Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[Red Comet]

30 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

And their woes continue... they had to cap fireworks night at 30,000 because they neglected to pay BART to run the trains after the fireworks like the Giants did last night. 

 

 

Wait, what? Two things. First, why do the A’s have to pay BART so that BART can run their trains? Second, why are they so cheap as to not pay BART if that is what is required to get fans in for fireworks night? That might’ve actually given them a bit of a boost in attendance too. 

[bosrs1]

8 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Wait, what? Two things. First, why do the A’s have to pay BART so that BART can run their trains? Second, why are they so cheap as to not pay BART if that is what is required to get fans in for fireworks night? That might’ve actually given them a bit of a boost in attendance too. 

 

Because BART isn't running late trains right now because they're still on COVID footing. Yet the Giants magically had late trains during their fireworks night up to 40 mins after last fireworks. You can't tell me the Giants, or SF city government, or both,  didn't make it worth their while to have trains running late since clearly trains don't just magically appear. 

 

And why are they so cheap? People have been asking that of A's ownership for almost 30 years now. The current ownership group in particular are one of the richest in MLB, yet they act like they have no money, and perpetually sabotage themselves off field. They'd rather play this up as a shaming game on social media trying to get BART to run trains than just making it happen like their competition across the Bay. But then being an embarrassment is nothing new to the A's or their ownership. Easily a bottom 3 ownership group in all of sports, and they unfortunately own two teams who they bungle management of with the Earthquakes in MLS too. 

 

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

And why are they so cheap? People have been asking that of A's ownership for almost 30 years now. The current ownership group in particular are one of the richest in MLB, yet they act like they have no money, and perpetually sabotage themselves off field. They'd rather play this up as a shaming game on social media trying to get BART to run trains than just making it happen like their competition across the Bay. But then being an embarrassment is nothing new to the A's or their ownership. Easily a bottom 3 ownership group in all of sports, and they unfortunately own two teams who they bungle management of with the Earthquakes in MLS too.

 

That reminds me of how the A's got kicked out of revenue sharing a few years ago (IIRC). They're a part of Fisher's real estate plans, which is why the "Howard Terminal or Bust" stuff is more about Fisher getting to develop the area. Revenue sharing took some of the "burden" off Fisher, until MLB kicked them off of it. Kaval simply replaced Wolff as the public face.

 

42 minutes ago, tBBP said:

Totally unrelated, but...I did some looking into their history yesterday just because I was curious.  And I know the club has set up shop in three different cities, but...one would think a club that has nine Word Series titles, three coming during their little mini-dynasty at the beginning of the 70s that apparently barely gets mentioned in the story of Major League Baseball (not that I'm a knowledgeable historian because I certainly am not), would be better deserving than the mess they're currently enduring/they've gotten themselves into.

 

Sidebar complete--now back to relevant discussion...

 

Well, we must first put those nine titles (and six additional AL pennants) into context. The Athletics have been a boom-and-bust franchise going back over 100 years, with the 1910s titles followed by Connie Mack getting cheap and losing his core. The Great Depression broke up the 1929-31 teams with Mack's investments taking a hit. The Kansas City years are a black mark for everybody involved. The early-mid '70s A's dynasty met its demise through Charlie O. being incredibly cheap and opposing the arrival of free agency (also, those clubs derived a lot of unity from their mutual dislike of Charlie O. ). The A's of the late-'80s and early-'90s just gradually fell apart over the '90s and turned into the team you see today.

 

A boom-and-bust franchise history, rather than just pure consistency with small bits of downtime (Yankees and Cardinals), is why the A's are where they are now. Honestly, maybe things would've turned out better if Charlie O. sold the team to Ewing Kauffman and Kauffman kept the team in KC. 

[bosrs1]

18 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That reminds me of how the A's got kicked out of revenue sharing a few years ago (IIRC). They're a part of Fisher's real estate plans, which is why the "Howard Terminal or Bust" stuff is more about Fisher getting to develop the area. Revenue sharing took some of the "burden" off Fisher, until MLB kicked them off of it. Kaval simply replaced Wolff as the public face.

 

 

Well, we must first put those nine titles (and six additional AL pennants) into context. The Athletics have been a boom-and-bust franchise going back over 100 years, with the 1910s titles followed by Connie Mack getting cheap and losing his core. The Great Depression broke up the 1929-31 teams with Mack's investments taking a hit. The Kansas City years are a black mark for everybody involved. The early-mid '70s A's dynasty met its demise through Charlie O. being incredibly cheap and opposing the arrival of free agency (also, those clubs derived a lot of unity from their mutual dislike of Charlie O. ). The A's of the late-'80s and early-'90s just gradually fell apart over the '90s and turned into the team you see today.

