Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[GDAWG]

We all know what Las Vegas wants: they want both NBA and MLB and will stop at nothing to get it.  They will get both if they have it their way.

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I don't agree. You go for more than the game.  The games themselves would be comfortable, but being outside for any reason is miserable in August.  Would I go to Vegas for the Thursday Wild game and make a long weekend? Yes.* For a July Twins series? No. 

 

*Probably not, but if I was more of a "Vegas guy."

 

You do go for more than the game. But almost all of the reasons to visit Las Vegas are indoors and air conditioned, so even high temps don't keep people away. Vegas is busy year round and heat is expected other than outside that narrow window from Dec-Feb. Heck some of the busiest times in Vegas are Memorial Day and Labor Day, which are both in the middle of the peak heat. Same goes for the locals. If temperatures outside bothered them during indoor events, they wouldn't live there. 

 

You may be an exception. But as someone who is going next week... I haven't even looked at the forecast because it's irrelevant. Everything I'm doing, from gambling to amusement parks will be indoors. It could be 130 degrees outside and my only concern would be if my cocktail is full. And I'm not a Vegas guy, I frankly loathe the place. 

[NYCdog]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Especially baseball.  June-August, it's going to be more uncomfortable in Vegas than just about anyone's home town.  I'm not sure going to see my MLB team in the summer works out quite as well as going to see an NFL* game in the fall or an NHL game in the winter.

 

*NFL does start amidst the heat, as evidenced by my Labor Day weekend Wisconsin/UNLV trip...not the best time to get away to Vegas. But you as point out, it's the Raiders and it's the NFL.  MLB is going to have to rely on the local population, at least for most of the season.

The A’s can make it work in Vegas with an Allegiant Stadium style full ETFE roofed ballpark and a retractable field with sliding glass panels as seen in Houston (Minute Maid Park) and Miami (Loandepot Park). Also, summertime in Vegas is also pool club season so I’ll call my shot …a Vegas A’s ballpark will include a resort style stadium swim club. If they can make it happen, the perfect site is the Vegas Festival Grounds by Circus Circus on the north end of the strip. In addition to possibly luring tourists to catch a game, the valley has a metro population of 2.2 million, 200K lower then Portland who I consider the only other competition in relocation currently but has had no talks with the A’s. But in Las Vegas, they’ll likely also draw road crowds from the Dodgers, Angels, Padres and Diamondbacks. 
 

IMO, there’s no question the A’s will be more successful in Vegas then in Oakland, stuck perennially in the shadow of the Giants in the City. The A’s are offering to fully fund construction of the waterfront ballpark if the city cleans up its infrastructure at Howard Terminal. And with the port/Schnitzer Steel opposing this along with the demands of local politicians, there’s no way I see the the July 20 city council vote going in their favor. Last weeks meetings revealed their simply too far apart to come to an agreement by July 20th. Interestingly enough, the A’s are due to visit Vegas for a 3rd time on July 21st, a day after the Oakland city council vote.

[gosioux76]

19 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I don't agree. You go for more than the game.  The games themselves would be comfortable, but being outside for any reason is miserable in August.  Would I go to Vegas for the Thursday Wild game and make a long weekend? Yes.* For a July Twins series? No. 

 

*Probably not, but if I was more of a "Vegas guy."

 

I think you maybe contradicted yourself here. Because if you were a "Vegas guy," you'd enjoy going there whether it was February or August. 

 

FWIW, I'm not a "Vegas guy" either, so if I'm going there, it's specifically to see my team (and probably because the flights are cheap), so I wouldn't particularly care what time of year it was.

 

But here's the thing I don't get about this topic: Vegas gets brought up as being too hot for baseball, yet Phoenix -- where the average summertime temps are nearly identical -- seems to get a pass in this regard. And the D-Backs have a retractable roof, rather than a fully domed stadium, so there's a willingness to embrace the elements. I don't really see why Vegas should be any different. 

 

[OnWis97]

28 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I think you maybe contradicted yourself here. Because if you were a "Vegas guy," you'd enjoy going there whether it was February or August. 

 

FWIW, I'm not a "Vegas guy" either, so if I'm going there, it's specifically to see my team (and probably because the flights are cheap), so I wouldn't particularly care what time of year it was.

 

But here's the thing I don't get about this topic: Vegas gets brought up as being too hot for baseball, yet Phoenix -- where the average summertime temps are nearly identical -- seems to get a pass in this regard. And the D-Backs have a retractable roof, rather than a fully domed stadium, so there's a willingness to embrace the elements. I don't really see why Vegas should be any different. 

