KCRag Forum

Kauffman is not a top 10 stadium... Not for anyone except maybe Royals fans.

KCDevin wrote: Kauffman is not a top 10 stadium... Not for anyone except maybe Royals fans.

espn.com, ballparks.com, cnnsi.com, have all 3 put kauffman in the top 10 of all stadiums, in the past 24 months.

Wrong:
ESPN
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/ballparks/010427.html

ballparks.com isn't a very valid source when compared to those like ESPN...

CnnSI:
http://www.cnnsi.com/2005/baseball/mlb/ ... =clnk&cd=1

If your going to make a statement like you did, provide a source with a link

Kauffman sucks and is in dire need of a renovation. And a Downtown Stadium is not an option whatsoever. It just isn't realistic atm...

KCDevin wrote:
http://www.cnnsi.com/2005/baseball/mlb/ ... =clnk&cd=1

devin, you have issues. that 2nd link opens a page that says error message.

there is a page from espn, in 2004, that put kauffman as number 10. i do not wish to spend the whole night looking for it, however, the other link your silly self provided was a fan poll, ummmm, yeah, if you swear by those, go to the thread titled question one in this forum, the popular opinion there is that the vote will pass. no, in 03 or 04, somewhere in there, espn put kauffman top 10. ballparks.com did last year, and just you telling me not to take A WEBSITE THAT IS DEVOTED TO STADIUMS seriously, does not mean i will.

how about espn the magazine which rated kauffman stadium 16th among mlb stadiums in the latest sportsnation poll.  i'll try and find an online link, but it's in the dec 05 or jan 06 issue.

shaffe wrote: how about espn the magazine which rated kauffman stadium 16th among mlb stadiums in the latest sportsnation poll.  i'll try and find an online link, but it's in the dec 05 or jan 06 issue.

so, that would put it ahead of 14 newer stadiums? intresting. but i thought according to the forum, it was a piece of shit?

i'm not trying to say it's a piece of shit, but it does practically nothing for the city in it's current locale, and it's sure as hell not worth a half billon dollars of investment.  here's the link to the poll, i must've miscounted when i read the article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsna ... &year=2006

shaffe wrote: i'm not trying to say it's a piece of shit, but it does practically nothing for the city in it's current locale, and it's sure as hell not worth a half billon dollars of investment.  here's the link to the poll, i must've miscounted when i read the article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsna ... &year=2006

what the fuck does that link have to do with a stadium ranking? NOTHING. that is a study on many other variables, but not a stadium ranking. nice find though.

and, again, the k is not getting a half a bil. they are getting 225m, and the rolling roof is to draw a superbowl

here, is a nice quote about kauffman, FROM THAT ARTICLE

History
Originally known as Royals Stadium, this ballpark is recognized throughout baseball as one the game's most beautiful.

i know, i know, we do not care what others think of our stadiums. we have been over that.

it's not worth dumping $225M into the K either.  i love it as much as anybody, but it's honestly not a good investment anymore.  and while retrun on the city doesn't have a direct effect on "stadium ranking" i would sincerely hope it's weighted in the minds of our leaders when deciding where to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money (lots of 'of's there).  no need to drop an f-bomb, this thread is supposed to be civil.

edit:  care to link to that quote?

shaffe wrote: it's not worth dumping $225M into the K either.  i love it as much as anybody, but it's honestly not a good investment anymore.  and while retrun on the city doesn't have a direct effect on "stadium ranking" i would sincerely hope it's weighted in the minds of our leaders when deciding where to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money (lots of 'of's there).  no need to drop an f-bomb, this thread is supposed to be civil.

edit:  care to link to that quote?

dude, it is within the link you posted. click on it. click on kansas city royals, click on stadium history.

you must be doing something different than i am; when i click on 'kansas city royals' it takes me to the royals page on the espn.com network, and from there i can't find anything about stadium history.  i also ask you what that has to do with 2006?

shaffe wrote: you must be doing something different than i am; when i click on 'kansas city royals' it takes me to the royals page on the espn.com network, and from there i can't find anything about stadium history.  i also ask you what that has to do with 2006?

goddamnit shaffe, click on kcr, go down the right side of that new page, you will see a picture of the stadium, right underneath it, stadium profile, click it.

what does that have to do with 2006? go through ALL 30 teams shown on there, and see how many it says that about in stadium profile. one.

easy there buddy, i guess i overlooked it.  my point is that while announcers and whatnot say it's beautiful, that doesn't justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.  you have to think about what the city is getting back for their $225M.  very little.  kauffman is a very nice park, but it's starting to deteriorate and decline, and the cost of making it truely great again isn't worth it.

shaffe wrote:   kauffman is a very nice park, but it's starting to deteriorate and decline, and the cost of making it truely great again isn't worth it.

which, would be the point of renovating it.

shaffe wrote:   my point is that while announcers and whatnot say it's beautiful, that doesn't justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.

again, we sit here and act as though only OUR opinions matter. listen to what others around the country say. people like it, and are thinking we are crazy for wanting a new one ( mlb executives i mean )

this thing is POINTLESS, trying to get the royals, and the citzens, to do something they overwhelmingly do not want......a downtown park. good god, we need to really move on from this one.


if you go back to the sos website, they have now added the dtc back, after a vote of 25-4, to endorse it. and, the mayor, and 20 different local unions. sounds like it is picking up steam to me!!!!!

....sorry about that. I deleted the thread as a dupe, and when i came back, this had been linked to that.

how long that take you??

you need any more pictures of me and my gingerbread? i have several!

kcdcchef wrote: History
Originally known as Royals Stadium, this ballpark is recognized throughout baseball as one the game's most beautiful.

This is the problem.  We need to get over this crap about a "beautiful" stadium and get a FUNCTIONAL stadium that INTEGRATES with the area around it.  The K may be beautiful so STARE AT THE NAKED PICTURES YOU HAVE OF IT HANGING UP ALL AROUND YOUR HOME.  Stop wasting our time on it.

lock&load wrote: This is the problem.  We need to get over this crap about a "beautiful" stadium and get a FUNCTIONAL stadium that INTEGRATES with the area around it.  The K may be beautiful so STARE AT THE NAKED PICTURES YOU HAVE OF IT HANGING UP ALL AROUND YOUR HOME.  Stop wasting our time on it.

you are right lockandload, we should not worry about having a beautiful stadium, and go after some lifeless dump like the piece of crap they built in cincinatti, just to have a downtown stadium, or, even better, that shithole on the south side of chicago

kcdcchef wrote: you are right lockandload, we should not worry about having a beautiful stadium, and go after some lifeless dump like the piece of crap they built in cincinatti, just to have a downtown stadium, or, even better, that shithole on the south side of chicago

Is your head stuck up a Cincinnati ass?  Pittsburgh and Cincy are not the only urban stadiums.  Denver, StL, San Francisco......oh yeah, you can't see that far.