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

[GKJ]

This alone is a fireable offense for Manfried.

One can argue the merits or lack thereof of relocating the franchise, but the manner that they’re doing it is a total clown show, and Manfried is culpable. Not only for Fisher being an idiot, but Manfried should be overseeing that the process is as smooth to the degree that it can be. They absolutely cannot let this guy oversee expansion.

 

[John Price]

they don't strip rich owners of their ownership, we saw this with snyder

they put up with him for years

they put up with angelos and moreno. being a shitty person isn't a cause for losing ownership

 

[Voight]

If mlb commissioner and his fellow owners had any balls they’d strip fisher of his ownership. It’s a embarrassment

Unless he publicly says something racist or murders someone, there isn't a way to do this. NBA tried to get rid of Sterling for years but had no grounds too. Luckily for them, when hie mistress illegally recorded hims saying some really racist stuff public pressure pretty much forced him to sell.

This alone is a fireable offense for Manfried.

One can argue the merits or lack thereof of relocating the franchise, but the manner that they’re doing it is a total clown show, and Manfried is culpable. Not only for Fisher being an idiot, but Manfried should be overseeing that the process is as smooth to the degree that it can be. They absolutely cannot let this guy oversee expansion.

Letting the Astors and Red Sox with a slap on the wrist was a fireable offence and its just snowballed from there.

Manclown is just a Selig lackey / corporate stooge and should've never got the job.

Honestly, next time around they should look at someone like A-Rod. Controversies aside, he's a former player (who's one of the best of all time) and has a lot of success in the business/corporate world.

 

[GKJ]

Unless he publicly says something racist or murders someone, there isn't a way to do this. NBA tried to get rid of Sterling for years but had no grounds too. Luckily for them, when hie mistress illegally recorded hims saying some really racist stuff public pressure pretty much forced him to sell.



Letting the Astors and Red Sox with a slap on the wrist was a fireable offence and its just snowballed from there.

Manclown is just a Selig lackey / corporate stooge and should've never got the job.

Honestly, next time around they should look at someone like A-Rod. Controversies aside, he's a former player (who's one of the best of all time) and has a lot of success in the business/corporate world.

That wouldn’t be good. A-Rod isn’t a lawyer, to say nothing about steroid era guys.

 

[SoupNazi]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/athletics/article/a-s-city-county-reps-meet-thursday-coliseum-18665632.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

I hope the city tells Fisher to bend over.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/athletics/article/a-s-city-county-reps-meet-thursday-coliseum-18665632.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

I hope the city tells Fisher to bend over.

Pay wall. Does it mention what they think the structure of a deal could look like?

 

[GKJ]

 

[KevFu]

This alone is a fireable offense for Manfried.

One can argue the merits or lack thereof of relocating the franchise, but the manner that they’re doing it is a total clown show, and Manfried is culpable. Not only for Fisher being an idiot, but Manfried should be overseeing that the process is as smooth to the degree that it can be. They absolutely cannot let this guy oversee expansion.

I'm absolutely terrified about your last part. Manfred has been hell-bent on expansion, which is good, the league needs to be 32 teams.

However, he also seems hell-bent on radical realignment, starting with him leading the project to move Houston to the AL West (prior to becoming commissioner), and going to year-round interleague play and now "everyone plays everyone once."

All of which are terrible for business.

 

[GKJ]

I'm absolutely terrified about your last part. Manfred has been hell-bent on expansion, which is good, the league needs to be 32 teams.

However, he also seems hell-bent on radical realignment, starting with him leading the project to move Houston to the AL West (prior to becoming commissioner), and going to year-round interleague play and now "everyone plays everyone once."

All of which are terrible for business.

I don’t see a reason interleague specifically is bad for business. The casual fan doesn’t really care who their team is playing apart from the occasional division rival

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Playing division games over and over again is awful for business. Nobody wants to host the Royals, Reds, Marlins...or A's 8-9 times.

 

[KevFu]

I don’t see a reason interleague specifically is bad for business. The casual fan doesn’t really care who their team is playing apart from the occasional division rival

Interleague itself isn't bad for business. Expanding interleague from the special event to playing everyone every season definitely is terrible for business.

