Let the Games Commence...
Micah Owings will be the fifth starter in the Diamondbacks rotation, to start the year off. The rookie got the nod over long-term spot starter Dustin Nippert, with manager Bob Melvin saying:
That doesn't mean he'll actually be on the Opening Day roster. Melvin hinted that Owings may only be added in time for his start in Washington on Friday - until then, we'll use the spot for an additional reliever or position player. Nippert might be the recipient of that spot, in case we need someone to go long relief during the first four games. Robby Hammock and Brian Barden got the final two spots on the position players roster, but I haven't heard yet for sure who wins the final permanent bullpen slot. The Diamondbacks active roster on the mlb.com site still contains 29 players, though that includes the three on the DL and Yusmeiro Petit, so that would suggest J.D.Durbin will be the man.
The team finished the pre-season with a 20-12 record, beating the Padres with convincing offensive performances, by margins of 14-8 yesterday, and 12-8 today. To start on Saturday's game, Edgar Gonzalez had his wobbliest outing of spring, with eight hits and five earned runs in his four innings of work - but he still improved his record to 5-0, because the Diamondbacks gave him ten runs of support while on the mound. Lyon pitched a scoreless fifth, but Cruz managed the following interesting line:
Cruz: 1 IP, 0 H, 1 BB, 3 R, 0 ER
Medders, Glant and Woody pitched the remaining innings.
Scott Hairston got himself ejected in the first inning, arguing over balls and strikes: he's going to have to learn to bite his lip a bit better in the major leagues. His replacement, Dee Brown, had three hits and scored three times though, and Brian Barden went 3-for-3 with three RBIs. Jeff Salazar, in his first game with the team since coming from Colorado, also cleared the bases with a double and drove in four runs all told, while Mark Reynolds had two hits and two RBI.
Today's game was won by Justin Upton in the bottom of the ninth inning with a walk-off grand-slam, which is really one hell of a way to end Spring Training, both for him and the team. That was the fourth homer of the day for the Diamondbacks, following ones by Scott Hairston - his eighth, finishing him tied with Aramis Ramirez for the pre-season lead - Conor Jackson and Jeff Salazar. So much for our lack of power. ;-) Drew had three hits; Young also reached safely three times, on a hit and two walks.
Yusmeiro Petit looked very confident against a full-strength Padres lineup: five innings, three hits, seven strikeouts. Despite a couple of deep, hard-hit balls, the only blemish was a solo homer to Mike Giles - which to be honest, Carlos Quentin would probably have grabbed at the fence. He'll be down in Tucson, but based on this performance, it seems we may have got a good deal. Durbin also looked good: he did allow three hits, but he had good velocity and movement, so we'll see how he does out of the bullpen. Valverde was yanked in the middle of an inning, which was kinda weird; Pena came in for two pitches. Bill Murphy faced seven hitters and retired just one, allowing five runs and setting the stage for Upton's grand-salami.
Sitting here, watching the first edition of The Eric Byrnes Show on Fox Sports AZ. Nicely laid-back as you might expect: he comes over pretty natural, and with a tongue-in-cheek approach that's endearing. [They just showed Superfan Susan, who was lurking behind the outfield fence in Tucson Electric Park: I wonder if she has a day job...?] Byrnes was just talking to Josh Ford about the 40 hardboiled egg challenge he took earlier in Spring: the footage of Ford's face as he neared the end of the challenge was priceless. Looks like a fun show, though I'm not sure a) how he'll keep it up for an entire year, and b) what'll happen if Byrnes gets traded mid-season, because Hairston has 20 homers before the All-Star break...
Less convinced by some of the other promotional stuff the franchise are doing. There's the Are You Ready? viewing parties for the first week of the season. This maybe ties together somewhat with my lament earlier in the week, about the lack of D-backs bars and venues. I can see the point of trying to drum up enthusiasm for Opening Day, but they're not helped by the schedule, which sends the Diamondbacks East, and means the parties are starting at times between noon and 5:30pm, which pretty much rules the events out for those of us with day jobs.
The only one I might get to, is Tuesday's at the Upper Deck Sports Grill in Scottsdale, but I'm not excited by this: "The D-backs' new in-game hosts, Vanessa and Mike, will appear along with the team's new Rally-backs entertainment crew to pass out new Sedona Red hats and t-shirts." Oh, joy: just what I want when I go to Chase Field. "In-game hosts" and an "entertainment crew". The players on the field should provide all the entertainment I want to see this year.
