Ameriquest stadium in Arlington

MeanMag · May 7, 2004

The renaming of the ballpark in arlington will be officially announced tomorrow. I was kind of hoping they kept Ballpark in Arlington in there, but i guess the Rangers need to make up some money for giving the Yankees a check to take A rod off our hands.

KPFC Sports Dept. · May 7, 2004

For 75 million! This is the TRUE test of Tom Hicks. If he uses this to keep ticket prices where they are or to add good ballplayers, I don't care about the name. If he just pockets it and gives some of his buddies a raise, his ineptness as an owner will never be doubted again.

Monkeypox · May 7, 2004

Ugh... I think I'm gonna puke.

KPFC Sports Dept. · May 7, 2004

Ugh... I think I'm gonna puke.

Why? The Ballpark in Arlington is a bad name, and it's been there for 10 years so it's not like it's steeped in tradition. They didn't mess with anything sacred, this isn't Fenway Park or Texas Stadium.

I like what Randy Galloway is going to call it: Bad Credit, OK Stadium

Edited May 7, 2004 by KPFC Sports Dept.

KPFC Sports Dept. · May 7, 2004

Maybe this will work out for Ameriquest and inspire another company to sponsor a stadium on a prime piece of real estate in between 35E and W.

Monkeypox · May 10, 2004

Why? The Ballpark in Arlington is a bad name, and it's been there for 10 years so it's not like it's steeped in tradition. They didn't mess with anything sacred, this isn't Fenway Park or Texas Stadium.
I like what Randy Galloway is going to call it: Bad Credit, OK Stadium

No, The Ballpark in Arlington is a great name... It's just "The Ballpark." Corporate names are lame-ass, and The Ballpark had managed to maintain its non-corporate status for 10 years, so why now? Not necessarily a tradition, but I liked that it'd NEVER had a corporate name in its existence.

KingDL1 · May 11, 2004

I am with Monkeypox, I hate to have a public funded stadium name sold to a corporation.

It is disgusting, everything is now for sale I think it is a great example for the kids.

KPFC Sports Dept. · May 11, 2004

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

Brent · May 11, 2004

I really don't care, but would have liked to see it American Ballpark rather than Field.

May 11, 2004

You guys are crying about a name that netted the Rangers $75 million?! I hope you guys aren't against the new UNT stadium having a corporate sponser, because that will most likely be the only way it would get built anytime soon.

JayDub · May 11, 2004

I really don't care, but would have liked to see it American Ballpark rather than Field.

From what I've heard...the Ameriquest people threw around the idea of Ameriquest Ballpark in Arlington. However, when they decided that people would just continue to call it The Ballpark in Arlington, they decided it was better to call it Ameriquest Field...thus requiring a change in the vernacular of the media and of Rangers fans that included their company name. Smart move on their part.

UNTFan23 · May 12, 2004

Bah, it always has been and always will be the Ballpark.

I just wish they could have chosen a better company ... maybe one that HQs out of DFW?

May 12, 2004

Bah, it always has been and always will be the Ballpark.
I just wish they could have chosen a better company ... maybe one that HQs out of DFW?

What difference does it make? Obviously Ameriquest put up the most money, and if Hicks uses it wisely people who are complaining about it will look foolish.

Now we will see if Hicks just made the deal to help the bottom line, or if he will use it to pay a player the Rangers need to get better.

KPFC Sports Dept. · May 12, 2004

I'm with KingDL, I just wish someone would have stood up for the kids in all this.

KingDL1 · May 12, 2004

I don't mind so much if Ameriquest had payed for most or all of the Ballpark. But public money payed for it, shouldn't the stadium remain named by the community that built it!

If a Corporation funded our football stadium, they can name it.

KPFC Sports Dept. · May 12, 2004

The Rangers promised to keep Arlington in the name always, and the name is Ameriquest Field in Arlington. Arlington didn't lose it's spot in the name.

UNTLifer · May 12, 2004

To make it easy, I'll just continue to refer to it as The Ballpark.

Greenblood94 · May 12, 2004

In keeping with nicknames for current ballparks, like "The Jake" for Jacobs Field in Cleveland, or "The BOB" for the Bank One Ballpark in Phoenix, we now have "The Bad Credit Kiosk" for Arlington to go with "The Hangar" for the AAC (not that anyone uses that name...)

