MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[FrutigerAero]

What more cities should push for is to stipulate that a team's payroll is in the top 1/3 of the league, or that at least 3,000 seats must be priced below a certain price point, etc. etc.?  People clearly want these teams, or else all these cities wouldn't be doing the funding.  So just own it!

 

For historical perspective, Dodger Stadium has always had 56,000 seats because of some sort of deal when the Dodgers moved in. 

[LaGrandeOrange]

3 hours ago, FrutigerAero said:

What more cities should push for is to stipulate that a team's payroll is in the top 1/3 of the league, or that at least 3,000 seats must be priced below a certain price point, etc. etc.?  People clearly want these teams, or else all these cities wouldn't be doing the funding.  So just own it!

 

For historical perspective, Dodger Stadium has always had 56,000 seats because of some sort of deal when the Dodgers moved in. 

 

I'd definitely be more amenable with something like this, although the payroll only really works for MLB/NBA.

[Sec19Row53]

47 minutes ago, LaGrandeOrange said:

 

I'd definitely be more amenable with something like this, although the payroll only really works for MLB/NBA.

Well, everyone can't be in the top third of payroll (or of anything, for that matter).

[FiddySicks]

On 2/27/2024 at 7:53 PM, The_Admiral said:

 

Busch Stadium was privately financed, in a rare case of the Cardinals occupying the moral high ground while actually having earned it.

I kinda think the Cardinals and Giants proved that if you really want to “revitalize” a part of your city, a park will definitely help to do that. But it’s usually a lot more feasible when all of those gains (and then some) aren't just given to the owners because they made a vague threat to move to another media market. 
 

The Giants, in particular, are proof that you can pay for your own park and still rake in money hand over fist. Even with all of the Bay Area hurdles to overcome. It just might take a decade or so longer to do that. Amazing that the A’s didn’t have this foresight in the FOUR DECADES they’ve been doing this stupid dance. 

[BBTV]

17 hours ago, LaGrandeOrange said:

Québec as a strong potential NHL market, but it's a fairly low ceiling market

 

NHL should be focusing on high floors, and not worrying about low ceilings.

 

9 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Giants proved that if you really want to “revitalize” a part of your city, a park will definitely help to do that.

 

 

I've been in the park's area a few times (mostly just to take pics of the park), but is there really anything of note there other than a Safeway, some offices, and a couple of coffee shops?  Like, is there any reason to be there when there's not a game going on?  I can't compare before and after, but even the after doesn't (as an outsider with a small sample size) seem "vitalized".

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

I've been in the park's area a few times (mostly just to take pics of the park), but is there really anything of note there other than a Safeway, some offices, and a couple of coffee shops?  Like, is there any reason to be there when there's not a game going on?  I can't compare before and after, but even the after doesn't (as an outsider with a small sample size) seem "vitalized".

Yeah China Basin (the neighborhood where the park is) was basically skid row prior to construction. The only thing that was really there was the Pacific Bell building (where my parents met) and homeless drug addicts. It was Kensington on a smaller, 80/90s scale. 
Now it’s admittedly more “sleepy” than you would expect for a downtown ballpark, but that’s because it’s like five blocks from Market. It’s also one of the most expensive areas in the city now in terms of real estate. 

[BBTV]

But that’s kind of my point. It may have pushed the homeless and drug users into other parts of the city, but does it really bring much economic value on non game days?

 

Dont get me wrong - having something nice where there’s currently crap is better than the alternative (it’s part of why I’m Pro Sixers arena even though there’s a lot of risks and flaws with the plan), but I think that claims (not you specifically, but by most people that support new parks) of revitalization and  economic impact are often overblown. 
 

“Vitalization” is part of “revitalization”, and I think in many of these cases, it’s more like “clean up and make prettier” more so than “revitalize”. And that’s cool - I’m in favor of that… so long as it’s mostly privately financed. 

[Red Comet]

17 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Well, everyone can't be in the top third of payroll (or of anything, for that matter).

A similar clause wrt to the Dome in St. Louis is what allowed that Walmart bastard Kroenke to break the lease and bail from St. Louis. 
 

Also, what’s stopping an owner from jacking up payroll with their hat in hand asking for our hard-earned money and then slashing it back down to nothing once the stadium is built or whenever that payroll requirement clause expires? It’s what happened with the Miami Marlins. 

[FiddySicks]

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

But that’s kind of my point. It may have pushed the homeless and drug users into other parts of the city, but does it really bring much economic value on non game days?

 

Dont get me wrong - having something nice where there’s currently crap is better than the alternative (it’s part of why I’m Pro Sixers arena even though there’s a lot of risks and flaws with the plan), but I think that claims (not you specifically, but by most people that support new parks) of revitalization and  economic impact are often overblown. 
 

“Vitalization” is part of “revitalization”, and I think in many of these cases, it’s more like “clean up and make prettier” more so than “revitalize”. And that’s cool - I’m in favor of that… so long as it’s mostly privately financed. 