Similarly, the new Diamond Club in right-field, which they promoted heavily during the broadcast today. It has pool tables! A dancefloor! A DJ! It's exclusive! Er... I could be wrong, but I feel this concept is hardly pioneering. If I wanted that kind of stuff - and heaven knows, I don't - I'd not be looking for it at Chase Field. I appreciate I'm perhaps not the target audience for this venue any more, but I really think it's doomed to failure. Frankly, I hope it's doomed to failure: call me a fuddy-duddy traditionalist, but I was under the impression it was a baseball park, not Old Town Snottsdale.
On the other hand, the annual Team Marketing Report, published yesterday, showed that the average ticket for a Diamondbacks game was the lowest in the majors - $13.79, down 29.9% on last year. Of course, a large number of those seats will likely go unoccupied, but it does counter the claim that the team are not a "family-friendly" organization. I haven't got all the figures for this year, but here's how that compares to the average ticket prices for the other major franchises in the most recently-available surveys. Pretty well, it seems:
- Suns: $48.99 [2004-05 season]
- Cardinals: $44.98 [2005]
- Coyotes: $25.41 [2006-07]
- Diamondbacks: $13.79 [2007]
And that's the end of the pre-season. All told, those 20 wins mean the Diamondbacks have more than any other National League team. The offense has been excellent, and one hopes this will carry forward into the regular season: the blossoming of Scott Hairston is perhaps the best story, though the injury to Carlos Quentin is worrying. The pitching was a mixed bag: Webb threw well, and Johnson's return has been smooth thus far, but Hernandez and Davis have been far from lights-out. The bullpen has sorted itself, with few surprises: Julio was traded as expected, and Pena will be the backup closer.
But now, the team is off to Colorado, and there's nothing to be done except start playing the games for real. It seems a lot less than six months since we ended last year! Still, here we are, and the first pitch can't come soon enough. Roll on Monday!
0 recs |
27
comments
Comments
That's Entertainment......(not)
Hear, hear.
...call me a fuddy-duddy traditionalist, but I was under the impression it was a baseball park...
It's one thing for a dyed in the wool fuddy duddy, like me, to lash out at these promos, but doesnt criticism from a music lovin', beer swillin' yahoo like yourself (j/k) speaks volumes about how badly Derrick Hall has erred here?
the average ticket for a Diamondbacks game was the lowest in the majors - $13.79, down 29.9% on last year. Of course, a large number of those seats will likely go unoccupied, but it does counter the claim that the team are not a "family-friendly" organization.
Leave it to the TMR to "find" a 30% price decrease when most prices have actually risen. Beyond the unoccupied seats you cited, their figures ignore premium pricing and more dramatic single game ticket differentials(vs season tix) - be honest, any report claiming the average Dbacks ticket is $14 isnt worth the paper it's printed on.
I suppose "family friendliness" is subjective and multi-faceted, but considering the valley's per capita income (MLB's lowest)and the low ballpark utility(so far), the Dback's actual pricing doesnt seem particularly family friendly at all. This is the fastest growing city in the country - attendance speaks for itself.
by Diamondhacks on Apr 1, 2007 12:27 AM EDT 0 recs
Subject
<< the parties are starting at times between noon and 5:30pm >>
You know, I never realized this. Are bars and clubs even open that early? Haha. I think the people showing up at bars at 5:00pm aren't there for the Coyote Red...
<< the new Diamond Club >>
Haha what a joke. This thing is the exact opposite of fan friendly. Proof? Walk up or inside with children and you'll certainly be stopped and told "Excuse me... children aren't allowed in here. Adults only...... Oh, and you're not on the list."
<< the average ticket for a Diamondbacks game was the lowest in the majors - $13.79, down 29.9% on last year >>
I have to agree with Matt here. Quite frankly, it's bullsh*t. For one, the average price could be anything-- it takes nothing away from the fact that prices continue to go up every year. And also, quite frankly, I don't care what any "expert publication" has to say. Here's an expert opinion, change the seats to 1998 prices. Colangelo didn't need premier sh*t this, and exclusive VIP pack sh*t that--the 1998 prices were enough to promote the 98-99 spending spree.
