[Huindekmi]

Art Thiel writes an article at Sports Press Northwest discussing the history of traffic abatement in the SODO area.

Quote

...
As far back as 2002, the city of Seattle knew the traffic/freight problems were so bad in SoDo after the construction of the two stadiums that something had to be done. An overpass was proposed for South Lander Street that would be the southerly bookend to the overpass at what became Edgar Martinez Way.

The overpass would provide a second way to get into and out of SoDo and toward I-5 for a busy industrial part of town that is way too full of water, railroad tracks and topographical barriers to make for quick, easy navigation.

The city decided in 2003 that the overpass, which would touch down on First Avenue South and Fourth Avenue South, was worth $80 million to the gaggle of users desperate to get beyond the trains and semi-trailer trucks that are delivering our groceries, cars and $150 Nike sneakers made for $5 in China.

As the link shows, design began in February 2007. It stopped in March 2008. Why? According to city sources and news accounts, funding was diverted to the Mercer Street project.
...

In this black and white world, gray areas are rarely allowed or tolerated. Lincoln and Armstrong have been labelled the villains here, with their only motive being the dastardly desire to bilk the city out of money while providing a sub-standard product <insert evil laugh here> - something that can not be accomplished with increased competition for entertainment dollars. Obviously, the M's are just selfish children who don't want the city to have a NBA team!

Thiel has been labelled an apologist for writing this article. I expect I'll be labelled the same. But the fact is that the M's, along with the Port of Seattle and the SODO business district, have been working with the city for a decade trying to find solutions to the EXISTING traffic problems in the area.

Traffic is pretty darn bad when the M's suck and attendance is bad. The team is trying to get better, expect to get better, expect attendance to improve when they do get better, and have every reason to expect the already bad traffic to get even worse when that occurs. Now add in a new stadium, two new sports teams, plus the additional events necessary to sustain the business model Hansen's deal calls for and... BOOM. Without significant infrastructure work being done (which, of course, is on the public dime and not included in the arena plan), we've got a big mess on our hands.

The M's have a legitimate concern. They haven't complained about the city getting a NBA and/or NHL team. They've only questioned the LOCATION of the arena. Given the inability to solve the existing traffic problems and the additional traffic woes during the construction of the viaduct replacement, it's a valid question.

So, I ask you these questions.

• Is SODO the right location for a new arena?
  
  
• If so, how should the traffic issues in the area be resolved?
  
  
• Who should pay for those infrastructure changes?

[lisa mariner]

Quote

The M's have a legitimate concern. They haven't complained about the city getting a NBA and/or NHL team. They've only questioned the LOCATION of the arena. Given the inability to solve the existing traffic problems and the additional traffic woes during the construction of the viaduct replacement, it's a valid question.

Yep. And, as I asked above, what is wrong with the original location of the arena? I realize the actual building is not up to par by current NBA/NHL standards but, that can be remedied. Seems like re-building the arena on the pre-existing site would make a lot of sense. The center and surrounding businesses could use some of the same "revitalization" (above and beyond a Chihuly Museum) that the SoDo neighborhood (even among its traffic congestion) has enjoyed over the past several years.

I was really excited when I heard that there was serious movement toward bring back the NBA but, thought from the get-go that the arena should be in the original location.

[Kelly]

Huindekmi, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Art Thiel writes an article at Sports Press Northwest discussing the history of traffic abatement in the SODO area.


In this black and white world, gray areas are rarely allowed or tolerated. Lincoln and Armstrong have been labelled the villains here, with their only motive being the dastardly desire to bilk the city out of money while providing a sub-standard product <insert evil laugh here> - something that can not be accomplished with increased competition for entertainment dollars. Obviously, the M's are just selfish children who don't want the city to have a NBA team!

Thiel has been labelled an apologist for writing this article. I expect I'll be labelled the same. But the fact is that the M's, along with the Port of Seattle and the SODO business district, have been working with the city for a decade trying to find solutions to the EXISTING traffic problems in the area.

Traffic is pretty darn bad when the M's suck and attendance is bad. The team is trying to get better, expect to get better, expect attendance to improve when they do get better, and have every reason to expect the already bad traffic to get even worse when that occurs. Now add in a new stadium, two new sports teams, plus the additional events necessary to sustain the business model Hansen's deal calls for and... BOOM. Without significant infrastructure work being done (which, of course, is on the public dime and not included in the arena plan), we've got a big mess on our hands.

