I don't wanna go higher than that. I just know it'll be better than St. Pete and we'll afford to keep some guys. Considering what we've done with less that MIGHT be enough to win a title. But I'm just spitballing about stuff I don't have a clear picture on. I could be totally wrong.

Jane Castor needs to get on the horn and make this new ballpark happen. We're simply getting trolled by the Rays front office about Montreal. The MLBPA will never allow it -especially if we've got a brand new park here. The Lightning would draw 21,000 on a Tuesday night against any shit club if Amalie was big enough. And anywhere from 21,000-28,000 on a weekend against a "Big Boy" club like the Rangers or Bruins just like the old days at the Thunderdome. And that's hockey... a niche sport for a Florida market. Imagine what baseball will do if the Rays actually held onto guys like Meadows, Franco, Randy, Baz, Glasnow and McClanahan for more than a few years. It will transform everyone's interest in the team.



PS- Kiermaier's trade value has probably never been higher. I'm not saying trade him now. I'm saying if some team was stupid enough to do what Pittsburgh did for Archer we'd be fools to not take it.

[acmillis]

I’m on the trade KK bandwagon. Great glove, HORRIBKE bat (last year was an outlier, not the norm) flip before the glove goes and he has no value whatsoever

[Swashbuckler]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/tampa-bay-rays

It's not a guy's fault he keeps getting hurt but between McKay and Honeywell we managed to somehow have the two unluckiest dudes in all of baseball. It's a minor miracle we got anything for Honeywell at all. Guy had what, like 6 years in the organization and pitched 4 innings for us in the majors? If McKay manages to gets hurt again it might be time to move on as well because we were relying on them both to be here by now and come playoff time it was McClanahan vs the World.

[nybf]

I don't believe what I'm reading. Like I'm almost convinced this guy is gonna be in pinstripes in 3 years

I'd say 4-5 years.

[Swashbuckler]

I don't believe what I'm reading. Like I'm almost convinced this guy is gonna be in pinstripes in 3 years

I'd say 4-5 years.

HA!! Damn man. Almost had it

[Kress]

Half of that is in Canadian Dollars, so.....

[Swashbuckler]

Half of that is in Canadian Dollars, so.....

Lmao

[acmillis]

Didn't want to start a new thread, but I guess @nybf is going to have to endure some of those really boring no-hitters...

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/327 ... -year-deal

[Swashbuckler]

Lol so we just trade Wendle instead and do it for a 23 year old who strikes out once every 4 plate appearances between A+ to AA ball.

*slow clap*

[King Bootz]

Lol so we just trade Wendle instead and do it for a 23 year old who strikes out once every 4 plate appearances between A+ to AA ball.

*slow clap*

Glass half full, Misner is an on base guy. .365 OBP between A+ to AA ball. Plus he has speed on the bases. Not sure how good he is defensively in the outfield vs infield. But the tools are there. Maybe he contributed in 2024. Maybe not and he's traded to acquire someone else later down the line. But these are the calculated gambles a team like the Rays has to rely on to stay competitive.

[Kress]

I feel like they're setting the stage for the Kiermaier trade.

[Swashbuckler]

Lol so we just trade Wendle instead and do it for a 23 year old who strikes out once every 4 plate appearances between A+ to AA ball.

*slow clap*

Glass half full, Misner is an on base guy. .365 OBP between A+ to AA ball. Plus he has speed on the bases. Not sure how good he is defensively in the outfield vs infield. But the tools are there. Maybe he contributed in 2024. Maybe not and he's traded to acquire someone else later down the line. But these are the calculated gambles a team like the Rays has to rely on to stay competitive.

I'm actually okay with us trading Wendle if this means Yandy is gonna be our starting 3rd baseman for good. We just usually get a better looking return than this.

[King Bootz]

I feel like they're setting the stage for the Kiermaier trade.

Yep. Read up on Misner a bit more. It seems he has the makings of a centerfielder with a good bat.

[King Bootz]

Glass half full, Misner is an on base guy. .365 OBP between A+ to AA ball. Plus he has speed on the bases. Not sure how good he is defensively in the outfield vs infield. But the tools are there. Maybe he contributed in 2024. Maybe not and he's traded to acquire someone else later down the line. But these are the calculated gambles a team like the Rays has to rely on to stay competitive.

I'm actually okay with us trading Wendle if this means Yandy is gonna be our starting 3rd baseman for good. We just usually get a better looking return than this.

We weren’t getting much for Wendle. Grabbing a potential replacement for KK with numerous years of cost effective control is a good return IMO.

[Kress]

I feel like they're setting the stage for the Kiermaier trade.

Yep. Read up on Misner a bit more. It seems he has the makings of a centerfielder with a good bat.

A power left-handed bat, at that.

