All-Star Game Sites

So you can file this under the "Who Gives A Crap" section, but I feel like talking about it so suck it up and deal.  Specifically, about how it seems Arizona will never get the chance to host the ASG.

Big deal, you say.  Who cares, you say.  Well, I really shouldn't but I can't help it.  

First of all, I understand why we haven't/won't get it, at least not for a while.  Who honestly wants to vacation in Phoenix is July?  Not many, and most of us here would probably rather be somewhere else cooler.  And sure, the economic impact would be great (San Francisco allegedly had $65 million dumped into their city because of the ASG, though I'm too lazy to find anything official to verify that), but it's not like Phoenix doesn't host other events like the Fiesta Bowl, the Super Bowl (when Miami isn't free, apparently), and lots of conventions.

Also, we came into the league at the in the middle of the "everyone build a new stadium" trend, which means that there are tons of place to go first.

Since 1998:

1998: Rockies.  New park, new team, great way to help the franchise.
1999: Boston.  Allegedly the send off of Fenway Park (old ownership) and a farewell of sorts to Ted Williams.  Last ASG was in 1961.
2000: Atlanta.  New stadium, last ASG was in 1972.
2001: Seattle.  New stadium, last ASG was in 1979.
2002: Milwaukee.  New stadium, Bud's pet project, last ASG in 1975.
2003: Chicago White Sox. New stadium (well, since 1991).  Original team to host the ASG.  Last ASG in 1983.
2004: Houston. New stadium.  Last ASG in 1986.
2005: Detroit.  New stadium.  Last ASG in 1971.
2006: Pittsburg. New stadium. Last ASG in 1994.
2007: San Francisco. New stadium.  Last ASG in 1984.
2008: New York Yankees.  Last season for Yankee Stadium before being torn down.  Last ASG in 1977.
2009: St. Louis.  New stadium.  Last ASG in  1966.

Also, if you look at the ASG's before 1998 you see a bunch of other teams that have hosted it, and they all share the same thing except for a few: new stadium.

Why is that important?  Well, obviously a new stadium will be cleaner and nicer, and hold more luxury suites which mean more money, and generally indicate that the city is willing to play by baseball's rules.  That being said, the teams with new stadia (or in the works) that haven't hosted one with the new stadium are as follows:  San Diego, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Oakland, Washington, New York (both), and last which is Arizona.  We have to throw in Kansas City, even though they don't have a new stadium, simply because Mr. Selig has promised they would get an ASG in the near future (before 2012).  Also, the word is out via Lucchino (Red Sox big wig) that the Red Sox will get to host in 2012 again.

All of these stadia, except for Kansas City and Boston, are newer, so even though our Chase Field isn't that old, it still looks like Woody from Toy Story in comparison to those other Buzz Lightyears.  So if we take worse to worse, we would expect an ASG in 2019.  

That's weird to think about as the Diamondbacks would be over 20 years old at that point.  New stadium no longer!

Of course, there's no use getting bent out of shape, and to be honest this newer, shinier stadia probably should get the chance first.  It just would be nice to go one in what I consider my home park, Chase Field.  You can disagree but that's just how I feel.  I'm just impressed if you made it this far through that rambling, unedited mess.