PDA

View Full Version : Oakland has little chance to keep A's in town.


Fenway
12-17-2011, 09:00 PM
The Mayor of Oakland has suggested East Oakland :rolling:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/16/BAIF1MD36D.DTL


An Oakland blogger looks at the mess...

http://newballpark.org/

Lamp81
12-17-2011, 09:50 PM
If they can't get the San Jose park approved, I wonder what they'll do? Staying in Oakland seems a no win proposition. How did Oakland draw when they had playoff teams? Is it like the Rays who can't sell out playoff games?

I'd say that Sacramento would be a nice option, but the AAA stadium is right on the river and probably can't be expanded. Also the NBA Kings are having a hard time getting a new arena built there, so a MLB stadium is probably out of the question.

Las Vegas may be an option, if they can make it a multipurpose stadium with some sort of roof, that can be used for NCAA basketball, NCAA Football and Bowl Games, as well as things like rodeos, concerts, conventions, etc. Baseball and multipurpose stadiums don't seem to mix, but maybe an architect can figure it out.

DSpivack
12-18-2011, 01:48 AM
If they can't get the San Jose park approved, I wonder what they'll do? Staying in Oakland seems a no win proposition. How did Oakland draw when they had playoff teams? Is it like the Rays who can't sell out playoff games?

I'd say that Sacramento would be a nice option, but the AAA stadium is right on the river and probably can't be expanded. Also the NBA Kings are having a hard time getting a new arena built there, so a MLB stadium is probably out of the question.

Las Vegas may be an option, if they can make it a multipurpose stadium with some sort of roof, that can be used for NCAA basketball, NCAA Football and Bowl Games, as well as things like rodeos, concerts, conventions, etc. Baseball and multipurpose stadiums don't seem to mix, but maybe an architect can figure it out.

I had a hard time seeing any team move to Vegas because of sports books, and that was before the economy hit Las Vegas harder than most other metro areas. I doubt any team moves there anytime soon.

cards press box
12-18-2011, 02:15 AM
How about Philadelphia as a landing site for the A's? I don't know if the Philly metropolitan area has any interest in an AL team but the move would have some historical resonance.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/philadelphia/PhillysAsA.gif

Fenway
12-18-2011, 07:12 AM
Even with great teams, the A's have always struggled at the gate in that location. Even winning 4 World Series didn't help - the Giants has a 10 year head start and played in 'The City'.

Oakland has a bad reputation, recent high profile crime problems on BART and a lousy ballpark all play into it.

Now it appears Oakland will lose their NBA team to a new arena next to AT&T Park and there are rumors that the NHL may take a hard look at San Francisco if that arena is built.

San Jose is 50 miles away from San Francisco, but it might as well be 500. US 101 is highway hell 20 hours a day.


If they can't get the San Jose park approved, I wonder what they'll do? Staying in Oakland seems a no win proposition. How did Oakland draw when they had playoff teams? Is it like the Rays who can't sell out playoff games?

I'd say that Sacramento would be a nice option, but the AAA stadium is right on the river and probably can't be expanded. Also the NBA Kings are having a hard time getting a new arena built there, so a MLB stadium is probably out of the question.

Las Vegas may be an option, if they can make it a multipurpose stadium with some sort of roof, that can be used for NCAA basketball, NCAA Football and Bowl Games, as well as things like rodeos, concerts, conventions, etc. Baseball and multipurpose stadiums don't seem to mix, but maybe an architect can figure it out.

doublem23
12-18-2011, 08:19 AM
I had a hard time seeing any team move to Vegas because of sports books, and that was before the economy hit Las Vegas harder than most other metro areas. I doubt any team moves there anytime soon.

Las Vegas is well on it way to being the new Detroit without any of that annoying "fresh water."

Golden Sox
12-18-2011, 09:44 AM
The only place I could see any team moving to and be financially successful is New Jersey. Both the NFL Giants and Jets are there now. If my memory is correct, didn't the former owner of the Montreal Expos want to move the Expos to New Jersey?

Fenway
12-18-2011, 09:58 AM
Las Vegas is well on it way to being the new Detroit without any of that annoying "fresh water."

Vegas does not have enough TV homes outside of Clark County to make it work. You go 20 miles out of Vegas and there is NOTHING.

