yea, and if they let it slip, i'm sure the players, fans, and management would all be demanding it gone once it starts causing fielding errors
Yes, and don't forget when the Astrodome in Houston first opened, it had a natural grass field. The roof was Lucite and it let in enough sunlight to keep the grass alive and well. Problem was: You guessed it! Fielders couldn't track the flyballs in the light. So after experimenting with orange baseballs (really!) they finally covered over (part of the roof) with a membrane to make it darker so fielders could see the fly balls. Success!

Except the natural light was blocked and soon after all the grass died.

They played most of the first year in the dome with a dirt outfield (that was painted green - I'd love to see a photo/film of that).

They finally resolved the issue by inventing a synthetic turf playing surface, which was then named after the stadium - AstroTurf!
 
If you listen to interviews with Mark Shapiro, or even just Blue Jays media types talking on the matter - grass is not going to happen at the Rogers Centre. To be honest, I'm not sure real grass is even a big deal aesthetically at this point, as fake turf has really improved over the last 10 years or so. The billion dollar new Texas Rangers stadium that opened last year opted to use synthetic turf over real grass. It's so much better visually than it used to be.
 
The Diamondbacks and Marlins also play on turf: http://www.insidehook.com/daily_brief/sports/artificial-turf
Aside from the drainage issue, grass consumes an enormous amount of water and is extremely resource-intensive for upkeep.

These teams play on artificial grass because of the heat. It's to hot to maintain nice grass there (same with Rangers). Arizona's field was turning brown. Not an issue here in Toronto. MLB players still prefer natural grass.
 
If you listen to interviews with Mark Shapiro, or even just Blue Jays media types talking on the matter - grass is not going to happen at the Rogers Centre. To be honest, I'm not sure real grass is even a big deal aesthetically at this point, as fake turf has really improved over the last 10 years or so. The billion dollar new Texas Rangers stadium that opened last year opted to use synthetic turf over real grass. It's so much better visually than it used to be.


That stadium is an epic fail, so I wouldn't use that as a comparison....lol.
 
I just don't think there's very much to be gained from replacing the turf. It looks a bit nicer? A couple less errors in the outfield? Maybe one fewer injury? Def not worth the cost.

The Rogers Centre has far more pressing issues than some grass.
 
I just don't think there's very much to be gained from replacing the turf. It looks a bit nicer? A couple less errors in the outfield? Maybe one fewer injury? Def not worth the cost.

The Rogers Centre has far more pressing issues than some grass.


Doubt they're getting new turf. Only way they get new turf is if they do a major reno (basically rebuild the stadium) or a new stadium, and if that's the case they'll end up getting grass.
 
From the Globe:


AoD
As much as I'm not a fan of Rogers there was a sense of financial stability having them own our major sports teams. While they're often stingy, I was never concerned with a financial collapse. I'm interpreting this negatively and don't see any major movement on a future stadium, I can't imagine whoever they sell stake to too come up with the money either. Even worse is if they end up selling to an American (or other foreign) investor.

Most upsetting though is that the sell-off is being used to fund an anti-competitive and highly unpopular purchase of Shaw.
 
As much as I'm not a fan of Rogers there was a sense of financial stability having them own our major sports teams. While they're often stingy, I was never concerned with a financial collapse. I'm interpreting this negatively and don't see any major movement on a future stadium, I can't imagine whoever they sell stake to too come up with the money either. Even worse is if they end up selling to an American (or other foreign) investor.

Most upsetting though is that the sell-off is being used to fund an anti-competitive and highly unpopular purchase of Shaw.

I'm not so sure about that. It could go either way. If you read the article, the part that I seemed to find interesting is they hint that Ed Rogers seems to want control over the team, as he's a big fan. I agree that I don't think there are any Canadians with deep enough pockets to buy the club, but this might allow it be run as its own business as opposed to how Rogers runs it half assed right now.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. It could go either way. If you read the article, the part that I seemed to find interesting is they hint that Ed Rogers seems to want control over the team, as he's a big fan. I agree that I don't think there are any Canadians with deep enough pockets to buy the club, but this might allow it be run as its own business as opposed to how Rogers runs it half assed right now.
If Edward Rogers truly wants control over the team, that would be an absolute disaster for all Blue Jays fans. It would be akin to the Leafs back in the Ballard era, or Richard Peddie era (not that I particullarly care for the Leafs, they're a joke no matter who's running it).

I mean, just look at what he tried to pull with Masai Ujiri. The man who built the Raptors into a championship team:

 
If Edward Rogers truly wants control over the team, that would be an absolute disaster for all Blue Jays fans. It would be akin to the Leafs back in the Ballard era, or Richard Peddie era (not that I particullarly care for the Leafs, they're a joke no matter who's running it).

I mean, just look at what he tried to pull with Masai Ujiri. The man who built the Raptors into a championship team:


Yeah but he would only be in charged of the financial end of it. Shapiro would remain President.

I did noticed though that they mentioned the situation and Brookfield. Asset are looking to redevelop, so maybe there is some real meat on this bone.
 

Top