~OT: Status of Sports in Oregon
The whole Sonics saga has gotten me to think about the current state of big time sports in Oregon. While Clay Bennett and David Stern are definitely slimy bandits, part of the problem also lay with the city and state governments. If they simply would’ve extended the tax that built Safeco and Qwest Field, it would have bought more time to arrange the exact locations of the arena (whether it be in Seattle Center, Renton, or somewhere else). The fact of the matter is that, whether it is right or not, hosting professional sports has become a significant responsibility of the state and local governments. With that in mind, lets think about Portland, and Oregon as a whole.
There is no doubt that our sports offerings don’t match those of other cities our size. A city our size should have at least two professional teams, if not three. There are some questions over whether we have enough corporate clout to have other teams. However, I believe that Portland could and should sustain at least one more team. Here are my thoughts on the state of sports in Portland:
Pro Basketball—Well, the Blazers are here, and not going anywhere for a long, long time (I think their lease ends in 2020 or 2025). We are lucky that the RG is under private ownership, as it has been well taken care of and aged well. I’ve heard that its still much nicer than many of the newer arenas being built. But it won’t be around forever, and few owners are going to give the city the sweetheart deal that Allen did. When that time does come to replace the RG (and, again, it will be a long time from now), Portland is likely going to have to shell out more dough then they did last time around.
Pro Baseball—The deal to renovate Civic Stadium has met mixed results financially. However, while you can argue whether the finances of the deal were handled correctly, PGE Park was a facility much needed by the city. It is a beautiful minor league facility that is a nice change of pace from the bland style of new minor league parks. The landscape of sports in Portland is much better with the Timbers and Beavers in place.
That said, this to me is the main front of the pro sports argument in Portland. Portland is a <I>perfect</i> fit for MLB. The Mariners have better ratings in Portland than many teams have in their own cities (which largely explains the oft used excuse of low Beavers attendance). The truth is that baseball works differently than the NBA. The NBA can easily leverage cities because arenas are so multi-purpose that many cities have them even if they don’t have a team. But few cities have a ballpark. If we build a ballpark, we will almost force MLB to have a team here by being the only expansion or relocation option (the Oakland and Miami stadiums are far from done deals, and MLB doesn’t have a lot of favorable international options for expansion, so they will expand in the US witin a decade or two to grow revenues). Sadly, a lot of the progress that had once been made has been lost since the Expos moved from Montreal. I’d like to see more progress made so that, if a team does become available, we can act fast.
Pro Soccer—This is the most immediate real opportunity for us. The Timbers are great. But the truth of the matter is that the USL is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Merritt Paulson wants the MLS here. Our biggest rival has jumped to MLS. And stadiums can still be had for cheap (~$100 mil), and the dynamics of soccer are such that we could get Paulson to help foot the bill. We are Soccer City USA, after all, and MLS still wants to announce two more cities for expansion in 2012. Personally, I think that we are pretty much a shoo-in. We may be able to use PGE Park in the short term, but I think that to make it work long term, they need a soccer specific stadium (it could be built near PIR?).
What ultimately becomes of PGE Park with a new baseball team and a new soccer team? We can either sell the land to the highest bidder, or sell it on the cheap to PSU for the Vikings to use (Vikings could use the new soccer stadium as well). I have no emotional attachment to PGE Park, and selling the valuable land could be used to help offset some (albeit a small some) of the costs.
I honestly see Portland in 2025 with NBA, MLB, and MLS teams. I know that there are always the questions of how we make the taxes work, what do we want to cut, etc. But I think that we can get a sweetheart deal on a soccer stadium right now. The MLB stadium is a bit tougher a nut to crack.
Other sports:
Pro Football—A stadium is a billion dollars, which takes us out of the running right there. This is also a college football state, and an NFL team competes with the Ducks and Beavers. Honestly, with only eight home games a year, this is one sport where it is easy to get to Seattle for all the games. Lets just all root for the Seahawks. It’s a lot better than paying a billion dollars for eight games a year.
