Attractive

A quick peek at attendance through the first 8 home games shows an average of 25,696 (if my abacus is right).

Last two years the average attendance has been hovering at 50% capacity.

Other than the first year (when the evil F.O. sold only FULL SEASON ticket plans) I'm assuming best attendance was in 2002? Averaged 39,493 a game. Don't see that happening anytime soon - but do think the boys will get a bump when the Suns finish whatever they are going to do, R.J. returns, and the 'kids' stay in at least semi-contention in the West.

I know early figures are somewhate skewed due to the big Opening Day crowd and Gonzo's return, but I'd be willing to wager a nickel or three that this year's attendance will beat the past two. Perhaps even get close to matching the 63% capacity seen back in 04!

Or is that a pipe dream?

I think this FO has largely put themselves in a position where nothing BUT winning, and regaining the town's confidence, will increase attendance much. That's generally true, of course, but I think moreso in the current environment.

They've drawn their line in the sand(and red and black), and really have precious little goodwill to fall back on, other than producing a winning team promptly, IMO.

As far as numbers, 63% sounds very plausible, provided they play .500+ and fight for the playoffs.

But there's simultaneous suppresion as well, driven by

1. Casual fans lack of confidence in "unknowns" - 99% of potential fans dont subscribe to BP :-)

2. Ticket prices and a perception that Chase isnt a good value for what you get.

3. Lingering animosity towards the new FO.

(when the evil F.O. sold only FULL SEASON ticket plans)..."

Hee hee. well, at least they SOLD em, instead of whining about their constrictions, real and imagined :-)

(when the evil F.O. sold only FULL SEASON ticket plans)..."

"Hee hee. well, at least they SOLD em, instead of whining about their constrictions, real and imagined :-)"

Here's where you lose me. What does it matter that they sold them? The current F.O. gets crucified for being moneygrubbing ******, yet the other moneygrubbing ****** of yore get a wink and a nudge because they were more successful at it?

Please enlighten me as to how fan friendly Colangelo's insistence on selling nothing less than 81 (maybe 83?) games to Joe six pack if he wanted to be a season ticket holder really was?

Oh, and my father in law would love to regale you with the untruths and half baked reasons they espoused to the inquisitive for selling only FULL SEASON packages. He still gets frothy talking about how Colangelo pulled the wool over the eyes of everybody in this town. He maintains that if they just had the balls to say they were doing it simply because they could - he'd have more respect for no other reason than their honesty.

No - he's no fan of the current regime either. As a true curmudgeon he's an equal opportunity complainer.

Anyway, wonder if those first few years of season ticket holders drew your ire for supporting (with their purchase of 80+ games) such nonsense like a pool in a baseball park?

"Please enlighten me as to how fan friendly Colangelo's insistence on selling nothing less than 81 (maybe 83?) games to Joe six pack if he wanted to be a season ticket holder really was?"

Two words.

No ********.

Ok didn't think it would censor that. Let's try this again. Two words.

No bull___.

"What does it matter that they sold them?"

Well, it matters alot, cav.

Colangelo filled the park with lower ticket prices and a far superior product. He delivered VASTLY more utility to a VASTLY larger fan base, regardless of what you, me or your father in law happen to feel about season ticket policies, swimming pools or the trite dirt path from the mound to the plate. Why cant you see that forest for these puny trees?

"The current F.O. gets crucified for being moneygrubbing ****, yet the other moneygrubbing **** of yore get a wink and a nudge because they were more successful at it?"

No. The 1st regime was far LESS adept at that, remember? Just speaking for myself, the current FO primarily gets crucified for dramatically increasing single game prices in seats nobody sits in to placate their pathetic little base of 4 to 5 thousand full ST yahoos. Take a look at the differentials between ST and single game prices- they're among the largest in baseball and dwarf anything Colangelo ever issued. They(Kendrick) also field a listless product and reflexively blame Colangelo for that. There's plenty more to blame them for, but we dont have all day.

Moneygrubbing? Colangelo wasnt the one fielding crappy teams and making a profit, remember? Maybe you have him confused with the Bidwills? Or perhaps Mr Kendrick, who is quick to point out he's "not in this to make money", yet, not coincidentally, does.

"He still gets frothy talking about how Colangelo pulled the wool over the eyes of everybody in this town."

Heh. My late mother in law felt the same way; used those same exact words, actually. I think she listened to way too much talk radio, God rest her soul.