Limited interleague, on specific weeks was a special event. Didn't happen often and the AL/NL format meant it was local rivals every time. That was what they should have kept.

Going to year-round interleague makes the vast majority of those games just ordinary.


IU says "no one wants to host the Royals, Reds or Marlins 8-9 times a year." Which is totally true... until you realize whom those series are being replaced with: EVERY division has 5th place teams like that. You're losing 6 games vs your division's 5th place team, but adding NINE GAMES against the other league's fifth-place team.

A - there's less stakes in interleague: A division game is a 2-game swing in the division and wildcard standings, and an interleague game is a half game in your league standings. Keeping Interleague as only EvE, CvC, WvW is maximizing inventory.

B - One of those series against everyone else's 5th place team is on the other side of the country! So instead of 7 pm vs the Marlins, it's 10 pm at Oakland!

 

[GKJ]

Interleague itself isn't bad for business. Expanding interleague from the special event to playing everyone every season definitely is terrible for business.

Limited interleague, on specific weeks was a special event. Didn't happen often and the AL/NL format meant it was local rivals every time. That was what they should have kept.

Going to year-round interleague makes the vast majority of those games just ordinary.


IU says "no one wants to host the Royals, Reds or Marlins 8-9 times a year." Which is totally true... until you realize whom those series are being replaced with: EVERY division has 5th place teams like that. You're losing 6 games vs your division's 5th place team, but adding NINE GAMES against the other league's fifth-place team.

A - there's less stakes in interleague: A division game is a 2-game swing in the division and wildcard standings, and an interleague game is a half game in your league standings. Keeping Interleague as only EvE, CvC, WvW is maximizing inventory.

B - One of those series against everyone else's 5th place team is on the other side of the country! So instead of 7 pm vs the Marlins, it's 10 pm at Oakland!

Interleague itself became ordinary too. That’s why they expanded it. You need your top stars to be as visible as possible to as many people as possible.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Interleague itself became ordinary too. That’s why they expanded it. You need your top stars to be as visible as possible to as many people as possible.

And it also became necessary year round when they went to the same number of teams in each league, when it was a 16/14 split they could keep it only to certain weeks, but 15/15 makes that impossible

 

[Cas]

There is just one league. Pretending that there are two just generates confusion.

 

[KevFu]

And it also became necessary year round when they went to the same number of teams in each league, when it was a 16/14 split they could keep it only to certain weeks, but 15/15 makes that impossible

Yes, but they had 16/14. It wasn't necessary at all to do 15/15. It was not a good business decision to do that at all, it only made schedule building easier, but made the actual schedules worse from a TV start time perspective, and that translates to revenue from TV deals.

TV start times is why MLB went to three divisions in the first place. It was a business decision to benefit the Central teams stuck in the Western division. . All the teams in the Central would rather be tied to the East than West.

That's also why the NHLPA approved the realignment to 4 divisions IF they changed the schedule, and we got home/away vs everyone... it gave those teams CTZ 8 more road games at 6pm instead of 9 pm.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Yes, but they had 16/14. It wasn't necessary at all to do 15/15. It was not a good business decision to do that at all, it only made schedule building easier, but made the actual schedules worse from a TV start time perspective, and that translates to revenue from TV deals.

TV start times is why MLB went to three divisions in the first place. It was a business decision to benefit the Central teams stuck in the Western division. . All the teams in the Central would rather be tied to the East than West.

That's also why the NHLPA approved the realignment to 4 divisions IF they changed the schedule, and we got home/away vs everyone... it gave those teams CTZ 8 more road games at 6pm instead of 9 pm.

but it is a minimal change, last year, my local team, Pittsburgh played 22 road games out west, including at Colorado

In 2014 with year round interleague, but not playing everybody, they had 17 games out west

In 2005 prior to year round interleague play they played 18 games out west including at Colorado

Prior to Interleague play and the 2 division days in 1993 they played 24 games out west

Is a couple of games out of a 162 game schedule really that big of a deal?

