A’s have signed a binding agreement to purchase land for a future ballpark in Las Vegas.

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,385
Really disgusting work by Fisher and Co. Sabotaged the team, never spent a dime, traded away every potential star player at the first chance, and pissed all over the fans for more than a decade and is now moving the team away. Worst owner in sports by a country mile.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
NHL- Season in the winter, 1/2 the number of games, play opposing teams only twice or once, salary cap.

plus NHL’s expansion draft got them (and Kraken) good real fast.

there’s always more hype for expansion than relocation I think.
The A's averaged 9,973 fans last year. They should at least double that with this move.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,919
South Boston
Don’t the Golden Knights do well? Looks like their attendance is quite good. Why couldn’t a baseball team draw well, especially with all the constant convention and hotel promo assistance? The A’s are going to have several high picks over the coming years. Their team is just awful so if they hit on some, you could have some nice talent coming up along with hopefully more payroll flexibility to spend in FA.

I always feel bad for fans who get screwed. Not their fault the city and ownership screwed the pooch but I ultimately think this move is a positive for the franchise. They are an absolute joke right now. Absolutely zero MLB talent on that team.
Others have stated some reasons, but also, Knights games are an EVENT. They put on a show for the fans. I don't know if baseball can do the same stuff.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1TbT05ZS5o


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1D54d4aVbs


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmLax5r__s


Obviously, those were for special occasions, but the creativity resonates with fans and they, in turn, support the team. Nothing the A's have done the last 25 years shows me that the ownership will be able to win over the fans.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,411
Good point, PCDF.
really hoping the A’s hire away whoever proposed the light show at Fenway

win win
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,240
Boston, MA
This is great for fans of baseball history. The A's have a track record of selling off players and trying to move the team that goes back 100 years. From Connie Mack tearing down his teens and 30s dynasties to Arnold Johson moving the team and immediately selling to Charlie Finley acting as a Yankees farm system and refusing to participate in free agency, this current situation is very much on brand for the Athletics.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
Others have stated some reasons, but also, Knights games are an EVENT. They put on a show for the fans. I don't know if baseball can do the same stuff.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1TbT05ZS5o


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1D54d4aVbs


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmLax5r__s


Obviously, those were for special occasions, but the creativity resonates with fans and they, in turn, support the team. Nothing the A's have done the last 25 years shows me that the ownership will be able to win over the fans.
Clearly, baseball ain't hockey and the Golden Knights are actually quite good so that's a key distinction right off the bat. I think the ownership point is a valid one. Changing geographies won't matter if they run the team in the same manner but I do think there is some upside here given the general popularity of baseball.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
Attendance was so low because they self sabotaged the team in virtually every way possible. It was like the plot of ‘Major League’ came to life.
There is clear upside here for a team that wants to try. Did they sabotage to get this move over the finish line and will they actually try going forward? I guess we'll see. But I don't really share the same attendance concerns, if ownership actually gets committed. That's a big "if" though. Hopefully they do because right now this team is an absolute mess with only 1 guy on the MLB top 100 prospect list with an MLB team of very little talent.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,585
I don't know what the right answer is, but when I lived there a decade+ ago there was already a stadium that could hold more than the team currently draws. No idea if it is still there, but it might be an option until tge new one is built?

I can't imagine this news will get more fans to come out to games in Oakland.
https://www.thelvballpark.com/
The A’s AAA team (the Aviators) plays in Vegas and built a new stadium in 2019. The stadium only seats 10k but has been well received from what I’ve seen.
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
40,274
Harrisburg, Pa.
One note about the Golden Knights - they immediately were a good team so they gained fans super fast who might not have been tune into the NHL by winning. When the Stars moved to Dallas, they had a similar experience.

The A's blow. It won't have the chance to draw immediate new fans.