Look, I remember the outrage in the valley over the tax to pay for the stadium and I certainly dont think Colangelo's some kind of saint. He worked in a different enviroment than today, in some ways more advantageous, in other ways less so, but his policies, overall, were more geared towards fans than investors, rather than the other way around. Take that for what it's worth - I happen to think it was worth a helluva lot, while also recognizing some FO policy changes were in the best long term interests of the franchise.

One of the aspects of the ownership debate that bugs me is when folks blithely say Colangelo "bought" a championship, as if it was a fancy car that we're still making payments on. For one thing, nobody "buys" a World Series anymore. You go out and "win" it. Second, focusing on Game 7 tends to diminish what Colangelo really DID build with all that money, which was a much broader, more impressive accomplishment - first off, after previous attempts had failed, he DELIVERED the effin' franchise, OK? The one we all should be enjoying today. They were the second best 1st year baseball team in the modern era, and almost four million fans came to see them play. Then they were THE best ever second year team in the storied history of baseball - 100 wins. Then he fired the manager for the unconscionable act of producing 85 wins (nowadays that presumably earns an extension, although one cant be entirely sure)and the next year they won one of the most exciting, memorable W/S ever. The year AFTER that , they won NINETY EIGHT games,OK, and 84 the year after that. And then, finally, with the money, the injuries to Sexson and Gonzo, the trade of Schilling and eventually Finley, they FINALLY hit bottom. I fully understand the costs(nor the benefits,btw)didnt end there, but that, my friend, if you were lucky enough to be a part of it, if you were a fan, was one helluva run.

Wow that was a lengthy response that worked real hard to sidestep the point I made. One owner gets a pass for implementing a policy that is undeniably NOT fan friendly, the other - vilified. Ceaselessy.

Forget what Kendrick or any other F.O. bozo did or does a million years from now.

Or Bidwell or any other group in all of sports. A million wrongs don't make a right.

And a wrong shouldn't be excused because it's nestled in with a basket of rights.

I made a point about Colangelo and his ill advised policy of selling nothing but 80+ games to anyone who wanted to be a season ticket holder. If you couldn't pony up that money or round up 10 friends (sound familiar?) you weren't taking your two young sons to watch a game from the good seats.

Hey, for that first year it worked (for him). The man is a businessman first and he got his coin. More power to him, huh?

My point was that Colangelo was every bit the A-hole these guys are for only selling complete season ticket packages. Colangelo pulled that stunt, and these guys are pulling the single game ticket price stunt. Both ridiculous, and neither fan friendly. One is dismissed with a wink, the other - well we've heard all about it. When Kendrick and his gang win a couple of World Series, can I assume the red uniforms and ridiculous single game pricing to be dismissed in the same cavalier fashion?

BTW: It's good to know if the team is good enough to win a World Series all the non-purist sideshow stuff is okely dokely with you.

Funny you lecture me about the forest for the trees. Seems all you do is chop, chop, chop at that one tall REDwood.

Principle of the thing, huh?

BTW, part zwei:- I don't think the product on the field today is in anyway listless. Well, maybe the bats. Yeah, the bats are asleep - but this group is young and exciting and full of potential. Pretty much the opposite of listless.

The Giants are the walking definition of listless.

I didnt "sidestep" anything, at least not intentionally. I laid out groundwork as to why Jerry was a more fan friendly owner than Kendrick, but obviously, that's not what you came to hear.

As best I can tell, you came to get me to admit that Colangelo's FO was money grubbing and "evil". At first, I thought you were kidding with the "E" word, but apparently not. That, and to let off steam about the intergenerational injustice inflicted upon your extended family by Jerry The Terrible.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear your father in law, or anyone for that matter, felt excluded from the Diamondbacks' glory years, but I'd point out that to the extent he was excluded from the ballpark, it was largely because of the team's popularity and subsequent success, unlike today, where fans are excluded by neither of those things, but rather by harshly regressive pricing policies and general indifference to the product.

There's probably a small point in there somewhere where we could agree about the lack of partial season ticket plans. I dont have my 1998 ticket facts in front of me, so I'll defer to your version of policy/history, at least for now, despite the fact you seem hellbent on trying, unsuccessfully of course, to make me look like a hypocrite :-)

Could Jerry have, objectively speaking, made more partial plans available, or available earlier? Sure. Could he have charged everyone $10 like they did for the Indians in Milwaukee? Maybe he could've swung that too.

"Please enlighten me as to how fan friendly Colangelo's insistence on selling nothing less than 81 (maybe 83?) games to Joe six pack if he wanted to be a season ticket holder really was?"

