MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[Sodboy13]

Guys, don't worry, the new stadium is going to be much smaller, so even though attendance will still be embarrassingly low and the location will actively push would-be attendees away, the price of each ticket will be higher and the owner will make more money. And gosh, isn't that what we all really want to see as baseball fans?

[who do you think]

Useless franchise should be obliterated and the baseball ops people that keep on discovering and developing good players for this team-for-nobody should be folded into Pittsburgh or some other place that would actually appreciate it. Bradenton's just a drive away. Don't get me started on what I hope happens to Marlins Park II.

 

On 9/29/2023 at 1:30 PM, throwuascenario said:

Also, I happen to think that an MLB team could work in Charlotte or Nashville. This is the one instance where having lost a generation of fans can actually be helpful. Both cities have huge numbers of young people coming from other places, but many don't have a strong affinity to other teams from those places.

 

Look at South End in Charlotte, which is very high in younger transplants. You see WAY more gear and whatnot for Charlotte FC than you do for the Panthers in that part of town. Because people already have NFL teams from wherever they're from but few have a strong allegiance to an MLS team. MLB could work the same way.

 

[GDAWG]

I am curious if the "Pro-Contraction in MLB" folks have ideas on how to contract 2-4 teams in the MLB while at the same time making sure that the Players Association is on board with this idea (because they won't be if it was to actually happen).  Expanding the rosters of the existing teams by 10-15 players isn't going to work because not all of the existing teams will use the extra players and not all of the extra players will play.  

[who do you think]

6 hours ago, GDAWG said:

I am curious if the "Pro-Contraction in MLB" folks have ideas on how to contract 2-4 teams in the MLB while at the same time making sure that the Players Association is on board with this idea (because they won't be if it was to actually happen).  Expanding the rosters of the existing teams by 10-15 players isn't going to work because not all of the existing teams will use the extra players and not all of the extra players will play.  

 

Not my problem.

[McCall]

3 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

Not my problem.

Not gonna happen.

[OnWis97]

MLB missed its chance to contract. Now too many teams have publicly funded 9-figure ballparks.  They could have contracted four out of the Marlins, Expos, Twins, A's, and Rays in 2001...but I think it was the lease on the Rays ballpark that messed with that, in part.

 

I'm not sure what the right move was...These teams had various histories and fanbases. Even for a small fanbase, killing off a team was probably a questionable PR move.  Given the union's likely response, it was probably a bargaining chip and empty threat the entire time, anyway.

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

Not my problem.

 

Contraction is not happening anyways.  The best case scenario is keeping all 30 teams.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

They could have contracted four out of the Marlins, Expos, Twins, A's, and Rays in 2001

 

The A's and Twins should never even be considered for contraction, as they are original American League teams that date to the league's founding in 1901.

 

Anyway, instead of contracting, Major League Baseball could simply have not expanded.  The last two expansions really should not have happened.  Of the four new teams, three (Marlins, Rays, Diamondbacks) should not exist at all, as Florida and Arizona are for spring training only. And Denver could have eventually gotten a team by moving the Expos there.

 

But now that these teams are here, they're here to stay.  And rightfully so; indeed, another expansion is desirable, as 32 teams is preferable from a scheduling standpoint.  (In a sane world, getting to 32 teams would be the reason to get rid of both interleague play and the wild card.  Alas, our world is far from sane.)

 

In any case, further expansion or no, they really ought to get those teams out of Florida!  This is why I am very sad to learn of a new stadium deal for the Rays.  (Unfortunately, there's no moving the Diamondbacks, as that team serves a large geographical area.)

[GDAWG]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The A's and Twins should never even be considered for contraction, as they are original American League teams that date to the league's founding in 1901.

 

Anyway, instead of contracting, Major League Baseball could simply have not expanded.  The last two expansions really should not have happened.  Of the four new teams, three (Marlins, Rays, Diamondbacks) should not exist at all, as Florida and Arizona are for spring training only. And Denver could have eventually gotten a team by moving the Expos there.

 

But now that these teams are here, they're here to stay.  And rightfully so; indeed, another expansion is desirable, as 32 teams is preferable from a scheduling standpoint.  (In a sane world, getting to 32 teams would be the reason to get rid of both interleague play and the wild card.  Alas, our world is far from sane.)