Pro Hockey—This was floated about for a long time, but I just don’t think that the Trail Blazers want that kind of competition in their own building. And, since they own it, that’s the way it will be. I’m much more interested in keeping the Winter Hawks around since, if something doesn’t change, they’ll be gone after their lease expires in 2013. Memorial Coliseum is a dump, and the Blazers don’t want to give the Hawks a favorable lease since concerts are much more valuable. The answer may lie with what’s happening 100 miles south. The Eugene Emeralds have long needed a new facility, and they are partnering with the Ducks in building a new baseball stadium for both to use. The Vikings can’t keep playing hoops in a high school gym. Perhaps the Vikings, Hawks, State, and/or City should all engage in talks about building a small arena (5,000-6,000 seats) near the PSU campus for both teams to share. The Hawks would be an asset to the Vikings, whereas they are a pain to the Blazers. I love hockey, and want to see the Hawks stick around.
Lacrosse—bleh. I think that the Jax will be here as long as the league doesn’t go under (and that could go either way). If they stay, great. If they go, no big loss.
College Sports—UO is getting all their facilities upgraded on Phil’s dime. The Beavers have nice facilities in Reser and Goss. PGE Park is nice enough for the Vikings. The only two issues are that the Gill needs a big facelift, and the Vikings need a real gym for their hoops team. I’m sure BDC will find the funding for that within the next couple of year. I’ve already given an angle worth pursuing for the Vikings.
Golf—It would be nice to see a PGE event at Pumpkin Ridge or the Reserve, although that’s up to private interests to make happen.
Racing—I hate racing. The Champ Car event that Portland lost should be returned next year. I don’t really care myself, but the event is good for the city.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I’d love to hear what you think.
6 recs |
58 comments
Comments
Good analysis
count me among those who passionately want MLB in Portland. It would really be a perfect fit. The reasons are myriad, and have been discussed before, but for anyone who wants to know more about MLB in Portland, this site’s a good resource:
http://www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/
As for soccer, didn’t MLS just choose Seattle over us? I would like soccer as much as anyone, but I wouldn’t really be willing to build a taxpayer funded stadium for it. Economic impacts from sports teams are pretty marginal, and sports ownership is so ridiculously tax advantaged already that it’s pretty obscene for owners to ask for taxpayer funded stadiums.
by OregonDuckworth on Apr 19, 2008 10:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But the OSC site hasn't been updated in years
and that’s the problem—the momentum is lost. And Tom “I hate all sports” Potter isn’t helping.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by Addicted to Quack on Apr 20, 2008 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really, really want the MLB in portland.
It would give me something to do during the Blazers offseason, and it would just be fun to have a team.
My first choice would be NFL, but youre right, that doens’t sound likely.
MAKE IT HAPPEN!
Oden+Roy+Aldridge+Rudy=Dynasty. Believe
by OdenRoyLMA on Apr 19, 2008 10:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
profesiional waterpolo...
Oden...Aldridge...Roy.....THE REAL BIG THREE
Watch my brandon roy vid http://youtube.com/watch?v=RC3Byp4ID1E
by CroRupt on Apr 19, 2008 11:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Goss facelift
Goss will be getting an exterior facelift this summer, but it still needs major work inside.
I would love a MLS team in Portland and I think the city would really embrace it. Its practical
Woof
by Charles Barkley McLovin on Apr 20, 2008 12:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ok
I’m not a baseball fan or a mls fan (am a casual soccer fan tho). I don’t mind if MLB does come here…but building a baseball stadium that only has 1 purpose (unlike NBA stadiums) with the hope that a team “might” come in 4 years is a horrible idea. I don’t think our local government has the brains to pull it off successfully. Look at the tram disaster and other various urban renewal projects. If we had a team lined up…and the deal was right, then go for it.
As far as locations…maybe do it along the freeway right by where Central Catholic plays their football games? There are a ton of places still in the metro area were we can build…I don’t think we need to spend a ton of cash just to get the stadium/field/arena in the heart of Portland.
by Philthyanimal on Apr 20, 2008 1:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
the ‘build it and they will come’ philosophy worked for Tampa Bay and Arizona, as well as Baltimore and St. Louis in the NFL.
I agree about MLS about to blow up. MLS is expanding to Philly and Seattle in 2010—but want an additional two teams after that in 2012. As rivalries are great for sports, Portland really makes sense for one of those 2012 teams.
