bosrs1

Looks like Kaval and Fisher unfortunately had a productive day in Carson City

https://www.si.com/mlb/athletics/news/as-owner-and-president-attempt-to-rally-support-for-their-vegas-relocation

49 minutes ago, GhostOfNormMacdonald said:

Which is somehow better than how attendance is in Oakland at this point lol

Beat me to it. They could play anywhere else at this point and out draw what they’re getting in Oakland. These last few months have made the Expos final season seem enviable, which is impressive in a sad way.

4pm start times if they move to Vegas to cater to tourists? That’s just swell. 

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/athletics/mlb-rumors-athletics-john-fisher-considering-tweak-las-vegas-tourists

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

If the A's think Oakland sucks, why the are they considering spending time in Sacramento, a place commonly agreed to be even worse lmfao

 

I feel like MLB will just force Fisher and co. to sell to local interests in Oakland long before letting the A's go to Sacramento.

 Five years ago I’d have agreed or when Selig was commissioner I’d have definitely agreed. Manfred though, seems to have a hard on for getting out of Oakland, hence talking about waiving relocation fees and now using the A’s move as a de facto threat against other teams like Milwaukee. He’s seemingly done with Oakland. And after 30 years who can blame him. Fisher is an inept cheapskate boob of an owner, but Oakland is equally inept at the leadership level and has been for a very long time. Well run cities don’t lose 3 teams in 5 years among other failings. 

8 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This ownership is done in Oakland.

 

This ownership has figuratively nuked the bridge in Oakland.

 

Even the most ardent A's fans are done with this ownership.

 

As of this moment the team is not for sale.  But, if the Vegas thing falls through, that could change very quickly.

 

If Fisher sold right now, he'd come away with almost a billion in profit.  And Lacob has already stated his willingness to buy the team at its current valuation.  If Fisher didn't sell after a failed attempt at Las Vegas, the value of the team would plummet.  I'm no capitalist, but the incentives seem clear here.

 

Nah I mean that I said. The ownership has done irrevocable damage to this franchise, even absent them it’ll take a decade plus to right the ship. 

32 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

Ballpark Digest: Legislators debate new Las Vegas ballpark; Sacramento to host A’s?

After the Legislative session last night and the suggestion that if Vegas falls through they’re still done in Oakland, this doesn’t surprise me. The A’s have figuratively nuked the bridge in Oakland and then pissed on the ashes. Even the most ardent fans are done with them, to the point it’s hard to see how they recover even if the come crawling back to the Bay Area. Far more likely they’ll go shopping elsewhere, and Sac does have site they’d earmarked for a soccer stadium downtown that would work just as well for baseball. 

1 hour ago, McCall said:

What? I didn't suggest anything. I pointed out that MGM could NOT demand compensation from anyone simply for their building being in view from another building, as implied by you per your original post.

Ah, yeah you had to see the post my post was responding to which said:

“Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?”

3 hours ago, McCall said:

You asked how much MGM would demand FROM the A’s.

Yes and you suggested the A’s would even think they’d have some grounds to demand payment from MGM for being in view from the ballpark… which is ridiculous (I was mocking the very idea in reverse). Then again so is the whole A’s organization is ridiculous so they may just be dumb enough to try something like that. 

3 hours ago, McCall said:

I don't believe MGM, or any business for that matter, demand compensation for their building being simply in view from the ballpark.

I was being facetious. The A’s can’t demand anything from MGM. They were there first.

On 5/26/2023 at 4:39 PM, Sykotyk said:

Precisely. Once they start figuring out how many suites/club seats/levels, etc, they'll start having to decide how/where everything will fit. I'm guessing they'll squeeze that foul territory down a bit. But would be neat to keep the curved wall instead of a bunch of angled walls.

 

Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?

More like how much is MGM going to demand from the A’s for using their hotel as a free green and gold back drop.

13 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Yeah the batters' eye in center field would be due North. Only a lefty would have the sun opposite of them, but only until it sets far enough below the stadium, which will probably be around first pitch. And most of the time the roof will be closed. And when it's not, will probably be early April or late September, when the sun will lower on the horizon anyways.

Yeah it’s never been an issue in San Diego. I doubt it will be here. Bigger issue is that the stadium as rendered is FAR bigger than 9 acres. This apparent was the same render they commissioned for the site up closer to Sahara with just the background changed. It really is a rushed hatchet job and the real ballpark will likely look nothing like this.

16 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

Now that I've been there and seen that (supposed-to-be) potential site for myself—the plot on which The Tropicana currently sits—I can better orient myself in these photos. So, with that said...on the one hand, opening the stadium that way does ensure a good view of a chunk of the strip. On the other hand, though...that opening faces northwest, meaning the evening sun would be setting—and dropping—right in spectators' faces (and that's to say nothing of all that hot out there)...

How would the sun be in the spectators faces when it’s always in the southwest?

Also I imagine the roof will be closed most of he time.

So this dropped today…

https://ballparkdigest.com/2023/05/26/draft-of-as-ballpark-funding-bill-released/

6 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

This is something I'd never considered, having both MLS and Liga MX teams in the same metro. It's only a 30-minute drive between Caliente Stadium and Snapdragon, according to Google Maps. That's really interesting. 

I mean I think the Wave attendance, which is head and shoulders above the rest of the league had something to do with it. As did Snapdragon Stadium which is a great place to see a game. That and the Chargers departure, COVID, border politics, and the Xolos having sucked for years now also play into it. 10 years ago I’d have agreed with you but the landscape changed. Only thing that never really mattered was the other SoCal teams. Galaxy and LAFC are non factors in San Diego and probably have a dozen fans down here between them. 