The only place I could see any team moving to and be financially successful is New Jersey. Both the NFL Giants and Jets are there now. If my memory is correct, didn't the former owner of the Montreal Expos want to move the Expos to New Jersey?

That was Loria's plan and then Bud started the contraction nonsense. Loria was going to sue Selig when suddenly John Henry needed to sell the Marlins to buy Boston.

Under the crazy MLB rules - a team in the Meadowlands would have to pay the Yankees, but not the Mets as Queens County does not touch New Jersey, but the Bronx does.

TDog
12-18-2011, 12:04 PM
Las Vegas is well on it way to being the new Detroit without any of that annoying "fresh water."

Water is the big issue for Las Vegas. It's actually a huge issue for Las Vegas and its future.

Fenway
12-20-2011, 04:54 PM
Looks like they are getting closer for BART to get to San Jose

http://newballpark.org/2011/12/20/the-long-slog-to-the-south-bay/

Lamp81
12-20-2011, 11:35 PM
I'd say that Sacramento would be a nice option, but the AAA stadium is right on the river and probably can't be expanded. Also the NBA Kings are having a hard time getting a new arena built there, so a MLB stadium is probably out of the question.


Accoridng to this article, Sacramento's Raley Field was designed to be expanded into an MLB Park. Having been there, I find it hard to imagine, an MLB Park in that location. Traffic would be a nightmare.

http://newballpark.org/2005/08/01/what-about-sacramento/

Fenway
12-20-2011, 11:57 PM
Accoridng to this article, Sacramento's Raley Field was designed to be expanded into an MLB Park. Having been there, I find it hard to imagine, an MLB Park in that location. Traffic would be a nightmare.

http://newballpark.org/2005/08/01/what-about-sacramento/

Sacramento has no money - the biggest employer is the state.

Viva Medias B's
12-21-2011, 09:00 PM
Could the Athletics move to Tennessee? The NFL, NBA, and NHL are already there,.

PKalltheway
12-24-2011, 12:44 PM
From USA Today's Bob Nightengale on Twitter:

http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/318621659/bobs_twittericon_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/#!/BNightengale)
@BNightengale (http://twitter.com/#!/BNightengale)Bob Nightengale
All signs and top #MLB (http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23MLB) sources say that the #Athletics (http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23Athletics) will be granted permission by Feb to move to San Jose.

Hitmen77
12-24-2011, 01:25 PM
Could the Athletics move to Tennessee? The NFL, NBA, and NHL are already there,.

I doubt it. It's much tougher in general for a metro area to be able to support an MLB team than it is for teams of the other major sports.

The NFL has only 8 games a year to sell out (plus 2 exhibitions). The NBA and NHL have half the games of MLB and in arenas with about half the seating capacity.

I think the A's best bet is San Jose. Vegas, Tennessee, Indianapolis, etc.....I don't think they can support an MLB team to the tune of 2.5M+ fans a year plus enough local TV revenue to keep up with most of the rest of the league.

DSpivack
12-24-2011, 01:50 PM
I doubt it. It's much tougher in general for a metro area to be able to support an MLB team than it is for teams of the other major sports.

The NFL has only 8 games a year to sell out (plus 2 exhibitions). The NBA and NHL have half the games of MLB and in arenas with about half the seating capacity.

I think the A's best bet is San Jose. Vegas, Tennessee, Indianapolis, etc.....I don't think they can support an MLB team to the tune of 2.5M+ fans a year plus enough local TV revenue to keep up with most of the rest of the league.

I agree completely.

I look at this way:

The NFL has 8 home games per season. On average, stadiums probably seat around 70,000. 70,000 seats times 8 games means that they have 560,000 seats to fill each season.

The NBA and NHL each have 41 home games per season (at least in non-lockout years, as the NBA is shortened from 82 to 66 this year). An average arena seats around 18,000 or so, meaning they have around 740,000 seats to fill each season.

The MLB has an 81 game home schedule and most stadiums seat around 40,000 people (most I think are above that, but just using that number for sake of argument, and both Chicago stadiums are around that number). That's 3.25 million seats to fill.

Thus, supporting an MLB team is much more difficult than any other sport.

Obviously there are other issues going on, as each sport has different economic models from another, some rely more on ticket sales, whereas others rely on broadcasting deals; the NFL has a completely national broadcasting deal, and thus distributes that money equally (I think?), while MLB has a nearly completely local broadcasting deal, so each team has a different contract value.

