OT: Oakland A's moving to Vegas

[JimmyPlopper]

Wonder if they will rebrand at all or retain the color scheme. I always liked the green and yellow

Maybe rebrand as the Las Vegas A(ces)? White, Red and Black uniforms

Maybe like this

[Dr Aki]

Wonder if they will rebrand at all or retain the color scheme. I always liked the green and yellow

Maybe rebrand as the Las Vegas A(ces)? White, Red and Black uniforms

Maybe like this

Damn, it was already taken

Just go with the Las Vegas AAs then

[Cactus Jack]

The A's ownership has been terrible for years. I guess im going to take my baseball fanhood to another organization.

I feel ya. I was a Raiders' season ticket holder and returned them for a refund when they announced they were going to move. Not only did I stop rooting for them but I stopped being a NFL fan as well. But I love having my Sundays free!

Myself & a lot of former Sonics fans, did the same thing with the NBA. I don't blame anyone for boycotting, when a team leaves town.

[Chuck Everett]

Why would they need to change their name? The A's stands for Athletics.

[CS707]

I'm not sure how old you are but the A's were top 5ish during the bash brother years and middle of the pack during the early 2000s playoffs. The interest was there, they just opted to keep costs low and maximize their share of revenues. So badly in fact that they were cut out at one point and the players union filed a grievance against them.

The Bash Brother A's were my introduction to baseball actually.

So, a couple things:
1) Even when the A's were good (in recent memory) their attendance was trash. They made the playoffs in 2018, but were 26th in attendance. They made it again in 2019, but were 23rd in attendance. They made the playoffs (and won 2 divisions) from 2012 to 2014. Attendance? 27th, 23rd, 24th
2) Even with poor attendance a team can make money via broadcast these days. For the A's, though, that's nearly impossible because locally the Giants "own" (via, ironically, a gift from the A's) the parts of the bay area that would bring in higher broadcast rates. Regionally (e.g. central valley) it's always been pretty bifurcated as far as I can remember.

So, basically, the territorial issue that the A's have (via the Giants) makes it nearly impossible (and thus highly risky) for them to recoup any investment they make into the team (be it for salaries, a new stadium, etc). As someone who's both an A's and a Kings fan I was pissed at the Maloofs for being cheap **** back during the 2000s because there was an avenue for them to realistically break even (or better)*, but I have a hard time faulting A's ownership for cheaping out because they'd essentially be burning money with little way of making it back.

* They cheaped out because they were **** at business (think Succession-level incompetence) and had to use all available funds to keep from completely going under.

The recent "good" years everyone already knew the ceiling was limited due to a roster that had to overachieve just to compete. The damage was done. History shows they had good attendance when they were competing for titles. There is always going to be some ebb and flow based on how good a team is on a given year (the Giants were basically giving tickets away a couple of years ago) but you'd be hard pressed to find an organization that has invested less into their ability to compete. It was a financial strategy, not the ramifications of low attendance. Again, so blatant that it had to be addressed in the 2016 CBA. Fisher didn't even want the stadium so much as he wanted the real estate development plan he was trying to pork barrel into the proposal. This isn't like the Raiders were you had a "poor" owner relatively speaking that couldn't find a way to get a deal done (in large part because they A's were blocking him). Fisher had the means, he was just greedy and either wanted a deal that was completely unrealistic in Oakland or to try and secure the same type of sweetheart deal Davis got in Vegas. TL;DR, Oakland politicians suck and Fisher sucks more.

[Wadzup]

All these teams moving to Vegas is mostly about gambling money.

Vegas is a transplant city, and not that large of one at that. If these teams aren't good, people will forget about them pretty quick.

I'm sure the gambling aspect played a role, but even that may be short-sighted with more and more states legalizing sports betting.

For example, Ohio went live on Jan. 1 and there are books at both Progressive Field and Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse now. Back when it was Vegas or nothing in terms of sports betting, the gambling angle would have been huge, though also why Vegas was blackballed from getting one major sports team as recently as 5 years ago.

It's ironic that Vegas will now have three major teams and it's actually the NBA (the league that I think would fare best in Vegas) is the one missing. Vegas will likely get an NBA team soon, but Im not sure it can support teams in all four. Right now, Minneapolis is the smallest market with four and it still is nearly twice as big at the metro level (3.5 million vs. 2.2 million). Then you have much larger markets like Houston and Atlanta that only have 3. Miami is also a huge market with four, but MLB has struggled there since Miami got their team. In fact, they are second last in attendance this year, only in front of Oakland.

Personally, with no skin in the game, I would have thought Sacramento would have made a lot of sense for the As. Sacramento is the same size market as Vegas but they only have the Kings. Plus, Sacramento is just far enough from Frisco where the As could establish their own identity (other than being the other Bay Area team) but close enough where the fan base in the East Bay would be an 80 mile drive away. They could have kept some of the existing base and added Sacramento to it... there is something like 4 million people living between Oakland and Sacramento.

[Sofia]

I get it, but I don't get it.

A's had poor attendance and old stadium, owner needs a change and he's unwilling to invest into Oakland more I guess?? Whatever, Moneyball.

