Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[Walk-Off]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

The Bay Area territory issue never made sense to me. The Dodgers and Angels have the same territory. So do the Cubs and White Sox. The White Sox almost moved to the near western suburbs and would have been, though farther from Wrigley itself, closer to the Cubs' suburban base than to the Sox' own base. The A's shouldn't have been in the position to sell San Jose to the Giants because it should have been both of theirs all along. What a stupid situation.

 

On one hand, I have been able to understand MLB's Bay Area territorial rights policy and situation in that the Giants and the A's had always played in separate municipalities and separate counties in that region -- whereas the Cubs and the White Sox have long coexisted within both the City of Chicago and Cook County, the MLB Angels started off playing alongside the Dodgers within both the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, and the Yankees and the Mets have coexisted (and, before 1958, the Yankees, the Giants, and the Dodgers coexisted) within New York City, whose five boroughs each double as counties.  On the other hand, San Francisco and Oakland have long shared a federally defined Metropolitan Statistical Area, and those two cities and San José are all inside both a common federally defined Combined Statistical Area and a common Nielsen-defined television Designated Market Area.  So, in that sense, having the Giants and the A's enjoy territorial rights to all of the same locales across the Bay Area would have been the fairer and more just policy all along.

[Walk-Off]

On 11/18/2023 at 8:52 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Blame Horace Stoneham for only claiming San Francisco and San Mateo counties, when he should’ve claimed the whole Bay Area region (North to Napa, the East Bay, and Santa Clara County). The A’s could’ve done what the Angels did and pay a fee to share all the counties of the region.

 

Had Horace Stoneham been both willing and able to claim the whole Bay Area for the Giants, I suspect that Charlie Finley, one of the ... shall we say ... thriftiest MLB team owners of his day, would not have dared to make the extra payment that would have been needed in that case to move the A's from Kansas City to Oakland, and thus would either have had the A's stay in KC or have kept looking for somewhere else to put the A's.  For that matter, I cannot think of anyone who had the means to own an MLB team back then and would have been willing to shell out a special indemnity to the Giants just to move an existing MLB club to Oakland or secure an MLB expansion franchise for Oakland.

 

On 11/18/2023 at 7:13 PM, FiddySicks said:

It’s been a real wild experience seeing A’s fans get so mad at the Giants like this whole mess was their fault.

 

My impression is that while A's fans who either just wanted their team to play practically anywhere in the Bay Area or outright favored a relocation to somewhere in the South Bay are understandably angry at the Giants over the territorial rights issue, many -- if not most -- of the #FisherOut / #SellTheTeam types have seemed to be Oakland-first-and-only provincialists who would oppose a relocation to the South Bay every bit as much as they scorn the current effort to shift the franchise to the Las Vegas area.  As far as I can tell, the people in that latter group either do not care about the territorial rights situation at all or actually approve of the Giants' claim to the South Bay so as to minimize alternatives to Oakland for the A's.

[Fowler2]

Moving into a brand new stadium right away in Oakland instead of waiting for a stadium to be built in KC was part of Finley's motivations. 

[BBTV]

I don’t think it’s even remotely possible but it’d be cool for the A’s to play a gap season in Phila, though they’d have to share CBP  

[Dilbert]

18 hours ago, BBTV said:

I don’t think it’s even remotely possible but it’d be cool for the A’s to play a gap season in Phila, though they’d have to share CBP  

In that case lets split the home schedule. 20 games in Philly, 20 in KC, 20 in OAK, 21 in LV.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 11/21/2023 at 11:44 PM, BBTV said:

I don’t think it’s even remotely possible but it’d be cool for the A’s to play a gap season in Phila

 

The Connie Mack statue is still there.

 

 

 

[ManillaToad]

Born in 1862, last managed the A's in 1950

[gosioux76]

On 11/21/2023 at 10:44 PM, BBTV said:

I don’t think it’s even remotely possible but it’d be cool for the A’s to play a gap season in Phila, though they’d have to share CBP  

 

That would be fun. But if it's successful, we'd start hearing Philly fans make claims that they should be a two-team market.

 

[BBTV]

9 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

That would be fun. But if it's successful, we'd start hearing Philly fans make claims that they should be a two-team market.

 

 

While there'll never be another multi-team market in any of the 4 major sports, it could be.  Or could have been, had someone moved while the Phillies were down, especially if they moved to one of a few specific areas.  Even nowadays, if the Phillies can start another multi-year sellout streak, with SRO playoff tickets in the $1k range, it wouldn't be outlandish in theory (though getting buy-in for a $1B stadium would be a non-starter, either in the city locations or non-city ones I'm thinking of). 

 

A population base of 6M could support two teams.  That 6M is much more dense than the 6M in almost any of the other large markets outside of the top few, so a very different 6M than Dallas' 6M, Phoenix' 5M, etc., where a good number of that is like a million miles outside of the city centers and doesn't have much (if any) mass transit.

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

While there'll never be another multi-team market in any of the 4 major sports, it could be.  Or could have been, had someone moved while the Phillies were down, especially if they moved to one of a few specific areas.  Even nowadays, if the Phillies can start another multi-year sellout streak, with SRO playoff tickets in the $1k range, it wouldn't be outlandish in theory (though getting buy-in for a $1B stadium would be a non-starter, either in the city locations or non-city ones I'm thinking of). 

 

A population base of 6M could support two teams.  That 6M is much more dense than the 6M in almost any of the other large markets outside of the top few, so a very different 6M than Dallas' 6M, Phoenix' 5M, etc., where a good number of that is like a million miles outside of the city centers and doesn't have much (if any) mass transit.