 

A boom-and-bust franchise history, rather than just pure consistency with small bits of downtime (Yankees and Cardinals), is why the A's are where they are now. Honestly, maybe things would've turned out better if Charlie O. sold the team to Ewing Kauffman and Kauffman kept the team in KC. 

 

Actually that is the one consistent thing about the A's... that they've been consistently owned by cheap ass owners. First was Mack/Shibe ownership, then Mack himself, then Arnold (who in addition to being cheap was also likely colluding with the Yankees), then Finley, later Schott/Hoffman, then Wolff/Fisher, and now Fisher alone. Other than the one bright spot of the all too brief Haas ownership in the 80's, the A's have never had an owner particularly interested in paying the kind of money needed consistently to make the team a winner both off and on field. Historically all they have is ownership that occasionally gets lucky on field, but has no clue how to translate that to success off field.

[tBBP]

17 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That reminds me of how the A's got kicked out of revenue sharing a few years ago (IIRC). They're a part of Fisher's real estate plans, which is why the "Howard Terminal or Bust" stuff is more about Fisher getting to develop the area. Revenue sharing took some of the "burden" off Fisher, until MLB kicked them off of it. Kaval simply replaced Wolff as the public face.

 

 

Well, we must first put those nine titles (and six additional AL pennants) into context. The Athletics have been a boom-and-bust franchise going back over 100 years, with the 1910s titles followed by Connie Mack getting cheap and losing his core. The Great Depression broke up the 1929-31 teams with Mack's investments taking a hit. The Kansas City years are a black mark for everybody involved. The early-mid '70s A's dynasty met its demise through Charlie O. being incredibly cheap and opposing the arrival of free agency (also, those clubs derived a lot of unity from their mutual dislike of Charlie O. ). The A's of the late-'80s and early-'90s just gradually fell apart over the '90s and turned into the team you see today.

 

A boom-and-bust franchise history, rather than just pure consistency with small bits of downtime (Yankees and Cardinals), is why the A's are where they are now. Honestly, maybe things would've turned out better if Charlie O. sold the team to Ewing Kauffman and Kauffman kept the team in KC. 

 

Ah, so...and yes, I did read about the tenure with Connie Mack at the helm (for 50 years!), but from what you contributed, it seems the Athletics organization has had cheapskate-itis in its veins for a loooonnngg time.  

[bosrs1]

54 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

Ah, so...and yes, I did read about the tenure with Connie Mack at the helm (for 50 years!), but from what you contributed, it seems the Athletics organization has had cheapskate-itis in its veins for a loooonnngg time.  

 

If not for their 9 World Series wins it might actually be a mercy to erase the A's from MLB and start fresh with an organization no so permeated with penny pinching.  And I say this who grew up a die hard A's fan, whose parents are still A's fans, and who has probably seen more games at the Coliseum than I'd care to admit.  But even someone of my attachment to them couldn't endure the seemingly never ending decades of this nonsense.  

 

Thankfully I moved to San Diego and learned to fall in love with baseball all over again thanks to an organization that mostly has had no clue how to win, but at least knew how to treat its fans and city well while losing.  

[29texan]

[Red Comet]

I don't think Portland is likely. Is there a big movement to get an MLB team in Portland? Would there be political support to build a new stadium if taxpayer dollars are used? Civic Stadium is out as the Timbers are not about to let a team turn their soccer pitch back into a multipurpose stadium anytime soon.  How much corporate support would there be in Portland for a team? Or hell, who in office in Portland right now would support having a MLB team in Portland? 

 

Las Vegas, for better or worse, is more than willing to support a MLB team at least when it comes to supporting all that it would take to attract the team there. Portland is a lot more questionable in that regard IMO. 

[Ridleylash]

8 minutes ago, 29texan said:

More likely;

[29texan]

Just now, Ridleylash said:

More likely;

I still say Portland.

[bosrs1]

6 minutes ago, 29texan said:

I still say Portland.

 

Except for the fact the A's have had no contact to date with Portland. They've made two research trips to Vegas already and identified a bunch of potential sites. And MLB had been doing ground work in Vegas before the A's were even involved. 

 

So yeah no. If they move it'll be to Vegas. 