The M's have a legitimate concern. They haven't complained about the city getting a NBA and/or NHL team. They've only questioned the LOCATION of the arena. Given the inability to solve the existing traffic problems and the additional traffic woes during the construction of the viaduct replacement, it's a valid question.

So, I ask you these questions.

• Is SODO the right location for a new arena?
  
  
• If so, how should the traffic issues in the area be resolved?
  
  
• Who should pay for those infrastructure changes?

Excellent points Grover. The moment the M's accepted large volumes of tax-payer money to build Safeco, was the moment they got held to a higher standard than being M's first on all issues. When Stanford University expanded the medical school they had to pay for road expansion to address the expected traffic congestion. Do you think the M's have paid a dime to address the traffic challenges generated by their business?

[Toomany10pins]

Kelly, on 05 April 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Chuck's and Howard's public behavior is completely consistent with spending their adult lives in positions of power and priviledge in a corporate setting. Businesses are not democratic and the free flow of information is the exception rather than the rule. When Howard steps in it at a meeting he has a toady there to tell him bullshit is the new tulips. He has lost contact with the fact that the public is not his paid toady.

Regarding the legitimacy of there concerns, the city zoned the area purchased to build a basketbal arena for... wait for it... ARENAS! Is it at all possible that when the city re-did the traffic in the SoDo area they had in mind the potential for a third arena? And now the publicly subsidized M's are unhappy about traffic? Be real people, the joint attendance of a baseball and basketball game is less than a football game. The M's did a nice job in making the baseball experience in Seattle so much better than it was when I was growing up -- the Kingdome was not a good venue for baseball -- and hiring Pat Gillick, but they haven't gotten a lot right on the big league field since.

I'm hopeful about the young talent from AA on up to the bigs, but I sure wish I could enjoy it without the constant and dyspeptic interference of Chuck and Howard.

Post of the week right there! You nailed it! Especially the comment about the "corporate setting" bubble that the toxic twins exist in.

[Toomany10pins]

Huindekmi, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Art Thiel writes an article at Sports Press Northwest discussing the history of traffic abatement in the SODO area.


In this black and white world, gray areas are rarely allowed or tolerated. Lincoln and Armstrong have been labelled the villains here, with their only motive being the dastardly desire to bilk the city out of money while providing a sub-standard product <insert evil laugh here> - something that can not be accomplished with increased competition for entertainment dollars. Obviously, the M's are just selfish children who don't want the city to have a NBA team!

Thiel has been labelled an apologist for writing this article. I expect I'll be labelled the same. But the fact is that the M's, along with the Port of Seattle and the SODO business district, have been working with the city for a decade trying to find solutions to the EXISTING traffic problems in the area.

Traffic is pretty darn bad when the M's suck and attendance is bad. The team is trying to get better, expect to get better, expect attendance to improve when they do get better, and have every reason to expect the already bad traffic to get even worse when that occurs. Now add in a new stadium, two new sports teams, plus the additional events necessary to sustain the business model Hansen's deal calls for and... BOOM. Without significant infrastructure work being done (which, of course, is on the public dime and not included in the arena plan), we've got a big mess on our hands.

The M's have a legitimate concern. They haven't complained about the city getting a NBA and/or NHL team. They've only questioned the LOCATION of the arena. Given the inability to solve the existing traffic problems and the additional traffic woes during the construction of the viaduct replacement, it's a valid question.

So, I ask you these questions.

• Is SODO the right location for a new arena?
  
  
• If so, how should the traffic issues in the area be resolved?
  
  
• Who should pay for those infrastructure changes?

No offense, but if you believe the M's protest is about "traffic flow problems" then I have a floating bridge to sell you. Its all about 2 new competitors moving into the neighborhood despite the M's rejections of that claim. I've worked for 3 corporations in my lifetime, and I can tell right away when I'm being lied to by these types. When Chowie speaks my BS detector goesoff like crazy.

[TopCat]

Toomany10pins, on 05 April 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

No offense, but if you believe the M's protest is about "traffic flow problems" then I have a floating bridge to sell you. Its all about 2 new competitors moving into the neighborhood despite the M's rejections of that claim. I've worked for 3 corporations in my lifetime, and I can tell right away when I'm being lied to by these types. When Chowie speaks my BS detector goesoff like crazy.

