MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[GDAWG]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I'd say that's a good bet, Vegas pun intended. It'll really come down to how July 20th goes with the Oakland council. The A's of course already having a trip planned the next day. If Oakland makes some progress towards trying to meet the A's requests, they may continue down the road at Howard Terminal. If the OCC balks, given that there's still the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to deal with and get on board even if July 20th goes perfectly from the A's POV, that trip on July 21 will definitely take on a different demeanor. It'll go from "just exploring our options" to planning for the future of the franchise. 

 

With the complexities still to overcome in Oakland and AlCo, they really are in the end game IMO. And with the A's exploring the Aviator's park as a short term alternative depending on how quickly Las Vegas, Clark Co, and the other cities move we could have a relocation announcement by the end of the year. But again it all hinges on the OCC next week. 

 

And Libby Schaff will be known as the Mayor who made let all of Oakland's major sports teams get away.

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

And Libby Schaff will be known as the Mayor who made let all of Oakland's major sports teams get away.

 

Well two of them anyway. The Warriors were already out the door when she took office. And the Warriors made no real effort to, nor had any desire to stay so there wasn't much her predecessor could do. 

 

The Raiders made unreasonable demands so while they left on her watch, I can't blame her for their departure. No one could compete with the bending over and taking it up the tailpipe Nevada was offering the comparatively penniless Mark Davis. 

 

But this one... this will be on her and her council if they go. The A's are offering something almost perfectly akin to the Giants ballpark deal from 25 years ago, which San Francisco has never regretted. If the city and county :censored: this up, which I'd bet good money they will, it'll all be on them. 

[bosrs1]

Well Manfred is towing the same line. If Oakland doesn't get something done in the next few months, they can kiss the A's goodbye.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php

 

Quote

“Las Vegas is a viable alternative for a major league club, and there are other viable alternatives that I haven’t turned the A’s loose to even explore at this point," Manfred said. "So thinking about this as a bluff is a mistake. This is the decision point for Oakland as to whether they want to have Major League Baseball going forward.”

 

[Red Comet]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well two of them anyway. The Warriors were already out the door when she took office. And the Warriors made no real effort to, nor had any desire to stay so there wasn't much her predecessor could do. 

 

The Raiders made unreasonable demands so while they left on her watch, I can't blame her for their departure. No one could compete with the bending over and taking it up the tailpipe Nevada was offering the comparatively penniless Mark Davis. 

 

But this one... this will be on her and her council if they go. The A's are offering something almost perfectly akin to the Giants ballpark deal from 25 years ago, which San Francisco has never regretted. If the city and county this up, which I'd bet good money they will, it'll all be on them. 

It’s Oakland, :censored:ing up was predetermined and as much as it may seem that they’ve run into an 18 karat run of bad luck, the game was rigged from the start.

[bosrs1]

18 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

It’s Oakland, :censored:ing up was predetermined and as much as it may seem that they’ve run into an 18 karat run of bad luck, the game was rigged from the start.

 

I mean much of their "bad luck" is their own self sabotage. They're acting like they're San Francisco or San Jose (ie:  a desirable market), when in reality they've not been an appealing "second city" market for decades. They're a city that needs to be doing the most possible within their financial means to keep the team, not hemming and hawing. Same goes for AlCo who are always in such a dick measuring contest with the OCC that they're a self sabotaging  circle jerk the pair of them. 

 

I mean the fact most of Oakland's leadership still think the Coliseum site is still viable just shows you how out of touch they've become. Even if the A's redeveloped the entire site, it would still be a new stadium surrounded by mostly industrial wasteland, polluted sloughs, and Baby Iraq as it used to be called. It would be marginally more appealing than the stadium is now, not the game changer venue the A's need to even be on a level playing field with the Giants to TRY and compete. 

 

Not that Howard Terminal is great. It's got a litany of problems between the TIF financing disagreements, :censored: access for fans, Union Pacific throwing up roadblocks, etc... But it's what the A's have settled on in what is clearly the last ditch attempt. Again the idea that some people think the move threat is a bluff after 26 years is yet another highlight of how out of touch these people are. They're acting like this is still early in the process. This has been going on more than half my life now, and I'm middle aged. It's :censored: or get of the pot time. But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, :censored: on the floor, and declare victory. 