Is there anything else you can tell us about this report? What exactly does $13.79 represent? For all we know, they could only be counting seats not purchased already by STHs. For all we know, they could only be counting the most unpopular seats. And then they're definitely not including the b*tch fees that they throw in on essentially any purchase--unless its a ST plan, of course.
And to comment on the other major AZ sports teams, keep in mind demands and venues when looking at their "average ticket prices." The Coyotes play in a smaller venue, thus their tickets are higher priced. I'm sure if they played in a 50,000 person stadium, tickets would be much less, heck, maybe even lower than the "D*Backs" prices. The Suns, too play in a smaller venue. Why are their tickets double Coyote prices? Simply more demand. People love their Suns. Cardinals too have higher demand. Football fans will go to games even if its the Cardinals.
by biggerunit1 on Apr 1, 2007 2:59 AM EDT 0 recs
can you spell "economics"?
You're kidding, right?
Newsflash to "bigger": the 1998 prices weren't even close to enough to promote the 98-99 spending spree. That's why, 8 years later we're still basically devoting 1/4 of our payroll to 1998-2000. It's one thing to want a winning franchise, it's another thing to be COMPLETELY out of touch with reality. And the reality is, we can neither spent $120M a year in AZ nor have $15 seats on the front row of the 3B line much less do BOTH!
C'mon, a little reality check here: you've either got to follow the BoSox/Yankees/Cubs/Dodgers model or the Marlins/A's/Twins model. Collangelo did the former. Byrnes is trying to do the latter. But even with the latter you've still got to pay the $60-$80M payroll and that isn't going to happen with monopoly money. So, you charge the execs the premo bucks for the premo seats and you open up the cheap seats for the families.
Believe me, I don't have the money to sit anywhere other than the cheap seats (only sat in seats over $20 twice at Chase) -- but I realize the economics involved and I don't feel entitled to sit at field level.
Finally, as one living in the NYC area now I have little sympathy for whining about Chase prices. I just bought Mets and Phillies tix and plunked down $20 a seat for the worst seats in the house at both places.
by johngordonma on Apr 1, 2007 8:11 AM EDT 0 recs
Really?
Yeah, you're right. Jerry Colangelo really crippled this team. They don't even have $5 MM to spend on stadium "upgrades." They don't even have another $1 MM to "reach out" to Hispanics.
They don't even have $24 MM to splurge on a 5.00 pitcher. They don't even have another $21 MM to splurge on another 5.00 pitcher.
by biggerunit1 on
Apr 1, 2007 3:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
People with no clue
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 1, 2007 3:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Just a thought...
by Jim McLennan on
Apr 1, 2007 4:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Daigle..
Hey, less than 24 hours to go now! I never thought I'd be so looking forward to a Monday.
Petit was a pleasent surprise yesterday, just mowed them down and that was before the scrubs came in to take over. And what a perfect way to end ST than with Uptons grand slam, considering his first two whacks at it looked horrid.
enough of the economics and the conspiracies, I'd be finding a new team to follow if this one was truly making me that miserable as it appears to be doing to some.
Let's get this season started already!
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 1, 2007 4:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Subject
by biggerunit1 on
Apr 1, 2007 7:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
LOL!
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 1, 2007 7:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Subject
by biggerunit1 on
Apr 1, 2007 8:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Subject
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 1, 2007 9:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not Quite
But seeing as this team is financially healthy enough to spend $5 mil "upgrading" the stadium, obviously we're not as bankrupt as you think.
The new ownership hasn't saved this team--they have re-expanded it into the National League, and it appears the Devil Rays will have the same fate next season. This isn't a saved team, it's a brand new one. The owners in a sense surrendered this team's history and tradition to make some quick, temporary bucks. Why should I be happy with that?
by biggerunit1 on
Apr 1, 2007 9:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Some plan!
Tradition, hmmmph. After 9 years even... Taking a look at a few of the long time franchises, do you believe the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, and White Sox have had everything the same for the past 100 years? No, well, other than the cubbies not winning it all! ;-) And I expect another change or two in the next decade before we really settle down and build a tradition. Face it, the only "tradition" purple brought to the table was it's ties to the Suns. heck, my closet is full of purple DBacks stuff that I still wear proudly, but I have started adding the new color scheme to my collection. I would rather this team find its own identity away from the Suns. For me, the Arizona Diamoondbacks are bigger than the front office. Mabye in the years down the road, something will happen and our feelings are totally reversed, but I'll always love the team.