[SFGiants58]

As a guy who lived in Portland and researched their various MLB efforts, most of what it amounts to are a bunch of drawings and vague desires to land a team. There is basically no real effort to get a team, nor does the Portland public seem particularly incentivized to get a team. They've learned from the mistakes of the past with regards to stadiums built on speculation.

 

Besides, the Blazers and Timbers are basically 1A and 1B in the city. No way would the A's be able to compete with a high-class MLS organization like the Timbers.

[McCall]

7 hours ago, 29texan said:

I still say Portland.

Based on what?

[bosrs1]

So the A’s “expected” crowds of 30,000+ this weekend  turned out to only be 16,297.

[DCarp1231]

There is the Portland Diamond Project that aims to build a sustainable MLB Level Ballpark for whenever MLB is ready for relocation or expansion

 

https://portlanddiamondproject.com/ballpark-concepts

 

Which includes Russell Wilson and wife Ciara as Investors/Co-Owners

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 7/1/2021 at 4:36 PM, B-Rich said:

Well written, researched and presented, young man.

Except for the part that asserts "harassment" by the language authorities.

 

It is true that the passage of the law protecting the French language led to emigration of anglophones, and therefore to the reduction of the Expos' fanbase. It is also true that the language law made Montreal a less attractive location for players, the vast majority of whom do not speak French.

 

But to grant credence to the notion of "persecution", and to characterise the legitimate enforcement of a legal mandate as "abuses", this is most unseemly. These lapses detract from an otherwise cogent analysis.

 

Any honest observer must acknowledge the reality that Quebec's language law hurt the Expos, and also that the law would represent an obstacle to the placement of another Major League Baseball team in that city. But the same honest observer must be prepared to place this question in the broader context.

 

The purpose of the language law is to protect the preeminence of French in the province, and to ensure the preservation of Quebec as a French-speaking society.  If the upshot of this is that Montreal is no longer a viable city to host a Major League Baseball team, then c'est la vie. The French language is fundamental to the existence of the Quebecois people; Major League Baseball is not. 

[GDAWG]

The year is 2030, and both the NBA and MLS have expanded to 32.  Meanwhile, MLB is still at a holding pattern at 30 teams due to deadlines of stadium issues in Oakland and Tampa being pushed back constantly.  Both teams are still in their respective cities, still in their current garbage stadiums until they have exhausted their options of last resort, which keeps getting pushed back forcing both teams to reluctantly renew their leases.

 

Fast forward another decade to 2040.  By this time, Elon Musk has created several colonies on Mars and through him, interstellar space travel has occurred where a trip to Mars from Earth is the same time as a trip from New York to London.  This news leads to the major sports leagues trying to create teams on Mars, including MLB.  There's one issue with MLB in 2040: they have yet to resolve the stadium situations in Oakland and Tampa and are still at 30 teams.  

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The purpose of the language law is to protect the preeminence of French in the province, and to ensure the preservation of Quebec as a French-speaking society.  If the upshot of this is that Montreal is no longer a viable city to host a Major League Baseball team, then c'est la vie. The French language is fundamental to the existence of the Quebecois people; Major League Baseball is not. 

 

The language law degraded Montreal's status in Canada and the world. It wasn't worth it. The rest of Quebec can be on language patrol, but leave the island alone.

[IceCap]

23 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Except for the part that asserts "harassment" by the language authorities.

 

It is true that the passage of the law protecting the French language led to emigration of anglophones, and therefore to the reduction of the Expos' fanbase. It is also true that the language law made Montreal a less attractive location for players, the vast majority of whom do not speak French.

 

But to grant credence to the notion of "persecution", and to characterise the legitimate enforcement of a legal mandate as "abuses", this is most unseemly. These lapses detract from an otherwise cogent analysis.

 

Any honest observer must acknowledge the reality that Quebec's language law hurt the Expos, and also that the law would represent an obstacle to the placement of another Major League Baseball team in that city. But the same honest observer must be prepared to place this question in the broader context.

 

The purpose of the language law is to protect the preeminence of French in the province, and to ensure the preservation of Quebec as a French-speaking society.  If the upshot of this is that Montreal is no longer a viable city to host a Major League Baseball team, then c'est la vie. The French language is fundamental to the existence of the Quebecois people; Major League Baseball is not. 

As someone whose family are Anglophone Jews from Montreal...you have no idea what you're taking about. 

[Walk-Off]

https://newballpark.org/2021/07/08/lets-take-stock/

 

In the above link is how NewBallpark.org's writer has assessed yesterday's Howard Terminal ballpark project study session at the Oakland City Council.