Jump to content

Oakland Athletics Wheel of Relocation


the_fan
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.  

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31427293/oakland-athletics-start-looking-relocating-elsewhere-sources-say
 

Where to? Portland? San Jose? Nashville? But I don’t think San Jose would be viable as the Giants own the territory. I also think Las Vegas could be a possibility. But it would have to be a dome, as their weather gets to triple digits in the summertime. Probably do what the Diamondbacks do and build a dome in Phoenix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their last, like, three ownership groups were either completely broke, completely inept, or some combination of the two. They’ve had PLENTY of time to figure something out. At least the length of my entire lifetime, and I’m in my mid 30s. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance. Go be Vegas’ problem from now on.
 

The only thing I wish is that they would just shut up with the relocation/stadium talk and just do it already. Quit blabbing about what you’re gonna do and actually do something. They can :censored: off to the moon for all I care at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a link to a story about the A's "exploring relocation" or getting a new stadium in every season-long mega thread since... well, since the forum started.  There's nowhere for them to move to.  There's not 26 MLB markets - let alone 27. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.