bosrs1

Oakland's mayor throwing out an interesting tidbit today. If the vote fails on July 20 with the Oakland City Council, Manfred has authorized the A's to begin looking at as many as 6 other cities in addition to Vegas. That includes some Canadian cities. 

What's interesting is that must mean by extension that currently the A's are only authorized to look at Vegas based on what they've been doing outside Oakland so far. Also makes me wonder if that 6 city play isn't a power play against Vegas to act quickly if they want the A's more than it's anything against Oakland. I mean one motivated region vs 6 or 7 that's still a city working actively to steal Oakland's team. Doesn't really matter how many are trying to do it, more competition doesn't really change the calculus for Oakland. But for Vegas to suddenly have competition would seem to ramp up the pressure on them to get it done fast if they want the team. 

45 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Meanwhile, their division rivals in Anaheim:

 

Anaheim Officials to Discuss Whether Angel Stadium Sale Violated State Law (voiceofoc.org)

 

 

Goddamn Surplus Land Act. They don't enforce it for decades, and now suddenly it's being used like crazy to derail all sorts of projects. Same thing happened to San Diego's new arena plan, and we've had to go back to square one and start over. Ironically the arena's approval was one of the signature projects for the now former mayor of San Diego, Kevin Falcouner, who is running to try and unseat Gavin Newsom... oops. 

51 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

So I would guess that the Padres didn't have similar issues when they were looking at a new stadium.

Not really. Then again few cities have had the issues Oakland has.... The Padres stadium was approved pretty fast in only a couple of years (going to the World Series really helped the timing). Biggest issue they ran into was long after it was approved and construction had started a NIMBY whose name is escaping me presently sued and halted construction for a protracted period. But they ultimately lost. 

Very interesting article in SFGate this morning about A's owner John Fisher. Biggest surprise in it IMO is that the former minority lead partner of the ownership group Lew Wolff... wanted to build a new ballpark at the current Coliseum site. In fact it may have contributed to the long drawn out round the Bay Area search for a site to Coliseum North, Fremont 2x, and San Jose and Wolff's eventual exit from the team.

Quote

“Lew wanted to do it, to just build a new stadium right on the same site,” Saperstein said, “which would have been a lot easier and faster. John wanted to build the stadium downtown, which involved a lot more environmental regulations, and would be a lot more of a complicated transaction. So, there was a disagreement there, and that may have contributed to Lew's decision to get out (of the ownership group), but I don't know that for sure.”

https://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Who-is-John-Fisher-Inside-the-world-and-16315323.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight

Also interesting to note from the article, not really new news, but interesting, was that the only owner to ever put money into the team and not be a cheapskate, the Haas family, were losing over $15 million a year on the team. Which would likely be upward of $50 million a year today. Which begs the question if the A's can ever really survive in Oakland. They've either had to be run on the brutally cheap as they've been under Finley, Schott/Hoffman, Wolff/Fisher and now Fisher alone, which is it's own kind of unsustainable as we've seen. Or they've been a money sink for the owner to briefly compete at a high level for players, fans, and titles. And mind you much of that time the A's were on a level playing field with the Giants and other MLB teams until the late 90's in terms of their ability to generate income. It's just never paid off. 

I think after reading this I'm even more inclined to think this is the end for the A's in Oakland. They clearly have a cheapass owner who won't build at the Coliseum site (after almost 20 years I don't expect him to change his mind), and he seems to have no desire to sell until he's made his signature stadium contribution in a splashy place, be it downtown Oakland or Vegas. Oakland's well documented dysfunction and the fact the Coliseum site exists are going to continue to derail a Howard Terminal stadium. And being reminded of the financial unsustainability of even an even footing A's team historically, I'm starting to really doubt whether it's worth it to stay anyway. The A's deserve to be the number 1 team in a city, not the second rate financially strapped other team they've been pretty much their entire existence. 

27 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

I once walked from the BART station to the old Oracle Arena. Man, that is not a fun walk, especially when you're doing it without fellow game attendees. You walk across a long, fenced-in ped bridge kind of all alone and you have no idea who or what will be on that bridge with you. And below, as I remember, is just a rail yard or train tracks and not even moving traffic (and eyes on the streets).

 

It felt like Mad Max to me -- the way a lot of Oakland (and yes, Seattle) does -- and I was glad to be safely back on the BART.

