MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[BBTV]

It’s like people don’t know it’s a work and then work themselves into a shoot, BROTHER. 

[TBGKon]

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

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

[bosrs1]

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. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

4 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

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. 

 

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.

 

[bosrs1]

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. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

19 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

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

 

I think that new ownership would be embraced by exasperated fans, especially if new owners returned to the table with the city and got the new ballpark at Howard Terminal done.

[GDAWG]

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I think that new ownership would be embraced by exacerbated fans, especially if new owners returned to the table with the city and got the new ballpark at Howard Terminal done.

 

Casey Pratt said that new ownership could speed up the Howard Terminal Ballpark if the new ownership decided to focus only on the ballpark and then focus on the development of the rest of the land later.  

[Ridleylash]

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.

[throwuascenario]

On 5/29/2023 at 2:51 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

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?”

 

 

 

I mean, in theory they could threaten MGM to face the stadium another direction if they don't pay them. That's the only feasible way they could get money from them, if MGM even cared.

[bosrs1]

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. 

[The_Admiral]

Including the Warriors as a team Oakland lost is just gilding the lily. I don't think "an Oakland team" can exist without being in opposition to a San Francisco team; the Warriors were the Bay Area's NBA team wherein Oakland could fit an 18,000-seat arena and San Francisco couldn't. Once it could fit one, the team moved. It didn't represent any failure on Oakland's part that the Warriors moved, I think it was the plan from the day ownership changed hands, and frankly, I'm half-surprised they didn't move to San Jose once the Tank opened. (I wish they had collaborated on an arena in the Cow Palace parking lot; seems like it would have been best for all involved to have had the San Francisco Warriors and San Francisco Sharks by 1993.) 

 

Losing the Raiders, you can kind of hang on Oakland, but more so their idiot owner and the race-to-the-bottom state next door.

[FiddySicks]

8 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

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

I’ve been here for nearly two decades and from the very first few posts I made, I was pushing the A’s to Sacramento. It’s one of my oldest hills I’ve died on many times here before. 
 

 

Now, that being said, OH, COME ON. Even Sacramento, as shameless as it can be, isn’t willing to be a stopgap between a city with more crime and a city with less water. Ridiculous. They would draw about as well as the Oilers did in Memphis. 

[tp49]

11 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Interesting caveat for the A's

 

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

I wouldn't put much stock in that.  First, don't believe a word that comes out of Darrell's mouth.  He's as full of it as anyone in that town and maybe even more inept.  Second, he wouldn't have much say there anyway as the ballpark is in West Sacramento which is a separate city, in a separate county.  If the West Sac mayor were saying this my ears might perk up a little and even then I'd dismiss it.

 

6 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 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. 

Oakland is the poster child for inept governance.  Sacramento is a very close second.  I see no chance of the A's using Sacramento for any type of stopgap. 

 

3 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

I’ve been here for nearly two decades and from the very first few posts I made, I was pushing the A’s to Sacramento. It’s one of my oldest hills I’ve died on many times here before. 
 

 

Now, that being said, OH, COME ON. Even Sacramento, as shameless as it can be, isn’t willing to be a stopgap between a city with more crime and a city with less water. Ridiculous. They would draw about as well as the Oilers did in Memphis. 

I think they'd draw worse than the River Cats do now.

[BBTV]

18 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I think that new ownership would be embraced by exacerbated fans, especially if new owners returned to the table with the city and got the new ballpark at Howard Terminal done.

 

New ownership can cure a lot of things.  In many orgs, the owner is synonymous with the team, so ill will against the team just kinda goes away with a change in leadership.  But that process takes time - even if an ownership group emerged at this very second, it's a process to get through all the vetting and financial gymnastics to get it done - at which point they've been in the Coliseum for even longer, and then have to start working on these new projects from practically scratch.

 

So I think you're right, I just think it's too late.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

New ownership can cure a lot of things.  In many orgs, the owner is synonymous with the team, so ill will against the team just kinda goes away with a change in leadership.  But that process takes time - even if an ownership group emerged at this very second, it's a process to get through all the vetting and financial gymnastics to get it done - at which point they've been in the Coliseum for even longer, and then have to start working on these new projects from practically scratch.

 

So I think you're right, I just think it's too late.

 

That's a good point. However, the Oakland mayor has stated that she would go back to the table even with the current ownership, if it approached her. So, if a new ownership came in and if it were willing to pick up the process right where the current ownership abandoned it in April with the "binding (ha!) agreement" announcement that caught the Oakland government by surprise, then there would be no need to start from scratch.

 

(And, by the way, I stupidly wrote "exacerbated fans" when I meant "exasperated fans". I have corrected that error, which was one of the pitfalls of posting at work, while phones are ringing and other things are happening!)

[Digby]

You could argue that Oakland is a poorly managed city but I don’t think a refusal to play ball with even more poorly run sports teams really counts in that argument.

[VampyrRabbit]

9 minutes ago, Digby said:

You could argue that Oakland is a poorly managed city but I don’t think a refusal to play ball with even more poorly run sports teams really counts in that argument.

If the A's ownership really wanted to stay in Oakland, they wouldn't be sandbagging for the past 3 seasons. Nothing short of bending over backwards for that ownership would have kept the A's in the city with Fisher and Kaval in charge.

[bosrs1]

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

[BBTV]

Yeah a good way to build a local fan base is to time your games so none of them can actually attend. I get the desire to cater to tourists, but no tourist who’s not a fan of the road team is going to attend a game there.

 

It would be the ultimate admission that a team exists solely for visitors to see. Money being equal, why on earth would any player want to sign there, except to play where they’d never be booed by their own fans?

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

On 5/30/2023 at 7:17 PM, FiddySicks said:

They would draw about as well as the Oilers did in Memphis. 

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