The Baltimore Orioles Thread (merged)

[Quangormo]

I live in Northern VA and deal with a lot of vendors in the DC area. I know several who started giving up their Orioles season tickets as far back as 2001 (long before the Nats came to town). Their clients were simply not interested in Orioles tickets anymore. The reason -- traffic. In rush hour it can easily take 3 hours to drive to Baltimore from northern VA. You literally need to leave by 4:00 to ensure that you arrive in time for a 7:00 game during the week. It's just too much of a hassle.

In addition, the "Boycott the Orioles" movement by Washington baseball fans was strating to rise then, and it crested when Mayor Williams got on board. (A few months after he did so, the move was announced.)

[Quangormo]

You're right, you can't just plant a team in a place where there are a lot of people and assume it will succeed. Yet that is essentially what baseball has done in moving to D.C. It's a wealthy, thriving metropolis with a large number of people, so they put a team there.

It was the largest market without MLB, by far. It has one of the highest per capital incomes in America, and 2 of the 6 wealthiest counties in America are in greater Washington.

Why is that different than putting a theoretical team in Jersey, which also has a large number of people? At least Jersey doesn't have a distinct history of NOT supporting baseball.

Neither does Washington. It was a fairly good city in terms of support. In terms of fans per victory, DC was one of the best. In the Senators' last three years in DC, they outdrew 8 other clubs. Even by Bob Short's undercounts (and it was shown that he did undercount), the 1971 Senators outdrew the 2001 Expos.

The first Senators left becasue a) Calvin Griffith was afraid the city was getting "too black" and b) he was hte landlord at Griffith Stadium and would have been a tenant at DC Stadium. The second Senators (as I was told by one of their players) left becasue Short had a pre-arranged deal to get a team for Dallas-Fort Worth. Whatever team he bought was moving there.

BTW, the Rangers' attendance in Texas the first three years was roughly the saem as that of the Senators teh last year. It was only when the team got good that attendance in Texas spiked up. The same thing would have happened in DC with the same team.

DC and Baltimore are most assuredly NOT completely seperate towns.

They have separate TV and radio stations, separate newspapers, separate cultures and industries.

I share your opinion of RFK, but we're both baseball fans who care enough to waste our time on debates like this. I suspect we'd both enjoy baseball games regardless of where they are played. But not everyone is like you and me in that regard.

RFK does have a certain ambience. It's a lot nicer than people make out. It's old and doesn't have the modern amenities, but it's hardly rundown. It does just fine.

Why would you expect a new ballpark in DC to sell out for many years?

Metro access. Right on the Green Line, at Navy Yard station. Also, plenty of parking.

An improved neighborhood.

Washington has demonstrated its support for this team, and the Nationals shoudl be in contention when they move in.

They're spending over $600 million. It's going to be a very nice park.

Washington gets a lot of tourists, many of whom have never seen a major-league game.

The Nationals have not really been promoted. When a new owner takes over, promotion will burst into the city's consciousness.

There is every reason to expect the new park to be a jewel that draws for several years.

BTW, much as I hate corporate names for parks, I ahve the perfect one for DC. Since the park is being built right by the Old Navy yard, they sould get Old Navy to sponsor. Then the ballpark too can be the Old Navy Yard.

[SoCal Pinstriper]

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- All-Star second baseman Brian Roberts could miss the Baltimore Orioles' season opener because of the elbow injury that cut short his finest season in the major leagues five months ago.

"My ultimate goal is still to play Opening Day. That's what I'd like to do. Still, we don't know for sure what it's going to be, at this point," Roberts said Monday. "If I play Opening Day, it would be awesome, but if it happens to be two weeks later, I understand that you have to do what's right. Injuries are a part of it, unfortunately."

Roberts is "very positive and very excited" about the progress he's made over the past month but has no intention of doing anything foolish just to be ready to face Tampa Bay in the April 3 opener at Camden Yards.

"It's still early, and you don't want to go out there and kill yourself," he said. "There comes a point where you have to go out there and do what it takes to get ready. It's a fine line, figuring out how much you need to do and how much you can't do at the time."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2337402

[Jersey Yankee]

They said the same things when first the Islanders and then the Devils came to town.

As for vetoing it, neither Steinbrenner nor Wilpon has a veto, as I understand it. They may have enough influence to deny a team moving to NJ the necessary votes (you need 3/4, or 23) but I don't think they could out-and-out veto it.

