MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[LMU]

SLC is facing the potential of being a toxic wasteland with all of the exposed chemicals/dust from the disappearing lake so in that regard it’s the perfect foil to Vegas.

[Sykotyk]

5 minutes ago, McCall said:

The A's playing in Salt Lake is not the equivalent of Nashville playing in Memphis. Those two cities have a bitter rivalry and Memphis rejected the "little brother" sentiment of being only a temporary NFL city instead of a full-time one.

You think SLC fans would flock to an AAA venue to support a team destined for Las Vegas? I know the Memphis argument about 'little brother refusing to support big brother' but this was basically the first/only time this type of 'moving markets' and having a layover in another market was really even tried. Carolina played a year in Clemson. Bears played at U of Illinois for a season but never were 'moving', it was just Bears fans making the drive. Even Packers playing in Milwaukee was still an established team just playing a few games closer to a good portion of their already existing fan base.

 

But the NFL's attempt in Memphis failed for a lot of reasons. The 'little brother' argument was the easiest to not admit their mistake and instead just blamed Memphis for their problems.

 

If you survey everyone in the Memphis area and asked them 5 questions of why they didn't support Tennessee, certainly that would be a reason listed. But would it be THE reason it failed? No other reason?  I don't buy it. I think a market just didn't want to support a team that wasn't theirs. Regardless the name slapped on the team to make it palatable.

[tBBP]

For what it's worth, the entire reason the then-Tennesee Oilers ended up in Memphis in the first place was because at the time Vanderbilt didn't allow alcohol sales in its stadium, which is where the Oilers originally wanted to play while Adelphia Coliseum was being built. That the team made such big fanfare over moving to Nashville only to have to double back for such a reason and then settle on the Liberty Bowl as it's fallback stopgap option is what really did them in as far as apathetic "fan" support in Memphis (until the Steelers rolled into town...then half of West Tennessee was packed up into there).

 

But yeah...that Memphis was a rival city to Nashville at the time definitely exacerbated the issue.

[McCall]

9 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

You think SLC fans would flock to an AAA venue to support a team destined for Las Vegas? I know the Memphis argument about 'little brother refusing to support big brother' but this was basically the first/only time this type of 'moving markets' and having a layover in another market was really even tried. Carolina played a year in Clemson. Bears played at U of Illinois for a season but never were 'moving', it was just Bears fans making the drive. Even Packers playing in Milwaukee was still an established team just playing a few games closer to a good portion of their already existing fan base.

 

But the NFL's attempt in Memphis failed for a lot of reasons. The 'little brother' argument was the easiest to not admit their mistake and instead just blamed Memphis for their problems.

 

If you survey everyone in the Memphis area and asked them 5 questions of why they didn't support Tennessee, certainly that would be a reason listed. But would it be THE reason it failed? No other reason?  I don't buy it. I think a market just didn't want to support a team that wasn't theirs. Regardless the name slapped on the team to make it palatable.

Yes.

[McCall]

9 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

You think SLC fans would flock to an AAA venue to support a team destined for Las Vegas? I know the Memphis argument about 'little brother refusing to support big brother' but this was basically the first/only time this type of 'moving markets' and having a layover in another market was really even tried. Carolina played a year in Clemson. Bears played at U of Illinois for a season but never were 'moving', it was just Bears fans making the drive. Even Packers playing in Milwaukee was still an established team just playing a few games closer to a good portion of their already existing fan base.

 

But the NFL's attempt in Memphis failed for a lot of reasons. The 'little brother' argument was the easiest to not admit their mistake and instead just blamed Memphis for their problems.

 

If you survey everyone in the Memphis area and asked them 5 questions of why they didn't support Tennessee, certainly that would be a reason listed. But would it be THE reason it failed? No other reason?  I don't buy it. I think a market just didn't want to support a team that wasn't theirs. Regardless the name slapped on the team to make it palatable.

And yes.