 

Is that still the gameday experience?

Yep. I mean the arena was always worse because you had to walk around the dark usually closed stadium as well. But yeah there's the cage bridge over the street, run down body shops, train tracks and the pollution filled slough, then the big concrete plaza behind Mt. Davis which is as close to an entry plaza as the Coliseum has, then more bare concrete walkways and then into the belly of the old beast. And depending on the game day and how early you arrive you're often alone. Most of the cars are parked over near the two infield gates closer to the arena. It's a dreary, cold, lifeless, experience. I give the drum crews in the outfield credit as they sometimes try to liven it up, but it's always fairly fleeting. The inside is no better these days. You're more likely to have a section to yourself than you are someone in the seat next to you (and if someone is in the seat next to you it's not hard to move and find a section to have to yourself). 

I've never had the opportunity to take in a game at Tropicana Field. But from what I've seen of it on TV, in extensive reviews, etc..., there's an equal lack of life there too, but at least it's a baseball first park that they have added a few touches to entertain you as best they can. And honestly I've always felt sorry for the Trop as  an 80's vintage dome that JUST missed the Camden revolution like its contemporaries Rogers Center and New Comiskey. I feel like all 4 of those stadiums (Tampa, Toronto, Chicago and Baltimore) were throwing darts at the board and Baltimore was just the lucky one that happened to hit the bullseye which  unfortunately left the other three to be the unlucky ones. And from what I hear the staff is ridiculously friendly in Tampa. The staff at the Coliseum used to be friendly 25 years ago, but on my most recent trips they've been decidedly dour and dickish. Which I guess fits the surroundings. 

The Coliseum however, is more than 20 years older, and was a poor product of an already poor time in baseball stadium construction. Built at the height of the multipurpose boom the Coliseum was a cut rate version of it's siblings. Lacking the automated moveable seats of many of it's contemporaries which at least brought the lower deck reasonably close to their fields. It was lower than most too with little upper deck overhang which kept the already distant seats even further from the action in the upper decks. It's design also lacked any kind of signature entry with most fans just entering through one of 4 dark and often dank tunnels. It only has two concourses for the three decks and suites which was both a cost cutting measure and uniquely lame for it's time where most of the contemporaries at least had dedicated concourses for each deck. The only real pluses the Coliseum had compared even to it's multipurpose brothers was that it had real grass when most of them had astroturf, and it had the ivy hill with a view of the Oakland hills (a view even I've been guilty of over-glamourizing in the post Mount Davis world). 

On 7/13/2021 at 5:03 PM, LMU said:

Not to mention that a return in Oakland was seen as a last grasp way back when the Fremont plan imploded.

Actually Oakland came after San Jose, which was where they settled on after Fremont imploded 2x which came after the Coliseum North plan was DOA (mind this is only the attempts during the Wolff/Fisher years). In Fremont first was the big box store revolt west of 880 (which has always been laughable since half of those stores went out of business shortly after they drove the A's away), then the neighborhood revolt when they moved their sights over near the Tesla plant. Then they went to SJ where they really wanted to be, and the Giants did what the Giants did and they skulked back to Oakland. Then of course came Laney College and now Howard Terminal. 

And that was just the plans the team was driving. Plus there was the HOK driven sites at Uptown, Oak and 9th, et al during the early 2000's, Victory Court, and the various proposals at the Coliseum itself. I could wallpaper my office with all the renderings we've been given over the years. 

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

The current Chargers look is way better than the previous design. The one drawback is the navy set with the white helmet. It's not a good look. If they bring in a navy helmet next year, it'll improve immediately. 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I wasn't a fan of the number change, the yellow pants with the white jersey, the removal of the stripes that the bolts lived in, and the navy uniform is hot garbage now (full disclosure I loathe jerseys and pants matching color in football so you can imagine how I've felt about the "color rush" nonsense). The 2020 royal blue uni is similarly cursed IMO but I think the use of yellow on the helmet bolt and pants makes it every so slightly better.  But again a downgrade over its 2019 analogue. 

That said, other than the navy, none of the changes were really huge downgrades, just small ones IMO. The overall look is similar. And I do like the numbers on the helmets so that was actually an improvement. 

