PDA

View Full Version : A's latest ballpark plan in trouble....


Fenway
01-05-2011, 03:00 AM
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/ballpark-112903174.html


http://newballpark.org/2011/01/03/jerry-brown-killing-baseball-in-oakland-not-once-but-twice/

illinibk
01-05-2011, 10:25 AM
Solution: Move the A's to Brooklyn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RdKilQ_ojMU#t=24s

Red Barchetta
01-05-2011, 10:35 AM
The A's & Rays IMO are the two "must have" teams in baseball in dire need of new ballparks.

I would like to see the A's stay in the bay area and work something out. I remember the renderings from the San Jose ballpark design a couple years ago and it looked awesome!

The Rays will either work out a private funding deal in the Tampa Bay area to buy out their Tropicana lease or move to Montreal. It would be an easy move from the baseball side because they could remain in the AL East without upsetting division alignmnent, rivalry, etc.

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 12:13 PM
The A's & Rays IMO are the two "must have" teams in baseball in dire need of new ballparks.

I would like to see the A's stay in the bay area and work something out. I remember the renderings from the San Jose ballpark design a couple years ago and it looked awesome!

The Rays will either work out a private funding deal in the Tampa Bay area to buy out their Tropicana lease or move to Montreal. It would be an easy move from the baseball side because they could remain in the AL East without upsetting division alignmnent, rivalry, etc.

Yes, those are two huge question marks for MLB. Every other team except Toronto is set with a well-liked baseball only park (counting the new Marlins park set to open next year). In these lean times, it'll be tough for any team to get much if any public funding for a new stadium.

In general, I would have to think that Northern California can support 2 MLB teams. Not only does it have a large population, but also its a huge TV market and has a strong corporate presence. The problem for the A's now is a bad ballpark in a bad location, not a metro area that can't support the team.

Tampa's ability to support a single team on the other hand is a bigger question mark. Even if the Rays somehow get a new stadium built in downtown Tampa - what happens then if they still average only 20,000 per game? Are they going to want to risk building an expensive new park only to find out the fans simply aren't there.

The problem is that MLB doesn't have many good options for new markets. You mentioned Montreal. I doubt the government of Quebec is going to pay for a MLB-only stadium that will cost at least $500M. Now that the Expos have left, Montreal doesn't even have a minor league team to keep the locals interested in baseball. Having a Montreal team in the AL East might make sense geographically, but they won't be drawing fans in Montreal for very long after they see their team repeatedly mired behind the Yankees and Red Sox in the standings. It's either lightning in a bottle (like the Rays of the recent years) or bust for any team in the AL East.

What other markets are there? Portland is a possibility, but there has been strong opposition to publicly funding a stadium there in the past. Vegas? It's only the 30th largest metro area in the US. It's funny how people say that Tampa is a bad idea for baseball because it's full of transplants who have allegiances to other teams...but then think Vegas might be a good solution.

I'd say the best potential new location for an MLB team is northern New Jersey - but good luck getting the territorial rights from NYY and NYM.

Solution: Move the A's to Brooklyn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RdKilQ_ojMU#t=24s

Or we can move them to New Jersey just up the turnpike from their old Philadelphia home.:redneck

Daver
01-05-2011, 12:18 PM
I'd say the best potential new location for an MLB team is northern New Jersey - but good luck getting the territorial rights from NYY and NYM.



It would be extremely simple to get the rights, have the commissioner grant them in the best interest of baseball, after all, according to the supreme court MLB is a sport, not a business.

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 12:37 PM
It would be extremely simple to get the rights, have the commissioner grant them in the best interest of baseball, after all, according to the supreme court MLB is a sport, not a business.

In theory, yes. But it's still doubtful that Bud will even let the A's have rights to San Jose (an area that wasn't even exclusively the Giants' until SF's attempted move there in the early 90s).

If he won't grant that, I doubt he'll stand up to the Yankees and Mets and let another team cut into their territory.

Red Barchetta
01-05-2011, 01:03 PM
The problem is that MLB doesn't have many good options for new markets. You mentioned Montreal. I doubt the government of Quebec is going to pay for a MLB-only stadium that will cost at least $500M. Now that the Expos have left, Montreal doesn't even have a minor league team to keep the locals interested in baseball. Having a Montreal team in the AL East might make sense geographically, but they won't be drawing fans in Montreal for very long after they see their team repeatedly mired behind the Yankees and Red Sox in the standings. It's either lightning in a bottle (like the Rays of the recent years) or bust for any team in the AL East.


Contrary to what many believe, Montreal has a large fanbase for baseball. What killed the Expos was the horrible Olympic Stadium fiasco. It wasn't designed for baseball, had many structural and logistics issues and over time the fanbase become apathetic. There in spirit, merchanidising, TV ratings, but did not show up in person.

I think any future ballpark deal will encompass public funding for infrastructure improvements combined with corporate naming rights.

The Rays proposal from a few years ago was for a scaled down, outdoor ballpark to be built on the site of an existing spring training facility. No public funding was required, however the St. Petersburg council voted it down.

Daver
01-05-2011, 01:05 PM
In theory, yes. But it's still doubtful that Bud will even let the A's have rights to San Jose (an area that wasn't even exclusively the Giants' until SF's attempted move there in the early 90s).

If he won't grant that, I doubt he'll stand up to the Yankees and Mets and let another team cut into their territory.

And this is why baseball truly needs an autonomous commissioner.

DumpJerry
01-05-2011, 01:34 PM
Contrary to what many believe, Montreal has a large fanbase for baseball. What killed the Expos was the horrible Olympic Stadium fiasco. It wasn't designed for baseball, had many structural and logistics issues and over time the fanbase become apathetic. There in spirit, merchanidising, TV ratings, but did not show up in person.
You left out the fact that, in the end, the only media outlet that broadcasted games was a French speaking radio station. No television, no English speaking radio.

Thome25
01-05-2011, 01:40 PM
Contrary to what many believe, Montreal has a large fanbase for baseball. What killed the Expos was the horrible Olympic Stadium fiasco. It wasn't designed for baseball, had many structural and logistics issues and over time the fanbase become apathetic. There in spirit, merchanidising, TV ratings, but did not show up in person.

I think any future ballpark deal will encompass public funding for infrastructure improvements combined with corporate naming rights.

The Rays proposal from a few years ago was for a scaled down, outdoor ballpark to be built on the site of an existing spring training facility. No public funding was required, however the St. Petersburg council voted it down.

This makes sense because it may also help the Jays as well. A Montreal-Toronto division rivalry would help both Canadian clubs.

Fenway
01-05-2011, 02:07 PM
This goes back to 1967 when Finley barged into Oakland from Kansas City

The Giants allowed Finley to claim - Oakland, Alameda County and Contra Costa County. PERIOD

Giants kept San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo AND Santa Clara counties (San Jose)

The Giants also have a MINOR league team in San Jose which they own a portion of.

A's have 3 more season left at Mt. Davis.

So.... if nothing gets done in Oakland - he can


Stay at Coliseum (unlikely)
Portland, Oregon
Montreal
New Jersey/Hartford-New Haven
Charlotte


Portland would cut heavily into the Mariners TV market and they just lost their AAA team which will wind up in a San Diego suburb and play 2011 in Tuscon.

