Blue Jays fire JP Riccardi

[kq76]

I'll admit, I was thrilled when they brought Gaston back and couldn't have been happier when he led them to an above .500 record to end last season and start this season, but after these last few months I'm fine with dumping him. Just reading his comments convinces me that he's lost whatever magic he may have had so let him go to pasture, he'll get his money for next year. The next GM will most likely want a new guy anyway so it was probably inevitable.

I just wonder now if we want to keep Arnsberg or not as he sounds like the best coaching talent we have. If he's still as good as some say, I hope we don't lose him too.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by kq76

I'll admit, I was thrilled when they brought Gaston back and couldn't have been happier when he led them to an above .500 record to end last season and start this season, but after these last few months I'm fine with dumping him. Just reading his comments convinces me that he's lost whatever magic he may have had so let him go to pasture, he'll get his money for next year. The next GM will most likely want a new guy anyway so it was probably inevitable.

ya we could always get another manager.....like Yost for example....

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by kq76

I'll admit, I was thrilled when they brought Gaston back and couldn't have been happier when he led them to an above .500 record to end last season and start this season, but after these last few months I'm fine with dumping him. Just reading his comments convinces me that he's lost whatever magic he may have had so let him go to pasture, he'll get his money for next year. The next GM will most likely want a new guy anyway so it was probably inevitable.

I just wonder now if we want to keep Arnsberg or not as he sounds like the best coaching talent we have. If he's still as good as some say, I hope we don't lose him too.

Agreed. I was happy when they brought him back too. The timing was right for that. But I think it's over now.

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

I'd bet money the folks complaining are largely the ones sucking ass.



Compared to whose replaced him between his first and second incarnation, I dont' hold much, if any faith in them hiring anyone better.



Could they have really done any better with another manager? Probably not. Not trying to be a Gaston apologist, but the record, and the current staff not comparing to when the Jays were good doesn't hurt.

No this team wouldn't have been better with a different manager. No way. I just think they need to get someone next year, along with a refreshed perspective on how to run a freakin' ballclub, because whatever we're doing now, it's not working.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

So glad the Jays fired him. I don't believe it's impossible to compete in the AL East, that it's simply a crutch that he used for years to complain about how poor he did his job.

The AL East is a big part of the problem, as I said before.

Let's take a look at the number of times clubs from each division have qualified for the playoffs from 1995-2009.

Number of post-season appearances, 1995-2009

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East    Central   West
------------------------
NYA 14   CLE  7   ANA  6
BOS  9   MIN  4   OAK  5
BAL  2   CHA  3   SEA  4
TBA  1   DET  1   TEX  3
TOR  0   KCA  0         
------------------------
    26       15       18

NATIONAL LEAGUE

East         Central  West
----------------------------
ATL     11   SLN  8   LAN  6
NYN      3   HOU  6   ARI  4
PHI      3   CHN  4   SDN  4
FLO      2   CIN  1   SFN  4
MON/WAS  0   MIL  1   COL  3
             PIT  0         
----------------------------
        19       20       21

There is one playoff spot yet to be determined in 2009, so either Minnesota's or Detroit's number will go up by one.

Other than the NL East, there is at least some decent variety in terms of clubs from a given division making the post-season. The West divsions in each league in particular show a fairly even distribution of qualifiers over the fifteen seasons.

It's interesting to note that the Yankees and Red Sox combined have more playoff appearances (23) than all the clubs in any of the other divisions put together (21 for the NL West as a whole). Indeed, the Yankees alone have almost as many post-season appearances (14) as does the entire AL Central Divsion (15). Note too how the total number of post-season appearances by each division is almost equally distributed in the NL, whereas in the AL the East Division dominates.

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The AL East is a big part of the problem, as I said before.

Let's take a look at the number of times clubs from each division have qualified for the playoffs from 1995-2009.

