Why the MLB Failed in Not Giving Fenway Park the 2012 All-Star Game
It was made official on Wednesday that the 2012 MLB All-Star game will be played in Kansas City at Kauffman Stadium, home of everyone's favorite lovable losers, the Royals.
Also in the running toward the end of the decision making was Fenway Park.
As you can see, the MLB failed.
I'm not saying the MLB made a mistake just because I'm a Red Sox fan and the 1999 All-Star game was one of my greatest recent baseball memories. I'm not saying it because Fenway Park is one of the greatest fields anyone can ever visit in the history of their life. Although these are all valid points.I'm saying this because the MLB had an opportunity to do something really big and now the opportunity is lost.
Let me predict what July of 2012 will look like for Major League Baseball: Albert Pujols will continue to be one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball, Bryce Harper will either be making his name in Washington or will be dangerously close and the Royals will not be competing in the American League Central. They will be losing that race like they do every year. They will be scraping the mold off the bottom of the cellar. They will be nothing.
How does that set up the All-Star game? Well, the Royals will certainly have the "buzz" that surrounds any city that is hosting a big event. The Royals will hold this buzz and exploit it to the best of their ability, but when the game is finally over, they'll have nothing. They might have Billy Butler competing for a batting title, but they won't be competing for a division title.
It will be excitement then the All-Star game then no excitement -- back to the normal every day life for Kansas City.
Instead, let's look at an alternate reality. One in which the Red Sox and Fenway Park were hosting the 2012 All-Star game. It's a happy reality, I tell you.
Most importantly, 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park. That's 100 years of America's favorite ballpark (I stick by that statement. I'm sure these folks would like to make an argument). These milestones do not come along very often in history. In fact, a 100 year anniversary comes around once. Ever. I'm not sure if you actually realized that or not.
As Red Sox fans, we know Red Sox ownership does up events like Christina Aguilera does up her makeup: Big. And bold. And sometimes quite ugly. Before the 2012 season even starts, the fact that Fenway Park is 100 years old is going to get blasted into our faces like man just landed on the moon. We will hear about this every day from the first day of spring training until the last game at Fenway Park (preferably in November). We will see the "100th Anniversary" logo on every pre-game show, in-game advertisement and post-game recap. We will not be able to escape this piece of information.
And if the MLB was hitched to it with the All-Star game, they wouldn't be able too, either.
This is something they would love.
As the Red Sox pump up this fact, the MLB would do the same. Everything would come together. The Red Sox would be competing for the AL East crown when July rolls around and there will be buzz; there will be buzz because there is always buzz, All-Star game or not. Somehow, the Red Sox will even try to recreate the 1999 All-Star game. They will sign Pedro Martinez, make him a 10 game winner before July 1 even hits and he will be the AL's starting pitcher. He will be absolutely filthy in his two innings. He will then immediately retire. We will all be extremely happy for what we saw.
This is all an alternate reality. Sorry for getting your hopes up.
Instead, we'll see baseball's best travel to Kansas City for the mid-summer Classic. The MLB might make some money off of it. The Royals will definitely make some money off of it. Billy Butler is guaranteed to get the loudest ovation. There will only be one member of the Royals actually playing in the game (Butler, of course). Joe Posnanski will have one helluva 25,000-word story afterward. Many people will eat a lot of great barbecue.
That is the reality, unfortunately. And minus the barbecue and the Posnanski, it doesn't sound that great.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Grienke might very well be an All Star
I can see how having the game at Fenway for the 100 year anniversary would be cool, but they did have the game not too long ago. And haven’t you ever heard of “it’s better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all”? Just because KC will have a crap season doesn’t mean their fans can’t have some enjoyment. That’s just cold.
I agree
Do we know if the Sox ownership even asked for the game in 2012? There are quite a few new stadiums out there that should receive the game as a reward. Personally, I think CitiField and the Minneapolis Target Field (whatever it’s called) should get the game soon.
Weigh all of that against the centennial.
As the OP said, a centennial only comes around once. CitiField doesn’t compete with Fenway, since they alternate leagues. Minneapolis could get it in 2014 just as easily.
Dumb move, as always, by the Commissioner.
Fenway: "An alternate and better universe, disguised as a ballpark." --Thomas Boswell
I’d rather have a World Series in Fenway in 2012.
by TooTallJeff on Jun 17, 2010 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
2010
but it probably won’t happen
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Jun 17, 2010 9:29 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
why not?
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on Jun 17, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Because our only reliable 'pen arm
will have it blown out by July 20th.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
the Sox ownership was definitely pushing hard for 2012 at Fenway
that said, this is nice for baseball fans in KC. At least they get to see good baseball players for one game.
