(Not completely) OT - MLB saying fancy new ballparks required to compete

[eastbaycat99]

While the drivers of competitiveness in CFB and MLB are wildly different, the talk of the necessity of upgrading Ryan Field hit a nerve with me as MLB recently has tried to push the city of Oakland into committing $850 million in infrastructure investment in order to build a waterfront ballpark here. They said the ballpark is required for the A’s to be competitive, and gave the A’s owners permission to talk to order cities in case Oakland did not give ownership what they wanted.

As of this morning, the four teams with the best records in the AL are Tampa Bay, the White Sox, Oakland and Boston. The four worst are Baltimore,Texas, Minnesota and Detroit. The top team closest to having a fancy new ballpark is the White Sox, and I think all would agree their’s is the least glitzy of the current generation. Tampa Bay and Oakland are pretty universally acknowledged as the worst, and Fenway is certainly not new. All four of the worst teams have glitzy new parks. Texas didn’t like their old glitzy one, and replaced it with an even fancier one.

I really think good management is more important than the ballpark, lol.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Your thread title should read:

MLB saying fancy new ballparks required to make silly money on corporate luxury suites and jacked up concessions​

 

[Cat In The Cradle]

Your thread title should read:

MLB saying fancy new ballparks required to make silly money on corporate luxury suites and jacked up concessions​

I cannot comis-cell-rate with the owners here: new stadiums on the public dime in which they prostitute out the naming rights to the highest bidder wins no sympathy points. The concessions are truly insulting - $12.50 beer ($13.50 foreign) may keep the unruly crowds in check to attract families, but I ain't happy!

 

[willycat]

I cannot comis-cell-rate with the owners here: new stadiums on the public dime in which they prostitute out the naming rights to the highest bidder wins no sympathy points. The concessions are truly insulting - $12.50 beer ($13.50 foreign) may keep the unruly crowds in check to attract families, but I ain't happy!

Sounds a lot like "taxpayers ballpark" on Chicago's Southside, complete with at least three name changes.

 

[stpaulcat]

While the drivers of competitiveness in CFB and MLB are wildly different, the talk of the necessity of upgrading Ryan Field hit a nerve with me as MLB recently has tried to push the city of Oakland into committing $850 million in infrastructure investment in order to build a waterfront ballpark here. They said the ballpark is required for the A’s to be competitive, and gave the A’s owners permission to talk to order cities in case Oakland did not give ownership what they wanted.

As of this morning, the four teams with the best records in the AL are Tampa Bay, the White Sox, Oakland and Boston. The four worst are Baltimore,Texas, Minnesota and Detroit. The top team closest to having a fancy new ballpark is the White Sox, and I think all would agree their’s is the least glitzy of the current generation. Tampa Bay and Oakland are pretty universally acknowledged as the worst, and Fenway is certainly not new. All four of the worst teams have glitzy new parks. Texas didn’t like their old glitzy one, and replaced it with an even fancier one.

I really think good management is more important than the ballpark, lol.

This is bull s***, except in the minds of the owners, who just want to get public money, so they can grow their profits.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Sounds a lot like "taxpayers ballpark" on Chicago's Southside, complete with at least three name changes.

I cannot comis-cell-rate with the owners here: new stadiums on the public dime in which they prostitute out the naming rights to the highest bidder wins no sympathy points. The concessions are truly insulting - $12.50 beer ($13.50 foreign) may keep the unruly crowds in check to attract families, but I ain't happy!

Why the angst over this? Of course, they will look for additional revenue streams. All business do that. How many tax concessions do states give to major corporations that move there? The public dime is spent because the politicians see something of perceived benefit to the hand out. It’s an easy solution, don’t support the product if you don’t like the way they do business. Don’t vote for the people thar approve the public funding.

 

[techtim72]

A city can have good teams but even so no one goes to the games. Oakland and Tampa Bay come to mind. The reasons are myriad but many would say the most important reason is whether the experience is exciting. Today that means more than a clean stadium with good food and easy parking. It means an overall experience with dining, music, etc. In that environment, baseball is just one component that supports an experience that works year round. That means housing, parks, dining, shopping, etc. I view public support for sports facilities as an investment decision. How much to invest to support a larger goal. If it is to create a stadium as a stand alone facility that profits mostly the sports owners then that investment has limited value. If it is an investment to create a year round destination that your citizens enjoy and that adds value to the community then that has more value. Each stadium has a different investment dynamic. It is up to local leadership and the citizens to decide what they are willing to invest. These days, smart locales are unwilling to pay for suite upgrades and amenities that line the owner's pockets with no benefit for the community.

 

[pawildcat]

Meanwhile, fans flock to Wrigley and Fenway, the two oldest parks in MLB.

