The writing was on the wall when in March the ABC Coalition recommended looking outside St. Petersburg (PDF) for the Rays’ future home, so it’s not surprising that Rays owner Stuart Sternberg agreed with the opinion in a Monday press conference. Sternberg took it a step further by ruling out downtown St. Pete, and likely St. Pete altogether.
The city is not considered an option due to its low population and lack of convenience. Imagine having the A’s in a city the size of Fremont, only that it’s surrounded on three sides by water. Or a 1/3-size San Francisco. That’s St. Petersburg. Instead, several groups are jockeying for position with possible land deals in the city of Tampa. One wants to build out the Florida State Fairgrounds (doesn’t that sound familiar?). Another wants the Rays downtown. Reports from the local media are as follows:
The SPTimes report adds a bit of intrigue:
Sternberg arrived at City Hall in a silver sport utility vehicle. He entered through a side door, avoiding contact with media. Reporters were kept in the lobby.
About an hour later, he left through a back door with Rays president Matt Silverman.
Foster held his own news conference after Sternberg’s announcement. Foster described their meeting as “very cordial,” and then said he was surprised by Sternberg’s announcement.
“Quite frankly, the content of the press conference was different than my meeting,” he said.
The other sites outside St. Petersburg weren’t covered in his meeting, but they “resonated in the press conference.”
This could get messy.
The Times also has a graphic containing dual timelines, showing how events could unfold in terms of getting something built. In either case, a new ballpark doesn’t open for at least a decade from now.
If I’m a Rays fan and I want outdoor regular season baseball, I’m not holding my breath that it’ll happen in Tampa Bay anytime soon. If you’re looking for a parallel with the A’s, it’s this: both the A’s and Rays need to pay off someone to move where they want. In the A’s case, it’s the Giants. In the Rays’ case, it’s St. Pete. Different legal machinations, but both potentially ugly payouts (or not).
newballpark.org 
My question for them is, WTF are they thinking trying to get the team outdoors in Florida… covered roof or not. Are they trying to drive what little fan base they have away?
What about a retractable roof, or are those too expensive? It would seem like a great idea for a place like Florida.
They’re trying to build an outdoor stadium because it’s obviously the stadium that’s the problem. It couldn’t be that the team blew chunks for the first 10 years of its existence, or that all the owners have just badmouthed the existing stadium, making people not want to come there, or anything else that could be placed on the ownership.
Why doesn’t San Jose try to steal the Devil Rays then instead of the A’s? Problem solved.
Sure, jk…then the A’s can move to Charlotte, cause lord knows Oakland isn’t doing anything proactive to keep them.
@Brian- owners don’t have to talk about how horrible Tropicana or the Coli are—they are ranked as the 2 worst ballparks in MLB by the players…and understandably so—-really don’t think you will find many people who dispute that both are horrible—
The Rays should move to NYC…
Brian is on to something here. Until very recently, the Rays stunk and everybody associated with the team delighted in trashing the Trop, which is, we should always note, provided by the taxpayers, not by the team. They should be grateful. They’re getting rich on other peoples’ money.
Anybody who knows anything about the Tampa-St. Pete area knows that the stadium is in the wrong place. The ideal location would be near Raymond James Stadium—where the Bucs play—and where there are some open areas. But that’s Hillsborough County, and local politics would come into play with St. Pete and Pinellas County.
Open stadium? Hah. If you’ve spent any time in the summer in Florida, you’ll know why I say the Trop isn’t all that bad a place to go see a game in July and August. I spend a lot of time in the Tampa area and for the past four years, I’ve attended an early October Bucs game with my buddy, who’s got season tickets. His wife gladly gives her ticket up because he, the dummy, got seats on the sun side of the stadium. He got them there because that was the Bucs side of the field when the stadium first opened. Guess what. The Bucs moved to the other side of the field. It is unbearable in those stands in October. For the past two years, I’ve spent the second half watching the game on the concourse. Imagine July. I live in Hilton Head, SC, 350 miles north. Last week, I played golf on a day when the heat index hit 112 at 11:30 AM. Daytime baseball in the Southeast is an iffy proposition. I’ve done day games in Atlanta and spent more time on the concourse than the seats. IMO, if the Rays were to do an open stadium, they’d have to go to almost exclusively night games the way the Texas Rangers do.