[Swashbuckler]

https://www.tampabay.com/news/tampa/202 ... vOUrF1cIqw

I mean... that's a lot better. The Rays paying for half is reasonable. As a taxpayer I can fuck with that. But this split season nonsense needs to stop. And a capacity of 27,000? What the fuck? Like even 35,000 is small. What, are you scared of not selling out or something?

[Kress]

That article is blocked for me, but I heard on the radio this morning that regardless of funding or split season or whatever, they're still talking open air. In Tampa. In the summer.

They can't be that stupid, can they? I tell you what, build an open air stadium here, but play all of your rainout make-up games in Montreal. That will be at least half.

Good grief. Retractable roof or forget about it.

Edit: I don't have a problem with an "intimate" 27k capacity if it means putting money into doing the rest of it right. Amalie only seats 21k. Yeah, that's hockey, but for a daily sport like baseball, I'm fine with it.

[King Bootz]

That article is blocked for me, but I heard on the radio this morning that regardless of funding or split season or whatever, they're still talking open air. In Tampa. In the summer.

They can't be that stupid, can they? I tell you what, build an open air stadium here, but play all of your rainout make-up games in Montreal. That will be at least half.

Good grief. Retractable roof or forget about it.

Edit: I don't have a problem with an "intimate" 27k capacity if it means putting money into doing the rest of it right. Amalie only seats 21k. Yeah, that's hockey, but for a daily sport like baseball, I'm fine with it.

Open air might not be ideal but they can manage and work around it. MLB could schedule more away series in the summer, later start times, 7:30 or so. Thunderstorms are usually over by 6 or so anyway. And they never really last long.

I don’t have a problem with the capacity either. Every baseball stadium has a ton of empty seats on most game days. It’s hard to commit to attending 82 home games a season for your team.

[nybf]

If I'm an owner of a team in the top half of revenue sharing, I'd throw a fit if you tried to build a 27k seat stadium. We're going to need to re-write the agreement if you tried to pull that shit.

[Kress]

The team hasn't averaged over 19k in the past 10 years. Even with a stadium that small, history says they'd still only filling 2/3 of the place.

I can see selling it as this: Aside from moving the location, using the money to build a better ballpark, as opposed to a bigger one, will ultimately generate more revenue. We know a big part of attending a baseball game is the experience; actual sports action is sporadic at best. A kick-ass facility that draws in a few more people on a day-to-day basis, so it regularly puts 23k in a 27k stadium, is better than a lesser facility that will average 21k in a 34k stadium and continue to look half empty while doing it.

A full(er) stadium creates better atmosphere, creates a buzz that this is the place to be and be seen and all that shit, and just generally helps portray going to the game as a fun option. You may miss out on the extra seats sold during those random packed games, but they are so few and far between for the Rays that the consistency of the extra daily sales provides a net positive.

Plus, the random packed games are just Yankee and Sox fans, so if their vacation gets pooped on because they miss out on tickets, fuck 'em.

All that being said, the above assumes the owners would take the money saved on size and use it to upgrade the amenities and facilities of what they do build, not just pocket it. But we all know that is what would ultimately happen.

[nybf]

The argument for low attendance was supposed to be bad stadium / bad location. If a new stadium is going to result in still shitty attendance numbers, I'm voting against it, and urging the other owners who lose money in revenue sharing to do the same.

[King Bootz]

What would you say a fair capacity is? Newer MLB stadiums are opting for smaller, more intimate seating capacities. The last 4 stadiums built have capacities between 36,000 and 41,000. 27k is a bit off of that, but it makes sense IMO given the circumstances.

[Kress]

The argument for low attendance was supposed to be bad stadium / bad location. If a new stadium is going to result in still shitty attendance numbers, I'm voting against it, and urging the other owners who lose money in revenue sharing to do the same.

The hope is to bring numbers way up, but if you look pre-COVID, half the teams in baseball couldn't regularly sell that out. I will say, now that I look at the numbers, 27k is certainly pushing it - and pushing it hard - but still, in 2019, teams like the Rangers, Reds, Tigers, White Sox, etc., averaged significantly below that.

[nybf]

but it makes sense IMO given the circumstances.

What circumstances? Being in a crappy market? Because if that's the case, the team should be moved. 36k would be bare minimum. Trying to build something 3/4 of that size, to me, says you're not trying to get out of the financial hole you're in.

[nybf]

The argument for low attendance was supposed to be bad stadium / bad location. If a new stadium is going to result in still shitty attendance numbers, I'm voting against it, and urging the other owners who lose money in revenue sharing to do the same.

The hope is to bring numbers way up, but if you look pre-COVID, half the teams in baseball couldn't regularly sell that out. I will say, now that I look at the numbers, 27k is certainly pushing it - and pushing it hard - but still, in 2019, teams like the Rangers, Reds, Tigers, White Sox, etc., averaged significantly below that.