Contrasted with the Rams who should have just reverted back to their classic 80's-90's look, one that is heavily associated with both LA and their only Super Bowl win during the early St. Louis years... and instead they came out with the disjointed horns, plastic gradient numbers, brighter yellow, and the bone... This year's uniform starts to fix that, but really it's a no brainer what they need to do. They need look no further than their rivals to the north in Santa Clara to know what needs to be done. 

6 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Regarding the Rams’ new uniform, they did it absolutely right this time. It baffles me still that the bone uniform was ever favored over something like this, but now that this white uniform is a real thing, I’m hopeful it will push the bone uniform out of the rotation completely and quickly. At this point, I think the Rams would be making a huge mistake by not doing so.

 

I’m also still baffled that, of the two LA teams, the Chargers were the ones who got a rebrand right from the start and the Rams were the ones who stumbled out of the gate. I had always expected it to be the other way around.

I mean the San Diego Chargers uniforms were close to perfect once they started favoring the powder blues over the Navy. The LA Chargers rebrand was actually a downgrade, but since they didn't change a ton, it was hard to :censored: it up. The Rams took what should have been an easy decision to make the old pre-St. Louis move unis or something close to it their full time uni and didn't do that. So anything they put out was going to be a WTF moment. They just chose to REALLY miss that easy mark and are now inching back toward it. 

20 hours ago, VikWings said:

 

These immediately become the best jersey in the set (not that that's saying much) and should be elevated to primary away immediately with the bone ones thrown into a bottomless pit. If they would have done this from the get go and also never touched the helmet horn or used gradients, I don't think their would have been many complaints.

 

I do lol at them comparing into to the original trying to get some goodwill back. No, no the original is still a 1000x better and that side by side photo they posted only accentuates that.

 

Let's hope the uniform they unveil next year is yellow (hopefully not mono) and not black.

Honestly I expect the Rams to quietly walk back their whole set to something closer to their classic LA look. Different enough that they can still keep selling the classics as throwbacks but close enough to the superior older look that they'll tacitly acknowledge this soft rebranding was a mistake. This is the first step in correcting the mistake. 

18 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

It’s Oakland, :censored:ing up was predetermined and as much as it may seem that they’ve run into an 18 karat run of bad luck, the game was rigged from the start.

I mean much of their "bad luck" is their own self sabotage. They're acting like they're San Francisco or San Jose (ie:  a desirable market), when in reality they've not been an appealing "second city" market for decades. They're a city that needs to be doing the most possible within their financial means to keep the team, not hemming and hawing. Same goes for AlCo who are always in such a dick measuring contest with the OCC that they're a self sabotaging  circle jerk the pair of them. 

I mean the fact most of Oakland's leadership still think the Coliseum site is still viable just shows you how out of touch they've become. Even if the A's redeveloped the entire site, it would still be a new stadium surrounded by mostly industrial wasteland, polluted sloughs, and Baby Iraq as it used to be called. It would be marginally more appealing than the stadium is now, not the game changer venue the A's need to even be on a level playing field with the Giants to TRY and compete. 

Not that Howard Terminal is great. It's got a litany of problems between the TIF financing disagreements, :censored: access for fans, Union Pacific throwing up roadblocks, etc... But it's what the A's have settled on in what is clearly the last ditch attempt. Again the idea that some people think the move threat is a bluff after 26 years is yet another highlight of how out of touch these people are. They're acting like this is still early in the process. This has been going on more than half my life now, and I'm middle aged. It's :censored: or get of the pot time. But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, :censored: on the floor, and declare victory. 

Well Manfred is towing the same line. If Oakland doesn't get something done in the next few months, they can kiss the A's goodbye.

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php

Quote

“Las Vegas is a viable alternative for a major league club, and there are other viable alternatives that I haven’t turned the A’s loose to even explore at this point," Manfred said. "So thinking about this as a bluff is a mistake. This is the decision point for Oakland as to whether they want to have Major League Baseball going forward.”

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

And Libby Schaff will be known as the Mayor who made let all of Oakland's major sports teams get away.

Well two of them anyway. The Warriors were already out the door when she took office. And the Warriors made no real effort to, nor had any desire to stay so there wasn't much her predecessor could do. 

The Raiders made unreasonable demands so while they left on her watch, I can't blame her for their departure. No one could compete with the bending over and taking it up the tailpipe Nevada was offering the comparatively penniless Mark Davis. 

