Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas thread: Move to Vegas approved by MLB owners - Will play in Sacramento for 3-4 years

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
14,566
19,985
Las Vegas
I think it's just sheer economics. The Las Vegas Athletics are 1/6th the price than the Las Vegas Expansions would be.

There's three parties involved in making "the Las Vegas Athletics" (potentially) happen. The price tag is a $2 billion stadium. Everyone gets what they want for $700m each.

But a fee for an expansion team, the price doubles AND there's one less partner.

The Casino would rather be what amounts to a minority partner to get a stadium on their doorstep, advertising and suite/comp tickets for $700 than run the whole thing for $2 billion. MLB money is nice, but Casino money is better, and the employees don't make nine-figure payrolls.

I'd assume the city putting up $2b for a stadium is just a non-starter, too much dough.

Yup, and that brings up another limiting factor for expansion vs relocation in Las Vegas, the business potential owners are in.

You have to assume that MLB has no interest in a casino/gaming company owning one of their franchises. Removing those companies from the pool of potential expansion owners trims the list of potential owners who can afford the bill way down to almost none.

Which ties into what you said, with relocation the only thing to figure out is stadium funding vs the inflated financials of expansion.
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,383
9,267
530

“The economic advantage Las Vegas presents becomes increasingly obvious the longer Oakland’s proposed Howard Terminal Ballpark sits in its seemingly perpetual state of uncertainty. Nearly $300 million is still required to activate the proposed $12 billion project that includes additional formative development to the area near the city’s port.

Several MLB franchises have pledged to pay their superstars more.”

Yep. 11.7 billion of the project is accounted for but the owner with a value of 2.2 billion wants taxpayers to pay for it. Too bad David Stern isn’t the commish of this league or he’d banish Fisher the same way he did the Maloof’s and force him to negotiate with the city in good faith.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Yup, and that brings up another limiting factor for expansion vs relocation in Las Vegas, the business potential owners are in.

You have to assume that MLB has no interest in a casino/gaming company owning one of their franchises. Removing those companies from the pool of potential expansion owners trims the list of potential owners who can afford the bill way down to almost none.

Which ties into what you said, with relocation the only thing to figure out is stadium funding vs the inflated financials of expansion.

Eh. No league wants a Casino COMPANY owning the team, but that's because they really don't want ANY company owning teams. That's gone extremely poorly for everyone, even when that company is Disney.

I doubt MLB really cares if a billionaire who got rich owning a casino owns a team. For starters, the difference between hedge fund managers and casinos is what? One's gambling on cards/teams, the other is gambling on companies/tech. It's all the same thing.

There's not really moral high ground to take against gambling when a family of beer barons owned the Cardinals for 60 years, or the Big Pharma owner. Or slumlords.

I've been saying here for like 20 years: People have an INCORRECT mental association between Vegas/Gambling and SCANDAL/FIXING in their heads. The casinos are the ones who tip off the feds when there's fixing or point shaving scandals, because THEY'RE the ones paying out the winnings. The people fixing games are the mob.



Too bad David Stern isn’t the commish of this league or he’d banish Fisher the same way he did the Maloof’s and force him to negotiate with the city in good faith.

Stern adored the Maloofs. He helped them get the Kings in the first place!

Everything between the Kings and the city of Sacramento, and relocation stuff was BECAUSE the Maloofs couldn't afford to keep owning the Kings and were trying to sell the team; Selling to Anaheim or Seattle would get them a lot more money than Sacramento.

And Stern was on the Maloofs' side throughout THAT, too. Sacramento had to match the Seattle bid to keep the team. Sacramento kept having to find and add investors to keep the team. Burkle couldn't do it by himself, so he got Vivek Ranadive to join the group.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
14,566
19,985
Las Vegas
Eh. No league wants a Casino COMPANY owning the team, but that's because they really don't want ANY company owning teams. That's gone extremely poorly for everyone, even when that company is Disney.

I doubt MLB really cares if a billionaire who got rich owning a casino owns a team. For starters, the difference between hedge fund managers and casinos is what? One's gambling on cards/teams, the other is gambling on companies/tech. It's all the same thing.

There's not really moral high ground to take against gambling when a family of beer barons owned the Cardinals for 60 years, or the Big Pharma owner. Or slumlords.

I've been saying here for like 20 years: People have an INCORRECT mental association between Vegas/Gambling and SCANDAL/FIXING in their heads. The casinos are the ones who tip off the feds when there's fixing or point shaving scandals, because THEY'RE the ones paying out the winnings. The people fixing games are the mob.





