How Much Longer Will "The K" be "The K"?

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2008 2:33 PM EST in News

Jacobs Field no more.

Classic Cleveland, they've now got quite an illustrious pedigree: a low-budget auto insurance company that gets you legal but provides no actual coverage (Progressive), and a predatory small-time loan company (Quicken) as their landmark name-owners.

I say by the end of the decade we'll see the K become, what... Hy-Vee Field?

I've never been a fan of the naming rights racket, especially when the stadium in question has been publicly funded. Its just been another ~~quasi-ethical loophole for rich guys to make more money~~ "revenue stream" we've been blessed with in the Seligean era. Right up there with all the horrible upper-deck seats we now have because they're piled on top of luxury boxes and team channels. But beyond all that bitterness, I also feel a more philosophical resistance. The idea of naming a baseball stadium after a random company just seems illogical. At this point, it actually makes more logical sense if the massive edifice in downtown Cleveland totally integrates cars and traffic signs and whatnot into the architecture, and the team changes its name to the Claims or something.

By my count, in the AL we're left with: Kauffman Stadium, Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium, the Metrodome and Camden Yards.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

And the Metrodome is on its way out..

Any word if the new one will be BestBuy Stadium?

I am just glad that my teams all play in unsponsored stadiums... The K, Arrowhead, Allen Fieldhouse, Memorial Stadium, etc... At least until we get some random NHL franchise I won't really support.. Darn You Sprint Center!

by ctrell on Jan 11, 2008 2:47 PM EST 0 recs

Who can forget Enron Field?

Oops...

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Jan 11, 2008 2:57 PM EST 0 recs

If the money went into the payroll

...I wouldn't mind selling the name of the K. This team needs revenues anywhere it can get them. But I think I heard that if the stadium sold naming rights, it would go to the county, not to the team. I have no idea if that is right. Even if it went to the team, there's no way to know if that money would get funneled into the payroll or if it would just be taken as profit.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 3:02 PM EST 0 recs

Hallmark Field

by Killer G's on Jan 11, 2008 3:12 PM EST 0 recs

Thats a good bet

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2008 4:26 PM EST up 0 recs

Just a matter of time

until some pro team is forced to call "Preparation H Field" it's home.

At least the K is still short for Kaufmann, and not, say Kotex or something. Kotex Field? That would have to be a real launching PAD, right?

by loyal2s dad on Jan 11, 2008 3:13 PM EST 0 recs

I was hoping for Massengill Field

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 3:18 PM EST up 0 recs

Only a matter of time

Before Glass finds a way to get around the obvious conflict of interest and name the K "Wal-Mart Field"

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Jan 11, 2008 3:21 PM EST up 0 recs

I can see headline now

White Sox Come to KC and hit The Wall

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 3:25 PM EST up 0 recs

Wal-Mart Field

Always low winning percentages. Always.

by loyal2s dad on Jan 11, 2008 3:24 PM EST 0 recs

Giggle

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jan 11, 2008 5:19 PM EST up 0 recs

America's long history of naming rights...

Do you think our early settlers just really liked the names Jamestown and Plymouth. No, they were named after the people that financed their voyages.
Stadium naming rights is as American as apple pie and, uh, baseball...

Lee

by Lee on Jan 11, 2008 3:43 PM EST 0 recs

right... but Progressive didn't finance anything

with jacobs Field...

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2008 4:27 PM EST up 0 recs

They are now, aren't they?

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 4:35 PM EST up 0 recs

no

his example was of someone funding the whole venture, which obviously isn't the case

worse, the Indians deal is for 3.6 M a year... which seems pretty flimsy

if you're going to sell out and have a nonsensical name, i'd want it to be worth more than that

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2008 4:51 PM EST up 0 recs

I don't care if they fund the whole venture

All kinds of things are named in this country. Hospitals, hospital wings, hospital rooms, hospital elevators. The same is true at many colleges and universities and many other institutions. If you sponsor it, we'll throw your name on it.

As far as the amount of money goes, would you rather be able to sign a player who costs $3.6M more or to keep the stadium name pristine? I'd take the better talent and hopefully an additional win anyday.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 5:06 PM EST up 0 recs

its not that simple

I agree that its not the end of the world, etc. But it isn't also really comparable to naming a hospital wing, which is legitimately philanthropic. Moreover, usually when you have something like that named for you, you've paid for it, or are largely sustaining it. Neither is applicable to 90% of stadium naming rights, which just exist to be placed inside newspaper stories and mentioned on TV.

