Rangers and Arlington Working On Third Ballpark

Third? You ask. The Ballpark in Arlington was the first true ballpark in Texas. Arlington Stadium was an overstuffed minor league park not worthy of full MLB bonafides, right?

Arlington Stadium was an overstuffed minor league park, true. But it held up for 22 years in an era where ballparks were not as obscenely specced as they are today. Arlington Stadium was redone during the time of the cookie cutter stadia. It was a round bowl. A bare bones facility. It had no roof. There were no cantilevered decks, and the press box attracted the North Texas winds like a vacuum. It was odd and disproportional, yet I had a slight affinity for it when I saw the A’s play road games there. Perhaps that’s because I never had a chance watch a summer game there.

Arlington Stadium (photo by Mike Fitzpatrick)

In 1994 the Stadium was replaced by The Ballpark in Arlington (review), an early entrant in the new era of retro-classical ballparks. TBiA (now Globe Life Park) was built to hold 50,000 fans, a bunch of offices in center field, and the new standard of club seats and suites. What TBiA lacked was any kind of roof with an air conditioning system. A fixed roof was not really in the cards, and the only retractable roof at the time was at the hulking SkyDome, far too expensive for the $191 million budget. So to compensate, the Rangers built ultra large covered concourses with an open facade. It felt airy, and felt pretty good in April and sometimes September. July and August were punishingly brutal thanks to the humidity. George W. Bush, who was looking for a trophy to propel his burgeoning political career, didn’t have six years to wait until the retractable technology evolved to the point of affordability, as it did for the Astros. So TBiA was built, Dubya became governor, and the Rangers stayed in Arlington.

Recently, Rangers ownership, now changed twice, started looking for a more technologically modern home, citing the need for a retractable dome thanks to the heat and humidity problems. A dome over the top of TBiA was considered problematic because of the lack of a support structure (and infrastructure) to carry the roof’s load. Prominent Dallas interests quietly started talking up a ballpark within the city, perhaps close to American Airlines Center. Arlington pulled the rug out from Dallas by working with the Rangers on an eventual replacement for TBiA, even though eight years remained on the lease.

rangers1

What will be the price tag for improved climate control? A cool $1 billion, half of it charged to the citizens of Arlington via extensions of existing sales/hotel/car rental tax hikes. Arlington pols feel confident about the plan because they may pay off the debt at the Cowboys’ AT&T Stadium 10 years early. Sure, they’ll outfit the park with more restaurants, bars, club levels, different types of suite boxes, and custom bat/bear/doohickey booths. And there will be a huge fan plaza with retail and a hotel, finally giving the immediate area something else walkable from the park. That mini ballpark village will be called Texas Live!, located kitty corner from the current ballpark to the southwest.

rangers2

There are a few sobering takeaways from this whole exercise.

  • Public money makes a stadium project move faster. Once those coffers are open, stakeholders are willing to move heaven and earth to make these projects happen. This is the #1 reason why no stadium is happening in Oakland right now, why San Jose’s ballpark fizzled, and why the Earthquakes’ stadium was delayed. Owners and leagues want municipalities to have skin in the game or a pound of flesh, whatever you want to call it.
  • There is little virtue in paying off a stadium early. Just as AT&T Stadium is projected to be paid off early, Phoenix’s Chase Field had its debt retired early. For Phoenix, all that meant was that the Diamondbacks asked for a new ballpark earlier than planned. Same goes for the Rangers in Arlington. Considering how so many sports venues don’t pay for themselves, such moves take a lot of chutzpah.
  • The next wave of ballparks is here. Cobb County’s park for the Braves will open next year. The Rangers are shooting for 2021. Arizona is asking for their own smaller, more intimate park. Arte Moreno has been saber rattling Anaheim for years. Other teams will call for extensive renovation plans. This new era may not have the same wholesale turnover of venues as it did during the Selig era, but whatever happens promises to be very expensive, and for most teams, largely unnecessary.

Sometimes it feels like the world is passing the A’s by. This is no more clearly evident than in the stadium game. At least the Rays are here to keep us company.

