Athletics President re: keeping the team in Oakland

[DTComposer]

It also matters to me how much direct benefit is available to the average citizen. While an NFL stadium will likely provide an economic boost to the neighborhood via increased use of hotels, bars, restaurants, etc., the average cost of NFL and/or concert tours tickets prices out a huge segment of the city's population, and is in use maybe 20 times a year. Your average city-funded performing arts center can have events 150 days or more per year and include events at all price ranges and accessibilities. Libraries are available to all for free.

To the best of my knowledge, the Howard Terminal stadium plan had passed its EIR and received a green light from the Port of Oakland, and was less than $100 million short on funding. A's ownership let a deadline pass last fall without explanation, which prompted MLB to go on red alert that Oakland wasn't viable anymore.

As far as market size and wealth, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties top 2.8 million people - larger than at least half a dozen of the other MLB markets, and both counties are in the top 15 large counties (over 500K) for income.

One can argue on whether the Bay Area should be a two-team market (and IMO, no one besides New York and L.A. should be), but Oakland did a great deal to get a deal done. A's ownership was never truly committed to Oakland in this process.

[The Nature Boy]

I think it depends on a couple of things, with the two biggest considerations being the type of venue and the location. Paying for an indoor arena (hockey/basketball size) likely has the most benefit because it gets used the most of any sports venue and it's not limited to just those events. Some arenas are in use almost every day of the year and bring in business to the surrounding area as a result. Verizon Center in DC–though not publicly funded except for infrastructure improvements–is an outstanding example of a sports venue that led to an economic boom in the surrounding area. I'd suggest that a pro football stadium is the least sensible for public funding because it has the lowest return due to being used for far fewer dates per year than an arena or a ballpark (or, I suppose, an MLS-sized soccer stadium).

Any venue you plop down in the middle of a sea of parking is likely to have limited economic benefit to the local area compared to an in-city arena or ballpark surrounded by restaurants, bars, etc.

I feel like DC has done a great job with using sporting venues as catalysts for economic growth. Nationals Park in Navy Yard is another great example.

[1995hoo]

I thought about mentioning Nationals Park because that one was in fact paid for by the city as part of the deal to get MLB to move the Expos here. There was great skepticism about the location because, prior to the ballpark opening, it was a rather rough and forgotten area that most people saw only as they passed by on South Capitol Street. That area has seriously transformed. I'm wondering when the area between the "Wharf" development at the Southwest Waterfront and the Nats Park area will be redeveloped. It's bound to happen because the land will just plain become too valuable for the current low-density residential uses, but it's bound to cause some bitter opposition and political fallout because it will displace people who don't have a whole lot of options as to where to move.

[The Nature Boy]

I thought about mentioning Nationals Park because that one was in fact paid for by the city as part of the deal to get MLB to move the Expos here. There was great skepticism about the location because, prior to the ballpark opening, it was a rather rough and forgotten area that most people saw only as they passed by on South Capitol Street. That area has seriously transformed. I'm wondering when the area between the "Wharf" development at the Southwest Waterfront and the Nats Park area will be redeveloped. It's bound to happen because the land will just plain become too valuable for the current low-density residential uses, but it's bound to cause some bitter opposition and political fallout because it will displace people who don't have a whole lot of options as to where to move.

I've parked near the SW Waterfront Metro stop and walked to Nats Park many times. It's a gap in development that I suspect will be filled in in the next couple of decades. I agree that it'll be a political fight but developers usually win out in the end in DC. Lower income people will just keep getting pushed into PG County.

I also suspect we'll also see development between Nats Park and Audi Field and towards Ft. McNair. You're already starting to see that with things like the Cambria Hotel opening up. There are still some housing developments left over from before Nats Park opened that will likely be gone within the next 10 years. I do believe that Buzzard Point will likely be the next boom neighborhood in DC.

[Alps]

I thought about mentioning Nationals Park because that one was in fact paid for by the city as part of the deal to get MLB to move the Expos here. There was great skepticism about the location because, prior to the ballpark opening, it was a rather rough and forgotten area that most people saw only as they passed by on South Capitol Street. That area has seriously transformed. I'm wondering when the area between the "Wharf" development at the Southwest Waterfront and the Nats Park area will be redeveloped. It's bound to happen because the land will just plain become too valuable for the current low-density residential uses, but it's bound to cause some bitter opposition and political fallout because it will displace people who don't have a whole lot of options as to where to move.

can tell you from my drives that it has not seriously transformed. maybe north to downtown, but definitely not west across the street.

