MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[who do you think]

On 3/7/2023 at 2:47 AM, WestCoastBias said:

The on field success makes them relevant and they do matter.

 

No it doesn't, no they don't.

 

On 3/7/2023 at 7:07 AM, McCall said:

If you have a good on-field team in a bad market, you relocate them to a good market, not just drop them. If you relocate them, that new market gets to start off with a good team, which would help it be more successful from the beginning.

 

Every single post of yours makes me want to keep regurgitating the "nobody cares" bit.

 

On 3/7/2023 at 9:58 AM, gosioux76 said:

You seem to be discounting the value of having a good fan experience.

 

Sports fandom is nothing more than tribalism, and we tend to assume that if you're part of the tribe then you must support it through any and all circumstances. But if the venue stinks and the experience is terrible, then I can't blame even the most die-hard of fans for not wanting to attend. That doesn't make them any less of fans, but it does suggest that the problem isn't necessarily the team's performance or any lack of interest. 

 

Are people are getting slimed with raw sewage between innings like some Nickelodeon show gone wrong? It's a baseball game. Visiting fans of popular teams don't seem to have a problem coming out. Go ask people from New England about the fan experience at Fenway before current ownership bought the team.

 

8 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

So -- to use @who do you think's logic -- do the Giants' suboptimal attendance statistics throughout their four whole decades at Candlestick mean that "nobody" was "caring" about the Giants for all of that time?

 

They very nearly moved to Tampa (and would be in the same hell the Rays are in right now) until they were saved at the 11th hour. The Giants moving would have been unfortunate historically and probably worth going the extra mile for (which may have happened anyway), but the A's are a lifelong jobber franchise with no significant ties or rivals. They are not the same.

 

Also, the fact that Giants games used to be empty when the A's were doing well, but now the Giants are a yearly sellout while the A's play to tumbleweeds, kinda supports the notion that Northern California isn't a two-team baseball region, huh?

[SCMODS]

Hell, Finley should've kept them in KC. They would've eventually gotten the ballpark the Royals play in now. 

[FiddySicks]

9 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

 1.) If the Giants deserved to survive long enough to replace the dismal, discomforting environs of Candlestick Park with a much more appealing venue in an area much closer to the heart of San Francisco, then both the A's and the Rays deserve any and every reasonable opportunity possible to secure new places to play, whether in their present respective home markets or elsewhere.  To think otherwise would be unfair, unjust, and hypocritical.

 

2.) When it comes to territorial rights situations, I have no sympathy whatsoever for either MLB team in the Bay Area.  I think that the A's were (if not still are) naïve fools for letting the Giants have exclusive territorial rights to the South Bay region without requiring the Giants to locate their permanent home ballpark in one of those South Bay counties in order to keep such rights and without demanding a compensatory swap of territorial rights (e.g. to San Francisco and San Mateo counties) if and when the Giants were to move permanently to a South Bay locale.  However, I think also that the Giants have been a bunch of selfish, greedy jerks for having been unwilling even to share those South Bay territorial rights with the A's ever since the Giants chose to waste those rights by putting their current ballpark on the opposite side of Candlestick Point.

Very well written post, but I’d like to highlight these two passages and sort of add to them. 
 

1.) The thing is, both the Rays and especially the A’s absolutely HAVE been given a fair opportunity to do just what you’re saying. I know a bit less about the Rays situation, but for the A’s, the issue has ALWAYS been the unreasonable desire for public funding. They’ve had several locations that would be suitable, but have always run into roadblocks when it comes to who’s actually going to pay for it (and for that matter, who is going to keep the profits). I don’t think anyone is being “unfair, unjust, and hypocritical” to the A’s, they’re simply always coming to the table with proposals that are borderline absurd from a funding standpoint. They always want the city/county/state to assume all of the risk while they reap all of the rewards and profits, and cities have told them no in that one, and for very good reason. That part of all of this has always been consistent, and even somewhat simple. 
 

2.) On the Giants point, I have to disagree about them being “greedy jerks” or “selfish”, because the current ownership group paid for those rights. Part of the purchase price for the Giants when they sold to the current ownership group included the territorial rights to the South Bay. Now you can argue if you want that it wasn’t the right of the old ownership group to sell those rights along with the club (legally, they were, though. As I said earlier, those rights fell to the Giants when the A’s never bothered to claim them back, which they could’ve done free of charge for many years), but either way, that’s what happened. Why should the Giants ownership group just give up those assets to their competition when they paid for those rights? Not only that, they HAVE offered the rights to the South Bay to the A’s, but expect them to pay a fair market price for them (just as you would expect of you were selling any piece of property/land), and the A’s have always balked at the price. I sort of understand the idea that they should be willing to help more because the A’s helped them, but you also have to realize just how much the demographics of the Bay Area have changed since the A’s gave those rights away. It would be like if you had some land that wasn’t of much value to you so you gave it as a gift to someone. Just because they decided to build a city center there 30 years later and the land value sky rocketed doesn’t mean you can come crawling back expecting to get that regifted to you because there’s more money in it now. That would be nice, but this is Major League Baseball we’re talking about here, not UNICEF. The A’s simply made a dumb as all deal, had the opportunity to correct it, never did, and are now whining that they’re not getting a mulligan. Nice try, but, come on now. What business sense would that make from the Giants standpoint? 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 minutes ago, who do you think said:

The Giants moving would have been unfortunate historically and probably worth going the extra mile for (which may have happened anyway)...