Montreal - Loonie is stronger and the current provincial government has a plan to build a baseball park at the site of a failed harness track casino

see map
http://goo.gl/maps/swjS

This location solves MANY of the problems that made the Expos fail.
The location is on the Montreal version of the Dan Ryan, and on a subway line a short ride from downtown and is 10 miles closer to the English areas of the Montreal Island. The Quebec Government has told MLB they have until next summer to give some indication as the site will be used for a huge U2 concert.

http://www.gotickets.com/concert/u2/u2_montreal.php

The indications are Tampa is looking hard at this as the team will almost certainly draw over 2M just being in with Toronto, Yankees and Boston (NH, Vermont and Maine an easy drive)

New Jersey/Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Obviously you have population, media coverage but would the Mets and Yankees put up with it?

Charlotte The Carolinas is the only ready made TV market that would not really hurt an existing MLB team ( Atlanta would wimper a little ) but no stadium. Charlotte has tepid support for the White Sox AAA team that sctually plays in South Carolina. NBA hasn't done well there either.

I am lucky as I get to chew the fat with MLB insiders and they concede Montreal may well be the best option on the table for THIS reason

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/RDS_logo.svg/200px-RDS_logo.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_des_sports

RDS (is the French version of TSN and ESPN owns 20% of it)

They are now willing to pay top dollar for MLB games which under previous ownership they lowballed the Expos.

I predict Montreal will have a team by 2014 - either the A's, Rays or expansion

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 03:16 PM
This goes back to 1967 when Finley barged into Oakland from Kansas City

The Giants allowed Finley to claim - Oakland, Alameda County and Contra Costa County. PERIOD

Giants kept San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo AND Santa Clara counties (San Jose)

The Giants also have a MINOR league team in San Jose which they own a portion of.

A's have 3 more season left at Mt. Davis.

So.... if nothing gets done in Oakland - he can


Stay at Coliseum (unlikely)
Portland, Oregon
Montreal
New Jersey/Hartford-New Haven
Charlotte


Portland would cut heavily into the Mariners TV market and they just lost their AAA team which will wind up in a San Diego suburb and play 2011 in Tuscon.

Montreal - Loonie is stronger and the current provincial government has a plan to build a baseball park at the site of a failed harness track casino

see map
http://goo.gl/maps/swjS

This location solves MANY of the problems that made the Expos fail.
The location is on the Montreal version of the Dan Ryan, and on a subway line a short ride from downtown and is 10 miles closer to the English areas of the Montreal Island. The Quebec Government has told MLB they have until next summer to give some indication as the site will be used for a huge U2 concert.

http://www.gotickets.com/concert/u2/u2_montreal.php

The indications are Tampa is looking hard at this as the team will almost certainly draw over 2M just being in with Toronto, Yankees and Boston (NH, Vermont and Maine an easy drive)

New Jersey/Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Obviously you have population, media coverage but would the Mets and Yankees put up with it?

Charlotte The Carolinas is the only ready made TV market that would not really hurt an existing MLB team ( Atlanta would wimper a little ) but no stadium. Charlotte has tepid support for the White Sox AAA team that sctually plays in South Carolina. NBA hasn't done well there either.

I am lucky as I get to chew the fat with MLB insiders and they concede Montreal may well be the best option on the table for THIS reason

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/RDS_logo.svg/200px-RDS_logo.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_des_sports

RDS (is the French version of TSN and ESPN owns 20% of it)

They are now willing to pay top dollar for MLB games which under previous ownership they lowballed the Expos.

I predict Montreal will have a team by 2014 - either the A's, Rays or expansion

If Quebec and/or Montreal is willing to fund a new stadium, then that certainly will draw interest from one of these two teams. I had heard before that the francophile provincial government was dead-set against funding a baseball stadium. Maybe leadership has changed there or something.

In the long run though, MLB will have to do better than just hope a team can prosper in Montreal by selling out their Yankees and Red Sox games. Remember, even in the Expos heydey in the 80s to early 90s, they were constantly in a "win with home grown talent before they all leave via free agency mode".....and that was when they were drawing big crowds and was before spending by big market teams really got crazy.

Maybe a new Montreal team could prosper in the more balanced NL (though that would unfortunately eliminate the NY, Bos, and Toronto regional rivalry match ups), but in the AL East, a new Montreal team would have to hope for a Rays-like run to keep interest afloat.

Also, if the Rays and A's somehow get a nice stadium deal somewhere, I wonder how long it will be before an existing franchise with a nice retro park (or renovated park) will be grumbling about moving. Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cleveland? Will Toronto grumble some day about the need to move out of a multipurpose, artificial surface facility? (maybe not in the near term since the Rogers group owns the Jays)

Red Barchetta
01-05-2011, 05:03 PM
Also, if the Rays and A's somehow get a nice stadium deal somewhere, I wonder how long it will be before an existing franchise with a nice retro park (or renovated park) will be grumbling about moving. Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cleveland? Will Toronto grumble some day about the need to move out of a multipurpose, artificial surface facility? (maybe not in the near term since the Rogers group owns the Jays)

Since Pittsburgh and Cleveland already have two new-ish, very nice, retro-like ballparks, I doubt they will have a case. Kansas City also just completed their major renovation, so they should be set for awhile.

Once the Rays move out of Tropicana, I believe the Rogers Center, aka Skydome, will be the only artificial playing surface ballpark in the league. Although the retractable roof idea is excellent, the rest of the Rogers Center is out of date in comparison to other modern ballparks. They would probably need another retractable roof ballpark, unless people forget their first opening day against the White Sox back in the late 70s in the frozen tundra. :D:

Fenway
01-05-2011, 05:30 PM
They have a formula that will partly use the players provincial tax to help pay off bonds - the feeling is the jobs would not exist without the stadium anyways, plus a 10% stadium tax on each paid admission ( $70 ticket becomes $77 ) In effect the people paying for the stadium are the people using it. The same formula applies to bring the NHL back to Quebec City as well.

The current government is not as anti-anglophone, or USA as was the case especially when Loria and Samson showed up.

Montreal is closer to Cooperstown than any MLB city except NY. I went to a lot of games in Montreal and during the summer you could walk down the street and hear either the English or French broadcast.






If Quebec and/or Montreal is willing to fund a new stadium, then that certainly will draw interest from one of these two teams. I had heard before that the francophile provincial government was dead-set against funding a baseball stadium. Maybe leadership has changed there or something.

In the long run though, MLB will have to do better than just hope a team can prosper in Montreal by selling out their Yankees and Red Sox games. Remember, even in the Expos heydey in the 80s to early 90s, they were constantly in a "win with home grown talent before they all leave via free agency mode".....and that was when they were drawing big crowds and was before spending by big market teams really got crazy.

Maybe a new Montreal team could prosper in the more balanced NL (though that would unfortunately eliminate the NY, Bos, and Toronto regional rivalry match ups), but in the AL East, a new Montreal team would have to hope for a Rays-like run to keep interest afloat.