As to the Rangers, Islanders and Devils, three NHL teams, how long have each been around? How did the arrival of the LI and NJ teams affect attendance for the Rangers?

BTW, I've seen NJ fans going to Ranger games, so it me, it's not automatic that a new team will affect fan allegiance. I still stand firm that historic teams will have great fan loyalty, and that no US Census poll was ever offered to myself asking me which baseball and/or other sports team I've ever rooted for, which someone else mentioned.

As to vetoing it, if it were right across the water in, say, Jersey City somewhere, they may have veto power. If this were placed in Ft Lee, which is on the other side of the GW Bridge, I'd think they'd have veto power. However, if it's way up in Trenton somewhere, they may have less. I think that the proximity to NY would have something to do with it.

It would be a waste putting it in CT, since you've got Yankee and Red Sox fans there, and that would create issues as to whether the team would even get fans. Too many from either team, or not enough would be a major question and risk.

I'm not sure how the "veto" thing works, but I'd imagine that between Stein and Wilpon, some "pull" as voters would be allowed.

Still, I don't see why one area--NYC--should have to support three (3) MLB teams, whereas another area only has to support one (1) MLB team. From the comments above, it takes about 3 hrs to get from VA to Camden Yards in rush hour. It takes just over an hour to get from parts of NJ to Yankee Stadium, so we're not really underserving anybody.

In fact, if I went from Newark, NJ to Madison Sq Garden at 33rd & 8th, it would take 15 mins using an NJ Transit train. From there, I could be at Yankee Stadium in less than 30 minutes travel time (barring any subway delays) if I took the A to 59th, then switched to the D.

From CT, you can get to parts of the Bronx using Metro-North, or go to Grand Central, then take the #4 to Yankee Stadium.

Still, the Yanks aren't to me "underserving the tri-state area re public transportation. I'm not sure how it is getting from DC/VA or parts of MD to Camden Yards, but they need to take care of their own business before complaining about another team taking away part of their market when that part of their market wasn't even able to get there.

[Why Not?]

From the comments above, it takes about 3 hrs to get from VA to Camden Yards in rush hour. It takes just over an hour to get from parts of NJ to Yankee Stadium, so we're not really underserving anybody.

I'm not sure how it is getting from DC/VA or parts of MD to Camden Yards, but they need to take care of their own business before complaining about another team taking away part of their market when that part of their market wasn't even able to get there.

It certainly can take three hours. Honestly, it's a very tough drive. The sticking point is the DC beltway, once you're off the beltway and heading north, you're golden. But you can't reasonably expect to leave a No. Va. office at 5 p.m. and be in your seats by 7:30. It's a gamble. Making it to OPCY on a weeknight from DC's northern burbs IS reasonable.

I would guess that many of the fans going to Baltimore from Northern Virginia go to weekend games almost exclusively, when traffic is reasonable. Folks tend to make a day of it, going to the Inner Harbor for lunch, dinner or drinks before going to the game.

The thing is, it's not real easy to get to RFK from parts of Northern Va. either. In general terms, jobs and population are exploding westward, into Western Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. Someone mentioned above that Loudoun is the fastest growing county in the U.S. (They are actually opening a new high school EVERY year). The trip from the Vienna Metro station (the westernmost station) to RFK takes a little bit more than an hour, driving from Sterling to Vienna might take just as long. For some folks, driving to Baltimore might be just as easy.

[YankyDave]

It certainly can take three hours. Honestly, it's a very tough drive. The sticking point is the DC beltway, once you're off the beltway and heading north, you're golden. But you can't reasonably expect to leave a No. Va. office at 5 p.m. and be in your seats by 7:30. It's a gamble. Making it to OPCY on a weeknight from DC's northern burbs IS reasonable.

The B-W Parkway ain't exactly a speedway....

I would guess that many of the fans going to Baltimore from Northern Virginia go to weekend games almost exclusively, when traffic is reasonable. Folks tend to make a day of it, going to the Inner Harbor for lunch, dinner or drinks before going to the game.

The thing is, it's not real easy to get to RFK from parts of Northern Va. either. In general terms, jobs and population are exploding westward, into Western Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. Someone mentioned above that Loudoun is the fastest growing county in the U.S. (They are actually opening a new high school EVERY year). The trip from the Vienna Metro station (the westernmost station) to RFK takes a little bit more than an hour, driving from Sterling to Vienna might take just as long. For some folks, driving to Baltimore might be just as easy.