 

[pawildcat]

I cannot comis-cell-rate with the owners here: new stadiums on the public dime in which they prostitute out the naming rights to the highest bidder wins no sympathy points. The concessions are truly insulting - $12.50 beer ($13.50 foreign) may keep the unruly crowds in check to attract families, but I ain't happy!

I saw in a video that someone estimated the recent "beer snake" formed with cups at a Cubs-Cardinals game represented about $30,000 of beer sales.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I saw in a video that someone estimated the recent "beer snake" formed with cups at a Cubs-Cardinals game represented about $30,000 of beer sales.

164 Beers?

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Meanwhile, fans flock to Wrigley and Fenway, the two oldest parks in MLB.

I think that is the point Tim is making.

 

[pawildcat]

I think that is the point Tim is making.

Not disagreeing with him — just pointing out that some of the owner drivel about needing new parks to attract support is b.s. The Orioles have a great park at Camden Yards, but don't draw what they used to at the tired old Memorial Stadium because their team stinks.

 

[eastbaycat99]

Not disagreeing with him — just pointing out that some of the owner drivel about needing new parks to attract support is b.s. The Orioles have a great park at Camden Yards, but don't draw what they used to at the tired old Memorial Stadium because their team stinks.

I think to some extent there is a cycle involved, particularly in smaller markets, when a new ballpark is built: in anticipation of increased attendance, teams up their personnel budgets a little, and improve as the new park opens. Attendance does go up, and there is a honeymoon period. If the team is managed poorly, the team, though improved, falls short of championship level. Interest starts to wain, good players are let go to free agency, and the team plummets, driving a further drop in attendance. The team settles back to the level of competence of its management, ameliorated in large markets by money spent for free agents.
My original post was in part a reaction to MLB’s statement to Oakland that the team needed a new stadium to be competitive. The team is competitive (as are the Rays). As others have posted, what they are really saying is that Oakland’s ownership wants to make more money, and a waterfront ballpark would boost attendance, as it did across the Bay when the Giants built their park.

 

[Figrating]

The model for waterfront ball parks is just across the bay in SF. Anybody who's watched a Giants home game has seen the awesome views from nearly everywhere. The area around the park was previously covered with aging light commercial structures and loneliness. It's now a bustling community.

Oakland could do something similar at Jack London Square (home of Yoshi's premiere jazz club), but they aren't excited about it, mostly because of the cost but also because there are opponents with some decent arguments. But there is a huge need to build some community in Oakland and the A's can help accomplish that. So here's hoping Oakland unites to git 'er done. The A's are talking to Vegas, where money won't be a problem. See Raiders.

The A's biggest attendance problem is surely that dismal stadium. Been there a dozen times. It is in an urban desert. There's nothing around it but the airport. LOTS of people want a piece of the redevelopment opportunities there when the A's leave.

 

[eastbaycat99]

The model for waterfront ball parks is just across the bay in SF. Anybody who's watched a Giants home game has seen the awesome views from nearly everywhere. The area around the park was previously covered with aging light commercial structures and loneliness. It's now a bustling community.

Oakland could do something similar at Jack London Square (home of Yoshi's premiere jazz club), but they aren't excited about it, mostly because of the cost but also because there are opponents with some decent arguments. But there is a huge need to build some community in Oakland and the A's can help accomplish that. So here's hoping Oakland unites to git 'er done. The A's are talking to Vegas, where money won't be a problem. See Raiders.

The A's biggest attendance problem is surely that dismal stadium. Been there a dozen times. It is in an urban desert. There's nothing around it but the airport. LOTS of people want a piece of the redevelopment opportunities there when the A's leave.

I agree with almost everything you say except the ballpark being the biggest problem. To me, the biggest problem has been the unwillingness to retain really popular, decent players over relatively modest salary demands. Not signing Marcus Semien, and the replacing him with Elvis Andrus to save about 3 million is the latest example. Semien is a local, Eastbay kid who was enormously popular. I can see not trying to compete for someone like Cespedes, who was tagged to be an elite player, but not competing for the tier just below that has pretty much battered fan connection and depressed interest. I do agree that the aging ballpark and absence of a place to eat and drink keeps some fans away, but a decade ago they were drawing better than 2 million a year to the same site, which has great public transit and parking. I’m a baseball junkie, and would prefer a baseball only configuration on the same site, but do understand those who would like a Jack London park for the reasons you cited. I thought the Laney site was great, by the way, but that got shot down quickly (though having seen the Last Chance U segment, I may have been wrong).

 

[Figrating]

I see you know the team, eastbay - I knew there was something I liked about you. I agree with you about the cheapskate ownership. They could make a better effort to keep their best players and make money by spending money.