70 thoughts on “Rangers and Arlington Working On Third Ballpark

  1. az, atl, tex, laa all want new stadiums. i’d guess tor will eventually want a new smaller baseball only park in the future even though they’ve cut capacity down to around 49k down from the 55k they used to have back when they were selling out the place when it first opened in the late 80s.

    chw, det, cle, col, nym, sea all venues built within the last two decades have seen tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars spent to update their parks.

    lad, bos, chc also have spent millions to renovate their older venues in the past decade.

    all the while the a’s and rays continue to play in the most sub par of baseball venues that are breaking down literally.

    • Yeah, and when the Rays get a new park they will have had TWO in the same period the A’s will have had either one or zero.

      • honestly if i had to bet on it i would think the a’s would get a new park first over tb. once this whole situation with the football team is dealt with then i think that will open up the coliseum area for the a’s and we could see something rather quick happen.

        i’m still holding out some hope that something gets built near downtown but really the sites in and around that area just don’t look feasible or at least a hell of a lot more red tape to get thru than what the coliseum site potentially offers.

        not really all that excited of a baseball park being built in that area of oakland but at this point i just want a new park and could care less where it’s built at this time. i don’t want to wait another decade watching this team playing in a run down venue and see countless players being dealt away because the a’s can’t afford to keep them.

      • A new stadium would have little effect on whether the A’s can keep FA’s given the debt service. The difference will be do you want to see a Moneyball team in an old facility that I can afford to go to or a new expensive facility that I can’t.

      • Those players will still be dealt away, as the A’s in a new stadium would still be a low-revenue team playing second fiddle to the Giants, with debt service to offset the revenue gain. The difference will be that you’ll be watching low-cost players in an old stadium that I can afford to go to versus seeing the same players in a new stadium that I can’t.

      • Sorry about the double post there, my first one didn’t show up on the device I was using.

      • i still would think the a’s would have not the excuse of not being able to “afford” to keep one or two fan favs by having to play in a run down park.

        can’t believe the a’s will run their team the EXACT same way they do now at the coliseum for the past 20 years if they were to be in a new baseball park beginning sometime early next decade?

        and yes even if that’s the worse case happens and the a’s continue to be run like a penny pinching or some would argue cheap way of running the org i’d much rather do it in a brand new state of the art baseball only park rather than a toilet bowl which is the coliseum.

  2. Dallas was never going to happen; the team and Arlington have been working closely for years. Dallas has been thrown around in the press by reporters who would prefer a downtown site, other than that it’s just the stand-in bogeyman that’s necessary even when the vote is likely to pass without much of a challenge. As a Ranger fan (a bit estranged ever since an overrated GM forced Nolan Ryan out in a power struggle a few years back, but nonetheless) I think it’s ridiculous. Perfectly good stadium that was paid off. Oh, well, it’s not my money. As for the heat, I’ll never get that argument. We live in Texas; it’s incredibly hot for a good 7 months or so out of a year. It just is. You get used to it. That’s what sunscreen and hats and beer and water are for. Attendance proves that: when the team is good, it’s a top 10 or so market, when they’re bad it suffers. The bottom line is that Arlington is something of a “there’s no there, there” type of place in the middle of a big, spread out metro area. As it is, Arlington is the compromise to get fans from Dallas and Ft. Worth, which on the whole has worked well for the team’s history, but it leads to some difficulty getting 40,000 people to show up on a Wednesday night or Thursday afternoon to watch the Twins, and that’s not changing much just because it’ll be indoors. The funny thing is, until about 10 years ago, the drum beat for a roof wasn’t really something you heard much of, and the last few years it became obvious that this was what it was building to: making Arlington see it as a big deal since they’d have money to give away.

    By the way, I can’t say this strongly enough: you missed nothing by missing Arlington Stadium, heat or no heat. It served a purpose, but basically just felt like a much larger, basic minor league park (which it was.) There was really nothing unique or distinctive. As much of a shame as it will be to lose this ballpark, it was a relief to be done with that one.