The city council gave the plan a big thumbs up last night. Essentially blowing off the M's letter.

And I find it all hilarious. The traffic concerns are completely disingenuous on the M's part. And even if it is, the old expression applies here..."Old Sins Cast Long Shadows"

To the twins I say, STFU, sell the team or put a winner on the field and then pop off.

[DaddyO]

Huindekmi, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

• Is SODO the right location for a new arena?
  
  
• If so, how should the traffic issues in the area be resolved?
  
  
• Who should pay for those infrastructure changes?

All legitimate questions, which deserve careful thought and answers. I personally have no way of knowing whether these are the true substantive concerns of the Mariners or not. The real concern is the tin ear of Howard and Chuck, and their seeming ability to "step in it" time and again in such a way as to reinforce the opinions they have conditioned people to believe by their behavior and statements over the past decade. The fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is the paradigmatic story of a boy who trained his audience by his pattern of ill-considered comments to completely ignore his warnings when in fact people urgently needed to hear them. The one time he told the truth, no one would listen. This is sort of what's going on with Howard and Chuck right now. No one believes a word they say because they have trained people that what they say is disengenuous as best.

Memo to Howard and Chuck: It will take years of demonstrating a positive commitment to fielding a consistent winner before anyone will truly believe what you say. That demonstration will have to be more than words, Guys. It will require that you show you are willing to endure things that are painful but necessary for business that truly is committed to achieving the vision you say is your passion. Many, MANY actions over the last decades have tended to undermine any belief in your professed passion. That will not lightly be undone. And yet again you have stepped into it. Whether warranted or not.

The subject of bringing the NBA back to Seattle, and the concomitent addition of a hockey team, has the Seattle sports fans energized like they haven't been in many, many years. And your foolish, needless public statement will be perceived has undermining what might the last best hope to do it.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: 05 April 2012 - 10:59 AM

[DaddyO]

I just thought of a better way to say it.

Howard, the true underlying cause of the situation, however you perceive that situation as if you are a victim of media misrepresentation, is your own behavior over the last decade. You are not the victime of circumstance and misrepresentation. If fact, whether the specifics of the current charges against you are true or not, the gist of the charge IS true. Do you think it is coincidence or simple mean-spiritedness that no one is listening to your protestations of innocence? My friend, it is your own doing. You have made your bed, and now you will lie in it. Now, maybe now you can begin to see the awful consequence of losing the trust of your fans. Was it worth the bits of payroll here and there? Was it? Wouldn't you much rather have your credibility and peoples' respect for your franchise back?

Ah, but your books were tidy. Let that comfort you in your hour of trouble.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: 05 April 2012 - 11:10 AM

[Mariner Analyst]

Huindekmi, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Art Thiel writes an article at Sports Press Northwest discussing the history of traffic abatement in the SODO area.

In this black and white world, gray areas are rarely allowed or tolerated. Lincoln and Armstrong have been labelled the villains here, with their only motive being the dastardly desire to bilk the city out of money while providing a sub-standard product <insert evil laugh here> - something that can not be accomplished with increased competition for entertainment dollars. Obviously, the M's are just selfish children who don't want the city to have a NBA team!
Thiel has been labelled an apologist for writing this article. I expect I'll be labelled the same. But the fact is that the M's, along with the Port of Seattle and the SODO business district, have been working with the city for a decade trying to find solutions to the EXISTING traffic problems in the area.
Traffic is pretty darn bad when the M's suck and attendance is bad. The team is trying to get better, expect to get better, expect attendance to improve when they do get better, and have every reason to expect the already bad traffic to get even worse when that occurs. Now add in a new stadium, two new sports teams, plus the additional events necessary to sustain the business model Hansen's deal calls for and... BOOM. Without significant infrastructure work being done (which, of course, is on the public dime and not included in the arena plan), we've got a big mess on our hands.
The M's have a legitimate concern. They haven't complained about the city getting a NBA and/or NHL team. They've only questioned the LOCATION of the arena. Given the inability to solve the existing traffic problems and the additional traffic woes during the construction of the viaduct replacement, it's a valid question.
So, I ask you these questions.

• Is SODO the right location for a new arena?
  
