Columnist Dean Juipe: New parks not always a godsend

Dean Juipe

Tuesday, April 25, 2000 | 9:25 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or 259-4084.

It's a scenario familiar to baseball fans in particular, if not to fans of all professional sports.

The game plan always follows a familiar script: A major league team lobbies for a new stadium and has its wish granted, after which it begins shaping its roster to coincide with the stadium's opening. The idea is to have a quality team ready to step into the new stadium, thereby capitalizing on the community's renewed interest and enthusiasm.

Given that the process of pursuing a new stadium and getting it constructed takes about five years, those charged with acquiring players for an organization have at least that long to whip their roster into shape.

Toronto (1989), Chicago White Sox (1991), Baltimore (1992), Cleveland (1994), Texas (1995), Colorado (1995), Atlanta (1997), Arizona (1998) and Seattle (1999) are among the franchises that have had good teams step into new stadiums within the past dozen years. Each tied its baseball renaissance to its new stadium.

But the trend is in jeopardy this year, based on early season results. Three teams have new stadiums and each of the three is struggling in spite of years of preparation.

Taxpayers in Detroit, Houston and San Francisco may already have Buyer's Remorse, a condition that results when you almost immediately have second thoughts about an extravagant purchase.

The situation is especially grievous in Detroit, where the Tigers are so lousy that even the lure of a new stadium hasn't been enough to fill more than half of the 40,000 seats any given night in Comerica Park. The stadium, which cost $300 million to construct, is fine but the team -- with general manager Randy Smith an easy scapegoat -- is putrid.

It's as if Smith never saw the blueprints for Comerica, as the Tigers are still the slow, home-run conscious team that occupied Tiger Stadium for generations, and not the uptempo, hit-it-in-the-gaps type of club that's needed in the new park. They're 4-14 after Monday night's game in Anaheim and clearly the worst team in baseball at this early date.

Another GM, Houston's Gerry Hunsicker, can take the blame for his team's stumble from the gate as well. At a time when he should have been procuring talent for the debut of Enron Field, Hunsicker traded 22-game winner Mike Hampton and allowed outfielder Carl Everett (.325, 25 homers, 108 RBI) to walk.

The Astros may yet rebound but they're currently 6-11 and, like the Tigers, didn't adjust their personnel despite the fact their new stadium has drastically different dimensions than their old one. They're 2-7 at Enron.

But at least the Tigers and Astros have won a game at home, which is more than the San Francisco Giants can say.

They're 0-5 at the new Pacific Bell Stadium and 7-11 overall. Like its counterparts, the $319-million Pac Bell has all the amenities yet it hasn't been kind to its primary occupant despite a 307-foot right field line that's made to order for the Giants' left-handed power hitter, Barry Bonds.

This isn't nice to say but maybe it would be good if all three of these teams continue to lose. If that were to happen, perhaps it would put an end to the belief that a community need only erect a new stadium to assure itself a championship baseball team.

archive