  3. Saw this. Who was it a few years ago who said it was only a matter of time before teams with modern, recently built stadiums would get new buildings while the A’s continue to rot in a a 50-year-old decaying football stadium with no solution in sight? Oh thats right – it was me. Now Texas joins Atlanta in this category.. In other news, Ronnie Lott, etc think they can succeed where everyone has failed: Getting a new stadium for the Raiders in Oakland. http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/minority-investors-want-block-raiders-move-las-vegas

    • That is one of the worst headlines I have ever seen. The Lott-Peete group are not currently part of the Raiders ownership group, yet the headline implies that they are.

    • @pjk

      “Oh that’s right – it was me.”
      Damn near everyone who comments regularly here thought the same, even if they hoped would not be the case. You certainly not the only one.

  4. re: This is the #1 reason why no stadium is happening in Oakland right now, why San Jose’s ballpark fizzled, …I always thought MLB would be willing to tell the Giants where to stick it in terms of t-rights if San Jose was offering to pay for the stadium instead of expecting a free one. But such was not going to be the case.

  5. Never mind the logic/ethics of the government throwing in a half a billion to the Arlington idea. How are the Rangers going to make back their $500 million? It looks pretty clear that this is not going to be a Camden Yards or AT&T that’s going to blow every other stadium away (in fact, this is like going from the poor man’s Camden Yards to the poor man’s Marlins Park, if there is such a thing). It’s not going to solve the problem of being in Arlington and at least 20 miles in rush hour traffic from 90% of your fan base (whether in Dallas or FtW). So where is the additional revenue coming from?

  6. The Rangers need a retractable roof big time. Day games get awful attendance because of the heat. A roof would boost attendance big time and help attract FAs. Who wants to play in the heat if they have a choice?

    On another note, TB has been granted permission to look at the entire Tampa region finally. Therefore it is only a matter of time before they get their stadium.

    The A’s are not moving because Wolff wants Mark Davis to leave. This whole Lott-Peete thing does not change anything. Oakland refuses to kick out the A’s in favor of the Raiders or vice versa.

    Wolff is being a jackass and does nothing as he is praying Davis leaves (perhaps to Las Vegas), so he can do what he wants with the Coliseum site.

    Davis is OK with 2 new stadiums next to each other. But his plan has the teams leaving and coming back and he gets most of the development rights.

    Why? Because his stadium costs double what an A’s stadium would cost. Wolff and Fisher are top 5 richest owners in MLB. Mark Davis on the other hand is one of the poorest in the NFL.

    Wolff refuses to come to the table with the JPA, Oakland and the Raiders to make a solution occur at the Coliseum site.

    Wolff gets revenue sharing, so building at the Coli site privately with the Raiders next door is bad for him if MLB allows him to stay on revenue sharing?? No, it is a good deal for him and the team if MLB says he can continue to take in welfare checks to guarantee a profit.

    But greed is the issue here and being old and not flexible.

    • “Wolff refuses to come to the table with the JPA, Oakland and the Raiders to make a solution occur”

      Wolff refuses to cede ALL development rights to the Raiders, and (likely be asked to) hand Davis much of the money he says he needs to build, just so the A’s can build at the Coliseum *next to a financial competitor*.

      Why exactly *should* he do that now? He’s an experienced developer who has already built a sports facility, and the Raiders are as close to broke as they can be … for an NFL team, which means at least double the A’s income every year.

      Why they’re in such financial straits in regards to building is *not the A’s problem*

      In

      Any

      Way.

  7. @ Sid.

    Thank You.

  8. Serious question. In Ten years, which of the current ballparks will still be in use without an active campaign or shovel/construction underway for their replacement? Excluding the A’s that is (since that is what the blog is for). Renovations don’t count unless they are monumental like Pre-mount Davis to now.
    What do you all think? Here is my guess…
    Won’t ever be replaced: Wrigley, Fenway
    Still perfect (no replacement planned): Oriole Park @Camden Yards, AT&t, PNC, Safeco, Coors (I would cry if Coors is replaced, but its possible). Dodger Stadium, KC (just upgraded and beautiful), Padres (plus its SD).

