MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[Red Wolf]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

So the A’s owner was just rattling his relocation saber to get a better deal locally? I remember when Mario Lemieux did the same thing to Kansas City so the Pens could get a new arena in Pittsburgh.

 

Pretty standard stuff really. We had tons of NFL teams using Los Angeles as a threat to get what they wanted locally for a few decades. I vaguely recall the Saints using San Antonio as a potential threat as well. Without LA on the table now we have to settle for weird stuff like Toronto or London now. Or like, St. Louis I guess.

[bosrs1]

57 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I think it was to create urgency for the city to approve rather than getting a better deal financially.  If the city didn't approve it this summer, it could be another year before it was approved.  

 

That and trying to get them to hone in on Howard Terminal. The city still wants them to consider, and choose, the Coliseum site. 

[Red Comet]

1 hour ago, rams80 said:

In fairness to the Penguins, the old Igloo was really in bad shape by that point.

And The Coliseum is an honest-to-God :censored:hole and not just because it’s in Oakland. As in, sewage issues have been chronic there for as long as I remember. 
 

And yeah, I know it’s a standard tactic but it always amazes me at its effectiveness. I guess no one wants to be Baltimore or Cleveland outside of the more mundane reasons they don’t want to be Baltimore or Cleveland.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Red Comet

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, Red Comet said:

And The Coliseum is an honest-to-God :censored:hole and not just because it’s in Oakland. As in, sewage issues have been chronic there for as long as I remember. 
 

And yeah, I know it’s a standard tactic but it always amazes me at its effectiveness. I guess no one wants to be Baltimore or Cleveland outside of the more mundane reasons they don’t want to be Baltimore or Cleveland.

 

Or Oakland. Remember this is the third team in the last decade trying to get Oakland to help out with something related to a stadium or they bail. That's the one reason I take the A's move threats more seriously than I would otherwise. Oakland has already lost two teams... that and again the A's stadium search being old enough to drink, have graduated from both a bachelors and masters program and is currently finishing up it's doctoral dissertation. 

[Crabcake]

2 hours ago, Red Comet said:

I guess no one wants to be Baltimore or Cleveland outside of the more mundane reasons they don’t want to be Baltimore or Cleveland.

 

[gosioux76]

On 6/8/2021 at 1:17 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

Or Oakland. Remember this is the third team in the last decade trying to get Oakland to help out with something related to a stadium or they bail. That's the one reason I take the A's move threats more seriously than I would otherwise. Oakland has already lost two teams... that and again the A's stadium search being old enough to drink, have graduated from both a bachelors and masters program and is currently finishing up it's doctoral dissertation. 

 

Help me understand this: Is this Oakland being Oakland or is this Oakland taking a principled stand against doling out taxpayer money to billionaire owners. I can't say I've been paying close enough attention over the years to know whether to view this situation as Oakland just fumbling another opportunity or whether Oakland should be the standard bearer for holding the line on giveaways. 

[bosrs1]

2 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Help me understand this: Is this Oakland being Oakland or is this Oakland taking a principled stand against doling out taxpayer money to billionaire owners. I can't say I've been paying close enough attention over the years to know whether to view this situation as Oakland just fumbling another opportunity or whether Oakland should be the standard bearer for holding the line on giveaways. 

 

It's a bit of both. In general California cities don't dole out money for sports teams anymore. Particular direct subsidies are a dead end with both city councils and taxpayers when it's come to the ballot as they've realized they're expensive vanity projects that have no major benefit for a city and are a waste of funds. Some teams have tried creative alternative tax redirections with mixed results at best but even those have been rejected. The best you can hope for as a sports owner is some form of tax incentivization rather than subsidy or tit for tat land rights sale and maybe support for ancillary development like the A's are looking for with the infrastructure. 

 

That said, Oakland has always been somewhat dysfunctional at the local governmental level, more so that even most California cities are accused of being even with getting those supportive measures that are palatable. You have multiple points of view that don't like to see eye to eye to get things done. And the Coliseum site and its teams were a prime example. You have not only Oakland but Alameda County as having been stake holders in that (so double the government double the problems, particularly since Oakland and AlCo don't work well together and never have).  AlCo in particular just wants out of the sport business. And Oakland has mixed feelings about where the A's want to build as it's prohibitively expensive (the whole project is $12 billion and they're still asking the city for the equivalent of $897 million in indirect subsidies, and half the city council can't understand why they just don't build and redevelop where the existing stadium is instead for far less.  With the Raiders it was similar, Oakland balked at the subsidy cost that the broke ass Mark Davis wanted (not to mention they couldn't compete with the almost billion dollars Vegas was offering even if they'd been willing to offer public support). The only one the Oakland pols are entirely blameless on is the Warriors. Their owner wanted to move to San Francisco and was willing to pony up to do so. There was little Oakland could have offered that would have derailed that move, even a public subsidy probably wouldn't have been enough. 

