MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[McCall]

6 hours ago, GDAWG said:

Watching the special session of the Nevada Legislature and I realized one thing:

 

- I think one of the dude's name is Jeremy Aguero?  He needs to say it at least 100 more times for me to know for sure.

I went to school with a guy with that name when I was a kid.

[GDAWG]

Even the special session for a simple "Yes or no" on the A's to Las Vegas has been a bit of a mess.

 

- They were supposed to vote on Wednesday, but didn't because it went long and wanted voting to resume the next day.  On Thursday, the session was in recess because apparently, amendments were to be added to the bill that would approve the A's ballpark in Las Vegas and they recessed for the rest of the weekend, supposedly going to resume today at 11AM Pacific/1 Central/2 Eastern, but as of now that hasn't happened.  

[Walk-Off]

Lest we forget, tomorrow night (June 13) is the night of the "Reverse Boycott" game, which has been targeted by a group of A's fans as a time to (a) form one of the largest crowds for any A's home game in the team's history in Oakland, (b) demonstrate that the A's still have a large and passionate fanbase in and around Oakland, and (c) pressure John Fisher and his partners to sell the A's to a person or group who will keep the team in Oakland, get a deal done with Oakland's political establishment for a new ballpark, and spend much more money on the team than what Fisher, Dave Kaval, and their associates have been willing and/or able to spend.

 

Tomorrow is also the first day of a three-day series of meetings among MLB team owners in New York City.  Obviously, the organizers of this "Reverse Boycott" are hoping that the A's home game on that night will have a crowd that is both big enough and loud enough to persuade as many MLB teams' ownerships as possible to (a) call for Fisher and his group to sell the A's as soon as possible and (b) insist that whoever owns the A's keep that franchise in Oakland for as long as possible.

[GDAWG]

 

[habsfan1]

Vegas' MLB team should create their own identity, instead of recycling Oakland's former teams.

 

I get that the football team has been in the league for a long time. But to be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of how Las Vegas Raiders sounds as a new Vegas brand identity. If it was my team, I would want a proper identity fitting with Montreal, instead of taking another franchise and swapping city names.

[Sykotyk]

1 minute ago, habsfan1 said:

Vegas' MLB team should create their own identity, instead of recycling Oakland's former teams.

 

I get that the football team has been in the league for a long time. But to be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of how Las Vegas Raiders sounds as a new Vegas brand identity. If it was my team, I would want a proper identity fitting with Montreal, instead of taking another franchise and swapping city names.

Philadelphia Athletics. Kansas City Athletics. Oakland Athletics. Las Vegas Athletics.

Oakland Raiders. Los Angeles Raiders. Oakland Raiders. Las Vegas Raiders.

 

Yes. Oakland's identities.

[habsfan1]

38 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Philadelphia Athletics. Kansas City Athletics. Oakland Athletics. Las Vegas Athletics.

Oakland Raiders. Los Angeles Raiders. Oakland Raiders. Las Vegas Raiders.

 

Yes. Oakland's identities.

 

The Raiders were originally from Oakland. It still feels like Oakland's team, even if they had brief stint in LA.

 

The Athletics came from Philly. The name by chance fit Oakland to a degree because it worked for a classic team from the 60s. I thought Vegas would be more creative, seeing how the Golden Knights set the bar, in terms of team branding.

[SCMODS]

The Athletics brand has been around for 122 years. The Raiders for 63 years. Neither brand is going away no matter what city or cities they've relocated to. 

[bosrs1]

12 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

Vegas' MLB team should create their own identity, instead of recycling Oakland's former teams.

 

I get that the football team has been in the league for a long time. But to be completely honest, I'm not a big fan of how Las Vegas Raiders sounds as a new Vegas brand identity. If it was my team, I would want a proper identity fitting with Montreal, instead of taking another franchise and swapping city names.

 

Neither are “Oakland’s identities”. A’s in particular have been around 123 years in 3 cities.

[NYCdog]

On 6/7/2023 at 5:05 PM, GhostOfNormMacdonald said:

       Y'all. Barbara Lee is threatening MLB's anti-trust exception over the A's to Vegas move. Rob Manfred might actually destroy this league   "As a federal legislator, I believe such actions are inconsistent with federal policy goals related to the MLB's exemption from antitrust scrutiny."      

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied the legal and political side of sports in undergrad. The league is :censored:ed if Brett Kavanaugh's decision on college athletics is anything to go by. More than 100 years of precedent thrown away for greed. Like, calling them icarus would almost be too on the nose

Barbara Lee is simply using the A’s relocation to pander for votes for her senate run, Meanwhile Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao is out here cutting photops at the Reverse Boycott to show she cares when in reality she hasn’t don’t anything since she was elected. Atleast former mayor Libby Schaaf went to the negotiation table with the A’s. All Sheng did was claim she was “blindsided” by the Las Vegas move when the A’s have been in negotiations with Las Vegas for the last 2 years. Hello, they’ve been making routine site scouting trips out there! The sad part is judging by the replies on Twitter, there’s a lot of suckers buying into these politicians acts.