Sucks for As fans, but clearly the city doesn't want them and the team doesn't want to be there. TB, you're next.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,275
FWIW, my father in law was the biggest and most knowledgeable baseball fan I’ve ever known. And when he and my brother in law took a west coast trip to all the ballparks there a few years before he passed away, he swore up and down that the Colosseum was the best of all.
I went to a game at the Mausoleum after the strike in 1981. It was at night and I didn't think the place was all that great (apparently going in the daytime would give one a more favorable impression). The foul territory is/was excessive and they never addressed that. Not sad to see it go. Plus, nothing worse than seeing the Sox on TV from there, especially the getaway day games where even good Sox teams tended to mail it in.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,175
Having two teams there doesn't really make sense, especially when all the wealth is on one side.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I don't know what the right answer is, but when I lived there a decade+ ago there was already a stadium that could hold more than the team currently draws. No idea if it is still there, but it might be an option until tge new one is built?

I can't imagine this news will get more fans to come out to games in Oakland.
Is it domed? That might be a huge consideration if your hoping to make that a temporary home for any length of time.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,044
Unreal America
Don’t the Golden Knights do well? Looks like their attendance is quite good. Why couldn’t a baseball team draw well, especially with all the constant convention and hotel promo assistance? The A’s are going to have several high picks over the coming years. Their team is just awful so if they hit on some, you could have some nice talent coming up along with hopefully more payroll flexibility to spend in FA.

I always feel bad for fans who get screwed. Not their fault the city and ownership screwed the pooch but I ultimately think this move is a positive for the franchise. They are an absolute joke right now. Absolutely zero MLB talent on that team.
The Knights do well. Of course they're filling at least 10-15K less seats than a baseball stadium, and doing it for half the number of home games. Plus tourism seasonality (I'm assuming there's less tourists in Vegas in June-August than November-March, but that's just an assumption). So I think that's a different dynamic.

If the A's turn into a powerhouse, World Series contender then of course they'll draw well. Anything short of that and I don't think they'll fare too well.

In terms of market size (I'm using the media market definition, which is pretty broad geographically), Las Vegas will be the smallest in MLB -- smaller than San Diego, Cincinnati, KC and Milwaukee. I mean, the Hartford/New Haven market is bigger than Las Vegas.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
I think that the Knights also draw well because for a year or two, they were the only game in town. And the NHL stocked the team with some pretty decent players, went to the Cup Finals right away and everyone loves a winner.

With the A's, I'm not sure if that's going to happen. Will they be better in three to four years (when the stadium is expected to be completed)? Probably. But how much better? And will that translate into Nevadans becoming A's fans? It's been two seasons of fans going to Raiders' football games and just this past season, Mark Davis was bitching that more fans from the other teams were coming to Vegas to watch their clubs giving his team a home field disadvantage. That could definitely happen to the Athletics, especially if they suck.

I think that the first two years you're going to hear a lot of stories about the success that the A's are having in Sin City because for dorks like me who do "Dad weekends" where they go to a new town to catch a ballgame, everyone is going to go to Vegas because of the new team, new stadium and because it's Vegas (though I have to admit, I hate the fucking place). After the new team smell wears off though, what happens then?

Coincidentally I just finished a really terrible book about Oakland and how they've lost two teams in the span of three years (the Warriors skipped town to San Francisco) and how they were prepared to lose the A's. I feel awful for the fans, but at the same time, there are better things for a city to spend money on than to give a billionaire hundreds of millions of public dollars so that his team can play in the city. In a weird way, I respect the Oakland City Council and Mayor's office for standing up to these pricks. Fisher has been wanting to go to Vegas for years and he's done nothing but negotiate with the city in bad faith during that time.

The perfect place to build a new stadium was where the old stadium is, but he wouldn't hear of that. It wasn't sexy enough for him. And these guys are never satisfied, you build them a stadium today, in five years they're looking for improvements that the tax payer will be on the hook for. Five years after that, they're going to want to buy the areas around the stadium for a song so that they can redevelop it and keep the money for themselves. The owners are all greedy fucks, always have been, always will be.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
*IF* they double it they'll still be in the bottom 20% of MLB.
Which would be a major improvement from the status quo so I don't really see the downside here. Nobody expects this team to be a top 10 draw or anything.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,524
I think that the Knights also draw well because for a year or two, they were the only game in town. And the NHL stocked the team with some pretty decent players, went to the Cup Finals right away and everyone loves a winner.