Also, if the Rays and A's somehow get a nice stadium deal somewhere, I wonder how long it will be before an existing franchise with a nice retro park (or renovated park) will be grumbling about moving. Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cleveland? Will Toronto grumble some day about the need to move out of a multipurpose, artificial surface facility? (maybe not in the near term since the Rogers group owns the Jays)

russ99
01-05-2011, 05:33 PM
This goes back to 1967 when Finley barged into Oakland from Kansas City

The Giants allowed Finley to claim - Oakland, Alameda County and Contra Costa County. PERIOD

Giants kept San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo AND Santa Clara counties (San Jose)

The Giants also have a MINOR league team in San Jose which they own a portion of.

A's have 3 more season left at Mt. Davis.

So.... if nothing gets done in Oakland - he can


Stay at Coliseum (unlikely)
Portland, Oregon
Montreal
New Jersey/Hartford-New Haven
Charlotte



San Jose is a big bone of contention for A's fans.

The East Bay has a fraction of the population of the Giants' territory. It's like the league has set them up to fail as an afterthought...

Could there be enough of a draw if the A's move east into the rapidly growing San Joaquin valley to pull in fans from the Stockton/Modesto and/or Fresno areas?

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 05:35 PM
Since Pittsburgh and Cleveland already have two new-ish, very nice, retro-like ballparks, I doubt they will have a case. Kansas City also just completed their major renovation, so they should be set for awhile.



But, that's what I'm wondering - how soon would this issue come up despite having nice, stylish retro parks? If these teams can't draw more than 17,000 per game for an extended period, they might decide that the nice facilities isn't really getting them anywhere. It isn't so much them looking for another new park in the same metro area, but rather just moving out of town altogether.

It most likely won't come up since there really aren't many other places for those teams to go. But we're seeing in the NFL that teams are already complaining about their 15-20 year old stadiums. Of course, NFL teams have L.A. to waive at their local communities. It's simply tougher to find an metro area that will support an MLB team. It takes a lot of support to average at least 25,000 per game over 81 home games.

Red Barchetta
01-05-2011, 06:01 PM
But, that's what I'm wondering - how soon would this issue come up despite having nice, stylish retro parks? If these teams can't draw more than 17,000 per game for an extended period, they might decide that the nice facilities isn't really getting them anywhere. It isn't so much them looking for another new park in the same metro area, but rather just moving out of town altogether.

It most likely won't come up since there really aren't many other places for those teams to go. But we're seeing in the NFL that teams are already complaining about their 15-20 year old stadiums. Of course, NFL teams have L.A. to waive at their local communities. It's simply tougher to find an metro area that will support an MLB team. It takes a lot of support to average at least 25,000 per game over 81 home games.

OK, I see what you're saying. However, the lack of attendance in Pittsburgh and Kansas City is due to poor on-field performance so they need to improve their baseball operations. Neither team can cry about the Yankees and Red Sox payroll, they just have bad management. Cleveland set some kind of record with consecutive sell outs after they opened Jacob's Field and had winning teams during the Albert Bell/Jim Thome/Roberto Alomar era so their recent attendance drop is due to poor on-field performance as well. Plus Cleveland got hit pretty hard in this recession.

I don't think MLB can really judge any franchise over the last few years due to the economic issues, however I think all 3 of these teams are safe from moving. The Rays and A's IMO are the two franchises in dire straits from a ballpark/attendance perspective.

WhiteSox5187
01-05-2011, 06:06 PM
OK, I see what you're saying. However, the lack of attendance in Pittsburgh and Kansas City is due to poor on-field performance so they need to improve their baseball operations. Neither team can cry about the Yankees and Red Sox payroll, they just have bad management. Cleveland set some kind of record with consecutive sell outs after they opened Jacob's Field and had winning teams during the Albert Bell/Jim Thome/Roberto Alomar era so their recent attendance drop is due to poor on-field performance as well. Plus Cleveland got hit pretty hard in this recession.

I don't think MLB can really judge any franchise over the last few years due to the economic issues, however I think all 3 of these teams are safe from moving. The Rays and A's IMO are the two franchises in dire straits from a ballpark/attendance perspective.

For what it's worth I could see Oakland working out some sort of deal to stay in California as Oakland has proven that they can at least support a team when it's successful. Tampa however can't or won't support a successful team, they will have to leave the area.

Fenway
01-05-2011, 06:12 PM
San Jose is a big bone of contention for A's fans.

The East Bay has a fraction of the population of the Giants' territory. It's like the league has set them up to fail as an afterthought...

Could there be enough of a draw if the A's move east into the rapidly growing San Joaquin valley to pull in fans from the Stockton/Modesto and/or Fresno areas?

Let's go all the way back to 1968

A's first home game drew 50,164 (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B04170OAK1968.htm)

Game 2 5,304 (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B04180OAK1968.htm)

Finley is said to have told people that night, I made a mistake about Oakland, we outta here.

The BART rapid transit was still 4 years away, but even when it opened in late 1972 the A's attendance (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/athlatte.shtml) with one of the greatest teams in MLB history was lukewarm.

The Giants at the same time couldn't draw fans either (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/sfatte.shtml)

Charlie Finley bought the A's for cheap money with his ultimate goal of moving into Comiskey when the White Sox finally left. In 1979 they couldn't even average 4,000 a game, and for a period of time in 1978 their radio flagship was KALX (http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=KALX&service=FM&status=L&hours=U) the student run station of the University of California.

The old Coliseum wasn't that bad for baseball and it was a lot nicer for fans at night than Candlestick but when AT&T was built coupled with the building of Mount Davis in CF the A's are in the worst outdoor stadium since Cleveland Stadium.

Today the ballpark is just well depressing to go to....when you walk in from the BART station you feel like you are entering a prison.

Red Barchetta
01-05-2011, 06:15 PM
For what it's worth I could see Oakland working out some sort of deal to stay in California as Oakland has proven that they can at least support a team when it's successful. Tampa however can't or won't support a successful team, they will have to leave the area.

I agree. As a Sarasota (Tampa area) resident, it's embarrassing how the region does not support the Rays. I'm not even a "Rays fan", however I am a baseball fan and I go to at least 15 games per season.

Imagine the mayhem on the north side of Chicago if the Cubs had the talented team the Rays fielded over the past 3 seasons! They would have at least won 3 paper World Series. :rolleyes:

Fenway
01-05-2011, 06:33 PM
The 1960's cities were stadium crazy. I have heard there were plans to build some sort of super stadium in Chicago but it never went anywhere.

In the mid 60's Tom Yawkey wanted out of Fenway Park in the worst way, the AFL Patriots needed something and the NBA Celtics were sick of being treated as second rate tenants at the Boston Garden which was owned by the Bruins.

So Billy Sullivan who founded the Patriots put together a package that would have been


A 50,000 seat baseball-football stadium with a retractable roof
A 17,000 seat arena


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GvFEduhv030/TP_ez_BWGCI/AAAAAAAAASM/O2THdAj2ldk/s1600/Record_American.JPG
A plan was presented in Boston in 1964 to build a domed stadium at a cost of $90M. The complex would include an arena with the intent that all four pro sports teams would call the place home. It is believed that the Bruins were the only hold out as they owned the Garden and saw no reason to pay rent to the Commonwealth. The dome would have been funded by DOG RACING that would have used the arena on nights there were no games.


