MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

This has been ongoing for as long as I can remember. Relocation and/or contraction. I personally thought the Howard Terminal stadium was a done deal, but the A's ownership apparently are still completely incompetent. I'd hate to see them go, as I've inexplicably always liked them (even as a Tigers fan).  

[LMU]

Oakland and Alameda County are just as guilty, if not moreso, for how we got here.  If you manage to lose three franchises in a short timeframe there's a common denominator.

[Dilbert]

i wonder if that cow pasture in Peculiar, Missouri that Charlie O. Finley threatened to move the Kansas City A's to is still available?

[McCall]

1 hour ago, QCS said:

If they do move (which they shouldn't), Portland should be their first choice (it won't be), followed by San Jose (whoops, shouldn't have given up that territory), then pretty much anything else, then Vegas. But of course, Vegas will jump the line and somehow end up with an original AL team then muck up the brand. Fun times!

The Giants won't let them move to San Jose, so that's already off the board.

You also gotta think about the Rays. What are they gonna do? That 2027 end of lease is not far away, especially when you consider selecting locations and stadium plans. Seems like the A's are always suspected to stay in the west and the Rays in central/east.

[AstroCree]

How do you lose 3 franchises in such a short amount of time?

[LA_Angels]

#RootedinOakland 

[FiddySicks]

21 minutes ago, insert name said:

How do you lose 3 franchises in such a short amount of time?

Ooh boy, how much time do you have? 

[Walk-Off]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

You also gotta think about the Rays. What are they gonna do? That 2027 end of lease is not far away, especially when you consider selecting locations and stadium plans. Seems like the A's are always suspected to stay in the west and the Rays in central/east.

 

At this point, the idea that the Athletics and the Rays will stay on their respective current sides of North America if and when they move has become a common cliché when journalists, bloggers, radio talk show hosts, podcast hosts, et al. speculate about MLB's future geography.  If I had to guess, such an assumption is based on a belief that MLB is unwilling to realign in order to accommodate a transcontinental relocation of a team.

 

However, a serious problem with this premise -- and part of the dilemma that Rob Manfred and the overall MLB power structure face when dealing with these two teams' ballpark situations -- is that the A's are free to leave RingCentral Coliseum three years sooner than the Rays are allowed to vacate Tropicana Field.  So, what will happen if, sometime between 2024 and 2027, whatever person or group owns the A's at that time determines that a metropolitan area located east of the Continental Divide, or even someplace that is also east of the Mississippi River, is the best new home for that franchise?  Will Manfred and his minions dare to tell the Athletics' ownership, "Sorry, but the only places where you may move the A's are Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; Sacramento; Salt Lake City; or Vancouver" and have the gall to say to political and business leaders in that easterly locale, "Sorry, but you'll have to wait till either we expand again or one of our teams in the eastern two-thirds of North America is willing and able to move, whichever comes first" in response to such a situation?

 

Anyone who wants the A's to remain in Oakland, wishes that the Rays keep playing in the Tampa Bay area, desires that both of those teams stay put, or yearns for an MLB club in a place that is currently without such a team will need to buckle up.  This could be the start of a few bumpy years of geographic uncertainty across Major League Baseball.

[Red Comet]

2 hours ago, LMU said:

Oakland and Alameda County are just as guilty, if not moreso, for how we got here.  If you manage to lose three franchises in a short timeframe there's a common denominator.

Oakland is ran by dribbling morons? Say it ain’t so.

[rams80]

We've got maybe Charlotte and maybe Montreal east of the continental divide as "plausible" markets.  I think MLB could brick those quite nicely if need be.

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, rams80 said:

We've got maybe Charlotte and maybe Montreal east of the continental divide as "plausible" markets.  I think MLB could brick those quite nicely if need be.

Is Nashville still in play? Apparently that's where people think Cleveland is moving to. 

[GDAWG]

Does Las Vegas need all four Major League teams?

[MJWalker45]

6 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Does Las Vegas need all four Major League teams?

I think the only reason teams hadn't moved there before now was that the leagues liked to pretend that they were morally opposed to gambling. Now that they all are on board, it make sense to them to park right next to the till. 

24 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

However, a serious problem with this premise -- and part of the dilemma that Rob Manfred and the overall MLB power structure face when dealing with these two teams' ballpark situations -- is that the A's are free to leave RingCentral Coliseum three years sooner than the Rays are allowed to vacate Tropicana Field.  So, what will happen if, sometime between 2024 and 2027, whatever person or group owns the A's at that time determines that a metropolitan area located east of the Continental Divide, or even someplace that is also east of the Mississippi River, is the best new home for that franchise?  Will Manfred and his minions dare to tell the Athletics' ownership, "Sorry, but the only places where you may move the A's are Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; Sacramento; Salt Lake City; or Vancouver" and have the gall to say to political and business leaders in that easterly locale, "Sorry, but you'll have to wait till either we expand again or one of our teams in the eastern two-thirds of North America is willing and able to move, whichever comes first" in response to such a situation?