I think that an MLS stadium could be built somewhere in North Portland. However, baseball stadiums seem to be most successful downtown (and, if done right, can really bring up the local community). They are expensive, and there is no guarantee that a team would come. I guess what I really want to see is the mechanism in place to fund one should a team be availiable. It would put us in line for an expansion team.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by Addicted to Quack on Apr 20, 2008 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLS
I have a feeling that MLS could blow up in the near future. It’d be cool to have a team before it gets way expensive. In the last year I have heard more about LA Galaxy and MLS than I ever have in my life. Even if Beckham is on the downside of his career, he still brought a ton of interest in the league.
by Philthyanimal on Apr 20, 2008 1:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It would be nice...
...to see Eugene regain some of it’s former glory as the Track and Field mecca in the USA. Hosting the Olympic Trials this year be a real test. The facilities are old, for sure, but the history, atmosphere and local fan interest could go a long way in driving that nail home. A few world records wouldn’t hurt either.
"The early bird gets the worm. The second mouse gets the cheese." Don Monette
by Dr Dave on Apr 20, 2008 7:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
they pumped a TON of money into Hayward
and they’ve already secured the olympic trials again in 2012. With these improvements, they’ll be in the running to get some USA championships and NCAA championships in the next few years.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by Addicted to Quack on Apr 20, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like sports
But I don’t think taxpayers should pay for the factories where private businesses build their products.
I think tax breaks might be in order as we do to encourage other businesses, and maybe tax support – say from hotels and tickets purchasers from the people who actually use the products, but I don’t think that a population of people who have frequently voted to reduce taxes even though it means our schools are in the crapper,
I know there is more than one way to do this, and some forms of public and private patnership might be in order, but I woul dbe adamantly opposed to putting the whole thing on the taxpayers; backs.
by raoulduke on Apr 20, 2008 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I completely agree with your post...
the tax payers (us) are having a difficult enough time paying for our own family’s needs (or Blazer season tickets). We don’t need our taxes cranked up so that some rich guy can or group can make money by selling tickets and merchandise to us. If there is enough support for the idea then investor groups or rich people should be able to recognize the opportunity and then take the capital risk with their own capital, and then make it happen. I would rather have my tax dollars paying for schools, roads, fire, and police services.
43:12 Min, 9-18 FG, 4-5 FT, +14 +/-, 4 Off, 16 Rebs, 1 Ast, 1 Stl, 1 Blk, 22 Pts - LMA vs LA 4-8-08
by LaMarvelous on Apr 20, 2008 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would rather have my tax dollars paying for schools, roads, fire, and police services.
Or just reduced in general. It wouldn’t affect me-I’m in WA-but still.
by jamon51 on Apr 21, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
That’s the way it should be, but I guess these sport franchises will argue that sports teams are a benefit to a city and the city should help pay. If there was a way to change the mindset of everyone to not fund arenas, then we could force owners to pay, but until then there will always be a city who is willing to bid when others arent going to.
Off Topic, but I really hope the NBA keeps their player salaries under control. Players wages have increased so much that its harder and harder for fans to attend. The team salary cap was 14 million 15 years ago…and now its in the mid 55 range. I doubt in that same time the average persons wage has increased 3-4 fold.
by Philthyanimal on Apr 20, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not a benefit
its a benefit to sports fans like us, but it is not a financial benefit and the whole ‘making the city feel good’ thing is ridiculous.
With the condition of our schools and infrastructure, healthcare, and everything else AND the fact that our taxes are already a huge burden on working families, the idea of piling on taxes for sports stadiums is absurd.
This whole privatize-profit-social-the-cost boondoggle pro sports owners have foisted on the public is awful. Stadiums do not generate anywhere near the revenue to justify the massive investment of public money, especially in an economy like this. We should be looking for ways to cut taxes, not raise them because Clay Bennett doesn’t think he should have to pay the costs for his PRIVATE business.
by matthewcc on Apr 21, 2008 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe
but gas was under $1 a gallon in 1990.
