MLB Stadium Saga: Oakland/Tampa Bay/Southside

[Brian in Boston]

41 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

There are a couple cities that have lost teams in 3 but never 4.

St. Louis has lost four NFL teams, an NHL club, a single MLB franchise,  and a pair of NBA teams.

The St. Louis All-Stars folded after the 1923 NFL season. The St. Louis Gunners played three games as a replacement for the Cincinnati Reds during the NFL's 1934 season, then promptly suspended operations. The St. Louis Cardinals relocated to Arizona following the NFL's 1987 campaign. The St. Louis Rams returned to Los Angeles after the 2015 NFL season.

The NHL's St. Louis Eagles folded following the 1934-35 season.

The AL's St. Louis Browns relocated to Baltimore in the wake of the 1953 season.

The St. Louis Bombers folded after the 1949-50 NBA season. The St. Louis Hawks relocated to Atlanta following the league's 1967-68 season.

And those eight franchise losses don't even take into account the folding of the ABA's Spirits of St. Louis as part of the NBA-ABA merger in 1976 and the relocation of the NASL's St. Louis Stars to Anaheim in the wake of the 1977 season.





 

[ManillaToad]

5 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

St. Louis has lost four NFL teams, an NHL club, a single MLB franchise, and a pair of NBA teams.

The St. Louis All-Stars folded after the 1923 NFL season. The St. Louis Gunners played three games as a replacement for the Cincinnati Reds during the NFL's 1934 season, then promptly suspended operations. The St. Louis Cardinals relocated to Arizona following the NFL's 1987 campaign. The St. Louis Rams returned to Los Angeles after the 2015 NFL season.

The NHL's St. Louis Eagles folded following the 1934-35 season.

The AL's St. Louis Browns relocated to Baltimore in the wake of the 1953 season.

The St. Louis Bombers folded after the 1949-50 NBA season. The St. Louis Hawks relocated to Atlanta following the league's 1967-68 season.





 

 

The city still has the Cardinals and Blues though. Oakland is headed towards losing every team they've had and not being able to support any new ones in the future

[GDAWG]

3 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

It's kinda crazy seeing a city lose its viability to host major pro sports teams. I'm pretty sure a city that has hosted a team in all four major sports has never lost all of them like Oakland might. The closest I can think of is San Diego, but you'd have to count the short-lived Mariners in the WHA  just to get to three different major leagues

 

San Diego still has the Padres, who are playing well.  They may no longer be in the NFL, but they can still call themselves a major league sports city.

[ManillaToad]

13 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

San Diego still has the Padres, who are playing well.  They may no longer be in the NFL, but they can still call themselves a major league sports city.

 

Yeah by three leagues I meant the WHA, NFL, and NBA (Clippers and Rockets)

[Camden Crazy]

10 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

 

The city still has the Cardinals and Blues though. Oakland is headed towards losing every team they've had and not being able to support any new ones in the future

And they’re about to have MLS.

[TBGKon]

12 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

 

The city still has the Cardinals and Blues though. Oakland is headed towards losing every team they've had and not being able to support any new ones in the future

Oakland has the distinction of being a twin city in a large market.  

[flasah]

1 hour ago, TBGKon said:

Oakland has the distinction of being a twin city in a large market.  

Oakland is more like Ft. Worth and St. Paul than you might think

 

Twin Cities	Metro Pop.	1st City	Population	% of Metro	2nd City	Population	% of Metro	Pop. Diff.	% Diff
Dallas-Ft. Worth	7,694,138	Dallas	1,197,816	15.6%	Ft. Worth	741,206	9.6%	456,610	5.9%
SF-Oakland	4,696,902	San Francisco	805,235	17.1%	Oakland	440,981	9.4%	364,254	7.8%
Minn.-St. Paul	3,657,477	Minneapolis	382,578	10.5%	St. Paul	285,068	7.8%	97,510	2.7%

[FiddySicks]

15 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

That's an interesting take considering all that's transpired.

It’s also an incorrect take. 

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Oakland has the distinction of being a twin city in a large market.  

 

It also has the distinction of being the most divided off second (really third) city in a market with the A's, Raiders, Stompers all being Oakland teams instead of San Francisco or Bay Area teams. San Jose too for that matter with 2 iterations of the Earthquakes and the Sharks.