The scrapbook pictures shown above were published by the former Boston Record American (later part of Boston Herald) back in 1965. It shows a model of the proposed complex being viewed by then Governor John Volpe (second from left), Lt. Governor Elliot Richardson (third from left), architect Vincent Kling (third from right) and then Boston Patriots owner Billy Sullivan (second from right). The lower picture shows where the stadium would have been located. Summer Street runs from the left middle of the picture to the top middle of the photo. The Southeast Expressway is identified at the bottom running left to right

South Station was finally renovated in the mid 80's.

As I noted the Bruins were very happy with their 40 year old Garden which was sold out for the woeful Bruins of the 60's while the Bill Russell Celtics played before 5-7,000 at any game that didn't involve Philadelphia or the Lakers.

Yawkey was in, Sullivan was in but they needed the arena ( because DOG RACING was going to be the funding generator). Problem was the Bruins controlled Ringling Brothers Circus and the Ice Follies and Ice Capades which were the huge profit items for the arena owners.

The plan finally died when the Red Sox started winning and a full Fenway suddenly looked pretty good to Yawkey.

Can you imagine what a disaster that stadium would have been?

DSpivack
01-05-2011, 06:50 PM
Can you imagine what a disaster that stadium would have been?

It looks like Walter O'Malley's stadium proposal on Atlantic Ave. in Brooklyn.

TDog
01-05-2011, 06:58 PM
San Jose is a big bone of contention for A's fans.

The East Bay has a fraction of the population of the Giants' territory. It's like the league has set them up to fail as an afterthought...

Could there be enough of a draw if the A's move east into the rapidly growing San Joaquin valley to pull in fans from the Stockton/Modesto and/or Fresno areas?

The A's seem to have more fans in the Valley than they do in the Bay Area. Beginning last summer and especially with the postseason run, you see more Giants gear than A's gear, but the Valley is definitely A's country. They might draw more in Sacramento or Stockton than they do in Oakland if there were a major league stadium in the Valley. Raley Field, home of the Sacramento River Cats, holds about 15,000.

No one is going to build the A's a new stadium, not in Calfornia at least. If the Raiders moved back to LA and the whoever is responsible for the coliseum were to tear down Mount Davis, the A's would have a much nicer ballpark. But none of that is going to happen.

Fenway
01-05-2011, 07:08 PM
The A's seem to have more fans in the Valley than they do in the Bay Area. Beginning last summer and especially with the postseason run, you see more Giants gear than A's gear, but the Valley is definitely A's country. They might draw more in Sacramento or Stockton than they do in Oakland if there were a major league stadium in the Valley. Raley Field, home of the Sacramento River Cats, holds about 15,000.

No one is going to build the A's a new stadium, not in Calfornia at least. If the Raiders moved back to LA and the whoever is responsible for the coliseum were to tear down Mount Davis, the A's would have a much nicer ballpark. But none of that is going to happen.


Do you think Amtrak's line direct to the stadium is partly responsible for that? Trains run often and drop you right at the front gate.

Lip Man 1
01-05-2011, 07:09 PM
In the mid 1960's the original Mayor Daley was proposing a domed stadium in Lake Michigan that would have been reached by a causeway connection to it. It would be used by the White Sox and an AFL franchise.

The proposal never got off the ground as enviromentalists screamed bloody murder about it.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
01-05-2011, 07:32 PM
In the mid 1960's the original Mayor Daley was proposing a domed stadium in Lake Michigan that would have been reached by a causeway connection to it. It would be used by the White Sox and an AFL franchise.

The proposal never got off the ground as enviromentalists screamed bloody murder about it.

Lip

I don't know if I hate that idea or love it. An underwater stadium, hmm.

Fenway
01-05-2011, 07:37 PM
In the mid 1960's the original Mayor Daley was proposing a domed stadium in Lake Michigan that would have been reached by a causeway connection to it. It would be used by the White Sox and an AFL franchise.

The proposal never got off the ground as enviromentalists screamed bloody murder about it.

Lip

http://www2.newyorkjets.com/image_assets/6424/010408_george_halas.jpg?1199469243

When NBC gave the AFL big money in 1965 which meant the AFL not going away it was implied that NBC expected a team in Chicago as soon as possible. That more than anything forced Rozell to talk merger as Halas did not want another team in Chicago.

It looks like Walter O'Malley's stadium proposal on Atlantic Ave. in Brooklyn.

Yes indeed. They were going to demolish South Station and put it underground just like NY did with Penn Station and MSG.

The Atlantic Ave site in Brooklyn would have been perfect and that is why I truly believe O'Malley DID want to stay in NYC. But Robert Moses wanted the BROOKLYN Dodgers to move to QUEENS and O'Malley said adios.

55 years later the Nets will move there...maybe.

Lip Man 1
01-05-2011, 07:53 PM
White Sox 5187:

It wasn't underwater, it was on an island in the lake reached by a causeway aka like Meigs Field.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
01-05-2011, 07:57 PM
White Sox 5187:

It wasn't underwater, it was on an island in the lake reached by a causeway aka like Meigs Field.

Lip

Oh, psssh. I don't like the idea then.

Red Barchetta
01-05-2011, 08:39 PM
In the mid 1960's the original Mayor Daley was proposing a domed stadium in Lake Michigan that would have been reached by a causeway connection to it. It would be used by the White Sox and an AFL franchise.

The proposal never got off the ground as enviromentalists screamed bloody murder about it.

Lip

...and we thought traffic was bad getting out of Comiskey after games during the Dan Ryan roadwork. :o:

DSpivack
01-05-2011, 08:55 PM
...and we thought traffic was bad getting out of Comiskey after games during the Dan Ryan roadwork. :o:

Not if you have a boat. :tongue:

Red Barchetta
01-06-2011, 08:31 AM
Not if you have a boat. :tongue:

True dat! :cool:

Hitmen77
01-06-2011, 12:29 PM
A's have 3 more season left at Mt. Davis.

So.... if nothing gets done in Oakland - he can


Stay at Coliseum (unlikely)
Portland, Oregon
Montreal
New Jersey/Hartford-New Haven
Charlotte

.
.
.

I predict Montreal will have a team by 2014 - either the A's, Rays or expansion

The problem with having the A's move to the East is that it would leave only 2 AL teams west of the Central Time Zone. I'd imagine that the Angels and Mariners would be strongly opposed to having the rest of the league being at least 2 times zones over. I could see the Royals strongly opposing this too because it would probably mean them being bumped to the AL West.

The NL West is set up well with 3 team in California, Arizona being close by (same distance from LA to Phoenix as LA to SF), and Denver being not too far off in the Mountain Time Zone. But having Anaheim and Seattle (which are about 1000 miles away from each other, by the way) as the only AL teams west of Kansas City isn't a very good way to distribute teams.

Unlike Tampa, I would have to think that Northern California has the population, wealth, and corporate presences to support two teams.

Interesting that you mention expansion as an option. Is that really a possibility in MLB? I can't see that happening unless the A's and Rays get settled in places that can support a team....and even then you'd need two additional metro areas that could support new teams.

Fenway
01-06-2011, 01:06 PM
The problem with having the A's move to the East is that it would leave only 2 AL teams west of the Central Time Zone. I'd imagine that the Angels and Mariners would be strongly opposed to having the rest of the league being at least 2 times zones over. I could see the Royals strongly opposing this too because it would probably mean them being bumped to the AL West.