It actually takes about 43 minutes to make that trip during rush hour, not over an hour. How would driving to Baltiimore be just as easy if you claim it takes 2 hours to make in to D.C.? You are hurting your own argument by mentioning the boom in Louden and Fairfax counties. Obviously those are folks who would go to a Nats game and therefore make putting the team in Washington a no-brainer.

[Why Not?]

It actually takes about 43 minutes to make that trip during rush hour, not over an hour. How would driving to Baltiimore be just as easy if you claim it takes 2 hours to make in to D.C.? You are hurting your own argument by mentioning the boom in Louden and Fairfax counties. Obviously those are folks who would go to a Nats game and therefore make putting the team in Washington a no-brainer.

The last time I made the trip from Vienna to RFK, it took 1:05. Perhaps there were some delays, dunno.

I can't deny the growth of the DC area. I just don't think those people in Loudoun and Fairfax are going to go to games that often. I guess it's just a hunch but I do know the area well and have a pretty good feel for the attitudes of people who live there. I lived in Annandale, Fairfax and Chantilly for about 10 years and as the western suburbs grew I and the people I know found themselves going into DC less and less often. It's just too hard and rarely worth the hassle. I just don't think those people are going to pack up the family and go to Southeast D.C. on a regular basis.

Driving up to Baltimore for a Sunday game can be a day-long excursion. That's not the case at RFK, you go there, watch the game, leave.

Now, if the Anacostia waterfront becomes a real destination in the future....a place people want to spend time instead of a place people instinctively fear, the new ballpark there could pull people from the suburbs. It COULD be part of an MCI Center-like boom. But knowing the way D.C. government works, I wouldn't expect them to pull it off. I still think the ballpark is 50-50.

[Jersey Yankee]

It certainly can take three hours. Honestly, it's a very tough drive. The sticking point is the DC beltway, once you're off the beltway and heading north, you're golden. But you can't reasonably expect to leave a No. Va. office at 5 p.m. and be in your seats by 7:30. It's a gamble. Making it to OPCY on a weeknight from DC's northern burbs IS reasonable.

I would guess that many of the fans going to Baltimore from Northern Virginia go to weekend games almost exclusively, when traffic is reasonable. Folks tend to make a day of it, going to the Inner Harbor for lunch, dinner or drinks before going to the game.

The thing is, it's not real easy to get to RFK from parts of Northern Va. either. In general terms, jobs and population are exploding westward, into Western Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. Someone mentioned above that Loudoun is the fastest growing county in the U.S. (They are actually opening a new high school EVERY year). The trip from the Vienna Metro station (the westernmost station) to RFK takes a little bit more than an hour, driving from Sterling to Vienna might take just as long. For some folks, driving to Baltimore might be just as easy.

Thanks.

What about by public transportation? I've mentioned NJ Transit, Metro-North. There are tons of ways that NJ, Brooklyn, LI & NJ fans can get to YS-II. I could likely get to YS-II faster from Newark Penn Station (it's a "superstation" of Amtrak, NJ Transit, PATH and various buses) than from Staten Island, which is in NYC.

I would presume that if I'd worked somewhere in Hartford, CT, Great Neck in LI, Newark, NJ, I could get to a ballgame within 1.5 hrs or so. How's the public transportation from VA, DC, and parts of MD that aren't close to Baltimore?

I'm not sure of the transit times from Trenton, NJ, which NJ Transit services, but I'd like to believe you can get there well within 2.5 hrs from there to Yankee Stadium if you were to transfer using NYCTA once you hit Manhattan.

[YankyDave]

The last time I made the trip from Vienna to RFK, it took 1:05. Perhaps there were some delays, dunno.

I can't deny the growth of the DC area. I just don't think those people in Loudoun and Fairfax are going to go to games that often. I guess it's just a hunch but I do know the area well and have a pretty good feel for the attitudes of people who live there. I lived in Annandale, Fairfax and Chantilly for about 10 years and as the western suburbs grew I and the people I know found themselves going into DC less and less often. It's just too hard and rarely worth the hassle. I just don't think those people are going to pack up the family and go to Southeast D.C. on a regular basis.

Driving up to Baltimore for a Sunday game can be a day-long excursion. That's not the case at RFK, you go there, watch the game, leave.

Now, if the Anacostia waterfront becomes a real destination in the future....a place people want to spend time instead of a place people instinctively fear, the new ballpark there could pull people from the suburbs. It COULD be part of an MCI Center-like boom. But knowing the way D.C. government works, I wouldn't expect them to pull it off. I still think the ballpark is 50-50.