Those team you mentioned all finished under 500. The tigers lost 114 games.

When planning a new stadium, you've got to set your attendance goals higher than "selling out the average attendance of a team that had the 4th highest loss total of the modern era."

[King Bootz]

but it makes sense IMO given the circumstances.

What circumstances? Being in a crappy market? Because if that's the case, the team should be moved. 36k would be bare minimum. Trying to build something 3/4 of that size, to me, says you're not trying to get out of the financial hole you're in.

The circumstances being a franchise with no city willing to pay a cent for a stadium. They are basically being asked to do something no other franchise has had to do in terms of paying for their own stadium. If you believe they should build a stadium without public funds, that in itself changes the circumstances. The locations being discussed all have small parking capabilities, meaning if you're trying to pack 36k in ybor city night after night, good luck with that. Not gonna happen.

Oakland is in talks to build a stadium with 34k capacity. Bigger seating capacities do not mean bigger financial benefit. If that were the case the top 5 payrolls in baseball would be the Dodgers, Rockies, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, and Mariners.

Even at 36k, the Rays would still have a higher seating capacity than Cleveland.

[nybf]

Bigger seating capacities do not mean bigger financial benefit. If that were the case the top 5 payrolls in baseball would be the Dodgers, Rockies, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, and Mariners.

Even at 36k, the Rays would still have a higher seating capacity than Cleveland.

Bigger seating capacity means potentially bigger financial benefit. If you've got a team that is consistently playing meaningful games late into the season, consistently in the post season, I want them to be able to max out at more than" the average crowd for a 3rd place team out of it by the trade deadline." And no one said capacity was tied to payroll.

Cleveland would be the only park 36k is bigger than. No new park should be built unable to hold 40k including standing room and all the extra capacity that magically appears for post season.

[King Bootz]

Bigger seating capacities do not mean bigger financial benefit. If that were the case the top 5 payrolls in baseball would be the Dodgers, Rockies, Blue Jays, Diamondbacks, and Mariners.

Even at 36k, the Rays would still have a higher seating capacity than Cleveland.

No new park should be built unable to hold 40k including standing room and all the extra capacity that magically appears for post season.

And yet 2 of the last 4 parks built (Minnesota & Miami) have less than 40k capacity. The other 2 (Atlanta & Texas) are barely over 40k. It seems MLB franchises don't agree with you.

I would agree with your line of thinking 25 years ago. The game has changed. MLB teams are reducing seating in favor of comfort and intimate seating closer to the field. Naming deals, TV deals, sponsorships, even merchandisr are raking in way more money than game day ticket sales. That's why teams no longer opting to go big on attendance. Like @Kress said, it's better to have a smaller, fuller stadiums as opposed to a stadium with 45k seats and 30k people.

[nybf]

No new park should be built unable to hold 40k including standing room and all the extra capacity that magically appears for post season.

And yet 2 of the last 4 parks built (Minnesota & Miami) have less than 40k capacity. The other 2 (Atlanta & Texas) are barely over 40k. It seems MLB franchises don't agree with you.

I would agree with your line of thinking 25 years ago. The game has changed. MLB teams are reducing seating in favor of comfort and intimate seating closer to the field. Naming deals, TV deals, sponsorships, even merchandisr are raking in way more money than game day ticket sales. That's why teams no longer opting to go big on attendance. Like @Kress said, it's better to have a smaller, fuller stadiums as opposed to a stadium with 45k seats and 30k people.

Very convenient of you to igntoe the 2nd half of what I said. Target Field has held over 40k for baseball. Loan Depot park has never had a baseball event worth watching, so we'll never know what the true capacity is.

"That's why teams no longer opting to go big on attendance." Yeah, I see the dodgers standing outside their stadium telling people go home because they'd rather not have people at the park. Fucking brilliant.

I don't know why you're trying to argue about the game changing. That has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If I owned a baseball team that was taking a net loss every year on my revenue sharing, I am voting against a new ballpark being built that will be 3/4 of the size of the smallest ballpark already. That team is planning on taking from revenue sharing from the get go. Either that park gets turned down, or we revamp the way revenue sharing is constructed so I'm not helping run the Rays every year.

[Kress]

If I owned a baseball team that was taking a net loss every year on my revenue sharing, I am voting against a new ballpark being built that will be 3/4 of the size of the smallest ballpark already. That team is planning on taking from revenue sharing from the get go. Either that park gets turned down, or we revamp the way revenue sharing is constructed so I'm not helping run the Rays every year.

Well, that's a different problem. Building a bigger stadium isn't going to change what the Rays' ownership does. They'll just throw tarps over half of it like they do now.

[King Bootz]

If I owned a baseball team that was taking a net loss every year on my revenue sharing, I am voting against a new ballpark being built that will be 3/4 of the size of the smallest ballpark already. That team is planning on taking from revenue sharing from the get go. Either that park gets turned down, or we revamp the way revenue sharing is constructed so I'm not helping run the Rays every year.