 

SLC is not getting the A's full-time and they know that. But they're also looking at making an impression for the future.  Memphis knew that with the Oilers/Titans in Nashville, they were never going to get an NFL team of they're own. Tennessee is just not a two-market state in any sport. But Salt Lake can get an MLB team even with the A's in Vegas (not saying they will, but it's a possibility that doesn't exist in the Memphis-NFL scenario), so yes, it is a very strong possibility that they have a big turnout for the A's, even if only for a temporary basis.

[schlim]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

SLC is not getting the A's full-time and they know that. But they're also looking at making an impression for the future.  Memphis knew that with the Oilers/Titans in Nashville, they were never going to get an NFL team of they're own. Tennessee is just not a two-market state in any sport. But Salt Lake can get an MLB team even with the A's in Vegas (not saying they will, but it's a possibility that doesn't exist in the Memphis-NFL scenario), so yes, it is a very strong possibility that they have a big turnout for the A's, even if only for a temporary basis.

It worked for Oklahoma City and the Hornets.  The NBA had no problem allowing the Supersonics to relocate there after OKC drew nearly 16000 a game for two years.

[BBTV]

8 hours ago, McCall said:

But they're also looking at making an impression for the future. 

 

and I think this is not a good way to gauge interest.  I wouldn't go out of my way to go to a minor-league stadium to watch a team that wasn't mine, just to "prove that I'd go to a MLB game".  It's phrased as if it's their "job" to "prove" themselves by supporting some dreck.  

 

I think a market (not SLC, but some other one) might thrive as a Major League market without caring one bit about some temporarily-transported dumpster fire of a team.  

 

Also I've only been to SLC once (and even then, just driving through on my way to Moab) and driven through "SAC TOWN" (lol) once, so I have no idea if they'd care or go.  This can only work if the MiLB stadium is located within easy transit / commute to population centers, so it'd never work on the East Coast, unless there's more situations like the old Camden Riversharks (but that was independent baseball that held hundreds, not thousands.)

 

But, to quote the Rock, " it doesn't matter if they go".  It's a train wreck dumpster fire situation one way or the other.  I'm just suggesting to shield Vegas from the "before" photo, and introduce themselves as the "after" photo (and hopefully not the "very before" one!)

 

Oh - and as for the LV Aviators selling out every game?  False.  They're selling around 75-80% of their roughly 8,000 stadium.  Fine for MiLB, would likely remain at that level for MLB, unless they're asked to pay MLB prices (but, as we've seen by the pathetic DBacks franchise, can be like $3/game, lol.)

[gosioux76]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

and I think this is not a good way to gauge interest.  I wouldn't go out of my way to go to a minor-league stadium to watch a team that wasn't mine, just to "prove that I'd go to a MLB game".  It's phrased as if it's their "job" to "prove" themselves by supporting some dreck.  

 

I think a market (not SLC, but some other one) might thrive as a Major League market without caring one bit about some temporarily-transported dumpster fire of a team.  

 

But it certainly wouldn't hurt if SLC residents were to adopt a temporarily nomadic A's franchise as their own for a couple seasons, not to prove a point but just because they happened to enjoy the experience.  

 

I seriously doubt the people of OKC showed up to support the Hornets to carry out some organized regional strategy to prove they were a major-league market. And they probably didn't need the experience of hosting the Hornets to show they had a good fan base.  But it sure seemed to help the cause.  

[Dilbert]

14 hours ago, McCall said:

The A's playing in Salt Lake is not the equivalent of Nashville playing in Memphis. Those two cities have a bitter rivalry and Memphis rejected the "little brother" sentiment of being only a temporary NFL city instead of a full-time one.