 

I don’t want to go there in the summer, either. But this started with a discussion about Vegas relying on visiting fans to help fill their stadiums.  Phoenix’s metro is twice as big and their teams don’t rely on traveling fans.  I am not sharp enough to know whether a metro the size of Vegas can support all of these teams so if they can the discussion is moot.

 

As for my summer travel point, perhaps I am projecting my own tastes and there are plenty of people that would travel from Chicago to catch the Cubs (or even the Sox) in July and hang out on the strip.

[B-Rich]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

...Phoenix -- where the average summertime temps are nearly identical -- seems to get a pass in this regard. And the D-Backs have a retractable roof, rather than a fully domed stadium, so there's a willingness to embrace the elements. I don't really see why Vegas should be any different. 

 

I wouldn't really say that Chase Field has a "willingness to embrace the elements".   

 

There ARE variations within retractable roof baseball stadiums:  

• Seattle has a retractable roof, but that's it.  It's not an enclosed environment;  it's basically like playing under a big canopy just to protect you from the rain.
• Milwaukee has a retractable roof, but is enclosed.  It has heat, but NO air-conditioning.
• Houston, Texas, Miami, Toronto AND Phoenix have retractable roofs, are enclosed,  AND have full climate control/air conditioning. 

 

Here's the thing.  I went to a Diamondbacks game in mid-July 2007 with my family.   It had been a dreadfully hot afternoon in Phoenix, and I was looking forward to going into the cooler interior of enclosed Chase Field.   As soon as we walked in the stadium doors and out of the oppressive downtown Phoenix heat, I happily felt that blast of cool air.   But I was surprised when we went to our seats, to find that the roof was open to the darkening dusk sky,  yet the interior of the  seating bowl was as cool as if you were in an air-conditioned building.

I later learned that the roof is closed three hours before game time and the massive cooling system can drop the temperature inside the park to about 78 °F (25.5 °C) by the time the gates open.  And they run the A/C  during games even when the roof is open, so it remains cool in the seating areas (at least the lower ones).   Seems kind of wasteful, but I can tell you it was a much more comfortable experience.

 

So, yeah, Las Vegas could easily follow the Chase Field example for a baseball home. 
 

[bosrs1]

51 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

 

I wouldn't really say that Chase Field has a "willingness to embrace the elements".   

 

There ARE variations within retractable roof baseball stadiums:  

• Seattle has a retractable roof, but that's it.  It's not an enclosed environment;  it's basically like playing under a big canopy just to protect you from the rain.
• Milwaukee has a retractable roof, but is enclosed.  It has heat, but NO air-conditioning.
• Houston, Texas, Miami, Toronto AND Phoenix have retractable roofs, are enclosed,  AND have full climate control/air conditioning. 

 

Here's the thing.  I went to a Diamondbacks game in mid-July 2007 with my family.   It had been a dreadfully hot afternoon in Phoenix, and I was looking forward to going into the cooler interior of enclosed Chase Field.   As soon as we walked in the stadium doors and out of the oppressive downtown Phoenix heat, I happily felt that blast of cool air.   But I was surprised when we went to our seats, to find that the roof was open to the darkening dusk sky,  yet the interior of the  seating bowl was as cool as if you were in an air-conditioned building.

I later learned that the roof is closed three hours before game time and the massive cooling system can drop the temperature inside the park to about 78 °F (25.5 °C) by the time the gates open.  And they run the A/C  during games even when the roof is open, so it remains cool in the seating areas (at least the lower ones).   Seems kind of wasteful, but I can tell you it was a much more comfortable experience.

 

So, yeah, Las Vegas could easily follow the Chase Field example for a baseball home. 
 

 

It's funny, my one experience thus far at Chase Field was the opposite. They'd had the roof open all day to help sun the grass (they'd yet to install the hateful artificial field). They had closed it about an hour before we were let into the park which was right when gates opened. There was that initial blast of cool air when you walked in from the 118 degree sidewalk, but as you moved into the seating bowl that cool feeling quickly dissipated. The concrete of the stadium was still radiating a large amount of ambient heat it had accumulated when the roof was open and the bowl was still in the low 90's despite the closed roof. It didn't really cool down until halfway through the game. Mind you it was still way cooler than the still 100+ degrees outside the park well after dark after the game. 

