(04-19-2018 01:33 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I am still in disbelief that North Carolina via Charlotte OR RDU area hasn't gotten a MLB team.

Of the non-MLB markets I definitely consider Charlotte the most MLB capable market. You'd still be fighting a lot of the same problems in Miami ad Tampa--transplants (or in this case some long time residents) with baseball loyalties that lay elsewhere.

The other thing going against a city like acharlotte or Nashville is that they aren't the only pro sports game in town.

(04-21-2018 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The other thing going against a city like acharlotte or Nashville is that they aren't the only pro sports game in town.

I don't find that as a compelling argument about not being the only team. Multiple cities have multiple pro teams.

(04-21-2018 04:41 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The other thing going against a city like acharlotte or Nashville is that they aren't the only pro sports game in town.

I don't find that as a compelling argument about not being the only team. Multiple cities have multiple pro teams.

Yes, but in this day and age with so many preexisting team loyalties it's hard to attract a fan base if your city is a middle or small market on paper and its citizens are already committed to a long-established local pro team. The NFL is king and there are a lot of basketball-oriented parts of the country where NBA has more potential than other regions; having a team as the only one in the market can help funnel butts in the seats and especially corporate dollars towards one franchise instead of being diluted - just looking at NBA attendance this year the Spurs, Thunder, and Jazz outdrew the Rockets, Timberwolves, Bucks, Pelicans, and Pacers for example. The Vegas Knights in theory could carve out a market by themselves, but will have the Raiders to compete with in a few years to make things more difficult in the desert.

That's why I think a compelling case can be made for the MLB to go to Austin, maybe not now but in the near future. For a city it's size to be growing at the rate it is with a young, tech wealthy population really makes it an interesting option when you consider that they're unlikely to get any other big four league interest with Jerry Jones not wanting another NFL team in Texas, the Spurs just down the road for the NBA, and not enough hockey interest there for the NHL (though the MLS would make sense). UT is obviously the big player in the city but Longhorn football season mostly doesn't conflict with baseball and they have such a statewide audience that it's not like Austin is their primary base of support.

(11-07-2017 10:02 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Before expansion (which I am always excited about), I think we should find suitable homes for the teams that seem to suffer the most in attendance. Lately, the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland Athletics have consistently poor attendance. I'd relocate the Rays to North Carolina (either Charlotte or Raleigh) and I'd relocate the Athletics to Montreal.

If expansion were to occur, two Western teams would be my choice. Perhaps Portland and Vancouver.

American League
East: New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Baltimore Orioles, Toronto Blue Jays
West: Vancouver Canadians, Seattle Mariners, Portland Beavers, Los Angeles Angels
South: Texas Rangers, Houston Astros, Kansas City Royals, Chicago White Sox
North: Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, Detroit Tigers, Cleveland Indians

National League
East: Montreal Expos, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates
West: San Diego Padres, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamondbacks
South: Charlotte Knights, Atlanta Braves, Miami Marlins, Washington Nationals
North: Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Cubs, St. Louis Cardinals, Colorado Rockies

Agreed that the stadium situation with the A’s & Rays needs to be resolved first. Oakland will fight hard to keep the A’s unlike what they didn’t do for the Warriors & the Raiders. And I seriously doubt MLB wants to have only one team in the Bay Area. The A’s actually had a pretty decent ballpark pre-Mt. Davis, and now that the Raiders are going to be leaving for Vegas, Mt. Davis can be torn down. If worse comes to worse, I remember former A’s owner Lew Wolff looking at some property in Contra Costa County which would be extremely close to San Jose, but just far enough away so that the Giants would be unable to block the move.

As for the Rays, I hear Tampa is looking at building them a new stadium.

If there ends up being an MLB expansion and I really think there should then we could probably assume that Montreal takes one of those slots if they're willing to build a new stadium.

Where else? Well, some have suggested Monterrey, Mexico although I'm not sure that's a great idea. Portland seems to be getting into the mix though and that could work.

I don't think MLB will expand until the Athletics and Rays' situation is resolved if for no other reason than because it eliminates leverage for those clubs to get anything done. I could see the A's getting a new ballpark, but I'm not sure the Rays in Tampa will end up working out. They signed a ridiculously long lease and I'm afraid the financing for a new park could end up looking like the boondoggle they had in Miami. Side note, I'm still a little surprised that the Marlins aren't a bigger draw after all these years, but anyway...