Stern adored the Maloofs. He helped them get the Kings in the first place!

Everything between the Kings and the city of Sacramento, and relocation stuff was BECAUSE the Maloofs couldn't afford to keep owning the Kings and were trying to sell the team; Selling to Anaheim or Seattle would get them a lot more money than Sacramento.

And Stern was on the Maloofs' side throughout THAT, too. Sacramento had to match the Seattle bid to keep the team. Sacramento kept having to find and add investors to keep the team. Burkle couldn't do it by himself, so he got Vivek Ranadive to join the group.

No but in terms of local companies/ billionaires, the only ones that could foot the expensive bill come from gaming.

I'll go out on the limb and say no league will ever allow a gambling company or billionaire to own a team. They'll never take that risk with the perceived credibility of the league
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
No but in terms of local companies/ billionaires, the only ones that could foot the expensive bill come from gaming.

I'll go out on the limb and say no league will ever allow a gambling company or billionaire to own a team. They'll never take that risk with the perceived credibility of the league

I hear you, but I think it's moot or antiquated. The leagues did away with "no gambling connections" for sponsorships a long time ago. Casinos advertise in MLB stadiums all over the place.

You're talking about the perception of games being FIXED because a casino owns them? That's the absurd and incorrect mental association I talked about before: Casinos WANT the games to be on the level.

The idea that a casino-owned MLB team would be throwing games to make the casino more money is just so far beyond ridiculous.

Honestly, I think the limb you're on is the right limb; but reason would be THE OTHER WAY AROUND. "No one is going to use MY sportsbook if I own the team."
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,383
9,267
530
Eh. No league wants a Casino COMPANY owning the team, but that's because they really don't want ANY company owning teams. That's gone extremely poorly for everyone, even when that company is Disney.

I doubt MLB really cares if a billionaire who got rich owning a casino owns a team. For starters, the difference between hedge fund managers and casinos is what? One's gambling on cards/teams, the other is gambling on companies/tech. It's all the same thing.

There's not really moral high ground to take against gambling when a family of beer barons owned the Cardinals for 60 years, or the Big Pharma owner. Or slumlords.

I've been saying here for like 20 years: People have an INCORRECT mental association between Vegas/Gambling and SCANDAL/FIXING in their heads. The casinos are the ones who tip off the feds when there's fixing or point shaving scandals, because THEY'RE the ones paying out the winnings. The people fixing games are the mob.





Stern adored the Maloofs. He helped them get the Kings in the first place!

Everything between the Kings and the city of Sacramento, and relocation stuff was BECAUSE the Maloofs couldn't afford to keep owning the Kings and were trying to sell the team; Selling to Anaheim or Seattle would get them a lot more money than Sacramento.

And Stern was on the Maloofs' side throughout THAT, too. Sacramento had to match the Seattle bid to keep the team. Sacramento kept having to find and add investors to keep the team. Burkle couldn't do it by himself, so he got Vivek Ranadive to join the group.
Of course they wanted Sac to match. It wouldn’t have raised the worth of the Kings (or the league in general) if they sold for less.

I personally know people who were partying with Kevin Johnson in March of that year despite the announcement of staying not coming until May.

Stern nixed any attempt to move since they didn’t negotiate in good faith with the city of Sacramento. Once it became apparent that there was political and financial means to keep the team, Seattle had no chance.
 
Last edited:

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
193,018
43,513
Stern loved those markets where they got to be the only game in town. It’s a reason why the Suns have been so unaccommodating to the Coyotes. No accident that the NHL got into Vegas and Seattle before the NBA could.
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,383
9,267
530
Stern loved those markets where they got to be the only game in town. It’s a reason why the Suns have been so unaccommodating to the Coyotes. No accident that the NHL got into Vegas and Seattle before the NBA could.
That’s a good point I hadn’t thought of. Not surprisingly the NBA is the only league that’s not even talking about Vegas in any capacity.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
193,018
43,513
That’s a good point I hadn’t thought of. Not surprisingly the NBA is the only league that’s not even talking about Vegas in any capacity.
Because LeBron wants it and that ain’t gonna get serious until he’s ready for it to. I’d say after retirement but I’m not so sure about that.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,859
3,149
NW Burbs
Yup, and that brings up another limiting factor for expansion vs relocation in Las Vegas, the business potential owners are in.