 

In any case, further expansion or no, they really ought to get those teams out of Florida!  This is why I am very sad to learn of a new stadium deal for the Rays.  (Unfortunately, there's no moving the Diamondbacks, as that team serves a large geographical area.)

 

If the D'Backs move, it will probably be in the Phoenix metro area.  

 

I do think all of the expansion cities have serious flaws, but out of all of them, I think I would choose Nashville.  If the A's actually got a deal in Oakland, I would have also said Las Vegas, but I am skeptical about Salt Lake City and Portland but if I had to chose one of them, I would pick Salt Lake City.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

I do think all of the expansion cities have serious flaws, but out of all of them, I think I would choose Nashville. 

 

Nashville is everyone's favourite.  And they have an active potential ownership group in waiting, led by Dave Stewart.  So that city goes to the front of the pack.

 

 

14 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

If the A's actually got a deal in Oakland, I would have also said Las Vegas, but I am skeptical about Salt Lake City and Portland but if I had to chose one of them, I would pick Salt Lake City.  

 

Las Vegas is a terrible idea, either for a relocated team or an expansion team.  The unavoidable reality is that that city will not be there in its current form in a few decades.  Even as that city currently stands, it will constitute the smallest home market in Major League Baseball, and there is no way that the A's — or any team apart from the Dodgers — could draw regularly there.  (For the NFL, Las Vegas is fine, on account of the practice of opposition fans travelling to a weekly game, and working that game into a trip to Vegas.  But for the other sports, that city is a disaster waiting to happen.  The Golden Knights will soon look back on this early period as though it had happened in another reality.)

 

The same issues that doom Las Vegas in the long term apply to Salt Lake City, as well as, to varying extents, to the entire Southwest.  Major League Baseball should stay away from that region.

 

Portland is probably very close to being as good a choice as Nashville.  Its MLS team ranks comfortably in the league's top third in attendance.  And a Major League Baseball expansion team's potential ownership group includes Russell Wilson.

 

Still, I am more intrigued with the idea of pushing beyond the continental U.S.  For the Pacific Northwest, Vancouver seems like it should be under consideration.  Also, San Juan has always intrigued me as a location for a Major League team, as has Mexico City.  Of course, whether any of these cities has an ownership group that is both interested and capable, I have no idea.  But I hope that Major League Baseball is engaged in investigating these possibilities.

[GDAWG]

59 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Nashville is everyone's favourite.  And they have an active potential ownership group in waiting, led by Dave Stewart.  So that city goes to the front of the pack.

 

 

 

Las Vegas is a terrible idea, either for a relocated team or an expansion team.  The unavoidable reality is that that city will not be there in its current form in a few decades.  Even as that city currently stands, it will constitute the smallest home market in Major League Baseball, and there is no way that the A's — or any team apart from the Dodgers — could draw regularly there.  (For the NFL, Las Vegas is fine, on account of the practice of opposition fans travelling to a weekly game, and working that game into a trip to Vegas.  But for the other sports, that city is a disaster waiting to happen.  The Golden Knights will soon look back on this early period as though it had happened in another reality.)

 

The same issues that doom Las Vegas in the long term apply to Salt Lake City, as well as, to varying extents, to the entire Southwest.  Major League Baseball should stay away from that region.

 

Portland is probably very close to being as good a choice as Nashville.  Its MLS team ranks comfortably in the league's top third in attendance.  And a Major League Baseball expansion team's potential ownership group includes Russell Wilson.

 

Still, I am more intrigued with the idea of pushing beyond the continental U.S.  For the Pacific Northwest, Vancouver seems like it should be under consideration.  Also, San Juan has always intrigued me as a location for a Major League team, as has Mexico City.  Of course, whether any of these cities has an ownership group that is both interested and capable, I have no idea.  But I hope that Major League Baseball is engaged in investigating these possibilities.

 

Nobody tell the NBA that since Vegas is a lock to get an NBA team alongside Seattle (although I think it should be Seattle and someone else, like Louisville or Mexico City).