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 1, 2007 10:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Subject
Absolutely not. He wanted to win. He wanted to spend. He didn't care about making a profit.
<< Face it, the only "tradition" purple brought to the table was it's ties to the Suns >>
And let's face it, the only "tradition" turquoise and copper brought to the table was their ties to indigenous Arizona history. And let's face it, the only things brick red, tan, and black bring to the table are images of the Houston Astros.
by biggerunit1 on
Apr 2, 2007 1:28 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Then it should come
I do not believe Jerry is that poor of a business man as you just made him out to be. Like it or not (and I can imagine where you fall on that!) baseball is a business. If I quit my job tomorrow and go on a wild spending spree with my credit cards, guess what will happen? I will go bankrupt!
>>the only things brick red, tan, and black bring to the table are images of the Houston Astros.<<
Only in your mind, I think more of my team than that.
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 2, 2007 1:47 AM EDT
up
0 recs
where'd that come from?
I guess we know now where that one vote for 70 wins came from...
by unnamedDBacksfan on
Apr 2, 2007 2:07 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Wait...
Go back to New York, Gambo.
by nihil67 on
Apr 2, 2007 11:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The cost of living...
With regard to the Suns, don't forget that figure was for 2004-2005 - and if the timing is as for the baseball report, it was before that season. At that point, the Suns were coming off a 29-53 year (which would be a 57-105 season in baseball), and nobody in this town gave a damn about the team. The "demand" you mention just didn't exist. In any case, "demand" is not the issue: jacking up your prices, just because you can, is scarcely family friendly - and how family friendly is charging $50 per seat?
But it's a lot more now. I tracked down the average ticket price for the Suns in the 2007-08 season. It'll be $65.62 - almost five times the price at Chase Field, and a 50% increase in three years since the survey I quoted in the main article. And that a) will be the season ticket price, and b) cheats by excluding floor seats and loge boxes - the most expensive ones! As far as "family friendly" goes, the D-backs may have their flaws, but their pricing looks like Mother Teresa compared to the Suns.
[ Colangelo didn't need premier sh*t this, and exclusive VIP pack sh*t that--the 1998 prices were enough to promote the 98-99 spending spree. ]
As has already been pointed out, almost a decade later, we're still paying for the spree; it's clear our income, even with average crowds of 44,500 per night, was woefully inadequate. I can see the point of initially offering low prices, in order to draw fans in, but there's no way any business can maintain "introductory offer" pricing permananently and stay in business. This franchise needs to be fiscally responsible, and balance the books: the only ways to do that are cut expenditure or raise income. If you want cheap seats, that's fine - but you'll be watching the Tampa Bay Devil Rays or worse on the field.
by Jim McLennan on Apr 1, 2007 2:45 PM EDT 0 recs
The Dismal Science
I'm not claiming there's anything sinister behind the TMR, but neither you nor I know whether this reflects 'like with like'. Team ticket policies vary and this report, for whatever reason, makes those disparities abundantly unclear.
You wont find me touting the Suns as family friendly, but re Dbacks v Suns tix, the construct is hopelessly apples and oranges. And the apples, in this case, have worms, while these are some of the most exciting oranges, some say, in a generation. What are you gonna compare Dbacks prices with next, Broadway show tickets? A Grand Canyon river rafting trip? Gimme a break.
...it's clear our income, even with average crowds of 44,500 per night, was woefully inadequate.
It may have been inadequate to pay for this particular team's expenses [unlike you, apparently, I'm not privy to the team's books ;-)], but to suggest that 1998 ticket prices, or thereabouts adjusting for inflation,etc, are somehow insufficient to support a viable team now is an open issue and, I believe, highly suspect.
This franchise needs to be fiscally responsible, and balance the books: the only ways to do that are cut expenditure or raise income. Agreed, with the caveat that raising income and raising ticket prices are entirely different concepts.
If you want cheap seats, that's fine - but you'll be watching the Tampa Bay Devil Rays or worse on the field.
Or perhaps the LA Angels, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins or Atlanta Braves?
Suggesting that teams with low prices often dont derive as much revenue as big market teams and that that puts the lowballers at a competitive disadvantage is fair. But it's important to understand that pricing policy is all about maximizing income within a given market (via supply and demand) and has no direct bearing on team performance.
