Jump to content

Next Move Or Expansion

ltjets21

By ltjets21
in Sports In General

Recommended Posts

bosrs1

bosrs1

Posted
Posted

I still feel that of all the likely spots to get an MLB team, somehow Sacramento is going to find a way to pull it off. Not so much because it's the most prime location available, but because it's easily the most feasible. Portland, Las Vegas, Charlotte, San Antonio, and even Vancouver are probably better spots for a pro baseball club. But considering how easy the move would be and that the Giants have a stranglehold over the San Jose market, The A's to Sacramento could be a quick and relatively inexpensive move.

Problem Sac has is that they can't even get an arena built for their current team. And can't support their current team with only 14k a game going to the Kings currently. There's no way they'd be able to support an MLB team as well as other options.

For what it's worth, the RiverCats' stadium in Sacto is expandable to MLB-size and quality and they draw pretty well IIRC. I think they'll lose the Kings but gain the Athletics. Just a hunch though.

Actually that's a common misconception. Raley Field is in fact NOT expandable to MLB size. The original plan did call for it to be expandable but due to a strike during construction they had to modify the design and now it is not capable of supporting an MLB sized stadium on the current supports and foundation. Nor would you want to anyway. The area around Raley would need MAJOR modification itself to support crowds bigger than it gets now particularly when it comes to access, not to mention the field design would never pass muster as an MLB field. The stands are far too close to the field. If Sac is ever going to get an MLB team it would be in a completely new stadium from the ground up. Which means Sac would need to come up with $500+ million and a site in addition to the money they can't seem to raise for the Kings arena.

I've heard it both ways, actually. I've heard that Raley Field would have foundation issues, I've heard there are ways they could circumvent those issues relatively easily. And you are correct, the area around Raley Field would need some pretty serious modifications, but one of the best parts about the area. It's empty space just past downtown within walking distance of the train station, it has great freeway access, and is an easy drive to the airport. Why the Kings didn't gun for that spot is beyond me. But their time in Sacramento is coming to a close fairly soon IMO. And once they leave, if the A's haven't moved to San Jose yet, Sacramento might be where they pack up and move to.

Problem Sac has though is the same issue Oakland has currently. No public money for the stadium, which means the owners would have to want to build there 100% privately, which they don't want to. And on top of that there is not sufficient corporate cash to make the move worth it.

Oh yeah it certainly wouldn't be a straight move, but the nice thing about it is that if they were able to just renovate Raley Field it would almost certainly be cheaper than building a new park from the ground up, if they can deal with those foundation issues. Corporate cash I'm not really sure about because I just don't know enough about it, but I would assume that a team in the capital of one of the largest states in the country economically would be able to work it out. And the renovation thing is interesting as well as a bit confusing and conflicting. There are many reports that the place wasn't built to be expanded upon, but just outside of the main entrance is a huge poster of blue prints that show just how the park can be expanded upon very easily. I really need to get a snap shot of that next time I'm at a game.

But mostly, an MLB team to Sacramento is kinda my personal pipe dream. I keep pushing for it, and I think it'd make perfect sense, but what do I really know about the business of relocating a pro baseball team? Overall, I know it's quite the long shot :(

I do know about it, and your assumption is bad, corporate base wise Sac is the smallest of the metro areas in the state. Population wise, Sac is the smallest of the metro areas in the state. It may be the capital, but that's about all Sac has going for it (if it weren't the capital it would be nothing but Stockton North). Don't get me wrong it's a nice town, but it's not capable of financing an MLB ballpark (or an NBA arena) currently, and does not have the corporate or population base a league like MLB is looking for (hell they can't even support their existing Big 4 team). As for Raley Field, as I said before, it is incapable of being expanded due to the structure not containing the ability to bear loads beyond what it currently holds (and even if it were the field itself is not designed in a way MLB would accept as it is far too small particularly in foul territory). Those blueprints of yours are probably the original plans, which DID call for it being able to be expanded, but every report after they had to redesign due to the strike midway through construction states it is incapable of further expansion. There is no ambiguity there. If they were to build in Sac it would be from the ground up which would mean no less than $500 million in private money would have to be found, and it's just not there.