With the A's, I'm not sure if that's going to happen. Will they be better in three to four years (when the stadium is expected to be completed)? Probably. But how much better? And will that translate into Nevadans becoming A's fans? It's been two seasons of fans going to Raiders' football games and just this past season, Mark Davis was bitching that more fans from the other teams were coming to Vegas to watch their clubs giving his team a home field disadvantage. That could definitely happen to the Athletics, especially if they suck.

I think that the first two years you're going to hear a lot of stories about the success that the A's are having in Sin City because for dorks like me who do "Dad weekends" where they go to a new town to catch a ballgame, everyone is going to go to Vegas because of the new team, new stadium and because it's Vegas (though I have to admit, I hate the fucking place). After the new team smell wears off though, what happens then?

Coincidentally I just finished a really terrible book about Oakland and how they've lost two teams in the span of three years (the Warriors skipped town to San Francisco) and how they were prepared to lose the A's. I feel awful for the fans, but at the same time, there are better things for a city to spend money on than to give a billionaire hundreds of millions of public dollars so that his team can play in the city. In a weird way, I respect the Oakland City Council and Mayor's office for standing up to these pricks. Fisher has been wanting to go to Vegas for years and he's done nothing but negotiate with the city in bad faith during that time.

The perfect place to build a new stadium was where the old stadium is, but he wouldn't hear of that. It wasn't sexy enough for him. And these guys are never satisfied, you build them a stadium today, in five years they're looking for improvements that the tax payer will be on the hook for. Five years after that, they're going to want to buy the areas around the stadium for a song so that they can redevelop it and keep the money for themselves. The owners are all greedy fucks, always have been, always will be.
The fans' best hope is that Fisher cashes out after the stadium deal further helps to line his pockets. I dont see him spending any more money on the team than he currently does.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
The fans' best hope is that Fisher cashes out after the stadium deal further helps to line his pockets. I dont see him spending any more money on the team than he currently does.
I think Fisher will stick around for a year or two in Vegas so he can be called a hero and then when his team as at the apex of its worth, he sells, makes a couple of billion and flies off into the sunset.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,044
Unreal America
Which would be a major improvement from the status quo so I don't really see the downside here. Nobody expects this team to be a top 10 draw or anything.
Well, the downside is abandoning a longtime, long abused fanbase in Oakland. Even when the A's have been successful on the field, which they were as recently as a few years ago of course, fans have had to endure an ownership group that will not maintain the stadium they play in, and has been incessantly threatening relocation.

Give the A's a decent park and a decent team in Oakland and they'd draw just fine.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
The Knights do well. Of course they're filling at least 10-15K less seats than a baseball stadium, and doing it for half the number of home games. Plus tourism seasonality (I'm assuming there's less tourists in Vegas in June-August than November-March, but that's just an assumption). So I think that's a different dynamic.

If the A's turn into a powerhouse, World Series contender then of course they'll draw well. Anything short of that and I don't think they'll fare too well.

In terms of market size (I'm using the media market definition, which is pretty broad geographically), Las Vegas will be the smallest in MLB -- smaller than San Diego, Cincinnati, KC and Milwaukee. I mean, the Hartford/New Haven market is bigger than Las Vegas.
This is an incorrect assumption. The lowest visitor months were Jan/Feb last year.

Tourism Indicators Jan 2022 Feb 2022 Mar 2022 Apr 2022 May 2022 Jun 2022 Jul 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Oct 2022 Nov 2022 Dec 2022 2022 YTD
Visitor Volume 2,474,800 2,616,600 3,334,700 3,382,200 3,446,900 3,324,800 3,491,600 3,190,600 3,355,200 3,639,200 3,265,500 3,307,200 38,829,300


https://www.lvcva.com/research/visitor-statistics/
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,044
Unreal America
This is an incorrect assumption. The lowest visitor months were Jan/Feb last year.