BTW, credit Chuck Cooperstein with the Rangers' new ballpark nickname...somehow, I think "The Ballpark" will still be in vogue...

May 12, 2004

I have a feeling that Rangers fans would rather see Hicks use that money to bring in a good player or two than to have the stadium have a particular name. But that's just me.

Monkeypox · May 12, 2004

I have a feeling that Rangers fans would rather see Hicks use that money to bring in a good player or two than to have the stadium have a particular name. But that's just me.

Yeah, like Chan Ho Park!

Yay!

The fact is the Rangers have had payrolls around $100 million in recent years WITHOUT a corporate-sponsored ballpark. This proves to me that the selling of the ballpark's naming rights was UNNECESSARY in building the Rangers.

Hicks HAS the money, and he's not known to be a WISE spender, which is more important than the AMOUNT you have to spend. Just ask the Los Angeles Dodgers.

May 12, 2004

Yeah, like Chan Ho Park!
Yay!
The fact is the Rangers have had payrolls around $100 million in recent years WITHOUT a corporate-sponsored ballpark. This proves to me that the selling of the ballpark's naming rights was UNNECESSARY in building the Rangers.
Hicks HAS the money, and he's not known to be a WISE spender, which is more important than the AMOUNT you have to spend. Just ask the Los Angeles Dodgers.

You're right, since one free agent signing didn't pan out the Rangers should never go that route again. You area a truly wise man.

It is amazing how these people cried about how the Rangers needed pitching, so they went out and got the best pitcher available at the time, and then the same people cry about getting him. And now people are crying that the Rangers have more money to spend on players.

Do you people truly want the Rangers to finish in last place every season? Is the freaking name of the ballpark more important than having money to get good players?

Obviously the Rangers weren't making the kind of money that Hicks wanted, or else he wouldn't have cut payroll and considered selling the team. Now he has $75 million worth of free money, and hopefully he will do something good with it.

Greenballer · May 12, 2004

Who can you even sign in baseball these days as a free agent for 2.5 million? Maybe like a Todd Van Popple or someone in that area of talent.

Monkeypox · May 12, 2004

Not ONE free agenct signing. You're forgetting about the HORDES of mediocre veterans they've been bringing in over the last several years. You're forgetting about Juan Gonzalez, Caminiti, Gallarraga, Everett, etc. etc.

The fact is the Rangers DIDN'T make a good move with Park (a move I was against from the beginning). All you had to do was look at Park's Home-Away splits and you'd see a very mediocre pitcher outside of the cavernous stadium in LA. Banking on LA pitchers is a bad move, in general. I could go into all the arguments that I (and others) had back then against the signing, but there's no point in it now.

My problem with Rangers pitching has never been "Why don't they go out and spend for good pitchers?" but rather "why can't they seem to develop any good pitchers?"

So please, when you say "THESE" people, maybe you should qualify who "these people" are.

Also, perhaps you missed the POINT of my post, in that Hicks HAS at least $40 million (made primarily from the A-Rod trade, but also from other moves) already he could spend on talented ballplayers for the team, WITHOUT having sold the naming rights to a stadium that the PUBLIC pays for.

The selling of the stadium naming rights was lame and unnecessary. If the Rangers have to blow up the payroll to win, I will consider them part of the PROBLEM with baseball.

Monkeypox · May 12, 2004

Who can you even sign in baseball these days as a free agent for 2.5 million? Maybe like a Todd Van Popple or someone in that area of talent.

Well, if you're stupid, you could sign a Todd Van Poppel for $2.5 million.

Half of the Rangers current crop are under that, including Kenny Rogers, Cordero, Jeff Nelson, Brian Jordan, David Dellucci...

Go to other teams and there's Mike Timlin, Todd Walker, John Thomson...

Solid but unspectacular players. The kind SMART teams sign.

But the point isn't SIGNING, it's DEVELOPING.

Brent · May 13, 2004

Good point JayDub. I didn't take that into account, although I concur that most if not all of us not in the media or in the Rangers organization will call it The Ballpark.

Also, did the Rangers owned by Bush or the Rangers owned by Hicks make that promise? If it was Bush, I don't think Hicks should have to live by that unless there was sone sort of crazy agreement somewhere. But, it Hicks made the promise we need to pull out the tar and feathers.