 

[KevFu]

but it is a minimal change, last year, my local team, Pittsburgh played 22 road games out west, including at Colorado

In 2014 with year round interleague, but not playing everybody, they had 17 games out west
In 2005 prior to year round interleague play they played 18 games out west including at Colorado
Prior to Interleague play and the 2 division days in 1993 they played 24 games out west

Is a couple of games out of a 162 game schedule really that big of a deal?

Well, it's less additional games for the Pirates because the NL West has five teams already and the AL West only has SEA, LAA and OAK out west to add to your schedule. Worse for the AL teams.

But is it worth it? You lost six games against CIN, and a game each against PHI, NYM, WAS, ATL, MIA to make that happen.

Most importantly "Is it really that big of a deal?" is not a very good selling point.

The goal is to make changes that make things better for the majority of people, not acceptably worse. And while it isn't a 100% correlation, the fact that the TV network that had Pirates games last season just shut down and left also isn't a very good sign that making the TV inventory worse for the broadcasters was a good idea.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Well, it's less additional games for the Pirates because the NL West has five teams already and the AL West only has SEA, LAA and OAK out west to add to your schedule. Worse for the AL teams.

But is it worth it? You lost six games against CIN, and a game each against PHI, NYM, WAS, ATL, MIA to make that happen.

Most importantly "Is it really that big of a deal?" is not a very good selling point.

The goal is to make changes that make things better for the majority of people, not acceptably worse. And while it isn't a 100% correlation, the fact that the TV network that had Pirates games last season just shut down and left also isn't a very good sign that making the TV inventory worse for the broadcasters was a good idea.

Yes, I think it is, I wish it had happened sooner so I could have seen prime Ken Griffey Jr and Ichiro, and Mike Trout, and Ohtani against my team more often, losing games from the Reds? Where do I sign up? Can I give up some Brewers games too? They have played so many division games thru the non-balanced schedule era I think most fans are sick of those teams, and Washington and Miami are nothing as well, so 3 games that people might care about are lost vs NYM, PHI, and ATL, two teams that the Pirates have been playing for 125 or so years in a row now

I don't think it is an acceptable downgrade, I think it is an upgrade if anything, as it allows me to see teams I generally would only see every 3-5 years or whatever the rotation was

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Interleague itself isn't bad for business. Expanding interleague from the special event to playing everyone every season definitely is terrible for business.

Limited interleague, on specific weeks was a special event. Didn't happen often and the AL/NL format meant it was local rivals every time. That was what they should have kept.

Going to year-round interleague makes the vast majority of those games just ordinary.


IU says "no one wants to host the Royals, Reds or Marlins 8-9 times a year." Which is totally true... until you realize whom those series are being replaced with: EVERY division has 5th place teams like that. You're losing 6 games vs your division's 5th place team, but adding NINE GAMES against the other league's fifth-place team.

A - there's less stakes in interleague: A division game is a 2-game swing in the division and wildcard standings, and an interleague game is a half game in your league standings. Keeping Interleague as only EvE, CvC, WvW is maximizing inventory.

B - One of those series against everyone else's 5th place team is on the other side of the country! So instead of 7 pm vs the Marlins, it's 10 pm at Oakland!

I would absolutely rather get the chance to play against and travel to Washington, Colorado, or St. Louis than play Kansas City & Detroit 6 more times each.

The variety is good for business. Fans get the chance to travel to see their team in parks they previously would only visit every 6 years, and transplants get the guarantee to see their team in their new home every other year.

 

[John Price]

 

[yada]

Yes, but they had 16/14. It wasn't necessary at all to do 15/15. It was not a good business decision to do that at all, it only made schedule building easier, but made the actual schedules worse from a TV start time perspective, and that translates to revenue from TV deals.

TV start times is why MLB went to three divisions in the first place. It was a business decision to benefit the Central teams stuck in the Western division. . All the teams in the Central would rather be tied to the East than West.

That's also why the NHLPA approved the realignment to 4 divisions IF they changed the schedule, and we got home/away vs everyone... it gave those teams CTZ 8 more road games at 6pm instead of 9 pm.

New schedule > old 50% of your schedule in division.

 

[KevFu]

New schedule > old 50% of your schedule in division.

Strong disagree. The majority of fans SAY they want to see everyone in the league, and say that making interleague rivals be division rivals is good for business. But attendance numbers don't reflect that.

