As in the Days of Frank Lary, Detroit Beats New York

[LouGehrig]

This is what should have been done as a minimum since the new ball park was an inevitability in the city of Rudy and Mike.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...-stadium_N.htm

[Yankeefan3783]

Is it too late for something like this to happen to Yankee Stadium?

[BRNXBMRS]

This is what should have been done as a minimum since the new ball park was an inevitability in the city of Rudy and Mike.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...-stadium_N.htm

Stuff like that never happens in NY, too bad.

[LizrdKng67]

Is it too late for something like this to happen to Yankee Stadium?

I don't think it's too late. Where are all those "Save Yankee Stadium" people on the board and other boards?

Like John Lennon said (and today is the day of his birth, October 9) "come together all together!"

[cupcollector99]

Yea, NY should do what Detriot does.

The stadium is going to be demolished because there is more money in selling the rubble than there is in maintaining a building most older fans consider "New Yankee Stadium".
Things change. The old building was falling apart and in today's world, it didn't make sense to play at Shea or somewhere else while it took two years to slap more lipstick on a facility that doesn't allow the team to maximize revenue from corporate seating plans, accomodations and off season events.
Baseball is a business and building a new facility made financial sense or they wouldn't have done it. Unless you're a Dubai prince, you don't spend a billion without a good reason.

[LouGehrig]

Having Yankee Stadium as a museum, like the Hall of Fame, would create more revenue than any other procedures employed.

[YASS]

Having Yankee Stadium as a museum, like the Hall of Fame, would create more revenue than any other procedures employed.

I'd love to see the extensive marketing and financial analysis that brought you to this firm conclusion.

[LouGehrig]

I'd love to see the extensive marketing and financial analysis that brought you to this firm conclusion.

Like, common sense. I'm sure you've heard of it. It is possessed by a select group of individuals who don't rely on authorities or experts. They THINK.

[YASS]

Like, common sense. I'm sure you've heard of it. It is possessed by a select group of individuals who don't rely on authorities or experts. They THINK.

I've heard of common sense, actually. It's useful, but it doesn't replace "research" or "knowing what you're talking about".

What you posted is not common sense. It's commonly referred to as "talking out of your hat".

[Gringaloca]

Looks like the Conservancy Group has been able to extend the 'stay' until Dec 1st.

http://freep.com/article/20081010/NEWS01/81010081

"Under the agreement signed today, the next key deadline is Dec. 1, when the Conservancy must submit a plan for the site, a budget, an agreement with an architect and evidence it can pay for the architect."

I attended many games at that ol' park. Some very special memories as a child & young adult, especially the day I 'became' a Yankee fan in 1961...

For all the negatives surrounding Detroit these days...Tiger fans deserve a piece of history that is Navin Field/Briggs/Tiger Stadium..

[LouGehrig]

I've heard of common sense, actually. It's useful, but it doesn't replace "research" or "knowing what you're talking about".

What you posted is not common sense. It's commonly referred to as "talking out of your hat".

Common sense does replace research and expertise in many instances. This is one of those instances.

Research studies were not necessary to reveal that Monument Park in Yankee Stadium would be a success. The Yankee Stadium Museum would dwarf Monument Park, and with Randy Levine's business acumen, it would be a huge revenue generator.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Common sense seems to have taken a holiday. At any rate, it would be truly disgusting to take parkland away from the community, and replace it with a memorabilia museum.

[Lurker]

At any rate, it would be truly disgusting to take parkland away from the community, and replace it with a memorabilia museum.

I agree. That's why I've always opposed tearing down Yankee Stadium and using public parkland to build a brothel of baseball on top of Mullally Park.

ZING!!!!!

High five!!!!!

[LouGehrig]

Common sense seems to have taken a holiday. At any rate, it would be truly disgusting to take parkland away from the community, and replace it with a memorabilia museum.

What a revealing post.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

I agree. That's why I've always opposed tearing down Yankee Stadium and using public parkland to build a brothel of baseball on top of Mullally Park.

ZING!!!!!

High five!!!!!

Huh? If you think that's a zing, you haven't comprehended posts of mine about the new stadium which you've read. You also seem unfamiliar with the meaning of the word brothel. It doesn't seem like it should be so hard to post responsively, or correctly use words.

[Lurker]

Do you know what IRONY means?

So it's ok to use parkland when it serves your purposes but not ok for others to do the same, even if your purposes require a lot more space.

I'll let others decide if this was a zing!

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

So it's ok to use parkland when it serves your purposes but not ok for others to do the same, even if your purposes require a lot more space.