The team expected its fans to travel from Nashville to Memphis, plus get the locals in Memphis at games. Fans didnt  want to drive 3 hours back and forth and only got the little Memphis support they had plus road fans. The other issue compared to the A's in Salt Lake is the Oilers only had 8 games in Memphis (10 if you count preseason), once a week. The A's in Salt Lake would have 81 games for 3 years. Similar to when the Hornets were in OKC, you have more games.  Memphis had also just been rejected once again for NFL expansion, so when they finally got a team, it was only gonna be temporary, and that pissed off the fans in Memphis.

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I seriously doubt the people of OKC showed up to support the Hornets to carry out some organized regional strategy to prove they were a major-league market.

 

No, but the investors who subsidized the Hornets' layover, Aubrey McClendon and Clay Bennett, did.

[B-Rich]

On 1/23/2024 at 1:58 AM, schlim said:

It worked for Oklahoma City and the Hornets.  The NBA had no problem allowing the Supersonics to relocate there after OKC drew nearly 16000 a game for two years.

 

23 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I seriously doubt the people of OKC showed up to support the Hornets to carry out some organized regional strategy to prove they were a major-league market. And they probably didn't need the experience of hosting the Hornets to show they had a good fan base.  But it sure seemed to help the cause.  

 

19 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

No, but the investors who subsidized the Hornets' layover, Aubrey McClendon and Clay Bennett, did.

 

Let's not forget that AT THAT TIME, the intent of those in OKC-- elected officials, 'business leaders' like Bennett and McClendon, and the locals/citizens, was to obtain an NBA franchise BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. 

 

And they used an opportunity to not simply and graciously TEMPORARILY "host" an NBA team that was affected by probably the worst natural/man-made disaster to ever hit a major league metro area, but to try and KEEP that team for their own and make the temporary move PERMANENT.   The history of that is here on this board, as well as on their own fan boards, and can easily be found on the internet for anyone who wants to look for it.   

And when the (then) Hornets moved back to New Orleans full-time, they successfully used WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY to acquire another team. 

[GDAWG]

Didn't OKC just vote to publicly fund a new arena for the Thunder?

[Jimmy!]

35 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

 

 

 

Let's not forget that AT THAT TIME, the intent of those in OKC-- elected officials, 'business leaders' like Bennett and McClendon, and the locals/citizens, was to obtain an NBA franchise BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. 

 

And they used an opportunity to not simply and graciously TEMPORARILY "host" an NBA team that was affected by probably the worst natural/man-made disaster to ever hit a major league metro area, but to try and KEEP that team for their own and make the temporary move PERMANENT.   The history of that is here on this board, as well as on their own fan boards, and can easily be found on the internet for anyone who wants to look for it.   

And when the (then) Hornets moved back to New Orleans full-time, they successfully used WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY to acquire another team. 

Bennett and McClendon weren't the only jaggoffs involved in that screw job. But I get what  you're sayin'.

 

#disgruntledsonicsfan

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, B-Rich said:

 

 

 

Let's not forget that AT THAT TIME, the intent of those in OKC-- elected officials, 'business leaders' like Bennett and McClendon, and the locals/citizens, was to obtain an NBA franchise BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. 

 

And they used an opportunity to not simply and graciously TEMPORARILY "host" an NBA team that was affected by probably the worst natural/man-made disaster to ever hit a major league metro area, but to try and KEEP that team for their own and make the temporary move PERMANENT.   The history of that is here on this board, as well as on their own fan boards, and can easily be found on the internet for anyone who wants to look for it.   

And when the (then) Hornets moved back to New Orleans full-time, they successfully used WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY to acquire another team. 

 

Nobody's denying that Bennett, McClendon, et. al, had an agenda in attempting to procure a team of their own. Speaking only for myself, I was responding to a comment that a market playing the role of stopgap host for a nomadic franchise isn't a good indicator of their capability of hosting a full-time franchise. 

 

In the case of OKC, no matter the intent of the business leaders, you can't claim the fans came out to support the franchise out of some subsersive plot to steal another market's franchise. They came because they wanted to, thereby aiding the notion that they can be a good pro sports market. 

