MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[Sport]

I'm morbidly curious to see the Reds attendance this week. They've only played one home game since Phil Castellini went out of his way to antagonize the fans (twice!) on Opening Day and that was the day game after Opening Day that's usually sparsely attended anyways. Since then the team's been out west for mostly late night games people haven't seen and lost 9 straight to go to 2-11. Phil hasn't yet had to grapple with the true consequences of his actions. If they don't win a couple of the games against St. Louis this weekend the Padres series in the middle of the week is going to look like COVID rules are back.

 

If you're a Cardinals fan in/around Cincinnati this weekend and planning to go to the games can you do us a favor and not? I want the stadium empty. 

[McCall]

19 minutes ago, Sport said:

I'm morbidly curious to see the Reds attendance this week. They've only played one home game since Phil Castellini went out of his way to antagonize the fans (twice!) on Opening Day and that was the day game after Opening Day that's usually sparsely attended anyways. Since then the team's been out west for mostly late night games people haven't seen and lost 9 straight to go to 2-11. Phil hasn't yet had to grapple with the true consequences of his actions. If they don't win a couple of the games against St. Louis this weekend the Padres series in the middle of the week is going to look like COVID rules are back.

 

If you're a Cardinals fan in/around Cincinnati this weekend and planning to go to the games can you do us a favor and not? I want the stadium empty. 

I was about to ask what you wanted Cardinal fans to do. I don't like the Reds, as a rival fan, but I feel for their players and fans with what the ownership has become. They deserve a lot better. I'd rather hate them because our respective teams are battling it out. Give me having us argue and bicker immaturely over Yadi-Phillips or Yadi-Castellanos any day over this crap.

[who do you think]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

Ok, say "I don't watch baseball" without saying "I don't watch baseball".

 

The Rays have been one of the most successful on-field teams over the last 14 years. This is a reflection on the market and/or the stadium, not the team. You put them in a market with a legitimate fanbase, and they'll be fine.

 

The A's have such a history of outperforming expectations, so the same could be said for them. Granted, they tend to dismantle rather quickly, but somehow always seem to be in the playoff hunt. Again, put them in a better market and they'll be fine as well.

 

The hell is this? On-field performance means nothing when business performance is crap. I agree that it's really heckin wholesome how these broke meme operations keep on finding good enough players to win their annual 86 games or so, but the most important thing is that neither franchise is viable in its current market. And since there are no viable North American markets available for them to relocate to, well...

[Sport]

45 minutes ago, McCall said:

I was about to ask what you wanted Cardinal fans to do. I don't like the Reds, as a rival fan, but I feel for their players and fans with what the ownership has become. They deserve a lot better. I'd rather hate them because our respective teams are battling it out. Give me having us argue and bicker immaturely over Yadi-Phillips or Yadi-Castellanos any day over this crap.

 

A friend of mine is a Cardinals fan and he wanted to make a bet before the season and I was like "why would I do that when the team is openly not trying?" and we both agreed half the league having no interest in actually winning has sucked all the fun out of the sport. Something needs to change. 

 

To be fair, the Reds have a major league leading 13 guys on IL, which includes what would be a lot of regulars and two starting pitchers. They'd probably be like 4-9 or a 5-8 with those guys healthy. 

[McCall]

1 hour ago, who do you think said:

 

The hell is this? On-field performance means nothing when business performance is crap. I agree that it's really heckin wholesome how these broke meme operations keep on finding good enough players to win their annual 86 games or so, but the most important thing is that neither franchise is viable in its current market. And since there are no viable North American markets available for them to relocate to, well...

Vegas, Nashville, possibly Montreal... there very well could be viable markets that an already-established, on-field successful team, could be financially successful in.

 

[McCall]

39 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

A friend of mine is a Cardinals fan and he wanted to make a bet before the season and I was like "why would I do that when the team is openly not trying?" and we both agreed half the league having no interest in actually winning has sucked all the fun out of the sport. Something needs to change. 

 

To be fair, the Reds have a major league leading 13 guys on IL, which includes what would be a lot of regulars and two starting pitchers. They'd probably be like 4-9 or a 5-8 with those guys healthy. 

You mean the "Mike Moustakas list"? Seems like he's lived there since signing.

[who do you think]

3 minutes ago, McCall said:

Vegas,

 

no

 

3 minutes ago, McCall said:

Nashville,

 

no

 

3 minutes ago, McCall said:

Montreal

 

no, and already failed once

 

please do NBA city roll call next, that's always fun

[McCall]

1 minute ago, who do you think said:

 

no

 

 

no

 

 

no, and already failed once

 

please do NBA city roll call next, that's always fun

So, you're one of those posters. Got it. Moving along.

[TBGKon]

43 minutes ago, who do you think said:

 

no

 

 

no

 

 

no, and already failed once

 

please do NBA city roll call next, that's always fun

So if Montreal, Vegas, and Nashville aren't viable in your opinion....then where is?