[LMU]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I mean much of their "bad luck" is their own self sabotage. They're acting like they're San Francisco or San Jose (ie:  a desirable market), when in reality they've not been an appealing "second city" market for decades. They're a city that needs to be doing the most possible within their financial means to keep the team, not hemming and hawing. Same goes for AlCo who are always in such a dick measuring contest with the OCC that they're a self sabotaging  circle jerk the pair of them. 

 

I mean the fact most of Oakland's leadership still think the Coliseum site is still viable just shows you how out of touch they've become. Even if the A's redeveloped the entire site, it would still be a new stadium surrounded by mostly industrial wasteland, polluted sloughs, and Baby Iraq as it used to be called. It would be marginally more appealing than the stadium is now, not the game changer venue the A's need to even be on a level playing field with the Giants to TRY and compete. 

 

Not that Howard Terminal is great. It's got a litany of problems between the TIF financing disagreements, access for fans, Union Pacific throwing up roadblocks, etc... But it's what the A's have settled on in what is clearly the last ditch attempt. Again the idea that some people think the move threat is a bluff after 26 years is yet another highlight of how out of touch these people are. They're acting like this is still early in the process. This has been going on more than half my life now, and I'm middle aged. It's or get of the pot time. But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, on the floor, and declare victory. 

Not to mention that a return in Oakland was seen as a last grasp way back when the Fremont plan imploded.

[tp49]

On 7/13/2021 at 3:50 PM, bosrs1 said:

But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, on the floor, and declare victory. 

But not before stepping in it on the way out of the room.  It's the Oakland way of late.

[MJWalker45]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:04 PM, bosrs1 said:

Well Manfred is towing the same line. If Oakland doesn't get something done in the next few months, they can kiss the A's goodbye.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php

 

 

Sounds like Don Garber 2.0. Now I'm waiting for someone to show they already have the papers signed. 

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Sounds like Don Garber 2.0. Now I'm waiting for someone to show they already have the papers signed. 

 

Las Vegas is scrambling to get their papers in order.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I once walked from the BART station to the old Oracle Arena. Man, that is not a fun walk, especially when you're doing it without fellow game attendees. You walk across a long, fenced-in ped bridge kind of all alone and you have no idea who or what will be on that bridge with you. And below, as I remember, is just a rail yard or train tracks and not even moving traffic (and eyes on the streets).

 

It felt like Mad Max to me -- the way a lot of Oakland (and yes, Seattle) does -- and I was glad to be safely back on the BART.

 

Is that still the gameday experience?

[bosrs1]

On 7/13/2021 at 5:03 PM, LMU said:

Not to mention that a return in Oakland was seen as a last grasp way back when the Fremont plan imploded.

 

Actually Oakland came after San Jose, which was where they settled on after Fremont imploded 2x which came after the Coliseum North plan was DOA (mind this is only the attempts during the Wolff/Fisher years). In Fremont first was the big box store revolt west of 880 (which has always been laughable since half of those stores went out of business shortly after they drove the A's away), then the neighborhood revolt when they moved their sights over near the Tesla plant. Then they went to SJ where they really wanted to be, and the Giants did what the Giants did and they skulked back to Oakland. Then of course came Laney College and now Howard Terminal. 

 

And that was just the plans the team was driving. Plus there was the HOK driven sites at Uptown, Oak and 9th, et al during the early 2000's, Victory Court, and the various proposals at the Coliseum itself. I could wallpaper my office with all the renderings we've been given over the years. 

[bosrs1]

27 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

I once walked from the BART station to the old Oracle Arena. Man, that is not a fun walk, especially when you're doing it without fellow game attendees. You walk across a long, fenced-in ped bridge kind of all alone and you have no idea who or what will be on that bridge with you. And below, as I remember, is just a rail yard or train tracks and not even moving traffic (and eyes on the streets).

 

It felt like Mad Max to me -- the way a lot of Oakland (and yes, Seattle) does -- and I was glad to be safely back on the BART.

 

Is that still the gameday experience?

 

Yep. I mean the arena was always worse because you had to walk around the dark usually closed stadium as well. But yeah there's the cage bridge over the street, run down body shops, train tracks and the pollution filled slough, then the big concrete plaza behind Mt. Davis which is as close to an entry plaza as the Coliseum has, then more bare concrete walkways and then into the belly of the old beast. And depending on the game day and how early you arrive you're often alone. Most of the cars are parked over near the two infield gates closer to the arena. It's a dreary, cold, lifeless, experience. I give the drum crews in the outfield credit as they sometimes try to liven it up, but it's always fairly fleeting. The inside is no better these days. You're more likely to have a section to yourself than you are someone in the seat next to you (and if someone is in the seat next to you it's not hard to move and find a section to have to yourself). 

