TrueYankee26

MLB warns the A's could move to Vegas

Recommended Posts

On 10/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, dont care said:

When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat.

 

Of course they can. 

 

Billionaires understand how loans work.  That’s how they (or their parents) became billionaires in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. When you have a billion dollars you can easily get someone else to give you another billion dollars. That's not the problem. The problem is they want to reap the rewards without paying for it, which is another way they became billionaires in the first place. 

 

Also stadiums don't need to cost a billion dollars. Baseball stadium design should be moving more where MLS is now. If you're in a climate like Oakland's you don't need a retractable roof like the Rangers or like you would in Vegas and you don't need 65,000 seats. I'd love to see a major league team take a minor league style design and really trick it out with about 32,000 super intimate seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 11:38 AM, McCarthy said:

Right. When you have a billion dollars you can easily get someone else to give you another billion dollars. That's not the problem. The problem is they want to reap the rewards without paying for it, which is another way they became billionaires in the first place. 

 

Also stadiums don't need to cost a billion dollars. Baseball stadium design should be moving more where MLS is now. If you're in a climate like Oakland's you don't need a retractable roof like the Rangers or like you would in Vegas and you don't need 65,000 seats. I'd love to see a major league team take a minor league style design and really trick it out with about 32,000 super intimate seats.

That was, from my memory, the reason behind the design on PNC Park. Owners wanted an intimate ballpark that emphasised the view of the city over adding additional seats. One of the best ballparks for those reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Marlins built a low-capacity stadium that failed to fix supply and demand and cost too much money to build. I don't like going under 35,000 or over 45,000. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the admiral said:

The Marlins built a low-capacity stadium that failed to fix supply and demand and cost too much money to build. I don't like going under 35,000 or over 45,000. 

 

I don't think having a genius who spent more money on a garish barely-used contraption than most of his players helped either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

I don't think having a narcissistic idiot who spent more money on a garish barely-used contraption than most of his players helped either.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, dont care said:

When stadiums cost billions even billionaires can’t afford it and keep their other businesses afloat.

Stan Kroenke is building a football palace in Los Angeles on his own dime. If he can do that then whoever owns the A's should be able to build a decent ballpark in Oakland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

Fixed.

 

Do I have to put an /s after any statement that would refer to Jeffrey Loria as a genius in anything except for being a welfare bum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that, @Red Comet.  I was hoping that you were being sarcastic.

 

Anyway, to get this thread somewhat back on topic, have any of you ever read NewBallpark.org, a blog that has spent years covering the Athletics' lengthy, difficult quest to land a replacement for the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum?  I neither am an A's fan nor have any personal connection to Northern California, but I have nonetheless been reading that blog somewhat regularly for most of the nearly fifteen years that it has existed.  Both the blog's deep, steady coverage of the political and financial intrigue that has prolonged and complicated that club's pursuit of a new home venue and the many passionate comments that many readers have made about the matters covered by that blog have been enough to draw me into being a surprisingly frequent reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Walk-Off said:

Sorry about that, @Red Comet.  I was hoping that you were being sarcastic.

 

Anyway, to get this thread somewhat back on topic, have any of you ever read NewBallpark.org, a blog that has spent years covering the Athletics' lengthy, difficult quest to land a replacement for the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum?  I neither am an A's fan nor have any personal connection to Northern California, but I have nonetheless been reading that blog somewhat regularly for most of the nearly fifteen years that it has existed.  Both the blog's deep, steady coverage of the political and financial intrigue that has prolonged and complicated that club's pursuit of a new home venue and the many passionate comments that many readers have made about the matters covered by that blog have been enough to draw me into being a surprisingly frequent reader.

 

It's all copacetic. And thank you for the rabbit hole! I wonder how Charlie Finley feels now that the city he abandoned has a far nicer stadium than the Coliseum could ever be?

Edited by Red Comet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Stan Kroenke is building a football palace in Los Angeles on his own dime. If he can do that then whoever owns the A's should be able to build a decent ballpark in Oakland.

Stan Kroenke is worth over 8 billion, the A’s owner is worth less than 2. That’s a huge difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dont care said:

Stan Kroenke is worth over 8 billion, the A’s owner is worth less than 2. That’s a huge difference

Not necessarily, especially when in MLB you get at least 81 attempts (as of now) per year to recoup your investment.  As @Gothamite alluded to, billionaires have pretty easy access to funding when needed since they go to Goldman Sachs at virtually anytime for their core business. The Athletics make money as it is, so the books are fine, even without future revenue sharing checks coming in.  As I stated before, when the news hit in February that Gap was going to spin off Old Navy, the family's net worth is going to increase since they will get one Old Navy share for every Gap one they own and they own 43% of Gap.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 8:38 AM, Sport said:

Right. When you have a billion dollars you can easily get someone else to give you another billion dollars. That's not the problem. The problem is they want to reap the rewards without paying for it, which is another way they became billionaires in the first place. 