[gosioux76]

9 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

It's a bit of both. In general California cities don't dole out money for sports teams anymore. Particular direct subsidies are a dead end with both city councils and taxpayers when it's come to the ballot as they've realized they're expensive vanity projects that have no major benefit for a city and are a waste of funds. Some teams have tried creative alternative tax redirections with mixed results at best but even those have been rejected. The best you can hope for as a sports owner is some form of tax incentivization rather than subsidy or tit for tat land rights sale and maybe support for ancillary development like the A's are looking for with the infrastructure. 

 

That said, Oakland has always been somewhat dysfunctional at the local governmental level, more so that even most California cities are accused of being even with getting those supportive measures that are palatable. You have multiple points of view that don't like to see eye to eye to get things done. And the Coliseum site and its teams were a prime example. You have not only Oakland but Alameda County as having been stake holders in that (so double the government double the problems, particularly since Oakland and AlCo don't work well together and never have).  AlCo in particular just wants out of the sport business. And Oakland has mixed feelings about where the A's want to build as it's prohibitively expensive (the whole project is $12 billion and they're still asking the city for the equivalent of $897 million in indirect subsidies, and half the city council can't understand why they just don't build and redevelop where the existing stadium is instead for far less.  With the Raiders it was similar, Oakland balked at the subsidy cost that the broke ass Mark Davis wanted (not to mention they couldn't compete with the almost billion dollars Vegas was offering even if they'd been willing to offer public support). The only one the Oakland pols are entirely blameless on is the Warriors. Their owner wanted to move to San Francisco and was willing to pony up to do so. There was little Oakland could have offered that would have derailed that move, even a public subsidy probably wouldn't have been enough. 

This is an incredibly helpful and thorough response. I really appreciate it.

[FiddySicks]

All of what bosrs1 is true, but I’ll add just a bit more to that, because Oakland’s situation is a bit more unique than most cities. Again, context is very important. 

 

1). Oakland just doesn’t have much money to spare. Due to several factors over the course of the last half century, the city doesn’t have the revenue coming in like they once did. For any city that’s going to cause problems, but it’s exasperated by the fact that Oakland is absolutely enormous. 

 

This leads me to my second point, which is a bit more touchy.

 

2). Oakland is one of the most racially diverse and multicultural cities in the country, and with that comes a unique set of challenges. The way Oakland views it (and this is absolutely the correct viewpoint to take), they simply have more important and pressing issues to deal with than doling out the little public money they have to sports venues. Crime, poverty, and substance abuse are a HUGE issues in the city, and the city has determined that putting its resources towards those issues is worth losing sports teams over. There’s always been quite a bit of dysfunction in Oakland, but it’s hard for me to see that as less than commendable. 

 

There’s also a bit of a racial component to it, as well. How are you going to both support the vulnerable classes within your city (which Oakland, again, has made their priority), while at the same time cutting huge money deals with billionaires for their toy projects? The optics just aren’t good. 

[bosrs1]

6 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

All of what bosrs1 is true, but I’ll add just a bit more to that, because Oakland’s situation is a bit more unique than most cities. Again, context is very important. 

 

1). Oakland just doesn’t have much money to spare. Due to several factors over the course of the last half century, the city doesn’t have the revenue coming in like they once did. For any city that’s going to cause problems, but it’s exasperated by the fact that Oakland is absolutely enormous. 

 

This leads me to my second point, which is a bit more touchy.

 

2). Oakland is one of the most racially diverse and multicultural cities in the country, and with that comes a unique set of challenges. The way Oakland views it (and this is absolutely the correct viewpoint to take), they simply have more important and pressing issues to deal with than doling out the little public money they have to sports venues. Crime, poverty, and substance abuse are a HUGE issues in the city, and the city has determined that putting its resources towards those issues is worth losing sports teams over. There’s always been quite a bit of dysfunction in Oakland, but it’s hard for me to see that as less than commendable. 

 

There’s also a bit of a racial component to it, as well. How are you going to both support the vulnerable classes within your city (which Oakland, again, has made their priority), while at the same time cutting huge money deals with billionaires for their toy projects? The optics just aren’t good. 