Number of post-season appearances, 1995-2009

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East    Central   West
------------------------
NYA 14   CLE  7   ANA  6
BOS  9   MIN  4   OAK  5
BAL  2   CHA  3   SEA  4
TBA  1   DET  1   TEX  3
TOR  0   KCA  0         
------------------------
    26       15       18

NATIONAL LEAGUE

East         Central  West
----------------------------
ATL     11   SLN  8   LAN  6
NYN      3   HOU  6   ARI  4
PHI      3   CHN  4   SDN  4
FLO      2   CIN  1   SFN  4
MON/WAS  0   MIL  1   COL  3
             PIT  0         
----------------------------
        19       20       21

There is one playoff spot yet to be determined in 2009, so either Minnesota's or Detroit's number will go up by one.

Other than the NL East, there is at least some decent variety in terms of clubs from a given division making the post-season. The West divsions in each league in particular show a fairly even distribution of qualifiers over the fifteen seasons.

It's interesting to note that the Yankees and Red Sox combined have more playoff appearances (23) than all the clubs in any of the other divisions put together (21 for the NL West as a whole).

Then again, you could look at the same chart and see that Toronto is one of only four teams to have zero playoff appearances in the past 15 years. Yeah, being in the AL East adds to the difficulty, but Tampa Bay showed it can be done. Maybe with a new direction Toronto can finally start to make some progress.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

ya we could always get another manager.....like Yost for example....

Just as long as they dont bring back Gibbons.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The AL East is a big part of the problem, as I said before.

Let's take a look at the number of times clubs from each division have qualified for the playoffs from 1995-2009.

Number of post-season appearances, 1995-2009
 
AMERICAN LEAGUE
 
East    Central   West
------------------------
NYA 14   CLE  7   ANA  6
BOS  9   MIN  4   OAK  5
BAL  2   CHA  3   SEA  4
TBA  1   DET  1   TEX  3
TOR  0   KCA  0         
------------------------
    26       15       18
 
NATIONAL LEAGUE
 
East         Central  West
----------------------------
ATL     11   SLN  8   LAN  6
NYN      3   HOU  6   ARI  4
PHI      3   CHN  4   SDN  4
FLO      2   CIN  1   SFN  4
MON/WAS  0   MIL  1   COL  3
             PIT  0         
----------------------------
        19       20       21

There is one playoff spot yet to be determined in 2009, so either Minnesota's or Detroit's number will go up by one.

Other than the NL East, there is at least some decent variety in terms of clubs from a given division making the post-season. The West divsions in each league in particular show a fairly even distribution of qualifiers over the fifteen seasons.

It's interesting to note that the Yankees and Red Sox combined have more playoff appearances (23) than all the clubs in any of the other divisions put together (21 for the NL West as a whole). Indeed, the Yankees alone have almost as many post-season appearances (14) as does the entire AL Central Divsion (15). Note too how the total number of post-season appearances by each division is almost equally distributed in the NL, whereas in the AL the East Division dominates.

Telling that my favorite 2 teams are the only 2 AL teams without a playoff appearance in those years.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

No this team wouldn't have been better with a different manager. No way. I just think they need to get someone next year, along with a refreshed perspective on how to run a freakin' ballclub, because whatever we're doing now, it's not working.

NO argument there. It hasn't worked for the last fifteen+ years though, so new personal doesn't' seem to make much difference. We've had six managers (not including Mel Queen's 4-1), at least two GM's (Gord Ash and JP....I'm forgetting someone?), and even changed ownership twice (possibly three times? when did InterBrew acquire the team?). Not to mention tons of new players have come and gone. So ya from top to bottom, the faces change, but the poor performance stays the same.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The AL East is a big part of the problem, as I said before.

Let's take a look at the number of times clubs from each division have qualified for the playoffs from 1995-2009.

Number of post-season appearances, 1995-2009

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East    Central   West
------------------------
NYA 14   CLE  7   ANA  6
BOS  9   MIN  4   OAK  5
BAL  2   CHA  3   SEA  4
TBA  1   DET  1   TEX  3
TOR  0   KCA  0         
------------------------
    26       15       18

NATIONAL LEAGUE

East         Central  West
----------------------------
ATL     11   SLN  8   LAN  6
NYN      3   HOU  6   ARI  4
PHI      3   CHN  4   SDN  4
FLO      2   CIN  1   SFN  4
MON/WAS  0   MIL  1   COL  3
             PIT  0         
----------------------------
        19       20       21

There is one playoff spot yet to be determined in 2009, so either Minnesota's or Detroit's number will go up by one.

