OT: Oakland A's moving to Vegas

[sjballer03]

Is there pics of the new stadium? Otherwise I dont think they actually play there until 2027

Ya, from the article linked in here The club announced it had reached an agreement to acquire land near the famous street of casinos and hopes to begin playing games in a new billion-dollar retractable roof stadium there by the 2027 season.

They were hinting that they would come earlier if the MLB let them, and that they'd play here:

Im having trouble googling, but is it really that hot at 7PM? I would think it would actually be decent weather once the game starts and you are in the 2nd-3rd inning. Honestly have no idea.

Would be a good summer attraction where it gives a family friendly thing to do at night.

In peak summer it's still pretty hot at 7 pm. I live in Texas and some nights it doesn't drop below 80 degrees.

[SNPA]

Oakland losing a NBA, NFL & MLB team in recent memory is wild

It's really sad, but we have to keep in mind what's happening in California's battles between city populations.

There was a time when Oakland was actually the 2nd largest city in California (behind San Francisco). Where is it now?

1. Los Angeles
2. San Diego
3. San Jose
4. San Francisco
5. Fresno
6. Sacramento
7. Long Beach
8. Oakland

The most critical rivalry here is between Oakland and San Jose as the 2nd most important city in the Bay Area. Suffice to say that San Jose is MUCH more important than Oakland now - more than double the population, and a wealthier population with all that Silicon Valley money.

Realistically, if you were creating a new sports league now and you were looking to put teams in the biggest markets, you would never consider even consider Oakland.

Again, I'm sad about Oakland losing it's teams and in general I really tend to cheer for those small markets with long histories (Go Packers!), but this is what happens when a city loses ground to other cities.

A couple other notes:

1. Oakland's initial rise to prominence came as a result of it being the natural train stop on the east side of the Bay before you brought things over to San Francisco. Now that San Francisco isn't as significant, airplanes exist, and much of the sea trade is focused down in LA/Long Beach, we'd expect Oakland's importance to fall off as well even without the rise of Silicon Valley as the most successful of the Bay area suburbs.

2. Anaheim is 10th on the list and it can make you wonder why they are getting teams. In a nutshell it's because "Anaheim" represents Orange County which used to be a part of LA county. While no one city there is big enough on its own to warrant a major sports team, the County on the whole does. There are two cities that historically dominated the OC - Anaheim & Santa Ana - and then Disney built Disneyland in Anaheim and sought to promote the Anaheim name giving it preeminent status in circles such as these. (Incidentally Irvine is arguably the city with the greatest power in the county going forward, but Anaheim's place as the sporting focal point of the county seems unlikely to be challenged.)

The list is a bit misleading. Fresno isn’t that big by metro population, it’s well smaller than Sac metro population.

For sports teams in California it’s by metros:

LA metro (including Orange Co)
Bay Area (SF/SJ/Oak)
San Diego
Sacramento

It’s just a matter of how you divide up the leagues amongst and within those metros. With the Bay having three real options each league has to pick how to be represented. The Bay could easily handle two NBA teams and has supported two MLB and NFL teams but one city is always going to be left out.

Moving the A’s to Vegas seems like a poor choice to me. If it really can’t work in Oakland or somewhere East Bay, and the Giants won’t let SJ happen, the natural place to go is Sac. Between the existing East Bay fan base and consolidating the Central Valley the A’s would have an extremely solid base. Moving to Vegas doesn’t offer that size of a built in, lives near by, guaranteed fan base.

[Pelon chingon]

Oakland losing a NBA, NFL & MLB team in recent memory is wild

It's really sad, but we have to keep in mind what's happening in California's battles between city populations.

There was a time when Oakland was actually the 2nd largest city in California (behind San Francisco). Where is it now?

1. Los Angeles
2. San Diego
3. San Jose
4. San Francisco
5. Fresno
6. Sacramento
7. Long Beach
8. Oakland

The most critical rivalry here is between Oakland and San Jose as the 2nd most important city in the Bay Area. Suffice to say that San Jose is MUCH more important than Oakland now - more than double the population, and a wealthier population with all that Silicon Valley money.

