Oakland looking at minor league ballparks for a temporary home

[DJL44]

The Athletics have sufficiently burned their bridges in Oakland so they're looking for a minor league ballpark to play in until their new stadium is built in Las Vegas. Right now the focus seems to be on a 7500-seat stadium in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. 

Oakland A’s Las Vegas move could include stop in Salt Lake City | Athletics | Sports (reviewjournal.com)

We could see the A's get out-drawn by a AAA team in the same city. This is, frankly, embarrassing for major league baseball. It would make more sense to me to play in a spring training facility and relocate a minor league team for a couple years rather than having big league teams play in a minor league park. Another option that makes sense is playing at the site of the College World Series in Omaha. 

They're still looking at Sacramento, which has one of the larger AAA stadiums (15,000 seats) and a fairly decent contingent of A's fans. That would be my preference but I don't have a dog in this fight.

[Parfigliano]

My dog in this fight wants some A's games in the home of the Albuquerque Isotopes.  Preferably against the Twins.  I'll settle for the Mets.

[chpettit19]

Super embarrassing for MLB. But I hope it's what has to happen. I hope Oakland tells them "thanks, but no thanks" to extending their time there beyond this season.

[Riverbrian]

I actually made this suggestion for Oakland 3,4 or 5 years ago. I was joking when I made the suggestion however... maybe it is becoming reality. 

My joke suggestion was:

The Oakland A's move to Las Vegas. While waiting for the stadium to be built... They temporarily move to Salt Lake City and become the Salt Lake City Bee's. The Bee's are the name of their minor league team.  

They go from being the A's to the B's and when they get to Las Vegas... they can be the C's.

C's, Seas, Sees. 

Being serious now in 2024

Salt Lake City would be perfect... It's a larger minor league ballpark and Utah would be a natural geographical expansion to the Nevada market. By playing in SLC for a couple of years they can grow a fan base in Utah giving them Nevada and Utah as territory. They keep the Vegas minor league team until the stadium is built and when it ready... they just switch. 

Of course... the Angels would probably have to be paid a little something to give up SLC as their AAA home. The Angels can take the cash and set up AAA home closer to home like the Twins are set up with St. Paul. Their team in the California League San Bernandino for example could be the Angels new AAA affiliate.

The Angels might like that geographical accessibility. I'm sure the Twins, Braves, Astros, Red Sox and Mariners like having AAA close by.  

Yeah... they should get out of Oakland as soon as possible. Just get out of town as quickly as possible. Do the temporary home thing until the stadium is built. If they do decide to try and hang around Oakland until the stadium is built... Oakland should tell them to pound sand. There is no reason to keep that toxic relationship.  

What a great idea I had... way back whenever it was. 

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Salt Lake City would be perfect... It's a larger minor league ballpark and Utah would be a natural geographical expansion to the Nevada market. By playing in SLC for a couple of years they can grow a fan base in Utah giving them Nevada and Utah as territory. They keep the Vegas minor league team until the stadium is built and when it ready... they just switch. 

The plan is to keep the Bees in Salt Lake City in their current 15,000 seat stadium and stick the A's in their new suburban stadium that seats 7500.

[Riverbrian]

18 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The plan is to keep the Bees in Salt Lake City in their current 15,000 seat stadium and stick the A's in their new suburban stadium that seats 7500.

Bummer

I like the A's going to the B's idea. 

[tony&rodney]

No reason for the Angels to agree to anything for the A's. 

[DJL44]

I saw today on MLB Trade Rumors that one of the factors in the Athletics search for where to play in 2025-27 is their $70M TV deal which goes away if they leave the Bay Area.

How did the A's negotiate a better TV deal than the Twins?

[Dave Borton]

On 1/22/2024 at 11:19 AM, Riverbrian said:

Bummer

I like the A's going to the B's idea. 

I like the "D's." Dummies.
1. City of Oakland
2. Fisher
3. City of Las Vegas
4. MLB Owners

This could not have been messed up any more if they tried. Metro areas clamoring for ball and they have themselves tied in knots. I have never seen anything like it in pro sports.

[tony&rodney]

33 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

How did the A's negotiate a better TV deal than the Twins?

Bigger market.

[Riverbrian]

8 minutes ago, davidborton said:

I like the "D's." Dummies.
1. City of Oakland
2. Fisher
3. City of Las Vegas
4. MLB Owners

This could not have been messed up any more if they tried. Metro areas clamoring for ball and they have themselves tied in knots. I have never seen anything like it in pro sports.

