bosrs1

5 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

The thing is though is that Sutter Health Park only needs to do enough renovations to get the approval of the Players Association.  Sahlen Field in Buffalo had to undergo renovations before the MLBPA signed off on it as the temporary home of the Blue Jays due to travel restrictions.  

 

The fact that they have been completely silent about the A's move to Sacramento and yet they have been outspoken about the uniforms and the large amount of pitching injuries is interesting.   

As a temporary venue sure, with the modifications they’ll make it’ll suffice short term. But it’s not suitable as a long term venue. And without being demolished it can’t be made into a suitable venue. 

On 4/9/2024 at 9:47 AM, FiddySicks said:

Sutter Health Park was also built with the idea that it would some day be expanded into a MLB sized park. Sacramento has low key been vying for a MLB team since at least the year 2000. 

That’s an urban myth. The  Raley Field does not have major league caliber facilities under the grandstand nor can the upper deck support any kind of expansion. It would have to be completely demolished to be expanded. 

8 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Gross. We don’t want them. 
 

All this is going to do is up the long term viability of the RiverCats. I can’t see them sticking around during this stretch to try and directly compete with a MLB team who shares their field. I’m not even sure the league would allow that, as the RiverCats not only can but absolutely would outdraw the A’s the vast majority of those three years. 
 

They’re using this as a “trial run for a MLB team in Sac” and I’m sorry but lol what? They couldn’t even get the soccer team off of the ground and now that’s completely out of reach because of the $500 million expansion fee. And now they want to try and pivot to MLB expansion? sure, Sacramento. 
 

 

This whole thing is a terribly half baked idea put out by the two dumbest sports ownership groups (Kings and A’s) in the state of California. 

The Rivercats are who invited them. This won’t screw the Rivercats long term. Heck this is a back door way for Sac to make a run at the A’s when Vegas inevitably fails to materialize. 

6 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

So, with the A's moving to Sacramento for two years... what does that do to the River Cats?

4 years

8 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

According to Front Office Sports:

 

 

For a union as powerful as the MLBPA, they have been very silent on the whole A's relocation.  

Probably because it’s this or they disband the A’s for 4 seasons. They’d rather a crap situation to no jobs for a team’s worth of players. 

A’s made it official, moving day is October 1 to Sacramento.

https://x.com/Athletics/status/1775898900282687717?s=20

On 6/24/2023 at 4:50 PM, BBTV said:

Does a new owner even matter at this point? I was under the impression that once the gov signed the bill, it was a binding-done deal and the only remaining formality is the owners approving it (and I can’t believe that the LV funding bill had a contingency in it that allowed for the A’s to get out without penalty if the owners rejected the move… which they won’t.)

I don’t think they’re required to use the funds if hey don’t move.

10 hours ago, NorthStar74 said:

I'm just curious... I know of the issues for the A's regarding the stadium they are at now, as I recall some time ago, cant remember exactly when, wasn't there a big main pipe break that flooded the dugouts and the other areas of the stadium? And then someone pointed out that there need to be renovations or replacements done and also recommended that a new stadium be built to replace the current one?

 

I do wish the A's would stay in Oakland as the team has been there a long time but I can understand why the team gotta have to move due to stadium problems and etc.. just terrible indeed to see another franchise transfer out of Oakland like the NFL Raiders did a few years ago... hopefully maybe at a 11th hour last minute thing a new owner can offer to buy the A's and ensure the team remain in Oakland and finally get a new ballpark to be built asap.. but that's wishful thoughts I would say so...

Honestly a new owner who steps in is the only scenario where the A’s stay in Oakland at this point. But unlike when the Giants had one foot out the door 30 years ago to Florida, the A’s aren’t for sale. And after 20 years of ownership and having no new stadium in Oakland Manfred seems more than happy to help out his buddy Fisher.

1 hour ago, Lights Out said:

 

I'm surprised those cheapskates were willing to spring for an actual billboard. I would have expected one of those spraypainted vinyl banners you see on bridges over the highway.

They’ll probably be selling a shortstop in short order.

They haven’t wasted any time have they…

18 minutes ago, McCall said:

What’s that got to do with him having “no shame” for not breaking the lease and leaving early?

If he had shame he wouldn’t drag his franchise through something so utterly and unprecedentedly embarrassing. I’m honestly shocked MLB would allow it when they don’t even consider the Coliseum a Major League facility and there are Major League equivalent facilities available as temporary options that they’re going to have to use in 2025-7 anyway. The whole thing is already a black eye for baseball, and it’s just going to get worse if they hang around unwanted.

10 hours ago, McCall said:

They have a lease through 2024. He's simply not breaking that lease. If the city wants to kick them out before then, then that's on them. I fail to see how this is proof of "no shame" on his part.

Have you seen their attendance this year? And that is pre announcement of the move. Post announcement we may get a new all time record for lowest average attendance. 

Well we knew Fisher had no shame. This is just more proof of it.

https://twitter.com/NBCSAthletics/status/1669880366797307905?s=20

A’s likely to play 2024 in Oakland.

12 minutes ago, Germanshepherd said:

 

They must have offline assurances that an offer is pending, probably from the Pac 12 given the request for an extension.

2 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

The Nevada Independent: Lombardo signs A’s baseball stadium funding bill; relocation hurdles remain

“Hurdles”

53 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

Wow. This guy doesn't just hate baseball, he resents the paying customers too.