Realistically, if you were creating a new sports league now and you were looking to put teams in the biggest markets, you would never consider even consider Oakland.

Again, I'm sad about Oakland losing it's teams and in general I really tend to cheer for those small markets with long histories (Go Packers!), but this is what happens when a city loses ground to other cities.

A couple other notes:

1. Oakland's initial rise to prominence came as a result of it being the natural train stop on the east side of the Bay before you brought things over to San Francisco. Now that San Francisco isn't as significant, airplanes exist, and much of the sea trade is focused down in LA/Long Beach, we'd expect Oakland's importance to fall off as well even without the rise of Silicon Valley as the most successful of the Bay area suburbs.

2. Anaheim is 10th on the list and it can make you wonder why they are getting teams. In a nutshell it's because "Anaheim" represents Orange County which used to be a part of LA county. While no one city there is big enough on its own to warrant a major sports team, the County on the whole does. There are two cities that historically dominated the OC - Anaheim & Santa Ana - and then Disney built Disneyland in Anaheim and sought to promote the Anaheim name giving it preeminent status in circles such as these. (Incidentally Irvine is arguably the city with the greatest power in the county going forward, but Anaheim's place as the sporting focal point of the county seems unlikely to be challenged.)

The list is a bit misleading. Fresno isn’t that big by metro population, it’s well smaller than Sac metro population.

For sports teams in California it’s by metros:

LA metro (including Orange Co)
Bay Area (SF/SJ/Oak)
San Diego
Sacramento

It’s just a matter of how you divide up the leagues amongst and within those metros. With the Bay having three real options each league has to pick how to be represented. The Bay could easily handle two NBA teams and has supported two MLB and NFL teams but one city is always going to be left out.

Moving the A’s to Vegas seems like a poor choice to me. If it really can’t work in Oakland or somewhere East Bay, and the Giants won’t let SJ happen, the natural place to go is Sac. Between the existing East Bay fan base and consolidating the Central Valley the A’s would have an extremely solid base. Moving to Vegas doesn’t offer that size of a built in, lives near by, guaranteed fan base.

I agree, they will regret not choosing a more sustainable market like Sacramento for baseball.

[Doctor MJ]

Oakland losing a NBA, NFL & MLB team in recent memory is wild

It's really sad, but we have to keep in mind what's happening in California's battles between city populations.

There was a time when Oakland was actually the 2nd largest city in California (behind San Francisco). Where is it now?

1. Los Angeles
2. San Diego
3. San Jose
4. San Francisco
5. Fresno
6. Sacramento
7. Long Beach
8. Oakland

The most critical rivalry here is between Oakland and San Jose as the 2nd most important city in the Bay Area. Suffice to say that San Jose is MUCH more important than Oakland now - more than double the population, and a wealthier population with all that Silicon Valley money.

Realistically, if you were creating a new sports league now and you were looking to put teams in the biggest markets, you would never consider even consider Oakland.

Again, I'm sad about Oakland losing it's teams and in general I really tend to cheer for those small markets with long histories (Go Packers!), but this is what happens when a city loses ground to other cities.

A couple other notes:

1. Oakland's initial rise to prominence came as a result of it being the natural train stop on the east side of the Bay before you brought things over to San Francisco. Now that San Francisco isn't as significant, airplanes exist, and much of the sea trade is focused down in LA/Long Beach, we'd expect Oakland's importance to fall off as well even without the rise of Silicon Valley as the most successful of the Bay area suburbs.

2. Anaheim is 10th on the list and it can make you wonder why they are getting teams. In a nutshell it's because "Anaheim" represents Orange County which used to be a part of LA county. While no one city there is big enough on its own to warrant a major sports team, the County on the whole does. There are two cities that historically dominated the OC - Anaheim & Santa Ana - and then Disney built Disneyland in Anaheim and sought to promote the Anaheim name giving it preeminent status in circles such as these. (Incidentally Irvine is arguably the city with the greatest power in the county going forward, but Anaheim's place as the sporting focal point of the county seems unlikely to be challenged.)