• If so, how should the traffic issues in the area be resolved?
  
• Who should pay for those infrastructure changes?

I don't know about everyone else ... but here's one guy who isn't going to label you an apologist. You bring up excellent points -- and all points that I heard Armstrong express yesterday and agree with to a point myself.

However --- my main question is -- just how much of conflict are we talking about here?

Let's let history be our guide (overlapping dates are in red) ...

the 2008 Mariners ... and the 2007-2008 Sonics ...

April 2nd -- M's opened against Texas. Sonics played the Clippers at home that day.
April 4th -- M's promptly went on a road trip. They opened against the Orioles in Baltimore that night.
April 11th -- the M's returned home for the first of 3 games against the Angels. The Sonics were on the road and played the Spurs that night.
April 13th -- the M's were still at home against the Angels. The Sonics returned home and played their last home game ever against the Dallas Mavericks.

The Sonics played no more games in Seattle. Their season was over after their win AT Golden State on April 16th.

the 2001 Mariners ... and the 2000-2001 Sonics ...

The Mariners opened the 2001 season at home against the A's on April 2nd. The went on the road starting April 6th and didn't return until April 16th.

April 18th -- the Mariners played at home against the Rangers ... the Sonics played their final game of the season against the Spurs at home.

There were NO other scheduling conflicts between the 2 that year.

The 1995 Mariners ... and the 1994-1995 Sonics
April 27th -- the Mariners played their 2nd home game of the year against the Tigers ... the Sonics played their 1st Playoff Game at home against the Lakers
April 29th -- the Mariners played their 3rd game of the season at home against the Tigers ... the Sonics played their 2nd Playoff Game at home against the Lakers

The Sonics season ended that year on May 4th 1995 in L.A. after their Playoff loss to the Lakers.
There were NO other scheduling conflicts that year.


The 1996 Mariners ... and the 1995-1996 Sonics ...
April 3rd -- the Mariners played their 3rd home game of the year against the White Sox ... the Sonics played at home against the Rockets.
April 5th -- the Mariners played at home against the Brewers ... the Sonics played at home against the Suns.
April 17th -- the Mariners played at home against the Tigers ... the Sonics played at home against the Trailblazers.
April 19th -- the Mariners played at home against the Blue Jays ... the Sonics played at home against the Timberwolves
Sonics Playoff run was from April 26th to June 16th.
Mariners were on the road starting April 24th. They returned home on May 2nd.
May 4th -- the Mariners played at home against the Indians ... the Sonics were at home against the Rockets
May 6th -- the Mariners were at home against the Twins ... the Sonics played Game#2 at home against the Rockets.
The Mariners went on a road trip starting May 14th. They returned home May 24th.
May 28th -- the Mariners played at home against the Orioles ... the Sonics played Game#4 against the Jazz at home.
June 2nd -- the Mariners played at home against the Red Sox ... the Sonics played Game#7 against the Jazz at home.
June 9th -- the Mariners played at home against the Royals ... the Sonics played Game#3 of the NBA Finals against the Bulls at home.
June 12th -- the Mariners played at home against the Twins ... the Sonics played Game#4 of the NBA Finals against the Bulls at home.
June 14th -- the Mariners played at home against the White Sox ... the Sonics played Game#5 of the NBA Finals against the Bulls at home.

There is just a snippet of what I'm talking about. Worst case scenario was 1995-1996 in which there were 11 scheduling conflicts. Every other year though ... we're talking more about 3 or 4 dates on average. Outside of the Sonics Finals Run in 1996 ... the schedulers of both the M's and Sonics seemed to do a pretty good job of making sure they didn't bump in to one another.

So my question is -- is the Mariners opposition to Hansen and his group's proposed location truly worth all this hullabaloo? It sure sounded like Hansen was genuinely surprised and taken aback by the Mariners resistance. So in terms of this letter from Lincoln is concerned, I wonder if 3-4 dates on average is truly worth:

A] the possibility of alienating a potential partner who could really help the Mariners in the long run (The M's surely aren't going to make friends this way).

and

B] all the negative PR that could come from a fanbase that is already generally disillusioned by Lincoln's and Armstrong's leadership in the first place.