Gas is $3.50 now. Inflation has been hitting us and a lot of companies have been taking hits instead of passing costs on. although, more and more costs are currently being passed on. Additionally, popularity went up with Jordan and thus more revenues were available.
$55, taking all that into consideration, isn’t bad. I have to agree that i want it managed in the future so that we don’t go from 55k to 220 million in another 15 year period.
"No way. I love this town. We're gonna bring back the glory years. These boys are my boys. This is my team and my town." - Greg Oden when asked about leaving.
by ratbastird on Apr 21, 2008 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NBA owners haven't adapted to the times
At the risk of making this sound political, the ultra-rich haven’t really had to.
In the real world, with the way things are looking right now, I think taxing yourself to pay for a stadium is ridiculous. I wonder if OKC is realizing how many people think they’re insane.
I applaud the stand Seattle is taking, even though it may cost them their team. I hope we’d do the same. I think we kind of did, didn’t we? At some point, there won’t be a bunch of OKC’s sitting around waiting to shell out what amounts to a bribe. In fact, I suspect the OKC situation itself isn’t going to end well. Let’s put it this way, I hope Durant is as good as promised. Five, six years of a crummy team…we’ll see how that stadium tax looks then.
by leeroyjenkins on Apr 21, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we are all a little bitter
about Clay Bennet and the Super Sonics situation, but I think we are letting that color our ideas about Sports stadiums a bit too much. Yes stadiums are expensive, and yes the practice of team owners blackmailing cities into building new ones every 10 years and giving them ridiculously generous lease agreements has to stop, but lets not get carried away here. 150 million plus dollars is nothing to sneeze at but when you spread the costs over the entire public for a number of years, it amounts to a fairly small chunk of money. We all support our team by buying tickets to the game, buying merchandise, etc. paying taxes to build a new stadium is just one more cost associated with supporting a pro team. Also, we need to remember that these stadiums are owned by the city and used for activities other than pro sports as well. They function more like really expensive parks than factories and should thus be paid for at least in part by the people who use them. There is nothing wrong with arguing that we shouldn’t fund these stadiums, there are many cities that have decided not to do so, but if you don’t pay for a team, you can’t expect to keep one here either. You can’t expect that an owner, as rich as they might be, should have shell out 150 million plus to pay for a stadium that is owned and operated by the city. If we could get MLB to come to Portland I hope Oregonians would be willing to pay a reasonable amount to fund a new stadium for the team to play in. When the time comes to upgrade the Rose Garden we may not have an owner as generous as Allen here, I hope the people of Portland are willing to pay a reasonable sum to keep our team here as well.
by TheW0P on Apr 21, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
If we’re going to impose $150 million on taxpayers it should be to rebuild schools, period. Don’t have money to rebuild schools, then you don’t have money to build stadiums.
And study after study has shown these things to be big financial LOSERS for cities that pay for them. Even when a city (rarely) breaks even, a $150 million investment with ZERO profit is a terrible return.
No public money for private business. If every city made that stand, this wouldn’t be an issue.
by matthewcc on Apr 22, 2008 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon already puts 6.06 billion dollars into education, compared to the 4.83 billion of Indiana. Indiana has 6.3 million people and Oregon has 3.4 million. In 2006-2007, Indiana ranked 24th in education out of 50 states, while Oregon ranked 40th.
Assuming the ratios of children among the population in school is the same between the states (which, all things considered, is generous to Oregon), it is painfully obvious that something is dreadfully wrong with the Oregon school system. There should be plenty of money to rebuild schools already there, but woeful mismanagement squanders the money which you earn. So, another 150 million dollars isn’t going to solve much.
However, I do agree that having the local government sink their money into a stadium is an even worse idea. Throwing money at things and hoping they work is an idea that only a government could come up with, and still be in business. And as long as our local, state and national governments use this tactic, businessmen, like Bennett, will take advantage of that wherever they can.
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
by T Darkstar on Apr 25, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious...
Are you talking higher ed, primary/secondary, both? If the study you are citing is for higher ed only, does it include major Indiana-based private institutions like Purdue or Notre Dame—Oregon has nothing remotely comparable?
How do the endowments of Indiana institutions compare with their Oregon counterparts?