The list is a bit misleading. Fresno isn’t that big by metro population, it’s well smaller than Sac metro population.

For sports teams in California it’s by metros:

LA metro (including Orange Co)
Bay Area (SF/SJ/Oak)
San Diego
Sacramento

It’s just a matter of how you divide up the leagues amongst and within those metros. With the Bay having three real options each league has to pick how to be represented. The Bay could easily handle two NBA teams and has supported two MLB and NFL teams but one city is always going to be left out.

Moving the A’s to Vegas seems like a poor choice to me. If it really can’t work in Oakland or somewhere East Bay, and the Giants won’t let SJ happen, the natural place to go is Sac. Between the existing East Bay fan base and consolidating the Central Valley the A’s would have an extremely solid base. Moving to Vegas doesn’t offer that size of a built in, lives near by, guaranteed fan base.

This is true, but let me put it like this:

The Bay Area is large enough for 2 teams.
The 2 major modern cities of the Bay Area are San Francisco & San Jose. Both much bigger and much richer than Oakland.
And this has everything to do with why Oakland is losing teams, even if they aren't literally moving to San Jose.

[Doctor MJ]

It's really sad, but we have to keep in mind what's happening in California's battles between city populations.

There was a time when Oakland was actually the 2nd largest city in California (behind San Francisco). Where is it now?

1. Los Angeles
2. San Diego
3. San Jose
4. San Francisco
5. Fresno
6. Sacramento
7. Long Beach
8. Oakland

The most critical rivalry here is between Oakland and San Jose as the 2nd most important city in the Bay Area. Suffice to say that San Jose is MUCH more important than Oakland now - more than double the population, and a wealthier population with all that Silicon Valley money.

Realistically, if you were creating a new sports league now and you were looking to put teams in the biggest markets, you would never consider even consider Oakland.

Again, I'm sad about Oakland losing it's teams and in general I really tend to cheer for those small markets with long histories (Go Packers!), but this is what happens when a city loses ground to other cities.

A couple other notes:

1. Oakland's initial rise to prominence came as a result of it being the natural train stop on the east side of the Bay before you brought things over to San Francisco. Now that San Francisco isn't as significant, airplanes exist, and much of the sea trade is focused down in LA/Long Beach, we'd expect Oakland's importance to fall off as well even without the rise of Silicon Valley as the most successful of the Bay area suburbs.

2. Anaheim is 10th on the list and it can make you wonder why they are getting teams. In a nutshell it's because "Anaheim" represents Orange County which used to be a part of LA county. While no one city there is big enough on its own to warrant a major sports team, the County on the whole does. There are two cities that historically dominated the OC - Anaheim & Santa Ana - and then Disney built Disneyland in Anaheim and sought to promote the Anaheim name giving it preeminent status in circles such as these. (Incidentally Irvine is arguably the city with the greatest power in the county going forward, but Anaheim's place as the sporting focal point of the county seems unlikely to be challenged.)

The list is a bit misleading. Fresno isn’t that big by metro population, it’s well smaller than Sac metro population.

For sports teams in California it’s by metros:

LA metro (including Orange Co)
Bay Area (SF/SJ/Oak)
San Diego
Sacramento

It’s just a matter of how you divide up the leagues amongst and within those metros. With the Bay having three real options each league has to pick how to be represented. The Bay could easily handle two NBA teams and has supported two MLB and NFL teams but one city is always going to be left out.

Moving the A’s to Vegas seems like a poor choice to me. If it really can’t work in Oakland or somewhere East Bay, and the Giants won’t let SJ happen, the natural place to go is Sac. Between the existing East Bay fan base and consolidating the Central Valley the A’s would have an extremely solid base. Moving to Vegas doesn’t offer that size of a built in, lives near by, guaranteed fan base.

I agree, they will regret not choosing a more sustainable market like Sacramento for baseball.

While I think Vegas has weather issues, I frankly wouldn't see Sacramento as even a candidate for a major new sports team, and the only thing keeping a team in Sacramento right now is a community fight to keep the Kings along with the fact that the NBA is ripe for expansion.