Other than the NL East, there is at least some decent variety in terms of clubs from a given division making the post-season. The West divsions in each league in particular show a fairly even distribution of qualifiers over the fifteen seasons.

It's interesting to note that the Yankees and Red Sox combined have more playoff appearances (23) than all the clubs in any of the other divisions put together (21 for the NL West as a whole). Indeed, the Yankees alone have almost as many post-season appearances (14) as does the entire AL Central Divsion (15). Note too how the total number of post-season appearances by each division is almost equally distributed in the NL, whereas in the AL the East Division dominates.

So we're pretty much stuck in a division that has two teams that can buy and sell our asses. Yep nothing new there. Baltimore tried to play the salary game and got some paydirt in 1996 and got burned with bloated contracts and depleted minors soon afterwards, and haven't been able top p[lay that game since. Tampa Bay I'll explain in a minute.

Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck

Then again, you could look at the same chart and see that Toronto is one of only four teams to have zero playoff appearances in the past 15 years. Yeah, being in the AL East adds to the difficulty, but Tampa Bay showed it can be done. Maybe with a new direction Toronto can finally start to make some progress.

Tampa Bay got the combination of having talented youngsters playing their best all at once before their contracts were up. In short, lightning in a bottle. As we saw this year it was a bit of a fluke, and with contracts coming due, they, like us and Baltimore, will not have the cash to outbid the Yankees, RSox, Dodgers/Angels and their ilk. They'll be back in a three way fight for the best of the rest with us again (and will probably win, as they seem to be focused on the game and not on having their ego stroked by the manager)

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Just as long as they dont bring back Gibbons.

Actually Gibbons was one of the better managers we've had during this time, with our only finish above third since 1993 and two winning seasons in four years. Wasn't he one that wasn't liked by his players too?

Or Tim Johnson. One year, Winning percentage of .543%..best we've had in one season since 1993.......and I think he wasnt' liked by his players either? (someone please confirm or deny that one, it's been a while)

From what I've been reading Cito has the second lowest winning percentage of managers since 1993. He also had those horrible teams post WS/strike to sink that percentage as well. And out of all the managers that we've had, haent' the majority been canned after players started complaining/whining about them? That tells me two things; having players do your coach hirings is an excersize in fail, and they should have told to stop playing like ****, and get back to concentrating on their jobs instead of their egos.

[damientheomen3]

tbh i feel that as long as the Jays can stay healthy they can contend next year without needing to go all fire sale. Obviously Roy Halladay is Roy Halladay, Dustin McGowan and Jesse Litsch have proven that they can handle starting in the majors.Ricky Romero has a lot of potential, and Brett Cecil could be a decent back end starter one day, plus the team has Shawn Marcum. The emergence of the offense, paired with their potentially strong rotation, should put them in contention, as long as they can stay healthy, which is never a given because of the cold weather in Toronto.

[stevebydac]

Originally Posted by kq76

Being in the AL East it might make sense because they probably just can't compete on an ongoing basis with those two behemoth payrolls and so maybe all you can really do realistically is hope to catch lightning in a bottle like Tampa Bay did last year

I agree that NY and Boston are tough competitors, but it is a fallacy to suggest that Toronto can't compete economically. Toronto is definitely a big market. According to this list, NY is the number one metro in North America, Boston is 8th, and Toronto is 9th. USA/Canada/Mexico metropolitan area ranking

At a quick glance, it actually gives Toronto the 6th largest baseball market (once you divide Chicago's metro # between the Cubs and White Sox, and San. Fran's #s between the Giants and A's, Toronto moves ahead of them). So it's 1/2 Yankees/Mets, 3/4 Dodgers/Angels, 5 Philadelphia, 6 Boston, 7 Toronto. The Blue Jays could spend a TON of money, if they wanted to.