 

I have read that the issue with Mexico City is that the elevation is much higher than Denver and that the players might prefer Monterrey over Mexico City.  

[TBGKon]

9 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

I have read that the issue with Mexico City is that the elevation is much higher than Denver and that the players might prefer Monterrey over Mexico City.  

I also have seen Monterrey as the likely candidate if the time comes.

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Portland is probably very close to being as good a choice as Nashville.  Its MLS team ranks comfortably in the league's top third in attendance.  And a Major League Baseball expansion team's potential ownership group includes Russell Wilson.

 

The inclusion of Russell and Ciara Wilson into that so-called "ownership group" is ceremonial at best. The problem with Portland is that nobody knows where the money is coming from. Russell Wilson's a well-compensated pro athlete, but neither he nor his pop star wife have the kind of scratch to be majority owners of a multi-billion-dollar sports franchise. At this point, they're nothing more than ornaments to present a facade of legitimacy to their effort. 

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

The inclusion of Russell and Ciara Wilson into that so-called "ownership group" is ceremonial at best. The problem with Portland is that nobody knows where the money is coming from. Russell Wilson's a well-compensated pro athlete, but neither he nor his pop star wife have the kind of scratch to be majority owners of a multi-billion-dollar sports franchise. At this point, they're nothing more than ornaments to present a facade of legitimacy to their effort. 

 

They probably need a White (Phil) Knight, but it's unknown if he's a fan of baseball.  

[gosioux76]

26 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

They probably need a White (Phil) Knight, but it's unknown if he's a fan of baseball.  

He's a fan of any and all sports, and he's also proven his interest in investing billions into Oregon and its institutions. The head of the Portland Diamond Project, Craig Cheek, is also a former Nike executive.

 

So it's 100% possible that Phil could be the money behind any MLB project in Portland and that he's keeping his name out of it until it's more of a sure thing. But if that's the case, then they've made it really hard to legitimize this bid publicly. 

 

Then again, maybe they don't need to. If Phil intends to finance and own a Portland MLB team, the only people who would need to know are Rob Manfred, the members of any eventual expansion committee, and a handful of Portland stakeholders, such as the mayor. 

[BBTV]

Phil Knight may not be eligible. Michael Rubin (Fanatics) had to sell his share of the Sixers due to the NBA’s partnerships with Fanatics. I imagine Knight would present a conflict of interests whenever the apparel and on-field uniform ad deals come up for renewal. 

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Phil Knight may not be eligible. Michael Rubin (Fanatics) had to sell his share of the Sixers due to the NBA’s partnerships with Fanatics. I imagine Knight would present a conflict of interests whenever the apparel and on-field uniform ad deals come up for renewal. 

 

Phil Knight attempted to buy the Trailblazers like two years ago, but the offer was never accepted.  

[who do you think]

10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Nashville is everyone's favourite.  And they have an active potential ownership group in waiting, led by Dave Stewart.  So that city goes to the front of the pack.

 

They're a bunch of goobers with a dorky consulting website and no actual money.

[GDAWG]

Doesn't MLB allow private equity to purchase minority shares of MLB teams?

 

I'm sure that Acrtos Sports Partners (who for some reason own minority stakes in the Dodgers, Giants and Padres, but also the Astros, Red Sox and Cubs) would be open to owning minority stakes to at least 5 more MLB teams including the two expansion teams.  

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, BBTV said:

Phil Knight may not be eligible. Michael Rubin (Fanatics) had to sell his share of the Sixers due to the NBA’s partnerships with Fanatics. I imagine Knight would present a conflict of interests whenever the apparel and on-field uniform ad deals come up for renewal. 

 

That's an interesting point, but as @GDAWG noted, that apparently didn't deter Knight from making continued attempts at acquiring the Trail Blazers. That bid was made in partnership with Dodgers co-owner Alan Smolinsky, so maybe the addition of a partner was enough not to trigger any conflict? 

 

11 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

Phil Knight attempted to buy the Trailblazers like two years ago, but the offer was never accepted.  

 

And to this point, not only was his bid not accepted, it wasn't even acknowledged. This really great report by the Wall Street Journal in June shows that Blazers owner Jody Allen won't even take Knight's calls.