Monday, November 08, 2004
Once, Twice, Three times the info
New shocking news from Washington! Schedule for position analysis! FAQ from the Exposbaseball DOT blogspot DOT com!
1) In Washington this weekend, citing costs rising well above the original plan, Congresswoman Cropp came up with her own plan. The first real change is that this one uses land already owned near RFK. While I am totally against more than a marginal public funding of stadiums, this plan does seem more fiscally responsible than Plan A. The second change is that it cuts off the "payoff", which, even though it was funny money, was probably big in justifying the plan to constituents.
The Mayor, shocked that the council didn't just sit back and take it while he went off to Asia, is now scrambling for support. It's very likely neither plan will pass on Tuesday.
What do commentators think? Poor Michael Wilbon falls into step with the mayor, even using the business equivalent of the anti-stats "clubhouse presence" argument: "I can't believe the stupid junk I read from academics who spin their silly obstructionist excuses on what stadiums don't bring, when all you have to do is look at what they actually contribute in Cleveland and in Denver." Essentially he's saying - "I don't care what economic facts are telling you. The area around the parks look pretty and sports fans are telling me they are happy." The problem is academics don't care if baseball is in DC or is not. They have no reason to "spin" anything. If it actually worked they would love to have baseball come to DC. BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Of course Wilbon claims to be a Cubs and White Sox fan so his lack of logic is not surprising.
Washington Times correspondent Thom Loverro talks about how this is great for Peter Angelos. He also uses the worst justification for building a stadium ever : "The Southeast property might not create the sort of economic growth Washington officials are hoping for either, but at least it has the perception of potential."
What does this mean for the Expos? Nothing really - MLB wants baseball in DC. If it didn't, it would have taken a sweetheart deal from another city a long while ago. No, MLB was waiting for this city. While it had a "deal" to be built on the Anacostia waterfront, if the Mayor's plan doesn't pass Tuesday and doesn't look like it will in the future, look for MLB to allow for a few changes in the plan to acquiese to a RFK ballpark. They want baseball in DC, not Norfolk, not Las Vegas, not Portland, not even Northern Virginia.
2) Position Analysis will begin with catcher - and will be out by the end of this week. I'm hoping for a Tuesday/Friday posting for these things. I will not go longer than a week between these posts. Tentative schedule:
Nov 9th - catcher
Nov 12th - first base
Nov 16th - second base
Nov 19th - third base
Nov 23rd - shortstop
Nov 30th - Right Field
Dec 7th - Remaining Outfield
Dec 14th - Starters
Dec 21st - Relief Pitchers
3) I'm also going to do a FAQ for this website. Why? Well, did you know I'm not totally against the Expos' move to DC? See? You need that FAQ.
1) In Washington this weekend, citing costs rising well above the original plan, Congresswoman Cropp came up with her own plan. The first real change is that this one uses land already owned near RFK. While I am totally against more than a marginal public funding of stadiums, this plan does seem more fiscally responsible than Plan A. The second change is that it cuts off the "payoff", which, even though it was funny money, was probably big in justifying the plan to constituents.
The Mayor, shocked that the council didn't just sit back and take it while he went off to Asia, is now scrambling for support. It's very likely neither plan will pass on Tuesday.
What do commentators think? Poor Michael Wilbon falls into step with the mayor, even using the business equivalent of the anti-stats "clubhouse presence" argument: "I can't believe the stupid junk I read from academics who spin their silly obstructionist excuses on what stadiums don't bring, when all you have to do is look at what they actually contribute in Cleveland and in Denver." Essentially he's saying - "I don't care what economic facts are telling you. The area around the parks look pretty and sports fans are telling me they are happy." The problem is academics don't care if baseball is in DC or is not. They have no reason to "spin" anything. If it actually worked they would love to have baseball come to DC. BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Of course Wilbon claims to be a Cubs and White Sox fan so his lack of logic is not surprising.
Washington Times correspondent Thom Loverro talks about how this is great for Peter Angelos. He also uses the worst justification for building a stadium ever : "The Southeast property might not create the sort of economic growth Washington officials are hoping for either, but at least it has the perception of potential."
What does this mean for the Expos? Nothing really - MLB wants baseball in DC. If it didn't, it would have taken a sweetheart deal from another city a long while ago. No, MLB was waiting for this city. While it had a "deal" to be built on the Anacostia waterfront, if the Mayor's plan doesn't pass Tuesday and doesn't look like it will in the future, look for MLB to allow for a few changes in the plan to acquiese to a RFK ballpark. They want baseball in DC, not Norfolk, not Las Vegas, not Portland, not even Northern Virginia.
2) Position Analysis will begin with catcher - and will be out by the end of this week. I'm hoping for a Tuesday/Friday posting for these things. I will not go longer than a week between these posts. Tentative schedule:
Nov 9th - catcher
Nov 12th - first base
Nov 16th - second base
Nov 19th - third base
Nov 23rd - shortstop
Nov 30th - Right Field
Dec 7th - Remaining Outfield
Dec 14th - Starters
Dec 21st - Relief Pitchers
3) I'm also going to do a FAQ for this website. Why? Well, did you know I'm not totally against the Expos' move to DC? See? You need that FAQ.