There are a lot of interesting questions to ask along these lines. It is a certainty that the state of Oregon, as a whole, has made some rather foolish choices over the year. OTOH, I have sincere doubts of the position taken by many, that folly is only to be found among administrators and bureaucrats, all of whom gleefully squander any surplus funds they might come across. In many cases, we the people have been the foolish ones, effectively prohibiting the university system (or the state government as a whole) from creating/expanding endowments or rainy day funds, which would allow the system to operate with far less dependence on tax revenues.
by EngineerScotty on Apr 28, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The numbers I looked up were only K-12, I believe.
I could have probably been more careful in my research, but I’m pretty sure that those are the numbers I keyed in on for both Oregon and Indiana.
You’re absolutely right about the endowment and rainy day funds. The entire “use it or lose it” budgeting system that the people have set in place for these schools is disastrous. Kids can’t have after-school sports programs, but they can have brand new desks year in and year out. (Having delivered those desks personally year after year, albeit a few years back, I saw the conditions of the “old” ones they threw out.) Priorities are messed up, and we only have ourselves to blame.
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
by T Darkstar on Apr 28, 2008 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where do these numbers come from?
Trade Freeland!
by rockingharder on Apr 29, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One was the state of Oregon's webpage, The other was the state of Indiana's webpage.
And one was some Morgan Quitno Press, a company that specializes in ranking cities and states for their publications. I’m not as sure as to the quality on that last one, but they are independent. If you have better numbers, than these, I am willing to be corrected.
One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
by T Darkstar on Apr 30, 2008 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good god I should never type this early in the morning.
by raoulduke on Apr 20, 2008 10:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree
which is why I think we should jump in on MLS now. They are still young, and such partnerships are still possible. But they will explode soon.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by Addicted to Quack on Apr 20, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A post from a nerd
What about cycling? Oregon used to host one of the best and most European tours when the tour of Willamette was running. With the popularity of cycling in the NW and the success of the Tour of California and the Tour of Georgia it seems like it would be good to get something like this going. Also, bringing big Cross races to the NW is pretty rad as well.
Whatever. I live in New Mexico so what do I care anymore.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Apr 20, 2008 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
MLB in Portland...
As a HUGE baseball fan I’ve thought about this a lot. WHile I would like it if MLB cam eto my hometown, I don’t know how much I would be able to root for the team. Having grown up bleeding Mariners blue and cheering for them for so long, I don’t think I would be able to switch my loyalties very easily at all. Would a lot of Portlanders that love the M’s feel this way as well?
by coolguyrob on Apr 21, 2008 1:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would probably follow the Mariners if they played real baseball.
Go National League! The AL has the pitchers who can’t hit and the hitters who can’t field. :P
"A certain critic—for such men, I regret to say, do exist—made the nasty remark about my last novel that it contained ‘all the old Wodehouse characters under different names’. He has probably now been eaten by bears, like the children who made mock of the prophet Elisha: but if he still survives he will not be able to make a similar charge against Summer Lightning. With my superior intelligence, I have outgeneralled this man by putting in all the old Wodehouse characters under the same names. Pretty silly it will make him feel, I rather fancy." - P.G. Wodehouse
by T Darkstar on Apr 21, 2008 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers shouldn't bat
I’m not paying my hard earned money to watch some guy bunt.
Tyler Hansbrough - Deep in the jeans he's wearing - I'm hooked and I can't stop staring.
by tominhawaii on Apr 21, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the part of baseball I love.
Making those difficult decisions. Should the pitcher stay in because he pitches well, or should he be pulled for a pinch-hitter to possibly score a run? How tired is said pitcher? How reliable is pinch hitting? Sure, baseball has great athletes and split-second plays. But much rides on the decisions of the manager. It requires a strategy as sublime as for chess itself.
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
by T Darkstar on Apr 22, 2008 3:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to see a real Speedway somewhere in the region.
I will admit to liking racing and would love to see some in person. I also like the NHL and do not have a rooting interest in the immediate area.
This is me not lurking.
by PhilKenSebben on Apr 21, 2008 3:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I used to work at the races in Portland
It would have to be a track in the middle of no where. Our races had support ,but we were hammered by the neighbors because of the drag racing at PRI.