But this one... this will be on her and her council if they go. The A's are offering something almost perfectly akin to the Giants ballpark deal from 25 years ago, which San Francisco has never regretted. If the city and county :censored: this up, which I'd bet good money they will, it'll all be on them. 

36 minutes ago, McCall said:

Came across this article and not sure if it was posted or the quote portion, but it appears it's gonna be Oakland or Vegas:

 

https://news3lv.com/news/local/oakland-as-continuing-eyeing-las-vegas-as-a-future-home

 

"We’re not going to any other cities," said Oakland A's President Dave Kaval. "We felt like Las Vegas and Southern Nevada made a ton of sense with the success of the other teams, the business-friendly climate, the entertainment capital of the world."

I'd say that's a good bet, Vegas pun intended. It'll really come down to how July 20th goes with the Oakland council. The A's of course already having a trip planned the next day. If Oakland makes some progress towards trying to meet the A's requests, they may continue down the road at Howard Terminal. If the OCC balks, given that there's still the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to deal with and get on board even if July 20th goes perfectly from the A's POV, that trip on July 21 will definitely take on a different demeanor. It'll go from "just exploring our options" to planning for the future of the franchise. 

With the complexities still to overcome in Oakland and AlCo, they really are in the end game IMO. And with the A's exploring the Aviator's park as a short term alternative depending on how quickly Las Vegas, Clark Co, and the other cities move we could have a relocation announcement by the end of the year. But again it all hinges on the OCC next week. 

51 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

 

I wouldn't really say that Chase Field has a "willingness to embrace the elements".   

 

There ARE variations within retractable roof baseball stadiums:  

• Seattle has a retractable roof, but that's it.  It's not an enclosed environment;  it's basically like playing under a big canopy just to protect you from the rain.
• Milwaukee has a retractable roof, but is enclosed.  It has heat, but NO air-conditioning.
• Houston, Texas, Miami, Toronto AND Phoenix have retractable roofs, are enclosed,  AND have full climate control/air conditioning. 

 

Here's the thing.  I went to a Diamondbacks game in mid-July 2007 with my family.   It had been a dreadfully hot afternoon in Phoenix, and I was looking forward to going into the cooler interior of enclosed Chase Field.   As soon as we walked in the stadium doors and out of the oppressive downtown Phoenix heat, I happily felt that blast of cool air.   But I was surprised when we went to our seats, to find that the roof was open to the darkening dusk sky,  yet the interior of the  seating bowl was as cool as if you were in an air-conditioned building.

I later learned that the roof is closed three hours before game time and the massive cooling system can drop the temperature inside the park to about 78 °F (25.5 °C) by the time the gates open.  And they run the A/C  during games even when the roof is open, so it remains cool in the seating areas (at least the lower ones).   Seems kind of wasteful, but I can tell you it was a much more comfortable experience.

 

So, yeah, Las Vegas could easily follow the Chase Field example for a baseball home. 
 

It's funny, my one experience thus far at Chase Field was the opposite. They'd had the roof open all day to help sun the grass (they'd yet to install the hateful artificial field). They had closed it about an hour before we were let into the park which was right when gates opened. There was that initial blast of cool air when you walked in from the 118 degree sidewalk, but as you moved into the seating bowl that cool feeling quickly dissipated. The concrete of the stadium was still radiating a large amount of ambient heat it had accumulated when the roof was open and the bowl was still in the low 90's despite the closed roof. It didn't really cool down until halfway through the game. Mind you it was still way cooler than the still 100+ degrees outside the park well after dark after the game. 

But to the topic at hand, yes Chase Field is proof something like that could easily functionally work in Vegas for locals. As for if there's enough of them, that's the million dollar question. If Golden Knights attendances, Aviators attendances (outside mind you) and Raiders ticket prices are any indication I think there's an argument to be made there that the locals very well may be able to support the A's better than they've been supported in Oakland for the last 30 years. Any improvement in that regard would likely be welcome, and throw in that the amenities for the team would finally be major league level...

As for visiting fans, I stand by the notion that the outdoor temp is irrelevant to the Las Vegas experience since everything in Vegas is indoors other than visiting the Hoover Dam or the NASCAR track. You don't go with the expectation you'd see your team outside or that you'll even set foot outside your hotel for more than the minute it takes to get into your UBER or cab to the ballpark. And as mentioned some of the city's busiest times of the year are during the baseball season. 