You have to assume that MLB has no interest in a casino/gaming company owning one of their franchises. Removing those companies from the pool of potential expansion owners trims the list of potential owners who can afford the bill way down to almost none.

Which ties into what you said, with relocation the only thing to figure out is stadium funding vs the inflated financials of expansion.
They already have one in Detroit.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,859
3,149
NW Burbs
Eh. No league wants a Casino COMPANY owning the team, but that's because they really don't want ANY company owning teams. That's gone extremely poorly for everyone, even when that company is Disney.
Braves are doing more than okay under Liberty. And the Blue Jays are approaching 20 years under Rogers and are doing fine.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Braves are doing more than okay under Liberty. And the Blue Jays are approaching 20 years under Rogers and are doing fine.

I forgot about the Jays, mainly because they're huge spenders. The main issue baseball has with corporate ownership is that they view profitability as more important than the product.

Atlanta has had great success as a team by making smart moves and drafting and developing or trading their prospects for arbitration-aged players from other teams... But Atlanta WAS one of the top spending teams in the 90s, and when Turner sold them, their corporate overlords slashed their payroll dramatically.

Liberty gives Atlanta enough money to compete; but they're doing that on the brains of the GMs managing to his budget.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Stern nixed any attempt to move since they didn’t negotiate in good faith with the city of Sacramento. Once it became apparent that there was political and financial means to keep the team, Seattle had no chance.

Right (and I screwed a lot of stuff up in the my first post because I was mentally confusing like three years worth of stuff, into one incident)...

My point was that "nixing the attempt" wasn't booting the Maloofs out of the league: Accepting the sale to Seattle would have gotten the Maloofs out FASTER. And the whole thing took three years. Stern did his job in protecting the league, its cities and leases...

(BTW, this comes up on here RE: Bettman A LOT. The Sacramento Kings had a lease. The league's stance was that the Kings had to honor it, because if teams break leases, cities don't give teams arenas/stadiums. Teams only break leases when no one will meet a price to buy a team and keep it in the market.)

But Stern didn't kick them out of the league as owners. He adored the Maloofs from when their dad owned the Rockets. Stern called them "the boys." They wanted to get the Rockets back, and Stern said "you should buy the Kings."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quid Pro Clowe

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I'm honestly not sure if I'm frustrated or relieved the A's situation is taking so long. On one hand, I want them to get a new stadium, I like resolution better than no resolution, and I WOULD be very eager for MLB to expand and have 32 teams so we can fix a lot of what could be better about baseball.

But on the other hand, I'm absolutely terrified that Manfred and baseball just has the completely wrong idea about what to do when they get to 32 teams.
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,383
9,267
530
Right (and I screwed a lot of stuff up in the my first post because I was mentally confusing like three years worth of stuff, into one incident)...

My point was that "nixing the attempt" wasn't booting the Maloofs out of the league: Accepting the sale to Seattle would have gotten the Maloofs out FASTER. And the whole thing took three years. Stern did his job in protecting the league, its cities and leases...

(BTW, this comes up on here RE: Bettman A LOT. The Sacramento Kings had a lease. The league's stance was that the Kings had to honor it, because if teams break leases, cities don't give teams arenas/stadiums. Teams only break leases when no one will meet a price to buy a team and keep it in the market.)

But Stern didn't kick them out of the league as owners. He adored the Maloofs from when their dad owned the Rockets. Stern called them "the boys." They wanted to get the Rockets back, and Stern said "you should buy the Kings."
The Maloof’s were well-liked around the league when they bought the team. They were always shown on the sidelines (as much as Mark Cuban in Dallas) cheering on the team and we’re talked about positively league wide and locally.

Once the Maloof’s started going broke because of the casinos going under the team was ran similar to how the A’s are now; cheap and haphazardly. Their standing within the league quickly went away and they weren’t seen at games for years before trying to sell and move the team.

It’s really quite amazing how quickly those two came and went while Cuban is still doing his thing in Dallas.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The Maloof’s were well-liked around the league when they bought the team. They were always shown on the sidelines (as much as Mark Cuban in Dallas) cheering on the team and we’re talked about positively league wide and locally.

Once the Maloof’s started going broke because of the casinos going under the team was ran similar to how the A’s are now; cheap and haphazardly. Their standing within the league quickly went away and they weren’t seen at games for years before trying to sell and move the team.

It’s really quite amazing how quickly those two came and went while Cuban is still doing his thing in Dallas.