Now your argument is reduced to the weekend fans who go from NoVa to Baltimore? So these weekend excursion folks are going to make some difference in Baltimore but aren't going to go to D.C.? There are only about 13 weekends where the O's would host weekend games since the rest would be on the road. Then you have to account for the fact that not everyone wants to hit the Inner Harbor or even make a day of Baltimore. I think you're assuming a pretty low number if you're depending on those folks to support the Orioles. Most people work inside the beltway during the day and can make a quick trip on the metro to RFK during the week. On weekends, everyone can make it with relative ease.

The D.C. government aside, do you really think savvy developers are going to let the rejuvenation of the Southeast Waterfront pass them by? Just the thought of the stadium there made the land triple in value. It will happen no matter how stupid MLB and the D.C. Council are.

[Why Not?]

Now your argument is reduced to the weekend fans who go from NoVa to Baltimore? So these weekend excursion folks are going to make some difference in Baltimore but aren't going to go to D.C.? There are only about 13 weekends where the O's would host weekend games since the rest would be on the road. Then you have to account for the fact that not everyone wants to hit the Inner Harbor or even make a day of Baltimore. I think you're assuming a pretty low number if you're depending on those folks to support the Orioles. Most people work inside the beltway during the day and can make a quick trip on the metro to RFK during the week. On weekends, everyone can make it with relative ease.

You're spinning one post in an ongoing conversation. People in that specific scenario aren't going to be THE deciding factor, but they will be a factor. The N.Va. fan is just a small part of the DC area support the Orioles have enjoyed.

The real boom in the DC area is west of the city. Those people are increasingly working along the Dulles corridor and don't go into DC if they don't have to. Those who work in DC are waking up at 5 a.m. to drive or take the train into DC, so they aren't going to weeknight games, no matter how simple the trip is.

What it comes down to is that I don't think the folks DC is counting on the support the team will, in fact, support the team.

[YankyDave]

You're spinning one post in an ongoing conversation. People in that specific scenario aren't going to be THE deciding factor, but they will be a factor. The N.Va. fan is just a small part of the DC area support the Orioles have enjoyed.

The real boom in the DC area is west of the city. Those people are increasingly working along the Dulles corridor and don't go into DC if they don't have to. Those who work in DC are waking up at 5 a.m. to drive or take the train into DC, so they aren't going to weeknight games, no matter how simple the trip is.

What it comes down to is that I don't think the folks DC is counting on the support the team will, in fact, support the team.

I'll ask again then. If they aren't going to support the D.C. team in their backyard what would make them drive all the way to Baltimore? Each time I correct you, you spin it negatively for the Nats. If there is a boom 30 mins west of the city that will not support the Nats, why on earth would someone 30 mins south, west, east or anywhere away from Baltimore support the O's?

[Why Not?]

I'll ask again then. If they aren't going to support the D.C. team in their backyard what would make them drive all the way to Baltimore? Each time I correct you, you spin it negatively for the Nats. If there is a boom 30 mins west of the city that will not support the Nats, why on earth would someone 30 mins south, west, east or anywhere away from Baltimore support the O's?

Your first question.....it's a different level of support.

"DC area" fans make up an estimated 25% of Orioles attendance, an arguable number I admit. The people that the Orioles have counted on to attend one or two Orioles games a year are being counted on to buy Nats season tickets, or at least go to games more regularly. I don't think they will, largely because of 2005's attendance numbers.

I just don't think DC fans are going to stick with the Nats long-term. Once the novelty wears off (and I think it already has) attendance is going to drop.

Why would someone 30 mins .......... because people in the Balmer area have grown up Orioles fans. People around DC (a higher proportion of which have no connection to the area) are going to have to decide to become Nats fans. The 2005 numbers lead me to believe it isn't going to happen.

[YankyDave]

Your first question.....it's a different level of support.

"DC area" fans make up an estimated 25% of Orioles attendance, an arguable number I admit. The people that the Orioles have counted on to attend one or two Orioles games a year are being counted on to buy Nats season tickets, or at least go to games more regularly. I don't think they will, largely because of 2005's attendance numbers.

I just don't think DC fans are going to stick with the Nats long-term. Once the novelty wears off (and I think it already has) attendance is going to drop.

Why would someone 30 mins .......... because people in the Balmer area have grown up Orioles fans. People around DC (a higher proportion of which have no connection to the area) are going to have to decide to become Nats fans. The 2005 numbers lead me to believe it isn't going to happen.