I don't understand why there's so much confusion in so many of your posts, when most of this is pretty simple stuff. Taking away the park is the worst thing, by far, of building the new stadium imo. I've never suggested otherwise, so for you to consider that some kind of zing is indicative of your failure to comprehend what you've read or your choice to ignore what you've read. Only you can know which it is. Part of the deal though is that the park space will be replaced elsewhere in the area. Eliminating one park and replacing it with new parks isn't necessarily an ideal or perfect situation, but I think it's a pretty decent solution. It's unfortunate to lose that park, but if the overall amount of park space is preserved, I think that's a reasonable tradeoff.* And given that people from the community were adamant back at the beginning that as much of that replacement park space be in the immediate vicinity of what's being lost, I think it would be really terrible to not use what's right there, the existing stadium, for some of that replacement park space. (I also think turning the land of the existing stadium into a public park is a wonderful use of that space, but that's a different point). I don't know why you've been having so much trouble understanding this stuff.

*I know there's been some controversy about exactly how much new parkland is being developed, and whether or not it will fully replace what's being lost. I know that it's at least most of it, but I'm not sure exactly where things stand now on the total amount. To the extent that there will be a net loss of public parkland, I think that's a disgrace, and the yankees and city should be ashamed of themselves. But the original agreement was for all of it to be replaced, so for now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that that's what's going to happen, and consider it a reasonable way to handle it.

[Lurker]

I don't understand why there's so much confusion in so many of your posts, when most of this is pretty simple stuff.

The only thing I don't understand is why you're the only one who is confused by my posts. It's pretty simple stuff.

Taking away the park is the worst thing, by far, of building the new stadium imo. I've never suggested otherwise, so for you to consider that some kind of zing is indicative of your failure to comprehend what you've read or your choice to ignore what you've read. Only you can know which it is.

You're assuming I've read them at all. ZING! HIGH FIVE!!!

Part of the deal though is that the park space will be replaced elsewhere in the area. Eliminating one park and replacing it with new parks isn't necessarily an ideal or perfect situation, but I think it's a pretty decent solution. It's unfortunate to lose that park, but if the overall amount of park space is preserved, I think that's a reasonable tradeoff.*

*I know there's been some controversy about exactly how much new parkland is being developed, and whether or not it will fully replace what's being lost. I know that it's at least most of it, but I'm not sure exactly where things stand now on the total amount. To the extent that there will be a net loss of public parkland, I think that's a disgrace, and the yankees and city should be ashamed of themselves. But the original agreement was for all of it to be replaced, so for now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that that's what's going to happen, and consider it a reasonable way to handle it.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Although you've admitted it's less than ideal, you think it's ok to break up one of the only large pieces of parkland in the entire borough of the Bronx, as long as the total amount of space is replaced within five or six years in small chunks that add up to the total amount of land area taken, but it's not ok for the Yankees to play in Shea Stadium for two years while Yankee Stadium is renovated. I understand perfectly.

And given that people from the community were adamant back at the beginning that as much of that replacement park space be in the immediate vicinity of what's being lost, I think it would be really terrible to not use what's right there, the existing stadium, for some of that replacement park space. (I also think turning the land of the existing stadium into a public park is a wonderful use of that space, but that's a different point). I don't know why you've been having so much trouble understanding this stuff.

I agree with you that under actual circumstances, conceding the fact that the vast majority, if not all, of Yankee Stadium is going to be demolished, that it would be good to use the land for a public park. That doesn't mean the existing field can't be preserved, and it doesn't mean there can't be a small but significant portion of the physical structure preserved and operated by the city as a public museum. Hell, they could even restore the running track around the field to the way it was configured in 1923 and then people in the neighborhood could stop complaining that the track is being taken away.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

The only thing I don't understand is why you're the only one who is confused by my posts. It's pretty simple stuff.

But you're the one who makes non-responsive posts and repeatedly ignores facts. It's really quite clear to anyone paying attention (and hopefully for anyone else's sake, that's not many), that you're either terribly confused or willfully ignorant. As I said, only you can know which.

You're assuming I've read them at all. ZING! HIGH FIVE!!!