    Brand Newish: Texas, ATL, Marlins (too new to replace just yet).
    Okay for now: PHI, REDS, Yankees, Mets, Astros, Twins, Nationals, Tigers

    In the works /threats: Rays, Blue Jays, Dbax, Whitesox, Brewers, Indians….
    Aside from the A’s did I forget anyone?

    • oh and the Cards are “okay for now.

    • i can’t believe many cities are willing to shell out even more money to build sports venues when the current ones that have been built over the last two or so decades are still more than adequate.

      now you can say tex and the state of tex as a whole is a bit of a anomaly considering the whole tax issue down there and the sports crazed citizens in that state willing to spend the money to build always the biggest and newest sports venues.

      but i’d guess the 95%-99% of other states and cities aren’t willing to help share the costs in building another 500-750 million sports venue.

      at best like we’ve seen with teams like the chw, cle, det and a few others over the last decade i could see other teams with these newer parks getting some renovations done that will cost a fraction of what it’ll take to build a new baseball park.

      • Exactly. If anything Texas and Atlanta are prefect examples for why Oakland should not help to pay for a stadium for either the Raiders or the A’s. It’s a slipper slope, that causes cities to throw good money after bad.

      • i think the city of oakland already knows what’s up considering the money, hundreds of millions, they spent in the mid 90s to renovate the arena and then the coliseum and turning it into a more non friendly baseball park and mediocre football venue and less than 25 years later neither venue could be hosting a team in it.

  9. The A’s will get the new park after the raiders leave. The Coliseum is the place. There are no other places in Oakland. We have been down this road many times.

    All A’s fans should hope that Vegas will miraculously scrap together a funding package for the new stadium. LA is not an option and Davis knows it. The fact that some owners are trying to pressure Oakland by hyping Vegas is all you need to know. Stan Kroenke will never let the raiders into his 2B palace.

    If Davis wants to stay in Oakland, get a big whale. it is no magic, okay. Sell a big chunk and possibly control interest. Get 500M. I am sure Davis can find the whale driving around SF, Atherton or East Bay.

    I just want this stupid saga to end this year. It has been going on long enough.

  10. The Vegas mega-bucks guy financially backing an NFL stadium there (Adelman, is worth $28 bil.) That is a huge financial advantage that Las Vegas enjoys over Oakland, San Diego, San Antonio, etc. Also luxury box suites at a Vegas stadium would likely go for a premium – the corporate Casinos would be lining up to buy them. The only question is how the Raiders could be a lame duck status team playing in Oakland for up to 4 years while the Vegas stadium is being built – that would be an odd scenario that both local Raider fans and the NFL wouldn’t go for.

    • @ duffer: Adelson is extremely rich but he ain’t building anything for the raiders unless Davis gives up control. Nothing is free. Nothing. Some guy might sell you that baloney but nothing is free. That is why Davis is hoping for a miracle via tax funded stadium. Adelson can finance the whole thing himself but why would he ?

      Same with Fisher here. Fisher can certainly spend lotta cash and build at HT but why would he?

    • they could always play at the unlv football stadium. i don’t know how the weather would be playing in an outdoor stadium in las vegas even in the fall/winter months but if college football players can do it i would think the nfl players could suck it up for a couple of seasons and do the same.

      not anywhere close nfl capacity but it’s big enough at 40k. the vikings just played the last couple of years at the univ of min football stadium until their new nfl venue was being built and opening later this year. the univ of min stadium is bigger than unlv’s but it’s not by much as that stadium’s capacity is 50k and didn’t hear complaints from vikes fans who probably enjoyed the experience there especially playing outdoors after spending decades having their home games under the dome.

      who knows could see some upgrades to the unlv’s football stadium if an nfl team like the raiders or chargers would move to las vegas and play there for a couple of years until a new stadium is built there. just as the case with how the univ of min’s stadium saw some upgrades when the bikes played there for a couple of years and made it more pro friendly to the players and nfl fans.

