Jump to content

MLB 2021 Season Thread


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

They will never move out of the bay under the current revenue model. Unlike the nfl's national tv contract, the regional cable tv deal is the primary revenue driver for an mlb franchise. Moving to a smaller media market just to get a shiny subsidized place of business to sell more tickets would be a financial misstep. Since the mid 90's the turnstile has been eclipsed by the number of subscribers.  They still have local (not great) options to try to work something out in oakland, possibly find a site in the near the santa clara county border, or negotiate a revenue sharing deal with the giants to settle in san jose.

 

Getting a new stadium is about more than selling tickets.  Usually the team also gets some stake in it and/or makes money off of the management of it, and uses it to create new revenue streams in the boxes and suites that may or may not exist in the current place, and hold events that may not currently be feasible.  Also when it comes to recruiting free agents, if all other things are equal, a guy is probably more likely to sign with the team that gives him a more state-of-the-art work experience.

 

I'm not sure what their RSN situation is like in Oakland, but moving to a smaller market might allow them to cut some deal for a stake (or full ownership) of an RSN, which may not be possible in Oakland.  Basically, any smaller market that feels like screwing its tax payers over knows that it needs to bend over backwards to land the A's, which could benefit them more than staying in a larger market but under worse deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 641
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Well they did start with a blue & red colour scheme in Philadelphia and carried it over to Kansas City before shifting to green & yellow, so I don't think the colours are set in stone.

 

And I can guarantee Montreal Athletics would not go over at all, even if they changed the colours. An MLB team in Montreal will always be called the Expos, period. Just like an NBA team in Seattle will always be the Sonics, or an NHL team in Quebec will always be the Nordiques. Just remember the backlash when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg and the rumours leaked that they wouldn't be called the Jets.

 

Athletics is an English word, and A's is an English abbreviation so they'd have to ditch the logo & change the caps. Also, Club Athlétique Canadien was the original name of the Habs before it was changed to Club de Hockey Canadien, so that could create even more confusion.

 

They're not set in stone, but green/yellow is so good and they're the only ones in the sport wearing it.

 

I don't think anyone would confused the Habs and the A's.   Especially since it would be Club Athlétique du Montreal rather than Canadien, the source of their name.   Would a change to Athlétiques not soothe the French?   And Expos may have a novel charm, but it's still owned by a current club.   Would they sell it like the Pelicans did?

 

In the end, let's hope it's an expansion or the Rays beat them so that this doesn't become an issue.   (I would miss the Ray's existence in Tampa, but we'll see how they work things out.)

 

17 hours ago, dont care said:

Why wouldn’t they wear the 1919 uniforms from when the black sox scandal happened?

 

17 hours ago, NicDB said:

Same reason my Packers would never wear throwbacks from the Forrest Gregg years.  Even if it's a reference to the movie, it's not exactly something the franchise wants to pay tribute to.

 

It's not that.   It's simple.   It's because that's not what they wore in the movie.   I don't know why they chose the uniform used for Joe's first year and a half.   Perhaps because it's the simplest and they could use the base for it, the Yankees, and any other pinstripe clubs?

 

17 hours ago, NicDB said:

I'm rooting for Las Vegas or Portland to be the A's landing spot if they don't stay in Oakland.  Not only would the divisional alignment remain intact, but the colors work for either city (Timbers colors for Portland, green money and gold coins for Vegas).  The A's have some of the best uniforms and brands in all of MLB.  I'd rather they not change at all (apart from replacing references to Oakland with the new city) if they can help it.

 

I didn't even think of that!   Wow.   How would the divisions recover from a move to Montreal?   Royals to the West and Montreal to the Central?

 

12 hours ago, guest23 said:

They will never move out of the bay under the current revenue model. Unlike the nfl's national tv contract, the regional cable tv deal is the primary revenue driver for an mlb franchise. Moving to a smaller media market just to get a shiny subsidized place of business to sell more tickets would be a financial misstep. Since the mid 90's the turnstile has been eclipsed by the number of subscribers.  They still have local (not great) options to try to work something out in oakland, possibly find a site in the near the santa clara county border, or negotiate a revenue sharing deal with the giants to settle in san jose.

 

Right now, most of the State of Oregon is under Oakland's rights territory, shared with Seattle.   Could they not just extend the tendril up a bit to get the Portland as well and let them still broadcast to their current market?

 

How do the channels work for them and the Giants?   Is it like MASN or like YES and SNY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

They're not set in stone, but green/yellow is so good and they're the only ones in the sport wearing it.

 

I don't think anyone would confused the Habs and the A's.   Especially since it would be Club Athlétique du Montreal rather than Canadien, the source of their name.   Would a change to Athlétiques not soothe the French?   And Expos may have a novel charm, but it's still owned by a current club.   Would they sell it like the Pelicans did?

 

In the end, let's hope it's an expansion or the Rays beat them so that this doesn't become an issue.   (I would miss the Ray's existence in Tampa, but we'll see how they work things out.)