Tourism Indicators Jan 2022 Feb 2022 Mar 2022 Apr 2022 May 2022 Jun 2022 Jul 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Oct 2022 Nov 2022 Dec 2022 2022 YTD
Visitor Volume 2,474,800 2,616,600 3,334,700 3,382,200 3,446,900 3,324,800 3,491,600 3,190,600 3,355,200 3,639,200 3,265,500 3,307,200 38,829,300


https://www.lvcva.com/research/visitor-statistics/
Fair enough. I admitted I might be wrong.

Given those figures, the A's are banking on roughly 2-3% of all Vegas visitors in the summer to attend games. Seems like a stretch to me, but I guess we'll see.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,426
I feel awful for the fans, but at the same time, there are better things for a city to spend money on than to give a billionaire hundreds of millions of public dollars so that his team can play in the city. In a weird way, I respect the Oakland City Council and Mayor's office for standing up to these pricks. Fisher has been wanting to go to Vegas for years and he's done nothing but negotiate with the city in bad faith during that time.
This pretty much sums up my opinion. Especially in this case when there is another MLB stadium a little more than 15 miles from the Coliseum. It'll take time, but eventually everyone will just become Giants/49ers fans. Giants ownership must be pumped.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
Fair enough. I admitted I might be wrong.

Given those figures, the A's are banking on roughly 2-3% of all Vegas visitors in the summer to attend games. Seems like a stretch to me, but I guess we'll see.
It's definitely an interesting thought exercise and business case, that's for sure. For context, I looked up all of the A's playoff seasons in the last 20 years or so and their MLB attendance rank:

2020: N/A (Covid)
2019: 24th
2018: 27th
2014: 24th
2013: 23rd
2012: 27th
2006: 26th
2003: 17th
2002: 18th
2001: 19th

Those early 2000s teams were absolutely loaded and should have won a title at some point but even with them, they were high teens in attendance. Clearly, the stadium has always been a dump so you'd expect a modest bump due to a new stadium. But, maybe top 15-20 feels achievable, if ownership actually tries?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
This pretty much sums up my opinion. Especially in this case when there is another MLB stadium a little more than 15 miles from the Coliseum. It'll take time, but eventually everyone will just become Giants/49ers fans. Giants ownership must be pumped.
Yeah. I mean this is the result the Giants wanted when they wouldn't let the A's move into San Jose because of territorial rights. Rights that the A's gave to the Giants for nothing back in the early 90s. That was a cold business move.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,044
Unreal America
It's definitely an interesting thought exercise and business case, that's for sure. For context, I looked up all of the A's playoff seasons in the last 20 years or so and their MLB attendance rank:

2020: N/A (Covid)
2019: 24th
2018: 27th
2014: 24th
2013: 23rd
2012: 27th
2006: 26th
2003: 17th
2002: 18th
2001: 19th