I could see the Rays moving and taking up one reasonable location for an expansion franchise. If that happens then other moves become that much more difficult.

We should assume nothing. Montreal isn't some can't miss market. I'd think Vancouver would be a better market.

(04-29-2018 02:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think MLB will expand until the Athletics and Rays' situation is resolved if for no other reason than because it eliminates leverage for those clubs to get anything done. I could see the A's getting a new ballpark, but I'm not sure the Rays in Tampa will end up working out. They signed a ridiculously long lease and I'm afraid the financing for a new park could end up looking like the boondoggle they had in Miami. Side note, I'm still a little surprised that the Marlins aren't a bigger draw after all these years, but anyway...

I could see the Rays moving and taking up one reasonable location for an expansion franchise. If that happens then other moves become that much more difficult.

I agree with this. The guys in Portland who are seeking ballpark locations are helping to motivate people in Oakland to move faster to get something done there. The A's have already offered to buy the Oakland Coliseum site, and the city probably will sell to them if the team doesn't choose another location for a new ballpark.

The Rays situation is much more difficult because of the mess with their lease and because the current ballpark is in one city while they want to build a new ballpark in a different city, so there isn't the same incentive for one local government to help them out.

The A's have no future in Oakland, especially if the South Bay is considered the Giants' territory. Because of market inequality, any team playing in Oakland is in a small market, except the soon to be San Francisco Warriors, who are the only NBA team in the immediate region.

The A's will likely stay in Oakland because there's no place for the A's to go where they would make more money. No market large enough to get them a giant local TV deal, and no market where the local governments will give the A's a brand-new ballpark for free or almost free. If there was a pot of gold waiting in any available market, the A's would have left already. They are not tied down by a terrible lease.

The MLB owners eliminated a lot of their own leverage by overexpanding in the 1990s, and then by moving the Expos to DC. The A's and Rays can't threaten to move to Denver or Phoenix or DC like many teams did in the 1970s and 1980s.

The best "play" for a lot of franchises today is to try to get places in their own market to compete with each other in making giveaways to billionaire owners, as the Braves did to get their new ballpark.

(04-30-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The A's will likely stay in Oakland because there's no place for the A's to go where they would make more money. No market large enough to get them a giant local TV deal, and no market where the local governments will give the A's a brand-new ballpark for free or almost free. If there was a pot of gold waiting in any available market, the A's would have left already. They are not tied down by a terrible lease.

The MLB owners eliminated a lot of their own leverage by overexpanding in the 1990s, and then by moving the Expos to DC. The A's and Rays can't threaten to move to Denver or Phoenix or DC like many teams did in the 1970s and 1980s.

The best "play" for a lot of franchises today is to try to get places in their own market to compete with each other in making giveaways to billionaire owners, as the Braves did to get their new ballpark.

The problem with the A's situation in trying to leverage the bottom strategy is the political situation - something tells me Oakland is a little different from Georgia and Texas.

I think they'll end up staying in the East Bay and make something work, maybe they'll tear down Mt. Davis and build some developments in the Coliseum parking lot so it's not such an isolated location. Downtown Oakland is supposedly coming along (I've heard people call it the next 'Brooklyn of the West') but land is so expensive out there that it's probably a big hassle to build anything there with a lot of NIMBY people.

(05-01-2018 06:58 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The A's will likely stay in Oakland because there's no place for the A's to go where they would make more money. No market large enough to get them a giant local TV deal, and no market where the local governments will give the A's a brand-new ballpark for free or almost free. If there was a pot of gold waiting in any available market, the A's would have left already. They are not tied down by a terrible lease.

The MLB owners eliminated a lot of their own leverage by overexpanding in the 1990s, and then by moving the Expos to DC. The A's and Rays can't threaten to move to Denver or Phoenix or DC like many teams did in the 1970s and 1980s.

The best "play" for a lot of franchises today is to try to get places in their own market to compete with each other in making giveaways to billionaire owners, as the Braves did to get their new ballpark.

The problem with the A's situation in trying to leverage the bottom strategy is the political situation - something tells me Oakland is a little different from Georgia and Texas.

I think they'll end up staying in the East Bay and make something work, maybe they'll tear down Mt. Davis and build some developments in the Coliseum parking lot so it's not such an isolated location. Downtown Oakland is supposedly coming along (I've heard people call it the next 'Brooklyn of the West') but land is so expensive out there that it's probably a big hassle to build anything there with a lot of NIMBY people.