Well, Pac Bell Park was part of a greater revitalization plan for the entire area, but it basically covered the entire stretch on the Embarcadero down to the Ferry Building. In that sense, yes. Absolutely. That stretch was old industrial ports that weren’t being used anymore. 
 

I think the issue here is revitalization vs gentrification. China Basin is definitely the latter, if that’s what you mean. The entire city is, though. 

[kolob]

As much as this is for expansion, I still think this is a play for the A's right now, especially if they can't finalize things in Vegas.

 

 

[pmoehrin]

Utah is an odd case because even though Salt Lake City is barely a top 50 US metro area,  the Salt Lake City media market covers the entire state and bleeds into parts of Nevada and Wyoming.

 

So even though it would be the smallest metro area with an MLB team, in terms of media market, they would be ahead of several MLB clubs, whereas Vegas would be ahead of several MLB clubs when it came to metro size but dead last when it came to media market size.

 

It's also a state that's experienced 20% percentage growth in population almost every decade since the first census data was taken in 1850. The population of the state and the SLC metro area have both doubled since the Jazz moved there in '79, so I think its far more of a matter of when not if Utah gets an MLB team now that the financing aspect is set. It's just too big of a TV market for MLB to refuse.

[Fowler2]

Selected markets that don't have an MLB team at the moment:

 

Metro Rankinkgs

22. Orlando

23. Charlotte 

24. San Antonio 

25. Portland 

28. Sacramento 

29. Las Vegas

34. Indianapolis 

35. Nashville 

41. Raleigh 

46. Salt Lake City 

 

 

TV Market Rankings

16. Orlando

20. Sacramento 

21. Charlotte 

22. Raleigh

23. Portland

25. Indianapolis 

26. Nashville 

27. Salt Lake City

31. San Antonio 

40. Las Vegas

 

 

 

 

 

[pmoehrin]

1 hour ago, BottomlessPitt said:

41. Raleigh 

 

I agree with most of what the Census Bureau does, but I don't know why Raleigh and Durham would be considered two separate metro areas.

They share an airport, it's less than 30 miles between the two cities, and there's no natural or state border diving the two cities. Chatman County is considered part of the Durham metro area, but it's no further to get to Durham than to get to Raleigh from there.

 

They don't separate Tacoma from Seattle on a metro level, and they're just as far apart from each other.

 

Maybe someone from the area can explain because I don't get it.

[Fowler2]

13 minutes ago, pmoehrin said:

 

I agree with most of what the Census Bureau does, but I don't know why Raleigh and Durham would be considered two separate metro areas.

They share an airport, it's less than 30 miles between the two cities, and there's no natural or state border diving the two cities. Chatman County is considered part of the Durham metro area, but it's no further to get to Durham than to get to Raleigh from there.

 

They don't separate Tacoma from Seattle on a metro level, and they're just as far apart from each other.

 

Maybe someone from the area can explain because I don't get it.

 

It's like that with San Jose as well. It's a separate market from San Francisco-Oakland as a MSA but is still lumped in with SF-OAK as a TV Market. Weird stuff. 

[B-Rich]

22 minutes ago, BottomlessPitt said:

 

It's like that with San Jose as well. It's a separate market from San Francisco-Oakland as a MSA but is still lumped in with SF-OAK as a TV Market. Weird stuff. 

 

38 minutes ago, pmoehrin said:

 

I agree with most of what the Census Bureau does, but I don't know why Raleigh and Durham would be considered two separate metro areas.

They share an airport, it's less than 30 miles between the two cities, and there's no natural or state border diving the two cities. Chatman County is considered part of the Durham metro area, but it's no further to get to Durham than to get to Raleigh from there.

 

They don't separate Tacoma from Seattle on a metro level, and they're just as far apart from each other.

 

Maybe someone from the area can explain because I don't get it.

 

 

This stuff has ALWAYS made absolutely no sense, and today with the growth in areas like the Research Triangle, it makes even less. 

Salt Lake City's TV market includes basically all of the state, including St. George, which is 302 miles / 4.5 hours away, and where I saw Las Vegas Raiders gear for sale when I was there 4 years ago (they are MUCH closer to Vegas than SLC). 

Meanwhile , in New Orleans, we have nearby places an hour away, where a considerable amount of people COMMUTE from and go to New Orleans to work (Mississippi Gulf Coast, Baton Rouge, Houma-Thibodaux) but those are considered their own MSAs and TV markets.  They and cities a little further away, like Lafayette, Alexandria, Hattiesburg) are also full of Saints fans and now, to some degree Pelicans fans. 

It's certainly not an apples-to-apples situation. 

[pmoehrin]

1 hour ago, BottomlessPitt said:

It's like that with San Jose as well. It's a separate market from San Francisco-Oakland as a MSA but is still lumped in with SF-OAK as a TV Market. Weird stuff. 