Those early 2000s teams were absolutely loaded and should have won a title at some point but even with them, they were high teens in attendance. Clearly, the stadium has always been a dump so you'd expect a modest bump due to a new stadium. But, maybe top 15-20 feels achievable, if ownership actually tries?
A legit question is does A's ownership actually care about attendance? They're going to get a publicly funded stadium, all sorts of sweet tax breaks, and revenue streams from whatever businesses out there buy suite access and corporate sponsorships. I imagine ownership will be happy enough if attendance settles in the low-to-mid 20s after their debut season.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,524
A legit question is does A's ownership actually care about attendance? They're going to get a publicly funded stadium, all sorts of sweet tax breaks, and revenue streams from whatever businesses out there buy suite access and corporate sponsorships. I imagine ownership will be happy enough if attendance settles in the low-to-mid 20s after their debut season.
I doubt Fisher cares about baseball. As for attendance, I've always thought that if an owner thought he could make more money by *not* allowing fans into the game, he'd do it.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,914
A legit question is does A's ownership actually care about attendance? They're going to get a publicly funded stadium, all sorts of sweet tax breaks, and revenue streams from whatever businesses out there buy suite access and corporate sponsorships. I imagine ownership will be happy enough if attendance settles in the low-to-mid 20s after their debut season.
Yup, this is effectively a bail out for these guys. Pretty annoying. I don't really care about attendance but I do care about the quality of the product. The AAA's roster is an absolute joke and it's embarrassing for a team to have this poor talent for so long.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
A legit question is does A's ownership actually care about attendance? They're going to get a publicly funded stadium, all sorts of sweet tax breaks, and revenue streams from whatever businesses out there buy suite access and corporate sponsorships. I imagine ownership will be happy enough if attendance settles in the low-to-mid 20s after their debut season.
They don't. Attendance and stuff bought at the stadium is just icing on a very expensive cake. By the time that the season starts, thanks to other revenues, most teams are already in the black. With the A's, between their low payroll and the money that they're getting from other teams, I am sure that they are turning a pretty good profit before ticket one is sold. Owning a sports team is like owning an ATM.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
So I think the bigger question here is just what does this binding purchase agreement mean? That land still has to be developed into something that will (presumably) support an MLB franchise. Who's paying for that? What sort of agreement (if any) does the team, the city and the state have to bring this franchise to Vegas? It would seem that some sort of agreement needs to be in place or this winds up being a high priced land investment.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,429
South of North
One note about the Golden Knights - they immediately were a good team so they gained fans super fast who might not have been tune into the NHL by winning. When the Stars moved to Dallas, they had a similar experience.

The A's blow. It won't have the chance to draw immediate new fans.

Sucks for As fans, but clearly the city doesn't want them and the team doesn't want to be there. TB, you're next.
As a Tampeno, I feel compelled to defend Rays fans. Stu Sternberg and his ownership is an abomination. He's been trying to bilk the cities (he's been playing Tampa and St. Pete against each other) for a decade but no one's falling for his bullshit. The stadium was built BY THE CITY (!) BEFORE a team was even here, and frankly that's laudable. That the team hasn't built a new stadium in 30 years just reflects poorly on Sternberg, who's owned the team since 2004 (!!).

For anyone who isn't familiar, St. Pete is a gulf-coast city surrounded by water on 3 sides, and is considerably smaller than the more corporate sister city in Tampa. The team should absolutely play in Tampa, and a group of locals put together the parcels for a new stadium right in downtown Tampa a few years ago, but then Sternberg asked the local govt's to pay for a $1B stadium and everyone threw their hands up and told Stu to go fuck himself. That was absolutely the right call.

The stadium lease is set to expire in a couple of years, and it's a huge urban development story here. Basically, St. Pete has matured a great deal in recent years and the land would be much more valuable to the city as a generic development rather than a stadium. It was also built on top of a historical black community (a really sordid pattern in the area--don't get me started on the development over black cemeteries), and the black mayor of St. Pete is doing really commendable work on bringing attention to this often overlooked fact. Nevertheless, Stu is still courting both cities while still threatening to relocate elsewhere while he tries to squeeze every penny out of local gov't. The guy is tone deaf beyond belief--the Montreal/Tampa split plan was asinine.

The club is finally old enough that kids who grew up with the then-new franchise are having kids and raising them as Rays fans. If they can figure out a way to stay here for even another 5-10 years, that should provide a real boon.

I'll leave you all with this--2019 primetime viewership by club:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251536/average-tv-viewership-of-selected-major-league-baseball-games/

As far as I can tell, this doesn't look at percentages, but rather raw numbers. So the Yankees get credit for the millions of viewers they garner, but the data isn't presented as people tuning in for Yankees vs. Knicks, or other content. In any event, Tampa clocks in at 57 (in 1000s). The A's were at 21. Miami was at 15 (ooof). Tampa was higher than Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Dallas, KC, Cincy, Baltimore, San Diego, and the White Sox. The problem is with Stu, and the stadium.
 