[eminence]

This is true, but let me put it like this:

The Bay Area is large enough for 2 teams.
The 2 major modern cities of the Bay Area are San Francisco & San Jose. Both much bigger and much richer than Oakland.
And this has everything to do with why Oakland is losing teams, even if they aren't literally moving to San Jose.

I could be wrong, but to me the only two areas in the US big/wealthy enough to well support two teams in the same league are NYC/LA.

The Bay is in that next tier with Chicago/DC/Dallas.

[Doctor MJ]

This is true, but let me put it like this:

The Bay Area is large enough for 2 teams.
The 2 major modern cities of the Bay Area are San Francisco & San Jose. Both much bigger and much richer than Oakland.
And this has everything to do with why Oakland is losing teams, even if they aren't literally moving to San Jose.

I could be wrong, but to me the only two areas in the US big/wealthy enough to well support two teams in the same league are NYC/LA.

The Bay is in that next tier with Chicago/DC/Dallas.

Excellent thing to consider.

So here's the thing, when we look at metro areas, San Jose is not grouped in with San Francisco (whereas Oakland, which is closer to SF, is). If we do group them together and take the GDP of the entire Bay area, here's how it would stack up using 2020 data:

1. New York 1,550 billion
2. Los Angeles 880 billion
3. Bay Area 870 billion
4. Chicago 590 billion

We can debate about whether it's fair to group San Jose with San Francisco, and whether it's fair not to include other cities in with Chicago/DC/Dallas, but I do think the Bay Area as a whole is pretty comparable to the Los Angeles area, and thus it makes for 2 teams.

And of course, if we don't include San Jose with San Francisco, then San Jose is big enough in its own right to get a team in a 30-32 team American league.

[SNPA]

The list is a bit misleading. Fresno isn’t that big by metro population, it’s well smaller than Sac metro population.

For sports teams in California it’s by metros:

LA metro (including Orange Co)
Bay Area (SF/SJ/Oak)
San Diego
Sacramento

It’s just a matter of how you divide up the leagues amongst and within those metros. With the Bay having three real options each league has to pick how to be represented. The Bay could easily handle two NBA teams and has supported two MLB and NFL teams but one city is always going to be left out.

Moving the A’s to Vegas seems like a poor choice to me. If it really can’t work in Oakland or somewhere East Bay, and the Giants won’t let SJ happen, the natural place to go is Sac. Between the existing East Bay fan base and consolidating the Central Valley the A’s would have an extremely solid base. Moving to Vegas doesn’t offer that size of a built in, lives near by, guaranteed fan base.

I agree, they will regret not choosing a more sustainable market like Sacramento for baseball.

While I think Vegas has weather issues, I frankly wouldn't see Sacramento as even a candidate for a major new sports team, and the only thing keeping a team in Sacramento right now is a community fight to keep the Kings along with the fact that the NBA is ripe for expansion.

Disagree. The A’s would do great in Sac. Put a park on the west side of the river and East Bay fans can get in and out easily and it’s walkable to G1C/DoCo. Having the Easy Bay and the valley and mountains from Fresno to the Oregon border is a great recipe IMO. Sac fans are passionate.

[Pelon chingon]

The list is a bit misleading. Fresno isn’t that big by metro population, it’s well smaller than Sac metro population.

For sports teams in California it’s by metros:

LA metro (including Orange Co)
Bay Area (SF/SJ/Oak)
San Diego
Sacramento

It’s just a matter of how you divide up the leagues amongst and within those metros. With the Bay having three real options each league has to pick how to be represented. The Bay could easily handle two NBA teams and has supported two MLB and NFL teams but one city is always going to be left out.

Moving the A’s to Vegas seems like a poor choice to me. If it really can’t work in Oakland or somewhere East Bay, and the Giants won’t let SJ happen, the natural place to go is Sac. Between the existing East Bay fan base and consolidating the Central Valley the A’s would have an extremely solid base. Moving to Vegas doesn’t offer that size of a built in, lives near by, guaranteed fan base.

I agree, they will regret not choosing a more sustainable market like Sacramento for baseball.