Sure, if there was some way of know that that money was directly effecting payroll, that would be great. But when is that ever the case? And again, how could you ever really verify it? It seems to me its just the Dolan family -- who certainly doesn't need the money, and isn't spending much of any of their money actually on payroll -- taking money because its there.

So yea, not the end of the world, but certainly fairly crass.

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2008 6:02 PM EST up 0 recs

Well

They probably didn't like the fact that the stadium for the team they own was named after someone else.

I don't care about Cleveland, but the K should always remain the K. How much did Ewing give to charity? A billion? It should be Kauffman Stadium for the next 100 years.

Hillman, you're on notice.

by FireBell on Jan 11, 2008 6:12 PM EST up 0 recs

Crassness

So yea, not the end of the world, but certainly fairly crass.

Capitalism is crass. As long as this country is capitalist and MLB is a business, money will talk and everything else will take a distant second.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 6:15 PM EST up 0 recs

I'm not sure,

but I don't think Will was sayign we should abandon capitalism. :P

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jan 11, 2008 6:44 PM EST up 0 recs

I'm sure that's true

I'm just saying that MLB is a business (or a conglomeration of businesses) which are run entirely by (and for) money. Therefore one cannot expect them to act anything other than businesses which are attempting to maximize revenue.

I don't like it, but eventually we'll see ads hanging from the foul poles and naming rights sold for every item in the stadium.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 6:56 PM EST up 0 recs

Maybe they'll replace the foul poles

with giant cardboard soda bottles. That would be totally cool, IMO.

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jan 11, 2008 6:58 PM EST up 0 recs

Actually, strike that.

How about giant REAL soda bottles?

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jan 11, 2008 6:58 PM EST up 0 recs

And when a ball hits the "foul bottle"

It shatters and showers the nearby fans with the sponsoring soda. It would be a full multi-sensory experience.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 7:00 PM EST up 0 recs

the logistical issue would be

how to get around the fact that a soda bottle does not have a straight side. Otherwise, it could lead to some pretty weird looking home runs.

I look forward to ESPN highlights were the idiots on BBTN try to figure out if the ball "went over the cap" or went foul "next to the bottleneck."

A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.

by NHZ on Jan 11, 2008 7:03 PM EST up 0 recs

Outfield walls have odd shapes

and aren't uniform. Some outfields even have flagpoles and hills in them. Why can't Wal-Mart Field have a Coke bottle shaped foul pole? I'd even make the Coke bottle foul pole big enough to put some seats in it, then fans can lean out of their Coke bottle foul pole seats and grab fly balls. Any ball grabbed by a foul pole seat fan is a HR.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Jan 11, 2008 7:37 PM EST up 0 recs

you've definitely reached my level...

welcome...come in a have a another drink sir...no reason to go anywhere else...all the fun happens here

Don't be lonesome for your heroes. Be your own hero.

by PhattStairs on Jan 12, 2008 6:49 AM EST up 0 recs

Let's put ads

all over the players jerseys too. I have a feeling it won't be long. "This sign on the windshield is dangerous and inconvenent, but I do love Fig Newtons!"

by royaldaddy on Jan 11, 2008 7:06 PM EST up 0 recs

Ugh

To hell with changing it from Kauffman stadium. How many ties to an illustrious, competitive team do we have left?

And Kauffman deserves the honor.

by Bornin85 on Jan 11, 2008 4:12 PM EST 0 recs

nothing to do with anything

90s Hats

http://www.legendofcecilioguante.com/2007/12/confessions-of-90s-hat-addict.html

love it

by royalsreview on Jan 11, 2008 4:49 PM EST 0 recs

the only corporate naming I could get behind

would be something that still honors Ewing's legacy.

Like Robitussin Kauffman and Cold Medicine Field.

by marbotty on Jan 12, 2008 6:59 AM EST 0 recs

What about...

Angel Stadium?

Also, one could argue that "Rogers Centre" is also not corporately named. Given that Ted Rogers is the owner of both the Blue Jays and the 'Sky Dome', he could have simply named the shed after his namesake.

In any event, there can't be an issue with naming rights. Well at least in terms of the organization. I can't believe that as a consumer we are somehow brainwashed by going to a ballpark that is named after some random bank.

That said, I have never understood why certain corporations who really can't get bigger, continue to advertise in the manner they do. Take McDonald's for example, unless they are breaking ground with a new product or location, are their ads really encouraging people to go to McDonald's? Are people sitting there during the Super Bowl and saying, "wow, this is a nail biting, but I need an effing Filet O Fish!"

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 12, 2008 11:15 AM EST 0 recs