Update: Oakland A's put in binding offer for Las Vegas stadium

If they don't have a Viva Las Vegas sing along during the 7th inning stretch, it would be a crime against humanity.

 

Not throwing gasoline on a fire, but what were the people talking about fans not being loyal to their home teams (with empty stadiums) or players not being loyal to one team. Exhibit A#.

Another issue, a little off topic, but comes around in a full-circle. City doesn't want to pay for the stadium, super understandable, especially if they have to raise taxes. That's often not popular with alot of citizens, especially for sporting events. Besides, aren't these owners and investment groups fairly wealthy that they can afford, such projects without public tax dollars. Alot of franchises also have tax exemptions that allows them to forgo taxes, like property taxes. Honest question, do all pro teams contribute alot to the city and community, beyond inspired PR? Speaking more about the franchise themselves, the business entity.

The teams are not happy, when fans do not come to game, because the prices can be exorbitant or lack of enthusiasm around the home town team. Superstar or team's best player probably wants a competitive salary (not taking a home-town discount) or wants to play for a contender. Also, take into consideration, before Anthony Davis was traded to LA. Kyle Kuzma had more Twitter (and Instagram) followers than he did. Just a simple example, of how the market does matter in some shape or form.

The word loyalty needs to be retired from sports, because it does not (and should not) exist, especially in such a profit-driven business. If we don't expect franchises to be loyal (which most never are), why should we expect it from fans, much less players?

 

Vegas lucked out with their NHL team. The league practically gifted them that Stanley Cup appearance in their first year...which, IMO, was complete garbage. Expansion teams should have to toil a few years and earn their way into the higher echelon of teams. If I were some of the struggling NHL franchises, I'd be pissed that the Golden Knights easily bought their way ahead of everyone (practically) else. Had Vegas been introduced the same way every other expansion team was introduced into their league, the fan support would probably be much less significant than what we see today. Vegas doesn't know what a losing hockey team feels like. Will be interesting to see what the reaction is when they have a few years of not making the playoffs.

 

That's true in most markets... in some cases top 10 markets.

You think Houston overwhelmingly supports the Rockets during losing seasons? I know there haven't been many lately, but had there not been covid restrictions towards the end of this season, I'd guess TC would be around 50% capacity. They were drawing 9,000 fans/game just prior to the championship seasons... and this was less than 6 years removed from a finals appearance (and being the "team of the future").

The only sport that is seemingly attendance-proof is the NFL... mainly due to its once/week requirements, games are more of "events" than simply sporting contests, season ticket holder/PSL requirements, and its simply a more popular league.

 

I don't think that is a terrible thing. It's very much a nature of the beast. 162 (81 home) MLB games w/playoff series; 82 (41 home) NBA games w/playoff series; 16 (8 home) NFL w/single elimination playoff; NCAA Football has insane 130 schools...you have a top 25 with conference teams and then non-conference teams...you have to be in the top 4 to make it to the playoffs, where as Bowl games are somewhat obsolete for game stakes. NCAA Basketball is the same 130 schools, but 68 which shrinks to 64 all play in a single elimination tournament.

There's no way to setup the NBA, like the other leagues on those merits, alone. You cannot expect the same kind of parity, due to the size of the leagues and the teams. Basketball teams are smaller, while one player can mean a world of difference in basketball, especially if it's a star. In other sports, not quite as much, because of the way the game is made. In any sport, the teams with the best players with combinations of the best coaching strategy usually wins. It's more apparent in pro-sports. Only one 9-7 team has won a Super Bowl with two others reaching it. Nothing below 9-7. Most Super Bowl winners are 12-15 win teams. Now, it's shown that's especially geared towards teams with superb franchise QBs. So, the parity thing is there, but not as prominent as people think. It existed for brief time in 2000s, because alot of franchise QBs from the 80s were retiring (Marino/Elway/Kelly/Young/Moon/Aikman), free agency/salary cap had just entered the league, and the early to mid 90s did not produce alot of HOF worthy QBs outside of Favre and maybe Bledsoe. The trend slowly caught up between 2004-2009, while passing rules were changing...aggressive defense penalized...offensive schemes grew more exotic with more athletic QBs coming into the league. It exploded between 2010-2019. You basically cannot win without a near-Pro Bowl quality QB unless your defense is excellent or you have a master at head coach.