What do you think the future holds - will Oakland do what's necessary to keep this team? I read the Chron and the news there is discouraging.

 

[eastbaycat99]

I see you know the team, eastbay - I knew there was something I liked about you. I agree with you about the cheapskate ownership. They could make a better effort to keep their best players and make money by spending money.

What do you think the future holds - will Oakland do what's necessary to keep this team? I read the Chron and the news there is discouraging.

The combined Bay Area Sacramento media market is five times larger than Las Vegas. The team has a much greater potential value in the Eastbay than it does in Nevada, Portland or Nashville. I think a deal gets done, but it may well entail an ownership change. As a retired fan married to a baseball fan, having the A’s a 15 minute trip by car or BART on a weekday afternoon is a real pleasure we would miss if they leave, so I may be engaging in wishful thinking. We also have enjoyed going on a Friday night, having dinner in what is now Shibe Park Tavern and then moving outside for the last seven innings or so. Before Covid, we made about 15 games a year, and since ticket prices were good, we’re able to do so, with concessions, for about $1,000 including transportation. That would be 5 Giants games for comparable tickets.

 

[Figrating]

At last there is ONE newspaper piece, a letter from a converted resident, in favor of the Jack London Square Stadium, but it is a lonely cry. Take a read through this piece and tell me what vibes you get: https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php.

Near the end, the interviewer asks what about the Oakland concerns that the present proposal offers only 20 years of A's dedication to the site AND does not include any affordable housing? If Oakland would unite behind this proposal, it is highly likely that the A's would commit to 100 years dedication to the site in a heartbeat. OTOH, the affordable housing demand, which Oakland slaps on anything that moves, looks like a deal killer.

Oakland needs to build community and this is a great opportunity to do that. There is relentless squealing about the cost over 45 years, but there is hardly a word about the revenue from creating a new community. Oakland needs to unite behind this proposal, following SF's example, and counter the descent of the city into nothing but ghetto with tiny pockets of civilization. Get the hell out of the way, Oakland!

The rant board may be gone, but not all the rants with it. Rants aplenty right here.

 

[eastbaycat99]

At last there is ONE newspaper piece, a letter from a converted resident, in favor of the Jack London Square Stadium, but it is a lonely cry. Take a read through this piece and tell me what vibes you get: https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Manfred-A-s-fate-in-Oakland-to-be-decided-in-16311756.php.

Near the end, the interviewer asks what about the Oakland concerns that the present proposal offers only 20 years of A's dedication to the site AND does not include any affordable housing? If Oakland would unite behind this proposal, it is highly likely that the A's would commit to 100 years dedication to the site in a heartbeat. OTOH, the affordable housing demand, which Oakland slaps on anything that moves, looks like a deal killer.

Oakland needs to build community and this is a great opportunity to do that. There is relentless squealing about the cost over 45 years, but there is hardly a word about the revenue from creating a new community. Oakland needs to unite behind this proposal, following SF's example, and counter the descent of the city into nothing but ghetto with tiny pockets of civilization. Get the hell out of the way, Oakland!

The rant board may be gone, but not all the rants with it. Rants aplenty right here.

I don’t know how often you have been in Oakland lately, but large parts of it are very attractive. Even without the A’s staying, it will probably continue to gentrify, for better or for worse.

Being an A’s fan, I have been reading every article I can get my eyes on, and really appears that John Fisher, heir to the Gap business, has his eyes on making a killing in real estate through the ballpark development. Manfred, in an interview with John Shea of the Chronicle today, said that the Coliseum site had been nixed by Fisher. A’s spokespeople had been saying it was MLB that objected to the Coliseum site. Affordable housing is a huge issue, as you may know, in the Bay Area. The Giants included a plan for it in their development of China Basin. The A’s refuse to, and even asked for a waiver from the ordinance that every developer has followed there for years. Fisher has had the chance to negotiate deals in Fremont that he blew up by asking for too much, and jumped the gun on a site at Laney College, managing to alienate the college community and blow the deal.
I will really miss the A’s, but I am afraid the will be playing in Las Vegas in three years or so. I am sure Fisher will make a quick half a billion or so it’s the move, but will pass up the chance to have his franchise have a slower but much higher appreciation in Oakland. My guess is he will get his Las Vegas deal and the sell.

 

[Figrating]

Looks like all this talk about the stadium was just talk, then - had me fooled completely. The A's knew about the code and knew their refusal to follow it would kill the deal.

Maybe Oakland knew all this too, so that's why they never got behind the stadium.

We need The Godfather to get Oakland and the A's in a room and tell the A's, "You're building the affordable housing." and tell Oakland, "You're behind this project 100%."