MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[Gothamite]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

They are. Rarely at the level of an expansion fee, but they are “a thing.”

 

The relocation fees for the Rams and Chargers were each $645 million.

[The_Admiral]

There are relocation fees when the league says there are. Moving the Thrashers to Winnipeg cost $60 million. Moving the Jets from Winnipeg cost nothing.

[kroywen]

6 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Are there any American sports rivalries where the rivalry between cities does matter?  Boston and NY aren't "rivals", because they're not competing for attention or to be the cultural or economic center.  It's just sports.  Boston could have a rivalry with Philadelphia, but to my knowledge doesn't.  I don't see any way in which St. Louis and Chicago are rivals outside the context of sports.  Maybe NY has one with LA over being the entertainment or media capital of the country?  Maybe the CA cities do?  DAL/HOU?  IDK.  

 

I don't see any American rivalries that would be based on anything as deep as what the TOR/MTL one is.

 

Back off topic: I'd contend that there's a legitimate rivalry between SF and LA that goes beyond sports. They're stuck, by an accident of history, in the same state, competing for the same resources and tax dollars, and historically, competing over being the West Coast's preeminent city. (It was SF from the time of the gold rush until probably the rise of the movie industry in Hollywood, shifted down to LA with the concentration of the entertainment industry there, and is probably right now in the process of shifting more toward SF due to the tech boom, and the movie/music industries being less concentrated in LA.) There's a whole urban versus suburban, tech versus entertainment, hipsters versus trendy people, etc., thing going on there, that I think stretches beyond sports.

 

Boston versus New York? There's definitely some rivalry there outside of sports, though it's primarily a sports-fueled rivalry. But there's a palpable difference in attitudes between the two cities, with each one having a strange mix of admiration and disdain for the other. Growing up in Connecticut (and well within the Tri-State area), there was definitely a little identity crisis in our neck of the woods between wanting to be stereotypical quaint New England towns, and touting our great access to the nation's biggest metropolis. So I think that plays into the Boston/New York thing a little, but it's mostly a sports thing (give truth serum to most New Yorkers and they'll tell you they secretly love going to Boston... and vice versa).

 

Neither of these top Toronto/Montreal though, if for no other reason than there's no gigantic language or cultural difference in our country as there is in Canada.

[rams80]

NorCal/SoCal lost one of the big fracture points back in the 60s though.  Prior to Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, NorCal used to have control of the State Senate (because seats were divvied out at one Senator per county) and SoCal had the State House (because seats were distributed by population.

[Quillz]

5 hours ago, kroywen said:

shifted down to LA

And a big reason (of quite a few) it didn't shift farther south to San Diego was because the original transcontinental highway system of 1926 favored Los Angeles over San Diego, which at the time had nothing more than a plank road through the desert. There was a time where there was effectively a competition between LA and SD to see which one would "win" SoCal.

[TrueYankee26]

Quote

Part of the process for securing a new stadium is threatening politicians and fans with relocation. Sure enough, commissioner Rob Manfred recently did something close to that, warning Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and City Councilman Larry Reid that the Athletics could take their bats and their gloves and follow the Raiders to Las Vegas if they don't get their way.

Here's part of what Manfred said, per what Reid told the San Francisco Chronicle: "The commissioner pointed out that Bay Area fans will soon be going to Las Vegas to see the Raiders and that unless things changed, Bay Area fans may be going to Las Vegas or elsewhere to see the A's as well."  Schaaf, for her part, corroborated Reid's account on Tuesday, saying, "The reports of that are accurate. That is the city that came out of his mouth."

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/amid-lawsuit-oakland-politicians-say-mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-has-warned-the-as-could-relocate-to-las-vegas/

[MilSox]

Frankly, the surprise is that we'll make it to 2020 with 2 teams in the SF Bay Area. 

 

Las Vegas is far from a sure thing, but I have to say I was impressed at how much Knights paraphernalia I saw last time I was out there. I'm sure their insane first year helped, but I was impressed with how much they've embraced that team. It'd be interesting to see if they could support 3 team who moved there pretty much back to back to back.

[SFGiants58]

This a countermeasure to Oakland suing over the coliseum site. I doubt much comes of this, aside from trying to push Oakland to not lose all of their teams.

