October 14, 2005

Busch'd

Tom Boswell has a column in today's Post about the 1996 renovation of Busch Stadium that transformed it from a bland, dumpy 1960s-style multipurpose stadium into a bland, dumpy baseball stadium with some individual charm and cheesy throwback character.

I'd love to let you read the column, but WaPo.com has mislinked it. The central thrust of the piece: "Hey new owners! Invest $25 mil and give RFK its own signature cheesy quirks." Examples: outfield bleacher seats, picnic areas, hand-operated wooden scoreboards and a new mascot, Robby the RFK Rat. (OK, I made that last one up, but it fits with the theme.)

One major roadblock, our co-tenants DC United, who might object to putting too many baseball-specific features in their soccer stadium. The other: make RFK habitable, and the DC city council will definitely start thinking, "New stadium? We don' need no stinkin' new stadium." Then are only hope is to hold out until RFK becomes such a decrepit hole that it's actually fashionably retro again. You know, hobo chic. God help us.

October 13, 2005

Deconstructing Tony


Bill Ladson over at Nationals.com turned the slightly less than white hot spotlight on Nats President-for-Life Tony Tavares, who looks a little like an aging John Goodman. Below are excerpts from the Q&A, with my commentary in italics:


MLB.com:
You mentioned player personnel. Can you elaborate on it?

Tavares: Sure. I feel that we just have to get better.
Warm up the analyst chair, Tony is auditioning for Cold Pizza.


The worse thing in the world is when you are paying for players at premium prices and they don't perform for you. That's true failure at that point. We have to avoid it.
*Cough... Vinny, Goooz... cough, cough*

MLB.com: We often wondered why the Nationals didn't practice before day games.

Tavares:
I wonder that, too. It's something that will not be accepted going forward, I can tell you that. When I say we didn't work hard enough, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Too many times, we didn't take batting practice. If you look at our record on Sundays, it's indicative of our success. I just don't think we prepare as well.
What Tony means of course is that we don't play well hungover. And Tom McGraw is worthless.


MLB.com:
The team still doesn't have ownership. When do you think the announcement will be made?


Tavares:
I don't know. I wish I did know. In a lot of people's view, the sooner the better. There have been decisions made that said we will not get ownership selected until the [stadium] lease is done. We have been working diligently to get that done, but it takes two to tango. We just can't seem to get the city's attention on this issue.
The city council saw this Smulyan thing coming a mile away, and now they're ducking our phone calls. And Jerry Reinsdorf is an ass.

MLB.com: Do you want Bowden back with the team?

Tavares: If I come back, I'm definitely offering a job to Jim Bowden.
He said a job, he didn't say what job. And Screech is supposed to get bigger next year.

October 12, 2005

The Glass Half Full

It's a slight understatement to say that I am cynical by nature. I firmly believe that MLB will screw the Nats by installing a failed ex-owner at the head of the organization. I believe that the DC city council will screw the team by trying to score political points off the stadium financing deal. And most importantly I believe this is all part of a larger cosmic scheme to make me just a little bit less happy. But...

Even with all that I look around the division and don't see anyone in dramatically better shape than our Nats. A quick, uncharacteristically optimistic look at our foes offseason woes:

Atlanta: The Braves win the division, the Braves lose in the playoffs. Lather, rinse, repeat. Besides, at 9-10 we played the best team in the division almost even. And the Braves might be without Rafael Furcal at SS next season.

Florida: No money, no manager, no new stadium. Sounds almost familiar, no? The Fish are losing a top pitcher in A.J. Burnett, and might lose leadoff hitter Juan Pierre and slugging 1B Carlos Delgado. Mike Lowell, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer... DEAD! 'Nuff said.

New York: The Mets seem to consistently do less with more than any team outside of the Bronx. I'm optimistic the trend will continue, although the departure of Mike Piazza, his Playmate wife and his spaghetti arm might actually be good for the team.