 

But to the topic at hand, yes Chase Field is proof something like that could easily functionally work in Vegas for locals. As for if there's enough of them, that's the million dollar question. If Golden Knights attendances, Aviators attendances (outside mind you) and Raiders ticket prices are any indication I think there's an argument to be made there that the locals very well may be able to support the A's better than they've been supported in Oakland for the last 30 years. Any improvement in that regard would likely be welcome, and throw in that the amenities for the team would finally be major league level...

 

As for visiting fans, I stand by the notion that the outdoor temp is irrelevant to the Las Vegas experience since everything in Vegas is indoors other than visiting the Hoover Dam or the NASCAR track. You don't go with the expectation you'd see your team outside or that you'll even set foot outside your hotel for more than the minute it takes to get into your UBER or cab to the ballpark. And as mentioned some of the city's busiest times of the year are during the baseball season. 

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

Sharing for no reason in particular: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/09/las-vegas-climate-change-drought-water-conservation

[McCall]

Came across this article and not sure if it was posted or the quote portion, but it appears it's gonna be Oakland or Vegas:

 

https://news3lv.com/news/local/oakland-as-continuing-eyeing-las-vegas-as-a-future-home

 

"We’re not going to any other cities," said Oakland A's President Dave Kaval. "We felt like Las Vegas and Southern Nevada made a ton of sense with the success of the other teams, the business-friendly climate, the entertainment capital of the world."

[Magnus]

On 7/10/2021 at 12:06 AM, Red Comet said:

The Las Vegas A’s. 
 

Just typing that feels so wrong. 

Las Vegas A's of Henderson. 

Does that make it better, or worse?

[bosrs1]

36 minutes ago, McCall said:

Came across this article and not sure if it was posted or the quote portion, but it appears it's gonna be Oakland or Vegas:

 

https://news3lv.com/news/local/oakland-as-continuing-eyeing-las-vegas-as-a-future-home

 

"We’re not going to any other cities," said Oakland A's President Dave Kaval. "We felt like Las Vegas and Southern Nevada made a ton of sense with the success of the other teams, the business-friendly climate, the entertainment capital of the world."

 

I'd say that's a good bet, Vegas pun intended. It'll really come down to how July 20th goes with the Oakland council. The A's of course already having a trip planned the next day. If Oakland makes some progress towards trying to meet the A's requests, they may continue down the road at Howard Terminal. If the OCC balks, given that there's still the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to deal with and get on board even if July 20th goes perfectly from the A's POV, that trip on July 21 will definitely take on a different demeanor. It'll go from "just exploring our options" to planning for the future of the franchise. 

 

With the complexities still to overcome in Oakland and AlCo, they really are in the end game IMO. And with the A's exploring the Aviator's park as a short term alternative depending on how quickly Las Vegas, Clark Co, and the other cities move we could have a relocation announcement by the end of the year. But again it all hinges on the OCC next week. 

[GDAWG]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I'd say that's a good bet, Vegas pun intended. It'll really come down to how July 20th goes with the Oakland council. The A's of course already having a trip planned the next day. If Oakland makes some progress towards trying to meet the A's requests, they may continue down the road at Howard Terminal. If the OCC balks, given that there's still the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to deal with and get on board even if July 20th goes perfectly from the A's POV, that trip on July 21 will definitely take on a different demeanor. It'll go from "just exploring our options" to planning for the future of the franchise. 

 

With the complexities still to overcome in Oakland and AlCo, they really are in the end game IMO. And with the A's exploring the Aviator's park as a short term alternative depending on how quickly Las Vegas, Clark Co, and the other cities move we could have a relocation announcement by the end of the year. But again it all hinges on the OCC next week. 

 

And Libby Schaff will be known as the Mayor who made let all of Oakland's major sports teams get away.

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

And Libby Schaff will be known as the Mayor who made let all of Oakland's major sports teams get away.

 

Well two of them anyway. The Warriors were already out the door when she took office. And the Warriors made no real effort to, nor had any desire to stay so there wasn't much her predecessor could do. 

 

The Raiders made unreasonable demands so while they left on her watch, I can't blame her for their departure. No one could compete with the bending over and taking it up the tailpipe Nevada was offering the comparatively penniless Mark Davis. 

 

But this one... this will be on her and her council if they go. The A's are offering something almost perfectly akin to the Giants ballpark deal from 25 years ago, which San Francisco has never regretted. If the city and county :censored: this up, which I'd bet good money they will, it'll all be on them. 

[bosrs1]

Well Manfred is towing the same line. If Oakland doesn't get something done in the next few months, they can kiss the A's goodbye.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php

 

Quote

“Las Vegas is a viable alternative for a major league club, and there are other viable alternatives that I haven’t turned the A’s loose to even explore at this point," Manfred said. "So thinking about this as a bluff is a mistake. This is the decision point for Oakland as to whether they want to have Major League Baseball going forward.”