It may be a pipe dream of yours, but that's all it will remain. Sac should focus on keeping the one team they do have because once the Kings leave after this season or next that's the last top level pro team they're going to have for a very long time. That said Sac IS a great AAA town and should be happy with what they have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 578
  • Created
  • Last Reply
bosrs1

bosrs1

Posted
Posted

That foundation is over 20 years old.

Scroll down on this page to get the back story on that proposed stadium.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=158300&page=3

2002 story on the plot's lack of development

Yeah about all that pile of crumbling remain is good for is taking up space.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FiddySicks

FiddySicks

Posted
Posted

That foundation is over 20 years old.

Scroll down on this page to get the back story on that proposed stadium.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=158300&page=3

2002 story on the plot's lack of development

Yeah about all that pile of crumbling remain is good for is taking up space.

Another issue is the location. Sure it's close to the airport, but it's closer to the airport than it is to downtown, which IMO isn't a good thing. I know Natomas is a developing area, but it's too underpopulated to have enough to do to make it a desirable location to actually spend any more time there than just the time spent at the game. Unless of course someone were to build up the area around the ballpark, but who knows how much that would cost. That's what makes the Raley Field spot such an ideal location. It's a huge abandoned area that's within walking distance from the center of the city and it's easy to get to. Again, why the Kings didn't push harder for that area is beyond me. But I digress.

spacer.png

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
dfwabel

dfwabel

Posted
Posted

Stern just gave his "State of the NBA" presser. Like the attorney is is by trade, he tried to state answers very carefully, but he did say the following.

On expansion (when asked by a KC reporter): No.

On Seattle vs. New Orleans: Seattle needed a new building, a new building could not be built so ownership decided to move it out.

Vancouver was not specifically mentioned, but the Hornets and Kings situations were.

The transcript should be available shortly from the NBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadmanLA

MadmanLA

Posted
Posted

Heatley was traded for Hossa. He was already up in Ottawa by the time the Thrashers made that playoff appearance. But your point stands that they did well for themselves in 2007.

Unfortunately, I think any discussion of Atlanta sports woes has to include the unique challenges of running a team in Atlanta. God knows the Braves, Falcons, and Hawks aren't immune. As long as it's prohibitively difficult to get downtown and lots of people in Atlanta aren't from and of Atlanta, pro teams will struggle. The Thrashers just have the worst of it.

Exactly (and thanks for catching the Hossa/Heatley mistake). The Falcons have realized this & are trying to move to the suburbs in an outdoors stadium (I'm assuming this is gonna be a retractable roof deal. Not sure the locals wanna go back to the Fulton County Stadium days, especially with this wild-ass winter we just had.). There's a chance that the other two teams will start drawing big (people have stopped taking the Braves being good for granted, & the Hawks...well, you got me there. :P), but you are definitely right when the Thrashers have the worst of it. Ideally, it'd be awesome if they could move to Gwinnett, but the arena there is way too small. It's just an odd situation for them, and if they can find a way to stay, they'd have to make lemonade out of the lemons they've been given as far as location & fanbase is concerned.

I think & hope that they could continue to stay here, but I'd totally understand if they were to leave. What a Situation (no Jersey Shore. I think I just told on myself here.).

I have a friend who lives in Atlanta, and I've been done my share of research about the Atlanta area...the thing to know (at least for people not readily familiar with Atlanta) is about 90 percent of the population of Metro Atlanta live in the suburbs; city proper has nearly 600,000 people, about 5 million more live outside the city. Not to mention that the area's traffic situation is among the worst in the nation...we all the know all the area's major sports venues are in or near downtown. The Georgia Dome and Philips Arena are basically right next door to each other, and are literally in the heart of the city, and Turner Field is just a mile or so south down Interstate 75/85. Georgia Tech, which has its own sports venues, is about a mile north of downtown, near the Midtown area (which is an equivalent to Los Angeles' Century City area; a mostly business district that is separate from its downtown).