Marine Layer is looking for parallels between the Rays and the A’s. I’d say there is one gigantic difference between the two situations. Unlike the Rays, the A’s are looking to pay almost all of the freight for a new ball park. Contrast this with the Rays, who want to just keep on suckling at the taxpayer teat. If I were a Pinellas County resident—and I have lots of friends there—I’d say, let the Rays go and then pocket the $400 million. And that’s how most of the folks I know there feel.
One striking similarity between the A’s and the Rays is this: Not all that many people in their respective markets seem to care too much about them. Neither area is that much into baseball. In Florida, football is king. In the Bay Area, the Giants seemingly own whatever baseball interest there is on the part of most folks, but the fact is they’ve always been secondary to the 49ers. The Raiders own Oakland, or least they own the city administration.
One truly wonders if even a move to San Jose—which I think is the only thing that can conceivably save the team in the Bay Area—will really work out that well for the A’s. New park, increased attendance, sure. For a while. But if the on field product isn’t decent, the jump start won’t last long. Anybody seen PNC Park in Pittsburgh? Beautiful. Better than Phone Company Park, IMO. Walk up and get a ticket anytime. I was in Fenway Park three weeks ago for an A’s game (the A’s lost). Sell-out. It was a madhouse, a great party in that 98-year-old park. A wonderful experience, with the subway right around the corner to get us back to Cambridge, where my daughter lives, in 30 minutes. You won’t get that in San Jose. You don’t get it at Phone Company Park. You sure don’t get it at the Coliseum. You might have gotten it at Jack London Square.
Oh, and another similarity between the A’s and the Rays. Both have figured prominently in MLB’s contraction discussions. And that might end up being the final story. These teams can flannel mouth all they want about moving from their current areas, but the reality is there really isn’t anywhere else, not if taxpayers are going to be involved. Every state and municipality is broke; it would have to be an incredibly stupid politician to suggest to taxpayers that they pony up a large chunk of change for a baseball team. One is shocked to see that Santa Clara has seemingly sold its soul to the 49ers; one doubts the voters of too many other cites are that sports-crazed. Good luck on selling Charlotte, San Antonio or Portland. Vegas? C’mon. The Rays and the A’s could very well end up stuck where they are, the Rays in the Trop, and the A’s in the good old Coliseum, if the San Jose voters dictate it.
I know I wouldn’t vote to put a penny of tax money out so that any commercial enterprise could improve its bottom line. This is America. Free enterprise and all that. Taxpayers should subsidize an industry where the average salary is more than $3 million a year? Right. Fire your teachers and cops and pay ball players.
Everybody talks about “when” the economy improves. What if it doesn’t?
@GoA’s-so say the A’s and Rays get new stadiums. Then the players will rank 2 other ballparks as the worst (US Cell? KC? Arlington? Cleveland? Who knows?). After all, something has to be the worst. Are those cities going to need to build new stadiums too?
Forgot about Skydome, that’d be on there too.
@OldBlue – You’ve wildly misinterpreted my last paragraph. It’s not about viability long term. It’s solely about what it will take to get a ballpark built. Beyond that, we can predict the economy until we’re blue in the face but chances are we’ll be wrong. We’re always claiming gloom and doom, whether it’s Communism, the energy crisis, Japan, Taiwan, China, outsourcing, deficits and debt, financial scandals, etc. What we can’t predict is innovation. The creation of new markets. Silicon Valley is restless, always inventing, always creating. We should be cautious, but to be constantly fiddle-dee-dee is pointless. Where does that get us? It’s okay to be hopeful on occasion, OldBlue. It really is.
The thing is you’ve raised this question of local viability before. Perhaps it’s legitimate, perhaps not. The important thing is that ownership does believe SJ is viable and deserves a team. And if SJ gets the A’s, we’ll see. I’d rather give it a shot than doom the region forever to one-team market status.
Certainly there are parallels in the A’s and Rays situations, but the ballparks they currently occupy are very different: The A’s play in a crumbling, 45 year old multi purpose (i.e. football) stadium which lost any ballpark asthetic it once had when they built Mt. Davis, and really should have been replaced 15 years ago. The Trop, on the other hand, may be a ridiculous dome with catwalks, located in the worst possible spot to serve the greater Tampa Bay region, but it is only 20 years old, feels newer, and at least was built as a baseball only facility- thus the sightlines, concourses, distance from the field to the seats, etc, aren’t too bad. Regardless of what is said or threatened, I could see the Rays muddling through at the Trop until their lease expires in 2027. (that’s only 7 years past the best case scenario referenced in this article) But it’s doubtful the A’s could survive at the Colisseum that long. If they’re not in a new stadium by at least 2016, then they’ll probably be playing in another market.