51 minutes ago, DustDevil61 said:

 

Between this, the higher prices for attendance (and apparently $30 parking!), and the political climate in Oakland/Alameda County, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that Fisher and Co. Athletics are going to be playing somewhere else—in the realm of 99.5% that it’s  Las Vegas—within the decade.

 

My biggest concern is that the Las Vegas market will become too saturated too soon, going from 0 to 3 teams in the space of a decade—notwithstanding the stigma of gambling preventing teams from going to Vegas or its “destination city” reputation.

 

Sure, if I had my way, they’d at least give Portland or Salt Lake a glance or two (cities with a baseball history, the latter of which IMO is still close enough to tap into Las Vegas), but I think all of us, myself included, knew it was either “stay in Oakland” or “move to Las Vegas.”

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a preliminary announcement during the off season and next year is their last year in Oakland. Attendance is going to tank with the in some cases 70% increase in ticket prices. The A's were already far pricier than they had any business being given their team and stadium. Now... they're going for Expos or worse levels of attendance to make their situation in the Bay Area untenable. And now that they're opening up avenues to pay for the stadium in Vegas that won't involve public funding, I'd say it's a foregone conclusion they're already out the door. It's really just a matter of to which specific Vegas site and when do they make the official announcement. 

52 minutes ago, Brian E said:

no, not diamond era (or hex era or whatever they're calling it nowadays). we're talking poly blend front two panels, trucker mesh for the back four.

Oh for :censored: sake... God it's like MLB is purposely sabotaging New Era now so they can justify stripping them of the MLB contract in a few years to give it to Fanatics like they have everything else. 

1 hour ago, Brian E said:

 

it was removed from youtube. uni watch originally ran the link as part of its ticker.

When people are saying "mesh" are they like the current New Era mesh hats (the more breathable version of the current ST/BP caps) or are we talking full on trucker cap mesh? 

On 8/21/2021 at 11:18 PM, dont care said:

They’ll wear their Tampa city connect uniforms while playing a home game in Montreal…

Ok, now THAT would be funny and the best use of the CityConnect crap I can think of. 

On 8/18/2021 at 6:57 PM, dont care said:

I believe it’ll be the whole league next year

Well maybe we'll get lucky and an asteroid will wipe out humanity first

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

Isn't the expansion fee what they're really after?  They could make up some of that in a relocation fee, but since the purchaser would have to pay that on top of the purchase price (and I'm assuming that even a crappy-irrelevant team like the Coyotes is worth at least a few hundred mil) wouldn't that be a blocker to moving them rather than just having them play in a high-school rink?

 

Seattle paid what - 600M or something like that?  I have no idea what the 'yotes would sell for, but for it to make sense for the league, it'd probably have to be close to 1B USD - and does the Quebec group have that kind of money?  Maybe... I don't know.

Hell, contract the Yotes and then just expand immediately. Kinda like what MLS did when they killed Chivas and launched LAFC almost immediately after. 

13 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

So, let’s see if I have this straight. The Coyotes, who used to be the the Winnipeg Jets, are going to move to Quebec and become the New Nordiques, because the Thrashers already beat them to the Punch and became the New Winnipeg Jets. 
 

What a goddamn mess. The NBA’s screwy history has NOTHING on this clown car of a league.

At this advanced stage of the league's development too. 

Makes you appreciate MLB's fairly streamlined history, particularly since the modern era began in 1900. 

43 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Pretty tough to negotiate a real estate deal when you are essentially homeless.

 

After the mess the Islanders went through for the past 5-10 years I'm not sure the league wants another team playing in a temporary home not fit for hockey while they buy time on getting a new arena built.

Time to bring back the Nordiques!

Seriously though, they'll be on the east side of Phoenix for sure. May have to play in a substandard venue for a year or two, but they'll get something done on the east side.

3 hours ago, Red Comet said:

I don’t think the A’s could sell out the Mausoleum even if they gave each fan a bar of gold with their ticket. Really feels like they’re done with Oakland and the people have responded in kind. 
 

Pandemic or not, getting 3,000 fans to your game paints a picture that all the concept art for a stadium that will never be can’t. 
 

EDIT: Wait, they’re charging more? A’s ownership pictured: 

I mean I think it's a calculated move by the A's FO to drive away even more fans than normal to make the case for relocation, be it to Vegas or a new Oakland ballpark. But if it's the latter, driving away fans so you're only drawing in the sub-10,000 range seems an odd way to go about it. I mean they're going to need fans back eventually, and they didn't have many to begin with. Driving away the few your have leaving you no core to build back up the fanbase in a new park just seems like a really bad idea to me. 

Maybe you're right and they really do favor relocation at this point even with Oakland almost there on meeting the A's where they want them. 

9 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

That whole thing has been an absolute DISASTER since they moved up to USL, too. They’ve had multiple games moved or cancelled because of the wacky ass turf they’re trying to use, and the whole thing just looks like they were entirely unprepared for the promotion to USL and are completely in over their heads. 

Yep. Not sure they've even played a real home game yet this season. Any momentum they had from NISA has been completely lost between COVID and their disaster of an attempt at an opening game. 

Anyone else notice the A’s ticket prices lately? Seem to be some of the priciest for most of the non-premium seating. Cheapest obstructed view tickets are $24 bucks. You can go visit any of the nicer parks in California, except Dodger Stadium, for far less.