Toronto Rogers Centre Renovations | ?m | ?s | Toronto Blue Jays | Populous

Are you seriously asking that a moderator explain the concept or prevalence of citation? Just post the URL; 42's not asking for a style guide-approved bibliography here.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you're right. I'll keep in mind next time.
 
I like your optimism but I don't expect anything quite as ambitious to be announced regarding the dome this off-season. I actually think their dunedin facility is going to be priority judging from some of Shapiro's earlier comments. But perhaps they will announce some interior alterations and opening up spaces for more Flightdeck opportunities mentioned in the article. Not sure about the whole roof revamp, I would think the extent to which alterations are made to the roof are dependent on the outcome of this rather extensive grass study. Unless of course there are issues regarding the roof's life-span...?
 
I think one issue regarding the roof is that there are parts that were built for the dome that no longer can be found today, making repairs difficult.
 
I don't think anyone should be holding their breath for grass. It's a massively expensive and complicated endeavour with questionable benefits.

Perhaps more importantly, since taking his post, Mark Shapiro has been very careful to point out at every opportunity that they're just studying the idea and really hasn't communicated any grand desire for it.
 
I think there are benefits, though. Besides the aesthetics, a lot of players don't like playing on turf. If the turf is one reason why some players don't want to play here, that's something to consider. That and the wear it can take on players bodies.
 
T.E.C.II said:
I think there are benefits, though. Besides the aesthetics, a lot of players don't like playing on turf. If the turf is one reason why some players don't want to play here, that's something to consider. That and the wear it can take on players bodies.
Click to expand...

Both those assumptions are unproven. And, even if we knew the wear and tear angle to be true, would that make worth spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars?
 
ADRM said:
even if we knew the wear and tear angle to be true, would that make worth spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars?
Click to expand...

is that a real question?

If the wear and tear angle is true, Rogers should be ASHAMED of themselves for not pursuing this.
 
Of course it's a real question; 1) We don't know if it's true, and 2) Degree certainly matters - if there is some sort of relationship and the net difference it makes is, say, 2 missed games per player across the course of a career, then would you reasonably expect Rogers to spend a couple hundred million dollars on addressing it?
 
ADRM said:
Of course it's a real question; 1) We don't know if it's true, and 2) Degree certainly matters - if there is some sort of relationship and the net difference it makes is, say, 2 missed games per player across the course of a career, then would you reasonably expect Rogers to spend a couple hundred million dollars on addressing it?
Click to expand...


In your scenario, you said if it WERE true so that doesn't need to be addressed again. Let's be honest - a couple of hundred million dollars isn't that much to a company like Rogers. And when we're talking about a players' health, it shouldn't even need to be questioned of whether or not it's a good idea.
 
kotsy said:
In your scenario, you said if it WERE true so that doesn't need to be addressed again. Let's be honest - a couple of hundred million dollars isn't that much to a company like Rogers. And when we're talking about a players' health, it shouldn't even need to be questioned of whether or not it's a good idea.
Click to expand...

If you think that companies like Rogers don't require a thoroughly argued case for making multi-hundred million dollar investments you're kidding yourself.
 
ADRM said:
If you think that companies like Rogers don't require a thoroughly argued case for making multi-hundred million dollar investments you're kidding yourself.
Click to expand...

I never said they wouldn't and that wasn't your original question. You asked if it was worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent wear and tear on the players bodies if it was proven that it does, in fact, occur from using AstroTurf. Obviously it's worth it if we're talking about players' health here. Their health should one of Rogers biggest concerns, if not the biggest when it comes to the SkyDome. But we all know what kind of company they are and wouldn't be surprised by any poor decisions they make. In my opinion, the case of not making all efforts to ensure a players health is something they should be ashamed of.
 
ADRM said:
Of course it's a real question; 1) We don't know if it's true, and 2) Degree certainly matters - if there is some sort of relationship and the net difference it makes is, say, 2 missed games per player across the course of a career, then would you reasonably expect Rogers to spend a couple hundred million dollars on addressing it?
Click to expand...

Although somewhat exaggerated, the turf versus natural grass argument has played a role in determining whether the Jays land certain free agents. The actual effects on a player's health are pretty negligible when playing on turf but a player with pre-existing health concerns is going to be reluctant to play on artificial turf for 81 games out of the year. It's actually more like 90 in the Jays' case when you factor in road games at Tropicana Field. Various players have left the organization because of the turf as well. The last prime example I can recall was Troy Glaus as a result of his chronic foot and leg problems. I believe Adrian Beltre declined the Jays' contract offer a few years back because of the turf as well.

Beyond signing free agents, the main basis for wanting to install natural grass is it's essentially become the league wide standard. Every MLB ballpark except for two (Dome and Tropicana) use grass fields so why not follow the league wide trend? If the cost is prohibitive, which it very well could be, then at least they tried to investigate the feasibility of such an endeavor.
 
Watching the games at Safeco on television, seeing all of those Jays fans, kind of makes me wish we had an outdoor stadium. Safeco Field seems like it offers the best of both worlds. It has a roof, but still manages to offer a view of the skyline when open.

3756566391_7c47c6d1c7_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2504/3756566391_7c47c6d1c7_b.jpg
 
was watching a game in Cleveland the other day and was liking their outdoor stadium. however the skydome has the best location. I would hate for a new stadium to be built further from the core. but I do think we need to have some sort of retracting roof because typically it is cold in Toronto in sept and april but who knows with this weather.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top