And the Jays, if they're smart, should market their brand as "Canada's Team". They could have one of the biggest followings in MLB if they marketed themselves intelligently.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck

Then again, you could look at the same chart and see that Toronto is one of only four teams to have zero playoff appearances in the past 15 years. Yeah, being in the AL East adds to the difficulty, but Tampa Bay showed it can be done.

I suggest you take a closer look at those numbers. A one-off division title or playoff appearance gives the club a nice boost to interest and revenue that season, but if the team is unable to sustain that success over a number of seasons, it goes right back down to where it was.

[Delgadodawg]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

tbh i feel that as long as the Jays can stay healthy they can contend next year without needing to go all fire sale. Obviously Roy Halladay is Roy Halladay, Dustin McGowan and Jesse Litsch have proven that they can handle starting in the majors.Ricky Romero has a lot of potential, and Brett Cecil could be a decent back end starter one day, plus the team has Shawn Marcum. The emergence of the offense, paired with their potentially strong rotation, should put them in contention, as long as they can stay healthy, which is never a given because of the cold weather in Toronto.

I am not this optimistic at all, even if they keep Halladay. McGowan hasn't pitched in a over a year and a half and is coming off his second major arm surgery (and knee surgery).
Litsch is not at top end starter IMO -- maybe a 4th or 5th guy. He had a solid season in '08, but a bit lucky. He is a starter who doesn't K many and gives up a bunch of homers. Plus he is coming off major arm surgery.
Cecil has talent, but he hasn't shown that he can be an effective/consistent starter yet.
I like Marcum, but again he is a big question mark.
Rzepczynski and Romero will hopefully build off good starts to their careers, but even if they do the Jays are still a little ways from having a dominant rotation.

Hill, Lind and Snider are great to build a lineup around but.....they currently have zero potential at catcher, short and third. First base isn't very strong especially after Overbay departs. Lind eventually will have to move to first or DH because he is pretty weak in the OF.
But if this happens after Snider and Wells we have nobody for the 3rd OF position.

The Jays definitely have some solid pieces, but they have way, way too many holes to even think about competing with the Sox or Yankees. Even if they miraculously have a good FA period.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by stevebydac

I agree that NY and Boston are tough competitors, but it is a fallacy to suggest that Toronto can't compete economically. Toronto is definitely a big market. According to this list, NY is the number one metro in North America, Boston is 8th, and Toronto is 9th. USA/Canada/Mexico metropolitan area ranking

You're making the mistake of thinking that metro area population is the key determinant. That is not necessarily so. A good population base certainly helps, but if that population isn't interested in baseball, then no matter how large the city is the club won't succeed. Look at the NHL's troubles in putting clubs into cities with large populations but with little interest in hockey.

Interest in baseball in the city was damaged by the strike, and then the performance struggles of the club slowly eroded away much of the fan base. I suspect also the rise in Maple Leafs mania plays a role, as well as the changing demographics of the city.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

The Blue Jays could spend a TON of money, if they wanted to.

To spend a ton of money, they need the revenue. They haven't got it. Consider:

The last season in which the Blue Jays had a per game attendance which matched the AL average was 1998; every season since then it has been below league average, with 2002 being the worst at just 74% of the AL average. It had reached 97% of the AL average in 2008, but attendance was down by nearly 22% this year, dropping its percentage of AL average to 82%. The club cannot even match the league average in attendance, let alone surpass it, so ticket sales certainly aren't going to provide the necessary revenue.

The Jays also don't have a regional sports network, something which has played a huge role in boosting the media revenues of clubs like the Yankees and Red Sox. There doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of interest for Rogers to operate SportsNet as such a RSN for the Jays (curiously, many Jays games are aired on TSN, a rival sports network).

