The Ortega Highway stretches roughly 30 miles from the coastal town of San Juan Capistrano, over the Santa Ana mountains, and into Lake Elsinore. Opened in 1933, it features some of the most beautiful scenery in Southern California.
The road twists and turns at many points along the way — sometimes you wonder if you are even headed in the right direction. It can get congested with other motorists and will try your patience, especially if you are in a hurry to reach your destination. You may find yourself wondering why there isn’t a more direct route. Of course, if you do that, you will miss all the parts of the journey that make it worth your while despite the occasional frustration.
You will miss the trees. Heck, you’ll miss the forest. And most importantly, you’ll miss the descent into Elsinore. As you wind your way down the mountains, the entire Temecula Valley comes into view — farms, subdivisions creeping ever closer to the mountains, and the lake (yes, there is a lake in Lake Elsinore).
You may have been to the town dozens of times, but seeing it from above in its larger context, as part of an entire valley connected by networks of roads and people, you appreciate it that much more. You always enjoy visiting, even though usually you just whip up I-15, in a more direct route that gets you there faster but with less awareness of the larger picture.
Who wants to deal with all the twists and turns of a mountain road that was built more than 70 years ago? Who wants to take the extra time to reach their destination regardless of how beautiful the scenery might be (and especially with gas prices what they are)?
These are good questions. For all the romance of the highway and a road trip, it can be a royal pain in the rear when you’ve got a goal in mind. But if you choose a shorter, more direct route, you run the risk of missing that payoff and not seeing everything there is to see.
Shifting gears for a moment (you are driving manual, I assume), consider the San Diego Padres. For the vast majority of their existence, they have been the doormats of the National League. (Really, if you can’t be honest with yourself on a road trip, then what’s the point?)
The Padres have been to the playoffs four times in 36 years. They have never had three consecutive winning seasons (although that could change this year). From 1999 to 2003, they won 44% of their games. Expectations by fans, management, and even outsiders who marvel at the idea of a big-league ballclub in “that place south of LA” have been understandably low.
But on moving to Petco Park in 2004, things changed. The club started winning. And winning, as we all know, is addictive. Once you start, you don’t want to stop. Don’t believe me? Ask Braves fans who can’t be bothered to show up for the first round of the playoffs. They have a decidedly different level of expectation.
It makes sense when you think about it. They were in town while all this winning was taking place. From their point of view, nothing much changed. Why would they notice?
Why would any of us notice? It’s only by leaving town that you begin to see things differently.
The longer road may be less convenient, but that’s kind of the point. And, of course, there’s that big payoff of seeing the entire town surrounded by other towns, all connected. This cannot be underestimated. When you finally emerge from above and arrive in town, it’s still the same town. And you’re still the same you. But something has shifted, and it’s difficult to pinpoint. Even though it took longer to get where you were trying to go, you maybe decide that this place was worth the wait.
Before our metaphor becomes a hammer, I’ll leave you to connect the remaining dots. The important thing to know is that when I go to watch the Storm play this Saturday night, I will get to Elsinore via the Ortega Highway.
Im telling you he must work for mores how else can he pull all of these numbers out of the air.
Maybe he’s a real “Padre” and has Jesus on his side
There is a difference between “operating income” as Forbes defines it and net profits. I don’t think one year numbers prove anything, particularly when the Businessweek article I showed you showed that the Yankees have some years with big profits and some years with big losses but that they still average a profit.
And just so you know Steve, I have never believed the Forbes numbers when it comes to the Yankees and there is a very good reason for it. It is well documented that the Yankees use creative financial accounting to hide media revenues in the YES Network, the network that broadcasts their games and which the Yankees happen to own. That conflict of interest and subsequent accounting trickery makes it look like the Yankees make less money than they actually do.
I’ve already explained that Arte Moreno is putting money into the Angels early in his ownership. He is trying to get a bigger bite of the LA market and get a better cable deal for his team, so that his team can bring in more money.