 

In Chicago, NY and LA the non-city teams are still generally Chicago, NY and LA teams. The only exceptions today that I can think of are the Anaheim Ducks and NJ Devils (if you consider them a NY city team). Brooklyn is an oddity but only as they're named after what today is a sub-city level political unit (ie: a neighborhood name) but that's a pretty unique to NY situation given the city is made up of multiple counties/boroughs. 

 

If the Bay Area were any other location the teams would all be San Francisco teams or Bay Area Teams. But most other regions aren't in the same boat where there's a huge body of water dividing the region's titular city (SF) and third cities (Oakland) from each other, and the titular city not being the largest city, but rather the second largest to what has become the second city, San Jose, which usurped the second city role from Oakland less than 10 years after Oakland started acquiring sports teams (San Jose became the second largest city in the region by 1970 of course became larger than even San Francisco by 1990).  All of which probably helps explain why Oakland ended up in this mess in part. Oakland began a protracted era of decline, particularly relative to it's two neighbors, shortly after the A's, Raiders and Warriors moved in. One from which it's never really recovered. Oakland's population today is barely higher than it was in 1950, it's lost all of it's military presence, it's port has long since been surpassed by the LA area, the largest companies in the Bay are in SF or SJ, average household income is by far the lowest of the 3 major Bay Area cities in Oakland... Really if it hadn't acquired the 3 teams in that narrow window when it did, Oakland would never be a choice destination for teams today. They'd all be going for SF adjacent or San Jose adjacent, and they'd be so named after the bigger cities.  

 

I was trying to think of some analogy in another two team region, or even one team region where a clear second city existed when it got teams, but then quickly declined to a distant third city, and I really can't think of one. 

[Red Wolf]

On 7/18/2021 at 8:43 PM, tBBP said:

You stay putting on for LR, don't you?  But yes, plenty of water. (And right now, plenty of runoff in that water from that OMGWTFIZTHEYTHANKIN 30Crossing bridge project--but we ain't finna talk about that right now.) Hopefully that's all finished by the time I make it back down there...

 

Somebody has to stand up for the One True City of Arkansas. I usually avoid I-30 because I've got time, especially these days, so I'll often take the new Broadway bridge into the One True City.

 

Las Vegas can still suck it though. It's America's worst or second-worst city. I forget which one I said it was. I've stacked up too many gimmicks.

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, flasah said:

Oakland is more like Ft. Worth and St. Paul than you might think

 

Twin Cities	Metro Pop.	1st City	Population	% of Metro	2nd City	Population	% of Metro	Pop. Diff.	% Diff
Dallas-Ft. Worth	7,694,138	Dallas	1,197,816	15.6%	Ft. Worth	741,206	9.6%	456,610	5.9%
SF-Oakland	4,696,902	San Francisco	805,235	17.1%	Oakland	440,981	9.4%	364,254	7.8%
Minn.-St. Paul	3,657,477	Minneapolis	382,578	10.5%	St. Paul	285,068	7.8%	97,510	2.7%

 

"Small" distinction though, in Minn-St. Paul and Dallas-Ft. Worth, there's no city in the same region even bigger than Dallas or Minneapolis as there is with San Jose in relation to the smaller San Francisco and Oakland. The Bay Area is really a tri polar region of San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland. With Oakland being a distant third to SJ-SF. 

 

And as it is Fort Worth and St. Paul don't have any named sports teams. All of the regional teams are either in Dallas, or it's suburb Arlington (but of course they're not named after Arlington, they just play there) and in Minneapolis or named generically. Heck, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Dallas-Fort Worth are good examples of why Oakland either shouldn't have teams, or the ones it has should be named either San Francisco, San Jose or some generic "Bay Area" name (like the Warriors were and Golden Seals went to after trying out the Oakland moniker). Heck, the closest analogue in the US to the Bay Area situation is likely Dallas-Fort Worth. With Dallas being San Jose, Fort Worth being San Francisco, and Oakland being Arlington. 

 

Beyond a new ballpark, that may be one solution to help some of the A's problems, rebrand regionally or to one of the two larger cities to broaden appeal. The Angels did so arguably to their benefit. Instead Oakland's new term sheet precludes the A's from doing so much like Anaheim's tried to do in the 90's.

[Ridleylash]

5 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

And as it is Fort Worth and St. Paul don't have any sports teams.