Since when do fans unwilling to invest much money in tix have some kind of inalienable right to be season ticket holders? Or are you trying to say that this policy somehow excluded these folks from attending games or even being "fans"? It's quite possible that the LACK of partial packages may've made MORE single game tix available, hence a more egalitarian result. (I'm not asserting that, cuz I dont honestly remember how many ST's were sold in 98/99, but just throwing it out there as a theoretical point.)

Look at the new Six Packs. If you wanna see the Bosox for a single game, you not only have to defer to ST holders(reasonable), but also get in line behind the Sixpackers, most of whom have purchased the better seats to all three Sox games, while the FO has "forced" them to buy three "other" games for that glorious privilege. Pls notice that "forced" is in quotes - my point is that defining the fan friendliness of a particular policy can be fairly complex.

I dont agree with your assertion that Jerry's partial ST "stunt" and Ken's differential "stunt" are comparable. I'll concede neither of these guys is Mother Theresa, but the first policy brought people TO the park( or at least was consistent with very large crowds), the latter pushes them away. We can debate the individual circumstances, and business environments, but yes, to me, that's a pretty important difference!

"When Kendrick and his gang win a couple of World Series, can I assume the red uniforms and ridiculous single game pricing to be dismissed in the same cavalier fashion?"

When Kendrick wins a couple World Series, I'll be dead ;-)

[couldnt resist]

Seriously, no. Because this injustice of Jerry's that you've clung to is, in my eyes, relatively inconsequential, compared to what the new FO is doing. He11, it's inconsequential compared to the debt. It's an "issue" to you and your father in law and practically no one else that I know of. The issues of the colors and current pricing are problematic to alot more people(as is the debt, to be fair), partly because they're "current" issues, and I believe, partly because they're more substantive (as is the debt).

"BTW: It's good to know if the team is good enough to win a World Series all the non-purist sideshow stuff is okely dokely with you."

Like Jim, I'd prefer some of it would go away. Unlike Jim, I eagerly supported a team that drew fans with considerably more than just that sideshow, and at more reasonable, equitable prices.

Re: Listless product.

No disagreement, as you've argued against a point I never made.

Let me close with a point of agreement. Your F-in law railed about both regimes' lack of honesty in terms of marketing,etc. I TOTALLY agree with that, without remembering all the specifics. I used to get Jerry's cheesy letters explaining price increases, and on and on. And I used to complain about it, before I had a blog, and also when I first started one up. So while I think there's some important differences in the way the regimes approach things worth talking about, I also recognize that there are similarities that transcend one group versus another, and are more inherent to the nature of large corporations, in and out of baseball.

"I laid out groundwork as to why Jerry was a more fan friendly owner than Kendrick, but obviously, that's not what you came to hear."

I don't disagree Jerry was more fan friendly overall. I don't think I argued otherwise, and I don't believe that was the discussion. I made a point about a single issue. Which you brushed aside. The descriptor "Evil" was absolutely tongue in cheek - to the extent that no business man focused on profitability is typically anymore evil then the next.

"Since when do fans unwilling to invest much money in tix have some kind of inalienable right to be season ticket holders?"

They don't. Which is why I worded that differently in my follow up post. I knew you would shithouse lawyer all over that phrasing.

"Or are you trying to say that this policy somehow excluded these folks from attending games or even being "fans"?"

Closer to the truth - but still comically exaggerated. As you are well aware.

"...this injustice of Jerry's that you've clung to is, in my eyes, relatively inconsequential, compared to what the new FO is doing. He11, it's inconsequential compared to the debt. It's an "issue" to you and your father in law and practically no one else that I know of."

I haven't clung to anything. It was an *aside* I mentioned. I expected no comment, or at best perhaps affirmation that why yes, indeed, that too was a pretty crummy policy. But your incongruous remarks (given your proclivity to champion the 'true' fan and his/her ability to attend games without being held hostage to unreasonable prices and/or demands) took me aback. I commented on the seeming disparity between your response and what you typically 'stand for'. Which got us to this point....

Of course it's not an issue now - it's been almost 10 years!! But it was an issue then. As were a number of things about the way Colangelo brought MLB to the Valley. But the particulars didn't really seem to matter in light of the shining pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

"I dont agree with your assertion that Jerry's partial ST "stunt" and Ken's differential "stunt" are comparable. I'll concede neither of these guys is Mother Theresa, but the first policy brought people TO the park( or at least was consistent with very large crowds), the latter pushes them away."