 

Part of Oakland's problem too is the development of the Bay Area. When it acquired all of the teams that it did, it was during the suburban flight time period (the 50's and 60's). Oakland was appealing in part because the way San Francisco is hemmed in on all but one side, it doesn't have any direct suburbs other than Daly City (which itself isn't very suburban), so Oakland and Alameda Co. was a prime location for a team like the Warriors to slide over to, or for the Raiders to found their team in, or for the A's to move their team to. And while a suburb, Oakland was the Bay Area's second largest city in its own right at the time with a bustling port, nearby military establishments in and right next to the city limits, etc... 

 

Fast forward 30 years and the Oakland port was passed over long ago by other California and west coast ports in importance, the military has all but abandoned the Bay Area including most importantly for Oakland and Alameda County,  NAS Alameda, and Oakland itself has seen itself eclipsed by San Jose as the other "pole" in the Bay Area (as SJ is on almost equal or superior footing to even SF in many respects).   

[B-Rich]

Another thing to think of is the nature of the LEAGUES in regards to the teams named "Oakland".   When Oakland's first major league team (the Oakland Raiders) came about,  it was in a different LEAGUE, the AFL, which had its own TV contract.   TV markets being what they were (and are) this meant that the AFL had a foothold in the major Bay Area TV market, just as they did in NYC (and originally, LA).  With the merger, for many years you still had the two basic TV network contracts (AFC/NFC) plus the ABC Monday Night Football contract.  Today, in the realm of cable, NFL Network,  Sunday Ticket, flex scheduling and such, having two team in this major market is not as important.

 

Similarly, when the A's moved  from Kansas City to Oakland, it was when the leagues were still much more separate entities who only played each other in exhibition games and the World Series.   In a major market like the Bay Area, it made sense to have a team in each city ( just as it did in NY, Chicago,  and LA, and if you want to stretch this factor, that's why Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and later Florida worked so well with a team in both the NL and AL ).    Not just for broadcast factors, but because the local sports fans (of which there were many) could ostensibly see ALL of the teams (and star players) of both leagues over the course of a season.   With interleague play and unheralded media coverage of all games,  these factors are no longer important.

To me, the Bay Area (specifically San Francisco/Oakland)  has always been less a New York/LA type of place that merited two franchises in football and baseball, but more like a Tampa/St. Pete, or Minneapolis/St. Paul,  and probably most like a Dallas/Ft.  Worth "twin city" kind of situation.   I think that the Bay Area is just "right-sizing" in terms of sports franchises:  one each in all the five major sports. 

 

It is kind of interesting, though, that the result in terms of  NAME will be  two with "San Jose" (Sharks and Earthquakes), two with "San Francisco" (Giants and 49ers) and one regional (Golden State), but in terms of physical location/home stadium/arena it will be two in San Francisco (Giants and Warriors) but THREE in the south bay (Earthquakes, 49ers and Sharks).

[bosrs1]

52 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Another thing to think of is the nature of the LEAGUES in regards to the teams named "Oakland".   When Oakland's first major league team (the Oakland Raiders) came about,  it was in a different LEAGUE, the AFL, which had its own TV contract.   TV markets being what they were (and are) this meant that the AFL had a foothold in the major Bay Area TV market, just as they did in NYC (and originally, LA).  With the merger, for many years you still had the two basic TV network contracts (AFC/NFC) plus the ABC Monday Night Football contract.  Today, in the realm of cable, NFL Network,  Sunday Ticket, flex scheduling and such, having two team in this major market is not as important.

 

Similarly, when the A's moved  from Kansas City to Oakland, it was when the leagues were still much more separate entities who only played each other in exhibition games and the World Series.   In a major market like the Bay Area, it made sense to have a team in each city ( just as it did in NY, Chicago,  and LA, and if you want to stretch this factor, that's why Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and later Florida worked so well with a team in both the NL and AL ).    Not just for broadcast factors, but because the local sports fans (of which there were many) could ostensibly see ALL of the teams (and star players) of both leagues over the course of a season.   With interleague play and unheralded media coverage of all games,  these factors are no longer important.

To me, the Bay Area (specifically San Francisco/Oakland)  has always been less a New York/LA type of place that merited two franchises in football and baseball, but more like a Tampa/St. Pete, or Minneapolis/St. Paul,  and probably most like a Dallas/Ft.  Worth "twin city" kind of situation.   I think that the Bay Area is just "right-sizing" in terms of sports franchises:  one each in all the five major sports. 