San Jose does seem like a much better bet than any of the others you mention. The Bay Area is a much bigger media market than any of those others, and I would guess that the Silicon Valley area is much wealthier than Vegas, Memphis or Nashville.

TDog
12-24-2011, 02:07 PM
I doubt it. It's much tougher in general for a metro area to be able to support an MLB team than it is for teams of the other major sports.

The NFL has only 8 games a year to sell out (plus 2 exhibitions). The NBA and NHL have half the games of MLB and in arenas with about half the seating capacity.

I think the A's best bet is San Jose. Vegas, Tennessee, Indianapolis, etc.....I don't think they can support an MLB team to the tune of 2.5M+ fans a year plus enough local TV revenue to keep up with most of the rest of the league.

I agree, except that I don't know that San Jose would support the A's substantially better than Oakland has. I don't live in San Jose, but I get the impression that it's Giants Country. The A's are East Bay with strong Central Valley support.

The problem with the A's isn't so much with Oakland and the location of the park, which is easier to access from the East Boy and the Valley than AT&T. The problem with the park is that Al Davis ruined it. Al Davis ruined the park in Anaheim by moving the Raiders there, but the Angels remodeled the park after the Raiders moved back to Oakland, where the park was remodeled to make it a horrible baseball park.

Now the Raiders are looking for a new place to play football after ruining another baseball venue.

Not that placing blame changes anything. Fault just as easily could be placed on Charley Finley for deserting Kansas City for a metropolitan area that already had enjoyed a decade of Willie Mays.

soxinem1
12-24-2011, 02:43 PM
OAK drew 2.2 million fans as recently as 2005. But even in their hayday under Tony LaRussa, they maxed at 2.9 million all the way back in 1990, and had pitiful attendance numbers during those great years in the early 70's.

At the same time, the city has nearly 400,000 people, while across the bay San Francisco has twice as many. Both have pretty diverse populations and while Frisco has grown more in people and percentage the past 20 years, Oakland and surrounding areas have more people than they did 20 and 30 years ago, but obviously they are not .

Furthermore, a combo of Barry Bonds and a new park helped SF take control of baseball in the bay.

MIA/FLA has had ridiculously low attendance numbers since their inaugural year and they still got their new park, but they do not have a rival team close by and do have a larger population they can possibly attract.

The thing is, with the history of weak attendance in Oakland, unless the Giants tank and allow the A's to take their market, like LAD is doing for LAAA, a new park would resemble the same scenario as it did for PIT.

Additionally, the division has been winnable for years, and with only four teams they could have been more competitive.

Viva Medias B's
12-24-2011, 03:06 PM
I agree, except that I don't know that San Jose would support the A's substantially better than Oakland has. I don't live in San Jose, but I get the impression that it's Giants Country. The A's are East Bay with strong Central Valley support.

The problem with the A's isn't so much with Oakland and the location of the park, which is easier to access from the East Boy and the Valley than AT&T. The problem with the park is that Al Davis ruined it. Al Davis ruined the park in Anaheim by moving the Raiders there, but the Angels remodeled the park after the Raiders moved back to Oakland, where the park was remodeled to make it a horrible baseball park.

Now the Raiders are looking for a new place to play football after ruining another baseball venue.

Not that placing blame changes anything. Fault just as easily could be placed on Charley Finley for deserting Kansas City for a metropolitan area that already had enjoyed a decade of Willie Mays.

Actually, the Rams moved to Anaheim from the L.A. Coliseum. It was they who (temporarily) ruined the Big A. Of course, when the Rams moved to St. Louis, the Big A was remodeled back into a baseball park again. The Raiders played in the L.A. Coliseum when the Rams vacated it.

TDog
12-24-2011, 03:12 PM
Actually, the Rams moved to Anaheim. The Raiders played in the L.A. Coliseum.

I'm sure you're right. I was told at an A's game that it was the Raiders, but, while I drove to Anaheim to see baseball games in the days of Anaheim football, I never noticed what team played there. It's possible the man misspoke. There was beer involved.

So instead of the owner of the Raiders being to blame for ruining two baseball parks, I will blame the existence of the NFL.