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I don't agree. You go for more than the game.  The games themselves would be comfortable, but being outside for any reason is miserable in August.  Would I go to Vegas for the Thursday Wild game and make a long weekend? Yes.* For a July Twins series? No. 

 

*Probably not, but if I was more of a "Vegas guy."

You do go for more than the game. But almost all of the reasons to visit Las Vegas are indoors and air conditioned, so even high temps don't keep people away. Vegas is busy year round and heat is expected other than outside that narrow window from Dec-Feb. Heck some of the busiest times in Vegas are Memorial Day and Labor Day, which are both in the middle of the peak heat. Same goes for the locals. If temperatures outside bothered them during indoor events, they wouldn't live there. 

You may be an exception. But as someone who is going next week... I haven't even looked at the forecast because it's irrelevant. Everything I'm doing, from gambling to amusement parks will be indoors. It could be 130 degrees outside and my only concern would be if my cocktail is full. And I'm not a Vegas guy, I frankly loathe the place. 

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Especially baseball.  June-August, it's going to be more uncomfortable in Vegas than just about anyone's home town.  I'm not sure going to see my MLB team in the summer works out quite as well as going to see an NFL* game in the fall or an NHL game in the winter.

 

*NFL does start amidst the heat, as evidenced by my Labor Day weekend Wisconsin/UNLV trip...not the best time to get away to Vegas. But you as point out, it's the Raiders and it's the NFL.  MLB is going to have to rely on the local population, at least for most of the season.

I mean all the Vegas teams play indoors and would play indoors. So the heat isn't really a consideration. 

11 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Most likely whoever gets in last, so probably the NBA. The Knights are practically locked up as the de-facto No.1 team in the Vegas market's hearts, and the Raiders aren't going anywhere so soon after building a big shiny new arena to play in.

 

It'd be down to the A's and some NBA team to determine which one ends up getting the shaft.

Knowing history... it'll be the A's. But that'll be a problem for 20 years down the line IF the region gets an NBA team. 

2 hours ago, DustDevil61 said:

 

 

If they're trying to escape the (worst of) the heat, the Athletics could always temporarily set up shop in Salt Lake with this backdrop while waiting for a new ballpark in Las Vegas to be built:

 

 

I know that some local sports radio talking heads (among them former Lions great Scott Mitchell ) that made a pitch for the Raiders to temporarily set up shop in Utah last year (as silly as the concept of the "Utah Raiders" sounds) did something similar with the A's once they announced their intention to explore relocation back in May. Oh well, a man can dream.

 

It's ultimately little more than an article to spur talk, given the logistics of pulling that off (chief among them is where the AAA Bees go), but it's always fun to think about. It's just crazy to me how quickly Las Vegas is going from 0 to possibly 3 teams in under a decade, previous gambling issues or not.

 

Anyways, the temporary Las Vegas Ballpark setup talk does spur another question if the A's do move to Vegas: What happens to the what, 2-, 3-year-old ballpark when an even newer big league park opens (as it inevitably will)? What happens to the AAA Aviators if the Athletics come to town--where do they go? Could there be the possibility of doing some kind of switcheroo, with the MLB team going to Las Vegas and the AAA team going to Oakland?

 

 

I don't see why they Aviators would have to leave town. If anything MLB is moving toward having their MLB and minor league teams in closer proximity. The A"s would just be ahead of the curve. They're not going to Oakland however. Oakland will never accept a sloppy seconds situation like that. 

A’s have apparently been exploring a temporary stay at the Las Vegas Aviators AAA park. Looks like they won’t hang around as lame ducks like the Raiders...
 

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/baseball/oakland-as-exploring-possible-temporary-stint-at-las-vegas-ballpark-2396397/

2 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

https://newballpark.org/2021/07/08/lets-take-stock/

 

In the above link is how NewBallpark.org's writer has assessed yesterday's Howard Terminal ballpark project study session at the Oakland City Council.

I'm kind of the same opinion as Marine Layer at this point. I don't see how they get this done. The two sides, really three sides, are very far apart on something that is supposed to start really getting in motion in 2 weeks. Throw in that we learn MLB has been doing leg work for 2 years in Vegas and now the A's have made no secret of their infatuation with that region... At this rate they could have a stadium deal by the holidays in Las Vegas with multiple cities not only willing to work with them but to actively make things easier for them, where  Oakland and Alameda County will still be spinning their wheels and throwing up roadblocks because they don't see the A's as providing their city/county any real value.