 

I've never had the opportunity to take in a game at Tropicana Field. But from what I've seen of it on TV, in extensive reviews, etc..., there's an equal lack of life there too, but at least it's a baseball first park that they have added a few touches to entertain you as best they can. And honestly I've always felt sorry for the Trop as  an 80's vintage dome that JUST missed the Camden revolution like its contemporaries Rogers Center and New Comiskey. I feel like all 4 of those stadiums (Tampa, Toronto, Chicago and Baltimore) were throwing darts at the board and Baltimore was just the lucky one that happened to hit the bullseye which  unfortunately left the other three to be the unlucky ones. And from what I hear the staff is ridiculously friendly in Tampa. The staff at the Coliseum used to be friendly 25 years ago, but on my most recent trips they've been decidedly dour and dickish. Which I guess fits the surroundings. 

 

The Coliseum however, is more than 20 years older, and was a poor product of an already poor time in baseball stadium construction. Built at the height of the multipurpose boom the Coliseum was a cut rate version of it's siblings. Lacking the automated moveable seats of many of it's contemporaries which at least brought the lower deck reasonably close to their fields. It was lower than most too with little upper deck overhang which kept the already distant seats even further from the action in the upper decks. It's design also lacked any kind of signature entry with most fans just entering through one of 4 dark and often dank tunnels. It only has two concourses for the three decks and suites which was both a cost cutting measure and uniquely lame for it's time where most of the contemporaries at least had dedicated concourses for each deck. The only real pluses the Coliseum had compared even to it's multipurpose brothers was that it had real grass when most of them had astroturf, and it had the ivy hill with a view of the Oakland hills (a view even I've been guilty of over-glamourizing in the post Mount Davis world). 

[bosrs1]

Very interesting article in SFGate this morning about A's owner John Fisher. Biggest surprise in it IMO is that the former minority lead partner of the ownership group Lew Wolff... wanted to build a new ballpark at the current Coliseum site. In fact it may have contributed to the long drawn out round the Bay Area search for a site to Coliseum North, Fremont 2x, and San Jose and Wolff's eventual exit from the team.

 

Quote

“Lew wanted to do it, to just build a new stadium right on the same site,” Saperstein said, “which would have been a lot easier and faster. John wanted to build the stadium downtown, which involved a lot more environmental regulations, and would be a lot more of a complicated transaction. So, there was a disagreement there, and that may have contributed to Lew's decision to get out (of the ownership group), but I don't know that for sure.”

 

https://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Who-is-John-Fisher-Inside-the-world-and-16315323.php?IPID=SFGate-HP-CP-Spotlight

 

Also interesting to note from the article, not really new news, but interesting, was that the only owner to ever put money into the team and not be a cheapskate, the Haas family, were losing over $15 million a year on the team. Which would likely be upward of $50 million a year today. Which begs the question if the A's can ever really survive in Oakland. They've either had to be run on the brutally cheap as they've been under Finley, Schott/Hoffman, Wolff/Fisher and now Fisher alone, which is it's own kind of unsustainable as we've seen. Or they've been a money sink for the owner to briefly compete at a high level for players, fans, and titles. And mind you much of that time the A's were on a level playing field with the Giants and other MLB teams until the late 90's in terms of their ability to generate income. It's just never paid off. 

 

I think after reading this I'm even more inclined to think this is the end for the A's in Oakland. They clearly have a cheapass owner who won't build at the Coliseum site (after almost 20 years I don't expect him to change his mind), and he seems to have no desire to sell until he's made his signature stadium contribution in a splashy place, be it downtown Oakland or Vegas. Oakland's well documented dysfunction and the fact the Coliseum site exists are going to continue to derail a Howard Terminal stadium. And being reminded of the financial unsustainability of even an even footing A's team historically, I'm starting to really doubt whether it's worth it to stay anyway. The A's deserve to be the number 1 team in a city, not the second rate financially strapped other team they've been pretty much their entire existence. 

[GDAWG]

So I would guess that the Padres didn't have similar issues when they were looking at a new stadium.

