MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[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.

[IceCap]

47 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

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.

My point is that the NFL is actually the ideal sports tenant for Vegas. They're only around for 8 or 9 games a year, and only play once a week. Perfect for weekend trips to Vegas. The city doesn't have to support them over the course of a NHL or MLB season. 

 

For as hot as the Golden Knights' start was they're going to have trouble long term. Meanwhile the Raiders are set up to succeed in Vegas as long as possible. 

 

A NBA team would be like the Knights. A hot start that long term will have difficulties. Baseball would have it the worst. 

 

But the Raiders... long term? They'll be alright. 

[McCall]

3 hours ago, IceCap said:

My point is that the NFL is actually the ideal sports tenant for Vegas. They're only around for 8 or 9 games a year, and only play once a week. Perfect for weekend trips to Vegas. The city doesn't have to support them over the course of a NHL or MLB season. 

Plus being in an entertainment-heavy economic city like Vegas, the stadium can get used quite a bit for concerts and events when the Raiders (or UNLV) aren't playing.

[Chromatic]

Let's be real, the Raiders are more of a fashion brand than a football team at this point anyway.

[GDAWG]

Las Vegas is also getting an XFL team and their WNBA team, the Aces (also owned by Mark Davis) just won the WNBA Championship, so they do have a championship winning team, albeit in the WNBA.  

[FiddySicks]

4 hours ago, IceCap said:

My point is that the NFL is actually the ideal sports tenant for Vegas. They're only around for 8 or 9 games a year, and only play once a week. Perfect for weekend trips to Vegas. The city doesn't have to support them over the course of a NHL or MLB season. 

 

For as hot as the Golden Knights' start was they're going to have trouble long term. Meanwhile the Raiders are set up to succeed in Vegas as long as possible. 

 

A NBA team would be like the Knights. A hot start that long term will have difficulties. Baseball would have it the worst. 

 

But the Raiders... long term? They'll be alright. 

I’m of the opinion that the only reason the Knights have worked out at all is because of the artificially inflated start they had, and I think that’s going to become more obvious over the next decade. I mean I kinda understand why they were motivated to even do that, as it was a brand new market for any team, and you really do have to hedge your bets on that a bit, but it’s still some real bull:censored: and just goes to show how dysfunctional the NHL is as a whole. It’s got to be of the most OITGDNHL moves I’ve ever seen, and really does nothing to disprove the overall troubles that the league has in finding truly viable markets, especially in the southwest. 

[Ridleylash]

20 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

I’m of the opinion that the only reason the Knights have worked out at all is because of the artificially inflated start they had, and I think that’s going to become more obvious over the next decade. I mean I kinda understand why they were motivated to even do that, as it was a brand new market for any team, and you really do have to hedge your bets on that a bit, but it’s still some real bull:censored: and just goes to show how dysfunctional the NHL is as a whole.

Is it really artificially-inflated if the only reason they were even as good as they were is that a bunch of teams handed them great players on silver platters for literally nothing through terrible asset management? Florida literally just gifted them both Reilly Smith and Jonathan Marchessault, Columbus gave them Karlsson, Anaheim gave up Theodore to protect guys like Eaves and Etem...

 

Like, just remove those three deals and they don't look anywhere near as good.

[FiddySicks]

I mean, look at the way they scaled the expansion draft back for Seattle. No matter if that’s stacking the deck or just poor management on the part of the other teams is almost irrelevant. Either way it ain’t a good look. 

[Chromatic]

3 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

I mean, look at the way they scaled the expansion draft back for Seattle. No matter if that’s stacking the deck or just poor management on the part of the other teams is almost irrelevant. Either way it ain’t a good look. 

Did they really scale it back? I think teams just got wise to how Vegas fleeced them and weren’t going to let it happen a second time.

[ManillaToad]

10 hours ago, GDAWG said:

their WNBA team, the Aces (also owned by Mark Davis) just won the WNBA Championship, so they do have a championship winning team, albeit in the WNBA.  

 

Might as well tell us how their lacrosse team is doing

 

9 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

really does nothing to disprove the overall troubles that the league has in finding truly viable markets, especially in the southwest. 

 

3/4 of their southwest markets are viable

[The_Admiral]

9 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

I mean, look at the way they scaled the expansion draft back for Seattle. No matter if that’s stacking the deck or just poor management on the part of the other teams is almost irrelevant. Either way it ain’t a good look. 

I think the expansion draft rules were the same both times through and the difference really was that the other teams didn't dummy themselves into making historically stupid trades and Seattle didn't get to fall ass over applecart into a Hall of Fame goalie who was essentially on waivers.

 

The Golden Knights were able to break the game by constructing a roster of what were essentially four second lines, which, in conjunction with short shifts, allowed them to catch opponents in mismatches at an insanely high rate -- the more often your line is better or less tired than the other line, the more you score, and that's the game. It's brilliant. Why didn't anyone think of it sooner? Probably because the NHL created the most restrictive salary cap system in America and no one could do it.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

16 hours 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. 

 

I'm old, but I remember when the Oakland A's were the coolest franchise in baseball, at a time when baseball was actually cool.

 

Ricky Henderson, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Dennis Eckersley, and Dave Stewart...just such a cool group of dudes.

 

Was the late 80s/early 90s the true golden age of baseball? Or do I just have elder millennial narcissism?

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I'm old, but I remember when the Oakland A's were the coolest franchise in baseball, at a time when baseball was actually cool.

 

Ricky Henderson, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Dennis Eckersley, and Dave Stewart...just such a cool group of dudes.

 

Was the late 80s/early 90s the true golden age of baseball? Or do I just have elder millennial narcissism?

 

They were my favorite team when I was younger, and Canseco was my favorite player.  Will never forget him being the first 40/40 player, and marked out when I opened a pack of '86 Donruss and got his rookie card (which I think had a value of >$100 at one point.)

 

Ricky picking up the base and holding it over his head, Eckersley, (former Phillie) Dave Stewart, the Bash Bros, hell - even Walt Weiss was cool.

 

obviously this was all in a pre-internet world, so we had no idea what was really going on with any of these guys, but yeah - the A's were legit the coolest team in baseball from around '87-'92.  I was crushed when I woke up one morning and saw on the news that Gibson had beaten them in '88 (couldn't stay up to watch end of game), was thrilled in '89, then in shock when the Reds worked them in '90.

 

 

[The_Admiral]

Early '90s as the end of the golden age would track with CBS's disastrous coverage and the fallout from that, followed by the strike.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

27 minutes ago, BBTV said:

obviously this was all in a pre-internet world, so we had no idea what was really going on with any of these guys,

 

Imagine peak Dennis Rodman on Twitter. Or people sneaking videos of MJ in the casinos.

 

Those guys didn't have some of the travel perks, but getting to have a better semblance of an actual private life was probably better on the whole.