The Wild say "hi".

[bosrs1]

8 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

The Wild say "hi".

 

Corrected that while you responded. Point stands, they're not the St. Paul Wild. 

[SFGiants58]

4 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Corrected that while you responded. Point stands, they're not the St. Paul Wild. 

The “Minneapolis” name plays a big part in why the Lakers left. That and no George Mikan.

[Brian in Boston]

44 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

It also has the distinction of being the most divided off second (really third) city in a market with the A's, Raiders, Stompers all being Oakland teams instead of San Francisco or Bay Area teams. San Jose too for that matter with 2 iterations of the Earthquakes and the Sharks.

 

In Chicago, NY and LA the non-city teams are still generally Chicago, NY and LA teams. The only exceptions today that I can think of are the Anaheim Ducks and NJ Devils (if you consider them a NY city team). Brooklyn is an oddity but only as they're named after what today is a sub-city level political unit (ie: a neighborhood name) but that's a pretty unique to NY situation given the city is made up of multiple counties/boroughs. 

 

If the Bay Area were any other location the teams would all be San Francisco teams or Bay Area Teams. But most other regions aren't in the same boat where there's a huge body of water dividing the region's titular city (SF) and third cities (Oakland) from each other, and the titular city not being the largest city, but rather the second largest to what has become the second city, San Jose, which usurped the second city role from Oakland less than 10 years after Oakland started acquiring sports teams (San Jose became the second largest city in the region by 1970 of course became larger than even San Francisco by 1990).  All of which probably helps explain why Oakland ended up in this mess in part. Oakland began a protracted era of decline, particularly relative to it's two neighbors, shortly after the A's, Raiders and Warriors moved in. One from which it's never really recovered. Oakland's population today is barely higher than it was in 1950, it's lost all of it's military presence, it's port has long since been surpassed by the LA area, the largest companies in the Bay are in SF or SJ, average household income is by far the lowest of the 3 major Bay Area cities in Oakland... Really if it hadn't acquired the 3 teams in that narrow window when it did, Oakland would never be a choice destination for teams today. They'd all be going for SF adjacent or San Jose adjacent, and they'd be so named after the bigger cities.  

 

I was trying to think of some analogy in another two team region, or even one team region where a clear second city existed when it got teams, but then quickly declined to a distant third city, and I really can't think of one. 

    
Bingo!

Frankly, the argument can be made that Oakland was lucky to have ever landed major pro sports in the first place.

 

If the ownership group behind the American Football League's planned Minneapolis-based franchise hadn't announced that it was bolting for the NFL just eight months before the upstart league was set to kick-off, AFL leadership wouldn't have been forced to find a replacement market on short notice. Further, Los Angeles Chargers owner Barron Hilton wouldn't have been afforded the opportunity to throw his weight around and insist upon said replacement market being a California city that would provide his team with an in-state rival and help to somewhat reduce his travel expenses. In which case, Oakland doesn't land its first major pro sports franchise. Which means that civic leaders may never become convinced to pursue more teams... and teams on the move may never become convinced that Oakland could support them.   

By no means was Oakland a "get" market for any major pro sports league in 1960. At the time, the city's population of 367,548 marked it as the 33rd largest municipality in the United States. The only less-populated markets playing host to major pro sports in the AFL, NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL at the time were Syracuse (NBA's Nationals) and Green Bay (NFL's Packers). The Nationals would relocate to Philadelphia by the start of the NBA's 1963-64 season. As for Green Bay, the city served  as an NFL market in 1960 - indeed, continues to survive as an NFL market today - due to the existence of an iron-clad legal agreement dating to 1923 that  establishes the Packers as a publicly owned, non-profit entity.

Today, Oakland's estimated population according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 424,891... ranking the city as the 46th most populous in the United States. As you point out, it isn't the largest city in its metropolitan area or Nielsen DMA, trailing behind both San Jose (#10 nationally - 1,013,616) and San Francisco (#17 - 866,606). In fact, it's the 8th most populous city in California behind Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, and Long Beach.  

Akron, Anderson, and Canton. Dayton, Decatur, and Evansville. Fort Wayne, Hamilton, and Hammond. Hartford, Kenosha, and Louisville. Massilon, Moline, and Muncie. Newark, Omaha, and Orange. Portsmouth, Pottsville, and Providence. Rock Island, Rochester, and Sheboygan. Staten Island, Syracuse, and Tonawanda. Troy, Waterloo, and Worcester. All played host to major pro teams at one time or another. All have seen major pro sports move on. Like each of said cities, Oakland may be a major pro sports municipality that time and circumstance have passed by.

