MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[LaGrandeOrange]

50 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

As someone who was raised as an Expos fan until they left, I didn't really fully commit to becoming a Jays fan until I moved to Toronto ~8 years ago. Ottawa was home to the Expos AAA affiliate, and they managed to stick around for a few more years after Montreal lost the team, so I briefly tried following some new teams based on who Ottawa was farming for (Baltimore for a couple years, Philly for one season). 2015 felt like the time people outside of Southern Ontario started getting more invested in the team (ending a 21 year playoff drought will do that). 

 

I think the Jays having Vladimir Guerrero Jr. has helped bridge the gap a bit. I'm too young to remember the Expos ever being good, but Vladdy Sr. was the biggest name they had towards the end.

 

I'd agree with this sentiment and also add that the mid-10's Stade Olympique games also earned the team some goodwill. There's definitely been a slight uptick in support, although I'd still say that baseball is at a low point in the region.

[schlim]

This thread is 16 years old and begins with a new Tampa proposal! In that time, seven teams have new ballparks, and Tampa's current stadium is now the 7th oldest in baseball.

 

How time flies when you're having fun! I refuse to check on Arizona Coyotes posts here.

[Walk-Off]

"Mental Health Check for Oakland A's fans"

[Walk-Off]

ESPN: Oakland to present Athletics ownership with lease extension

 

"In addition, the city is asking for a commitment from Major League Baseball on one of three options: (1) a one-year exclusive right to solicit ownership of a future expansion team; (2) vote to leave the A's colors and name in Oakland, or; (3) facilitate the sale of the A's to a local ownership group."

 

As noble as the Oakland government's intentions are, I am concerned that a demand that any of those three things happen will be a deal breaker for MLB.

[The_Admiral]

I still don't think the move is going to happen. Too many fragile moving parts.

[Dilbert]

35 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

ESPN: Oakland to present Athletics ownership with lease extension

 

"In addition, the city is asking for a commitment from Major League Baseball on one of three options: (1) a one-year exclusive right to solicit ownership of a future expansion team; (2) vote to leave the A's colors and name in Oakland, or; (3) facilitate the sale of the A's to a local ownership group."

 

As noble as the Oakland government's intentions are, I am concerned that a demand that any of those three things happen will be a deal breaker for MLB.

we really bout to put these guys in Mullett Arena for three seasons arent we ?

[SFGiants58]

10 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

I still don't think the move is going to happen. Too many fragile moving parts.

 

I mean, Vegas doesn't really want the A's and all the Fisher plans depend on public money. SLC is a pipe dream and Sacramento would be beyond stupid. Portland doesn't particularly want the A's either.

 

Just now, Dilbert said:

we really bout to put these guys in Mullett Arena for three seasons arent we ?

 

I mean, they can get stuck at their Spring Training facility for the whole season, right? I don't think the Oakland crowds or potential Vegas crowds would be much bigger than an average ST game.

[Fowler2]

12 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

we really bout to put these guys in Mullett Arena for three seasons arent we ?

 

Arena Baseball. Let's Do It!!!!

[Fowler2]

I really wonder how much it would cost to payoff the Giants for the San Jose/South Bay territory? 

[FiddySicks]

More than the A’s have. They would probably demand a lot of clauses built in with the phrase “in perpetuity” included. 

[Ridleylash]

4 hours ago, BottomlessPitt said:

I really wonder how much it would cost to payoff the Giants for the San Jose/South Bay territory? 

Way too much for the A's to stomach; the Giants aren't giving up Silicon Valley without bleeding as much out of the A's as physically possible first.

 

They'd be better-served sticking to Oakland than getting bent over and rawdogged relentlessly by SanFran.

 

5 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

I still don't think the move is going to happen. Too many fragile moving parts.

Yeah, I can't see Fisher managing anything besides crawling back to Oakland with his tail between his legs to sign the new extension. SLC is a pipe dream that seems to be getting further from Fisher's grasp every day, Sacramento is a laugher of a choice that they're clearly trotting out in desperation and it's become very clear that nobody really wants them in Vegas over an expansion franchise.

[BBTV]

10 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

(2) vote to leave the A's colors and name in Oakland,

 

This is probably what should happen, though it would likely mean the permanent end of the line for the brand.  It's a shame that he has such little equity at this point, but it's time to retire "Athletics" and move on.  It's a lousy fit for Vegas anyway.

 

Has there been more of a "coming back with tail between their legs" situation than this in the past 30 - 40 years?  It was basically announced as "done", they had renderings, a welcome presser, and all that jazz, now they're in the awkwardest of awkward spots.

 

I can think of in-market moves that collapsed on the brink of construction (Sixers move to Camden, for ex) but nothing that was to a whole new market since the teams that played Tampa for fools and the SD>DC move that resulted in the actual "Washington NAT'L League" baseball cards.

[raz]

Update:

 

"According to the offer sheet obtained by ESPN and KGO-TV, the city has dropped previous requirements that called for MLB to keep the A's name and colors in Oakland, as well as a demand that MLB guarantee the city a future expansion team." 