[1995hoo]

I meant the area right around the ballpark on the east side of South Capitol Street has seriously transformed, which is undeniable. It used to be almost completely industrial aside from a few homosexual bars (and indeed the presence of those bars were one reason some people opposed the ballpark being constructed there). Notice the way I structured my prior comment–I said "that area has a seriously transformed" and then, after that, I referred to the area west of the ballpark and east of the Wharf. That way of commenting was intentional to separate the two areas. In particular, we used to walk through that residential area directly west of the ballpark (Syphax Gardens, I think) to go back to the car. There was a definite "safety in numbers" feeling after a ballgame, but at least once some woman who lives there was yelling at the people passing on the sidewalk–definitely gave a feeling of the residents resenting ballpark patrons walking through the area.

[The Nature Boy]

I thought about mentioning Nationals Park because that one was in fact paid for by the city as part of the deal to get MLB to move the Expos here. There was great skepticism about the location because, prior to the ballpark opening, it was a rather rough and forgotten area that most people saw only as they passed by on South Capitol Street. That area has seriously transformed. I'm wondering when the area between the "Wharf" development at the Southwest Waterfront and the Nats Park area will be redeveloped. It's bound to happen because the land will just plain become too valuable for the current low-density residential uses, but it's bound to cause some bitter opposition and political fallout because it will displace people who don't have a whole lot of options as to where to move.

can tell you from my drives that it has not seriously transformed. maybe north to downtown, but definitely not west across the street.

It's happening slowly. As I said in my post above, that's the next growth area. The area between 2nd St. SW and S. Capitol St. will see some heavy gentrification over the next decade.

[ZLoth]

From Yahoo Sports via AOL:

MLB owners unanimously vote to approve Athletics' move to Las Vegas

The Oakland Athletics are officially relocating. The team's move to Las Vegas was voted on, and unanimously approved, by all 30 MLB owners Thursday.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[Rothman]

But grass doesn't grow there...

[Henry]

While I'm sad that this is happening, I'm not surprised by this at all. Even expansion is a long shot, given how horrible the state of Oakland truly is. The Raiders and Warriors are already gone, and I figured it would be a matter of time before the A's left too. I sense an Expos/Supersonics situation ahead where a long wait will follow.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I feel terrible for Oakland, but it seems this was a long time coming.

[bing101]

Goodbye to the Bay Bridge Series in both the MLB and NFL.

[NWI_Irish96]

While I'm sad that this is happening, I'm not surprised by this at all. Even expansion is a long shot, given how horrible the state of Oakland truly is. The Raiders and Warriors are already gone, and I figured it would be a matter of time before the A's left too. I sense an Expos/Supersonics situation ahead where a long wait will follow.

I feel terrible for Oakland, but it seems this was a long time coming.

1960 populations: Alameda County 908,209 - Santa Clara County 642,315
2020 populations: Alameda County 1,682,353 - Santa Clara County 1,936,259

The demographics of the area have changed dramatically since the Raiders and A's arrived in Oakland. Oakland is not going to be a viable spot for a team that has San Francisco and San Jose leaving it behind in both population growth and popularity.

MLB needed to work out a deal where the Giants got some concessions in order to drop their opposition to the A's moving to the South Bay. Would have been best for everybody.

[Big John]

Goodbye to the Bay Bridge Series in both the MLB and NFL.

I thought the NFL version was gone when the 49ers moved to Santa Clara.

[Scott5114]

But grass doesn't grow there...

[Henry]

MLB needed to work out a deal where the Giants got some concessions in order to drop their opposition to the A's moving to the South Bay. Would have been best for everybody.

IIRC, the A's originally had territorial rights to that particular area when the Giants were threatening to move to Tampa Bay, and they gave it to their neighbors in a deal that would include what is now called Oracle Park. Looking back, they wish they never did it, but what's done is done. Also, it wouldn't be right to have the Dodgers travel to the Gulf Coast just to play their longstanding rivals (dating back to their times in NYC, or to be more specific, Manhattan and Brooklyn), because then it would lose all of its appeal and everything that made it a special occasion on the MLB calendar, along with Red Sox-Yankees and Cubs-Cardinals.

[DTComposer]

MLB needed to work out a deal where the Giants got some concessions in order to drop their opposition to the A's moving to the South Bay. Would have been best for everybody.