The fundamental economic structure of baseball has changed enormously since the early 1990s. Consider the top five MLB Aug. 31 official payrolls in 1992 and 1993:

1992

1 - Toronto Blue Jays - $49,427,166
2 - Oakland Athletics - $48,029,667
3 - New York Mets - $44,009,334
4 - Boston Red Sox - $42,138,665
5 - Los Angeles Dodgers - $42,050,166

1993

1 - Toronto Blue Jays - $51,935,034
2 - Atlanta Braves - $47,206,416
3 - New York Yankees - $46,588,791
4 - Boston Red Sox - $46,164,788
5 - Chicago White Sox - $42,115,723

The Jays essentially spent their way into the top echelons, at a time when the differences between the top payroll teams was relatively small.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

And the Jays, if they're smart, should market their brand as "Canada's Team". They could have one of the biggest followings in MLB if they marketed themselves intelligently.

You're overlooking the degree to which many areas of the country dislike the city of Toronto. There was even a comedic documentary on the subject, Let's All Hate Toronto.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

At a quick glance, it actually gives Toronto the 6th largest baseball market (once you divide Chicago's metro # between the Cubs and White Sox, and San. Fran's #s between the Giants and A's, Toronto moves ahead of them).

Studies have shown that dividing the population in half for two-team cities is not correct. In reality, there is a lot of cross-over in fan interest between the clubs, and interest in the sport in general is raised by the presence of a second club. The best statistical fit has come by making no adjustment to market size for two-team cities; the next best fit is by assigning a value of 70%-80% of the market size to each club. The lowest fit was by dividing the market in half.

[Left-handed Badger]

Hasnt the NHL tried expanding into the southern US lately. (since I know little about hockey, I dont even know the teams). That is kind of detriment. We just dont know anything about hockey on average down here. No opportunity to play the game when little, which hurts chances of developing interest in the sport. The only places in the South at all with really the capability to facilitate hockey would be some of the big cities. ANd even then it is easier just easier to use such potential places for football/basketball/baseball/soccer than hockey. (I assume you need ice for hockey. )

I've actually wanted to get to know about hockey in the past, but there is just literally no one around that knows anything about it either to explain it.

[canadiancreed]

The internet is then your friend, and roller hockey works nicely when there's no ice around (it's what we do in the summer)

And LGO pretty much nailed it. We're not outspending the top tier teams finance wise, and never will. Baseball will always be #2 in Toronto (behind the Leafs.....they like losers in the Big Smoke?) and if things progress, will be the #2 for summer based sports (behind Toronto FC), and this even with competent ownership (unlike Montreal, they knew they needed to actually advertise to their marketplace for example). The strike and baseball pretty much abandoning the Canadian market doesnt' help.

It's not like we're the only ones (I'd wager at least half the league is eliminated before the season even starts financially), but thats' what it is for the BLueJays.

[stevebydac]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You're making the mistake of thinking that metro area population is the key determinant. That is not necessarily so. A good population base certainly helps, but if that population isn't interested in baseball, then no matter how large the city is the club won't succeed. Look at the NHL's troubles in putting clubs into cities with large populations but with little interest in hockey.

Interest in baseball in the city was damaged by the strike, and then the performance struggles of the club slowly eroded away much of the fan base. I suspect also the rise in Maple Leafs mania plays a role, as well as the changing demographics of the city.

Good point about it being a hockey area. But aren't "performance struggles" the fault of the club? Make the club better, and attendance would improve, no? And (I'm not from Toronto) can you please explain the demographics change? How is that different from what other cities face?

To spend a ton of money, they need the revenue. They haven't got it. Consider:

The last season in which the Blue Jays had a per game attendance which matched the AL average was 1998; every season since then it has been below league average, with 2002 being the worst at just 74% of the AL average. It had reached 97% of the AL average in 2008, but attendance was down by nearly 22% this year, dropping its percentage of AL average to 82%. The club cannot even match the league average in attendance, let alone surpass it, so ticket sales certainly aren't going to provide the necessary revenue.

LGO, but their attendance drop coincided with their performance drop. Manage the team better, and attendance would improve. Toronto HAD great attendance. They aren't Tampa Bay or Florida who have always struggled with attendance.

The Jays also don't have a regional sports network, something which has played a huge role in boosting the media revenues of clubs like the Yankees and Red Sox. There doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of interest for Rogers to operate SportsNet as such a RSN for the Jays (curiously, many Jays games are aired on TSN, a rival sports network).

