Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[gosioux76]

35 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

It could work for a handfull of games, like Montreal did in Puerto Rico. I guess if the Coyotes can do it in a 5,000 seat arena then the A's can do it at a 10,000 seat ballpark.

 

That's an interesting thought.  I realize we're talking about two different sports — comparing baseballs to hockey pucks, so to speak – but I wonder if this Coyotes small-venue experiment eventually becomes a success whether it'll prompt other leagues to look more openly at short-term, stop-gap solutions like this.

 

How many times have we handicapped a potential relocation market by saying they don't have a big-league-ready venue?  

 

Say Phil Knight suddenly decides he wants to own a Major League Baseball team in Portland. The lack of ownership has only been one part of the equation. A market also had to have a venue and before, we'd never have considered Ron Tonkin Field, home of the Hillsboro Hops, as a viable short-term venue, at least not without millions spent on improvements. Could the Coyotes example change that?

 

I'm not suggesting it would. I have no idea. Just tossing out a thought experiment. 

[McCall]

5 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Too small and not expandable on that site without taking over existing streets.

It actually has been mentioned as a potential temporary site. The capacity is still more than the A's draw now, so you probably wouldn't even need to increase it to be an improvement over the Coliseum. Not sure how scheduling would work with two teams playing there simultaneously, though.

[rams80]

6 hours ago, Dilbert said:

It could work for a handfull of games, like Montreal did in Puerto Rico. I guess if the Coyotes can do it in a 5,000 seat arena then the A's can do it at a 10,000 seat ballpark.

 

The Coyotes aren't supposed to be a moneymaker by design though.  I don't think that's gonna fly in MLB.

[WestCoastBias]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

It actually has been mentioned as a potential temporary site. The capacity is still more than the A's draw now, so you probably wouldn't even need to increase it to be an improvement over the Coliseum. Not sure how scheduling would work with two teams playing there simultaneously, though.

 

MLB would need to move the Aviators if the A's end up in Las Vegas. No way a city the size of Vegas could support Major League and Triple-A baseball teams. I assume Fresno would likely get the Aviators since they have a Triple-A facility but got demoted to Single-A in the MiLB reshuffling a couple years ago.

[rams80]

2 hours ago, McCall said:

It actually has been mentioned as a potential temporary site. The capacity is still more than the A's draw now, so you probably wouldn't even need to increase it to be an improvement over the Coliseum. Not sure how scheduling would work with two teams playing there simultaneously, though.

 

Las Vegas AAA team would leave on the spot if an MLB team moved in.  That scheduling problem wouldn't exist.

[McCall]

Just now, WestCoastBias said:

 

MLB would need to move the Aviators if the A's end up in Las Vegas. No way a city the size of Vegas could support Major League and Triple-A baseball teams. I assume Fresno would likely get the Aviators since they have a Triple-A facility but got demoted to Single-A in the MiLB reshuffling a couple years ago.

Not necessarily. Sumerlin’s far enough west it may not be much different than Twins-St. Paul or the Astros-Sugar Land. Plus it’s a brand new stadium. They’re not gonna want to abandon it.

[GDAWG]

3 minutes ago, McCall said:

Not necessarily. Sumerlin’s far enough west it may not be much different than Twins-St. Paul or the Astros-Sugar Land. Plus it’s a brand new stadium. They’re not gonna want to abandon it.

 

Or the Rangers-Frisco.  

[GDAWG]

 

Part 2:

 

 

[WestCoastBias]

12 hours ago, McCall said:

Not necessarily. Sumerlin’s far enough west it may not be much different than Twins-St. Paul or the Astros-Sugar Land. Plus it’s a brand new stadium. They’re not gonna want to abandon it.

 

Houston and Dallas are 3x as big as Vegas and the Twin Cities is a more unique situation. Seems like Vegas just gets the benefit of the doubt with everything even though no one knows what the market will be like in the future with likely every major pro sports league. I doubt many other expansion cities would get to keep their Triple-A team.

[Chromatic]

20 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Too small and not expandable on that site without taking over existing streets.

I also question the viability of a team playing outdoor games in Vegas in the middle of July.

[kolob]

1 hour ago, Chromatic said:

I also question the viability of a team playing outdoor games in Vegas in the middle of July.

 

As a temporary solution playing all night home games could work. Or, split the season between a Bay Area ballpark, Reno and/or an International market like Mexico City, Monterrey, Montreal or Vancouver?

[GDAWG]

3 hours ago, kimball said:

 

As a temporary solution playing all night home games could work. Or, split the season between a Bay Area ballpark, Reno and/or an International market like Mexico City, Monterrey, Montreal or Vancouver?

 

Not happening.  MLB turned down the dual Montreal/Tampa plan set forth by the Rays.  Plus the MLBPA would have issues with it.  

[WestCoastBias]

The A's would play in Oakland until the Vegas stadium is done like the Raiders did.

[Red Comet]

1 hour ago, WestCoastBias said:

The A's would play in Oakland until the Vegas stadium is done like the Raiders did.

 

The Raiders were able to pull that off because they have a widespread and dedicated fanbase. Who the hell is going to go watch an A's game when they know they're going to Vegas?