The NL West is set up well with 3 team in California, Arizona being close by (same distance from LA to Phoenix as LA to SF), and Denver being not too far off in the Mountain Time Zone. But having Anaheim and Seattle (which are about 1000 miles away from each other, by the way) as the only AL teams west of Kansas City isn't a very good way to distribute teams.

Unlike Tampa, I would have to think that Northern California has the population, wealth, and corporate presences to support two teams.

Interesting that you mention expansion as an option. Is that really a possibility in MLB? I can't see that happening unless the A's and Rays get settled in places that can support a team....and even then you'd need two additional metro areas that could support new teams.

MLB would like to balance the leagues so each has the same number of teams...15 in each. With the expanded playoffs which is coming they are looking at 32.

Something drastic will happen for the 2014 season when the new TV contracts will go into effect.

This whole mess with 14-16 started when the Diamondbacks decided they didn't want to be in the American League which is where they were earmarked for.

Now some of the sports biz journals think the Rangers have been told they will be out of the AL West shortly as they just signed a 3 BILLION dollar TV deal but they have too many games that start on TV at 9 PM Central Time.

10 years ago John Harrington chaired a committee that was going to be a massive change of leagues for many teams but a few owners (take a bow JR) were not thrilled with the idea of teams in the same city being in the same division.

Selig made it clear he wanted to end the leagues completely and by eliminating seperate league offices, making the umpires work both leagues came close to pulling it off.

Harrington's 'vision' looked like this - 4 divisions that kept all existing rivals intact and created new geographic and same market ones.


Boston
Yankees
Mets
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Washington
Toronto


Detroit
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Atlanta
Miami
Tampa

White Sox
Cubs
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Kansas City
Dallas
Houston
St Louis

Denver
Arizona
San Diego
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Oakland
San Francisco
Seattle

Viola TV time zone problems go away. All your old rivals remain intact and new ones develop.


Just think of the fun you would have playing the Cubs 18 times a year :tongue:

Hitmen77
01-06-2011, 01:08 PM
The BART rapid transit was still 4 years away, but even when it opened in late 1972 the A's attendance (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/athlatte.shtml) with one of the greatest teams in MLB history was lukewarm.

The Giants at the same time couldn't draw fans either (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/sfatte.shtml)

Charlie Finley bought the A's for cheap money with his ultimate goal of moving into Comiskey when the White Sox finally left. In 1979 they couldn't even average 4,000 a game, and for a period of time in 1978 their radio flagship was KALX (http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=KALX&service=FM&status=L&hours=U) the student run station of the University of California.



Interesting that the Giants were only able to crack the 2,000,000 mark in attendance twice while playing in Candlestick Park. Those 2 times were the 1989 pennant winning season and the 1993 103-win season.

I'd imagine this history of poor attendance at an unpopular ballpark followed by the dramatic turnaround after moving to AT&T Park emboldens the A's to think they can make a similar turnaround in a new stadium of their own.

As far as the A's being banished to a low-wattage radio station, that sounds similar to what people say happened to the Sox in the early 70s.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 01:25 PM
Hit:

It did happen in 1971 and 1972. The Sox were on two low powered FM stations out of Evanston and LaGrange. After their great 1972 season WMAQ radio signed up to get them back in 1973.

Lip

Hitmen77
01-06-2011, 02:32 PM
10 years ago John Harrington chaired a committee that was going to be a massive change of leagues for many teams but a few owners (take a bow JR) were not thrilled with the idea of teams in the same city being in the same division.

Selig made it clear he wanted to end the leagues completely and by eliminating seperate league offices, making the umpires work both leagues came close to pulling it off.

Harrington's 'vision' looked like this - 4 divisions that kept all existing rivals intact and created new geographic and same market ones.


Boston
Yankees
Mets
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Washington
Toronto


Detroit
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Atlanta
Miami
Tampa

White Sox
Cubs
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Kansas City
Dallas
Houston
St Louis

Denver
Arizona
San Diego
Anaheim
Los Angeles
Oakland
San Francisco
Seattle

Viola TV time zone problems go away. All your old rivals remain intact and new ones develop.


Just think of the fun you would have playing the Cubs 18 times a year :tongue:

I think this is a horrible, horrible idea. I do NOT want to see MLB eliminate the American League and National League and just go to an NBA or NHL-style Eastern and Western Conference.

I agree with JR on this. I like the fact that the White Sox and Cubs each bring a different set of rivals to Chicago. Same with the Yankees and Mets in NY, the Dodgers and Angels in LA, and the Giants and A's in the Bay Area. The same applies to how the Giants and Jets are in the NFC and AFC.

IIRC, JR's concern on this concept was that it would lead someday to people saying "what's the point in having a Chicago White Sox? The Cubs already represent Chicago in MLB. Two teams in Chicago is really unnecessary". He had a point. Get rid of the two leagues and just flush 100+ years of tradition down the toilet and a 2nd Chicago team starts to look superfluous.

Just wait until 2033 when the All-Star Game returns to the Cell - all the Cubs and Sox fans will go crazy cheering on the Western Conference team to victory!!!!! Oh, the excitement! Ugh. I hope this "radical realignment" never sees the light of day.

russ99
01-06-2011, 02:43 PM
I think this is a horrible, horrible idea. I do NOT want to see MLB eliminate the American League and National League and just go to an NBA or NHL-style Eastern and Western Conference.

I agree with JR on this. I like the fact that the White Sox and Cubs each bring a different set of rivals to Chicago. Same with the Yankees and Mets in NY, the Dodgers and Angels in LA, and the Giants and A's in the Bay Area. The same applies to how the Giants and Jets are in the NFC and AFC.

IIRC, JR's concern on this concept was that it would lead someday to people saying "what's the point in having a Chicago White Sox? The Cubs already represent Chicago in MLB. Two teams in Chicago is really unnecessary". He had a point. Get rid of the two leagues and just flush 100+ years of tradition down the toilet and a 2nd Chicago team starts to look superfluous.

Just wait until 2033 when the All-Star Game returns to the Cell - all the Cubs and Sox fans will go crazy cheering on the Western Conference team to victory!!!!! Oh, the excitement! Ugh. I hope this "radical realignment" never sees the light of day.

Plus then there would have to be a final decision on the DH rule for all teams, and with it, the need to appease the union regardless which way they went.

The whole realignment/unbalanced teams issue has a pretty simple fix:

Move the Brewers back into the AL Central where they belong, then put the Royals in the West.

For the Brewers, regular Twins, Tigers and Sox rivalries will make up for the loss of a few dates with the Cubs.

KenBerryGrab
01-06-2011, 02:44 PM
No way would Milwaukee consent to going back to the AL.

cards press box
01-06-2011, 03:42 PM
Hit:

It did happen in 1971 and 1972. The Sox were on two low powered FM stations out of Evanston and LaGrange. After their great 1972 season WMAQ radio signed up to get them back in 1973.

Lip

WTAQ, 1300 on your AM dial (at least it was in 1971 and 1972). I remember it well.