Another good point, my friend.

The fundamental economic structure of baseball has changed enormously since the early 1990s. Consider the top five MLB Aug. 31 official payrolls in 1992 and 1993:

1992

1 - Toronto Blue Jays - $49,427,166
2 - Oakland Athletics - $48,029,667
3 - New York Mets - $44,009,334
4 - Boston Red Sox - $42,138,665
5 - Los Angeles Dodgers - $42,050,166

1993

1 - Toronto Blue Jays - $51,935,034
2 - Atlanta Braves - $47,206,416
3 - New York Yankees - $46,588,791
4 - Boston Red Sox - $46,164,788
5 - Chicago White Sox - $42,115,723

The Jays essentially spent their way into the top echelons, at a time when the differences between the top payroll teams was relatively small.

You're overlooking the degree to which many areas of the country dislike the city of Toronto. There was even a comedic documentary on the subject, Let's All Hate Toronto.

The numbers above are actually helping my argument. So far we've determined that they used to be one of the top-attended teams in the league, the attendance dropped coinciding with poor baseball team building, and now you're showing they were able to spend with the biggest clubs in the league.

And while I was not aware that there is some anti-Toronto sentiment in Canada, there is still only one baseball club in the entire country. I'm sure good marketing could find a few handfuls of baseball fans (among 33,000,000) who aren't ready to nuke their country's largest city.

Studies have shown that dividing the population in half for two-team cities is not correct. In reality, there is a lot of cross-over in fan interest between the clubs, and interest in the sport in general is raised by the presence of a second club. The best statistical fit has come by making no adjustment to market size for two-team cities; the next best fit is by assigning a value of 70%-80% of the market size to each club. The lowest fit was by dividing the market in half.

Fair point, LGO. But using your 80% figure only boosts the Cubs/White Sox higher than Toronto (and Boston BTW). It doesn't boost the others enough. So Toronto is still, then, the 9th largest MLB market, still only one slot behind Boston.

You've proven to me that Toronto isn't as baseball-crazy as Boston or St. Louis, but I'm not convinced they can't be successful. Their market is still in the top ten of MLB, and they've had great attendance when they were managed better.

Don't misunderstand, I wish you folks the best. You deserve a good team. My heart goes out to you.

[Johnny Canuck]

It's quite true that Toronto won't be able to quite compete with the Yankees & Red Sox financially, but that is hardly the only way to success. IMHO, the Blue Jays have to be better at drafting & developing their own talent - that is the way to compete. Moreover, it can be done - again, look at Tampa Bay (IMHO, I wouldn't call them a 1-year wonder yet - besides, banners fly forever, & 1 > 0). Good drafts & good minors not only develop low-cost, club-controlled players, but provide bargaining chips to acquire quality player (as an alternative to overpaying for free agents). Look at my team, Detroit. They are hardly in a big market, and as large as their payroll is, their quality contributors are either home-grown (Verlander, Granderson, Porcello) or were acquired for minor-leaguers (Cabrera, Jackson). There is no reason, IMHO, that Toronto couldn't follow the same path (subject to the general luck that all teams need).

What Toronto needs to do, IMHO, is aim to compete ca. 2012-2013, when they will still have Hill, Lind, Snider, & the young pitchers under club control. Thus, Halladay & anyone else with trade value should be dealt now for good prospects - hopefully a couple will work out & contribute at next to no cost by 2012-2013. That's why not dealing Halladay (& Scutaro for that matter) at the trade deadline was practically criminal, & why Riccardi needed to go (among other reasons). Put a good GM & management team in place, & the Jays can be competitive & have a chance at the playoffs with the next five years, as the foundation is there.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by stevebydac

Good point about it being a hockey area. But aren't "performance struggles" the fault of the club? Make the club better, and attendance would improve, no?

Possibly. Toronto baseball attendance isn't like say Chicago where you'll have folks show up regardless of how horrible the team is, they'll demand a winner. Funny enough there's a lot of those fan that will not expect the same from other teams in that market. Weird that.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

And (I'm not from Toronto) can you please explain the demographics change? How is that different from what other cities face?