Brian, the difference is once the Trop and Coliseum are gone the worst will likely be Skydome, but beyond that the 2nd worst would then be open to vast interpretation unlike today. It’s universally agreed that the worst two current worst stadiums are in Oakland and St. Pete. But if you ever read those ranking lists the current 3rd, 4th and 5th worst are never uniformly decided on. Sure something has to be worst in any ranking just like something has to be best, but today the order is never uniform anymore. Some people love Dodger Stadium, others hate it. Same goes for the new Yankee Stadium, PNC Park, Pac Smell, etc… etc…
Since the general consensus amongst A’s fans is that the Coliseum must go, I’m curious to know what specifically everyone dislikes about the Coliseum and how it disrupts your enjoyment of the game. It’s not meant to be a loaded question. From a business standpoint, I understand the ownership group’s eagerness to get a new venue (luxury boxes, corporate sponsorship, added amenities to increase revenue, etc). But from a purely average fan standpoint, how would the experience of going to a new ballpark differ from going to the Coliseum?
Here’s my take:
I don’t mind the foul territory at the Coliseum at all. Sure, the seats are set farther back, but their general orientation towards the field isn’t that bad. So, I’m not aching to be closer to the action. I’d like a more interesting backdrop like DT San Jose/Oakland/Bay beyond the outfield rather than Mount Davis, but it’s certainly not a deal breaker. As for new amenities, wider concourses and luxury suite, those things never factor into my ballpark experience because I’m fine with a hot dog & beer; I’ve never had an issue with the concourse width and I’ve never wanted to rent out a luxury suite.
I eagerness for a new yard for the A’s primarily stems from wanting the team to have increased revenue so that they can build a consistent contender. So without trying to sound too cynical, essentially I just want other fans to come and spend their money so that I can watch a better A’s team. For myself, I go to about a dozen games each season, buying 2 to 4 tickets for each of those games. I don’t really see my habits changing that much since they’re determined by who’s available to see the game with me, how many people want to come along and simply whether I’m able to find the time to make it out to the game.
Beyond all that, my only real objection to the Coliseum is what’s surrounding it. It’d be nice to make a game an event that involves dinner/lunch and drinks before or after the game. Other than that, I can’t really argue that the Coliseum is that bad of a place to see a game. Other than its location, does anyone have any huge gripe with the Coliseum?
Briggs – orientation to the field of play sucks, feel detached from game due to distance from playing field, claustrophobia inducing concourses, not enough bathrooms, outdated bathrooms, lousy ‘luxury’ suites, nothing to do surrounding the park for before or after game, lousy food, lousy area, etc etc etc
@ Briggs
I recently returned from a baseball trip to six different ballparks. The oldest of wich was Camden Yards and the newest Target Field. I highly encourage anyone who has the chance, do this! You will see what the colliseum is lacking. I want more roomy concourses, more concessions with variety like Target field or AT&T. Better seating, ie.. closer to the field (PNC). Architectural character a la Camden or Citi Field. A museum to view trophies and records accomplished by all franchise players (Yankee Stadium). For those of us with young children, a better play area would be nice. Thought it shouldn’t be as over the top as AT&T, maybe more like Petco. The ballpark surroundings, shops, restaraunts, bars, etc… could be like AT&T, Fenway or Camden. Most of all, and this may be the toughest challenge, a great fan atmosphere. Philly fans were great and the atmosphere was like one big party, you’d think it was a playoff game. The current die hard Oakland fans are great but we don’t know what fans will fill a new stadium. Proper stadium planning and marketing will help achieve the fan atmosphere we all would like. In summary, the colliseum feels dead and bland in comparison to most other MLB ballparks and much can be improved on.
Great blog. First time poster long time lurker. Getting back to the Rays. They have a bigger problem than the A’s do. At least the A’s ownership know where they want their new ballpark to be, San Jose. The Rays can’t say where their new ballpark will actually wind up even if they get to relocate to Tampa. There are other problems for the Rays:
The new ballpark has to have a retractable roof. Something along the lines of what the Marlins will get in their new ballpark. The heat in south Florida is too much without question. The fight for a retractable roof made it easier for a new ballpark to be built in Minneapolis, while it was tougher for the Marlins thanks to the cost of the retractable roof.
