bosrs1 Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 On 4/9/2024 at 9:47 AM, FiddySicks said: Sutter Health Park was also built with the idea that it would some day be expanded into a MLB sized park. Sacramento has low key been vying for a MLB team since at least the year 2000. That’s an urban myth. The Raley Field does not have major league caliber facilities under the grandstand nor can the upper deck support any kind of expansion. It would have to be completely demolished to be expanded. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDAWG Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 32 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: That’s an urban myth. The Raley Field does not have major league caliber facilities under the grandstand nor can the upper deck support any kind of expansion. It would have to be completely demolished to be expanded. The thing is though is that Sutter Health Park only needs to do enough renovations to get the approval of the Players Association. Sahlen Field in Buffalo had to undergo renovations before the MLBPA signed off on it as the temporary home of the Blue Jays due to travel restrictions. The fact that they have been completely silent about the A's move to Sacramento and yet they have been outspoken about the uniforms and the large amount of pitching injuries is interesting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walk-Off Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 On 4/9/2024 at 1:16 PM, tigerslionspistonshabs said: So at this point, let's say the Vegas deal implodes after the A's make the move to Sactown....would they likely then stay in Sacramento? On 4/9/2024 at 5:12 PM, TBGKon said: I think at that point Sacramento could be an option, but you'd likely have the Salt Lake's and Nashville's of the world kicking the tires too. On 4/10/2024 at 10:33 PM, tp49 said: Of those three Nashville would be the most viable. I agree that an MLB team in Nashville would be economically more viable than one in Salt Lake City or especially Sacramento. However, the MLB establishment's apparent present-day aversion to cross-country relocations of franchises leads me to believe that an A's franchise that sees its Las Vegas ambitions fall apart is far more likely to play in another western US market (e.g. moving to SLC; moving to Portland, Oregon; or staying in Sacramento) while MLB saves Nashville for either an expansion team or a relocation of a franchise from either a fellow Central Time Zone market (e.g. the Chicago White Sox or the Kansas City Royals) or the Eastern Time Zone (e.g. the Tampa Bay Rays). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 5 hours ago, GDAWG said: The thing is though is that Sutter Health Park only needs to do enough renovations to get the approval of the Players Association. Sahlen Field in Buffalo had to undergo renovations before the MLBPA signed off on it as the temporary home of the Blue Jays due to travel restrictions. The fact that they have been completely silent about the A's move to Sacramento and yet they have been outspoken about the uniforms and the large amount of pitching injuries is interesting. As a temporary venue sure, with the modifications they’ll make it’ll suffice short term. But it’s not suitable as a long term venue. And without being demolished it can’t be made into a suitable venue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 11 hours ago, bosrs1 said: As a temporary venue sure, with the modifications they’ll make it’ll suffice short term. But it’s not suitable as a long term venue. And without being demolished it can’t be made into a suitable venue. But again, compared to the Coliseum it’ll feel like playing like PNC Park. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDAWG Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 18 hours ago, bosrs1 said: As a temporary venue sure, with the modifications they’ll make it’ll suffice short term. But it’s not suitable as a long term venue. And without being demolished it can’t be made into a suitable venue. It only has to be enough to get approval from the Players Association for those three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Did the Rays stadium deal ever actually pass? A quick Google search only shows that it was "supposed to be voted on soon" back in late March, but didn't show anything conclusive. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCdog Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 1 hour ago, BBTV said: Did the Rays stadium deal ever actually pass? A quick Google search only shows that it was "supposed to be voted on soon" back in late March, but didn't show anything conclusive. Not yet, but it will be on the St Pete City Council agenda this month. https://www.tampabay.com/news/st-petersburg/2024/04/09/st-petersburg-city-council-sets-rays-stadium-discussion-may/?outputType=amp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 Here’s Your Bird’s Eye View of the Tropicana Demolition Quote On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 I guess it'd be a shame if they tore it down and never wound up putting the ballpark there. Real shame, yeah. But Vegas tears down its past all the time, and if the A's thing doesn't work out, they can slap up something else. Maybe to go with The Sphere they'll make The Cone. 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walk-Off Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 DRaysBay.com: Rays release new St. Petersburg stadium renderings The Rays are treating the public to plenty of images — and even a video — of how their proposed ballpark and accompanying development might look. On one hand, I think that the Rays are making a cowardly, lazy, and shortsighted decision by staying in St. Petersburg for their desired new ballpark. On the other hand, if any option on the Tampa side of the bay is genuinely unrealistic, then those renderings suggest that the Rays are making the best of a bad situation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
who do you think Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 This team's continued existence is genuinely unrealistic. Merge them into the Pirates already. Bradenton's right across the skyway literally a quintillion hours away because 275 :censored:ed my wife and then me. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 That's a whole lot of edifice for not a whole lot of people. You really see it in the center field view: I know it's the Rays and lol attendance but I see so much wall where I expect seats to be. Maybe it's an optical illusion from the roof support beams splitting the grandstand into little micro-pavilions but this just looks like a really big and expensive undertaking for 30,000 seats. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 I’ll only believe it once shovels are in the ground. Until then, it’s the Florida version of Howard Terminal/“Rooted in Oakland.” 2 1 Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 many people have been posting here for years that the problem is the location. Is it fair to say that once the new-car smell wears off, they'll be right in the same boat they're currently in? If so, seems like an incredible waste of money and they should still simply move the team to... literally anywhere. 4 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastBias Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Baseball should be played outside, roofs and fake grass never age well and are bad for the game. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 27 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said: Baseball should be played outside, roofs and fake grass never age well and are bad for the game. As much of a traditionalist as I am, when you have to sit out in 100+ degree temperatures or tropical rainstorms like in Arizona, Texas and Florida, it's a necessary sacrifice. 7 Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Still don't know why they couldn't find somewhere more inland. I don't know what was more of an injustice for fans, the out-of-reach location or the shoddy ballpark, but the Rays are clearly letting one of those problems remain. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDAWG Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Good luck with that. Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.