You're Welcome!

If a lefty was starting, of course Tracy would not be one of the better hitters, in fact he would be the worst, and should be batting 8th against lefties....based on past history.

I wish we could see stat projections in split form. Too many of our players don't have enough track record or large enough sample size to judge properly, and last year's  Tucson splits are all out of whack, as too many of the righties had reverse splits. (Righties hitting righties far better than lefties)

Hell, green with pink spots would be "distinctive", but wouldn't make it a good choice of colors... Purple is a horrible shade to work with: anything more than a hat just looks awful, especially for guys. The new stuff is light-years more wearable, I reckon. Your mileage may vary, but it's personal taste.

[ Preaching youth and debt, but then adding an expensive 43 y/o WHO WANTED OUT OF ARIZONA is pathetic. Adding "Old Trade Me" for millions but not bringing back the more popular player for less than what "Old Trade Me" wanted is pathetic. Trading for 5.00 ERA pitchers is pathetic. ]

This is all about RJ, so I'll combine these three. Comparing it to the Gonzo move is impossible to do: keeping Gonzo would not make the team any better, since we have younger, cheaper, better alternatives around. That isn't the case in the starting rotation: not having Johnson means 33 games from someone like Dustin Nippert. He wanted out of Arizona in 2004, and I can't blame him because Colangelo had run the franchise into the ground, going from World Series champions to 111-game losers in three years. Hell, even the Marlins never lost that many: three years after their World Series, and the fire sale which followed, they went 79-82. And this is, as you're well aware, definitely not that Diamondbacks organization.

[ Extending Play-It-Safe Melvin is pathetic. ]

On this one I, and many fans, would probably agree with you. I really don't think he's the best man for the job, and would rather see Chip Hale in the seat - after all, he did such a fabulous job, with most of the same guys, down in Tucson last year.

[ Dumping $1 seats is pathetic. ]

Never used them myself, so no great loss personally. They were a gimmick, pure and simple: I imagine few people actually stayed in those seats the entire game. If I'm right, the cheapest are now, what, $5? That's cheaper than a matinee film at Harkins, f'heavens sake. If you can't afford that, you should probably be out finding a job, not attending baseball games.

[ The partial name change is pathetic. ]

Yeah, that bothered me too, but I'm an old-school grammarian. You take letters from a word, replace them with an apostrophe, not a hyphen, dammit. But really, I can't say I've lost any sleep over that, and I'd be more inclined to go for "pointless" or "irrelevant", rather than "pathetic".

But here's a challenge for you. Now you've told us what's wrong with the team, tell us why you're still a fan...

They [$1 seats] were a gimmick... .

Yes and no. Yes, in the 'loss leader' sense that they didnt drive revenue, but having stood in line once, I can assure you that many of the fans with me didnt consider it a gimmick. Or at least they were dam* appreciative of having that option. Often appreciative enough to bake in the sun for an hour, rather than pay for the next cheapest seat ($10 in 2006). It's interesting to try to quantify how that sort of goodwill translates on the ledger, but the new ownership has obviously made their calculation.

If I'm right, the cheapest are now, what, $5?

Well, you're not right. Not really. Not unless one pays to make a special trip to the stadium box office to make an advance ticket purchase. Good lord, who does that anymore? Hassle with the box office on gameday? There's an add on fee. For those of us with the effrontery to assume the advantages of the newfangled Internet, these crappy seats are $8.75 on diamondbacks.com, and if we're in the mood to just barely see a so-called premium game, from the absolute worst seats in a 47K seat house - $13.75 a pop..

I understand the club can charge anything they want, and hundreds of thousands of fans who used to attend Dbacks games can, and certainly do, pursue entertainment elsewhere. What bothers me almost as much as the prices themselves is the utter mendacity of pretending these are $5 seats. I'm disappointed that the nation's AGs, and I'm serious here, arent all over mlb about that. It's a wink shy of fraud, IMO.

Did I mention the crappiness of the seats? ;-)

For a good chuckle, check out the seating diagram for these clowns' demarcation between $15 "infield" reserve and these cheaper "outfield" reserve seats.)

That's cheaper than a matinee film at Harkins, f'heavens sake.

Per above, no. Let me take this opportunity to add that my wife and I took in a Harkins matinee on Monday and I can comfortably declare that we got more for our money that day than perhaps any time at BOB since Game 7 of the 2001 World Series. We saw Best Foreign Film, "The Lives of Others", and while it's probably not your kind of flick(ie minimal carnage and an actual story) ;-)...it was a powerful, memorable experience for both of us. Well worth the twelve bucks, $20 with popcorn and the drink.

If you can't afford that, you should probably be out finding a job, not attending baseball games.

wow. Hypothetically true, I suppose, but for one who snickers about boycotts and traditonal colors, dont you think this is a tad presumptuous? Pardon my lack of imagination and, indeed, rudeness, but I dont envision the day when most Phoenicians will be taking instruction on how to spend their hard earned entertainment dollars from someone who shells out $5 grand for season tickets and who works in a call center ;-)

Certainly, prices have gone up - but that's a necessity, resulting from things like the increase in player salaries. They've basically doubled since the D-backs inaugural season in 1998.