Philadelphia: Funny how the NL East seems to be littered with perennial underachievers. The Phils need a new GM, and have to figure out how to clear the billion-dollar logjam at 1B that is Jim Thome. Really puts our $3 million Vinny Castilla problem in perspective.

October 11, 2005

Prospect Watch

Another 2005 draftee comes into the fold. The Nats signed their 4th round pick, Maryland OF Justin Maxwell. Maxwell was Washington's second overall selection, our 2nd and 3rd round picks having left as compensation for signing Vinny Castilla and Cristian Guzman. Nats Farm Authority has the lowdown on Maxwell, as well as a running tab of how our prospects are faring in the Arizona Fall League.

Sex & Violence: Offseason Filler Edition

The Red Sox, Yankees and Braves have been vanquished from the playoffs, effectively eliminating all the compelling post-season storylines for us east coast types. To fill valuable column inches, the Triple Play crew presents our inaugural offseason movie review, the first of however many we have to do before MLB announces an owner for the Nats.


Today's review:
A History of Violence


Matt Watson
- 3 Baseballs

The opening scene in A History of Violence sets the tone from the very start. We see two very bad men and the very bad things they’re capable of. We don’t know anything about them, other than the fact that you don’t want to run into them. This is immediately juxtaposed with our introduction to the Stall family and their idyllic country life and with that stark comparison the tone is set for the rest of the film.

Viggo Mortenson plays Tom Stall, a quiet, small town, family man. He runs the local diner, knows all the patrons by name, and seems like a good decent man. Tom’s wife Edie, played by Maria Bello, shares his unassuming country life along with their teenage son (Ashton Holmes) and their young daughter (Heidi Hayes). Their existence is painted like a Norman Rockwell painting, all warm hues and kindly characters. There’s a little spice to the mix as seen by Maria Bello’s turn in her high school cheerleader outfit, and their son is having trouble with the local bully but other than that things are almost perfect for the Stalls.

That of course has to change and when our two very bad men from the opening scene come calling at the diner all hell breaks loose. When the lives of his employees and customers are threatened, Tom acts quickly and decisively and the results are deadly.

With all the publicity from the incident Tom surfaces on the radar of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), another very bad man from Philadelphia. He’s got an intimidating black sedan, two body guards, a scarred face, and a belief that he and Tom share a past. Is Tom who he says he is? Does he have a secret that he’s been hiding for twenty years? And as Fogarty says, why is Tom so good at killing people?

The movie has some very good scenes, particularly the ones with Ed Harris and Ashton Holmes. There is also a wonderful cameo by William Hurt that is worth the price of admission alone. Occasionally the dialogue is unintentionally funny but the film as a whole moves along and there are several good tension builders that keep the audience hooked.

Director David Cronenberg does a very good job of playing the idea of what defines a man. What counts more, our present or our past? Can we be forgiven for our sins or are they going to haunt us forever? For Tom Stall these are questions that have to be answered and the audience is curious too. We play witness to Edie’s struggle as her entire world flips upside down. We play witness to Tom’s struggle to prove he is the man his wife married. In the end we find out Tom is both. There are two sides to every person and sometimes they are forced to use one to save the other. If Tom wasn’t the man he was he and his customers would have never made it out of the diner alive. If Tom wasn’t the man he was Tom’s son might not have found out what type of man he is. The audience has to ask what counts more, a history of violence or a future of possibility.


Nate responds: 2 baseballs

Much of the preliminary publicity surrounding A History of Violence has focused on what reviewers have labeled "gratuitous" sex and violence. But complaints about excessive explicit imagery are more properly understood as criticisms of badly plotted sex and violence. Quentin Tarantino has made an entire career out of taking sex and violence beyond their logical extremes, but to attack any of it as gratuitous is to misunderstand his movies.