 

[FiddySicks]

5 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

This is probably what should happen, though it would likely mean the permanent end of the line for the brand.  It's a shame that he has such little equity at this point, but it's time to retire "Athletics" and move on.  It's a lousy fit for Vegas anyway.

 

Has there been more of a "coming back with tail between their legs" situation than this in the past 30 - 40 years?  It was basically announced as "done", they had renderings, a welcome presser, and all that jazz, now they're in the awkwardest of awkward spots.

 

I can think of in-market moves that collapsed on the brink of construction (Sixers move to Camden, for ex) but nothing that was to a whole new market since the teams that played Tampa for fools and the SD>DC move that resulted in the actual "Washington NAT'L League" baseball cards.

Closest one I can think of I was involved with, and that was an expansion franchise falling apart. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

23 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

I still don't think the move is going to happen. Too many fragile moving parts.

 

Fisher had his chance to sell the team, to Joe Lacob, a sale that would have netted Fisher a profit of one billion dollars. Then he could have had an expansion team in Las Vegas, one which would have been more warmly received than the A's.  No one will ever be able to explain why he chose not to go that route.

 

 

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

I can think of in-market moves that collapsed on the brink of construction (Sixers move to Camden, for ex) but nothing that was to a whole new market since the teams that played Tampa for fools and the SD>DC move that resulted in the actual "Washington NAT'L League" baseball cards.

 

The White Sox' flirtation with Tampa-St. Pete might have been a ploy.  But the Giants were really going there, until Peter Magowan stepped up to buy the team from Bob Lurie.  And Lurie had bought the Giants in 1976, saving them from an already-announced move to Toronto.

 

A couple of years later, Charlie Finley agreed to sell the A's to Marvin Davis, who would have moved the team to Denver for the 1978 season. But that sale was contingent on the A's ability to get out of their lease at the Coliseum, which they ultimately could not do.

 

In the NHL, I believe that there were nearly-completed moves of the St. Louis Blues to Saskatoon and of the New Jersey Devils to Nashville.

 

 

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

but it's time to retire "Athletics" and move on.

 

No way.  The only times that a team nickname has been retired were when the two Washington Senators franchises (the original one and the expansion team) moved to other cities. Unlike the name "Senators", which would not make sense outside of Washington, the name "Athletics" can work anywhere. The move is going to be bad enough; to dump the historic name would compound the tragedy. The A's name has survived multiple moves. It deserves to live on.

 

[FrutigerAero]

Oakland does not own the "Athletics".  While the end result I'd like to see is Vegas getting expansion and A's org staying in Oakland, the A's name has survived three cities and goes back a century.  No reason it should stay in Oakland.

17 hours ago, BottomlessPitt said:

I really wonder how much it would cost to payoff the Giants for the San Jose/South Bay territory? 

A lot of money.  I think most of their corporate sponsors are from there.

[LMU]

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

No way.  The only times that a team nickname has been retired were when the two Washington Senators franchises (the original one and the expansion team) moved to other cities. Unlike the name "Senators", which would not make sense outside of Washington, the name "Athletics" can work anywhere. The move is going to be bad enough; to dump the historic name would compound the tragedy. The A's name has survived multiple moves. It deserves to live on.

Agreed.  This is apples and oranges to the Cleveland deal.  The Browns were born in Cleveland and were a symbol of Cleveland when the deal was made.  The A's are in their third stop.  Oakland demanding the name stay there is ignoring the history in KC and Philly and demanding that the colors stay is ignoring that the colors, granted starting out much brighter, were a KC product before the team moved into the Coliseum.

[The_Admiral]

All this is true, however, the Oakland A's have now existed as a discrete brand for as long as the San Diego Padres and Kansas City Royals, nearly half the club's existence, where they've won the World Series four times and inspired a movie. If it were the Padres or Royals trying and failing to move to America's worst city and the government tried to pass a leave-your-stuff law like the Twins have, or if it were the Giants finally moving to Florida for some reason, it wouldn't be wholly unjustified, and so it is here, the organization's vagabond nature notwithstanding.

[Walk-Off]

NewBallpark.org: SidewA’s and the 32nd Team

 

This blog article provides some salient opinions on the next round of negotiations among Oakland, the A's, and MLB.  I find the following point to be especially relevant:

 

"With no sign that John Fisher plans to reverse course on the Las Vegas move or sell, any pitch for an A’s sale can only be characterized as the kind of Hail Mary not even Al Davis would have loved. The expansion promise is pointless, as no one actually believes Oakland will be able to put together real deal terms in only a year, including a billionaire willing to subsidize an Oakland team indefinitely while all of the details for the elusive dream ballpark plan come together. Besides that, who would be crazy enough to ink an exclusive negotiating agreement with Oakland, whose track record on such agreements is downright dreadful."

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

      On 3/31/2024 at 6:53 PM, Dilbert said:  we really bout to put these guys in Mullett Arena for three seasons arent we ?             I'll have you know, Mullet is a great expirience for a close up game.  especially since the As will only able to fill up 1/5 of it