Tyler Hansbrough - Deep in the jeans he's wearing - I'm hooked and I can't stop staring.
by tominhawaii on Apr 21, 2008 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those races are loud
Until last year I worked in North Portland and all summer there’s a hum in the air. The big races, it’s quite a loud hum. And we were at least 2 miles away.
I actually live what must be 6 miles from PIR, and on a clear day with a big race, I can hear the hum at my house.
It didn’t bother me much, but I can imagine why close neighbors would hate it.
by Section323 on Apr 27, 2008 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have loved the Mariners but...
... it’s gotten harder and harder to maintain that after the past few years. Their entire front office is every fan’s nightmare, from Lincoln to Bavasi. I could never switch to another team UNLESS that team hailed from Portland, Oregon. Then, heck yes I would dump the M’s and support Portland’s team.
by BlazerD on Apr 21, 2008 3:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was a pretty big bandwagon M's fan back in the 90's
And I was wiling to stay that way. But the continuing mediocrity in addition to some of the bafflingly bad FA signings made it tough to keep following.
Not only are they a pretty average team (count me among those who say they ran into a lot of luck last season) but they’re boring as heck to watch. Ichiro is exciting, but who else in that lineup do you pay to watch hit? Compare that lneup to Boston’s, or the Yankees, or even the Mets or the Rockies or the Diamondbacks. C’mon who are we fooling here? You could argue Putz is exciting – but only if the M’s have the lead. Fernandez has the potential to be exciting.
I think the personalities got progressively worse too, and this current group isn’t exactly winning hearts and minds across the region.
by leeroyjenkins on Apr 21, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Felix
is incredible… he is very exciting. But that only makes one day out of 5 where the Mariners are really exciting to watch. If Portalnd ever got a MLB team I would jump to supporting them in a heartbeat.
by TheW0P on Apr 21, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Felix is amazing
Rest of the team (except for Ichiro and Beltre) sucks hairy potatoes.
by BlazerD on Apr 21, 2008 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jose Lopez is looking good early
but all you need to know about the M’s thus far are that Putz and Bedard are on the DL, the bullpen is terrible, Ibanez is still allowed to play in the field, and Sexson, Vidro, and Wilkerson take up three regular positions.
They’re bad, but the division is so bad that they may have a shot.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by Addicted to Quack on Apr 21, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fortune 500 companies and billionaires
Are a major factor. They buy luxury boxes, often will title-sponsor facilities, and many engage in lots of philanthropy in their home regions (where the headquarters is located, primarily).
Guess what? Portland (the city)... doesn’t have any Fortune 500 corps.
The metro area does have one, Nike. And Nike, due to its unique position in the world of sports, is unlikely to back one particular pro team or market, and risk alienating the rest. Nike does ownsponsor the U of O athletic department, but the NCAA doesn’t permit college athletes to sign endorsement deals with shoe companies—only whole colleges can do that.
Billionaires? The state has one—Phil Knight. Nobody else comes close.
The lack of huge philanthropic muscle really hurts Portland when it comes to attracting pro franchises. We have to borrow a billionaire from Seattle to run the Blazers; beyond Paul Allen (and Phil Knight, who has long expressed disdain for owning a pro franchise of any sort), who in town has the dollars and clout to get this stuff done?
Why we lack large local coprorations, is an interesting topic for debate. Some will claim that Oregon (Portland, in particular) is a left-wing tax-hell that no sane corporation will move to. Others will note that many worse LWTHs (New York, Massachusets) are massive engines of commerce, and suggest that a lack of necessary economic infrastructure (access to venture capital, quality universities-OSU, UO, and PSU, aren’t elite schools in anyones book) inhibits the area’s ability to attract big-name outfits (or grow our own)-and that the Salem’s unwillingness to properly finance education and infrastructure is the problem. Or maybe the root cause is a simple lack of sufficient “old money”-after all, it’s rich dudes with well-established and stable fortunes, and deep roots to the community, that often donate money to fund universities, VC funds, and civic/cultural enterprises such as sports arenas. Oregon has long lacked a robust social roster full of families who like donating money to get their names in the paper. The few locals who DO sit on billion-dollar (or multimillion-dollar) fortunes have either mostly ignored local politics, or expressed disdain for the local political scene. The “old money” that is in Portland-families like the Naitos, the Schnitzers, etc.-simply aren’t wealthy enough to play in the big leagues. For whatever reason-the Steve Ballmers, the Jeff Bezos’, etc.-the guys in Seattle willing to write multigazillion-dollar checks to save the Sonics-are not to be found around here. When Allen was looking to sell; it quickly became apparent that there was no local entity willing to buy the team; prospective bidders were various investment groups who, despite pooling the assets of multiple entreprenuers, still were in need of financing.
