I can't believe that an otherwise intelligent newspaper has been taken in by the drivel being peddled by the California Angels' management that "Anaheim Stadium Is Sadly Out of Date" (Editorial, July 31) and that the "City, Angels Should Think About a Replacement."
Get real! Other than Baltimore, Cleveland and Arlington, Tex., how many other major-league ballparks are newer, cleaner and more functional than the Big A?
You say that the stadium is "mocked as an example of the 'concrete doughnut' style of stadium architecture."
Mocked by whom? Certainly not the fans. All we want is a competitive team to play there.
You also complain that "the acres of empty seats become a depressing sight," because the Angels are only drawing 20,000 fans per game. Now whose fault is that? Again, if the team were playing better, the problem would go away. I don't remember a lot of empty seats at the playoffs in 1982 and 1986.
At one point, your editorial seems to admit that the insufferable play of the team is the real problem.
But then you jump to the conclusion that even if attendance improved, "both sides would be right to consider a major renovation of the current stadium." Why?
Sorry, but your whole premise doesn't wash.
DENNIS F. HANRAHAN