The Arizona Diamondbacksand Maricopa County remained far apart on key details of a potential lease extension for county-owned Chase Field this week as the clock continued to tick on a new agreement and the parties' relationship appeared to sour.
Correspondence obtained by The Arizona Republic shed new light on what the two sides see as ideal paths forward — and the set of financial sticking points that have so far stymied an agreement.
Both entities recently expressed frustration with the negotiations. County officials said a team proposal from the summer was "neither practical nor viable." In return, team leaders said a recent counteroffer was "simply not a serious or logical proposal."
The slow pace of talks and the testy exchange casts further doubt about how the team and county can strike a mutually amicable deal to keep the Diamondbacks at the ballpark. Here's what to know.
How did the talks start?
In March, The Republic reported that county and Phoenix officials were privately weighing a potential "partnership" that would expand flexibility and options related to the Diamondbacks and Chase Field.
Maricopa County Manager Jen Pokorskiwrote to Phoenix City Manager Jeff Bartonproposing the idea in August 2023. After that, the City Council met three times behind closed doors to discuss it: Oct. 24, Jan. 9 and March 5. County officials have also discussed Chase Field in private sessions, although it's unclear if those conversations were related to the city's tentative role.
It's also unclear what role Phoenix has played, if any, in negotiations since then. But both the team and the county signaled their talks on a lease extension were going well.
Any progress made in recent months seemed to evaporate overnight on Tuesday. The team said it looked forward to continuing to work with the "state and city" to seek a solution — even though a deal is likely difficult to impossible without the county's ballpark.
Would the Diamondbacks actually leave?
Team and county officials have long said they hope to keep the Diamondbacks at Chase Field.
The ballpark is widely seen as a catalyst for transforming downtown Phoenix and a source of civic pride. The team seeks to turn it into a state-of-the-art venue with luxury amenities for fans. And county officials hope to get out of a costly renovation bill — and to avoid the fallout that would come if the team left the ballpark.
But that didn't stop team owner Ken Kendrick from uttering a veiled threat during a news conference in February. He said the team "might run out of time" in Phoenix, later adding that he hoped that wouldn't happen.
Where do the county and the team disagree?
Proposals from the team and the county indicate longstanding, fundamental disagreements over which investments both entities should be making in the ballpark. Those disputes continue to hang over negotiations.
The parties are still tens of millions of dollars apart on how much the team should invest upfront to lease land and develop around the ballpark.
The county wants that money invested into Chase Field sooner than the structure laid out in the team's proposal. And the county proposes an additional $200 million investment from the team if it gains the ability to build mixed-use development on-site at the ballpark.
Is there anything both sides agree on?
Yes. Money hangups aside, the entities appear mostly on the same page.
Both propose a 50-year lease term. Both say the team would retain its current control of ballpark maintenance. And both support some sort of rolling termination option that would allow the team to walk away on a three-year notice — although the county's offer locks the team in place for about a decade first.
Both agreements also include flexibility in case the team is unable to find a way of funding mixed-use development at Chase Field.
What prompted the sudden tension?
The relationship between the team and the county has long been contentious, and the disagreements have largely revolved around investments in the ballpark. Both sides have described warmer relations in recent years, but questions remain over who should own or operate the ballpark and who should pay what.
Those tensions came to a head as the Diamondbacks got ready to play the Colorado Rockies in Denver on Tuesday. The game was the team's final stretch to reach the postseason for the second year running.
County leaders sent over a counteroffer to the team's summer proposal. Their letter indicated that there was still work to be done in negotiations. It also expressed dissatisfaction with how the team has maintained the ballpark in recent years and characterized its condition.
"We find the recent remarks from the team that the stadium’s condition is 'shameful' confusing and troubling," Board of Supervisors Chairman Jack Sellers wrote in a letter. "Reports of falling concrete and excessive heat are an indication that the party responsible for the structure may not be taking the steps necessary to maintain a safe and friendly environment."
That disrupted the balance of the talks and frustrated the Diamondbacks. The team said it had done its part by "investing millions into repairing this aging ballpark," while getting "little to no" assistance from the county.
"The truth and fairness matter here, and bizarre attacks like this do not represent the way our partners should do business," the team said in a statement. "It is clear for all to see that this was a bomb-throwing tactic from a chairman who lost his primary and two other outgoing members who will not be part of future talks."
What are the facts about stadium maintenance?
Fans have long complained about an air conditioning system that often leaves the ballpark feeling toasty during the hottest days of summer, and that its signature retractable roof has at times been inoperable.
Team leaders have historically placed the blame for maintenance issues squarely on the county — and it echoed those sentiments on Tuesday night. But county leaders have long pointed out that the team has control over maintenance per the terms of a 2018 legal settlement.
Since then, the team has spent about $14.5 million out of the reserve fund for maintenance, according to quarterly financial reports filed with the county. Documents show Maricopa County officials spent more than $46 million on repairs and new amenities at Chase Field from 2005 to 2017.
Team leaders previously told The Republic that they didn't want to plow millions into a facility they might abandon. They also said the team has invested about $100 million overall into Chase Field improvements, such as new LED boards and refurbished concession stands — although they haven't provided receipts.
County documents show that between 2009 and 2015, the team pitched in more than $5.2 million toward maintenance and upgrades.
How would the team improve Chase Field?
The Diamondbacks envision a ballpark with high-end amenities and surrounding mixed-use development. Such entertainment districts, which typically include hotels and restaurants, have become the new standard in recent ballpark deals for teams such as the Atlanta Braves and the Tampa Bay Rays.
To get there, the team hopes to use a method of recovering tax revenue like the Arizona Cardinals NFL franchise does at State Farm Stadium in Glendale.
The Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority funds ongoing State Farm Stadium operations and some other sports-related ventures, including the Cactus League. It captures tax revenue generated by the Cardinals'operations, and that money, instead of going to the state, is used to fund maintenance. That also applies to state income taxes paid by Cardinals' players and staff.
When does the team's current lease run out?
The team's current lease expires in 2027, meaning the Diamondbacks have only three more guaranteed seasons at home in Chase Field. After that, all bets are off.
What's next?
It remains to be seen whether the team and the county can patch up their relationship.
Both sides previously said in correspondence that they remained committed to continue talking. But Diamondbacks CEO Derrick Hall said in a Thursday interview with ArizonaSports.com that he doesn't "see a deal in sight."
As the team noted in its Tuesday night statement, three of the five members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are set to leave their influential positions in January. Team and county leaders previously indicated that both sides wanted to have a lease extension hashed out by the end of the year to avoid a new set of negotiations with a new set of county supervisors.
Amid a major election year, the makeup of the Arizona Legislature is also likely to change — a factor that could heavily influence the viability of the Diamondbacks' tax recapture plans. Several Phoenix leaders are up for election in the spring.
Republic reporters Corina Vanek, Nick Piecoro and Taylor Seely contributed to this article.
Sasha Hupka covers county government and election administration for The Arizona Republic. Reach her at sasha.hupka@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X:@SashaHupka. Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps. Sign up for her weekly election newsletter,Republic Recount.