If the Dallas Cowboys can still play in the NFC East and the Colts are in the AFC South, who cares if the Memphis A's are in the AL West? It will make travel a pain for the rest of their division but not so much that they'll have a big impact. The biggest impact would be moving away from their farm teams, which could just as easily change whenever the contracts end. 

[BBTV]

Baseball is by far the hardest sport to start up in a new place.  Besides the stadium cost, you need to try and fill it 81 times, and it's a non-capped league.  It's not like football where every weekend is an event in most places and you can sell out in spite of yourself (even if just because of visiting team fans).

 

I just don't see how MLB succeeds in Las Vegas or anywhere else.  Nashville has a chance, if they build a small stadium like Pittsburgh's and put it somewhere accessible, but places like there that lack the public transportation are at a (self-inflicted) disadvantage.  The Montreal A's is just a silly idea, though jerseys that read "Athlétiques" (or whatever the actual translation is) could be neat.

 

 

[GDAWG]

Is that Las Vegas ballpark expandable to MLB standards?

[FiddySicks]

32 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Does Las Vegas need all four Major League teams?

Vegas doesn’t need one pro team. 

 

It’s going to be hilarious if they move to Vegas and end up just having the exact same problems they have now (attendance, stadium issues, just an overall lack of interest from the local population). Only now it’ll all be exasperated because the market is smaller and the climate is so much worse. 
 

Remember the contraction talks in the early 2000s? Yeah, they probably should’ve just done that with the A’s. 

[Red Comet]

I always thought the rationale behind Vegas is the increasing trend of fans traveling to see their teams play. Hell, I remember when the Vikings came to Arrowhead and it seemed like a third of the stadium was screaming Skol. In 2019 too, so it wasn't like this was pre-Andy Reid. And that's to a place that is a cow pasture compared to Vegas. So, sports leagues decided to combine Vegas's tourist destination status and gambling and thought it would be a great experiment. I don't get the logic either, but I'm not some big-brained accountant working for a sports league. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Red Comet

[BBTV]

14 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

I always thought the rationale behind Vegas is the increasing trend of fans traveling to see their teams play. Hell, I remember when the Vikings came to Arrowhead and it seemed like a third of the stadium was screaming Skol. In 2019 too, so it wasn't like this was pre-Andy Reid. And that's to a place that is a cow pasture compared to Vegas. So, sports leagues decided to combine Vegas's tourist destination status and gambling and thought it would be a great experiment. I don't get the logic either, but I'm not some big-brained accountant working for a sports league. 

 

That's fine for one game every other Sunday - not for 81 games on every day of the week.  

 

Pro basketball is probably the easiest sport to start up from the ground up - small roster, relatively-modest arena needs, great TV deal reduces the need for gate revenues, and overall, there's just less required.  

 

Pro football is next.  You have much larger stadium/infrastructure worries, larger front office, larger... everything.  But you are almost guaranteed to sell out (even if visiting fans), and you're making money without even selling tickets due to TV.  Expenses are kindasorta capped.

 

Then maybe hockey.  Way more niche than basketball, and more gate is needed.

 

Then baseball.  Unless you're in a hotbed market - and any of those markets already have teams.

[rams80]

49 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Does Las Vegas need all four Major League teams?

 

No.   It is madness to try and there will be one or more franchises that will not survive the transplant and need to move again if they do try. Metro Vegas is smaller than Portland, Pittsburgh, and Sacramento and slightly bigger than Austin, Cincinnati, and Kansas City.

The smallest 4 sport market is Denver and they have like 700,000 more people than Vegas.

[PrimalCookie]

A's options not named Las Vegas:

Portland - ehhhh I don't think they'd build them a stadium

San Antonio - 2 teams already in Texas

Salt Lake City - too small 

Vancouver - Canada

Nashville/Charlotte - probably the best non-LV options available, but they're not "flashy" cities like LV is

 

I can't see it being anywhere other than Vegas. Sure, they'll "look at other options" (probably Nashville, if I had to guess) in case Nevada isn't willing to fund a 3rd stadium in less than 10 years, but that won't happen. 

 

If nothing else, it's kinda funny that the A's and Raiders will once again be together, but in a different city.