[Maroon]

I don't see it happening, but it would be miserable if it did. Not only is Vegas not even in the top five of cities that would be good fits for an MLB team, but to move such a storied franchise to a city devoid of baseball history would be egregiously bad.

[GDAWG]

Las Vegas?  Of course Las Vegas.  They want to be a major league city so bad that they are willing to get MLB, MLS and NBA to go along with NHL and NFL.  They were not satisfied with just the Golden Knights, they want it all!  This is way too fast.

[SFGiants58]

The exact quote was “Las Vegas or somewhere else.” That was a carefully-selected word choice, given the Raiders moving to Las Vegas.

[gosioux76]

39 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The exact quote was “Las Vegas or somewhere else.” That was a carefully-selected word choice, given the Raiders moving to Las Vegas.

Exactly. I wouldn't read into this as an endorsement for Las Vegas. It's just that Las Vegas is top-of-mind already in Oakland for any conversation related to relocation. The broader point was, "this happened to the Raiders, it will happen with the A's, too." 

[FiddySicks]

Three things: 

 

1). Sacramento would be a head and shoulders better fit than Vegas for the A's.

2). Vegas is going to run out of water in the next half century and will collapse into the earth's mantle.

3). I won't be sad when this happens.

 

[dont care]

Sacramento wouldn’t create an anti A’s sentiment like moving the chargers to LA?

[Wings]

There's tons of A's fans in the Sacramento area. I don't think the A's would have a problem filling a 38,000 seat stadium. The summer heat would be the only big issue. 

 

[Maroon]

3 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Three things: 

 

1). Sacramento would be a head and shoulders better fit than Vegas for the A's.

2). Vegas is going to run out of water in the next half century and will collapse into the earth's mantle.

3). I won't be sad when this happens.

 

 

I have no connection to Sacramento. I've never even been there. But the whole Kings to Seattle debacle kinda permanently put me on Sacramento's side of things. If the A's ever relocate (although it'd be better if they didn't), Sacramento would be great.

[Jake3roo]

I'd most want to see the Athletics move to somewhere like Portland or Austin/San Antonio. Las Vegas proved that sure, they can support a hockey team for two years. But to support NHL, NFL, and now MLB that quick? It seems like one of those 3 teams would relocate again pretty soon due to expenses and lack of support. Also who's to say that the Athletics won't run into similar stadium issues if they choose to share a stadium with the Raiders (again).

 

I might be out of the loop, but what's wrong with Oakland? The Warriors just moved out (sure, to San Fransisco), and the Raiders now, is it just a terrible city to have a franchise in?

[FiddySicks]

27 minutes ago, Jake3.roo said:

I might be out of the loop, but what's wrong with Oakland? The Warriors just moved out (sure, to San Fransisco), and the Raiders now, is it just a terrible city to have a franchise in?

 

The city is flat broke. Basically the entire maritime shipping economy that supported the city back in it's heyday has fled across the bay for various different reasons. Bay Area real estate has ballooned to the point where they just can't keep up any longer. Basic services such as fire and police are an underfunded mess, which is why crime is downright horrendous in that area (Worst in the country, in most years). Oakland is fighting like hell to avoid getting sucked up by the rich, tech funded gentrification that has invaded the rest of the Bay Area and they're failing miserably at it and paying the price. 

 

There's more to it than that, of course, and someone like @dfwabel could probably elaborate on it better than I can, but that's basically it, in simplest terms. 

[bosrs1]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:22 AM, Maroon said:

I don't see it happening, but it would be miserable if it did. Not only is Vegas not even in the top five of cities that would be good fits for an MLB team, but to move such a storied franchise to a city devoid of baseball history would be egregiously bad.

 

If we were early in this process I’d agree. But the A’s are about to enter year 26 of their new stadium hunt. At some point MLB will run out of patience with the frankly unprofessional environment the A’s are forced to endure. 

[LMU]

There's something to be said that the A's AAA affiliate managed to finally get out of their own cesspool of a stadium and yet the parent is still left dealing with complete squalor.

 

If Oakland keeps being done I'm putting money on Portland.