There is a lot that goes into these things and there is no way that I can sit and judge anything from my chair... I always assume that money is driving the bus though and I'm sure this is no different.  

I've made one trip to Oakland to watch a game. My opinion has very little value because it was one trip. 

But here it comes my opinion anyway. 😉

I've been to 24 different cities to watch games. That's 24 different stadiums to compare and contrast with.

The worst experience was by far Oakland and it isn't particularly close. The worst stadium in the worst city in my comparison with the other stadiums that I have also visited just one time.

The blocks surrounding the stadium are garbage strewn, I'm not talking about a couple of McDonalds bags, I'm talking you can't see the sidewalk because of all the garbage piled up. Detroit in my opinion isn't a very impressive city overall but Detroit manages to clean up the area surrounding the stadium at least.

Once you get inside the stadium... it serves it's purpose... you can play a baseball game on the field and there are 62,000 seats so you can watch a game just like the other stadiums.

However, it was built in 1966 without any charm that exists in the older stadiums like Fenway, Wrigley, Kaufman or even Dodger Stadium.

It operates like it was built in 1966... It's a multi level of tight circled concourses and it simply doesn't have the additional revenue opportunities that the new stadiums like Truist Park provides in Atlanta.       

I generally don't like the idea of franchises leaving cities. When the North Stars left Minnesota... it hurt and it knocked me out of the NHL for awhile but if the city of Oakland won't help improve the situation... another city is going to. The Raiders, the Warriors and the A's have all left or are about to leave Oakland and I'm willing to bet that the city of Oakland wasn't able or was stopping short of doing what is necessary to keep them all in town.

Some will say... good for them standing up to those owners shaking them down for taxpayer money. I can understand that but in the end... the city has gone from 3 teams to zero in a fairly quick period of time. 

Enter Las Vegas... ready to provide what Oakland wouldn't... It just works that way. 

Anyway... Oakland. My trip there... it was surprisingly sub par. I'm heading to St. Petersburg this year to watch the Rays. Maybe Tropicana can challenge Oakland for the worst baseball experience. I can't wait to find out. 

  

[tony&rodney]

MLB should not be giving Fisher a penny for any reason. Other sports have forced out better owners than Fisher. Fisher, Manfred and MLB have created a travesty with the As. 

On a related but slightly different note - how well will Vegas actually support baseball? Smaller market, very hot, the main business is gambling which is a nighttime activity for tourists, and a growing water crisis among other problems. Many believe Vegas will be a good move for baseball. Football works because they play a very limited schedule once per week. Hockey plays in a smaller venue inside. I don't see Vegas working out for MLB. 

[Dave Borton]

15 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Maybe Tropicana can challenge Oakland for the worst baseball experience. I can't wait to find out. 

It just may. Been there, got the stub.

[Dave Borton]

16 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

There is a lot that goes into these things and there is no way that I can sit and judge anything from my chair... I always assume that money is driving the bus though and I'm sure this is no different.  

 

This tops it all ... Carolyn Goodman, Mayor of Las Vegas, on a sports clip the other eve:

"“I personally think they've got to figure out a way to stay in Oakland and make their dream come true.”

[Riverbrian]

13 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

MLB should not be giving Fisher a penny for any reason. Other sports have forced out better owners than Fisher. Fisher, Manfred and MLB have created a travesty with the As. 

On a related but slightly different note - how well will Vegas actually support baseball? Smaller market, very hot, the main business is gambling which is a nighttime activity for tourists, and a growing water crisis among other problems. Many believe Vegas will be a good move for baseball. Football works because they play a very limited schedule once per week. Hockey plays in a smaller venue inside. I don't see Vegas working out for MLB. 

Las Vegas is a destination city.

It has been suggested that Vegas could have more away team fans then home fans. I'm stretching I know but there is a road team attendance bump that other cities don't have. 

The modern revenue streams of the new stadium are something that I'm unaware of but I'm sure that they are part of the deal.  These billionaires are aware of them and Fisher is going to make money off of this otherwise there is no point.  

[Riverbrian]

9 minutes ago, davidborton said:

This tops it all ... Carolyn Goodman, Mayor of Las Vegas, on a sports clip the other eve:

"“I personally think they've got to figure out a way to stay in Oakland and make their dream come true.”