They are comparable because they are both examples of policies that fall under the fan UNfriendly banner. Colangelo's POLICY didn't bring people to the ballpark. They came despite it. That shouldn't be a mitigating factor unless you look at it from a purely economic standpoint. But I thought you argued rights and wrongs, principles and purity here. The fact MLB finally landed in the Valley brought people to the ballpark. Both baseball fans and those that just needed to be part of something/anything hip and new flocked to the ballpark. Colangelo knew he had a captive audience that would eagerly jump through hoops for the privilege of being part of the Diamondback's birth. He used maximum leverage to his ultimate business advantage. Good for business. Not necessarily for the 'true fan' that is so championed in these here parts.

"Re: Listless product.

No disagreement, as you've argued against a point I never made."

Oh, thought you had said Kendrick fielded a listless product.

Wait, you did:

"They(Kendrick) also field a listless product"

Rail on Kendrick all you want. He's as deserving of your righteous indignation as any other owner, if not moreso. But at least pretend to some objectivity. The alternative cheapens the principle of your principled stance(s).

P.S. Neither my Father-in-law nor myself felt excluded from that miracle birth of baseball in the desert. He ended up with season tickets and despite living out of state at the time, I got to experience the joy of BOB for myself on more than one occasion that year.

Oh, my father-in-law had zero problem affording a full season of tickets in great seats.

He's far from the non-existent average fan. But he didn't like the 'business ethics' (his words) involved with selling only full season ticket packages.

Which, much like Kendrick's current big single game price bump was pretty out of line with what other teams were doing.

"I don't disagree Jerry was more fan friendly overall. I don't think I argued otherwise, and I don't believe that was the discussion".

I win. You did. You're mistaken.

"I made a point about a single issue. Which you brushed aside."

No, this was an "aside" in a general query about attendance, remember? Let me refresh your memory:

" It was an *aside* I mentioned. I expected no comment, or at best perhaps affirmation that why yes, indeed, that too was a pretty crummy policy"

Which I happily addressed, AFTER you decided to change course because you were losing the general argument, and accused me of sidestepping specifics.

Speaking of which, you've TOTALLY sidestepped my points about partial packages - the issue you supposedly care so much about - because you're losing the specific argument too! So instead, you blithely and repeatedly assert that not having partial packs is fan UNfriendly because, you know, it just..well..[crickets]...it just IS...and my father in law said so.

"your incongruous remarks (given your proclivity to champion the 'true' fan and his/her ability to attend games without being held hostage to unreasonable prices and/or demands) took me aback."

I dont think Colangelo's prices or demands were particularly unreasonable under the circumstances and more importantly, judging from attendance, alot of other people didnt think so either. What would make you happy on this issue? What should Jerry have done exactly? Put a ceiling on full season tickets? Make partial packs available on the same priority basis as full packages, which is bad for business, or mnake them lower priority, so they're all in the upper deck anyway and either a)nobody buys them or b) they serve to reduce the supply of single game tix? This just seems like a red herring to me, introducing more problems than it solves.

"Colangelo knew he had a captive audience that would eagerly jump through hoops for the privilege of being part of the Diamondback's birth"

That might describe your relatives, but I'd call it more of an enthusiastic audience than a captive one. Which of Jerry's henchmen held the gun to your F-I-Law's head, forcing him, or me and 17K others, to buy the full package?

"He used maximum leverage to his ultimate business advantage."

A regular Macchiavelli, that guy, forcing fans to buy up all those season packages against their will and then charging virtually the SAME per game prices on single game tix. Oh, the humanity.

"Oh, thought you had said Kendrick fielded a listless product."

They've run the club for two plus years and have been less than listess for, what, two weeks? LOL. Talk about a shithouse lawyer.

"But the particulars didn't really seem to matter in light of the shining pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

Since Jerry didnt get a "pot of gold", I assume that's an allusion to half a dozen years of unusually entertaining, reasonably priced baseball?

"Colangelo's POLICY didn't bring people to the ballpark. They came despite it."

Really now? Let's step back a moment. Without, Colangelo's "policy", there WAS no ballpark. Ah yes, it all fell in Jerry's lap, just like in Tampa Bay. Just rip people off and dissatisfy them and they just flock to the park, dontcha know.

"Which, much like Kendrick's current big single game price bump was pretty out of line with what other teams were doing."

Interesting claim(ie Jerry being way out of line with other contemporary teams re packages), moreso if you can actually support it.

"I don't disagree Jerry was more fan friendly overall. I don't think I argued otherwise, and I don't believe that was the discussion".