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

The hell is this? On-field performance means nothing when business performance is crap. I agree that it's really heckin wholesome how these broke meme operations keep on finding good enough players to win their annual 86 games or so, but the most important thing is that neither franchise is viable in its current market. And since there are no viable North American markets available for them to relocate to, well...

You presume that butts in the seats indicates business success. Not in MLB or the NFL.

 

I'm not saying crappy attendance is ok. But I AM saying that it isn't an indication of business failure. TV revenue assures that it isn't. 

[Dilbert]

There are plenty of viable markets. The real issue is who is paying for the stadium to be built. Lots of places dont want tax payer money to be spent on stadiums, while billionaires dont want to privately fund the building of a stadium. Because of that we are at an impass and nothing gets done. Its why Oakland and Tampa Bay dont have new stadiums in their markets and Vegas and Montreal dont have the A's and Rays.

[FiddySicks]

34 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

So if Montreal, Vegas, and Nashville aren't viable in your opinion....then where is?

Honestly, you know what market is viable?  Oakland, CA. It’s not even the location. It’s the ownership group. 

[LMU]

27 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

Honestly, you know what market is viable?  Oakland, CA. It’s not even the location. It’s the ownership group. 

Ownership group and local government.  Combine that with the representatives from the Port and you have the perfect storm of a surefire plan being torpedoed.

[DustDevil61]

1 hour ago, Dilbert said:

There are plenty of viable markets. The real issue is who is paying for the stadium to be built. Lots of places dont want tax payer money to be spent on stadiums, while billionaires dont want to privately fund the building of a stadium. Because of that we are at an impass and nothing gets done. Its why Oakland and Tampa Bay dont have new stadiums in their markets and Vegas and Montreal dont have the A's and Rays.

Pretty much this. I think that, ultimately, a couple casinos (possibly with some MLB funds) are going to cobble up the $1B+ to privately build a stadium in Las Vegas, because the city of Las Vegas and the state of Nevada are reluctant (as they should be) to cough up a massive amount of money for another sports venue.

 

Not sure exactly what happens with the Rays, but eventually something will give in Montreal, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Vancouver, Charlotte, or [insert NBA roll call city here], one way or another; I just don’t see MLB folding teams when there are a handful of viable markets for MLB leadership to try to extort public funds move into.

 

BTW, hasn’t Manfred said that a new stadium would need to be built using public funds? I can’t imagine that being true if letting stadiums be built by private funds is the likeliest way the A’s and Rays stadium situations get resolved.

[crashcarson15]

1 hour ago, Dilbert said:

There are plenty of viable markets. The real issue is who is paying for the stadium to be built. Lots of places dont want tax payer money to be spent on stadiums, while billionaires dont want to privately fund the building of a stadium. Because of that we are at an impass and nothing gets done. Its why Oakland and Tampa Bay dont have new stadiums in their markets and Vegas and Montreal dont have the A's and Rays.

To say that Charlotte or Nashville, or even Las Vegas or Portland or San Antonio (etc.) aren't viable markets is to say that like, a third of the markets in the league aren't viable — all of Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and St. Louis sit in that 2- to 3-million metro population band, Milwaukee is even smaller and does quite fine, and the White Sox are more or less a small-market team at that. If we're going to say that Charlotte isn't viable, you might as well contract 10 teams while you're at it.

 

Are there "home run" markets out there? Not really, but there haven't been any "home run" markets available for expansion or relocation since like, the 60s or early 70s.

 

It's already happened, but the long-term transformation of Major League Baseball is into a fandom model that more closely represents what you see in Europe from an attendance standpoint, not what we're used to seeing in other U.S. sports. It's perfectly fine that some teams draw 20,000 a game and others draw 45,000 — the economics of baseball are designed to give the former team more or less a hope of being good if they're run well, but I also don't think it's a crisis if there are small teams in baseball.

 

Nobody's going to build new ballparks anytime soon outside of relocation and expansion, but I do think the wave would be 25,000- or 30,000-seat, more intimate ballparks that allow for more sellouts and a better overall atmosphere. Part of the reason PNC Park rocks is that you don't have three levels of luxury suites and a club level between the lower and upper bowl. Lean in on the game-day experience, and if that means turning a few thousand fans away during the postseason when you do make it, well, that's an OK tradeoff for making the ballpark a cool place to hang out. Coors Field is far from intimate and we can debate whether "Denver's Coolest Bar for Midwestern Transplants" makes for a good baseball strategy, but the Rockies draw really well for a pretty mediocre team in a mid-sized at best market. I think it's perfectly fine if that becomes what like, half the league's game-day experience is.