 

It didn’t have to be this way at all. Everyone knows the Coliseum is a dump and something needed to be done for years. The A’s have been seeking a new ballpark in Oakland as far back as 2002 (Uptown site), years before John Fisher & Lew Wolff bought the club. The city could’ve worked to a deal with the A’s together, especially at the Laney College/Peralta site which was more financially realistic for both sides. Howard Terminal was a last resort pipe dream because the City of Oakland allowed port businesses (namely Schnitzer Steel) to pollute the area, thus now requiring sky high remediation costs in order to build on top of addressing infrastructure & site access issues. Howard Terminal was never gonna work. But it also was never gonna happen if fans can do more and better organize efforts then their own failed city leadership. Like it or not, Vegas did in 2 years what Oakland couldn’t do in 20 years: A deal for an adequate home ballpark finally. 

 

[NYCdog]

Also, the SF Giants. Their territorial rights claim on San Jose is literally robbing sports fans throughout the entire Bay Area (Oakland included) from having a second baseball team in the region. That’s why we’re here today, with A’s moving to Vegas.  Otherwise the A’s would’ve been in SJ a decade ago. Now the Giants have the entire region to themselves and they’ll probably fight off any hopes for replacement expansion franchise in Oakland. 

[ManillaToad]

3 hours ago, NYCdog said:

 

 

 

[MOD EDIT: Keep it on topic.]

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by officeglenn

[kimball]

16 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

 

The Raiders were originally from Oakland. It still feels like Oakland's team, even if they had brief stint in LA.

 

The Athletics came from Philly. The name by chance fit Oakland to a degree because it worked for a classic team from the 60s. I thought Vegas would be more creative, seeing how the Golden Knights set the bar, in terms of team branding.

 

I don't see the A's changing based off team history as stated above. But, if this was an expansion team we were talking about ... the Las Vegas Flamingos would be a name I could support. The visual identity could be uniquely Vegas.

 

With that said, Vegas should put a spin on the A's identity, either with a flamingo mascot or different color scheme. Something just a little different.

[habsfan1]

17 minutes ago, kimball said:

 

I don't see the A's changing based off team history as stated above. But, if this was an expansion team we were talking about ... the Las Vegas Flamingos would be a name I could support. The visual identity could be uniquely Vegas.

 

With that said, Vegas should put a spin on the A's identity, either with a flamingo mascot or different color scheme. Something just a little different.

 

Indeed. I'm fully aware of the history of the brand. I wouldn't mind ditching the identity, but I understand some want to keep it around because it's been around for a long, long time.

 

Putting a spin on a classic identity can be hard to do without breaking tradition. If it's a new color scheme like you're saying, you might as well rebrand the whole thing from scratch. If it's just something small like turning the elephant into a flamingo, maybe it can be acceptable.

 

I want something brand new for a new 2023 franchise. But I know I'm probably in the minority.

[LMU]

9 minutes ago, kimball said:

 

I don't see the A's changing based off team history as stated above. But, if this was an expansion team we were talking about ... the Las Vegas Flamingos would be a name I could support. The visual identity could be uniquely Vegas.

 

With that said, Vegas should put a spin on the A's identity, either with a flamingo mascot or different color scheme. Something just a little different.

There's no way that Bally will let a team play on its land and brand itself after a Caesars property.

[Lights Out]

Never mind, misread the post.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Lights Out

[WestCoastBias]

4 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Neither are “Oakland’s identities”. A’s in particular have been around 123 years in 3 cities.

 

They have been in Oakland longer than either Philadelphia or Kansas City, most people probably don't even know the A's have played anywhere besides Oakland.

[McCall]

8 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

They have been in Oakland longer than either Philadelphia or Kansas City, most people probably don't even know the A's have played anywhere besides Oakland.

Still not theirs. The colors even started in Kansas City.

[B-Rich]

1 hour ago, kimball said:

... the Las Vegas Flamingos would be a name I could support. The visual identity could be uniquely Vegas.

 

With that said, Vegas should put a spin on the A's identity, either with a flamingo mascot or different color scheme. Something just a little different.

WTF do flamingos-- the tropical shore birds-- have to do with dry, desert Las Vegas?

 

Las Vegas has had an iconic casino named The Flamingo since the inception of large scale casino gambling. That name is attributed to  its mobster owner, Bugsy Siegel, in honor of the flamingos near his Hialeah, FL racetrack (not the urban myth that it came from a nickname for his long-legged girlfriend, Virginia Hill).

 

The name "Flamingos" would thus be a corporate connection, which is a big no- no in major league sports today.  It would be on par as naming the team the "Las Vegas Caesars" or "Las Vegas Sands". 

 

[WestCoastBias]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

Still not theirs. The colors even started in Kansas City.

 

And so that means Oakland after over 50 years can't identify with those colors and the name? Same with the Dodgers and LA? Giants and SF? Braves and Atlanta?