Again, more of your confusion. You suggested my feeling about turning the existing stadium into park space was somehow a zing. I merely pointed out that such a suggestion indicated ignorance or lack of comprehension of what I've written. That really has nothing to with what you have or haven't read. It's not my fault if you've chosen to be willfully ignorant.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Although you've admitted it's less than ideal, you think it's ok to break up one of the only large pieces of parkland in the entire borough of the Bronx, as long as the total amount of space is replaced within five or six years in small chunks that add up to the total amount of land area taken,

Why are you so allergic to facts? The new stadium is hardly taking up one of the only large pieces of parkland in the entire borough. The acreage being lost is less than 1% of the total land park acreage in the Bronx. There are countless parks bigger throughout the borough, and several that are 10 times bigger or more. It's undoubtedly disappointing for people who are right there that they'll be losing the park, but it's an extremely small piece of Bronx parkland. Why would someone carry on about the stadium as much as you do, yet consistently ignore straightforward facts. You were certainly right that this is pretty simple stuff, so it continues to puzzle me that you so consistently get it wrong.

but it's not ok for the Yankees to play in Shea Stadium for two years while Yankee Stadium is renovated. I understand perfectly.

You pretty clearly don't understand perfectly, since I've never said it wouldn't be ok for the yankees to have played elsewhere while rebuilding on the current spot. Again, simple stuff, but you keep getting it wrong.

I agree with you that under actual circumstances, conceding the fact that the vast majority, if not all, of Yankee Stadium is going to be demolished, that it would be good to use the land for a public park. That doesn't mean the existing field can't be preserved, and it doesn't mean there can't be a small but significant portion of the physical structure preserved and operated by the city as a public museum. Hell, they could even restore the running track around the field to the way it was configured in 1923 and then people in the neighborhood could stop complaining that the track is being taken away.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm not up on the latest developments in how the new space will be developed, but I recall hearing things in other threads here about parts of the stadium, like the dugouts, home plate, etc... being preserved and incorporated into the new park. I think that would be a great idea. Certainly not having home plate (or both home plates) preserved would just be dumb. I think it would be wrong to simply keep the stadium there as a museum, but I absolutely agree with you that keeping parts of the field and structure are good ideas.

[Lurker]

But you're the one who makes non-responsive posts and repeatedly ignores facts. It's really quite clear to anyone paying attention (and hopefully for anyone else's sake, that's not many), that you're either terribly confused or willfully ignorant. As I said, only you can know which.

WRONG. I'm just stubborn. Have you realized that yet?

Again, more of your confusion. You suggested my feeling about turning the existing stadium into park space was somehow a zing. I merely pointed out that such a suggestion indicated ignorance or lack of comprehension of what I've written. That really has nothing to with what you have or haven't read. It's not my fault if you've chosen to be willfully ignorant.

You've made the error of assuming that I've read all your previous posts on the subject. What you've failed to recognize is that my "ignorance of what you've written" can be caused by me not having read your posts.

Why are you so allergic to facts?

This kind of inflammatory, personal insult isn't necessary and doesn't belong here. It also causes the information subsequently presented to lose its significance in the context of the conversation.

You pretty clearly don't understand perfectly, since I've never said it wouldn't be ok for the yankees to have played elsewhere while rebuilding on the current spot. Again, simple stuff, but you keep getting it wrong.

So if they could go back to 2005 and start from scratch, would you be in favor of renovating Yankee Stadium rather than moving across the street?

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm not up on the latest developments in how the new space will be developed, but I recall hearing things in other threads here about parts of the stadium, like the dugouts, home plate, etc... being preserved and incorporated into the new park. I think that would be a great idea. Certainly not having home plate (or both home plates) preserved would just be dumb. I think it would be wrong to simply keep the stadium there as a museum, but I absolutely agree with you that keeping parts of the field and structure are good ideas.

Nearly three years ago, it was announced that the entire structure would be leveled and the locations of the bases, mound, and plate would be "indiscernable." This was after we were told at the initial June 15, 2005 press conference that the entire field would be preserved in its current state along with the dugouts and several thousand field box seats behind home plate. WE WERE LIED TO AND NOBODY GIVES A SHlT. That's what pisses me off.

[Big_E]

WE WERE LIED TO AND NOBODY GIVES A SHlT.

First, we'll let you "give a s***" enough for the rest of us who don't get as worked up about a sports stadium as you do.

Second, please watch your language. using the lowercase L key to represent an uppercase i does not change the community standards against foul language.

[Lurker]

Are you some kind of puritan?

More importantly, where in the community standards is that prohibited?

And who gave you the authority to moderate my posts?

[Big_E]

Are you some kind of puritan?

More importantly, where in the community standards is that prohibited?

And who gave you the authority to moderate my posts?

If a word is blocked out by the filters, then you cannot use symbols or other letters that look like another letter to help create words that are banned by the filtering software.

And I am not 'moderating' your post...a real mod could have given you a warning or suspended you. I am being nice, and letting you know to police yourself before a mod takes action.

[Lurker]

I am being nice, and letting you know to police yourself before a mod takes action.

How noble and kind of you! Thanks so much for looking out for me!