[GDAWG]

Meanwhile, their division rivals in Anaheim:

 

Anaheim Officials to Discuss Whether Angel Stadium Sale Violated State Law (voiceofoc.org)

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

5 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

I've never had the opportunity to take in a game at Tropicana Field. But from what I've seen of it on TV, in extensive reviews, etc..., there's an equal lack of life there too, but at least it's a baseball first park that they have added a few touches to entertain you as best they can. And honestly I've always felt sorry for the Trop as  an 80's vintage dome that JUST missed the Camden revolution like its contemporaries Rogers Center and New Comiskey. I feel like all 4 of those stadiums (Tampa, Toronto, Chicago and Baltimore) were throwing darts at the board and Baltimore was just the lucky one that happened to hit the bullseye which  unfortunately left the other three to be the unlucky ones. And from what I hear the staff is ridiculously friendly in Tampa. The staff at the Coliseum used to be friendly 25 years ago, but on my most recent trips they've been decidedly dour and dickish. Which I guess fits the surroundings.

 

 I haven't been to the Trop in nearly 20 years (!!! A-Rod was playing that day too! Surely we're not all that old?), but my recollection is that once you drive there -- and you can only drive there -- the actual walk from the parking lot into the stadium is actually pretty pleasant. Or as pleasant as a parking lot walk can be in summertime Florida. There are bars and restaurants near the stadium (I think?) and inside the stadium itself is brighter than you would expect and you feel basically safe in there. It's weird in the Trop because it feels like you're in a repurposed Costco, but for a repurposed Costco it's decent enough.

 

But I guess "adequate, I guess" is the worst kind of endorsement for a baseball stadium -- especially from a 2002 review.

[bosrs1]

51 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

So I would guess that the Padres didn't have similar issues when they were looking at a new stadium.

 

Not really. Then again few cities have had the issues Oakland has.... The Padres stadium was approved pretty fast in only a couple of years (going to the World Series really helped the timing). Biggest issue they ran into was long after it was approved and construction had started a NIMBY whose name is escaping me presently sued and halted construction for a protracted period. But they ultimately lost. 

[bosrs1]

45 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Meanwhile, their division rivals in Anaheim:

 

Anaheim Officials to Discuss Whether Angel Stadium Sale Violated State Law (voiceofoc.org)

 

 

 

Goddamn Surplus Land Act. They don't enforce it for decades, and now suddenly it's being used like crazy to derail all sorts of projects. Same thing happened to San Diego's new arena plan, and we've had to go back to square one and start over. Ironically the arena's approval was one of the signature projects for the now former mayor of San Diego, Kevin Falcouner, who is running to try and unseat Gavin Newsom... oops. 

[bosrs1]

Oakland's mayor throwing out an interesting tidbit today. If the vote fails on July 20 with the Oakland City Council, Manfred has authorized the A's to begin looking at as many as 6 other cities in addition to Vegas. That includes some Canadian cities. 

 

What's interesting is that must mean by extension that currently the A's are only authorized to look at Vegas based on what they've been doing outside Oakland so far. Also makes me wonder if that 6 city play isn't a power play against Vegas to act quickly if they want the A's more than it's anything against Oakland. I mean one motivated region vs 6 or 7 that's still a city working actively to steal Oakland's team. Doesn't really matter how many are trying to do it, more competition doesn't really change the calculus for Oakland. But for Vegas to suddenly have competition would seem to ramp up the pressure on them to get it done fast if they want the team. 

 

 

 

[LMU]

41 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Oakland's mayor throwing out an interesting tidbit today. If the vote fails on July 20 with the Oakland City Council, Manfred has authorized the A's to begin looking at as many as 6 other cities in addition to Vegas. That includes some Canadian cities. 

 

What's interesting is that must mean by extension that currently the A's are only authorized to look at Vegas based on what they've been doing outside Oakland so far. Also makes me wonder if that 6 city play isn't a power play against Vegas to act quickly if they want the A's more than it's anything against Oakland. I mean one motivated region vs 6 or 7 that's still a city working actively to steal Oakland's team. Doesn't really matter how many are trying to do it, more competition doesn't really change the calculus for Oakland. But for Vegas to suddenly have competition would seem to ramp up the pressure on them to get it done fast if they want the team. 

 

 

 

Probably Manfred taking notes from the Raiders fiasco and preventing multiple years of lease-renewing lame duck status.