In this film however, some of the explicit elements are gratuitous; not because they are unnecessary, but because they become a sloppy shorthand for absent character development. A History of Violence was adapted from the graphic novel of the same name, and retains many of that genre's signature elements. Edie Stall is every man's fantasy as the devoted wife and mother who is still willing and able to wear her high school cheerleading uniform for a night of raunchy sex with hubby. The Stall's son Jack is a perfect stand-in for your average graphic novel reader, the sarcastic, sensitive high schooler pushed to the breaking point by a bully so generic it's a wonder he wasn't named Biff.

Ideally, the central conflict of the movie would be the tension of a family forced to confront and find a way to relate to the man they never really knew. But these characters are too one-demensional to allow for that kind of growth. The sexy wife, the sarcastic teenager and the cute daughter are archetypes, and archetypes don't do change. Instead, what we get is essentially two movies welded at the middle, the idyllic Stall family meets the post-modern Stall family, a homicidal Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

That said, A History of Violence contains some engaging performances and entertaining set-pieces, not the least Jack Stall's final showdown with his high school tormentor and William Hurt's scene stealing performance as a Philadelphia mobster. The film had the potential to be a thought-provoking meditation on past and responsibility, but David Cronenberg failed to get behind the graphic novel theatrics and into the hearts of the characters.

October 10, 2005

The business side...

So coverage of the money to be made on baseball is on people's minds today.

Somehow, isn't it just weird that MLB made more money than anticipated, and the city less? My favorite quote is the one saying that better TV coverage will show a drop in attendance. Now that's just silly. On top of that, they complain that not enough people drove (45% took metro).... didn't they push us to take Metro? Wasn't that all we heard?

Oh, and we're getting screwed on the new stadium too. Assuming you're an average fan, of course. Those luxury boxes sound nice. But our seats will be inches smaller.

God dammit this kind of shit pisses me off. As a business owner, I just look at something like the Nationals and wonder what kind of greed causes this stuff. You know, it's possible to be honest and still make a good living.

A Tale of Two Stadiums

The Money Pit

What if they held a baseball game and nobody came? Answer: As long as the tickets were paid for in advance MLB couldn't care less. The District, on the other hand, loses out on money from parking, memorabilia and concessions. The Post says the no-shows look to cost the city roughly $500,000 of it's $10.5 million estimated tax revenue. Meanwhile, MLB is set for a well-documented windfall, with the Nats $25 million profit finishing $5 million above even mid-season projections.

My take on this is that it's just one more reason for the city not to be bullied into a bad lease agreement by MLB. MLB is making much more money on the current arrangement than the city, especially considering the $18.5 million DC spent to renovate RFK last winter. Any lease for the new stadium is going to put the eventual owners in an even more comfortable position, considering they aren't contributing nickel one to land acquisition or construction costs. So the Sports & Entertainment Commission and the city council should hold out for a good deal for the city in terms of dedicated tax revenue and local ownership.

The other potentially bad sign noted in the Post article was the high rate of no-shows at Nats games. On average 33,728 tickets were sold for each home game, but more than 25% of those were never used. The industry standard for non-attendance is 15-20%. On one hand, I'm not particularly surprised by this. A lot of those tickets figured to be corporate-owned, given out as perks to staff and clients. Over 81 games it's reasonable to expect that not every ticket to every game would be used. But 25% is an awfully high number, and I think it should be cause for concern, particularly if the Nats get off to a slow start next year, once the magic of the "inaugural season" has worn off. Slipping attendance is a ready-made excuse for an out-of-town owner with shareholder commitments to start doing the relocation/contraction dance. And if you think MLB wouldn't give Jeff Smulyan the team, let him run it into contraction and then give him the Reds, you haven't been paying attention.

Meanwhile, Across Town...

Washington City Paper busts out our first inside peek at the design of the new stadium. Capitol Punishment has the depressing in-depth analysis. The synopsis: Those of us in the cheap (or moderately-priced) seats, probably ought not be in such a hurry to vacate RFK. It may be a dingy, cavernous old relic but it has wide seats, good leg room and very good sightlines to the field (especially from Sec. 313). The new stadium might have all the bells and whistles $535 million can buy, but it won't be the proletarian palace that is The Bobby. And parking's gonna suck.