While I think Vegas has weather issues, I frankly wouldn't see Sacramento as even a candidate for a major new sports team, and the only thing keeping a team in Sacramento right now is a community fight to keep the Kings along with the fact that the NBA is ripe for expansion.

I agree the only thing keeping the Kings in Sac is a community that supports our franchise come hell or high water. No team would want any part of that.

[eminence]

This is true, but let me put it like this:

The Bay Area is large enough for 2 teams.
The 2 major modern cities of the Bay Area are San Francisco & San Jose. Both much bigger and much richer than Oakland.
And this has everything to do with why Oakland is losing teams, even if they aren't literally moving to San Jose.

I could be wrong, but to me the only two areas in the US big/wealthy enough to well support two teams in the same league are NYC/LA.

The Bay is in that next tier with Chicago/DC/Dallas.

Excellent thing to consider.

So here's the thing, when we look at metro areas, San Jose is not grouped in with San Francisco (whereas Oakland, which is closer to SF, is). If we do group them together and take the GDP of the entire Bay area, here's how it would stack up using 2020 data:

1. New York 1,550 billion
2. Los Angeles 880 billion
3. Bay Area 870 billion
4. Chicago 590 billion

We can debate about whether it's fair to group San Jose with San Francisco, and whether it's fair not to include other cities in with Chicago/DC/Dallas, but I do think the Bay Area as a whole is pretty comparable to the Los Angeles area, and thus it makes for 2 teams.

And of course, if we don't include San Jose with San Francisco, then San Jose is big enough in its own right to get a team in a 30-32 team American league.

I'm not sure about using 2020, I'm unsure if it's representative of the average year. The first table I pulled up (2018) has that as notably down for NYC/LA/Chicago, but approximately consistent for the Bay. Now, that could be reality going forward, or it could be pandemic driven.

1. NYC 1772
2. LA 1048 (1235 with Riverside - I don't know of any other major locals that 'should' be added to any of the major cities, but I think Riverside probably should be)
3. Bay 880 (with San Jose)
4. Chicago 689

I'm also unsure of the best indicator generally for ability to support a sports franchise, whether to lean more heavily into GDP or population generally (where SF and the rest of the Bay would fall considerably behind the big two and really be more of a third tier US metro).

Edit: Overall I'd have the Bay top 5 for sure, but I think fairly even with Chicago for 3/4 as opposed to the 1-2 of NYC/LA. (Dallas probably 5th and a city I think would probably struggle to support a 2nd franchise in most sports). The Bay and Chicago more in a 'maybe' camp. Obviously Chicago has kept both the Cubs and White Sox for more than a century, so that's impressive.

[JulesWinnfield]

I’m not much of a baseball fan anymore, but as a young kid the Oakland A’s of Ricky Henderson, Canseco and McGwire were one of the coolest teams in any sport I’ve ever seen in my life: Vegas is going to have a team in every major sport before too long now

[The Real Dalic]

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

It's not too late to jump on the Rays bandwagon!

[SNPA]

This is true, but let me put it like this:

The Bay Area is large enough for 2 teams.
The 2 major modern cities of the Bay Area are San Francisco & San Jose. Both much bigger and much richer than Oakland.
And this has everything to do with why Oakland is losing teams, even if they aren't literally moving to San Jose.

I could be wrong, but to me the only two areas in the US big/wealthy enough to well support two teams in the same league are NYC/LA.

The Bay is in that next tier with Chicago/DC/Dallas.

Excellent thing to consider.

So here's the thing, when we look at metro areas, San Jose is not grouped in with San Francisco (whereas Oakland, which is closer to SF, is). If we do group them together and take the GDP of the entire Bay area, here's how it would stack up using 2020 data:

1. New York 1,550 billion
2. Los Angeles 880 billion
3. Bay Area 870 billion
4. Chicago 590 billion

We can debate about whether it's fair to group San Jose with San Francisco, and whether it's fair not to include other cities in with Chicago/DC/Dallas, but I do think the Bay Area as a whole is pretty comparable to the Los Angeles area, and thus it makes for 2 teams.

And of course, if we don't include San Jose with San Francisco, then San Jose is big enough in its own right to get a team in a 30-32 team American league.