I mean he’s completely wrong on the ballpark part, but he’s dead on with the reverse boycott. Getting a literal average sized MLB crowd after 2 months of campaigning felt a bit underwhelming. I was hoping they’d near sellout but alas… It was too little too late anyway.

1 hour ago, tp49 said:

And as I said somewhere earlier in this thread just because Darrell Steinberg said something doesn't mean it's in play.  The River Cats don't play in his city or even in Sacramento County (West Sacramento and Yolo County respectively).  The reason as that article states Steinberg was being coy about things, is because like 99.9% of what he says this is coming out of his rear end.  Take what he says with a gigantic grain of salt because nothing Darrell's said over his tenure as mayor came to fruition.  Unless something is coming from the mayor of West Sacramento or Yolo County officials you can safely ignore Darrell.

 

This is even before we broach the issue of what corporate sponsorships they would be able to get locally because as a government town Sacramento is devoid of major corporations.  I'm also not certain they'd draw very well in Sacramento either as over the last decade-plus Sacramento's become a far more solidly Giants town.

 

My prediction is they'll either play those two years out in Las Vegas with a very small possibility of a split with Reno to try and drum up some interest statewide or stay in Oakland barring the city terminating the lease early.  Of course IIRC most baseball fans in Reno are Giants fans and they'd run into the same issue with sharing a ballpark with a minor league team.

 

tl/dr: No chance the A's use Sacramento as a temporary home.

You think they’ll actually play another lame duck season in 2024 after the embarrassing :censored: show 2023 has been?

7 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

Arguably the most underachieving team in MLS, on and off the pitch. Should be a major market, is actually an afterthought. I wouldn't want to help these guys build anything on the cheap and half-empty, either.

Oh I agree, this Vegas venture is going to flop harder than LeBron James if Fisher doesn’t ultimately sell. The Earthquakes are what results when Fisher does get his stadium, you still have a poorly run team, just in a new venue. And given the effort that will be needed to make the A’s successful in Vegas…

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

RIP Major League Sports in Oakland 1960-2023.  

 

 

I believe Oakland has the dubious distinctions of both being the first city to lose all of its teams it once had in all 4 of the Big 4 leagues (Seals, Warriors, Raiders and now A’s) and the first city to lose 3 teams in under 5 years.

40 minutes ago, SCMODS said:

 

I seriously doubt the Rivercats will share their ballpark with the A's, even for a couple years, when they're now the Giants affiliate. 

Oh I don’t think that’s the likely outcome either. If I were in Vegas and in a position to put money on it I’d say they’re heading to Vegas Ballpark for a few seasons. 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Raiders waited out their lease.  Or, rather, waited for their new stadium to be built. The main argument seemed to be they didn't want to unveil themselves in Las Vegas at Sam Boyd Stadium for a few years, and there was really nowhere else to go.

 

Chargers went to StubHub Center since staying in San Diego was basically impossible. And they were limited where they could play (not at the Coliseum, the Rose Bowl has restrictions on dates, and neither baseball stadium could/would even be considered as viable).

 

Plus, there's the 'aura' of the Raiders that their fans would follow them to Las Vegas, even if via television. So, sticking out two unproductive years in Oakland wasn't exactly a negative like it would've been for the Chargers.

 

The A's though... we saw how bad the support will be when they just THOUGHT they weren't going to play in Oakland. If they sign a deal and construction starts in Vegas... they could count attendance with three digits at some games. The fans would simply shun them. Baseball relies much more on the ticket buyer than other sports. Part of having 81 home games. They'd fare better playing at LV Ballpark for a year or two at exorbitant MLB adjusted rates in the 10k stadium than to even consider playing in Oakland another year. As for the lease having a year left. There's got to be a financial out clause, and I have to imagine they'd pay whatever fee was necessary and recoup the money in Vegas at the small stadium for two years.

Agreed. If the move is approved by the owners and it become publicly known, you’ll be able to walk the Coliseum and shake ever fan in attendance’s hand by the end of the second inning. It’ll be bad enough finishing out this year, they won’t play out the current lease. Sand given the feeling in the city, I wouldn’t count on a lease extension to cover the rest of the years to 2028. No they’ll either tough out a couple of years at Vegas Ballpark in Summerlin, or find some other temp venue that’s slightly more temperate, like Sacramento. 

I would imagine October 1 will be the Oakland Athletics final curtain call.

3 hours ago, SCMODS said:

Fisher also owns the Earthquakes. Yikes. 

Why yikes? Earthquakes got their new stadium in San Jose, unlike the A’s. If the A’s had been able to make Cisco Field happen they’d have stayed in the Bay Area at least if not Oakland. 

12 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

Vegas' MLB team should create their own identity, instead of recycling Oakland's former teams.

 

I get that the football team has been in the league for a long time. But to be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of how Las Vegas Raiders sounds as a new Vegas brand identity. If it was my team, I would want a proper identity fitting with Montreal, instead of taking another franchise and swapping city names.

Neither are “Oakland’s identities”. A’s in particular have been around 123 years in 3 cities.

San Diego has a new NHL capable arena coming, and Stan Kroneke is the primary money man behind it. 

2 hours ago, GDAWG said:

Watching the special session of the Nevada Legislature and I realized one thing:

 

- I think one of the dude's name is Jeremy Aguero?  He needs to say it at least 100 more times for me to know for sure.

Watching this special session reminds me of how insane certain aspects of our democracy can be. These people are praying and doing the pledge of allegiance, and reading inane that everyone is already aware of at 11:45pm simply to take a few votes.  Nevermind the brain dead fools on the public comment period preceding it.