I win. You did. You're mistaken."

Please quote were I said that. I didn't. Ever. I did argue Jerry also acted in UNfriendly ways, and used his ticket season policy as an example. But I never contended he was less fan friendly than the current regime.

" Speaking of which, you've TOTALLY sidestepped my points about partial packages - the issue you supposedly care so much about - because you're losing the specific argument too! So instead, you blithely and repeatedly assert that not having partial packs is fan UNfriendly because, you know, it just..well..[crickets]...it just IS...and my father in law said so. "

I didn't sidestep your point(s) about what Kendrick has done with his 6 pack bundles. I ignored it because I'm not comparing ownership groups. I was simply talking about an action, regardless of which group it came from. I happen to agree that Kendrick's 6 pack ticket bundle isn't perfectly fan friendly. You are too hung up on comparing the two ownership groups and coming out with a winner. Colangelo wins. Great. Doesn't mean he didn't engage in certain practices that I'm sure would raise your ire if this ownership group did the same thing. That was my only point. Not even the particulars of *whatever* that might have been.

" "He used maximum leverage to his ultimate business advantage."

A regular Macchiavelli, that guy, forcing fans to buy up all those season packages against their will and then charging virtually the SAME per game prices on single game tix. Oh, the humanity."

Mocking hyperbole, while it feels good, doesn't strengthen one's argument. Of course no one forced, in the literal sense, anybody to buy tickets. Colangelo leveraged a situation (extremely enthusiastic audience) in a way that rubbed alot of people the wrong way. And, I'm sure - if Kendrick was doing that now (even if he was fielding a team full of All-Stars)you'd blow a ventricle. Of course, we'll never know because the scenario is pure conjecture.

""Oh, thought you had said Kendrick fielded a listless product."

They've run the club for two plus years and have been less than listess for, what, two weeks? LOL. Talk about a shithouse lawyer."

You pointedly denied saying something you did. That's all. Rebuilding/youth movement, whatever typically does result in some listless years. Good to see that is now changing, isn't it?

"Colangelo's POLICY didn't bring people to the ballpark. They came despite it."

Really now? Let's step back a moment. Without, Colangelo's "policy", there WAS no ballpark. Ah yes, it all fell in Jerry's lap, just like in Tampa Bay. Just rip people off and dissatisfy them and they just flock to the park, dontcha know."

I was talking about a single ticket buying policy - not Colangelo's policies (plural) that orchestrated MLB arrival in the Valley.

His policy (singular) of only selling complete season ticket packages DID NOT bring MLB to the Valley.

"But the particulars didn't really seem to matter in light of the shining pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

Since Jerry didnt get a "pot of gold", I assume that's an allusion to half a dozen years of unusually entertaining, reasonably priced baseball?"

Of course I was. Baseball itself was the metaphorical pot of gold.

"Interesting claim(ie Jerry being way out of line with other contemporary teams re packages), moreso if you can actually support it."

I believe I remember reading somewhere only 2? other MLB teams at the time sold only full season ticket packages. I'm sure I could be mistaken - but I'll see if I can't fire up the google and check that out.

Cheers.

Reread this again, and wow - the exhange certainly takes some dips and turns.

For anyone still remotely interested in the discussion, but weary of the semantic gymnastics being performed here it is (from my perspective obviously) in a nutshell*:

I think Colangelo offering only full season ticket packages that first year was fan UNfriendly.

Obviously, Matt disagrees or at least feels it wasn't fan UNfriendly enough to merit any censure. I'm honestly a bit confused about which.

That disagreement, given how vociferously he attacks the current group for what I see as similar (not identical mind you) actions, precipitated the ensuing exhange. I took Matt to be an equal opportunity champion of the 'true fan'. His response didn't seem to reflect that.

Perhaps my sloppy writing and attempts at humor led some to believe I was attempting a comprehensive comparison of the two ownership groups, or that I was still in emotional turmoil over the nefarious (attempt at humor - chill out) business practices of Colangelo 10 years ago (never had any emotional turmoil) - neither of which are true.

I did (briefly) attempt to find some information about season ticket plans offered by other clubs back in 1998. No dice - but I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

In my quick foray through the google, I was (almost jarringly) reminded of how awful the clubs were that bookended Colangelo's reign.

Which, of course has nothing to do with this discussion. I personally just found it an interesting reminder of the tremendous highs and lows of those first 7 years.

Here's to another 5 year run (or longer)!

*P.S. Guess that's a pretty big nutshell. Mea culpa.