In the end, I contend that after looking at all the facts ... that in the end, the positives of this NBA/NHL Arena (and where they've proposed to build it) outweighs all the potential negatives (which aren't many, from what I can see). As Jan Drago said, "I don't see any other place in the city it [the arena] could go."

Just kinda makes me wonder.

MA

This post has been edited by Mariner Analyst: 05 April 2012 - 11:19 AM

[DaddyO]

If you build it they will come.

If they come, you will figure out how to deal with it.

Don't let yourself be portrayed as the fly in the ointment. The only way you're going to avoid that association is to (1) truly enthusiastically support the enterprise, and (2) let know mixed signal or ambiguous statement come out of your mouth that might undermine (1).

Now clear the first sentence in this post requires the assumption of a good product on the field and in the arena. Commit to that, marshal the resources necessary to accomplish that, and the statement stands.

[lisa mariner]

I could be wrong but, I thought that the issue the M's (and the Port of Seattle) have with the location is not so much the over-lapping schedule of actual game days but the fact that the arena, in order to be fully successful/viable would have to be booked (in one way or another - concerts, car shows, etc.) for 200 days a year. That would preclude more than a "few" over-lapping dates.

But again, I ask (and I'm truly asking because maybe there's a legitimate reason it was not pursued) what is wrong with a proposal of a NEW building on the OLD site? It was a fine location for 40 some years...

This post has been edited by lisa mariner: 05 April 2012 - 11:35 AM

[DaddyO]

lisa mariner, on 05 April 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I could be wrong but, I thought that the issue the M's (and the Port of Seattle) have with the location is not so much the over-lapping schedule of actual game days but the fact that the arena, in order to be fully successful/viable would have to be booked (in one way or another - concerts, car shows, etc.) for 200 days a year. That would preclude more than a "few" over-lapping dates.

But again, I ask (and I'm truly asking because maybe there's a legitimate reason it was not pursued) what is wrong with a proposal of a NEW building on the OLD site? It was a fine location for 40 some years...

Hopefully someone with good knowledge of the "progression" of the enterprise to this point can enlighten us as to (a) why Hansen and partners did not view the Seattle Center area as the best place to put the proposed faciilty, and ( why SoDo was viewed as viable. Howard and Chuck seem to think that Hansen and associates did not have a good grasp of the issues they were raising when they met in December. OK. I can live with that. By all means continue to work on the issue, but as partners, not adversaries, and privately so far as possible.

And when you must get public with your statements, bend over backwards to make your primary attitude clear, an attitude of sharing the aspirations of your fan base for the return of a third major professional sports team to the area. Above all, make sure your fan base feels you are their champion, not the fly in the ointment. And if you have come to loggerheads with those behind the project, you'd better tread much more carefully than Howard and Chuck have, and you'd better have exhuasted EVERY, and I mean EVERY alternative before getting to that point. Maybe that's what's going on here, but if so the Mariners have not properly laid the PR groundwork for such a stance.

The first President Bush, by all accounts a decent man, was plagued by accusations of being out of touch with the everyday man. And in fact, he was. I say that as a Republican.

No other way to say it. Out of touch, tin ears, both describe the Mariners as they flounder through the latter years of the reign of Howard and Chuck. No doubt they are bewildered as to why they get the rude reception they do.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: 05 April 2012 - 12:48 PM

[DaddyO]

I keep thinking of more things to say.

One thing that occurred to me. If you're the Mariners, and you're determined to step in front of the freight train and yell "Stop!," you'd better be prepared to win the public dialogue. Because if you lose the public argument, as appears for the moment to be the case, you've lost more than argument. The Seattle Mariners cannot afford at this sensitive, volatile time in their existence to be seen as weak, to be seen as losers, and to be seen as against the will of the people. The credibility of the team would surely take another in a long, relentless series of body blows.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: 05 April 2012 - 12:55 PM

[TopCat]

DaddyO, on 05 April 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

I keep thinking of more things to say.

One thing that occurred to me. If you're the Mariners, and you're determined to step in front of the freight train and yell "Stop!," you'd better be prepared to win the public dialogue. Because if you lose the public argument, as appears for the moment to be the case, you've lost more than argument. The Seattle Mariners cannot afford at this sensitive, volatile time in their existence to be seen as weak, to be seen as losers, and to be seen as against the will of the people. The credibility of the team would surely take another in a long, relentless series of body blows.