Bread of Yaz

New Member
Mar 12, 2019
389
One note about the Golden Knights - they immediately were a good team so they gained fans super fast who might not have been tune into the NHL by winning. When the Stars moved to Dallas, they had a similar experience.
This. If memory serves the NHL jiggered the expansion draft to ensure it.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,453
Is it domed? That might be a huge consideration if your hoping to make that a temporary home for any length of time.
It's not domed. It still draws really well for a minor league team, even over the summer when it's 100+ degrees at the start of nearly every game, but I don't think it's really an option for a major league team. Plus, the minor league team plays there so they'd still need to find a stadium for someone to play in because they can't share it.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
As a Tampeno, I feel compelled to defend Rays fans. Stu Sternberg and his ownership is an abomination. He's been trying to bilk the cities (he's been playing Tampa and St. Pete against each other) for a decade but no one's falling for his bullshit. The stadium was built BY THE CITY (!) BEFORE a team was even here, and frankly that's laudable. That the team hasn't built a new stadium in 30 years just reflects poorly on Sternberg, who's owned the team since 2004 (!!).

63763

The Sundome (as I believe it was once known) was used as leverage for not one, but two teams to get better deals. The White Sox were so far out the door that they already had t-shirts created for them (above) when they left town. It took a last minute state government shenanigans to keep the White Sox in town. The popular myth is that the clock on the Illinois senate floor was set back ten minutes so that the deal for Comiskey Two could be hammered out. Then the Giants were going to move to St. Pete in 1991, I think. But then they got PacBell and the Giants weren't going to move anywhere. These teams were always rumored to be on the move, with the Giants were supposed to move to Toronto in the 70s and the White Sox were eyeing a move to Milwaukee in the late 60s.

BTW, the Lightning used to play in the dome their first few years, right?
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,287
Tuukka's refugee camp
This. If memory serves the NHL jiggered the expansion draft to ensure it.
They made the expansion more friendly than before, which wasn’t a tall task, but the Knights preyed on fears of GMs to get them into giving the Knights favorable deals so the other teams wouldn’t lose certain players.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,889
My buddy at work who was an A's fan officially quit the team two years ago and after much deliberation started rooting for the Brewers.

I cannot even fathom how horrific that park is going to be for the next few years now that neither the county nor the team have any incentive to maintain it.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,750
Panama
View attachment 63763

The Sundome (as I believe it was once known) was used as leverage for not one, but two teams to get better deals. The White Sox were so far out the door that they already had t-shirts created for them (above) when they left town. It took a last minute state government shenanigans to keep the White Sox in town. The popular myth is that the clock on the Illinois senate floor was set back ten minutes so that the deal for Comiskey Two could be hammered out. Then the Giants were going to move to St. Pete in 1991, I think. But then they got PacBell and the Giants weren't going to move anywhere. These teams were always rumored to be on the move, with the Giants were supposed to move to Toronto in the 70s and the White Sox were eyeing a move to Milwaukee in the late 60s.

BTW, the Lightning used to play in the dome their first few years, right?
I read many times that Pac Bell was mostly built with private money and is the big exception to the rule.

I think that while some city is willing to shell out the bucks to build a stadium the leverage will be there.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
I read many times that Pac Bell was mostly built with private money and is the big exception to the rule.

I think that while some city is willing to shell out the bucks to build a stadium the leverage will be there.
That's very true. My apologies if I insinuated otherwise.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,750
Panama
That's very true. My apologies if I insinuated otherwise.
No need.

It is actually part of my larger point. An owner can pay for a stadium and make money off it. Why do cities keep letting themselves be blackmailed this way? On the other hand, it is very hard to lose money in MLB and NFL at least with all the deals and revenue sharing so...
 

Brand Name

make hers mark
Moderator
SoSH Member
Oct 6, 2010
4,670
Moving the Line
By the way, will a fourth city be a record for relocating the same baseball team?
Yes for baseball, no for North America's big four.