Fenway
01-06-2011, 04:13 PM
Hit:

It did happen in 1971 and 1972. The Sox were on two low powered FM stations out of Evanston and LaGrange. After their great 1972 season WMAQ radio signed up to get them back in 1973.

Lip

The FM station in Evanston wasn't low power as they were actually the first FM signal to move to the John Hancock Tower BUT in 1971-2 the number of cars that had FM radios was at best 5-10%.

Lip - have you ever heard how close Finley may have came to taking over 35th St? I assume Denver was in play for the White Sox and A's but Finley would never sell to Marvin Davis and the White Sox never pulled the trigger.

I have to think Da Mayor somehow kept the White Sox in Chicago.

The station today is Spanish powerhouse WOJO

AM 1300 night signal - now Radio Disney
http://radio-locator.com/pats/WRDZ_AM_LN.gif

The old WEAW Evanston - night signal
http://radio-locator.com/pats/WKTA_AM_LN.gif

WEAW-FM now WOJO
http://radio-locator.com/pats/WOJO_FM_LU.gif

Lamp81
01-06-2011, 05:25 PM
I think the best way for the A's to survive in Northern California, assuming they can't get into San Jose, would be to go to the Valley and someplace like Sacramento. I've been to the River Cats Ballpark, and I don't see how they could get it expanded to even a 30,000 seat stadium. It's right on the river, which limits the footprint that it can be expanded into. A new stadium in Sacramento is unlikely, as they can't even get an arena for the Kings built.

The Kings being owned by the Maloof family, will probably end up in Las Vegas, unless the Hornets get there 1st.

Could the A's also move to Vegas? They did play regular season games there while Mt. Davis was being built. But that was in April, not during the summer.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 05:32 PM
Fenway:

All I've ever heard was the entire situation revolved around Seattle not Denver. If Veeck hadn't stepped in (with a lot of political pressure being put on MLB by Daley) the Sox were going to the Northwest to settle the lawsuit King County had against MLB (over the Pilots) and the A's were moving to Chicago.

Lip

Daver
01-06-2011, 05:43 PM
Could the A's also move to Vegas? They did play regular season games there while Mt. Davis was being built. But that was in April, not during the summer.

They will be plowing snow in hell before MLB puts a team in Nevada.

TDog
01-06-2011, 05:44 PM
Do you think Amtrak's line direct to the stadium is partly responsible for that? Trains run often and drop you right at the front gate.

It may be. The Capital Corridor, the train from Sacramento, and BART, which extends almost to Altamont Pass (the Valley being on the other side), both drop people off at the front door, or at least across the street. I-880 runs past the park. For me in Modesto it's more convenient to drive to Dublin than it is to drive to Sacramento. Getting to the Giants games requires either driving across a congested toll bridge to get into the city or taking regional mass transit and transferring to municipal mass transit.

Of course, the area around the Coliseum wouldn't be pleasant to visit. As it is now, the park isn't a great place to watch baseball. But it is regionally accessible, and you don't have to drive there. I also see a lot more support here for the Raiders than the Forty-Niners.

As bad as Oakland has been for baseball lately, Las Vegas would be worse, although there is no way major league baseball is going there, so the point is moot.

TDog
01-06-2011, 05:48 PM
WTAQ, 1300 on your AM dial (at least it was in 1971 and 1972). I remember it well.

I don't remember the White Sox games being available on AM at all in the Chicago area in 1971. The WTAQ I remember was an FM station. If the games were also broadcast on an AM affiliate, I couldn't pick them up in Northwest Indiana.

Fenway
01-06-2011, 06:02 PM
I don't remember the White Sox games being available on AM at all in the Chicago area in 1971. The WTAQ I remember was an FM station. If the games were also broadcast on an AM affiliate, I couldn't pick them up in Northwest Indiana.

I posted their coverage map - Indiana was not in play on AM

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2675064&postcount=41

Medford Bobby
01-06-2011, 06:16 PM
Fenway:

All I've ever heard was the entire situation revolved around Seattle not Denver. If Veeck hadn't stepped in (with a lot of political pressure being put on MLB by Daley) the Sox were going to the Northwest to settle the lawsuit King County had against MLB (over the Pilots) and the A's were moving to Chicago.

Lip
I remember thinking at the time if we got Finley's A's team, he had already started dumping his stars and the 3 time world champions would be a crappy team in Chicago....

Lamp81
01-07-2011, 12:05 AM
They will be plowing snow in hell before MLB puts a team in Nevada.

I don't think that MLB has the same hatred towards Vegas that the NFL has. I think it is more likely that an NBA team would relocate to Vegas though.

The MLB held their Winter Meetings in Vegas a couple of years ago, have a AAA team playing there, have Spring Training games every year, and allowed the A's to play regular season games there.

Keep in mind Selig was commish when the A's played there and that Spring Training games are available to bet on in the Sports Books. If MLB had such a hatred towards Vegas, these things would have never happened.

The mayor of Las Vegas even goes so far to say that Las Vegas is an American League city:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/major-league-plans--las-vegas-would-be-in-american-league--play-in-domed-stadium-101097064.html

Lip Man 1
01-07-2011, 01:27 AM
Cards:

Both stations that carried the Sox were on FM. They did not have an AM radio outlet in Chicago.

Lip

Fenway
01-07-2011, 08:42 AM
Cards:

Both stations that carried the Sox were on FM. They did not have an AM radio outlet in Chicago.

Lip

Lip

The records show they were on 1300 AM which today is Radio Disney and they were also on the AM in Evanston which had a so so day signal but nothing at night.

The insane part is the Sox slipped from top tier stations to rim-shotters in the market as even mid level outlets like WIND didn't want to touch them.

None of the signals covered Indiana very well.

I spent some time looking at microfilm for that era and it was frustrating to try and piece the Sox saga together as the newspapers seemed to just ignore the Sox (the old Chicago Today seemed to be an exception but they vanished about that time)

Somehow the team survived and by the late 70's into the early 80's the white Sox were thriving. I remember going to a Good Friday afternoon game at Comiskey in 1981 and there were well over 30,000 at the park while the previous Saturday I was at Wrigley for a Cubs-Mets game and there were 12-14,000 there.

Enter Sportsvision

When the White Sox played their first home game in the ALCS of 1983, Leigh Montville of the Boston Globe was assigned and he wrote a column wondering why the crowd at Comiskey Park was so dead for Game 3. Yes the park was sold out but Montville sensed something wrong as the atmosphere for the first home post-season game since 1959 was lacking.

In the column he had some quotes from a Chicago writer who said "The problem is nobody knows this team, as you can't see the games on TV."

SI1020
01-07-2011, 09:55 AM
I listened to them on WTAQ La Grange, an AM station.

Fenway
01-07-2011, 10:26 AM
Flubs really packed them into Wrigley in 1974

Lip Man 1
01-07-2011, 12:46 PM
For what it's worth I ran this question through Rich Lindberg, who has written six books on the history of the franchise including the definitive White Sox encyclopedia. (The 3rd edition of the book by the way is coming out this spring). He said that both stations in 1971 and 1972 were FM.

Lip

Nellie_Fox
01-07-2011, 12:52 PM
I listened to them on WTAQ La Grange, an AM station.