So, please-anyone reading this post. If you really want to bring a MLB, MLS, NFL team to town-make a gazillion dollars and buy us one. Otherwise, it ain’t likely to happen.
by EngineerScotty on Apr 21, 2008 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Portland has some great schools
Outside of the ones you mentioned – Reed, Lewis & Clark, University of Portland, etc. We obviously don’t have Boston’s or New York’s universities but this isn’t why Portland doesn’t have an MLB team or Oregon doesn’t have a more vibrant economy – though improvements in this area would definitely help attract more good people.
As far as tax breaks, etc. for businesses, Oregon is actually one of the most business friendly states in the nation right now. The problem is that we aren’t working hard enough to attract companies to locate here, the problem is we are just getting branch offices – companies aren’t basing themselves out of here.
by BlazerD on Apr 21, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno
portland has no problem spending a ton of tax money on revitalizing parts of the city…yet they do things that make it harder and harder for people to shop downtown. a lot of the businesses downtown are struggling…and if tri met eliminates the fareless square, then there really isn’t any incentive to shopping down there, when you can easily shop at lloyd center without paying for parking.
by Philthyanimal on Apr 23, 2008 1:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
trimet has already decided against eliminating fareless square
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/01/trimet_backs_away_from_limit_o.html
Well, it’s not actually a final decision, but the public outcry was fast and strong, so I think the decision has been made.
by Section323 on Apr 27, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
totally agree
the “left wing tax hell” is probably a strong enough reason to keep businesses from thriving here. some of the most promising companies here have gone thru tough times like infocus and now columbia sportswear.
by Philthyanimal on Apr 23, 2008 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"LWTH" isn't what's hurt InFocus.
They’re not in Portland, for one thing (they’re in Wilsonville)—the main thing that has hurt them is competition from larger eletronics manufacturers, as projectors have become commodity items.
I suspect the tax situation isn’t the big issue. California isn’t exactly a low-tax state, but it has tons of large companies and startups. What Silicon Valley has that the Forest doesnt have is a) a large pool of investors willing to fund startups (but who insist that they be local); c) quite a few local top-notch engineering schools (Stanford, Berkeley, UC-Santa Cruz, etc.) If you want to do a startup around here—good luck finding venture capital.
by EngineerScotty on Apr 23, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh
I’m not a sports nut and thus I’m not overly enthused by other sports. I’m actually anti-baseball because I think it’s a stupid game if you’re not playing it. I enjoy playing it for fun, but watching… i’d rather watch golf. it’s more exciting with all the cuts in and out. (Yes I’m serious about that… fell asleep watching an NBA game, once, and woke up watching golf, and it wasn’t that bad)
I’d be into football, but the point of it being out of range is a good one. The facility would have to have multiple uses.
So i have a question:
Is there any reason why it couldn’t be an indoor stadium that could also house hockey/baseball/soccer? A stadium that had flexibility seems like it might work… yes? You could also use it as a convention center or for concerts.
"No way. I love this town. We're gonna bring back the glory years. These boys are my boys. This is my team and my town." - Greg Oden when asked about leaving.
by ratbastird on Apr 21, 2008 2:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a fan though
and I don’t know that I’d ever want to invest my tax dollars unless I saw a large return on investment at some clearly defined point in the future.