NBA, you cannot win without a superstar, 2 stars, or collection of all-stars. The way the league is made and the game is played, we cannot expect a lower-tier team (low-payroll) without any type of star player to win 4 rounds of basketball against the league's best teams. It's rare in most sports. The one team in NBA history that I don't believe had a superstar at all ... 78-79 Supersonics. Alot of really good and even all-star worthy players, but I don't think they had anyone you could point to that could carry a team. Even in that year, it's good example of parity. Most of the teams were pretty evenly matched, not really dominated by stars. Still, look at where the NBA ratings/attendances/viewership was at. Not very good. Is it for the quality of the games, lack of superstars, no powerhouse teams, and etc.

What happened in the 1980s? Bird and Magic ushered in the 80s with a new generation of superstars. The league improved for the most part, but competitively for the rest of the league. It really didn't happen for both conferences until the late 80s. If you have #2/#3 seeded team with less than 50 wins, that's a terrible conference. That's been the case for the East, since 2002 (also that happen a bit in the West until the late 80s). Remember, this was way before LeBron and KD put their mark on the league. You almost cannot blame them in any sense for the league being less competitive overall. Parity rarely existed, and when it did...it didn't necessarily help the league overall. No MJ 93-95 and after 98, ratings took quite hit, but actual attendance was pretty steady for the rest of the league. Most championship teams, since 1950s have at least 2-3 star players.

It's very tricky pony with the NBA in this regard.

 

Vegas just got nuked. It's a wasteland.

 

The NBA has plenty of fan bases that deliver strong support of their teams regardless of record: Portland, Utah, Sacramento, OKC, Orlando come to mind. Those cities also have something else in common...

In cities with multiple sports teams, its not always a given they all get sellout support unless they're consistently winning. The problem is cities that can't even support winners... that's where you do have to question whether or not the fan base/market will survive.

 

You have alot of great points. I'd add the San Antonio to that first group as well.

So, let's go back to 2018, last full seasons, worst attendance ... Nets, Suns, T-Wolves, Hawks, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Pistons, and Hornets. The Bucks and Clippers rose out of the bottom tier, as will the Nets and Suns, who also are pretty steady when their team wins. Most of the other teams above these have pretty stable attendance over a period of years, and some of the teams marginal playoff teams to non-playoff at all, like the Magic and Kings you pointed out. Even, the Pacers fans are pretty loyal.

Leaving the T-Wolves, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Hawks, Hornets, and Pistons. You can probably take out Atlanta, Charlotte, and New Orleans, because they have young/rising star players, now.

That leaves Memphis, Minnesota, and Detroit. Memphis doesn't seem to even reach higher than 18, even though they were a perennial playoff team for 7 season, which is not a good sign. Minnesota and Detroit will both have top 5 pick, this year ...probably next year as well.

 

If the stadium isn’t on or near the strip, the As should stay in Oakland. This is the equivalent of building in Katy. No thanks.

 

Did the NHL change the expansion rules or will Seattle be gifted a winner too?

 

Yall can argue about Las Vegas all night and into next week.

The proposed A's Ballpark and the development around it should be a no-brainer for Oakland.

Stadium is privately funded. The residential/retail development in the area is privately funded. Unless the numbers I've seen are wrong, only ~850M of the 12B is from the public, and that is all for infrastructure, like roads and sewage and electricity and "community improvements", and such.

We'll see.

City/County approves it, they stay; they don't, they go.

@B-Bob, I know you're not in Oakland but you're closer than me, do you have any local insight or thoughts or anything?

 

I think the current stadium is in Henderson, no?

 

Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure the city of LA has spent that much on the homeless population each of the last two or three years, to only see it increase. That's off of memory, but I just thought that it was an interesting way to compare how different funds are allocated.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it would be to get things to happen in Oakland, CA.

I've lived through it in Houston, TX. Lost one franchise, barely kept the other 2.

These are the best articles I've seen:

https://oaklandside.org/2021/04/26/oakland-howard-terminal-baseball-port-future/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-p...and-A-s-Howard-Terminal-ballpark-16140454.php

Not sure what your LA mention has to do with it.

 

you’ve followed it more closely than I have, but I’ll give you these random thoughts:
1. Bay Area now thinks Warriors project the way these things should go: some incentives, sure, but 100% privately funded. Even then, lots of bellyaching about the new toilet bowl project.
2. Everyone hates the new Niners stadium. Most people see it as a disaster.
3. A’s beloved by older fans but Oakland gentrifying very fast. Not sure many of the new woke white residents care much about baseball.

I set it 65/35 they move. No stadium approval.

 

I believe it's in Summerlin which is nice. Henderson isn't bad either. I wouldn't necessarily put it close to the strip because the neighborhoods close to it can be rough.

 

Yes.