The Mets are going to take losses last year and probably this year because they bought out their current cable contract so that they could start a new cable network like the Yankees have. That costs them money in the short run, but will make them money in the long run, and the Mets have been profitable in previous years.
I haven’t researched the Red Sox’ or Marlins’ financial condition but the Marlins seems “fishy” with their smallish payroll. How they could lose such money seems odd, unless the owner is trying to force a move, get a new stadium, or sell the team. Regardless, these teams have lower relative debt levels than the Padres so they can probably bear short term losses better.
before you respond to comment #49 Fathers I know the numbers are deceiving that’s why I posted it, You can skew the numbers how ever you want but its odd how the teams that are normally on top (with the exception of the marlins although they have won 2 world series) are all claiming losses.
to late
Steve, the internet is a pretty fast research tool. You found the Forbes numbers, presumably through the internet, so you have the same resources available to you that I do.
Screw the internet and number and all that jazz, you guys should just fight!
you never answered my Q of why you are defening Moores to the death and if you think he should ever spend another dime to improve the team.
I think the discussion is less heated then you think KRS1 I feel no animosity towards Fathers this is just playful banter.
We will obviously never agree on the subject, its just intesting seeing his responces they seem very well though out.
But I still think he works for moores. Let me know if im wrong (with the exception of fathers) but I would think 99 out of 100 Padre fans feel the way I do on the subject and I couldn’t see any of them defending moores to this extent unless they had a vested intrest in it.
Actually I already answered that question. I am not defending Moores to the death, and there are plenty of issues I have with his ownership, which I put up in post 43. I just don’t have an issue with the Padres’ overall finances, and Moores’ relation to them, at this time, and there is so much inaccuracy stated about that such that I just felt like getting it all out of there.
Since it is not my money, as a Padre fan, I would love if Moores pulled all of his many millions out of his development projects and charitable endeavors and gave the Padres $150 million payrolls as long as he could until all of his funds were exhausted, just so that I could witness the other teams in the NL West being crushed for a few years. The other teams’ owners would have to promise that they wouldn’t also take their own vast personal fortunes and similar put money into their teams. Then Moores could sell his team to an even wealthier person to repeat the process.
However, since it is not my money, I have no right to demand that Moores put one further penny of his own money into the team. Baseball brings in enough money on its own to pay the exorbitant salaries to its players, so I am not in favor of owners meddling in that. The Padres bring in enough revenue to be self-sufficient and competetive three years straight. God forbid that a business run itself as such.
As a ticket buying fan, I would like them to spend the money that I provide them efficiently and effectively. They currently appear to be spending all or nearly all of the money that they are bringing in, whether they are doing it as I would hope is iffy. Since I love the game, I probably won’t punish them if they don’t. I’ll still keep going unless I feel I am being defrauded.
Steve: be done already.
You kept ranting about Moore’s money and how he does/doesn’t spend it on the Padres.
Since when does spending money and throwing more money into a ballclub equals more success at the field of play?
Never. The fact is the Yankees are outspending the rest of the league by a good margin and they do not own the league’s best record.
The Dodgers and the Giants are outspending the Padres and yet the Padres are only 1/2 game behind the Dodgers. Spending money doesn’t equate better team not better record. Spending money wisely and being lucky in getting valuable contributing players is what gives better chance at winning.
The fact of the matter is the Padres do spend money. Some money are tied up with players like Klesko and Chan Ho Park, one of which is contributing nothing to the success of the team. Getting a talented bunch of young players like Barfield, Gonzales, Greene, Johnson and veterans like Roberts, Cameron, Piazza to contribute is what keeps the Padres from having a losing record.
Yes, I’d like to see them more successful. Having gone into the season with Vinny Castilla as the starting 3B without a viable backup was not a good decision. However, spending money just to bring a 3B is not a wise move either. As the Betemit trade that never happened, we’d never know what was going on behind the scene, would we? What did the Braves want from the Padres?
By the way, that trade would not have involved spending lots of money.