 

If a group does bring baseball back to la belle province I'm sure they'd find a way to get the rights to the name/logo. If the A's move, there's 3 or 4 markets that are probably ahead of Montreal on the relocation list, so I think it's a moot point. The Rays would make the most sense, as it would have Montreal in a division with the Blue Jays.

 

The ludicrous split-season plan that Tampa Bay has proposed with Montreal will never work. It would make more sense to move the Rays, then have the Marlins split their season between Miami & Tampa/St. Pete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

The ludicrous split-season plan that Tampa Bay has proposed with Montreal will never work. It would make more sense to move the Rays, then have the Marlins split their season between Miami & Tampa/St. Pete.

I fully agree with you, the split Montreal/Tampa Bay idea is logistically difficult near impossible.  

 

IF the Rays relocate, I too have thought of the split Tampa Bay/Miami idea, but Miami's lease requires full season tenant I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

IF the Rays relocate, I too have thought of the split Tampa Bay/Miami idea, but Miami's lease requires full season tenant I believe.

 

They could be the Florida Marlins...

 

ChillyAnimatedEuropeanpolecat-max-1mb.gi

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

Getting a new stadium is about more than selling tickets.  Usually the team also gets some stake in it and/or makes money off of the management of it, and uses it to create new revenue streams in the boxes and suites that may or may not exist in the current place, and hold events that may not currently be feasible.  Also when it comes to recruiting free agents, if all other things are equal, a guy is probably more likely to sign with the team that gives him a more state-of-the-art work experience.

 

I'm not sure what their RSN situation is like in Oakland, but moving to a smaller market might allow them to cut some deal for a stake (or full ownership) of an RSN, which may not be possible in Oakland.  Basically, any smaller market that feels like screwing its tax payers over knows that it needs to bend over backwards to land the A's, which could benefit them more than staying in a larger market but under worse deals.

 

Both the a's and angeles ownership have been angling for the adjacent real estate development deals which is what mlb owners are eyeing as the next untapped profit center but in ca that land is too damn valuable to just give away as the fair market value to redevelop into residential or mixed use is far greater than a stadium/shopping complex. In these cases the cities have a ton of leverage to keep the status quo. There are definitely some upsides in terms of local revenue streams in a completely new small market but from everything I read regional tv is the deciding factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Both the a's and angeles ownership have been angling for the adjacent real estate development deals which is what mlb owners are eyeing as the next untapped profit center but in ca that land is too damn valuable to just give away as the fair market value to redevelop into residential or mixed use is far greater than a stadium/shopping complex. In these cases the cities have a ton of leverage to keep the status quo. There are definitely some upsides in terms of local revenue streams in a completely new small market but from everything I read regional tv is the deciding factor.

 

Isn't a stadium with shopping and residences mixed use? Haven't cities like Inglewood and Anaheim already said  "We want the stadium plus the shopping plus residences, we'll sell you land at a notional discount to build it"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Well they did start with a blue & red colour scheme in Philadelphia and carried it over to Kansas City before shifting to green & yellow, so I don't think the colours are set in stone.

 

And I can guarantee Montreal Athletics would not go over at all, even if they changed the colours. An MLB team in Montreal will always be called the Expos, period. Just like an NBA team in Seattle will always be the Sonics, or an NHL team in Quebec will always be the Nordiques. Just remember the backlash when the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg and the rumours leaked that they wouldn't be called the Jets.

 

Athletics is an English word, and A's is an English abbreviation so they'd have to ditch the logo & change the caps. Also, Club Athlétique Canadien was the original name of the Habs before it was changed to Club de Hockey Canadien, so that could create even more confusion.

Historically (IIRC) the Athletics (especially in their Philadelphia days) were not a blue and red team, but a navy and white team. The blue and red is probably kind of an anomaly in their history; their successful periods were navy/white and green/yellow (you could split the green into kelly and forest too, since they have done well in both).

 

I’d hate to see the Athletics move, if only because we would run the risk of losing a very historic MLB brand, which today happens to also be paired with an excellent color scheme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

Isn't a stadium with shopping and residences mixed use? Haven't cities like Inglewood and Anaheim already said  "We want the stadium plus the shopping plus residences, we'll sell you land at a notional discount to build it"? 

 

Not necessarily because the mixed use deals involving stadia have been using TIF structuring or full on tax exemptions which means tax revenue gets funneled back to the team and there's no net benefit to the municipality as a whole. So if you are a local official or planner would you rather engage in a financial scheme with a sports team or just sell/develop the land outright for optimal utilization and collect the full boat of property and sales taxes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think they look at the equation quite that way.  Municipalities have long since decided that having sports teams is beneficial enough to warrant a black hole of taxpayer monies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

If a group does bring baseball back to la belle province I'm sure they'd find a way to get the rights to the name/logo. If the A's move, there's 3 or 4 markets that are probably ahead of Montreal on the relocation list, so I think it's a moot point. The Rays would make the most sense, as it would have Montreal in a division with the Blue Jays.