      • The Raiders could schedule a few road or night games during Sept. to avoid the Vegas heat, and that UNLV facility is likely ok for a temporary basis. Also the Vegas investers, Adelson, etc., are even preparing to build a domed stadium without public financing or a commitment from an NFL franchise to move there, Davis might not even be required to do any investing for a Las Vegas stadium

        Unless Oakland, or other local city, won’t provide $300 mil. towards financing a new Raiders stadium, the Vegas Raiders looks like a sure thing.

      • Also, the NFL can’t stop Davis from relocating to Las Vegas even if they vote it down (any Raiders fan knows how that works)

      • He may not be required to put up any money down, but you can bet he’d be required to make it up in rent. I highly doubt that the casinos have any interest in something that’s going to tie up visitors for most of a day that they could be spending gambling. It’s not like Vegas has a hard time getting people into town on weekends. It’s the siphoning money out of them that’s the key, and a football game that makes money for players and Mark Davis doesn’t do that.

        Consider this ( http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/05/19/las-vegas-nfl-raiders-sports-gambling ):

        “When the upstart United Football League planted its premier franchise in Las Vegas in 2009, team owners organized a series of meetings between casino marketing directors and moguls such as Steve Wynn, and a UFL contingent including commissioner Michael Huyghue and Jim Fassel. The latter, a former NFL coach of the year, would lead the Las Vegas Locomotives at 60 years old, three years removed from his last NFL gig.

        Fassel led the effort to court casino partnerships. His request for each casino: Buy 100 tickets for each home game and parse them out to your guests.

        “It was a unanimous no,” Fassel says now, four years after the UFL shuttered its doors. “They said, No, no, no, we’re not doing that. We want to keep people in the casinos.””

        In any case, Mark’s probably just excited to work with someone (Adelson) with worse hair than him: http://www.trbimg.com/img-56b9513d/turbine/la-apphoto-campaign-2016-people-to-watch-jpg-20160208/650/650×366

      • really it’s simple and the easiest solution in that the chargers go to la and share the stadium the rams are building and the raiders share levi’s stadium with the niners. but egos get involved and that’s never going to happen.

        after that you figure out a way to build a new stadium with the bills.

        jags also could be a potential team that could possibly relocate.

      • @duffer “Also the Vegas investers, Adelson, etc., are even preparing to build a domed stadium without public financing or a commitment from an NFL franchise to move there, Davis might not even be required to do any investing for a Las Vegas stadium.”

        Clearly you have not done your homework. The stadium proposal in Vegas is $500 million from the Raiders and NFL, $150 million from Adelson and $750 million from the taxpayers.

      • @bartleby: The Adelson Las Vegas group definitely has plans to 100% fund and build a domed stadium suitable for an NFL team and will do so without an agreement with an NFL team to play there, they don’t need $600 mil. from Davis or voter approval to do it.

      • @duffer “The Adelson Las Vegas group definitely has plans to 100% fund and build a domed stadium suitable for an NFL team and will do so without an agreement with an NFL team to play there, they don’t need $600 mil. from Davis or voter approval to do it.”

        MULTIPLE recent reports have indicated the current Las Vegas stadium proposal is dependent on $750 million of public funds (in fact, pretty much every one I’ve read in the last month or so). Here’s one: http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium

        I’ve read conflicting reports on the Adelson/Sands contribution; some say $150 million, others $220 million. I’ve also read criticism these amounts aren’t more.

        If you have contrary information saying Adelson is willing to fully finance a $1.4 billion stadium without either public funds OR Raider/NFL funds, provide your source.

    • @duffer “Also luxury box suites at a Vegas stadium would likely go for a premium – the corporate Casinos would be lining up to buy them.”

      It is questionable how much support the casinos will provide. While an NFL team would help sell some hotel rooms, in general the casinos want their high roller customers to stay in the casino and spend money there rather than spending the better part of a day at a football game. Casinos have other ways of pampering VIPs. Historically the casinos have been notably lukewarm toward the prospect of professional sports in Vegas.