And by the way, the Dodgers was 1-13 before the current winning streak, so in essence they’ve been playing .500 ball since ASB.
The fact that the Padres couldn’t pull away doesn’t prove that the Dodgers is a better team. They actually needed that winning streak to catch up to the Padres.
Yeah, this team needs to get in gear and starts winning. Being behind by 1/2 game after having a losing record since the ASB is not bad and their luck should turn around.
re 48: My point was about elevated expectations, and what fans and citizens were led to believe in the run up to the election by management and by a media feeding at the Padres trough. And those statements and $400M gives them every right to expect more than they’re presently getting.
Voters in 1998 couldn’t use 2002 or 2003 payrolls as the baseline for their expectations.
Didi: KT said on 1090 the deal for Betimet was straight up for Linebrink
Steve: I’ve never been really upset with Moores and his spending outside of the Matt Bush draft. KT (deserved or not) is one of the higher paid GM’s in the business and I’m not sure on actual figures but I doubt bringing in people like Alderson and Gayton was a very cheap thing to do. I do question some decisons he’s made and things like that but I think our payroll is pretty much in line with our market. I will be mad if in the off-season they don’t make a play at a top teir free agent. I’m not talking about throwing $100 million at Soriano I’m talking about trying to wisely get some key pieces with the flexibility they will gain.
Thanks, KRS1 for the info. That is a surprise that the Braves was offering only a straight up swap. Then, again, nobody else was making a play for Linebrink and everybody knew the Padres needed a 3B as soon as Vinny was cut and his replacements was sucking.
Also agree with you on the off-season wise spending.
I bought my house in Coronado in 2005…It costs me a lot of money each month…I drop real money each year to keep it running…cutting the grass…painting the house…planting new roses…putting in a deck…paying the electric bill…etc.
If I don’t do those things (all involve spending money) my house will fall into disrepair…my house would not be very appealing…I would not be able to convince my friends to come to dinner…the idea that they would come to dinner just because I live in Coronado would not fly. “Your house is a dump CM, why would we want to spend our money on $3.50 gas to drive out to your 80 year old house that you don’t invest enough to take care of?”
Am I “losing money”…sure am…Thousands of dollars each month…but the bank seems to think that I made money on the deal. They keep saying that I am better off than I was last year.
Maybe I should just look at my wife and say, nah…I have spent enough. I am not going to do it anymore. I really did not mean to tell you that we could afford to own a house in Coronado…We are losing so much money each month, we are going poor. Sure, we own a house in Coronado, but we are losing money…we must be poor.
Re 65, I really hope that you are not trying to analogize how you treat your house to how the Padres run a baseball team, because that would be one of the worst analogies I have read in quite a while.
Perhaps you could compare the upkeep on your house to the upkeep on a building like the ballpark, but the Padres pay for that already out of the revenues they bring in as a result of their business. Oops, analogy fails again.
re 62: If fans expected more than what they were actually promised, who is responsible for such unreasonable expectations? The fans themselves and not the Padres. If a fan used the 1998 payroll in relation to other team’s payroll as a baseline for determining how they would vote on Prop C, then that fan was a fool.
Believe it or not, most people who voted on Prop C do not attend baseball games. They had many motivations to vote for or against the measure, one of which included keeping the Padres in San Diego. Another was the prospect for redevelopment of a dilapidated area. If people had irrational motivations for voting for or against Prop C, well, you can’t take away someone’s vote just because they vote for or against something for the wrong reason.
What is the $400 million number about? I am pretty sure the City’s contribution was around $200-250 million, and the bonds floated to pay for that contribution could be repaid faster than expected due to far more development happening in that area than was foreseen, were it not for the fact that the extra money being brought in is being siphoned off to try to address the City’s budget woes. All that does anyone is give the City ownership of most of the stadium, and a right to receive revenue from certain events. No more, no less. Besides, unless you stay in a hotel or pay property tax in the redevelopment area, the City’s share has not been passed onto you.
debt consoladation debt consoladation