Maybe, at least in the case of the Falcons, that a suburban venue would be probably more adequate, if nothing else but to alleviate traffic problems in the area. There are plans to expand the MARTA system, including the building of a commuter rail line that would encircle the entire city. It comes down not just having a winning team, but also having access (transportation-wise) to see these teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McCall

McCall

Posted
Posted

With the latest news of how close the Kings are to heading down to Anaheim for next season, I got to thinking, what if the NBA holds onto the Hornets long enough, that once the Nets move to Brooklyn, they move the Hornets up to New Jersey (assuming keeping them in NOLA is just not going to happen, of course)? I know markets like Seattle and KC are more deserving, but from a league standpoint, you would have 3 teams in each of the two largest markets. The Prudential Center is obviously suitable for a team. I'm not advocating this by any means, I'm just thinking of the likelihood or possibility that something like this could happen. I know Stern likes to be the only team in town, basically, but I don't know if even he could resist the temptation.

 

 https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CubsFanBudMan

CubsFanBudMan

Posted
Posted

It seems like the NBA's "only game in town" strategy is going by the wayside, either because the recession has decimated some of the potential or existing smaller markets from getting stadiums built, or maybe because the league feels with increased exposure and popularity, now is the time to strike.

I tend to think it's the former, because the prospect of moving the Kings and Hornets to hockey homes of 10-plus years (buildings and markets) can't be the ideal situation for them. But apparently being in a bigger, more stable market makes more sense now. I suppose moving the Kings to Anaheim would make San Jose slightly more attractive (and free up some TV slots in that market) for the Hornets, as was speculated earlier.

I have heard the Newark idea floated, and that may be possible at some point as well if the NBA's new strategy truly becomes to move to larger markets with existing buildings. But nothing I've heard about the Nets' time there has reminded me of the Hornets' time in OKC, where you just knew the NBA had to try to get there soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bosrs1

bosrs1

Posted
Posted

NBA

Kings - Anahiem

Hornets - Seattle

Clippers - Kansas City

Expansion - Las Vegas

Stern said expansion isn't on the table. As for the Clippers, as long as they're owned by the current ownership they're not going anywhere. He wants his toy close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drakonius26

Drakonius26

Posted
Posted

NBA

Kings - Anaheim

Hornets - Seattle

Clippers - Kansas City

Expansion - Las Vegas

Fixed your post.

The Kings would not push the Clippers out of the Los Angeles or Southern California market, as they will be the team to leave if they choose to relocate to Anaheim next season.

I'd love to see the rebirth of the Supersonics, but with city and state deficits growing, infrastructural problems, a weak economy, and an outdated arena, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Plus, 31 teams, that will never fly. If anything they should contract 4 of the 30 teams, not grow the association more and create a wider gulf between the good and bad teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drakonius26

Drakonius26

Posted
Posted

My thoughts:

?Kings to Anaheim, even though it will be a Rays-like failure.

?Hornets contracted

?T-Wolves contracted

?Pacers contracted

?Nets contracted

The Clippers are more likely to be contracted than the Pacers and Nets.

Oh God, don't encourage him to make more Clipper-love posts.

Nah, go for it Lights Out, this is good entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McCall

McCall

Posted
Posted

Ok, the ONLY team even close to being in danger of contraction is the Hornets due to their situation. The only other team that would be considered is probably the Grizzlies. They're not as shroud in uncertainty like the Hornets, but they've had their issues. That being said, it's more likely no teams will be contracted. The players union would never go for it. Expansion is out as well. They're gonna be at 30 teams for awhile.

There. Now you all can get back to your radomly picked teams for relocation/contraction/expansion ideas.

 

 https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept