Whoever had the Arizona Diamondbacks in the “Which MLB team will follow the Atlanta Braves as the first to seek to replace their not-yet-20-year-old stadium?” pool, you’re a winner! Maybe:
“There has been a lot of speculation over the years and that is because our building is too big,” Arizona Diamondbacks CEO Derrick Hall said, on the “Doug and Wolf Show” on Arizona Sports 98.7. “I mean, to have nearly 50,000 capacity for this market is too much and at the time, I understand why we built it that way. Coors Field had just opened, it was that large and filled up each game. It is hard to believe we will be the fourth-oldest facility in the league.”
KSAZ-TV’s interpretation of this is “We wanna new stadium!” which may be overstating it — Hall has been hinting at wanting renovations to Chase Field for a few months now, and ripping out some seats and replacing them with clubs or ferris wheels or delicious nougat would certainly qualify, especially since the Diamondbacks haven’t drawn anywhere close to capacity in recent memory. But with the Suns and Coyotes looking at getting a new arena or two, the Diamondbacks owners would be foolish not to at least have their own “me too” plans in the works, so you never know. Let’s just hope that whatever happens, nobody gets shot over it this time.
That is an odd definition of forth oldest considering there are by my count 13 active stadium that opened before the Diamondbacks stadium.
Once the Braves move, all NL East teams will have newer stadiums, 4 of 5 NL Central will (Wrigley the exception) and 2 of 4 in NL West will (Dodger and Coors the exception). So the statement is accurate for *the league*, which is the NL, once the Braves move.
Andy
Yeah, that puzzled me at first too — I can only assume he meant “in the National League,” which would put it fourth after Wrigley, Dodger, and Coors.
(What Andy said.)
Of course those teams with the four “old” stadiums draw incredibly well.
This is posturing. The stadium is operated and owned by the county. The Diamondbacks for years have wanted to decrease capacity to make it have a smaller feel. The county rejects that at every turn. This is a way to get them to come off that point.
Would the county care if the Diamondbacks were offering to pay for it? They’re the only meaningful tenant, after all.
Why can’t they just cover the upper deck seating with advertising like other stadium and arena do for that more intimate feel?
Interesting how things change. When they built the Skydome in Toronto, I was somewhat (okay, maybe more than somewhat) puzzled that the capacity was (barely) under 50,000. And sure enough, they sold pretty much every seat for five or six years. But when they stopped winning (which, combined with the aftermath of the 1994 strike, crushed interest in the baseball in Toronto), it seemed cavernous and lifeless for years. I remember at the time thinking that ballparks should have seating for 55,000 to 60,000. I’m not sure what other parks that feeling came from. But it seems in recent years that many of the newer parks have much lower capacities and feel more intimate.
They need to start loosening bricks so they can claim its decrepit.
The A’s & Raiders can introduce them to their Tarp Guy.
Gawd, I need to buy a team in Phoenix. All the franchises do down there is pander for public stadium cash year in and year out. It’s like running the team is a secondary concern.
I’m drooling with envy!