 

Good so far.

 

4 minutes ago, who do you think said:

...but the A's are a lifelong jobber franchise with no significant ties or rivals.

 

Yikes!  Someone doesn't know his history.

 

 

[gosioux76]

54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Good so far.

 

 

Yikes!  Someone doesn't know his history.

 

 

To be fair, the Seventies weren't really worth remembering anyway. 

[Sport]

7 minutes ago, who do you think said:

 

Are people are getting slimed with raw sewage between innings like some Nickelodeon show gone wrong?

 

 

In Oakland? Yeah kind of. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, who do you think said:

It's a baseball game. Visiting fans of popular teams don't seem to have a problem coming out. Go ask people from New England about the fan experience at Fenway before current ownership bought the team.

 

That's an illusion created by discrepancies in inventory. The visiting fans have the same problems coming out, they're just clustered into fewer games. Red Sox fans that live in Tampa aren't some magical breed of human better at driving to St Pete than Rays fans, they're just asked to do it fewer times each baseball season. If they had to fill 81 dates they would have the same problem "coming out".  

 

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

28 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

To be fair, the Seventies weren't really worth remembering anyway. 

The 70s, when the A's won more World Series (three) than any other team.

[McCall]

2 hours ago, who do you think said:

Every single post of yours makes me want to keep regurgitating the "nobody cares" bit.

And every post of your makes me want to repeat that you don't speak for anybody but yourself. Literally no one else. And quite honestly, I don't think anybody would want you to speak for them, to avoid any implication of association, alone.

 

But you did hit the nail on the head when you referred to your posts as "regurgitation".

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The 70s, when the A's won more World Series (three) than any other team.

In case it wasn't clear, that was the point I was trying to make. 

[Digby]

But even in the 70s... the team struggled with attendance and a crappy stadium and were the subjects of relocation rumors all the time. How times have changed!

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

47 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

In case it wasn't clear, that was the point I was trying to make. 

 

Ah. It should have been clear. Duh on me.

[VampyrRabbit]

3 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Very well written post, but I’d like to highlight these two passages and sort of add to them. 
 

1.) The thing is, both the Rays and especially the A’s absolutely HAVE been given a fair opportunity to do just what you’re saying. I know a bit less about the Rays situation, but for the A’s, the issue has ALWAYS been the unreasonable desire for public funding.

 

The biggest issue for the Rays is the rotten lease they signed for the Trop, and it's one that St Pete refuses to let them out of so they are still in that Mausoleam.

Of course, The Rays top brass still want a s***load of public money for a new stadium, as shown with the whole TB/Montreal pipe dream.

[FiddySicks]

2 hours ago, VampyrRabbit said:

 

The biggest issue for the Rays is the rotten lease they signed for the Trop, and it's one that St Pete refuses to let them out of so they are still in that Mausoleam.

Of course, The Rays top brass still want a s***load of public money for a new stadium, as shown with the whole TB/Montreal pipe dream.

Although the details are a bit different, it still sort of sounds similar to the A’s situation, in that the team wants the city to assume the majority/all of the risk while reaping all of the benefits. It’s probably pretty shrewd, but I don’t necessarily disagree with the city for wanting them to honor the lease they voluntarily signed. 

[Dynasty]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Good so far.

 

 

Yikes!  Someone doesn't know his history.

 

 

 

It's actually amazing to me that they have that kind of history, given where they are at now. I mean they have 9 World Series titles, that's the third most in baseball. Plus I think they're up there in terms of most hall of famers as well. They have a lot of rich history and they could be in the same conversation with teams like the Red Sox and Cardinals. But now, I think they might be among the most forgettable teams within the younger generation of baseball fans (I don't know what their popularity out west is, so you can dispute this if there is something I'm missing). It's just a little mind-boggling.

[gosioux76]

10 hours ago, Dynasty said:

 

It's actually amazing to me that they have that kind of history, given where they are at now. I mean they have 9 World Series titles, that's the third most in baseball. Plus I think they're up there in terms of most hall of famers as well. They have a lot of rich history and they could be in the same conversation with teams like the Red Sox and Cardinals. But now, I think they might be among the most forgettable teams within the younger generation of baseball fans (I don't know what their popularity out west is, so you can dispute this if there is something I'm missing). It's just a little mind-boggling.