IIRC, the A's originally had territorial rights to that particular area when the Giants were threatening to move to Tampa Bay, and they gave it to their neighbors in a deal that would include what is now called Oracle Park. Looking back, they wish they never did it, but what's done is done. Also, it wouldn't be right to have the Dodgers travel to the Gulf Coast just to play their longstanding rivals (dating back to their times in NYC, or to be more specific, Manhattan and Brooklyn), because then it would lose all of its appeal and everything that made it a special occasion on the MLB calendar, along with Red Sox-Yankees and Cubs-Cardinals.

Santa Clara County was shared territory between the Giants and A's, and the A's gave the Giants exclusive rights so a stadium proposal there could go forward (interestingly, not far from where Levi's Stadium is now). That proposal went away once the PacBell/AT&T/Oracle Park plan gained traction.

San Jose had everything lined up for a downtown ballpark for the A's, but the Giants were not willing to reverse the agreement.

[bwana39]

Does Austin, TX count as a candidate for getting the A's or not. I know Austin, TX has been getting attention here in California because some of the Tech CEO's and VC leaders have been talking about leaving CA for Texas for some time though. But that may not translate necessarily for MLB teams moving though.

I mentioned San Antonio because it's still a much larger metro area than Austin, but a stadium on the north side would draw from both.

Put it on the South Side of San Marcos. It would be centrally located.

Blanco might be a good fit too.  It is a little bit farther, but is closer to the affluent zip codes in both Austin and San Antonio.

[Brandon]

But grass doesn't grow there...

Domes and artificial turf.

[Big John]

But grass doesn't grow there...

Domes and artificial turf.

The Raiders play on grass.

[Henry]

Does Austin, TX count as a candidate for getting the A's or not. I know Austin, TX has been getting attention here in California because some of the Tech CEO's and VC leaders have been talking about leaving CA for Texas for some time though. But that may not translate necessarily for MLB teams moving though.

I mentioned San Antonio because it's still a much larger metro area than Austin, but a stadium on the north side would draw from both.

Put it on the South Side of San Marcos. It would be centrally located.

Blanco might be a good fit too.  It is a little bit farther, but is closer to the affluent zip codes in both Austin and San Antonio.

It might make a perfect opportunity to have the NL return to the Lone Star State (which it abandoned after 2012, when the Astros joined the Rangers in the AL), and give locals rooting interest beyond the Spurs. And with expansion on the horizon, now is the time to pull the trigger.

[bing101]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10098984-oakland-ballers-independent-baseball-team-started-by-fans-ahead-of-as-vegas-move


Note there is hype to make a new Oakland Baseball team but for now its not bound to reality.

[Henry]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10098984-oakland-ballers-independent-baseball-team-started-by-fans-ahead-of-as-vegas-move


Note there is hype to make a new Oakland Baseball team but for now its not bound to reality.

Now it's official:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2023/11/28/oakland-announces-expansion-pioneer-league-oakland-ballers/71726850007/

The A's may soon be gone, but the B's are stealing back Oakland's baseball legacy!

[gonealookin]

Sutter Health Park, formerly Raley Field, in West Sacramento is reportedly the frontrunner to host the A's during the Oakland to Las Vegas transition period.

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/article285588157.html

The Sacramento River Cats are the Giants' AAA affiliate, so there would be some irony there.  The River Cats' attendance has been in a long-term decline to the point where they have been in the bottom third of all AAA teams in attendance since Covid.  Vivek Ranadivé, the River Cats' owner who also owns the NBA Sacramento Kings, might not mind some sort of subsidy or indemnification payment from the A's to help his own team's financials.  The A's would likely keep their RSN television contract, although it provides for modification and likely reduction in payments if the A's play outside the immediate Bay Area (and Sacramento apparently is "outside" under that contract).  A possible obstacle to Sacramento or any other AAA park would be any objection from the MLB Players Association.

It's possible the Sacramento report was planted to pressure the City of Oakland to give the A's a better deal on a temporary lease extension at the Oakland Coliseum.  However, Oakland might respond by telling A's ownership "don't let the door hit you on the way out" as relations between ownership and the City are pretty hostile.  In any case, the A's do need to determine a home field for 2025 shortly as MLB wants to have a 2025 schedule out by July or so.

[SectorZ]

With apologies to any A's fans here, this circus is getting really fun to watch right now.