[LMU]

Branching off of @crashcarson15's point, the market situation is compounded in baseball with the fact that there's 81 home games as opposed to 41 in hockey/basketball and 8 to 9 in football.  So, really the radius of pulling fans for home games is much smaller in baseball than on a NFL Sunday and as a result the fandom model makes a lot more sense.  You can get 50K at Dodger Stadium on a Tuesday.  That's not going to happen in Nashville.

[Sec19Row53]

30 minutes ago, LMU said:

Branching off of @crashcarson15's point, the market situation is compounded in baseball with the fact that there's 81 home games as opposed to 41 in hockey/basketball and 8 to 9 in football.  So, really the radius of pulling fans for home games is much smaller in baseball than on a NFL Sunday and as a result the fandom model makes a lot more sense.  You can get 50K at Dodger Stadium on a Tuesday.  That's not going to happen in Nashville.

I will say that having a roof helps in that aspect. The Brewers draw from outlying areas in part because you know a game will be played.

[who do you think]

11 hours ago, TBGKon said:

So if Montreal, Vegas, and Nashville aren't viable in your opinion....then where is?

 

Nowhere. I already said that. Which is why I think both teams will ultimately be scrapped for parts.

 

11 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

You presume that butts in the seats indicates business success. Not in MLB or the NFL.

 

I'm not saying crappy attendance is ok. But I AM saying that it isn't an indication of business failure. TV revenue assures that it isn't. 

 

Both franchises have to cut all their players loose once faced with the prospect of paying any of them more than peanuts and have had to do so for the last 20+ years now, relegating them to little more than cannon fodder on the major league schedule when there's no lightning in the bottle, but yeah, everything's fine.

[Ridleylash]

14 minutes ago, who do you think said:

 

Nowhere. I already said that. Which is why I think both teams will ultimately be scrapped for parts.

If you honestly think the MLB would rather contraction than relocation, that's on you. No major sports league in 2022 is going to want to say "Hey, you know what we need? To fold teams and lower our own value as a collective because we have less teams than the competition!"

 

If there's any change in the MLB, it's 100% through expansion or relocation. Folding isn't an option, especially coming out of the lockout they just had; the last thing MLB needs to look right now is unstable.

 

Quote

Both franchises have to cut all their players loose once faced with the prospect of paying any of them more than peanuts and have had to do so for the last 20+ years now, relegating them to little more than cannon fodder on the major league schedule when there's no lightning in the bottle, but yeah, everything's fine.

The owners don't care about that; they care about having those teams around because it helps boost the league's value by having more markets represented. Folding teams means you're losing a market without gaining anything in return, which nobody at the top likes; it's why relocation is so much more common, because a team moving markets is more palatable.

 

It's the same reason the NFL hasn't pulled the plug on Jacksonville and the NBA hasn't pulled the plug on Sacramento, despite both franchises being colossal :censored:shows from top to bottom; sure, the teams suck and have for years, but having them around helps prop up the league's media deals and merchandise profits.

[who do you think]

23 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

If you honestly think the MLB would rather contraction than relocation, that's on you. No major league in 2022 is going to want to say "Hey, you know what we need? To fold teams and lower our own value as a collective because we have less teams than the competition!"

 

If there's any change in the MLB, it's through expansion or relocation. Folding isn't an option, especially coming out of the lockout they just had.

 

That's nice. The sport is on the decline either way and neither one of these franchises has a viable place to play currently, and no viable market to retreat to. If such a place existed, they'd be gone already. If Bud Selig and the owners were bold enough to threaten contraction in 2001 to get rid of the Expos, I don't see why Rob "Piece of Metal" Manfred and today's decidedly less sentimental owners would be so aghast at the idea. It's not like anyone would miss either franchise outside of whatever meager Thrashers-tier following they currently have.

 

23 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

The owners don't care about that; they care about having those teams around because it helps boost the league's value by having more markets represented. It's the same reason the NFL hasn't pulled the plug on Jacksonville and the NBA hasn't pulled the plug on Sacramento, despite both franchises being colossal :censored:shows from top to bottom; sure, the teams suck, but having them around helps prop up the league's media deals and merchandise profits.

 

Muh footprint. Always a classic.

 

The Kings have a place to play (and just built a new arena) and reported consistently full buildings in the mid-2010s up until COVID hit, despite the on-court product being absolutely putrid. Attendance previously sagged around 2010 when the Maloofs were sandbagging the team and relocation rumors were in full swing, reminiscent of the original Winnipeg Jets. The Jaguars have a place to play that they're currently looking at renovating, and absolutely nowhere better to go unless you still believe in the London meme or think they can take on the Cowboys in central Texas.

 

Both aforementioned franchises also benefit from being the only big-four games in town. The A's and Rays, on the other hand, are buried in their current markets and will be buried in whatever NBA/NHL roll call city people want to move them to. The inflated baseball schedule (twice the home dates, twice the seats to fill per date) means baseball can't troll for the Oklahoma Citys and Memphises of the world as the NBA would do.