I think it’s a combination of what you are saying and what Wedge said. If you’ll remember, the Raiders and the Chargers both tried to get the city of Los Angeles to build them a stadium. That didn’t go over very well with the mayor of Los Angeles, especially with a precedent being set in San Francisco with the Giants & the 49ers getting privately financed stadiums. The owner of the Rams figured this out, and offered the mayor of LA a Giants/49ers type of deal which she accepted, of course. In addition, the NFL has never liked the Davis family, and has wanted the family to sell the Raiders for years, and the same could be said for the city of Oakland, who didn’t really do anything for the Raiders after the Rams refused to let the Raiders be a tenant in their new LA stadium. Mark Davis then went to the only place left that would give him what he was looking for, a publicly financed stadium, Las Vegas. To me, it’s a little weird that Oakland let the Warriors get away to San Francisco, considering that they were more loyal to the city of Oakland than the Raiders were, but the A’s tweet provided the answer to that question, IMO, because I believe that city of Oakland and the A’s had been collaborating together on finding a site for a new A’s stadium, especially after new ownership had taken over from Lew Wolff who wanted to move the A’s to the South Bay.

I have said for a long time that the A's stadium plan would be: (1) Wait for the Raiders to leave, (2) Spend about $200 million to tear down Mt. Davis and rebuild the Coliseum into a baseball-only facility, like the Angels did in Anaheim after the Rams moved to St. Louis.

I'm still sticking with that prediction.

(05-01-2018 08:55 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  If you’ll remember, the Raiders and the Chargers both tried to get the city of Los Angeles to build them a stadium. That didn’t go over very well with the mayor of Los Angeles, especially with a precedent being set in San Francisco with the Giants & the 49ers getting privately financed stadiums. The owner of the Rams figured this out, and offered the mayor of LA a Giants/49ers type of deal which she accepted, of course. In addition, the NFL has never liked the Davis family, and has wanted the family to sell the Raiders for years, and the same could be said for the city of Oakland, who didn’t really do anything for the Raiders after the Rams refused to let the Raiders be a tenant in their new LA stadium. Mark Davis then went to the only place left that would give him what he was looking for, a publicly financed stadium, Las Vegas.

You got the results right but the path was a little different. For years, it's been an absolute that LA would not foot the bill for a stadium. In fact, two competing parties (Phil Anschutz and Ed Roski) were offering to build stadiums in/near LA in exchange for a piece of whatever team wanted to move to LA. But no NFL owner wants to give up ownership, so two new competing plans were presented: Chargers and Raiders would build in Carson with major financing vs Rams in Inglewood (with whatever financing Kroenke wanted - basically it's on his dime). It was entirely an NFL owners decision; city of LA wasn't involved (neither stadium was in LA). I suspect the Kroenke proposal was favored because the financing was much more solid; the owners wanted Inglewood. The Raiders, who still suffer reputationally because of Al Davis, just couldn't get the support. The owners nudged Spanos to work a deal with Kroenke and here we are.

(05-01-2018 08:55 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  To me, it’s a little weird that Oakland let the Warriors get away to San Francisco

The Warriors were purchased by owners who bought the team specifically to be the anchor tenant of an arena that they wanted to build (and are now building) in San Francisco. They're complying with the terms of their lease in Oakland; the lease ran out and they negotiated additional option years so that they can stay in Oakland until the SF arena is open. It's not as if the city could have blocked the sale of the team.

And this quote about the Warriors' SF arena, and the high ticket prices there, also applies to the new LA football stadium:

Quote:“Especially in California, forget about (government) subsidies,” said Andy Dolich, a Bay Area sports marketing expert who has worked for the 49ers and A’s and teaches at Stanford. Citing heavy government assistance in building sports venues in states like Pennsylvania, Dolich said, “Those days have long since disappeared in California. If you want to build anything, you build it yourself, meaning, you borrow the money (from banks) and you get it back from your fans.”

I think it'd be cool if the Warriors played some games in both.

(05-01-2018 12:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:55 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  To me, it’s a little weird that Oakland let the Warriors get away to San Francisco

The Warriors were purchased by owners who bought the team specifically to be the anchor tenant of an arena that they wanted to build (and are now building) in San Francisco. They're complying with the terms of their lease in Oakland; the lease ran out and they negotiated additional option years so that they can stay in Oakland until the SF arena is open. It's not as if the city could have blocked the sale of the team.