The big similarity between the Rays and the A’s is the payoff they need to make to move where they want to go. I believe the Giants and the A’s will ,sooner or later, come to an agreement and come up with a settlement. The Rays have a bigger problem. The city of St. Petersburg may exact a stiff price for the team to leave St. Petersburg. That cost may be more than the price the team will have to put up for their new ballpark (Let’s say a conservative estimate of 150 million).
The Rays are hoping that when they get a chance at a new ballpark that it won’t be put up to a public vote. The Nationals, the Yankees, the Mets, the Twins, and the Marlins all got lucky that their new stadiums didn’t have to get approval from the voters at large. I don’t know if the Rays will get this lucky. A lot people say that the public shouldn’t finance building stadiums and arenas for professional sports teams with taxpayers’ money and there is a lot of validity to this. But the thing is the teams can’t do this sort of thing (Unless they will undertake the project themselves) without some public assistance. Landshark Stadium was build by Joe Robbie back in the late 1980’s but he had to sell the Dolphins because building what was then Dolphins Stadium took a toll on his and his family’s finances.
Briggs, to answer question in no particular order…
The Coliseum’s foul territory while distinctive puts fans WAY too far from the action compared to any other ballpark. The seats while bigger than a really old venue like Fenway or Wrigley are none the less noticeably smaller than newer stadiums. The addition of Mt Davis has made the whole ballpark experience in Oakland claustrophobic and over bearing compared to any other ballpark. The stadium’s location is TERRIBLE, with no link to the city or indeed anything around the stadium other than the parking lot (not that the area is one you’d want to go out in anyway). It’s a very dirty venue that unashamedly shows that it is 100% publicly owned. The bathrooms are old, dirty and too few. The concourses are narrow, small and constricted (more so than many in even Fenway Park). The beer and food selection sucks compared to many new stadiums like say PETCO Park. The stadium has no character, and indeed no recognition of any of the history that has taken place there. And worst of all it is now the ONLY venue in the major leagues that has the indignity of sharing its often torn up field with an NFL team (and one owned by a senile ego maniac to boot).
Actually, Marine Layer, you and I are in violent agreement. I’m totally in favor of the A’s moving to San Jose. Oakland has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I like what the A’s are doing in stepping up and accepting that they’re going to have to pay for the park in San Jose. I’m sure they don’t like it, but those seem to be the rules in California unless you’re a football team. Good rules, IMO. I’ve never regretted my vote almost 20 years ago against building a stadium for the Giants in San Jose.
I agree the Coliseum is a pit. But I never minded it all that much. Give me a hot dog, beer and baseball, and I’m OK. That’s why I don’t even mind the horrendous Trop that much, especially since it’s air conditioned. But I know I’m in the minority. A new stadium is needed, not only just for the stadium itself, but for a decent environment. No thank you to that sterile Coliseum area. Downtown is where it’s at in modern baseball, and although I’d say the proposed San Jose location is less than ideal, restaurants and bars are least within reasonable walking distance.
My concern has always been the long-term prospects for two teams in the Bay Area. I frankly wonder if critical mass—loosely defined as 3M per year attendance for each team—is achievable. This is why the Giants are fighting the move to San Jose; they wonder, too, and they know it’s zero sum game. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the A’s have a beautiful new park in San Jose, it’s going to affect Giants’ attendance. Which is fine with me, BTW. I don’t care about the Giants. In fact, I’d rather they be the team worrying about attendance, etc., instead of the A’s. Unfortunately, the Giants are on much firmer ground than are the A’s. They were the first, they have the new park, they had the PED-enhanced super star, they have the radio station, they have the market penetration. They also now have a fairly decent team with a couple of star pitchers. And then I hear about a new park for the A’s with a planned 32K capacity and I wonder if the A’s are being smart. I also wonder what ticket prices will have to be to make the nut for debt service and payroll for a competitive team. I frankly wonder a lot about the A’s. They’ve seemingly reconciled themselves to awful attendance in Oakland, field a questionable major league team even though they get a ton of money through revenue sharing, and we hear the general manager cares only about soccer. I think the A’s are a troubled organization and I think the other owners are going to be taking this into account while they’re deliberating the team’s future. And getting back to what started this, the Rays, although a resounding success on the field—with a salary burden little more than the A’s, one might add—are also a troubled organization. And this is where contraction rears its ugly head.
Enough on that. Sorry to be so negative, but I calls them as I sees them. You’ve got a great web site. You’re providing a real service to those who care about the A’s and I know all who frequent the site appreciate what you do. Thanks.
Old Blue, there is great wisdom and realism in what you say.
I suspect that whatever disagreement exists between ML/RM and you is less violent than you may think.