Fans aren't SPENDING to see everyone in the league. They show up for 3-4 games/series with star power -- your Crosby/Ovechkin or Shohei Ohtani visits -- but then show up LESS for everyone else who has to visit in order to get the star teams visiting. You're trading 10 for 5.

I actually ran numbers over a decade for hockey we argued H/A with every team. There's just more teams that don't draw road crowds in the other league/conference than teams that draw crowds for games that MATTER LESS in the standings. (And a third of the league is close to selling out regardless). It's just BAD USE of inventory.

(I also have yet to find a single person in a two-team market who went to "the other team's" stadium just to see a visiting star player. Every star player visits New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, the Bay Area and the DMV. I just can't take that argument seriously when a third of the league has the option and don't take it).


And of course, we can use the Astros switching leagues to show that their Interleague series averaged 5,000 fans more per game than since they've both been AL West (and Houston is A LOT better now, the Astros were losing 100 games the last few years in the NL).


You're not going to make Marlins/Rays a legit rivalry with radical geographic realignment in MLB, unless both teams are good at the same time or dudes start drilling each other. And that can/does happen regardless of a map. It's the STAKES that make the rivalry. Texas/Toronto got heated for a bit with Joey Bats bat throw and Roughned Odor's punch throw. They aren't close on a map, but those stakes were high.

There's far more to LOSE by radical realignment. The "Bragging Rights" kind of series are about two fan bases arguing for an entire year over who's better because there's no way to settle it until the one time we play, and that series shapes the argument for the rest of the year. Same division, same schedule: there's really no bragging rights when it's six series spread out of six months and the standings tell you who's better by June.

 

[Unholy Diver]

Strong disagree. The majority of fans SAY they want to see everyone in the league, and say that making interleague rivals be division rivals is good for business. But attendance numbers don't reflect that.

Fans aren't SPENDING to see everyone in the league. They show up for 3-4 games/series with star power -- your Crosby/Ovechkin or Shohei Ohtani visits -- but then show up LESS for everyone else who has to visit in order to get the star teams visiting. You're trading 10 for 5.

I actually ran numbers over a decade for hockey we argued H/A with every team. There's just more teams that don't draw road crowds in the other league/conference than teams that draw crowds for games that MATTER LESS in the standings. (And a third of the league is close to selling out regardless). It's just BAD USE of inventory.

(I also have yet to find a single person in a two-team market who went to "the other team's" stadium just to see a visiting star player. Every star player visits New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, the Bay Area and the DMV. I just can't take that argument seriously when a third of the league has the option and don't take it).


And of course, we can use the Astros switching leagues to show that their Interleague series averaged 5,000 fans more per game than since they've both been AL West (and Houston is A LOT better now, the Astros were losing 100 games the last few years in the NL).


You're not going to make Marlins/Rays a legit rivalry with radical geographic realignment in MLB, unless both teams are good at the same time or dudes start drilling each other. And that can/does happen regardless of a map. It's the STAKES that make the rivalry. Texas/Toronto got heated for a bit with Joey Bats bat throw and Roughned Odor's punch throw. They aren't close on a map, but those stakes were high.

There's far more to LOSE by radical realignment. The "Bragging Rights" kind of series are about two fan bases arguing for an entire year over who's better because there's no way to settle it until the one time we play, and that series shapes the argument for the rest of the year. Same division, same schedule: there's really no bragging rights when it's six series spread out of six months and the standings tell you who's better by June.

but MLB attendance was up almost 10% last year, the highest since 2017

 

[GOilers88]

I don’t see a reason interleague specifically is bad for business. The casual fan doesn’t really care who their team is playing apart from the occasional division rival

More interleague games would be awesome, and I'm more than a casual fan. I wished I had gotten to see more before they instituted the mandatory DH.

 

[AKL]

I'm more than a casual fan but less than a hardcore fan. For me, interleague play has vastly improved the quality of the product. Maybe not in an "on-field" way where the players are better and there are more runs scored or whatever, but now I get to see all the teams play, and I get more enjoyment out of that than out of playing the same 14 teams twice as much or whatever it was.