This is something I keep telling people. Any NBA expansion is about $, including recouping from COVID. Those two teams will go to the highest bidders with other factors only coming into play with ties/close bids. There is a serious chance some Silicon Valley group throws massive cash at it. Warriors would objects but outside of Chicago no other team really has to worry about a new team moving in next door so why would other owners care? They’ll want the money. Nor Cal can easily support a team in SF/SJ/Sac.

[Doctor MJ]

I agree, they will regret not choosing a more sustainable market like Sacramento for baseball.

While I think Vegas has weather issues, I frankly wouldn't see Sacramento as even a candidate for a major new sports team, and the only thing keeping a team in Sacramento right now is a community fight to keep the Kings along with the fact that the NBA is ripe for expansion.

Disagree. The A’s would do great in Sac. Put a park on the west side of the river and East Bay fans can get in and out easily and it’s walkable to G1C/DoCo. Having the Easy Bay and the valley and mountains from Fresno to the Oregon border is a great recipe IMO. Sac fans are passionate.

Sounds like you're saying Sacramento would make sense because it would allow Oakland fans to keep coming to games. I get that argument certainly, and could specifically see an Oakland team making a move to Sacramento with this in mind if the city of Sacramento offered a much sweeter deal than the city of Oakland did.

Were I scouting a new location for a team in general though, both Sacramento & Oakland are cities that were more relevant (relative to other California cities) in the 19th century than they are now. Were I to put 5 California teams in a new league, it would probably be (in alphabetic order):

Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose

[marthafokker]

I’m not much of a baseball fan anymore, but as a young kid the Oakland A’s of Ricky Henderson, Canseco and McGwire were one of the coolest teams in any sport I’ve ever seen in my life: Vegas is going to have a team in every major sport before too long now

Just not Oakland. Hahaha.

[eminence]

Quick note - I grouped NYC/LA together for convenience. NYC is a step up from LA, though I don't think in a way that amounts to anything (neither city should probably try supporting a 3rd team in any league, but doesn't struggle to support a 2nd either).

[Doctor MJ]

I could be wrong, but to me the only two areas in the US big/wealthy enough to well support two teams in the same league are NYC/LA.

The Bay is in that next tier with Chicago/DC/Dallas.

Excellent thing to consider.

So here's the thing, when we look at metro areas, San Jose is not grouped in with San Francisco (whereas Oakland, which is closer to SF, is). If we do group them together and take the GDP of the entire Bay area, here's how it would stack up using 2020 data:

1. New York 1,550 billion
2. Los Angeles 880 billion
3. Bay Area 870 billion
4. Chicago 590 billion

We can debate about whether it's fair to group San Jose with San Francisco, and whether it's fair not to include other cities in with Chicago/DC/Dallas, but I do think the Bay Area as a whole is pretty comparable to the Los Angeles area, and thus it makes for 2 teams.

And of course, if we don't include San Jose with San Francisco, then San Jose is big enough in its own right to get a team in a 30-32 team American league.

I'm not sure about using 2020, I'm unsure if it's representative of the average year. The first table I pulled up (2018) has that as notably down for NYC/LA/Chicago, but approximately consistent for the Bay. Now, that could be reality going forward, or it could be pandemic driven.

1. NYC 1772
2. LA 1048 (1235 with Riverside - I don't know of any other major locals that 'should' be added to any of the major cities, but I think Riverside probably should be)
3. Bay 880 (with San Jose)
4. Chicago 689

I'm also unsure of the best indicator generally for ability to support a sports franchise, whether to lean more heavily into GDP or population generally (where SF and the rest of the Bay would fall considerably behind the big two and really be more of a third tier US metro).

Edit: Overall I'd have the Bay top 5 for sure, but I think fairly even with Chicago for 3/4 as opposed to the 1-2 of NYC/LA. (Dallas probably 5th and a city I think would probably struggle to support a 2nd franchise in most sports). The Bay and Chicago more in a 'maybe' camp. Obviously Chicago has kept both the Cubs and White Sox for more than a century, so that's impressive.