Shiti field isn't that great
"man, this team they just suck so bad"- gizmosandy
DFA Bogar
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Jun 17, 2010 9:28 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Show them the money
You said it…“the Royals will make some money off it”. Like having the Super Bowl in Detroit or Jacksonville, or Indianapolis (been there, think Worcester but a bit cleaner), it is all about spreading the wealth. Boston is doing just fine, obviously, and MLB chose to honor the “Century of Baseball” by having the game in Boston in 1999. I was also there, and it was quite an evening. I especially liked the all-century team; Aaron, Mays, and of course Ted Williams.
Other than the Fenway Park is America's favorite ballpark statement I have to agree with this article
Between (what is KC’s stadium called? Kaufmann Stadium?") and Fenway Park on its 100th anniversary you gotta give it to Fenway.
"We're only going to score 17 points?" - Tom Brady
"Well played, Mauer." - Guy from PS3 commercials
ugh
Join the NLL community at http://www.nationallacrosseleagueblog.blogspot.com/
Talk about Boston sports at http://www.bestbostonsports.com/
by bestbostonsports on Jun 17, 2010 9:53 AM EDT reply actions
I'm happy for KC cuz I like that Stadium
But the centennial argument is a hard one to ignore.
Ah, well.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Management shouldn't have made a push to host it in 1999 if you want it so badly in 2012.
How is that fair to other AL teams who haven’t had one in over 20 years, yet alone two?
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
Very valid point
Especially considering Henry & Co. didn’t own the Red Sox then…
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow this guy on Twitter: @RCBooth
by Randy Booth on Jun 17, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok Randy you got me.
My whole comment makes no sense now. The Red Sox should get the ASG every 14 years. Screw other teams like the Royals who haven’t had it for over 30 years. It’s the RS right to have it when they want because it will be exciting.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Jun 17, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
well he has a point... not that they should get the ASG
but the previous ownership didn’t give a crap about fenway and, were they still in control, the Red Sox probably wouldn’t be there anymore, so they weren’t thinking about the 100 year anniversary. Current ownership is much different. But I do agree that it would be wrong to get two of them that close together
But really, your comment doesn’t make sense, since it’s not the same management…
Well, if you want to make that point, then cool
But your original one doesn’t stand. With that said, if Henry & Co. DID own the Red Sox then, do you think they would have made a push for the 99 All-Star game? Maybe. We don’t really know, so we can’t say one way or another, but it’s possible that nothing would have changed if Henry & Co. owned for a previous 10 years.
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow this guy on Twitter: @RCBooth
When you say "it" - referring to KC
Do you mean the All-Star Game, or an All-Star (apart from they statutory entitlement to one)?
But good for KC, though. I think the planning-fail goes to the previous ownership.
Wait 'til next/this year?
by nuthinboutnuthin on Jun 17, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I think his main point
and in my mind, the only valid point, is the Centennial. 100 years is an amazing thing, and to showcase it for the All-Star Game would have been an amazing opportunity.
Personally, I think waiting until ‘14 for KC would have been a better idea, but in any event, I’m glad they are getting one. I’ve loved that stadium since I was a kid (which can be counted in decades), so I’m glad they get to showcase it.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Amazing...AND INCREDIBLY RARE...
opportunity.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Just sayin'
In KC’s favor:
KC did have a major stadium renovation project finish up just last year, so this decision fits into the philosophy of giving a city with a “new” stadium the AS game.
KC hasn’t hosted the AS game since 1973 – only the Mets have had a longer wait.
Is there going to be a BETTER opportunity any time after 2012? Fenway will always be a superb decision – heck, let’s hold the AS game there every year – but when it comes to a place like KC, MLB has to pick its spots. 2012 seems to be the prettiest pig in the pen.
Perhaps baseball also sees the respective marketing campaigns for Fenway’s 100th anniversary and the 2012 AS game as more effective being separate. The Fens celebration is going to be big with our without the AS game, while the AS game hype is going to get its fair share of attention regardless of which MLB stadium it will held at.
I like your last point
I could see that being true.
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow this guy on Twitter: @RCBooth
by Randy Booth on Jun 17, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Factoid
Thanks to all the new ballparks, only three active ones have hosted more than one AS game, and I’m sure you can guess two (Fenway and Wrigley).
The third?
Angel Stadium (scheduled for its third AS game this summer).
100 years trumps KC
The SPANKEES got to have the All Star Game before their stadium was demolished. Fenway will be in Boston for a long time and has been for a long time. 100 years is certainly more important than anything KC could possibly offer. It’s just a fact. How many buildings last for 10 years let alone 100!?! MLB better not be thinking of giving it to Wrigley in a few years, that would just be wrong.

by 

