Lip Man 1
12-24-2011, 03:46 PM
Viva:

You're correct. They moved to Anaheim Stadium after years of playing in the L.A. Coliseum.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-29-2011, 12:17 PM
This from a source who is reporting on the situation in the Bay Area:

"I'm hearing JR is heavily involved with Oakland's attempt to move to San Jose. If true, shouldn't he be more concerned with his own team?

As someone who was born in San Jose and lived in that area for 38 years, I'll go on record as saying it would be a joke. Not enough corporate $, fan money invested in Sharks, traffic a disaster, SJ airport curfew, etc."

Lip

Fenway
12-29-2011, 12:43 PM
This from a source who is reporting on the situation in the Bay Area:

"I'm hearing JR is heavily involved with Oakland's attempt to move to San Jose. If true, shouldn't he be more concerned with his own team?

As someone who was born in San Jose and lived in that area for 38 years, I'll go on record as saying it would be a joke. Not enough corporate $, fan money invested in Sharks, traffic a disaster, SJ airport curfew, etc."

Lip

The A's owner just bought a hotel in downtown San Jose
http://newballpark.org/

You have Apple and Google close by.... certainly more options than Oakland.

Charley Finley was quoted after the second A's home game when they drew a very small crowd of 5304 - "I made a big mistake."

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B04180OAK1968.htm

Fenway
12-29-2011, 02:17 PM
It just got a lot harder to build a ballpark in California.

http://newballpark.org/2011/12/29/official-redevelopment-is-dead/

ComiskeyBrewer
12-29-2011, 02:51 PM
It just got a lot harder to build a ballpark in California.

http://newballpark.org/2011/12/29/official-redevelopment-is-dead/


Woof. If i'm reading that correctly, it also looks almost impossible for the Chargers to get something done as well.

Fenway
12-29-2011, 03:01 PM
Woof. If i'm reading that correctly, it also looks almost impossible for the Chargers to get something done as well.

That seems to be the case.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/29/san-diego-leaders-react-redevelopment-ruling/


Looks like Tuscon keeps AAA for now as new stadium is dead.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/29/escondido-ballpark-dead-says-mayor/

HomeFish
12-29-2011, 07:13 PM
and I would guess that the Silicon Valley area is much wealthier than Vegas, Memphis or Nashville.

Silicon Valley is the second richest metro area in the United States, behind only Washington DC.

TDog
12-29-2011, 08:11 PM
California really doesn't need any new sports venues, not with government help in this economy anyway.

The Giants paid for their own new ballpark, or at least they borrowed the money to build it. They have about another decade of debt service.

Oddly enough, the loans were made with the understanding that San Jose was Giants territory. The A's agreed to designate San Jose as Giants territory.

I don't know if the A's moving to San Jose would affect the Giants' construction loans, but I wouldn't be happy if I were a lender. In any case, this seems to be the reason the Giants are standing firm in not giving up the territorial rights they have by agreement with the A's. And I'm wondering if major league baseball will have to help pay for the Giants' privately financed ballpark if it makes the San Jose A's happen.

Hitmen77
12-30-2011, 09:38 AM
The A's owner just bought a hotel in downtown San Jose
http://newballpark.org/

You have Apple and Google close by.... certainly more options than Oakland.

Charley Finley was quoted after the second A's home game when they drew a very small crowd of 5304 - "I made a big mistake."

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B04180OAK1968.htm

I wonder how the history of baseball expansion would have been different if the A's didn't move to Oakland in 1968.

If I remember reading correctly, I think that set up a rush to expand in '69 because Congressman from Missouri were really pissed about the A's move and were threatening to revisit baseball's anti-trust exemption if Kansas City didn't get a new team right away.

Fenway
12-30-2011, 10:32 AM
I wonder how the history of baseball expansion would have been different if the A's didn't move to Oakland in 1968.

If I remember reading correctly, I think that set up a rush to expand in '69 because Congressman from Missouri were really pissed about the A's move and were threatening to revisit baseball's anti-trust exemption if Kansas City didn't get a new team right away.

That is exactly what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauffman_Stadium

Expansion was rushed in 1968 - look how Montreal was born

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081474/index.htm

Deford went back 2 years later

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1084121/index.htm

First hint of problems in Oakland
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081120/index.htm

Lip Man 1
12-30-2011, 11:28 AM
It was Missouri senator Stuart Symington.

Lip