 

I could understand splitting San Jose off from San Francisco because it's served by its own airport, and it's almost 60 miles between San Francisco and San Jose. That's not really that close, but there's definitely a connection between the two cities, hence the CSA designation, which I 100% agree with.

 

41 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Meanwhile , in New Orleans, we have nearby places an hour away, where a considerable amount of people COMMUTE from and go to New Orleans to work (Mississippi Gulf Coast, Baton Rouge, Houma-Thibodaux) but those are considered their own MSAs and TV markets.  They and cities a little further away, like Lafayette, Alexandria, Hattiesburg) are also full of Saints fans and now, to some degree Pelicans fans. 

 

In the Northeast, it's pretty much like pulling teeth to get people to travel more than 25 miles from their home. Obviously, I'm generalizing here. But once you get west of the Mississippi, people won't give a second thought to driving 70 minutes to the grocery store.

 

So, I can 100% believe that in a state like Louisiana, a two-hour drive from Acadiana to New Orleans is seen as nothing. How willing people are to commute is usually inversely correlated to how much money they make, and once you get north of I-10, you go from below-average incomes to some of the dirt poorest regions in the country.

[FrutigerAero]

On 3/1/2024 at 2:34 PM, BottomlessPitt said:

Selected markets that don't have an MLB team at the moment:

 

Metro Rankinkgs

22. Orlando

23. Charlotte 

24. San Antonio 

25. Portland 

28. Sacramento 

29. Las Vegas

34. Indianapolis 

35. Nashville 

41. Raleigh 

46. Salt Lake City 

 

 

TV Market Rankings

16. Orlando

20. Sacramento 

21. Charlotte 

22. Raleigh

23. Portland

25. Indianapolis 

26. Nashville 

27. Salt Lake City

31. San Antonio 

40. Las Vegas

 

To me this shows that SLC is probably THE #1 spot (for NOW), possibly exceeding Nashville.

 

-Florida is not getting another MLB team*... lol.

-Charlotte isn't getting a team if Nashville is (though, I think that they are possibly better option than Nashville), same with Raleigh.

-Sacramento was only good for A's relocation

-It seems unlikely they go for another Texas team, seems very possible the Rangers and the Astros could push back on that (though again, I think they are a good option).

-Indianapolis... they would be another rust belt team.

 

Their only rival is Portland, and I think they edge out Portland with bigger local backing.  The thing that I can really see tipping the scales on this is if Phil Knight the Nike guy decides he wants to own a team... if that happens, game over SLC.  But that isn't even rumored right now.

 

SLC is rolling out the red carpet and has their stuff together in the way the A's were wishing Vegas did.

 

Honestly if I were MLB in 2010 with the benefit of foresight, here's what I would do:

-Move the Marlins to Las Vegas instead of LoanDepot park Ca. 2012.  I look like a genius when gambling is more legalized and I beat out the VGK and the Raiders.

-Move the A's to Sacramento or San Jose (would pay lots of $$$ to giants)...  Sorry but only for sentimental reasons would you keep them in Oakland.  I'd try to pull off Sacramento because that lets you "keep" their existing bay fanbase while kind of picking up a new area for MLB.

-Expand to Salt Lake City and one of those Kentucky/NC areas.

 

 

 

*If the Rays' situation doesn't settle they could end up in Orlando, however.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, FrutigerAero said:

To me this shows that SLC is probably THE #1 spot (for NOW), possibly exceeding Nashville.

No, they're not. Nashville is still the top choice (assuming Las Vegas as being off the list) with Montreal still probably 2nd. Next tier would be Portland (who has been trending downward for several years now), San Antonio and Charlotte. Salt Lake may be on that level, but primarily because they're new and making a lot of noise for expansion via being a temporary home for the A's. Doesn't necessarily mean they've jumped to or near the top of the list.

[Fowler2]

With tax payers already burdened with paying for a new billion dollar stadium for the Titans and possible future refurbishments to the Predators arena and Nashville SC's stadium, it's going to be interesting to see if an MLB park can be built in Nashville. 

[FiddySicks]

I have to wonder though if local corporate money would be an issue with SLC. I don’t have any real idea what their corporate base is out there, but for a place like Sacramento, that’s probably the very biggest hurdle. The biggest employer in the city is the state government, and there really isn’t much in terms of large corporations willing to throw their money at a pro sports team. Sacramento Republic had a lot of issues, but that lack of local corporate support is probably what ultimately killed their MLS bid. 
 

I would assume Salt Lake is going to run into similar problems. Their biggest employer (as far as I know) is the state university system, and the only very big companies around are places like US Magnesium which… Yikes. You do NOT what someone like that as your primary sponsorship partner. 
 

Also, similar to Vegas is, lol,  water. That’s going to be an issue eventually with that rapid growth. 
 

 

 

Like I said before, we REALLY don’t need MLB expansion. It’s already bloated.