Not saying Oakland would be wrong. Sports teams are historically money pits for cities. But they're a prestige item that for Oakland once lost, aren't coming back. They'll go down in history if I'm not mistaken as the only city in America to lose an NHL, NBA, NFL (twice) and MLB team. 

So the A’s “expected” crowds of 30,000+ this weekend  turned out to only be 16,297.

6 minutes ago, 29texan said:

I still say Portland.

Except for the fact the A's have had no contact to date with Portland. They've made two research trips to Vegas already and identified a bunch of potential sites. And MLB had been doing ground work in Vegas before the A's were even involved. 

So yeah no. If they move it'll be to Vegas. 

54 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

Ah, so...and yes, I did read about the tenure with Connie Mack at the helm (for 50 years!), but from what you contributed, it seems the Athletics organization has had cheapskate-itis in its veins for a loooonnngg time.  

If not for their 9 World Series wins it might actually be a mercy to erase the A's from MLB and start fresh with an organization no so permeated with penny pinching.  And I say this who grew up a die hard A's fan, whose parents are still A's fans, and who has probably seen more games at the Coliseum than I'd care to admit.  But even someone of my attachment to them couldn't endure the seemingly never ending decades of this nonsense.  

Thankfully I moved to San Diego and learned to fall in love with baseball all over again thanks to an organization that mostly has had no clue how to win, but at least knew how to treat its fans and city well while losing.  

18 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That reminds me of how the A's got kicked out of revenue sharing a few years ago (IIRC). They're a part of Fisher's real estate plans, which is why the "Howard Terminal or Bust" stuff is more about Fisher getting to develop the area. Revenue sharing took some of the "burden" off Fisher, until MLB kicked them off of it. Kaval simply replaced Wolff as the public face.

 

 

Well, we must first put those nine titles (and six additional AL pennants) into context. The Athletics have been a boom-and-bust franchise going back over 100 years, with the 1910s titles followed by Connie Mack getting cheap and losing his core. The Great Depression broke up the 1929-31 teams with Mack's investments taking a hit. The Kansas City years are a black mark for everybody involved. The early-mid '70s A's dynasty met its demise through Charlie O. being incredibly cheap and opposing the arrival of free agency (also, those clubs derived a lot of unity from their mutual dislike of Charlie O. ). The A's of the late-'80s and early-'90s just gradually fell apart over the '90s and turned into the team you see today.

 

A boom-and-bust franchise history, rather than just pure consistency with small bits of downtime (Yankees and Cardinals), is why the A's are where they are now. Honestly, maybe things would've turned out better if Charlie O. sold the team to Ewing Kauffman and Kauffman kept the team in KC. 

Actually that is the one consistent thing about the A's... that they've been consistently owned by cheap ass owners. First was Mack/Shibe ownership, then Mack himself, then Arnold (who in addition to being cheap was also likely colluding with the Yankees), then Finley, later Schott/Hoffman, then Wolff/Fisher, and now Fisher alone. Other than the one bright spot of the all too brief Haas ownership in the 80's, the A's have never had an owner particularly interested in paying the kind of money needed consistently to make the team a winner both off and on field. Historically all they have is ownership that occasionally gets lucky on field, but has no clue how to translate that to success off field.

8 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Wait, what? Two things. First, why do the A’s have to pay BART so that BART can run their trains? Second, why are they so cheap as to not pay BART if that is what is required to get fans in for fireworks night? That might’ve actually given them a bit of a boost in attendance too. 

Because BART isn't running late trains right now because they're still on COVID footing. Yet the Giants magically had late trains during their fireworks night up to 40 mins after last fireworks. You can't tell me the Giants, or SF city government, or both,  didn't make it worth their while to have trains running late since clearly trains don't just magically appear. 

And why are they so cheap? People have been asking that of A's ownership for almost 30 years now. The current ownership group in particular are one of the richest in MLB, yet they act like they have no money, and perpetually sabotage themselves off field. They'd rather play this up as a shaming game on social media trying to get BART to run trains than just making it happen like their competition across the Bay. But then being an embarrassment is nothing new to the A's or their ownership. Easily a bottom 3 ownership group in all of sports, and they unfortunately own two teams who they bungle management of with the Earthquakes in MLS too.