 

The mayor of Dallas Eric Johnson made an outlandish remark about the City of Dallas wanting their own NFL team because the Cowboys play in Arlington about a year ago. He was laughed off, even by the local media who cover sports. However, it is unlikely that Johnson loses all of the City of Dallas major sports teams as the Stars and Mavericks are staying in the City of Dallas.  There was talk last year that if the state of Texas legalizes casino and sports gambling (which seems to be a significant longshot at this point) that a potential casino in the city of Dallas would include a sports arena to replace the American Airlines Center and this was something that Mark Cuban (the owner of the Mavericks) was in favor of.  The Stars didn't comment on it because it's a longshot at best.

[BBTV]

with as spread out and sparce as most of the TX / southwest metro areas are, IDK if Dallas has two "centers" of population that are spread enough for two teams, or if it's more like one giant (area wise) metro area, in which case I don't think it'd make sense.

 

Two solid population bases that are dense enough yet separate enough could be conditions for two teams, a single large-but-dense base also could work, and maybe a couple of other relatively-odd cases.

 

But it's moot, because existing teams wouldn't allow it.

 

What's the last place that actually tried?  Toronto with the Legends (I think?) and how did the Leafs react to that?

[McCall]

30 minutes ago, BBTV said:

with as spread out and sparce as most of the TX / southwest metro areas are, IDK if Dallas has two "centers" of population that are spread enough for two teams, or if it's more like one giant (area wise) metro area, in which case I don't think it'd make sense.

 

Two solid population bases that are dense enough yet separate enough could be conditions for two teams, a single large-but-dense base also could work, and maybe a couple of other relatively-odd cases.

 

But it's moot, because existing teams wouldn't allow it.

 

What's the last place that actually tried?  Toronto with the Legends (I think?) and how did the Leafs react to that?

Technically, Los Angeles. Rams returned in 2016 with the Chargers arriving in 2017.

[tBBP]

42 minutes ago, McCall said:

Technically, Los Angeles. Rams returned in 2016 with the Chargers arriving in 2017.

 

And then, depending on how one feels about this, LAFC being stood up out there alongside the LA Galaxy.

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

Technically, Los Angeles. Rams returned in 2016 with the Chargers arriving in 2017.

right… and I’m saying there won’t be any more. LA was unique in that it had no teams, is a mega market and road trip destination, and FOX and CBS each wanted a team, back when the contracts were by conf. 

[monkeypower]

Sure there might be a high enough population in a given city/market, but will there be enough people to switch their existing allegiance for a second team? Be it the Philadelphia Constitutions baseball club or the Dallas Forth Worthers football team, is there enough space to wiggle in a build a fanbase?

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Sure there might be a high enough population in a given city/market, but will there be enough people to switch their existing allegiance for a second team? Be it the Philadelphia Constitutions baseball club or the Dallas Forth Worthers football team, is there enough space to wiggle in a build a fanbase?

 

The Cowboys are so established that a second NFL team in the area would be a disaster.  

[Dilbert]

22 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

The Cowboys are so established that a second NFL team in the area would be a disaster.  

I mean the Texans bolted after three seasons for Kansas City, and both teams began at the same time. Cowboys just had the advantage of being in the NFL compared to the upstart AFL

[Ridleylash]

13 hours ago, McCall said:

Technically, Los Angeles. Rams returned in 2016 with the Chargers arriving in 2017.

I mean, I don't really know if putting two teams in a city that has struggled to support even a single franchise at various points in history was necessarily the correct choice in itself, but Dean Spanos isn't exactly known for his bright ideas when it comes to running the Chargers.

 

The Rams will at least have staying power thanks to their championship, as we all know LA loves winners, but the Chargers seem pretty much predestined to go the way of the Angels in being the bum also-ran franchise; and even then, the Angels didn't spend the vast majority of their existence in a completely different city.

[BBTV]

13 hours ago, monkeypower said:

t will there be enough people to switch their existing allegiance for a second team? Be it the Philadelphia Constitutions baseball club

 

1. doubtful, however if they go on another 5-6 year sellout streak where ticket prices are prohibitively expensive, the other team could become the one where families can actually afford to take their kids, who might grow up to be fans.  OR, when the Phillies blow, the other team could be the only place to see AL stars like (based on 2022) Otani.  Back in the day, people would have packed an AL stadium to see some of the players that rarely appear in NL parks.

 

2. Re: Constitutions - can we stop naming teams as if they're come up by a board room full of 70-year-old white guys?  I'm not saying to name them the Dirty Dawgzzz, but something more younglings can relate to that's not embarrassing for their parents to wear.

[monkeypower]

13 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

The Cowboys are so established that a second NFL team in the area would be a disaster.  

 

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

1. doubtful, however if they go on another 5-6 year sellout streak where ticket prices are prohibitively expensive, the other team could become the one where families can actually afford to take their kids, who might grow up to be fans.  OR, when the Phillies blow, the other team could be the only place to see AL stars like (based on 2022) Otani.  Back in the day, people would have packed an AL stadium to see some of the players that rarely appear in NL parks.

 

I just picked Dallas NFL and Philadelphia MLB because those were the two most recently listed in this thread. I don't seriously think it would work there, it was just examples

 

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

2. Re: Constitutions - can we stop naming teams as if they're come up by a board room full of 70-year-old white guys?  I'm not saying to name them the Dirty Dawgzzz, but something more younglings can relate to that's not embarrassing for their parents to wear.

 

I don't seriously think Constitutions would be a good name. I thought that might have come across since I named the Dallas team the Fort Worthers, but I guess not.