Moved three times, including repeat cities:

Nets: NJ-NY-NJ-Brooklyn
Raiders: Oakland-LA-Oakland-Vegas
Rams: Cleveland-LA-St. Louis-LA


Four city teams:
Hawks: Tri Cities-Milwuakee-St. Louis-Atlanta
Kings: Rochester-Cincinnati-KC/Omaha-KC-Sacramento

I personally don't count the Warriors or Seals/Barons in this, Oakland to San Francisco is still essentially the Bay Area and not that far of a move.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,986
No need.

It is actually part of my larger point. An owner can pay for a stadium and make money off it. Why do cities keep letting themselves be blackmailed this way? On the other hand, it is very hard to lose money in MLB and NFL at least with all the deals and revenue sharing so...
Because their constituents don't want to hear reasons (it's ALWAYS a total rip off for the city/state), they just know on Sundays (or weeknights) when it's time to watch Palookaville Palm Trees action, they're now playing in Albuquerque and that sucks. It's such an easy scare tactic for owners to use, which is weird because there's probably more non-sports fans (or fans that aren't as fanatical) than there are fans who live and die with the team. I mean if you can tune out the people who want to spend every dime on making the latest and greatest sports palace and just speak to the more moderate voter, that politician would win every time.

But politicians are afraid of talking to their constituents as adults and explaining things like this to them--and TBH, I don't blame them.

Oakland isn't going to fall into the sea because they don't have the A's any more. People will get over it and live their lives, but owners don't focus on that. If were an A's fan, what's better having this shitbrick team that's probably going to win 40 games if they're lucky or nothing?

And BTW, Vegas is about to get an NBA team and it can get as hot as 115 degrees in the desert sun. The A's are going to be an afterthought within five years. You can argue about moving the franchise, but having them move to Las Vegas is dumb with a capital D.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,973
View attachment 63763

The Sundome (as I believe it was once known) was used as leverage for not one, but two teams to get better deals. The White Sox were so far out the door that they already had t-shirts created for them (above) when they left town. It took a last minute state government shenanigans to keep the White Sox in town. The popular myth is that the clock on the Illinois senate floor was set back ten minutes so that the deal for Comiskey Two could be hammered out. Then the Giants were going to move to St. Pete in 1991, I think. But then they got PacBell and the Giants weren't going to move anywhere. These teams were always rumored to be on the move, with the Giants were supposed to move to Toronto in the 70s and the White Sox were eyeing a move to Milwaukee in the late 60s.

BTW, the Lightning used to play in the dome their first few years, right?
They really missed the possible name change. Should have been the Florida White Sox with Sandals. A few simple changes make that logo a sandal.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,275
Having two teams there doesn't really make sense, especially when all the wealth is on one side.
I'd opine that if DC/Balt has 2 teams, the Bay Area should, but I sure wouldn't have one in Oakland. Or you can take the position that if Boston doesn't (and IMHO shouldn't) have two teams, neither should the Bay Area.

(FYI- the largest combined population areas are NY, LA, Chi, DC/Balt.....SF/Oak/SJ is 5th, 300K less than DC; Boston is 6th, 1.1 million behind that)
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,975
AZ
The Nevada triple A team is the Aces already. (Reno.)

I hope that Vegas learns a lesson from the other desert baseball city -- Phoenix built a stadium that is way way too big. Even when they get 30,000 it feels empty (and they don't often get 30,000). It's really a terrible barn.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,366
around the way
I went to a game at the Mausoleum after the strike in 1981. It was at night and I didn't think the place was all that great (apparently going in the daytime would give one a more favorable impression). The foul territory is/was excessive and they never addressed that. Not sad to see it go. Plus, nothing worse than seeing the Sox on TV from there, especially the getaway day games where even good Sox teams tended to mail it in.
The park sucks, but as a Red Sox fan, there was something nice about being able to make a snap decision on a work trip to SF, drive over the bridge (2 bridges?), take an off-ramp off the highway right into a huge parking lot that cost like $7 in 1994 and walk up the gate and buy $10 tickets. It was convenient to say the least, but it was like every seat was a bad seat. The Sox took a huge lead, and I got mustard dumped on my hat from the balcony. Fun night overall.