The problem is, the FO has ZERO credibility already. That is why so many people as pissed about this regardless of whether it is legit or not.

[phredmojo]

Vidya, on 04 April 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

OK, I had to separate that comment from my direct response to MA. Yes, it does not look good for a cooperative agreement between the two or three when you add the NHL owner to the mix for a regional sports network deal with Comcast. One way or another, I do believe that Comcast will move into the area. NBC and Fox are also trying to get into the regional sports business, but so far NBC seems to be in the lead with the signing of the NHL deal. Regional sports is a big deal, and will do nothing but get bigger in the future.

The Mariners are clearly looking into the market right now, if only to force a whole bunch more money out of Root Sports. Financially, the Mariner ownership group is not doing so well, and we may see an ownership change in the next few years. I believe Zduriencik is safe, but I'm not so sure about Lincoln and Armstrong. Legally, it's easier for a team owner to buy a TV network, than for a TV network to buy a team, but it can happen either way.

As far as the letter is concerned, MA is right. It was not a mistake, I believe it was a very carefully calculated move by the Mariner FO to squeeze a few more dollars from the city. Hansen should not take it personally, it was a purely business move in my mind. OK, the Mariners want to get first preference when choosing dates and times. Yes, that's also a business move, but the benefit is more about ego than money.

It's the City of Seattle that holds all the cards, and the two business owners are competing to buy some of those cards. OK, Hansen wants to buy the cards, and the Mariners want the city to pay them to take the cards. On the face of it, the Mariners just look like a spoiled kid, but it's just another dumb business decision made by the Mariner FO. It may some make business sense, but it has to top the list of really, really stupid PR decisions made by them. In the end, upsetting the sports community in Seattle is going to hurt the team much more than help them.

wouldn't count on it.

Quote

We're thinking about it,'' Armstrong said. "But we've got other things. We've got this (spring training lease extension) on our mind, we've got the Japan trip, so that's not...we've got a nice TV deal now and it's only 2012.

"I think it's up to the TV people. I think it's up to the ROOT Sports people to initiate that.''

[Mariner Analyst]

You know, I'm not really what you'd call a true fan of Steve Kelley. That said, I actually took the time to read his column tonight on this situation ... and one quote in his article immediately jumped out at me ...

Quote

And despite their protestations to the contrary, the Mariners are worried about the competition that a new arena will bring to the area, not the congestion. They're more afraid of hoops and hockey than ingress and egress. Trust me.

Chris Hansen takes high road as Mariners raise red flags over proposed arena -- Seattle Times 4/4/12

Now, I know that we as fans are often accused of reading too much in to statements like this ... but something about the way Kelley stated this made me really sit up and take notice. He states this with such certainty -- almost as if his little birdies have told him something that the general public shouldn't know. There's a part of me that believes that this might be the real issue -- that all this talk about traffic congestion is a smokescreen that obscures the real issue: that the Seattle Mariners are in reality deathly afraid of the NBA and NHL cutting even more in to their sagging attendance. I dunno. I know this -- if that really is the truth ... then that is a sad commentary indeed.

MA

This post has been edited by Mariner Analyst: 05 April 2012 - 08:50 PM

[Vidya]

The issue of congestion is total BS. Congestion is a very real issue in the Seattle Center area, and for traffic headed north or east after the games. Traffic to the south is a relative breeze. I know, because remember, I live near Tacoma. The Mariners only concern is how much $$$ they can get from Seattle and the taxpayers of Washington, as if they haven't stolen enough already.

It is big deal and you can count on it. The reaction from the taxpayers of Seattle, King County and the State of Washington has only begun to be felt by the Mariner organization. Before it is all over they will most definitely wish they had drank that cup of STFU. No doubt about that one.

[DaddyO]

Mariner Analyst, on 05 April 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

You know, I'm not really what you'd call a true fan of Steve Kelley. That said, I actually took the time to read his column tonight on this situation ... and one quote in his article immediately jumped out at me ...



Chris Hansen takes high road as Mariners raise red flags over proposed arena -- Seattle Times 4/4/12

Now, I know that we as fans are often accused of reading too much in to statements like this ... but something about the way Kelley stated this made me really sit up and take notice. He states this with such certainty -- almost as if his little birdies have told him something that the general public shouldn't know. There's a part of me that believes that this might be the real issue -- that all this talk about traffic congestion is a smokescreen that obscures the real issue: that the Seattle Mariners are in reality deathly afraid of the NBA and NHL cutting even more in to their sagging attendance. I dunno. I know this -- if that really is the truth ... then that is a sad commentary indeed.