But why Vegas? He's gonna build an indoor stadium right ? And if it isn't a dome, it will be 110 on the field during June through September. Just seems like a bad investment location. Vegas too has some water supply issues going on, it just seems unstable for the moment.

No more SF bay-series.... sad times.

Water supply issues is BS. Vegas is one of the best at recycling their own water. Why would they keep building houses here if they are so worried about the water?

Yeah I’m sure the developers that stand to make hundreds of millions out of building houses today are really worried about water supply in a decade…

[Sofia]

They call me Joseeeeeeeeeeeee

and I’m Mark

[Cavsfansince84]

They can’t get any private funding in the Bay Area for a new stadium? The place where you can buy a 3/2 1500 sq ft house for $3M? Why

It's Oakland, not SF. Having said that, I am surprised they didn't look into moving to San Jose. That area is loaded with tech companies and probably has more people than the Oakland side of the bay.

[BostonCouchGM]

good. Besides Tampa, it's easily the worst ballpark I've ever been too. Just a horrible place to watch a game. I HATE how much foul territory there is. Nobody shows up. They'll never be competitive with how wonky salaries are in baseball now. At least in Vegas they can build an exciting park and there'll be plenty of fans to fill the seats.

[CelticSooner]

All Vegas needs now is a basketball team. Just a matter of time until they get that when the league expands.

[rpa]

They can’t get any private funding in the Bay Area for a new stadium? The place where you can buy a 3/2 1500 sq ft house for $3M? Why

It's Oakland, not SF. Having said that, I am surprised they didn't look into moving to San Jose. That area is loaded with tech companies and probably has more people than the Oakland side of the bay.

They did. The Giants stopped it because of the aforementioned territorial rights.

[jokeboy86]

All these teams moving to Vegas is mostly about gambling money.

Vegas is a transplant city, and not that large of one at that. If these teams aren't good, people will forget about them pretty quick.

I'm sure the gambling aspect played a role, but even that may be short-sighted with more and more states legalizing sports betting.

For example, Ohio went live on Jan. 1 and there are books at both Progressive Field and Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse now. Back when it was Vegas or nothing in terms of sports betting, the gambling angle would have been huge, though also why Vegas was blackballed from getting one major sports team as recently as 5 years ago.

It's ironic that Vegas will now have three major teams and it's actually the NBA (the league that I think would fare best in Vegas) is the one missing. Vegas will likely get an NBA team soon, but Im not sure it can support teams in all four. Right now, Minneapolis is the smallest market with four and it still is nearly twice as big at the metro level (3.5 million vs. 2.2 million). Then you have much larger markets like Houston and Atlanta that only have 3. Miami is also a huge market with four, but MLB has struggled there since Miami got their team. In fact, they are second last in attendance this year, only in front of Oakland.

Personally, with no skin in the game, I would have thought Sacramento would have made a lot of sense for the As. Sacramento is the same size market as Vegas but they only have the Kings. Plus, Sacramento is just far enough from Frisco where the As could establish their own identity (other than being the other Bay Area team) but close enough where the fan base in the East Bay would be an 80 mile drive away. They could have kept some of the existing base and added Sacramento to it... there is something like 4 million people living between Oakland and Sacramento.

Didn't the city of Sacramento have to pick up a large percentage of the funding for the Kings arena if so they probably don't have any more money for a MLB stadium too on their own. I'm not that familiar with CA politics but why do I have a feeling that one of the reasons these recent CA sports teams have relocated is there's simply no more money from state government to give towards these new arenas. Usually when possible its a combination of state, local, and private money(small %) that helps get an arena built but if the state says no I would imagine the burden then falls more on the county and the city the team resides in if the bulk of it doesn't come privately(which most of the time it doesn't when it comes to sports arenas). There've been a couple of CA pro sports teams who've recently gotten new arenas/stadiums and I wonder how many of them got a high percentage of public funds to fund it and how many had to pick up more of the tab with private money.

[Wadzup]

All these teams moving to Vegas is mostly about gambling money.

Vegas is a transplant city, and not that large of one at that. If these teams aren't good, people will forget about them pretty quick.

I'm sure the gambling aspect played a role, but even that may be short-sighted with more and more states legalizing sports betting.

For example, Ohio went live on Jan. 1 and there are books at both Progressive Field and Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse now. Back when it was Vegas or nothing in terms of sports betting, the gambling angle would have been huge, though also why Vegas was blackballed from getting one major sports team as recently as 5 years ago.

It's ironic that Vegas will now have three major teams and it's actually the NBA (the league that I think would fare best in Vegas) is the one missing. Vegas will likely get an NBA team soon, but Im not sure it can support teams in all four. Right now, Minneapolis is the smallest market with four and it still is nearly twice as big at the metro level (3.5 million vs. 2.2 million). Then you have much larger markets like Houston and Atlanta that only have 3. Miami is also a huge market with four, but MLB has struggled there since Miami got their team. In fact, they are second last in attendance this year, only in front of Oakland.