IOW, the Royals arent a bad team because they have low ticket prices; they're a bad team because they cant derive enough revenue from a weak market, despite offering MLB's lowest ticket prices. Presumably, if they raised prices in that "woeful" market, they'd make even less revenue,further alienating customers,etc, and this would indirectly lead to fielding an even worse team.
Maximizing revenue is tricky business and the Dbacks are hard at work at it. I just happen to think they're going about it the wrong way for our particular market.
by Diamondhacks on
Apr 1, 2007 5:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Generally, agree...just a couple of points.
I'd say comparing prices for professional sports franchises in the same town - hell, on the same street! - is fairly appropriate. Plus, my original comparison was for the Suns back before the 2004-05 season, when the team had almost the worst year in franchise season...yet they charged $45 per ticket.
And I'm still keen to hear what "entertainment choices in the PHX area" you were comparing the D-backs against, in your reckoning that their prices are twice what they should be. I trust that, whatever they are, it won't be "hopelessly apples and oranges"...
[ It may have been inadequate to pay for this particular team's expenses [unlike you, apparently, I'm not privy to the team's books ;-)]]
The fact we're still paying off the debts at $25m per year would seem a fairly clear indication we were living beyond our means. Perhaps not in 1998, when the salary bill was only $29m, but when it went up by 150% the next season, and then peaked at over $100m in 2002.
[ If you want cheap seats, that's fine - but you'll be watching the Tampa Bay Devil Rays or worse on the field.
Or perhaps the LA Angels, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins or Atlanta Braves? ]
The Angels had the third-highest payroll in the majors last year, over $103m; the Braves were at $90m; the Tigers $83m. Even the Twins, at $63.4m, had a bigger payroll than the D-backs' $59.7m. They're footing the bill for that from somewhere...
by Jim McLennan on
Apr 1, 2007 7:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
apples & oranges to hambuger & prime filet
As long as I've been alive, baseball tix have been cheaper than hoops or football, because the schedule and stadium size results in a much larger supply of baseball tix than the other sports, which helps drives the price down. If there were 162 football games a year locally versus a dozen baseball games, we wouldnt even recognize the current pricing landscape. As it stands, I expect to pay less for a baseball game, alot less actually, than at NBA or NFL games, despite MLB's largely successful campaign to approach(not equal)NFL/NBA prices. So while baseball is my favorite sport, I expect to pay less for it, much like one who prefers hamburgers to filet mignon expects to pay less for ground beef.
As far as PHX entertainment choices, I thought your Herberger example was actually very apt. Most(not all) plays I've seen there have been more entertaining than most Diamondbacks games. Partly, I think, cuz there's so many Dbacks games. How much are these local wrestling matches you frequent, how good are your seats, and is it as fun as a Tuesday night AZ/Marlins game in July? A really good $10 movie is a much better value than a "typical" $10 DBacks seat way up in the upper deck. And I've had good seats to concerts for less than $10 that've been far more entertaining than watching Chad Tracy from a hundred paces.
They're[Angels et al] footing the bill for that from somewhere...
Well, one way they're footing it is with higher attendance and better value propositons than the Dbacks currently offer in our burg. The Angels also make a killing with some of MLB's lowest merchandise prices - in Orange County, no less. Go figure.
The article you linked about attracting Hispanic fans was excellent and illustrates to me just how out of touch Derrick Hall is compared to someone like Arte Moreno. The World Baseball Classic "woke everybody here up"? To what exactly? That there's a large baseball lovin' Latin population in the valley? This is our team's marketing czar?
ROTFL.
by Diamondhacks on
Apr 2, 2007 12:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Why go at all?
Certainly, it's a valid point about the much greater supply of baseball tickets, though does that actually reduce your enthusiasm for attending any specific game? Are we Diamondbacks fans 1/10 as appreciate of the team as Cardinals fans, simply because we get to see the team play [yawn!] ten times as many games? Hell, no: if we played 364 days a year, I'd still be unhappy about them getting Christmas Day off. :-)
I'm also far from sure this difference is sufficient, in and of itself. If "number of tickets" was the sole factor, you'd be paying more to see lacrosse or arena football than baseball. And the Suns have more than half the number of home-games the Diamondbacks do, which falls some way short of explaining the near-500% difference in average cost. But in both cases, you're dealing with the top level of sportsmen, which bring me to...