Well your 25% number ceratinly is arguable and way off in my opinion based on last years numbers.

You can wishful think the death of the Nats but a new stadium and a legit owner with money will guarantee monster attendance figures. I have every reason to believe the baseball area will become MCI Center/China Town part 2.

You do understand that there needs to be a team in order for someone to grow up a fan. There are thousands of people who were not baseball fans who became one with the Nats. I also really get annoyed when people act like everyone in the D.C. area is from somewhere else. Almost everyone I grew up with is still here. More than most towns.

[Why Not?]

You can wishful think the death of the Nats but a new stadium and a legit owner with money will guarantee monster attendance figures. I have every reason to believe the baseball area will become MCI Center/China Town part 2.

But new ballparks in other cities (which already had legit owners) have not produced monster attendance figures beyond 2-3 years. Why would D.C. be different?

New teams have seen their highest attendance in their first season followed by a predictable dropoff. Why would D.C. be different?

The Nats were in first place for much of their first season, much better than any expansion team could hope for. Yet they drew fewer fans than any recent team in its inaugural season besides Tampa Bay.

Attendance figures suggest support for the Nats is lukewarm, history suggests it is all downhill from here.

[YankyDave]

But new ballparks in other cities (which already had legit owners) have not produced monster attendance figures beyond 2-3 years. Why would D.C. be different?

New teams have seen their highest attendance in their first season followed by a predictable dropoff. Why would D.C. be different?

The Nats were in first place for much of their first season, much better than any expansion team could hope for. Yet they drew fewer fans than any recent team in its inaugural season besides Tampa Bay.

Attendance figures suggest support for the Nats is lukewarm, history suggests it is all downhill from here.

Well I and others who have ticket plans disagree. There is too much money and people in D.C. for that to happen. Wait until the baseball stadium is the place the be seen and all the posers from the Hill will grab up every seat. I also believe that the lack of an owner and the lack of any real marketing hurt the team. I know for a fact that no other team went to any of the expansion markets with as little fanfare and prep time. Give the Nats an owner who cares about winning and not just breaking even as the current (MLB) one does and you will see a better response.

[NelsonMuntz]

I also believe that the lack of an owner and the lack of any real marketing hurt the team. I know for a fact that no other team went to any of the expansion markets with as little fanfare and prep time.

I don't think this point can be underscored enough. There was virtually no marketing behind the team last year (nor this year for that matter). We really cannot accurately judge how well the area will support the Nationals until the team is being marketed properly. Any comparison between Nationals attendance and any other team's attendance is not apples to apples at this point since the Nationals are the only team without an owner (and consequently, no promotion and virtually no TV).

[Why Not?]

I don't think this point can be underscored enough. There was virtually no marketing behind the team last year (nor this year for that matter). We really cannot accurately judge how well the area will support the Nationals until the team is being marketed properly. Any comparison between Nationals attendance and any other team's attendance is not apples to apples at this point since the Nationals are the only team without an owner (and consequently, no promotion and virtually no TV).

The Nats will get bigger crowd for bobblehead nights and such. Other than that, I don't know how much of an effect marketing has. Increased TV coverage will surely help, as fans get to know the players better. A bigger payroll and, potentially, a better team is probably the biggest x-factor. Winning teams draw crowds.

But if a person had even a faint, passing interest in sports, they knew the Nationals existed and how to get tickets last year. If a fan didn't get worked up and excited enough to buy tickets last year, they probably aren't going to.

Unless the Nats put together a playoff team in 2006, attendance will go down until the new ballpark is open.

[NelsonMuntz]

The Nats will get bigger crowd for bobblehead nights and such. Other than that, I don't know how much of an effect marketing has. Increased TV coverage will surely help, as fans get to know the players better. A bigger payroll and, potentially, a better team is probably the biggest x-factor. Winning teams draw crowds.

But if a person had even a faint, passing interest in sports, they knew the Nationals existed and how to get tickets last year. If a fan didn't get worked up and excited enough to buy tickets last year, they probably aren't going to.

Unless the Nats put together a playoff team in 2006, attendance will go down until the new ballpark is open.

You're missing the point. There are not enough die-hard baseball fans in any market to adequately support a team. Every franchise needs promotion to lure the casual fans to survive. This is why MLS has such a hard time in the U.S. -- not enough casual fans exist to augment the support of the die-hard soccer fans. In the case of the Nationals last year, casual fans were not marketed to at all, yet the team still drew respectable numbers based entirely on this area's enthusiasm for the team. This area will support the team just fine once the team is sold.