Personally, with no skin in the game, I would have thought Sacramento would have made a lot of sense for the As. Sacramento is the same size market as Vegas but they only have the Kings. Plus, Sacramento is just far enough from Frisco where the As could establish their own identity (other than being the other Bay Area team) but close enough where the fan base in the East Bay would be an 80 mile drive away. They could have kept some of the existing base and added Sacramento to it... there is something like 4 million people living between Oakland and Sacramento.

Didn't the city of Sacramento have to pick up a large percentage of the funding for the Kings arena if so they probably don't have any more money for a MLB stadium too on their own. I'm not that familiar with CA politics but why do I have a feeling that one of the reasons these recent CA sports teams have relocated is there's simply no more money from state government to give towards these new arenas. Usually when possible its a combination of state, local, and private money(small %) that helps get an arena built but if the state says no I would imagine the burden then falls more on the county and the city the team resides in if the bulk of it doesn't come privately(which most of the time it doesn't when it comes to sports arenas). There've been a couple of CA pro sports teams who've recently gotten new arenas/stadiums and I wonder how many of them got a high percentage of public funds to fund it and how many had to pick up more of the tab with private money.

Yeah, there is probably something to that public funding angle because I believe that all the stadiums/arenas built since the Kings have been if not 100 percent, nearlt 100 percent privately financed. Then again, those have all been in metro LA, SF or ultra rich Santa Clara, so I'm sure an easier sell for investors to foot the bills in those areas rather than Oakland or Sacramento. IIR, even San Diego had that issue (and SD is a large and wealthy market) and why the Chargers left since if something is gonna be privately developed makes more sense to do that in LA vs. San Diego.

For Vegas, I wonder how much of the stadium that will be built there will come out of public funds? I'm guessing a decent amount, even if it's indirectly pushing tourism revenues toward a stadium that would otherwise have went in some other budget. I haven't read anything about the Vegas deal but it could be another thing that IMO could backfire if they are banking on future tourism revenues to help fund the physical stadium. And If they are gonna privately finance the entire thing in Vegas, I would argue again they would be better off doing the same in Sacramento.

[BoogieTime]

intentionally dropping this while the warriors play their first home game?

[jehosafats]

All these teams moving to Vegas is mostly about gambling money.

Vegas is a transplant city, and not that large of one at that. If these teams aren't good, people will forget about them pretty quick.

I'm sure the gambling aspect played a role, but even that may be short-sighted with more and more states legalizing sports betting.

For example, Ohio went live on Jan. 1 and there are books at both Progressive Field and Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse now. Back when it was Vegas or nothing in terms of sports betting, the gambling angle would have been huge, though also why Vegas was blackballed from getting one major sports team as recently as 5 years ago.

It's ironic that Vegas will now have three major teams and it's actually the NBA (the league that I think would fare best in Vegas) is the one missing. Vegas will likely get an NBA team soon, but Im not sure it can support teams in all four. Right now, Minneapolis is the smallest market with four and it still is nearly twice as big at the metro level (3.5 million vs. 2.2 million). Then you have much larger markets like Houston and Atlanta that only have 3. Miami is also a huge market with four, but MLB has struggled there since Miami got their team. In fact, they are second last in attendance this year, only in front of Oakland.

Personally, with no skin in the game, I would have thought Sacramento would have made a lot of sense for the As. Sacramento is the same size market as Vegas but they only have the Kings. Plus, Sacramento is just far enough from Frisco where the As could establish their own identity (other than being the other Bay Area team) but close enough where the fan base in the East Bay would be an 80 mile drive away. They could have kept some of the existing base and added Sacramento to it... there is something like 4 million people living between Oakland and Sacramento.

Jose Fernandez was the future

[Dozer!]

Kinda funny how people are missing the mark with teams moving to Vegas, they are not moving here for the locals, it’s for the tourists wanting to see their team play in Vegas.

[DaPessimist]

I followed the Raiders to Vegas. I'll follow the A's to Vegas.

I haven't lived in the Bay Area for a long time, so I don't really have a geographical attachment.

My brother swapped to the Rams and Dodgers when he moved to SoCal... maybe I should have followed.

[BayAreaDub]

Wow it’s finally here. Actually shed a few tears.

Growing up an A’s, Raiders, and Warriors fan was so sick.

Can’t believe they’ll all be gone now

2/3 due to poor ownership and poor local leadership

Going to be a giant homeless encampment there shortly.

Oh how times change

[MarcusBrody]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Another blackeye for professional sports.

Why is it a blackeye, Oakland's attendance has been **** for yrs on yr on end. I don't get why leagues try to keep sports teams in cities that don't want/support em. Arizona in hockey is the thing

Well considering the Raiders had the #30 home attendance last year AFTER moving. The question becomes ‘why are the A’s talking about attendance’

Nobody is flying to LV to watch the A’s… if the ownership cared about attendance, they would’ve moved to an actual destination. The A’s just like 20% of the NBA &MLB just need to go away. Nobody cares. Just a watered down product.

The Raiders stadium was 95.5% full last year while having BY FAR the most expensive tickets if you were trying to buy them on the secondary market. The average Raiders ticket went for over $500. The next closest team - thr Patriots - went for $360. Vegas has no issues with filling Allegiant.