Well, that's a different problem. Building a bigger stadium isn't going to change what the Rays' ownership does. They'll just throw tarps over half of it like they do now.

Numerous teams were doing so at 1 point. Then when many of them did renovations, they simply reduced capacity.

[King Bootz]

And yet 2 of the last 4 parks built (Minnesota & Miami) have less than 40k capacity. The other 2 (Atlanta & Texas) are barely over 40k. It seems MLB franchises don't agree with you.

I would agree with your line of thinking 25 years ago. The game has changed. MLB teams are reducing seating in favor of comfort and intimate seating closer to the field. Naming deals, TV deals, sponsorships, even merchandisr are raking in way more money than game day ticket sales. That's why teams no longer opting to go big on attendance. Like @Kress said, it's better to have a smaller, fuller stadiums as opposed to a stadium with 45k seats and 30k people.

Very convenient of you to igntoe the 2nd half of what I said. Target Field has held over 40k for baseball. Loan Depot park has never had a baseball event worth watching, so we'll never know what the true capacity is.

"That's why teams no longer opting to go big on attendance." Yeah, I see the dodgers standing outside their stadium telling people go home because they'd rather not have people at the park. Fucking brilliant.

I don't know why you're trying to argue about the game changing. That has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If I owned a baseball team that was taking a net loss every year on my revenue sharing, I am voting against a new ballpark being built that will be 3/4 of the size of the smallest ballpark already. That team is planning on taking from revenue sharing from the get go. Either that park gets turned down, or we revamp the way revenue sharing is constructed so I'm not helping run the Rays every year.

By your own admission, payroll and seating capacity are not relative factors. Boston is one of those teams who take a net loss in revenue sharing but by total capacity they have the 2nd smallest capacity in MLB. If you owned that team and made that argument you'd barely have a dog in the fight.

In fact something you're ignoring is the fact that several MLB stadiums cannot accommodate 40k fans in a single game. That's including standing room. Revenue sharing would be a very weak argument to make if your own stadium can't accommodate 40k fans.

[Swashbuckler]

Very convenient of you to igntoe the 2nd half of what I said. Target Field has held over 40k for baseball. Loan Depot park has never had a baseball event worth watching, so we'll never know what the true capacity is.

"That's why teams no longer opting to go big on attendance." Yeah, I see the dodgers standing outside their stadium telling people go home because they'd rather not have people at the park. Fucking brilliant.

I don't know why you're trying to argue about the game changing. That has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If I owned a baseball team that was taking a net loss every year on my revenue sharing, I am voting against a new ballpark being built that will be 3/4 of the size of the smallest ballpark already. That team is planning on taking from revenue sharing from the get go. Either that park gets turned down, or we revamp the way revenue sharing is constructed so I'm not helping run the Rays every year.

By your own admission, payroll and seating capacity are not relative factors. Boston is one of those teams who take a net loss in revenue sharing but by total capacity they have the 2nd smallest capacity in MLB. If you owned that team and made that argument you'd barely have a dog in the fight.

In fact something you're ignoring is the fact that several MLB stadiums cannot accommodate 40k fans in a single game. That's including standing room. Revenue sharing would be a very weak argument to make if your own stadium can't accommodate 40k fans.

I don't think 40,000 needs to be this iron clad rule but rolling with anything less than even what Boston is rolling now is too damn small. 27,000 makes sense from a few certain perspectives like keeping supply low but demand can stay high, optics of a full park, more intimate setting etc but you're screwing yourself over come playoff time and for all future intents and purposes. The Rays have 38,000 reasons why fans have not fully supported them. But for shits and giggles let's PRETEND it's the World Series. You've got 38,000 reasons to go and that tiny little park just screwed itself as its own revenue stream. Make it bigger. Worst thing that happens is you tarp the damn thing.

And plus Stu could realistically drop $350 million on the ballpark, turn around and sell the team for $1.35 billion and cash out. You made your money big guy. Good for you. And $1 billion in pocket. Now let's say the next guy doesn't run it like Wall Street and we ACTUALLY keep a guy like Franco. We're gonna freak out dude. I argue the hype the 2008-2010 Rays got is still bigger than what the Lightning have today and they've repeated as champions. But it never stuck because ya know. Wall Street. That said, under circumstances like that it's not hard to see 29,763 on a Saturday in June vs Toronto and full sellout of 38,000 when the Yankees and Sox show up. That might be the only time we DO sell out but you don't leave that money on the table. I know 38,000 is a little arbitrary but it's not any different than what we'd pull at the Trop on our best night. If all you pull is only 17,334 on a Tuesday vs Minnesota it's sure as shit better than 6,000 and can't possibly look worse on TV than it does right now and you STILL have more room for big boy teams.