 

The ludicrous split-season plan that Tampa Bay has proposed with Montreal will never work. It would make more sense to move the Rays, then have the Marlins split their season between Miami & Tampa/St. Pete.

 

Ugh.   That sounds terrible.   Moving between a new state-of-the-art retractable roof park and the Trop?   Giving the local fans a team they've likely scorned as of late?   Giving Miami another reason to dislike the Marlins/taking away from time those who want to go can?   They'd be better off writing the town off as The Bronx/Fens of the South.

 

53 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Honestly?  I think they just didn’t know what the Yankees wore. 
 

Remember, this was five years before Okkonen published the first illustrated history of baseball uniforms.  Very few pictures of that era were available beyond a trip to Cooperstown or bad microfiche scans of local papers. “Eight Men Out” used inaccurate road Sox uniforms because they just didn’t know any better. 
 

I think somebody in the wardrobe department had a blurry Yankees photo from what they thought was about the right period, and kinda fudged the details.

 

Makes sense.

 

When I mentioned them possibly going with the more bland Sox design, I realized that the blue collar was a big identifying mark that pointed to the year range for them.   The Yankees jersey also features this collar despite me not noticing a collar on any of the Yankees uniforms.   They probably just took the base they made for the Sox uniforms and put the logo where it would show with the catcher's gear.   After all, the Yankees wear pinstripes, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

Not necessarily because the mixed use deals involving stadia have been using TIF structuring or full on tax exemptions which means tax revenue gets funneled back to the team and there's no net benefit to the municipality as a whole. So if you are a local official or planner would you rather engage in a financial scheme with a sports team or just sell/develop the land outright for optimal utilization and collect the full boat of property and sales taxes? 

 

With that reasoning it wouldn't make sense for any stadium to be in any city. The large footprint taken up by stadiums could always be planned for better utilization, in theory. 

 

I don't know if the Angels stadium will be in a TIF zone (and even if so, TIF moneys don't go to the owner). Anaheim has already said there will be no property tax breaks on the new development. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

With that reasoning it wouldn't make sense for any stadium to be in any city. The large footprint taken up by stadiums could always be planned for better utilization, in theory. 

 

I don't know if the Angels stadium will be in a TIF Zone (and even if so, TIF moneys don't go to the owner). Anaheim has already said there will be no property tax breaks on the new development. 

 

Wait is there a new Anaheim stadium being built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anubis2051 said:

 

Wait is there a new Anaheim stadium being built?

 

Arte bought the 150 acre site last year from the city of Anaheim to either renovate or build a new stadium. Conceptual drawings have been made public, but real details about the stadium's future will likely be made public in 4-5 months.  

 

https://ballparkdigest.com/2020/06/24/angels-unveil-ambitious-development-plan-but-no-ballpark-decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

With that reasoning it wouldn't make sense for any stadium to be in any city. The large footprint taken up by stadiums could always be planned for better utilization, in theory. 

 

I think we are in agreement here but the theory is finally being put into practice in CA. Development-ready land is extremely valuable and scarce so allocating this land to enterprises that contribute to the tax coffers or offsetting the massive housing shortage in the state make much more sense in the economic long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

I think we are in agreement here but the theory is finally being put into practice in CA. Development-ready land is extremely valuable and scarce so allocating this land to enterprises that contribute to the tax coffers or offsetting the massive housing shortage in the state make much more sense in the economic long term. 

 

There are a lot of factors that contribute to the housing shortage. Allocating 80 acres for two stadiums is peanuts. 

 

The sales taxes between a stadium that holds 30,000 people ~80 times a year and a mixed use area on 150 acres is probably a push, so property taxes would probably be the only difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Ugh. That sounds terrible. Moving between a new state-of-the-art retractable roof park and the Trop? Giving the local fans a team they've likely scorned as of late? Giving Miami another reason to dislike the Marlins/taking away from time those who want to go can?   They'd be better off writing the town off as The Bronx/Fens of the South.

 

Well the idea would be that a new stadium would be built in Tampa. The theory behind the TB-Montreal partnership is that there would be less pressure on each market to draw fans, because they'd only have to sell half as many games.

 

I'm not saying it's a good idea, and I'm not sure why a city would build a new park for half a team, but if two teams were going to try this experiment it would make sense for it to be teams playing in the same state who have both dealt with attendance issues. At least it would make more sense than two teams in different countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

There are a lot of factors that contribute to the housing shortage. Allocating 80 acres for two stadiums is peanuts. 

 

The sales taxes between a stadium that holds 30,000 people ~80 times a year and a mixed use area on 150 acres is probably a push, so property taxes would probably be the only difference. 

 

The problem is that the stadia are often tax liabilities that are a constant drain on the local coffers due to the need to make constant improvements where the net remains a negative as opposed to other developments. Also I think you are downplaying the size/significance of these sites as it's extremely rare to find developable sites of this size in the middle of urban areas. The market estimates are well into the hundreds of millions of dollars and big part of that pricing equation is driven by the housing shortage. So sure they won't single handedly solve the shortage but developing as many large underutilized parcels as possible will so they are part of the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.