MA

I am in the process of reading the book "Shipwrecked" (see thread dedicated to the subject), and if there's one thing that jumps out at me reading the history of this franchise its the combination of pettiness and cheapness, both indicating an almost total lack of vision. It's as if their trying ot keep a 5 and Dime store running on Rodeo Drive. To me it only underscores the lack of vision. They're sitting on a gold mine but acting like it's only a finite pile of gold coins that they're desperately trying to keep and add to. What they should be doing is developing their ability to extract untold riches from the mine. And it looks to me like they've done it from day one.

Jesus told a parable, the meaning and profoundness of which far exceeds the scope of this discussion, but I can't help but think of it in this context. A (presumably prosperous) landowner leaves on a trip and entrusts varying amounts of his assets (called talents or minas in the parable) to his servants depending on their ability. To one he entrusts five talents, to another two, and to a third just one talent. When the master returns each servant is called to account for what he did with the assets entrusted to him. Each of the first two invested the assets and doubled their value, and each is rewarded accordingly by the master. But the last servant, who was entrusted with but one talent, confesses that he was afraid of the wrath of the master should he lose the talent, so he simply buried it. Ironically, the third slave, by acting so fearfully, brings that wrath down on his head when the master says, "You fool, you could have put the asset in the bank where it would at least draw interest!" All this is my paraphrase and summary, see Matthew 25:14-30 for the full text.

The similarities of the third servant to the Mariners franchise are not exact and complete, but you get the point. If the Mariners had vision, they would see that the potential return on an active and united partnership with Hansen creates the potential for huge rewards that would dwarf any problem they can imagine. Their eyes would not be on maximizing the difficulties, they would be on the prize. But The Brass doesn't have vision, and so they are consumed by fear over anything that might threaten their current position, whether it be some annual payroll deficits, competition, traffic, etc. Predictably, they incur the wrath of the fans and the scorn of the community.

[TopCat]

Vidya, on 05 April 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

The issue of congestion is total BS. Congestion is a very real issue in the Seattle Center area, and for traffic headed north or east after the games.

Funny you should mention that Vid...Chuckles while on B&S (How appropriate) had the temerity to suggest that the City of Seattle was "solving" the Mercer Street mess and inferring that it would be less of an issue there than at SODO.

I swear to God, every time that idiot gets in front of a mic, it makes my skin crawl.

This post has been edited by TopCat: 06 April 2012 - 06:20 AM

[garbonzo]

lisa mariner, on 05 April 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I could be wrong but, I thought that the issue the M's (and the Port of Seattle) have with the location is not so much the over-lapping schedule of actual game days but the fact that the arena, in order to be fully successful/viable would have to be booked (in one way or another - concerts, car shows, etc.) for 200 days a year. That would preclude more than a "few" over-lapping dates.

But again, I ask (and I'm truly asking because maybe there's a legitimate reason it was not pursued) what is wrong with a proposal of a NEW building on the OLD site? It was a fine location for 40 some years...

I don't know why everyone is ignoring you, Lisa, but while I don't have a definitive answer for you, I'll gladly speculate.

1. The traffic concerns -- or the M's fear of competition -- are just being raised now. It's quite possible that if the traffic review committee comes to the conclusion that SODO would require massive traffic realignment to support a third sports complex, attention would be shifted to considering other sites.

2. It's possible the footprint at Seattle Center just isn't large enough to accommodate a modern day arena, and widening that area would require closing or shifting streets around the Key. And then there would be the added cost of demolition of the old arena and the surrounding smaller buildings to give them the space they need.

3. The person making the proposal doesn't own the land in Queen Anne. He owns land in SODO. I'm not sure if Hansen would retain ownership or hand the land over to the city if the deal goes through, but at least he has the power to either if the arena is built in SODO. There has got to be so many more obstacles to overcome if he proposed to build the arena on city-owned property.

There you go. Total stabs in the dark. Now, if anyone has any real information as to why QA isn't being considered, please share!

This post has been edited by garbonzo: 06 April 2012 - 09:59 AM