Fair enough using 2018 rather than 2020.

Re: Including Riverside. Debatable, but I understand why you'd include them, but parts of Riverside are closer to San Diego, Vegas or Phoenix. Of course as I say that, you can argue that Vegas should just be seen as the red light district of LA.

Re: GDP or population. Debatable, but if we're talking about people actually traveling to the games, then they aren't likely to be coming from Riverside to LA in this day and age of intense traffic.

Re: Chicago kept 2 baseball teams. This is where I think we need to consider that sports are just more culturally important in places other than California. Personal story:

My wife and I were both born and raised in Cali, but I was raised in a sports family whereas she was raised in a more intellectual family. When she went to college in Chicago she quickly realized that to take part in basically any social situation, you had to at least casually follow what was going on with all the major sports teams in a way you just plain don't in the fair weather state.

In terms of what that means for Vegas, well, I'd say they aren't really making this move because they think Las Vegans will be hard core supporters so much as they are thinking that cold weather people would love to go on a vacation to Vegas to watch their team play a series.

[Doctor MJ]

Quick note - I grouped NYC/LA together for convenience. NYC is a step up from LA, though I don't think in a way that amounts to anything (neither city should probably try supporting a 3rd team in any league, but doesn't struggle to support a 2nd either).

No doubt that New York is far and away the #1 market, and I could see an argument that they are the only market that warrants 2 teams.

[jokeboy86]

While I think Vegas has weather issues, I frankly wouldn't see Sacramento as even a candidate for a major new sports team, and the only thing keeping a team in Sacramento right now is a community fight to keep the Kings along with the fact that the NBA is ripe for expansion.

Disagree. The A’s would do great in Sac. Put a park on the west side of the river and East Bay fans can get in and out easily and it’s walkable to G1C/DoCo. Having the Easy Bay and the valley and mountains from Fresno to the Oregon border is a great recipe IMO. Sac fans are passionate.

Sounds like you're saying Sacramento would make sense because it would allow Oakland fans to keep coming to games. I get that argument certainly, and could specifically see an Oakland team making a move to Sacramento with this in mind if the city of Sacramento offered a much sweeter deal than the city of Oakland did.

Were I scouting a new location for a team in general though, both Sacramento & Oakland are cities that were more relevant (relative to other California cities) in the 19th century than they are now. Were I to put 5 California teams in a new league, it would probably be (in alphabetic order):

Anaheim
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose

It's still kind of baffling that San Diego now has only one team right but that also goes to my earlier point that nowadays in CA if you want a new stadium, private funding has to be really significant or the cities themselves are going to have to come up with a lot more because it looks like state government(and sometimes county govts) have said enough. And as we're seeing with SD and now Oakland not many cities can afford that right now. I have a feeling that nowadays in general only the biggest metros in the country are going to be able to afford 3 or more public funded arenas going forward and it looks like it's even harder to get just two now.

Also I get Vegas is booming but I still don't think there's enough revenue for all 4 major pro sports which is what they're aiming for especially when the sports leagues will be competing with everything else that's in Vegas. One of those leagues is going to struggle.

[eminence]

In terms of what that means for Vegas, well, I'd say they aren't really making this move because they think Las Vegans will be hard core supporters so much as they are thinking that cold weather people would love to go on a vacation to Vegas to watch their team play a series.

This is the half I hadn't really thought too much about - if Oakland 'can't' support the A's, where can? And I don't really know the answer.

I agree with your point about California - San Diego is perhaps the most underperforming market in the US when it comes to sports, they should easily be able to support a couple teams across leagues looking just at population/wealth, and they've got one middling MLB franchise at this point.

Vegas is unique as a US city and I don't know how/if the financials will work out for them with pro sports, and they haven't had any team long enough to really say much. Maybe it can work for them. If I were the NBA though I'd be a bit wary with the other 3 top leagues beating you to the punch.

Generally there will probably always be a lowest class of franchises that are looking for a bit more and may or may not be able to find it with ~30 franchises in each of the big NA leagues.

A bit of an aside - Montreal is my sleeper pick for NBA expansion.