And this quote about the Warriors' SF arena, and the high ticket prices there, also applies to the new LA football stadium:

Quote:“Especially in California, forget about (government) subsidies,” said Andy Dolich, a Bay Area sports marketing expert who has worked for the 49ers and A’s and teaches at Stanford. Citing heavy government assistance in building sports venues in states like Pennsylvania, Dolich said, “Those days have long since disappeared in California. If you want to build anything, you build it yourself, meaning, you borrow the money (from banks) and you get it back from your fans.”

The Bay Area is large enough too that you can recoup your costs with an arena that hosts 42 NBA games, some college games, a bunch of concerts, etc. given that there's a bit of an arena desert in San Francisco city limits today if I'm not mistaken.

The A's problem mostly comes down to location imo, yeah Mt. Davis sucks but even when it wasn't there they had a lot of attendance problems. Even if they tore it down, gutted the whole place to make it nice, moved seats closer to the field, etc. that doesn't change that it's basically in the middle of an industrial park. It's interesting how even though the A's have been one of the most storied franchises in baseball history in some respects, their periods of success have been sandwiched by stretches of misery on and off the field.

What I don't get is why Atlanta and DFW decided to get on their knees and replace baseball stadiums that aren't even twenty years old. Yeah I get that the teams wanna be closer to their fan base and have a retractable roof respectively, but it's not like the Braves or Rangers would've actually moved if their cities said no. Neither would leave top ten metro areas for Montreal or Portland.

There hasn't been a large arena in San Francisco in ages. Even the Warriors played at the Cow Palace in nearby Daly City when they were named after the city.

The owners' idea is that the SF arena (Chase Center) will be the Bay Area's version of Staples Center -- downtown, big events, high ticket prices, etc.

It's probably also going to cost the city of San Jose a lot more money to keep the NHL Sharks, who can get out of their lease as early as 2026. They already used the leverage of the SF arena to renegotiate their lease so that the city has to use the Sharks' lease payments on arena maintenance and renovation, meaning that the Sharks are essentially using the arena rent-free.

(05-01-2018 08:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The owners' idea is that the SF arena (Chase Center) will be the Bay Area's version of Staples Center -- downtown, big events, high ticket prices, etc.

It's probably also going to cost the city of San Jose a lot more money to keep the NHL Sharks, who can get out of their lease as early as 2026. They already used the leverage of the SF arena to renegotiate their lease so that the city has to use the Sharks' lease payments on arena maintenance and renovation, meaning that the Sharks are essentially using the arena rent-free.

Is it be designed for hockey however? Most arenas built specifically for the NBA don't fit a hockey rink neatly so it results in a really awkward configuration (see Barclays Center). Maybe they use the new place as leverage for renovations, but moving to San Francisco would be risky business given that they'll have to compete with the Warriors for attention in a non-traditional hockey market.

(05-02-2018 06:54 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 08:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The owners' idea is that the SF arena (Chase Center) will be the Bay Area's version of Staples Center -- downtown, big events, high ticket prices, etc.

It's probably also going to cost the city of San Jose a lot more money to keep the NHL Sharks, who can get out of their lease as early as 2026. They already used the leverage of the SF arena to renegotiate their lease so that the city has to use the Sharks' lease payments on arena maintenance and renovation, meaning that the Sharks are essentially using the arena rent-free.

Is it be designed for hockey however? Most arenas built specifically for the NBA don't fit a hockey rink neatly so it results in a really awkward configuration (see Barclays Center). Maybe they use the new place as leverage for renovations, but moving to San Francisco would be risky business given that they'll have to compete with the Warriors for attention in a non-traditional hockey market.

The Sharks have already used SF as leverage to get SJ to renovate "SAP Center", the question is whether they have enough leverage to get a new arena when they decide they want one. SAP Center will be 33 years old in 2026 when the Sharks can opt out.

Another factor for the Sharks is where their season ticket holders live. The Warriors don't have that concern; they aren't moving "too far" from their base because the bulk of their season ticket holders live in the east bay, SF, or Marin. But if 3/4 of Sharks season ticket holders live in the south bay, then they're not going to risk losing their base by moving 90 minutes up the road (in traffic) to SF.