 

It is kind of interesting, though, that the result in terms of  NAME will be  two with "San Jose" (Sharks and Earthquakes), two with "San Francisco" (Giants and 49ers) and one regional (Golden State), but in terms of physical location/home stadium/arena it will be two in San Francisco (Giants and Warriors) but THREE in the south bay (Earthquakes, 49ers and Sharks).

 

 

Also a good set of points that is also an extension of mine. The current layout of the teams 2 in SF, 3 in San Jose (with one carrying the SF name), and the A's for now, is very much an expression of that shift I was talking about. When the teams were all founded or moved in, Oakland was the "twin city" to SF. Now it's unquestionably San Jose that is the "twin city" in that scenario. Oakland has fallen away to a distant third. And unlike Arlington, from your Dallas/Fort Worth comparison, Oakland as you say doesn't host teams that are designated by the region or the primary city like Arlington does. Even when they had the Warriors and their nonsensical naming. And I agree this is somewhat of a rightsizing. The only CSA's larger than the Bay Area are NY, Greater LA, DC/Baltimore (which have always been two separate markets despite being lumped into the same CSA), and Chicago. And of those 4: NY has 2 MLB, 2, NFL, 2 NBA, 3 NHL and 2 MLS; LA has 2 MLB, 2 NFL (and really is only supporting 1), 2 NBA, 2 NHL, 2 MLS; DC/Baltimore (which again have never been considered the same market) have 2 MLB, 2NFL, 1 NBA, 1 NHL, and 1 MLS;  and Chicago has 2 MLB, 1 NFL, 1 NBA, 1 NHL and 1 MLS. And if you go below the Bay Area to Boston, Dallas, Houston, Philly and Atlanta rounding out the top 10 CSAs each have 1 team in the 5 major sports save for no hockey in ATL. 

 

So really the Bay Area keeping the A's given Chicago having 5+1 extra MLB  or losing them given Boston having only 1 each in the Big 5 would seem appropriate either way it goes. But honestly given the way the poles swung over the last 4 decades in the Bay Area, the A's really should have been allowed to move to San Jose when they wanted to, and should have been renamed the San Jose A's to really reflect the reality of that pole switch.  

[The_Admiral]

I don't think it's that unquestionable. San Francisco and Oakland are separated by a bridge and a tunnel. San Jose is 40 miles away. 

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, the admiral said:

I don't think it's that unquestionable. San Francisco and Oakland are separated by a bridge and a tunnel. San Jose is 40 miles away. 

 

In terms of the poles of the Bay Area... I'd say it's pretty unquestionable. I mean yes there's 40 miles between them but San Jose has grown into it's own beast and is the economic driver of the region along side San Francisco. Oakland, which is still a great city, has unfortunately become somewhat of a direct suburb of San Francisco with many having fled the city in recent years to live in the slightly more affordable town across the Bay. I mean it still has its own identity but it's place in the Bay Area has been irrevocably altered. 

[TrueYankee26]

And to add further into the "Twin Cities" analogy @B-Rich and @bosrs1 brought up, not only are San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose; Dallas and Fort Worth; Minneapolis and Saint Paul; and Tampa and St. Petersburg in different counties, they were considered different MSAs before they merged into one (DC and Baltimore are still in different MSAs despite sharing CSAs and of course have their own media markets).

[The_Admiral]

When was that? I think you'd have to dig pretty far back to find demographers who weren't considering Tampa-St. Pete or the Twin Cities to be one statistical area.

[TrueYankee26]

6 hours ago, the admiral said:

When was that? I think you'd have to dig pretty far back to find demographers who weren't considering Tampa-St. Pete or the Twin Cities to be one statistical area.

Good question.. Saw it somewhere but I forgot.

[chcarlson23]

You’d almost have to go back to before the Radio-era to say that the Twin Cities were separate media markets. They’ve been joined at the hip for a long time...

[Red Comet]

Maybe economically they were joined at the hip for a long time, but socially they were very far apart. Started with Minneapolis having mostly Protestants while St. Paul had a lot more Catholics and it continued until the 1960s to the point where said municipal rivalry cost them the Lakers because people in St. Paul weren’t going to support the Minneapolis Lakers. Which is why every team since then has gone with saying that their team is the “Minnesota” Vikings/Twins/North Stars/Timberwolves/Wild. Having a basebrawl between the minor league teams from both cities probably didn’t help either.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Red Comet

[DCarp1231]

The other day I learned that the Athletics move from Kansas City to Oakland was more or less the main reason why the Braves and Reds joined the NL West in 1969

 

Also, Portland or bust this time around