Wednesday, November 26, 2008

To invest or re-invest

If you were a community-conscious owner of a team, would you rather invest, say, $30 million in a free agent superstar for your club or re-invest that money in the community in the form of 50 new ballfields around your larger metropolitan area?

"If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you?" Jamie McCourt asked in an interview at the Evergreen Recreation Center in East Los Angeles. "That's what we're trying to figure out. We're really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We're really trying to understand, would they rather have the 50 fields?"
How would YOU feel if the ownership if your favorite team decided to forego that splash signing and chose rather to commence construction on that many ballfields, including one in your neighborhood? (Check the poll to the left to vote!)


Ron Rollins said...

Wait, I screwed up. I meant to hit the 50 fields, but hit the wrong button.

Please switch my vote.

Craig Calcaterra said...

You didn't live in Florida in 2000 by any chance, did you? ;-)

Ron Rollins said...

You know, I immediatley thought of a Flordia joke, but decieded against it.

It just goes to show. Always go with your first thought.

tHeMARksMiTh said...

You know, what city, even LA, needs 50 new fields? I mean that would be nice and all for the kids and to promote baseball, but 50 more fields? I guess that could include renovating some. Is there a "25 new fields and a $15M player" option?

Jason @ IIATMS said...

Good one, Mark! Evidently, this is a binary decision. No horsetrading.

Steve said...

Invest 30 mill in the FA. If the FA is worth more than the 30 mill and puts fanny's into seats, you can use those profits to build those ballfields.