Ticket prices are a function of revenue maximizing principles like elasticity of demand(ie what the market will bear). To my knowledge, player salaries and related costs are entirely separate calculations and have no direct bearing on ticket prices.

And overall prices have more than doubled, Jim, during a period (1998-present)when the CPI increased a measly 24-27%. Credit MLB for inducing roughly half a million folks to buy season tix based on illusory "discounts", fabricated by the near tripling of ticket prices on most everyone else (100 million "less valued", or perhaps simply more discerning, fans).  

I'm curious where this knowledge comes from. Since, surely, any business will factor all its costs in, when deciding the price of its products

To the extent that costs, such as player salaries, actually correlate with team performance, they could affect ticket prices; but only indirectly as spending more money on salary(or anything else) is entirely different than fielding objectively or subjectively better teams. This is painfully obvious across baseball markets and more importantly, true within a given market, year to year(see Diamondbacks 1998-present).

By contrast, the correlation between the price of, and demand for, a product is quite direct. Not constant or fixed , but direct. Whether you have a good team or bad team, good or bad GM, big market or small, revenue can be more  systematically maximized by manipulating prices than by manipulating salaries or other costs.

For example, the Dbacks lowered their so called $5 seats not in response to any payroll or cost issues but rather in an attempt to increase revenue by getting more fans in the seats with lower unit pricing. Randy's salary and the depreciation on french fry vats has little if anything to do with it ;-)

oddly enough, more people attend major (and minor) league games than ever before.

It's an interesting paradox. First, the nation's population and disposable income are both growing. Second, more clicks at the turnstiles isnt the same as more "people" in the sense of unique visitors. Instead, MLB has cultivated an army of half a million or so season ticket holders, basically the same fans lured to the park (via illusory season ticket "discounts") night after night, increasingly at the expense of casual fans. A result of this policy is that while overall "attendance is up", a smaller % of Americans identify themselves as baseball fans than ever before.  

Doesn't seem like the prices are driving people away...  

Doesnt seem that way partly because MLB and affiliates like the AZ Republic have sucessfully downplayed and diverted the issue. Look at basketball or football prices!they say.  Look at Fenway! My, how lucky we are here in Phoenix. Quit your complaining! As biggerunit suggested, however, these are apple and orange comparisons. A Dbacks game, with rare exception, is nothing at all like an NFL or Fenway game in terms of utility.

On the rare occasion when declining Dbacks attendance is broached in the Republic, prominently listed reasons typically include a)team not as good or exciting, which is just a euphemism for prices are set too high for the given product b)tertiary factors like "kids are still in school",or it's really hot in Phoenix, etc. and c)if you're lucky, maybe a brief mention that prices have inched up a tad. The really big story, that single game prices have skyrocketed 250% in the past decade while the CPI has risen one tenth that amount is generally suppressed in favor of complicit feel good stories about how season ticket holders are getting a big "discount" and other prices are "holding steady".

I think your beef is more with MLB in general, and not really a D Backs problem.

Shoe, I guess it seems that way given my remarks  but my wrath is really trifold. I dont begrudge MLB a profit or STH's a small price break for buying a package, but I do resent  the extent to which MLB has made baseball less accessible to "ordinary" fans by catering to their season ticket base with aggressively inflated single game prices.  

Similarly, fans who play along with the shell game are, in the end, the ones who make MLB's strategy work and ensure we all continue to pay high prices. To be sure, I didnt drop my ST package for the betterment of baseball - but if more people had likewise said "enough",we might all be enjoying more reasonable prices today. I find some folks' resigned attitude (ie we all get screwed anyway so what's the big deal)understandable and common, but a root cause of the problem.

Third, local ownership has done a weak job, IMO,  of connecting with the valley fan base, at least so far, in terms of pricing and several off the field decisions and public statements. Dbacks prices may be slightly below MLB average when you include cities with higher incomes, indigenous amenities and playoff caliber teams, but when one adjusts for those variables, the Diamondbacks are one of the poorer values in baseball, IMO. It's always dicey comparing markets, but Colorado(lower prices) and Anaheim(comparable prices,more expensive market) spring to mind as  regional competitors who do more to cultivate their respective fan bases.

[ I dont begrudge MLB a profit or STH's a small price break for buying a package, but I do resent the extent to which MLB has made baseball less accessible to "ordinary" fans by catering to their season ticket base with aggressively inflated single game prices. ]

Do what we do and buy a share in a season-ticket package. That way, you get the lowest cost, without having to attend every game. Sure, you might not get to attend all the games you want, but assuming you're a D'backs fan [rather than the Cubs, say] and that's who you want to watch, it shouldn't be a problem. If you want to cherry-pick games, you should pay a premium for the privilege. I do think someone who purchases 81 tickets a year should receive a substantial discount over those who only buy one.

But best move further debate [copy and paste if necessary!] to the Future of Baseball diary.