Why is there a player wearing a pink uniform? Who is that, and what is that black blob across him?Quote:
Originally Posted by twinsGM
Printable View
Why is there a player wearing a pink uniform? Who is that, and what is that black blob across him?Quote:
Originally Posted by twinsGM
you know what I think is wrong? I think that a lot of Floridians are from somewhere else, so their allegiance is for someone else.
So are you suggesting a killing of all none native Floridians? That means my ancestors get their homeland back! (I am a tiny part Seminole)Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
naa...maybe an open mind for a couple of good baseball teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
that may work too, as long as ESPN becomes intelligent and shows some more of their gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
That's part of it. And with any expansion franchise, there's the issue of all the locals currently having favorite teams, possibly even with a majority favoring a team located kinda close to the new franchise.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
There's a lot of issues involved in different cities. For instance, not that many people in Los Angeles really miss the NFL, for one reason or another. Sure, they liked it when it was there, with both teams, but there wasn't an outcry when it left. And very few people are up in arms about it. It almost seems people outside of L.A. care more about whether or not there is a franchise there.
They thought basketball would work in Vancouver. They were wrong.
I imagine a lot of people in Miami were Atlanta fans before the expansion. I'm sure there's also a lot of Yankee, Cub and Red Sox fans there. It's possible the community wouldn't care if the team left, even if they HAVE won two championships. It's been an unusual franchise in terms of its fan base...
Colorado, on the other hand, was very isolated from the nearest team. The closest teams to there would be the Royals, the California teams, and the Rangers. Plus they ended up with a WAY better stadium situation than Miami has. It's also entirely possible the community is for some reason more drawn towards the concept of a new team coming into town. They got behind it, and they have been some of the best fans in baseball in a relatively short amount of time. Even in spite of years and years of bad teams. Perhaps a lot of their success is based upon the fact that they held onto franchise players, unlike Florida.
The Diamondbacks succeeded because they brought in superstars, and attempted to stay competitive even after winning a championship.
Lots of factors involved...
Vancouver didn't fail because of the fan base. That was another situation very similar to the Marlins case, where the ownership was really at fault.
The key component that everyone seems to be missing is the brand. Part of a baseball brand are the players, if their used in that manner, but using star players is not an absolute requirement to build a team brand. Atlanta, for example, has built a team brand while specifically avoiding centering it on any one particular player. The Yankees, however, have a significant brand investment in Jeter. The Marlins and the Grizzlies, on the other hand, have failed to build any sort of brand, and in both cases that appears to be somewhat intentional...
Vancouver failed for many reasons, which was the point of my last post (there are multiple factors behind teams failing), but you're correct, ownership was largely at fault. However, there were... other factors. Really, basketball wasn't working in Vancouver the way it works in most American citites. That made things difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I did bring up the brand aspect. Star players aren't the key, but like I said, the fans in Miami don't enjoy the same things I enjoyed growing up as a Dodger fan, where I grew up collecting Hershiser and Scioscia cards, and having most of my favorite players stick around on the team. The team always had a face and a personality.
But like I said before, the Marlins have never had a face or a personality or an identity, except for the identity of the team that came out of nowhere and shocked the "big boys." Not even minor players on the team are ever retained.
There's an historical identity with the Marlins, but it's not a lasting identity when it comes to being a fan, or most importantly, BECOMING a fan.
True...
The one thing that irks me about any discussion like this is the "spill over" effect attributed to the Marlins onto the Rays. The Rays front office has made many mistakes in their lifetime, but they've really been turning things around the last few years, and their winning now is no coincidence. Florida isn't anti-baseball in any fundamental manner, it's just that the Marlins (or, more specifically, Loria) refuse to build any sort of brand. Their a bunch of smart "baseball people", but idiots when it comes to marketing and brand building. That's not a fault of Floridians.
Yep. Even the Rays, who have been a complete joke (until this season) since their inception, have at least kept players, signed players to contracts, and made efforts to adapt to their market and to build the brand (changing the name, not trading away their talented prospects, working their way UP).Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
At the other end of the spectrum, the Marlins have won championships, but the championship team dissolves immediately after. A champion team is nice and all, but if everyone leaves in November, December and January, there's nothing left for the fans to ROOT for afterwards.
Perhaps personalities and franchise players and team personality means more to fans than championships.
Just look at the Cubs.
In a business sense, that's definitely true. The truth of brand building isn't limited at all to baseball, and there's nothing really special about brand building in baseball vs. other businesses.Quote:
Perhaps personalities and franchise players and team personality means more to fans than championships.
The owners need to kick Loria out of baseball. It'll take him completely destroying the Marlins to the point that he gets to move them, and then having the franchise fail again, before owners wise up to his game though, unfortunately. Dumb.
I think we had a discussion similar to this a little while ago, and I basically said that, in the end, what you have to be able to sell your fans is hope. A HOPE that you can be good, or that you're at least BUILDING towards something. Were I a Florida resident, I wouldn't give Jeffrey Loria one cent of my money. What's the point? You go, you support it, and then he rips it apart, makes a bunch of pitiful whining excuses, and it's back to the drawing board. And then, when you don't show up after teardown # 17, he'll probably whine to the media that the fans just aren't there for the team.
Now, there are other ways of killing a franchise. Certainly, the '94 lockout absolutely was the death knell for the Montreal Expos. Overexpansion of the NHL led to the game going to a lot of nontraditional markets. On its' own, that's not necessarily a bad thing (after all, several of them have been huge successes, and who would have guessed Anaheim and Dallas would be great hockey markets?). But combine that with the godawful, horrific defensive zone trap hockey that was being played at that time, and OF COURSE fans stopped wanting to drop $50 for tickets! Long time Canadian fans didn't wanna watch that garbage! However, in the end, without any hope, or any visible chance of having something, fans simply are not going to come out. And, really, why would they?