 

No doubt, the OKC owners deserve all of the hatred directed their way by Seattle fans. But you can't deny that OKC showed up even when the team wasn't theirs. 

[FiddySicks]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:07 PM, LMU said:

SLC is facing the potential of being a toxic wasteland with all of the exposed chemicals/dust from the disappearing lake so in that regard it’s the perfect foil to Vegas.

Found the A’s new jersey sponsor patch. Looks a little bulky to me.

[GDAWG]

 

[FiddySicks]

I’ve said for awhile now that the best solution to the A’s problem is to just fold the team. Not quite that, but…

 

Source: If A’s don’t find a home, they could disband until Las Vegas

[GDAWG]

43 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

I’ve said for awhile now that the best solution to the A’s problem is to just fold the team. Not quite that, but…

 

Source: If A’s don’t find a home, they could disband until Las Vegas

 

The Players Association will respond with "over our dead body!"  In other words, they are not going to allow something like that to happen.  There's no way this happens without finding some way to placate the MLBPA.  

[Walk-Off]

For several months now, I have been thinking that the A's might very well suspend operations between their final season in Oakland and whenever a new ballpark for them in the Las Vegas area is open.  Playing a few more seasons in Oakland is likely to come with too many strings attached for the A's and/or MLB to accept.  Crashing at Oracle Park for a few years might constrain the Giants too much.  Going straight to the Aviators' ballpark for the interim seasons risks giving off the worst possible first impression of the A's to people in the Las Vegas market.  Finally, playing temporarily at a minor-league venue that is in neither the Bay Area nor Southern Nevada (such as in Sacramento or Salt Lake City) comes with a high possibility of the locals being reluctant to support what would be a fly-by-night enterprise in their area.

 

As for how the MLBPA could be sold on letting the A's go on hiatus for a few years, I think that the answer lies in MLB staying at 30 teams by granting a single expansion franchise that would launch right when the A's start their hiatus.  MLB could put the A's players through a dispersal draft open to all existing MLB clubs in addition to holding an expansion draft to stock the new team.  With regard to the minor-league affiliates of the A's, either the expansion team could inherit the A's farm system outright or MLB could order or at least allow a reshuffling of minor-league team affiliations.  Finally, once the A's are ready to start life anew as a Las Vegas team, then MLB can grow to 32 clubs by having another expansion franchise debut alongside the revival and relocation of the A's.

[Sec19Row53]

11 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

For several months now, I have been thinking that the A's might very well suspend operations between their final season in Oakland and whenever a new ballpark for them in the Las Vegas area is open.  Playing a few more seasons in Oakland is likely to come with too many strings attached for the A's and/or MLB to accept.  Crashing at Oracle Park for a few years might constrain the Giants too much.  Going straight to the Aviators' ballpark for the interim seasons risks giving off the worst possible first impression of the A's to people in the Las Vegas market.  Finally, playing temporarily at a minor-league venue that is in neither the Bay Area nor Southern Nevada (such as in Sacramento or Salt Lake City) comes with a high possibility of the locals being reluctant to support what would be a fly-by-night enterprise in their area.

 

As for how the MLBPA could be sold on letting the A's go on hiatus for a few years, I think that the answer lies in MLB staying at 30 teams by granting a single expansion franchise that would launch right when the A's start their hiatus.  MLB could put the A's players through a dispersal draft open to all existing MLB clubs in addition to holding an expansion draft to stock the new team.  With regard to the minor-league affiliates of the A's, either the expansion team could inherit the A's farm system outright or MLB could order or at least allow a reshuffling of minor-league team affiliations.  Finally, once the A's are ready to start life anew as a Las Vegas team, then MLB can grow to 32 clubs by having another expansion franchise debut alongside the revival and relocation of the A's.

If there are one, or in this case two, places ready for an MLB franchise, the A's could just go there and we could avoid all of these gymnastics.  You're creating problems in search of a solution.