I was wondering about that as well but I'd assume it's about the population of Toronto have over half of it's population being born outside the country.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

LGO, but their attendance drop coincided with their performance drop.

Actually the first year is subpar performance, they had 50k per game attendance. The next year? 39k. How did they lose 20% of their attendance per game in one year? Have a look at the year.

1994 SkyDome 50,573
1995 SkyDome 39,257

Originally Posted by stevebydac

They aren't Tampa Bay or Florida who have always struggled with attendance.

They have great attendance when they consistently win, and by win I mean pennants, world series, and what not. .500 seasons dont' cut it. They didn't break the two million a year mark until they were in contention for a pennant in 1984 (granted they still in the wind tunnel that was Exhibition Stadium), but even in the SkyDome their attendance figures were bouyed first by the novelity, then the winning of four pennants, two AL flags and two WS in five years (1989-93). The reason that we're not seeing returns to sub two million attendance figures is because with the SkyDome, your not freezing your ass off for games in April and May. That Lake Ontario breeze can get quite nippy.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

Good point about it being a hockey area. But aren't "performance struggles" the fault of the club? Make the club better, and attendance would improve, no?

Possibly. Toronto baseball attendance isn't like say Chicago where you'll have folks show up regardless of how horrible the team is, they'll demand a winner. Funny enough there's a lot of those fan that will not expect the same from other teams in that market. Weird that.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

And (I'm not from Toronto) can you please explain the demographics change? How is that different from what other cities face?

I was wondering about that as well but I'd assume it's about the population of Toronto have over half of it's population being born outside the country.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

So far we've determined that they used to be one of the top-attended teams in the league, the attendance dropped coinciding with poor baseball team building, and now you're showing they were able to spend with the biggest clubs in the league.

Some counterpoints:

1) Attendance dropped with the strike aftermath. Poor team building and inability to spend like drunken sailors has kept them there.
2) They were also able to spend with the big boys when baseball salaries for stars were a few million a year. Now when you have to spend that for average/below average players, and the revenue amount has stayed static, it's not happening. There's only one place that people will spend stupid amounts of cash on seats, and thats' down the street from the Skydome.

Also their revenue stream is not in American currency, but their salaries are. It's not an issue now due to Canadian currency being buoyed by oil and the weakness of the US dollar, but that's always going to be a concern and is a handicap that no-one else will face in the league.

So I guess my point is that your statement that they could spend with the big boys is almost two decades out of date.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

And while I was not aware that there is some anti-Toronto sentiment in Canada, there is still only one baseball club in the entire country. I'm sure good marketing could find a few handfuls of baseball fans (among 33,000,000) who aren't ready to nuke their country's largest city.

I'm not putting as much weight into the whole "we hate Toronto so we wont' root for a Toronto team over a yankee one" as the main reason for that.....well ok maybe some hardline folks in Quebec that hate anything Canada but thats' an irrelevant minority. There is baseball interest but outside central Canada the interest is split. Vancouver area has some folks that follow the Mariners. The Twins have some folks in southern Winnipeg. Southwestern Ontario has had Tiger fans that date back generations (and made for interesting family dinners in 1987 I'm told), and out here in the East Coast, they advertise getaways to fly to Boston to catch a game due to the amount of Red Sox fans here.

However the amount of baseball interest now is a pale shadow of what it was pre-strike. In the early nineties there were I cant' speak for everyone in this country, but when the strike occurred, there wasn't' one fan that was into the sport that said enough and gave up interest in the sport. The Expos debacle only helped to cement such a result across the country with the impression that MLB has pretty much given up on having Canadian markets as viable markets. For example, in 1990, there were ten Canadian teams in the MLB minor league system:

AAA
Ottawa(07)
Calgary(02)
Edmonton(04)
Vancouver(99)

AA
London(93)

A
Hamilton(92)
St. catherines(99)
Welland(94)

Rookie
Lethbridge(98)
Medicine Hat(02)