 

It's also remarkable that they've accomplished this while being the most transient franchise in baseball, and probably only behind the Raiders in all of pro sports. Five of those titles came in Philadelphia, the other four in Oakland, and sandwiched in between is their otherwise unremarkable 12 years in Kansas City where, from the bottom of the standings, they served as an unofficial farm club for the Yankees. 

[ManillaToad]

10 hours ago, Dynasty said:

 

It's actually amazing to me that they have that kind of history, given where they are at now. I mean they have 9 World Series titles, that's the third most in baseball. Plus I think they're up there in terms of most hall of famers as well. They have a lot of rich history and they could be in the same conversation with teams like the Red Sox and Cardinals. But now, I think they might be among the most forgettable teams within the younger generation of baseball fans (I don't know what their popularity out west is, so you can dispute this if there is something I'm missing). It's just a little mind-boggling.

 

The A's have a rich history of peaking like a mfer then cratering hard for decades until someone comes along to pull them out of the dirt. Billy Beane was almost that guy but they never actually got anywhere.

Also 5 of those were won in Philadelphia 90+ years ago (they still have the most championships of any sports team based in Philly lol)

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

Also 5 of those were won in Philadelphia 90+ years ago (they still have the most championships of any sports team based in Philly lol)

 

Sad, but true.  The Eagles would have tied them this year, but that's still sad.

 

Here's how irrelevant the A's have become - a lot of casual fans around here (fans that enjoy going to Phillies games but aren't necessarily baseball historians or ever going to watch some random game between Oakland and Minnesota) when they see blue Athletics throwback stuff at the one or two stores that actually carry that stuff think that it's the Phillies, and that the Phillies used to be called the A's.

 

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a guy mansplain that to his girlfriend, I'd have... well not much, but I do hear it a scary amount of times.

 

LOL, "mansplain" doesn't get spell-corrected.  Guess it's in the lexicon now.

[WestCoastBias]

13 hours ago, Dynasty said:

 

It's actually amazing to me that they have that kind of history, given where they are at now. I mean they have 9 World Series titles, that's the third most in baseball. Plus I think they're up there in terms of most hall of famers as well. They have a lot of rich history and they could be in the same conversation with teams like the Red Sox and Cardinals. But now, I think they might be among the most forgettable teams within the younger generation of baseball fans (I don't know what their popularity out west is, so you can dispute this if there is something I'm missing). It's just a little mind-boggling.

 

Being on the West Coast, I find myself forgetting about most of the AL Central quite a bit. Baltimore as well. I think the Diamondbacks are way more forgettable out west than the A's. Everyone at least knows about Moneyball and that they have an awful stadium

[Sport]

The teams I always forget about are the Dbacks and up until recently when they landed deGrom, the Rangers. I'd have a tough time naming any players from those two teams. 

 

If I'm being honest, if I wasn't a Reds fan it would probably be the Reds for me. In fact, I remember listening to The Ringer MLB podcast when they did their season preview episode around this time five or six years ago and they did five to ten minutes on every team's outlook heading into that season. Except they straight up forgot to discuss the Reds. I felt like that was about right for where the franchise was and is again. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

a lot of casual fans around here . . . . when they see blue Athletics throwback stuff at the one or two stores that actually carry that stuff think that it's the Phillies, and that the Phillies used to be called the A's.

 

Argh! The stupid! It burns!

 

Meanwhile, at the site of Shibe Park there stands a historical marker explaining the reality of the matter:

 

 

 

Anyway, one can always find people suffering from terrible ignorance.  Back in 1985 some friends and I were staying at a campground in Clermont, New Jersey, which is near Wildwood.  When we went to the general store on the grounds to buy some stuff, we began talking to the owner.  We New Yorkers are always interested to know what the dominant teams are in disputed areas of New Jersey, the New York teams or the Philadelphia teams; so we asked the owner about that.  Her response:  "People here used to root for the Phillies until they moved to California."  OoooK. Note that this was less than two years after the Phillies had been in the World Series, and less than five years after they had won it.  Go figure.

 

By the way, a very informative (if not terribly well-written) book on Finley's flirtations with Seattle and Louisville before he decided to move the A's from Kansas City to Oakland is The Kansas City Athletics: a Baseball History 1954-1967, by John E. Peterson.  A weird uniform-related tidbit from that book is that Yankee manager Ralph Houk, managing the American League at the 1963 All-Star Game, refused to use the A's Norm Siebern in the game because he felt that the A's green and gold uniform, introduced that season, would embarrass the American League.