Yeah... She back tracked and reclarified as quickly as possible.

She is going to get raked over the coals by other powerful people working toward making this happen. 

Politicians can't say what they really think publicly... That never plays well and she is going to feel this one.  

[nicksaviking]

15 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Las Vegas is a destination city.

It has been suggested that Vegas could have more away team fans then home fans. I'm stretching I know but there is a road team attendance bump that other cities don't have. 

The modern revenue streams of the new stadium are something that I'm unaware of but I'm sure that they are part of the deal.  These billionaires are aware of them and Fisher is going to make money off of this otherwise there is no point.  

Not in July and August when it's 110 degrees.

And while plenty of football and hockey fans like to make a weekend of it and go out to watch a game in Vegas during the cold months, few people will be planning a baseball trip in July to roast in hell. And the Raiders have NO local fans, the entire stadium is filled with fans of the opposing teams. No way the A's will be filling that stadium with 30K out of towners three times a week. After the novelty wears off in half a decade, that stadium will be deader than the one in Oakland. Nashville A's come 2040.

And also:

Oakland looking at minor league ballparks for a temporary home

What's the big deal? Aren't they a minor league team?

 

Really disappointed the board didn't pounce on that teed up cheap shot.

[tony&rodney]

8 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Las Vegas is a destination city.

It has been suggested that Vegas could have more away team fans then home fans. I'm stretching I know but there is a road team attendance bump that other cities don't have. 

The modern revenue streams of the new stadium are something that I'm unaware of but I'm sure that they are part of the deal.  These billionaires are aware of them and Fisher is going to make money off of this otherwise there is no point.  

I would not be surprised if it all fell apart. I read that the plan is to build a retractable dome stadium on a footprint only slightly (less than an acre) larger than Target Field. There are lawsuits already because rules were ignored passing some deals. It will all come to a conclusion eventually. I see a team in Vegas as a drain on MLB revenue. The Bay Area has been quite a financial bonus to teams knowing how to do business. The Giants make a ton of money and they paid for their stadium themsleves. Fisher is bad news. Lastly, why should MLB support the As in the 3-5 years they play somewhere with small crowds and a much reduced media deal? The current deal for the As is $70 million per year, but does not transfer if they move. This would literally take money from future Twins payrolls. 

[nicksaviking]

10 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I would not be surprised if it all fell apart. I read that the plan is to build a retractable dome stadium on a footprint only slightly (less than an acre) larger than Target Field. There are lawsuits already because rules were ignored passing some deals. It will all come to a conclusion eventually. I see a team in Vegas as a drain on MLB revenue. The Bay Area has been quite a financial bonus to teams knowing how to do business. The Giants make a ton of money and they paid for their stadium themsleves. Fisher is bad news. Lastly, why should MLB support the As in the 3-5 years they play somewhere with small crowds and a much reduced media deal? The current deal for the As is $70 million per year, but does not transfer if they move. This would literally take money from future Twins payrolls. 

The Tropicana site is more than big enough for a modern urban setting stadium. And there are dozens of unused parking ramps on the East side of the strip because nobody drives there anymore; LV has direct flights to just about every big, medium and even small hubs in the country now. However, I agree with the rest. Like most of MLB's decisions as of late, this is really short sighted.

Unless the ultimate secret goal is for this to be a short term money grab knowing that once again, there will need to be a team to relocate in the next decade. MLB has gotten so many new stadiums done this century just by having one or two teams as a threat to relocate. Certainly they'll always want at least one of those in their pocket. 

[Riverbrian]

17 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Not in July and August when it's 110 degrees.

And while plenty of football and hockey fans like to make a weekend of it and go out to watch a game in Vegas during the cold months, few people will be planning a baseball trip in July to roast in hell. And the Raiders have NO local fans, the entire stadium is filled with fans of the opposing teams. No way the A's will be filling that stadium with 30K out of towners three times a week. After the novelty wears off in half a decade, that stadium will be deader than the one in Oakland. Nashville A's come 2040.

And also:

Oakland looking at minor league ballparks for a temporary home

What's the big deal? Aren't they a minor league team?

 

Really disappointed the board didn't pounce on that teed up cheap shot.

I haven't seen tourism numbers for Vegas by month so I'm not capable of getting in depth. I agree that there is probably a summer downtick. However...  3.5 million visitors every year... they are still coming in the summer.  