The numbers in brackets is when the teams left; some for US based locations, others for the abyss that is dissolution. As you can see within six years of the strike, 60% were gone, and the last team left after ten years(Ottawa) was, to put it bluntly, on life support and should have moved long before it did. And this is after decades of baseball being nurtured as the summer sport here, with a rich history spanning back as far as the early beginnings of professional ball. All slowly washed away with greed and slight disregard. It's not just that there's no support for Toronto, it's that there's no support for professional baseball. There seems to be some teams holding on in the independent ranks so there's hope of a recovery, but I don't' see it anytime soon.

Originally Posted by stevebydac

Using your 80% figure only boosts the Cubs/White Sox higher than Toronto (and Boston BTW). It doesn't boost the others enough. So Toronto is still, then, the 9th largest MLB market, still only one slot behind Boston.

Are you basing this upon population figures? If so, the NHL has proven that population = market isn't' an assessment that should ever be used.

Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck

It's quite true that Toronto won't be able to quite compete with the Yankees & Red Sox financially, but that is hardly the only way to success. IMHO, the Blue Jays have to be better at drafting & developing their own talent - that is the way to compete.

Indeed and it's a way that they should be very familiar with. It's largely how they made it to their zenith int he mid 80's to early 90's. A competent front office will be needed here though, and that hasn't existed since Pat Gillick left.

[Le Grande Orange]

I'm going to offer the following data as it seems to show an interesting relationship between how the Maple Leafs perform in the NHL and how the Blue Jays do in terms of attendance.

        Jays     Jays   Maple Leafs
Year   Record   Per Gm  Playoff run
-----------------------------------
1977   54-107   21,263     2nd
1978   59-102   19,291     3rd
1979   53-109   17,675     2nd
1980   67-95    17,288     1st
1981   37-69    14,247     1st
1982   78-84    15,753   missed
1983   89-73    23,832     1st
1984   89-73    26,049   missed
1985   99-62    30,862   missed
1986   86-76    30,315     2nd
1987   96-66    34,302     2nd
1988   87-75    32,039     1st
1989   89-73    41,678   missed
1990   86-76    47,966     1st
1991   91-71    49,402   missed
1992   96-66    49,732   missed
1993   95-67    50,098     3rd
1994   55-60    49,287     3rd
1995   56-88    39,257     1st
1996   74-88    31,600     1st
1997   76-86    31,967   missed
1998   88-74    30,300   missed
1999   84-78    26,709     3rd
2000   83-79    21,058     2nd
2001   80-82    23,359     2nd
2002   78-84    20,221     3rd
2003   86-76    22,216     1st
2004   67-94    23,457     2nd
2005   80-82    24,876  no season
2006   87-75    28,422   missed
2007   83-79    29,144   missed
2008   86-76    29,627   missed

It seems perhaps the Jays were helped in that at the same time the Jays were doing well (late 1980s and early 1990s) the Maple Leafs were doing poorly. From 1989-92, the Leafs missed the Stanley Cup playoffs three times and were bounced in the first round the other time.

Notice how the Jays' attendance drops by 20% in 1995, and drops again in 1996 at the same time the Leafs were in their fourth consecutive season of making the playoffs. In the spring of 1997 and 1998, the Leafs miss the playoffs and the Jays' attendance stays relatively stable.

But look at the big drops in Jays attendance in 1999 and 2000, in spite of decent records. Those drops coincide with the realignment of the NHL which saw the Leafs go into the same division as Ottawa, Montreal, and Boston, and the Leafs making it to the 3rd round in the spring of 1999 (the Leafs were eliminated on May 31). The five seasons of 2000-04 which saw the Leafs making playoff runs saw the Jays' attendance remaining steady in the 22,000 range.

The 2004/05 NHL season was cancelled, so no Stanley Cup playoffs in the spring of 2005, and for the next three seasons after that the Leafs miss the playoffs, which at the same time sees the Blue Jays per game attendance figure rise nicely.

Now, of course, correlation is not causation, but the numbers are interesting nonetheless.