"No way. I love this town. We're gonna bring back the glory years. These boys are my boys. This is my team and my town." - Greg Oden when asked about leaving.
by ratbastird on Apr 21, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
maybe we can get a private company to take over the project bc our local government cant seem to break even on anything. The tram, the convention center, the convention center expansion, the max…
by Philthyanimal on Apr 23, 2008 1:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
162 games is way too many
So I’m ok without baseball.
by leeroyjenkins on Apr 21, 2008 2:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You don't have to watch all of them.
Trade Freeland!
by rockingharder on Apr 21, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Football
Im pretty sure the NFL and Seattle have a deal wherein the Seahawks have the rights to the Portland Market, and NFL is very much against competition to Seattle.
Maybe in 10 years though?
Everytime Raef checks into a game, an angel gets its wings.
by Outlaw is Rejector on Apr 22, 2008 4:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
honestly
i wanted NFL really badly..but the more i think about it…i’d rather have nba than nfl in our situation for the following reason. there are 41 home games in nba…only 8 in nfl. i have no problem making 8 road trips up to seattle…but i know for damn sure that i would not do the same if it was the nba i was driving to.
by Philthyanimal on Apr 23, 2008 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLB is Brutal to watch....
I don’t know how there is so many HUGE baseball fans. I loved playing baseball, and I have enjoyed going to games at the Mariners, Cubs, A’s, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Phillies, etc., but I don’t see how we could get enough fan-fare to fill out a stadium MLB-sized for 80+ home games. No way, the sport of Baseball is slow and methodical and is being phased out slowly by the youth of America in favor of LaCrosse which is now played by kids during the same season as Baseball.
The post said that LaCrosse is a “take it or leave it” sport/ticket, but I went to 3 home games by the Lumberjax this year and it was Kick @$$! Fast paced, hard hitting, high scoring game that is actually so fun, that when i left the arena i was always jacked up and excited. Going to baseball games on the other hand… when I leave I am exhausted or ready to sleep on my drive back to Portland. Those MLB games throughout the season don’t have near the excitement, cost more money, and take up way more time than other sports like Basketball (NBA), Soccer (MLS) and LaCrosse (NLL).
I am a football fanatic, but I still think a pro “kick-and-chase” team would be a lot of fun. Soccer is face paced and fans can go and have a blast. MLS would be a huge success here in Portland, as Soccer seems to keep growing with kids and adults here.
NBA (Blazers), MLS (Timbers, if they keep their name?), NLL (Lumberjacks), are our best bets for serious pro franchises, I wouldn’t want to see Portland try and spend money on Baseball, there are enough not-full stadiums around the country that we don’t need to spend our money there. Soccer and LaCrosse are two sports that continue to grow in popularity and are much more exciting fan events (IMHO). Check out the Lumberjax next season, it is a good ticket: They are in the Rose Garden, they pump cool rock music throughout the game to set the tone, and there is a ton of contact and ball-movement, I’d much rather watch NLL over MLB anyday. Same with the Timbers, if our Timbers were in the “premier” league of USA soccer (the MLS) and they had a great stadium to play in I would definitely go see it. I would go see MLS over MLB as well.
The chance we had with tribal money looking to build a stadium/casino in the heart of Portland was a great opportunity where the community wouldn’t have had to pay any money to get a MLB team here. With that chance gone, i don’t see a need for us to get on with a sport that has no TV presence and is really only a viable business for less than half of the MLB owners (oh and 100% of its players).
by Portland Dynasty on Apr 22, 2008 1:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Addicted It's interesting you bring up Bennett
Where, other than where Key is at now, which is in the Seattle Center as you say, would another arena? I’m assuming you’ve been to Seattle? Do you have an idea of what traffic to Renton around 5pm is like on a daily basis? Not to mention the lack of other transportation to get there. Bennett had no interest in renovating Key, and he had no interest in Seattle period. It was a total bamboozle job.
The problem with Seattle is unique. Just like the Kings situation in Sacramento is unique. Usually every arena/stadium is generally an unique situation.
For the record, unless Greg Nichols, and Slade Gorton, the gentleman prosecuting the case for the city of Seattle, decide to drop the lawsuit for whatever reason (money, expansion team whatever), then that’s the only way Bennett is clear of this.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Apr 23, 2008 2:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs


