However... I will ask that you go back to the part where I said that "I am stretching". Anyway... they will have a road team fan uptick that other clubs won't have... even in what just might be a summer tourism downtick. 

How dead will the stadium be after the novelty? Who knows. But if they move... it's for financial reasons that I'm reasonably certain of.  

[tony&rodney]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

While the Tropicana site is more than big enough for a modern urban setting stadium.

I have never been to Las Vegas. I read an article that stated that the site in Vegas was a half acre larger than Target Field which is currently the smallest site for a baseball stadium. Was there room to put a fully retractable roof on Target Field? I don't know this information. Target Field seems pretty tight. It seems the writer of the article i read was off on the Vegas site information.

[Riverbrian]

20 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I would not be surprised if it all fell apart. I read that the plan is to build a retractable dome stadium on a footprint only slightly (less than an acre) larger than Target Field. There are lawsuits already because rules were ignored passing some deals. It will all come to a conclusion eventually. I see a team in Vegas as a drain on MLB revenue. The Bay Area has been quite a financial bonus to teams knowing how to do business. The Giants make a ton of money and they paid for their stadium themsleves. Fisher is bad news. Lastly, why should MLB support the As in the 3-5 years they play somewhere with small crowds and a much reduced media deal? The current deal for the As is $70 million per year, but does not transfer if they move. This would literally take money from future Twins payrolls. 

The Mayor's comments do suggest that this thing is not a done deal. 

However... I don't think MLB is that worried about a reduced media deal. The current media deal model is going away. 

I have no idea because I'm just a guy in North Dakota but I would not put it past MLB or any of the owners of MLB franchises to use Las Vegas as leverage to get what they want in Oakland. 

Could be just a new version of the Pohlad's contracting the Twins for new ball park leverage. Who knows. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

John Fisher's current strategy of relocating the Oakland Athletics:

 

[nicksaviking]

30 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I have never been to Las Vegas. I read an article that stated that the site in Vegas was a half acre larger than Target Field which is currently the smallest site for a baseball stadium. Was there room to put a fully retractable roof on Target Field? I don't know this information. Target Field seems pretty tight. It seems the writer of the article i read was off on the Vegas site information.

That might just be the stadium footprint they are talking about along with whatever redevelopment they want to add. Just using a map tool I have, the lot that Tropicana is on is 4x larger than the footprint of Target Field.

Even if they keep the hotel and just demo some of the mall and convention spots, half of that lot is just pavement so I'm guessing engineering a retractable roof won't be beyond a handful of bright minds. No way they're doing a fully out door stadium with that heat.

[bean5302]

Honestly, lots of strong opinions from folks who haven't spent 10 minutes researching the situation. I've been to several games at the Coliseum, including Twins @ A's when I was living out there. I don't think the my stadium experience was nearly as bad as Riverbrian's, but it wasn't good despite an obvious push by the owners to renovate and improve the Coliseum amenities. The AREA around the Coliseum is exactly as described. It's a dirty, garbage pile of an industrial zoned area. Think like what the area along the east side of I-94 just north of West Broadway, but 1/2 as built up, and much more run down, and from 20 years ago. A dump. There is nothing around the site. Metal recycling scrapyard types of places and empty lots.

Fisher has been the sole owner since 2016.
Fisher and Wolff were the owners from 2005-2015.
Schott and Hofmann were the owners from 1995-2004, acquiring the team after massive losses associated with the 1994 strike, declining attendance by 1993 after the 1989-1990 World Series appearance years and Haas' fading health.
*1992 This is when Haas, Jr. gave away a huge section of territorial rights to the SF Giants, including San Jose to facilitate their new stadium drive, which was not successful in the South Bay. This is also the last time the A's were at or above MLB average attendance.
Haas, Jr. was the owner from 1980-1994, buying the team to block it moving to Denver, but they operated with huge losses every year until 1988, where the A's broke even and the 72 year old Haas' time was limited.

A new stadium search for the A's began almost immediately after Schott & Hofmann purchased the Athletics, with the franchise losing money almost every single year Haas, Jr. had owned it. The SF Giants had been granted a huge territorial rights bonus and were just about to get a new stadium deal (1996, opening stadium 2000) after playing in Candlestick (which was also kind of in the middle of nowhere). Lew Wolff was hired to try and find locations and the A's owners were already dealing with failures and complications to replace the non-viable Coliseum by 1998.