      • That Vegas group has the finances and resources to build an NFL stadium without voter approval. That in fact could be the Raiders plan – stall in Oakland for a few years, until the Vegas stadium is built – then move in.

        Also the theory that the Vegas casinos don’t want any distractions that could keep tourists from the gambling joints is false. How do you explain the numerous singers and other acts that Las Vegas always hosts? (Those events are typically 2-3 hour acts – similar to an 3 hour NFL game)

      • @duffer “That Vegas group has the finances and resources to build an NFL stadium without voter approval.”

        As noted above, the current proposal depends on $750 million in tax dollars and $500 million from the Raiders and NFL. The fact that a group may have resources is very different than being willing to expend those resources on a football stadium which have been proven repeatedly to be a money loser in most cases. If you know different, cite a source.

        The $750 million in fact is pretty clearly a big part of the reason NFL resistance to Vegas is softening. Even in jurisdictions willing to spend public money on such things, very few are willing to go as high as $750 million.

        “Also the theory that the Vegas casinos don’t want any distractions that could keep tourists from the gambling joints is false. How do you explain the numerous singers and other acts that Las Vegas always hosts? (Those events are typically 2-3 hour acts – similar to an 3 hour NFL game)”

        The vast majority of “singers and other acts” that Vegas hosts are about 90 minutes and take place inside the host casino itself. That’s a big part of the point – they’re taking place inside the casino, giving guests less reason to leave. That’s totally different than sending your guests several miles away to another venue where, by the time all is said and done, they’ll be gone for a minimum 5 hours and more likely 6 or 7. Anyone who has been to an NFL game knows by the time you get in and out of one it’s pretty nearly a full day commitment, and that’s even if you don’t tailgate or partake of the various ancillary attractions.

        The Vegas casinos have been approached previously about investing in professional sports in Vegas, and generally have been ambivalent. That’s a big part of the reason there are no big time professional sports in Vegas yet.

      • @bartleby The Las Vegas investors plan to use the stadium for other purposes besides football.

      • @duffer “The Las Vegas investors plan to use the stadium for other purposes besides football.”

        That’s always part of the pitch, but there are an extremely limited number of events that require an NFL football-sized venue other than NFL football. As we’ve seen, the vast majority of NFL stadia are money losers even with an NFL tenant.

        I can’t think of a single example of an NFL-football caliber stadium that got built without an NFL tenant on board. If it were that easy to do, Farmer’s Field would be sitting in downtown Los Angeles right now. That project had the highest synergies/potential for ancillary events of any proposed stadium I’m aware of, given it would also have served as expansion for the convention center. Without an NFL commitment the project died.

      • Re: the singers, I read somewhere recently that when Broadway-type musicals come to Vegas, they are required to cut songs in order to limit the show to 90 minutes. Otherwise, the attendees are kept from the casinos for too long.

      • Even so, it’s likely that if Las Vegas politicians believe that building an NFL stadium requires voter approval, it has a good chance of passing.

        Also, the NFL, one would think, would likely ok the Raiders, or another team to relocate there. Two influential NFL owners have already endorsed it. And contrary to the opinion of a few NFL sportswriters, other NFL owners appear to have no problem with Davis ( They gave the Raiders a $100 mil. gift to be used for constructing a new stadium)

        Also the NFL endorsed the Raiders moving to San Diego if the Chargers relocate to Inglewood, the NFL would waive a relocation fee with that scenario, and Davis could even use the $100 mil. to build a new stadium in San Diego. Would the NFL lodge offer that to an owner that they want out of the league? – not likely.

  11. Point regarding the A’s and revenue sharing:

    The CBA (which enshrines the current “until they get a new ballpark, they get revenue sharing” rule for the A’s) is being renegotiated after this season.

    Expect Wolff/Fisher to put a hard line on “If we can’t build in SJ (are limited to Alameda and Contra Costa counties), we’re not a large market team and should automatically get revenue sharing (as long as we stay in the Bay Area)”.

