Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[bosrs1]

32 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I was just told about something similar by a friend who's former player (he's a high school coach) is playing A ball in Peoria (Cardinals organization).  He said the players prefer road trips because they lose money at home.

 

That's pretty pathetic. I wonder how many organizations are doing it. Of course being a local SF Bay Area article they don't elaborate on the other teams beyond the Astros. But the implication was that most are doing right by their players, similar to the A's recent food for MiLBers fiasco. Clearly the Cardinals aren't one of them if what your friend is saying is true. 

[McCall]

5 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

That's pretty pathetic. I wonder how many organizations are doing it. Of course being a local SF Bay Area article they don't elaborate on the other teams beyond the Astros. But the implication was that most are doing right by their players, similar to the A's recent food for MiLBers fiasco. Clearly the Cardinals aren't one of them if what your friend is saying is true. 

Depends on when his friend, the former player, played.

[GDAWG]

 

[Ridleylash]

Hopefully this keeps them in town. The way A's ownership has been dragging their heels on everything indicates to me they're trying to pull a Stan Kroenke "fight and say no until they give up and let you :censored: off to a new market" tactic.

[bosrs1]

16 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Hopefully this keeps them in town. The way A's ownership has been dragging their heels on everything indicates to me they're trying to pull a Stan Kroenke "fight and say no until they give up and let you off to a new market" tactic.

 

I mean it's not what the A's wanted. It's good they voted yes, but they voted yes on something the A's have already told them is a "no". So really all the city has voted to do is continue negotiations from their side. The A's on the other hand have said this was a no. Whether they stick to that or if they come back to the table *shrug* who knows. But it's not the term sheet the A's had asked them to vote on and they're still almost $400 million apart. 

 

To say nothing of still needing the county's buy in on the TIF financing that the city just rejected in their term sheet. In any case the A's are going to Las Vegas for another scouting trip tomorrow. 

[GDAWG]

Meanwhile in Tampa regarding the Rays future.....

 

 

[ManillaToad]

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

[Dilbert]

Oakland lost the Raiders, the Warriors and the minor league indoor football team that hasnt even played yet. The fact that they are close to losing the A's tells me that the city just isnt trying hard enough.

[Brian in Boston]

#*&%  Dave Kaval, #*&% John Fisher, #*&% the A's, and #*&% Major League Baseball.

If I'm Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff and the Oakland City Council, I'm telling ownership and management of the Oakland Athletics that they have until 5:00 PM PST on July 30, 2021 to accept the proposed term sheet that the council approved today, or get cracking on finalizing a stadium deal elsewhere.

After all, good ol' "Take It or Leave It" Kaval and the A's brass must have a surefire, ironclad, can't miss ballpark deal all sewn up someplace else by now, right? Otherwise, why would they so confidently be holding a "gun" to the collective head of Oakland's municipal leaders and rather cockily demanding, "Approve our term sheet exactly as we've unilaterally drawn it up, or we're 'pulling the trigger' on a relocation."?

The A's presented their proposed term sheet and insisted that it be voted upon exactly as presented. So, call their bluff, Oakland. Let's see how quickly a ballpark deal can be finalized in Las Vegas, Henderson, or Summerlin. Or is the new home of the A's going to be located in Charlotte, Montréal, Nashville, Portland, or Vancouver? You know, I hear Michelle Willard with the Greater Sacramento Economic Council is willing to take their call.

#*&% 'em.

[BBTV]

29 minutes ago, Dilbert said:

Oakland lost the Raiders, the Warriors and the minor league indoor football team that hasnt even played yet. The fact that they are close to losing the A's tells me that the city just isnt trying hard enough.

 

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

[bosrs1]

1 hour 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

Yeah I don’t count the Mariners. And of course San Diego hasn’t lost the Padres. There are a couple cities that have lost teams in 3 but never 4.

[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.