For what it's worth I ran this question through Rich Lindberg, who has written six books on the history of the franchise including the definitive White Sox encyclopedia. (The 3rd edition of the book by the way is coming out this spring). He said that both stations in 1971 and 1972 were FM.

LipI grew up in LaGrange. I remember WTAQ as an AM station. In fact, in those days I didn't even have an FM radio, so I'm pretty sure WTAQ was AM.

I just checked, and yes, it was AM 1300, now using the call sign WRDZ, changed in 1998.
http://www.angelfire.com/nm/negativfan/calls3.html

Fenway
01-07-2011, 01:58 PM
For what it's worth I ran this question through Rich Lindberg, who has written six books on the history of the franchise including the definitive White Sox encyclopedia. (The 3rd edition of the book by the way is coming out this spring). He said that both stations in 1971 and 1972 were FM.

Lip

Lip

Tell Rich it was AM in LaGrange WTAQ-AM 1300 which is now Radio Disney

I checked the FCC historical database to see if there was ever a WTAQ-FM and the only FM that has ever been licensed to LaGrange is still located at LYONS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL

WEAW was in Evanston and as I documented earlier their AM night signal was a joke that could not even be heard in Evanston the COL. However the FM signal was excellent with the transmitter having been moved to the Hancock in 1970. But nobody had FM in their cars then.

http://mlb.mlb.com/cws/history/broadcasters.jsp
The MLB website
Harry Caray, Ralph Faucher (WTAQ/WEAW) 1971-72

I knew the guy that owned WEAW from living in Evanston in the early 80's. By then FM had become WOJO -FM

He sold WOJO to Univision for a lot of pesos

On a side note WTAQ also was the Spanish home of the White Sox for a few seasons before Disney bought it.

SI1020
01-07-2011, 02:32 PM
For what it's worth I ran this question through Rich Lindberg, who has written six books on the history of the franchise including the definitive White Sox encyclopedia. (The 3rd edition of the book by the way is coming out this spring). He said that both stations in 1971 and 1972 were FM.

Lip With all due respect to Mr. Lindberg and his many literary accomplishments, he is wrong on this one.

LITTLE NELL
01-07-2011, 04:31 PM
Here is a site on suburban radio stations confirming that WTAQ was AM.
Scroll down a little and you will find WTAQ.
http://67.162.73.47/public/zecom/museum/Chiradhist/westsuburban.htm

TommyJohn
01-07-2011, 04:56 PM
When the White Sox played their first home game in the ALCS of 1983, Leigh Montville of the Boston Globe was assigned and he wrote a column wondering why the crowd at Comiskey Park was so dead for Game 3. Yes the park was sold out but Montville sensed something wrong as the atmosphere for the first home post-season game since 1959 was lacking.

In the column he had some quotes from a Chicago writer who said "The problem is nobody knows this team, as you can't see the games on TV."

I don't buy this. Maybe the fact that the Sox were down 7-0 after 2 innings had something to do with it.

Hitmen77
01-07-2011, 09:57 PM
Could the A's also move to Vegas? They did play regular season games there while Mt. Davis was being built. But that was in April, not during the summer.

I know Vegas is a fast-growing city, but it's still ranks as only the 30th largest metro area in the US. It's smaller than the KC metro area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

People like to say that one of the problems with Tampa is that it's full of transplants who have no allegiance to the Rays. If that's really true, then the same problem would apply to Vegas.

Fenway
01-07-2011, 10:06 PM
I know Vegas is a fast-growing city, but it's still ranks as only the 30th largest metro area in the US. It's smaller than the KC metro area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

People like to say that one of the problems with Tampa is that it's full of transplants who have no allegiance to the Rays. If that's really true, then the same problem would apply to Vegas.

Vegas has a bigger problem - you get away from Clark County there is no adjacent area for TV - TV cable homes is where the $$$ is now.

Lamp81
01-07-2011, 11:50 PM
I know Vegas is a fast-growing city, but it's still ranks as only the 30th largest metro area in the US. It's smaller than the KC metro area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

People like to say that one of the problems with Tampa is that it's full of transplants who have no allegiance to the Rays. If that's really true, then the same problem would apply to Vegas.

I know there are issues with a MLB team in Vegas, the most pressing would be they would need a completely new stadium with some sort of roof.

The 1st Major League team to re-locate to Vegas would have an advantage over the Tampa Rays. When the Rays debuted in 1998, the Tampa area already had the Buccaneers and the Lightning expand into Tampa, as well as the Magic over in Orlando. There are also the many Spring Training games played in the area, while Vegas only has about 5 ST games played there each year.

Whether it is an NBA, NHL, or MLB team, the 1st one to Vegas has the best chance of long term success.

Vegas also gets tourists from all over the USA while the majority of Tampa Bay visitors come from the East Coast and Midwest. Vegas will get Yankee, Phillies, and Red Sox fans as well as Angel/Dodger fans to visit and see their teams play. Every year the White Sox would visit a potential Vegas team, I'd try and make a trip to Vegas and see them there.

GoSox2K3
01-08-2011, 10:28 AM
I know there are issues with a MLB team in Vegas, the most pressing would be they would need a completely new stadium with some sort of roof.

The 1st Major League team to re-locate to Vegas would have an advantage over the Tampa Rays. When the Rays debuted in 1998, the Tampa area already had the Buccaneers and the Lightning expand into Tampa, as well as the Magic over in Orlando. There are also the many Spring Training games played in the area, while Vegas only has about 5 ST games played there each year.

Whether it is an NBA, NHL, or MLB team, the 1st one to Vegas has the best chance of long term success.

Vegas also gets tourists from all over the USA while the majority of Tampa Bay visitors come from the East Coast and Midwest. Vegas will get Yankee, Phillies, and Red Sox fans as well as Angel/Dodger fans to visit and see their teams play. Every year the White Sox would visit a potential Vegas team, I'd try and make a trip to Vegas and see them there.

It seems like a bit of a stretch to expect an MLB team to draw at least 2.5 million people based on vacationers. In the end, you need a solid home fan base and TV markets.

I think people are just enamored with the Vegas idea because it's such a popular tourist draw. In addition to not being a very huge metro area, the area was hit pretty hard in the foreclosure crisis. I doubt tourists are going to fill the much-needed luxury suites either.

You can't compare an NFL team's or an NBA team's chances for success in Vegas (or any other city) to that of a MLB team. An NFL team only has 8 home games (plus 2 exhibitions) to sell out. An NBA team has 41 home games in which to try to fill a ~20,000 seat arena. MLB has 81 home games to try to fill a ~40,000 seat ballpark and probably need to average at least 25k per game to be deemed a success. That's a huge jump in the number of tickets an MLB team has to sell.....and the league would be foolish to expect a lions share of that to come from fans of other teams who are out in Vegas to hit the casinos.

Lamp81
01-08-2011, 02:45 PM
Bottom line, I don't think that an MLB team will re-locate to Vegas, simply because the cost of building a retractable roof stadium would be too high for a place that will never get a Super Bowl or Final Four.

I do think that Vegas would support a MLB team better than Tampa Bay supports the Rays, though.

I think it is far more likely that an NBA team chooses Vegas to relocate to, with Sacramento or New Orleans the most likely candidates.