The Bay Area residents, local governments, and the San Francisco Giants blocked a half dozen stadium deals for over 25 years. The A's routinely operated at 50% losses under Haas, Jr. and he further gave away rights which crippled the Athletics' ability to source new revenues and stadium sites, and he then sold the team almost immediately after. That is what the recent 3 ownership groups have been dealing with.

Attendance at the Athletics games is terrible. It's been terrible for decades, and was below average even after the Athletics made the playoffs 4 consecutive years into the early 2000s when the financial environment for baseball was very different and the Coliseum wasn't necessarily the absolute worst stadium in baseball. It 100% is now. Without any room for reasonable debate. It's facilities are often overshadowed by low minors teams and the actual site is totally dilapidated, even if it wasn't in an industrial zone.

[Mike Sixel]

It's hard to believe in an era when cities give money away, this owner can't pull it off....

[tony&rodney]

19 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Honestly, lots of strong opinions from folks who haven't spent 10 minutes researching the situation.

There wasn't any reason for this statement. The rest of your article is correct and largely known information by those who have followed this debacle for years and interested.

If an owner won't invest money in a team why should a city? Yet, cities routinely just hand over billions to billionaires for their businesses, thus Fisher is not exactly motivated to go it alone, is he? Oakland wants something solid in return for development of the Howard Terminal area, which seems reasonable. Fisher wants a deal like what Atlanta received. MLB has exasperated the problem by funneling money to an owner in a market that could support baseball. The As have a decent media contract in place, which cannot be replaced in Vegas. Agree on the neighborhood but counter with the neighborhood around Yankee Stadium, which is better by a bit. Still there are cities like St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee, and others that deal with crime, garbage, and a host of problems. Oakland is not a paradise, but the Oakland situation is a classic case of a lack of communication and cooperation combined with negligence on the part of MLB.

The bottom line is that a resolution in Oakland, no matter how difficult,  is better for baseball. I see MLB sending money forever to a team located in Las Vegas. Others will disagree and that is fine. All speculation on my end, but based on hours and hours of research, which does not make it a fact.

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

She is going to get raked over the coals by other powerful people working toward making this happen. 

Politicians can't say what they really think publicly... That never plays well and she is going to feel this one.  

Why?  She's absolutely right, cities should not be subsidizing billionaire owners.  

[Mike Sixel]

15 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Why?  She's absolutely right, cities should not be subsidizing billionaire owners.  

True, but that doesn't change the fact it doesn't usually go well when politicians admit that 

[Riverbrian]

48 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Why?  She's absolutely right, cities should not be subsidizing billionaire owners.  

Your comment will get no substantial argument from me on the surface under the simple consideration of fair is fair. I really wish things wasn't so but... they have indeed been so... to my knowledge for as long as I have been alive.    

We all know... let me rephrase that... we all should know by now that this type of thing happens all the time and it isn't just sport franchises.   

If Oakland, Alameda County or the State of California doesn't want to provide incentive to the A's to stay. Some city, county or state without a team will. If you own a team and Oakland isn't willing to entice you to stay and Memphis is willing to give you the sun, the moon and the stars. Why would you stay in Oakland and get nothing? Why would you give up the Sun... The Moon... The Stars?    

When Amazon wants to build a massive distribution facility in a certain area. Local officials of every population center in the footprint are going to compete against each other to get that facility built in their home town. Cash Grants, Rebates, Tax Credits and whatever sweet thing they can offer on the table or under the table. Those decision makers at Amazon are not stupid. They are going to build in Beloit Wisconsin because they are providing significant financial incentive to build in Beloit meanwhile down the road in Janesville... they are taking your stance and offering nothing... because fair is fair.

Beloit gets the facility, 1,000 plus jobs, they grow their tax base, they have nicer schools and roads. while the residents of Janesville move to Beloit, because all the jobs are in Beloit, the schools are better and the pot holes in Janesville are ruining the suspension on cars they already can't afford because they are unemployed since the cheese factory closed down and moved to a brand new facility in Oconomowoc subsidized by local officials who are deciding how to spend that tax money.     

We can all sit back and applaud the decision makers for taking a hard stance against the MAN. I mean fair is fair after all. However, when it is all said and done. Oakland will be team less, Amazon is going to build in Berkeley. There will be no reason for anyone to visit the garbage strewn streets of Oakland unless they entice Disney to build a massive theme park and the economy just keeps sinking and sinking and sinking and sinking.