[YankyDave]

But if a person had even a faint, passing interest in sports, they knew the Nationals existed and how to get tickets last year. If a fan didn't get worked up and excited enough to buy tickets last year, they probably aren't going to.

And they did and they outdrew the O's. It's the casual fan that makes the difference. Marketing isn't always about someone knowing the team is there. It's reminding them or convincing them to buy tickets. Otherwise, why would the Yankees ever bother to market themselves. People don't know they exist?

[Why Not?]

And they did and they outdrew the O's. It's the casual fan that makes the difference. Marketing isn't always about someone knowing the team is there. It's reminding them or convincing them to buy tickets. Otherwise, why would the Yankees ever bother to market themselves. People don't know they exist?

I just don't think any increase in marketing will make a big difference.

We'll just have to see whether the Nats thrive. I think they'll survive, assuming a new park is built. But it sure seems like there are lot of excuses being thrown around for why Washington's support was lukewarm its first year.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

I just don't think any increase in marketing will make a big difference.

Yeah, all those teams that spend so much on marketing must just enjoy pissing money away.

[Why Not?]

Yeah, all those teams that spend so much on marketing must just enjoy pissing money away.

I'm not saying marketing isn't cost effective, but it isn't going to make a 10,000-fan-per-game difference. Let's not act as if the Nats aren't doing any advertising, you can't open the Wash. Post's website without getting bombarded. I'm sure the marketing will pick up when there is an owner. But if it were as easy as pouring more money into advertising, the Devil Rays would be getting 40,000 a night.

[NelsonMuntz]

I'm not saying marketing isn't cost effective, but it isn't going to make a 10,000-fan-per-game difference. Let's not act as if the Nats aren't doing any advertising, you can't open the Wash. Post's website without getting bombarded. I'm sure the marketing will pick up when there is an owner. But if it were as easy as pouring more money into advertising, the Devil Rays would be getting 40,000 a night.

The Nats really don't need to draw an additional 10,000 fans per game to be successful. They already drew respectably without a lot of marketing behind the team. But make no mistake about it, marketing will help keep attendance up once the initial enthusiasm over the team dies down. Regarding the current level of promotion of the Nationals, there really is none. News coverage is just one component of a well-planned marketing strategy, and I would hardly consider the Washington Posts' coverage of the Nationals as "bombarding". Most of the coverage has been around the stadium issue.

[Why Not?]

The Nats really don't need to draw an additional 10,000 fans per game to be successful. They already drew respectably without a lot of marketing behind the team. But make no mistake about it, marketing will help keep attendance up once the initial enthusiasm over the team dies down. Regarding the current level of promotion of the Nationals, there really is none. News coverage is just one component of a well-planned marketing strategy, and I would hardly consider the Washington Posts' coverage of the Nationals as "bombarding". Most of the coverage has been around the stadium issue.

I was actually talking about the ads all over the Post's site, not the coverage. My mistake, I was sorta vague there. My point is that, while not as extensive as other teams' there IS some marketing being done.

I just don't think the Nats' relatively low first-year attendance can be blamed on the lack of marketing. The team's arrival was a huge story, you would almost have to be TRYING to avoid hearing about the Nats to not know about them. I think the problem is indifference.

I know marketing will help prolong whatever honeymoon effect the team has. But in the end I don't think it will have a substantial effect.

[YankyDave]

I was actually talking about the ads all over the Post's site, not the coverage. My mistake, I was sorta vague there. My point is that, while not as extensive as other teams' there IS some marketing being done.

I just don't think the Nats' relatively low first-year attendance can be blamed on the lack of marketing. The team's arrival was a huge story, you would almost have to be TRYING to avoid hearing about the Nats to not know about them. I think the problem is indifference.

I know marketing will help prolong whatever honeymoon effect the team has. But in the end I don't think it will have a substantial effect.

The teams arrival may have been a huge story but, still to this day, there is no assurance that they will remain in Washington. While I don't think the reception was remotely lukewarm, I can see how there are folks who aren't ready to pledge their allegiance.

Again, once there is a REAL owner in place and an assurance that the team will remain in D.C. there will be a bump in ticket sales. We're starting the second spring training and still the team is run by Bud and the boys and the D.C. Council has to go into the wee hours of the morning to approve a modified stadium deal. Give me an owner and give me a stadium and I will give you a top 5-10 team in attendance for years.