UNLV is going to need to replace the Thomas & Mack Center within 10 years anyway. They might as well make it a State of the Art NBA stadium, as they would have a attractive market for the Knigs or Hornets.

TDog
01-08-2011, 03:26 PM
I don't buy this. Maybe the fact that the Sox were down 7-0 after 2 innings had something to do with it.

And, if memory serves, the 1983 White Sox were the first Chicago baseball team EVER to draw more than 2 million. Previous to that, both the Cubs and White Sox were able only to break the 1.6 million mark -- the Cubs in 1969 and the White Sox in 1977. The Cubs didn't break 2 million until 1984, when they came within one game of going to the World Series. The Sox still outdrew them.

The writer with the no-TV explanation probably expressed an opinion influenced by his agenda.

Fenway
01-08-2011, 03:47 PM
Vegas is the #42 TV market

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public%20factsheets/tv/2010-2011%20DMA%20Ranks.pdf


Reno is #108

There is NOTHING else they can add


Greenville, South Carolina has more TV homes :?:

Lamp81
01-08-2011, 04:18 PM
Vegas is the #42 TV market

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public%20factsheets/tv/2010-2011%20DMA%20Ranks.pdf


Reno is #108

There is NOTHING else they can add


Greenville, South Carolina has more TV homes :?:

Ok based on this, let's move the A's to either Sacramento or Charlotte, since there are no other factors involved outside of TV demographics.

If TV markets are so important, how do the Rays struggle, if Tampa Bay is #14 and Orlando is #19. They clearly try and claim Orlando as part of their market by playing regular season games at Disney World.

BTW, Sacramento is probably the 2nd best option for the A's after San Jose.

If you add Greenville to Charlotte, the market you'd get is between Houston and Detroit.

Fenway
01-08-2011, 04:56 PM
Ok based on this, let's move the A's to either Sacramento or Charlotte, since there are no other factors involved outside of TV demographics.

If TV markets are so important, how do the Rays struggle, if Tampa Bay is #14 and Orlando is #19. They clearly try and claim Orlando as part of their market by playing regular season games at Disney World.

BTW, Sacramento is probably the 2nd best option for the A's after San Jose.

If you add Greenville to Charlotte, the market you'd get is between Houston and Detroit.

In this cable universe - number of homes is important

Rays have a good TV contract and good ratings - but people can't afford to go to the games

Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country 14.3%

The Carolina's are the best open TV market out there by far in the US

SI1020
01-08-2011, 05:13 PM
The Carolina's are the best open TV market out there by far in the US I wonder if this attitude has changed any?


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2397057

Fenway
01-08-2011, 05:32 PM
I wonder if this attitude has changed any?


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2397057


MLB stands alone from the other sports with the sheer number of openings a season 81

The huge challenge are your weekday night games - the White Sox know this well as do most other teams.


Let's be real here - why should a state, county or city have to pay anything to build a stadium. If NFL teams can build private funded stadiums with 10 openings a year, there should be a way to do the same in MLB.

At least the Carolina's have shown a love for baseball as they support the minor leagues well....I am just saying Charlotte is a safer bet than Vegas for MLB.

No city in the US gets more MLB teams on basic cable than Vegas.

I think the NBA will go there - but MLB will look elsewhere.

Lamp81
01-08-2011, 08:33 PM
So assuming it's the A's that move, and we are saying to Charlotte, if they can't get something in Northern California.

Do they move to the AL East, shifting the Blue Jays to the Central and Kansas City to the West?

It would be much tougher in the Central with the Blue Jays vs the Royals, although with all of the young talent KC has, it has been said they are going to be tough in 2-3 years.

DumpJerry
01-08-2011, 10:18 PM
although with all of the young talent KC has, it has been said they are going to be tough in 2-3 years.
We've been saying that for 7 years.

Hitmen77
01-09-2011, 10:12 PM
San Jose is moving forward with selling city-owned land so that they can raise money to buy the property needed for a ballpark:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17040313?nclick_check=1

johnnyg83
01-09-2011, 10:40 PM
We've been saying that for 7 years.

They said it in Tampa Bay for a long time too.

I've been here ten years and they've never ever been this deep.

Lip Man 1
01-10-2011, 12:41 AM
Which means instead of losing 98 games a season, they'll 'only' lose 92. (LOL)

:D:

Lip

Fenway
01-16-2011, 01:49 PM
Nick Carfardo taked to the A's owner-

it is the second story in the Sunday notes

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/01/16/sox_need_a_little_luck_with_catcher_and_a_lefty/?page=full

The owner say it is next to impossible to get good players to come to Oakland especially after the wives see it...

He hopes to be in San Jose by 2014 - with the smallest ballpark in baseball 32,000 seats

skobabe8
01-16-2011, 04:11 PM
They have a couple of designs out there for Cisco Field. Pretty interesting designs, especially the older version:

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/cisco756.jpg

TDog
01-16-2011, 04:38 PM
Nick Carfardo taked to the A's owner-

it is the second story in the Sunday notes

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/01/16/sox_need_a_little_luck_with_catcher_and_a_lefty/?page=full

The owner say it is next to impossible to get good players to come to Oakland especially after the wives see it...

He hopes to be in San Jose by 2014 - with the smallest ballpark in baseball 32,000 seats

No one who plays for the A's has to live in the dump that is Oakland, and it isn't as if San Francisco is just across the bay. And it isn't as if the entire East Bay area is Oakland.

Lamp81
01-20-2011, 12:58 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/MLB-must-find-way-to-get-Oakland-As-to-San-Jose-011911

Even Scott Boras wants to see the Athletics move to San Jose. I'm sure he just wants to get that Silicon Valley $$$ for his clients.

Hitmen77
01-20-2011, 04:06 PM
He hopes to be in San Jose by 2014 - with the smallest ballpark in baseball 32,000 seats

Why do they want to make the seating capacity so low? I know one of the articles says it's to give the park a more intimate feel. Right now, some of the new parks have capacities in the 38,000 - 39,000 range. But 32k seems a bit low. If the capacity was exactly 32,000, a team couldn't crack 2.6 million in attendance even if they sold out every game. I would think teams would like that extra 8,000-10,000 seats for weekend games and other potential sellouts.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/MLB-must-find-way-to-get-Oakland-As-to-San-Jose-011911

Even Scott Boras wants to see the Athletics move to San Jose. I'm sure he just wants to get that Silicon Valley $$$ for his clients.

Good article. If the article is accurate, it sounds like San Jose has already acquired most of the land and that the A's are not seeking public financing for the ballpark.

I agree that I can't imagine that it's the players wives that are balking at playing in Oakland. It's not like they couldn't live in nearby San Francisco or some other popular area. Like Boras said, I can see why players aren't too interesting in coming to Oakland to play in an empty stadium.

Given the right location, I'd have to think that the Bay Area has a big enough population, with a big enough TV market and enough of a strong corporate presence to allow both the Giants and A's to succeed.

Fenway
01-20-2011, 05:03 PM
This blog while snarky at times at least follows the A's saga with links

http://newballpark.org/

The A's may buy a radio station he says.

The A's and Giants get along so badly that Comcast actually had to form a seperate network for the A's as the Giants did not want to share the channel with them.

A's are on CSN-California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet_California

Giants on CSN-Bay Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSN_Bay_Area