 

 

This is how it is without knowing that they're going to Vegas. 

[FiddySicks]

8 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

Houston and Dallas are 3x as big as Vegas and the Twin Cities is a more unique situation. Seems like Vegas just gets the benefit of the doubt with everything even though no one knows what the market will be like in the future with likely every major pro sports league. I doubt many other expansion cities would get to keep their Triple-A team.

This is the most baffling thing to me about Vegas. It’s one of the smaller markets in the sports world, is in the most impoverished state in the country, it’s real estate and job economy is already plateauing, and is in the middle of a desert hellscape that is actively running out of water. The hesitation on Vegas as a major sports market was led by the whole gambling thing, but it’s far from the only reason it took Vegas so long to get top level pro sports. Rushing in every single top tier sport in the US within a 10-15 year period is incredibly reckless, even with the transient tourism population they have. Eventually something is going to give, and I just can’t see the A’s not being the first team that the consequences of this lands directly on top of. I would be willing to put good money on it that if the A’s do end up moving down there, they’ll be in an even worse situation than they are now within ten years. Very little of what Vegas is doing is going to be sustainable in the long run, and I can’t believe the A’s/MLB are seemingly so willing to take that risk. 
 

The A’s biggest problem is the one thing MLB seems so willing to ignore, and that’s the ownership group. It’s a group that flat out refuses to put any of their own resources into fixing the problem, and instead would rather beg for handouts from city/state governments. The Giants had many of the same issues the A’s have with getting a new stadium, but the difference is they had an ownership group that was willing and able to privately fund a new ballpark. That move has completely turned around the Giants fortunes, and instead of taking a lesson on that, the A’s just wanted to cry poor for three decades. I understand that finding the money and real estate to do these sort of things in the Bay Area is hard, but it’s been shown that it isn’t impossible. The Giants did it, the Warriors were able to get themselves a brand new building, and hell, even the 49ers found a way to do that while also pulling in public funding. 
 

I think that ultimately down the line the A’s leaving the Bay Area is going to be looked at as one of the biggest failures in modern US pro sports. And it’s almost entirely based on greed.

[Ridleylash]

It feels like the other three leagues saw what a success the Golden Knights were and are rushing to capitalize on it by any means necessary, without really putting together that what the Knights pulled is basically unreplicable and that rushing to try and do that while competing with the Knights for eyes will only hamper everybody further.

 

 

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

It feels like the other three leagues saw what a success the Golden Knights were and are rushing to capitalize on it by any means necessary, without really putting together that what the Knights pulled is basically unreplicable and that rushing to try and do that while competing with the Knights for eyes will only hamper everybody further.

 

 

I donno, the Raiders are doing alright. 

[BBTV]

45 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

 

The Raiders were able to pull that off because they have a widespread and dedicated fanbase. Who the hell is going to go watch an A's game when they know they're going to Vegas?

 

 

This is how it is without knowing that they're going to Vegas. 

 

Right... so it couldn't be much worse.  Would be a better argument if they were drawing fans.

[FiddySicks]

The NFL and particularly the Raiders are a different dog in their own right. It’s the most popular sport in the country, only has 8 home dates, and the Raiders in particular are a team that people would follow to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean if need be. People aren’t gonna do that for the booty ass A’s. 
 

Just look at the Arizona Cardinals. They play in a veritable black hole of of an area of Maricopa County, but being an NFL team that only plays home games on the weekends transcends that. Vegas (in particular the area where their current AAA stadium is) is in a lot of ways even worse. And they’re gonna try to do that with 1/3 the population. Lol, ok. 
 

And I even get it that the A’s aren’t drawing flies in their current location, but that has to do with how hamstrung they are by that ownership group. The potential is there, but their setting themselves up to actively fail. The potential in Vegas is a LOT less, and if they make any missteps, those problems are only going to be exasperated. 
 

I’ll use the A’s and Raiders as a comparison point. At the end, the Raiders were basically intentionally kneecapping themselves to get out of the Coliseum, so their attendance slipped. But before that, even when they were absolute dog:censored:, they were selling out or close to selling out most of their games. The A’s have never had that even when they’ve been competitive, because the fans knew that the owners were too cheap to even try to keep that competitiveness long term. 
 

People seem to think this ownership group is going to magically get better and more willing to spend if they move to Vegas. I mean, you can make that bet if you want, but I sure as hell wouldn’t. 

[Ridleylash]

21 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I donno, the Raiders are doing alright. 

True, but the Raiders also have the benefit of mooching off the many LA tourists who bleed black and silver as well as football's general popularity across the US to fall back on; I don't see the Athletics having nearly the same panache in Vegas that the Knights and Raiders do, with how baseball has struggled to maintain relevance in the modern era of sports due to how slow-paced and long the game is.

 

Plus, I don't know if Vegas' taxpayers are necessarily in the mood for dealing with another sports team asking for public funding for a stadium after the city just coughed up 750 million just to build Allegiant for the Raiders. At least the NBA can just occupy T-Mobile as co-tenants with the Knights.