 

Also stadiums don't need to cost a billion dollars. Baseball stadium design should be moving more where MLS is now. If you're in a climate like Oakland's you don't need a retractable roof like the Rangers or like you would in Vegas and you don't need 65,000 seats. I'd love to see a major league team take a minor league style design and really trick it out with about 32,000 super intimate seats.

This is the direction I want the DBacks to go in here in Arizona.  They only sellout Chase Field when there is a World Series or when the Yankees or Red Sox visit.  There are good crowds for Cubs, Dodgers and Giants games too but nothing to the extent of a sellout.  I think this concept of 32,000 would do well here if they happen to build out on the Salt River Reservation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 1:28 AM, Red Comet said:

on a garish barely-used contraption

That thing was beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PNC Park is only 38k and it's perfect. 

 

LV should be looking at the same size, as well as the majority of new parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, _J_ said:

PNC Park is only 38k and it's perfect. 

 

LV should be looking at the same size, as well as the majority of new parks.

 

IT's relative.  CBP is around 44k and I think that works for them.  Making it smaller is like saying that you don't expect to often have good teams.  Making it bigger is like saying you always expect to be a contender.  That might work for some teams, but I think 44 is the sweet spot for the Phillies.  The downside is that when they're good, the secondary market is obscene because they'll sell out 5 or more straight seasons.  The good side is that when they're usually bad, even 25k doesn't look too bad in a 44k park (except when most of the premium seats behind home plate are empty - that's certainly not a good look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 9:58 PM, _J_ said:

That was, from my memory, the reason behind the design on PNC Park. Owners wanted an intimate ballpark that emphasised the view of the city over adding additional seats. One of the best ballparks for those reasons.

 

Let's be fair here, the Pirates built a small ball park because they sucked for years before it was built and no one was showing up.  Having maybe 20k at a Bucs game in Three Rivers that held 50k wasn't a good look.  So they turned around and designed their 'small intimate ballpark'.  It's the same end point Snyder is going towards with FedEx, just coming in from a different direction, by removing half the upper bowl for the same reason. 

Now, credit where it's due.  PNC is a fantastically designed building, and the Pirates and HOK deserves all the praise they've gotten for how it turned out.  But if they were a better drawing team that stadium would have been built with a club level with an additional 5,000 seats.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2020 at 9:39 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

IT's relative.  CBP is around 44k and I think that works for them.  Making it smaller is like saying that you don't expect to often have good teams.  Making it bigger is like saying you always expect to be a contender.  That might work for some teams, but I think 44 is the sweet spot for the Phillies.  The downside is that when they're good, the secondary market is obscene because they'll sell out 5 or more straight seasons.  The good side is that when they're usually bad, even 25k doesn't look too bad in a 44k park (except when most of the premium seats behind home plate are empty - that's certainly not a good look.

I don't think the relativity is based on expected success, rather on market size and dynamics. The Indians have been one of the best franchises in baseball over the last 7 years, and certainly fit the "always expect to be a contender" bill right now, but recently reduced capacity of their ballpark (and aren't filling the smaller number either).

 

For about a quarter of the clubs in the league, I'd make the case that if a new ballpark were to be built, it shouldn't have a permanent capacity larger than 35,000. I'd say there are 9 true "small-market" clubs in baseball -- Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh have much lower populations than any other markets in baseball; Baltimore and Oakland are geographically constrained; Miami and Tampa Bay are in the wacky Florida sports climate. For whatever reason, the Brewers draw out their ass and buck the trend, but for the other 8 clubs in that list:

  • The Royals drew 2.5 million fans in 2015 and 2016, the only 2 times they've ever done so
  • The Orioles last drew 2.5 million fans in 2005
  • The Indians last drew 2.5 million fans in 2002
  • The Reds last drew 2.5 million fans in 2000; the only other time they'd done so was from 1976 through 1978
  • The Rays only drew 2.5 million fans in 1998, their inaugural season
  • The Marlins only drew 2.5 million fans in 1993, their inaugural season
  • The A's last drew 2.5 million fans from 1989 through 1991, the only time they've done so in franchise history
  • The Pirates have never drawn 2.5 million fans in a season

There's no reason that any of these clubs need more than 35,000 permanent seats in their stadium -- and Miami aside, it's not like these numbers are being influenced solely by bad baseball. Baltimore, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh each made 3 postseason appearances this decade that broke 15- or 20-year droughts; Oakland and Tampa Bay have made pretty regular playoff appearances and have shrewd front offices. That the recent high-water mark for these clubs is the Royals averaging ~33,000 the season after they broke a 28-year postseason drought to go to the World Series tells me that none of these clubs need a park larger than 35,000, irrespective of how good they expect to be.

 

The teams themselves recognize this, too -- Miami and Pittsburgh built their ballparks small; Kansas City kept capacity small in its renovation; Cleveland and Tampa Bay have reduced capacity as they can within their stadiums. When Oakland builds its new park and joins the trend, it'll be appropriate for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the mighty Yankees decided they’d be better off lowering capacity.  Most games feel more crowded, which to them was worth not being able to sell those extra seats for big games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.