[SFGiants58]

30 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

 

Somebody has to stand up for the One True City of Arkansas. I usually avoid I-30 because I've got time, especially these days, so I'll often take the new Broadway bridge into the One True City.

It beats the heck out of West Memphis.

 

[bosrs1]

19 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

    
Bingo!

Frankly, the argument can be made that Oakland was lucky to have ever landed major pro sports in the first place.

 

If the ownership group behind the American Football League's planned Minneapolis-based franchise hadn't announced that it was bolting for the NFL just eight months before the upstart league was set to kick-off, AFL leadership wouldn't have been forced to find a replacement market on short notice. Further, Los Angeles Chargers owner Barron Hilton wouldn't have been afforded the opportunity to throw his weight around and insist upon said replacement market being a California city that would provide his team with an in-state rival and help to somewhat reduce his travel expenses.

By no means was Oakland a "get" market for any major pro sports league in 1960. At the time, the city's population of 367,548 marked it as the 33rd largest municipality in the United States. The only less-populated markets playing host to major pro sports in the AFL, NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL at the time were Syracuse (NBA's Nationals) and Green Bay (NFL's Packers). The Nationals would relocate to Philadelphia by the start of the NBA's 1963-64 season. As for Green Bay, the city served  as an NFL market in 1960 - indeed, continues to survive as an NFL market today - due to the existence of an iron-clad legal agreement dating to 1923 that  establishes the Packers as a publicly owned, non-profit entity.

Today, Oakland's estimated population according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 424,891... ranking the city as the 46th most populous in the United States. As you point out, it isn't the largest city in its metropolitan area or Nielsen DMA, trailing behind both San Jose (#10 nationally - 1,013,616) and San Francisco (#17 - 866,606). In fact, it's the 8th most populous city in California behind Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, and Long Beach.  

Akron, Anderson, and Canton. Dayton, Decatur, and Evansville. Fort Wayne, Hamilton, and Hammond. Hartford, Kenosha, and Louisville. Massilon, Moline, and Muncie. Newark, Omaha, and Orange. Portsmouth, Pottsville, and Providence. Rock Island, Rochester, and Sheboygan. Staten Island, Syracuse, and Tonawanda. Troy, Waterloo, and Worcester. All played host to major pro teams at one time or another. All have seen major pro sports move on. Like each of said cities, Oakland may be a major pro sports city that time has passed by.

 

I mean really Oakland's time passed it by around the time the Coliseum opened. If not for the Raiders situation  you detail above, or the fact Charley Finley was desperate to move out of KC from the moment he bought the team (remember he had tried to move the team to Dallas, Louisville, and Oakland a first time in the years prior to the ultimately successful request to move to Oakland) and the fact SF just didn't have an arena really capable of hosting the NBA with the Warriors bouncing around 3 different sub standard venues in and around the city, Oakland likely never would have acquired teams. It was the perfect storm of timing, desperation and lucky circumstances to Oakland's benefit. There's an argument to be made that Oakland has the most successful on-spec stadium construction project ever in that the Oakland Arena had no tenants planned when it was planned, and the Coliseum was made multipurpose instead of football only for its then only expected but not signed tenant, the Raiders, on the slim hope of attracting a baseball team. They ultimately ended up with teams in all 4 major leagues within 5 years of opening, with an ABA team and NASL team briefly stopping by for good measure.

 

One they benefitted from for close to half a century longer than they likely should have. The fact they were able to hang on to the 3 teams they did for as long as they did is actually somewhat shocking and impressive. 

[tBBP]

5 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

The Wild say "hi".

 

As does Minnesota United.

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

As does Minnesota United.

 

Again, not St. Paul branded, or even in a Big 4 league. 

[Walk-Off]

In the wake of the Oakland City Council voting to go forth with its own term sheet for a Howard Terminal ballpark, longtime Bay Area sports pundit Ray Ratto speaks his mind on how the ownership and management of the A's have behaved in their quest for a new stadium:

 

https://defector.com/the-as-get-no-respect-in-oakland-and-deserve-none-either/