Honestly, I don't think it's that surprising. The Maloofs were born into money and squandered it on night clubs and hotels and living that rich playboy lifestyle.

Cuban came from nothing and got rich via vision, savvy and hard work. He's not about that lifestyle that cost the Maloofs their do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quid Pro Clowe

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,859
3,149
NW Burbs
Pizza Pizza guy?
Yep, Illich Holdings owns a casino.

I forgot about the Jays, mainly because they're huge spenders. The main issue baseball has with corporate ownership is that they view profitability as more important than the product.

Atlanta has had great success as a team by making smart moves and drafting and developing or trading their prospects for arbitration-aged players from other teams... But Atlanta WAS one of the top spending teams in the 90s, and when Turner sold them, their corporate overlords slashed their payroll dramatically.

Liberty gives Atlanta enough money to compete; but they're doing that on the brains of the GMs managing to his budget.

You can probably count on 1 hand the number of ownership groups that aren't like that. It's a business 1st and foremost.
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,383
9,267
530

More reasons mlb should be doing whatever they can to keep baseball in Oakland.

Back in 2005 it was about the game not money, now after they’ve created the current problem in Oakland they want to just blame the city and fans and move. f***ing pieces of shit.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
You can probably count on 1 hand the number of ownership groups that aren't like that. It's a business 1st and foremost.

That's the thing... it really isn't "a business first and foremost..." If it truly was a business FIRST and FOREMOST, spending ANY MONEY on players is just dumb. You don't get anything in return for the $50 million to $150 million it takes to be mediocre.

Everyone likes to point and laugh at the A's $43 million payroll being dead last in baseball. But that's still twice the lowest possible number. The Marlins are spending $81 million, and are 29th in attendance (ahead of the As).

So spending $37 million more on players gets them 101,250 more in attendance than Oakland;
Which means each ADDITIONAL fan has to spend $365 to offset the difference in the Marlins payroll... and they don't, because the average ticket is $129 and they ain't spending $240 on parking concessions each.

Atlanta was top 3 in Payroll under Ted Turner, and then under Time Warner began to slide down the payroll chart to 15th. When Liberty took over the team, they were 16th to 27th every year until 2020.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
More reasons mlb should be doing whatever they can to keep baseball in Oakland.

Back in 2005 it was about the game not money, now after they’ve created the current problem in Oakland they want to just blame the city and fans and move. f***ing pieces of shit.

MLB should be doing whatever it takes to keep the As in Oakland.
 

SoupNazi

Gee Wally/SoupNazi 2024
Feb 6, 2010
27,054
17,147

More reasons mlb should be doing whatever they can to keep baseball in Oakland.

Back in 2005 it was about the game not money, now after they’ve created the current problem in Oakland they want to just blame the city and fans and move. f***ing pieces of shit.
Bud Selig was horrible for baseball in so many ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Yake

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,414
3,599
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Bud Selig was horrible for baseball in so many ways.

I generally agree that Selig bungled a ton of things... But a lot of his screw ups were circumstantial and semi-unavoidable; or things he inherited. And a ton of problems were totally interconnected.

It's actually the San Francisco Giants that are the root cause of everything that's ever been bad about baseball, except the DH.

Before Selig, the NL expanded with Denver and Miami; and then correctly vetoed the sale of the Giants to Tampa Bay. So the Florida politicians seeing Tampa go 0-for-3 trying to get a team, called MLB before congress on anti-trust. New Commissioner Selig gave Tampa the Rays to make the problem go away.

Which was fine... except they needed a 30th team (ideally a 31st and 32nd, too). And there weren't many/any candidates. Of the seven other candidates that lost to Denver/Miami, SIX had either just built minor league stadiums after losing the bid (Buffalo, Charlotte, Nashville), had territorial rights problem (DC), or were in adjacent markets to the teams that caused this whole problem to begin with (Sacramento, Orlando).

MLB had to recruit and work with Phoenix to make it happen; which allowed Jerry Colangelo to set his terms of an NL team; leading to the realignment mess... which made them consider interleague play. And the Brewers and eventually Astros switching leagues and now the terrible schedule of this year.

Selig also combined the NL and AL into MLB as one league office, which was smart and needed and overdue. But he bungled that process which is what led to the Giants ACCIDENTALLY getting San Jose as part of their exclusive territory.


But it should be noted that Selig also spearheaded MLBAM, which invented MLBTV and streaming and brought in BILLIONS (And benefited NHL greatly, too).
 

Ad

Ad

Ad