[ As far as PHX entertainment choices, I thought your Herberger example was actually very apt. ]
Now, who's comparing apples and oranges. Seriously. But I'll play. if you want to draw that parallel, then your play at the Herberger would have to have a cast entirely drawn from the top thousand actors on the planet, including superstars who are all-time legends in their field. If Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman were playing the Herberger, wouldn't that be worth more than your "$20-25"? 'Cos that would seem a decent parallel to seeing Randy Johnson take on, oh, Barry Bonds, say.
This may seem weird, but going to any baseball game is not entirely about having the most "fun" or "entertainment" for the money. If it was, sure, there are any number of cheaper, more reliable alternatives: hell, I could stay at home and watch the game. But the same is true for any leisure pursuit Why go to a concert when you can download the band's MP3's? Why go to the theatre - you can see better actors on TV! It's because "being there" is an entirely different experience, and can't be replicated.
Put simply, you never know what might happen. Sure, the team could lose and you could have a totally sucky time. But you might be there for a perfect game, a miraculous comeback or simply catch a foul ball. And the chance of experiencing that, and the memories that go along with being able to say, "I was there", is worth more than just about anything.
by Jim McLennan on
Apr 2, 2007 1:01 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Sad
John,
You live in an area with one of the highest costs of living in the Western hemisphere, not to mention some of the better teams. I dont. Although you hardly sound tickled to be paying $20 for the crappiest seats at Shea, I can understand your annoyance if that's your frame of reference. Baseball has created this model, where many fans begrudgingly accept lousy values because other fans elsewhere in the stadium, or in another city, or in another sport, are getting ripped off even more. I reject this model of fabricated, false choices.
I dont live in Boston. I'm not attending an NFL game or a NASCAR weekend. I'm not a corporation in the market for skyboxes or dugout seats, or a season ticket insider wannabe. I'm a Phoenix baseball fan who wants to sit in reasonably good seats at an honest price to watch a mediocre or better team on a very hot day play a few games in an airplane hangar. Based on recent ballpark experience and real entertainment choices in the PHX area, I'm thinking that's a $20-$25 value, but the Diamondbacks want $40-$60. Screw that - and screw MLB.
I realize the economics involved and I don't feel entitled to sit at field level.
This is the saddest statement I've ever read on snakepit. Not sad as in foolish(ie I respect your opinion), but sad as in regrettable the way MLB has successfully hoodwinked your generation into believing that sitting in a halfway decent seat to any old baseball game is some sort of highbrow priviledge.
by Diamondhacks on Apr 1, 2007 4:21 PM EDT 0 recs
Entertainment choices?
$31, all inclusive. Lower-level seats, looking right up the line. Definitely much better than "reasonably good": if you want some, let me know and I'll happily forward it on to the season ticket holder. Not a problem: this offer was, and is, open to anyone. Though not sure what you mean about "mediocre or better team": is that us or them? Personally, I go to watch the D-backs, and who they're playing is largely irrelevant. Indeed, it may be better if they play someone sucky, since it improves the chances of us coming away with a win, which makes the day complete...
I'm also not sure what "entertainment choices" exactly you're comparing the Diamondbacks to. As shown above, $20-25 would appear to exclude all the major professional sports franchises in the valley. And, indeed, the majority of "reasonably good" seats for a concert held in AWA, Cricket Pavillion, Jobing.com Arena or any of the other venues which hold 10,000 or more. You might get a seat at the Herberger for a play starring nobody you've ever heard of. Is that what you mean? If so, hardly seems that it's like with like.
by Jim McLennan on Apr 1, 2007 4:35 PM EDT 0 recs
Kind Offer
Very kind of you, sir. I had 118 ST's(Row 29) for seven years, so I know from where you speak :-)
As I remarked to John, I think much of how we see pricing differently stems from our individual frames of reference. $31 to see a good game in those seats nowadays isnt outrageous, but considering I paid $19.50 back in '98 with roughly 30% inflation in the interim, I dont exactly consider them a bargain now, either - just because some clown in front of us pays, what, $175 per seat? If Sec. 118 seats were sold for $31 single game, or even $35, I'd tone down the bellyaching - but $50 for some dog game in the middle of summer? There are plenty of "workarounds", incl your kind offer, but by patronizing a season ticket holder, I'm helping perpetuate a pricing structure I ultimately despise.
by Diamondhacks on Apr 1, 2007 6:09 PM EDT 0 recs
On the same general theme
by Jim McLennan on Apr 1, 2007 9:28 PM EDT 0 recs