 

[Red Comet]

2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well two of them anyway. The Warriors were already out the door when she took office. And the Warriors made no real effort to, nor had any desire to stay so there wasn't much her predecessor could do. 

 

The Raiders made unreasonable demands so while they left on her watch, I can't blame her for their departure. No one could compete with the bending over and taking it up the tailpipe Nevada was offering the comparatively penniless Mark Davis. 

 

But this one... this will be on her and her council if they go. The A's are offering something almost perfectly akin to the Giants ballpark deal from 25 years ago, which San Francisco has never regretted. If the city and county this up, which I'd bet good money they will, it'll all be on them. 

It’s Oakland, :censored:ing up was predetermined and as much as it may seem that they’ve run into an 18 karat run of bad luck, the game was rigged from the start.

[bosrs1]

18 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

It’s Oakland, :censored:ing up was predetermined and as much as it may seem that they’ve run into an 18 karat run of bad luck, the game was rigged from the start.

 

I mean much of their "bad luck" is their own self sabotage. They're acting like they're San Francisco or San Jose (ie:  a desirable market), when in reality they've not been an appealing "second city" market for decades. They're a city that needs to be doing the most possible within their financial means to keep the team, not hemming and hawing. Same goes for AlCo who are always in such a dick measuring contest with the OCC that they're a self sabotaging  circle jerk the pair of them. 

 

I mean the fact most of Oakland's leadership still think the Coliseum site is still viable just shows you how out of touch they've become. Even if the A's redeveloped the entire site, it would still be a new stadium surrounded by mostly industrial wasteland, polluted sloughs, and Baby Iraq as it used to be called. It would be marginally more appealing than the stadium is now, not the game changer venue the A's need to even be on a level playing field with the Giants to TRY and compete. 

 

Not that Howard Terminal is great. It's got a litany of problems between the TIF financing disagreements, :censored: access for fans, Union Pacific throwing up roadblocks, etc... But it's what the A's have settled on in what is clearly the last ditch attempt. Again the idea that some people think the move threat is a bluff after 26 years is yet another highlight of how out of touch these people are. They're acting like this is still early in the process. This has been going on more than half my life now, and I'm middle aged. It's :censored: or get of the pot time. But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, :censored: on the floor, and declare victory. 

[LMU]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

I mean much of their "bad luck" is their own self sabotage. They're acting like they're San Francisco or San Jose (ie:  a desirable market), when in reality they've not been an appealing "second city" market for decades. They're a city that needs to be doing the most possible within their financial means to keep the team, not hemming and hawing. Same goes for AlCo who are always in such a dick measuring contest with the OCC that they're a self sabotaging  circle jerk the pair of them. 

 

I mean the fact most of Oakland's leadership still think the Coliseum site is still viable just shows you how out of touch they've become. Even if the A's redeveloped the entire site, it would still be a new stadium surrounded by mostly industrial wasteland, polluted sloughs, and Baby Iraq as it used to be called. It would be marginally more appealing than the stadium is now, not the game changer venue the A's need to even be on a level playing field with the Giants to TRY and compete. 

 

Not that Howard Terminal is great. It's got a litany of problems between the TIF financing disagreements, access for fans, Union Pacific throwing up roadblocks, etc... But it's what the A's have settled on in what is clearly the last ditch attempt. Again the idea that some people think the move threat is a bluff after 26 years is yet another highlight of how out of touch these people are. They're acting like this is still early in the process. This has been going on more than half my life now, and I'm middle aged. It's or get of the pot time. But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, on the floor, and declare victory. 

Not to mention that a return in Oakland was seen as a last grasp way back when the Fremont plan imploded.

[tp49]

On 7/13/2021 at 3:50 PM, bosrs1 said:

But knowing Oakland, they'll miss the pot entirely, on the floor, and declare victory. 

But not before stepping in it on the way out of the room.  It's the Oakland way of late.

[MJWalker45]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:04 PM, bosrs1 said:

Well Manfred is towing the same line. If Oakland doesn't get something done in the next few months, they can kiss the A's goodbye.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php

 

 

Sounds like Don Garber 2.0. Now I'm waiting for someone to show they already have the papers signed. 

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Sounds like Don Garber 2.0. Now I'm waiting for someone to show they already have the papers signed. 

 

Las Vegas is scrambling to get their papers in order.