    The Giants will most likely contest that. They can fix it by giving up on the territorial rights issue, but an easy bet says they won’t.

    • “The Giants will most likely contest that. They can fix it by giving up on the territorial rights issue, but an easy bet says they won’t.”

      Besides the scummy way they have conducted themselves in this whole thing, this is the point that bugs me the most about the Giants.

      The Giants will argue that the A’s are a big market team in Oakland.

      By saying this though, the Giants are arguing that even in Oakland, the A’s have the same revenue potential as the Giants by virtue of being in the Bay Area.

      At the same time, the Giants are also saying that if the A’s move to San Jose, that hurts the Giants ability to make money from San Jose.

      Both statements can’t be true.

      Public opinion matters a lot with sports. The Giants have a good impression locally and the A’s have a crappy (no pun on the recent Coli sewage issue intended) impression locally. I don’t get why the A’s don’t trash the Giants on this point in the media.

      • Kind of looks to me like the A’s, having pitched a viable solution (San Jose) and had it rejected, will be happy to remain stuck at the embarrassing, sewage-spewing Coliseum and collect revenue-sharing checks for as long as it takes. MLB knows full well the difficulties in Oakland: No public money, little corporate money, competing with the Raiders for the same site and the same limited corporate base. But MLB continues to do zip about it.

      • because the media here is either too busy kissing the ass of the midgets or too scared to get on their bad side.

        ask some of those who have covered them in the past be it radio guys like bruce/krueger or those in print who were basically fired from their jobs over the last decade.

      • MLB shares blame equally with the Gnats about the A’s stadium problems. How could MLB go along with the Giants’ claim that the Giants will somehow lose their fan base if the A’s move 40 miles further from SF ? (complete lunacy) MLB claims that they argue with the giants about the absurdity of giants claim that the giants will lose fans to the A’s if the A’s move 40 miles further away – however MLB has not revoked the Giants territorial rights to SJ yet – go figure.

        Also San Jose officials need to show more resolve. To think that the giants are adding insult to injury by not only denying San Jose the opportunity to host the A’s, The giants have the nerve to play their single A affiliate in San Jose (If I were mayor Liccardo, my first action would be booting the SJ Giants out of SJ – and move the A’s triple A’ affiliate to San Jose. San Jose officials need to show more cajones about the way the Giants are dissing San Jose.

  12. and move the A’s triple A’ affiliate to San Jose…. San Jose would need to build an AAA-capable stadium, which it doesn’t have now. One thing to do is spend as little as the city possibly can on Municipal Stadium for the San Jose Giants. Want improvements? SJ taxpayers won’t pay for them, since the SJ Giants are colluding on denying the city the huge economic opportunity of hosting an MLB team. Soon, the world spotlight will be on San Jose with the arrival of the Stanley Cup Final. Maybe the conversation can be brought up about what MLB and the Giants are doing to San Jose.

    • It is a farce, unlike the Tampa Bay situation, there is a clear, smart way for the A’s to get a new baseball only ballpark (which they need badly) – moving to San Jose. MLB evidently is too dense to see that.

  13. Just seen at SJ Airport this week: A sign addressing “Giants fans and Athletics supporters.” As we know, athletic supporters is a reference to jockstraps. So the Giants, who are depriving the airport of business from MLB, get a big thumbs-up from our airport while the A’s, who want to bring that business to the airport, get mocked. Does San Jose even deserve the A’s?

    • A good move by San Jose officials would be to shut down Muni field for fiscal reasons, sell off the land for development (they are always complaining about lack of funding for police, etc) and use the cash to hire more police or whatever else their budget requires, and they could also hose the giants in the process. The giants are shafting San Jose – San Jose officials should return the favor.

  14. This will add little to nothing to the long running issue, but is anyone else really starting to believe it is all a lost cause and the A’s will be in the Coliseum forever…

    • Nothing is going to happen as long as the Raiders also remain in limbo. Let the A’s keep collecting revenue-sharing. Other owners who don’t like it should complain to Charles Johnson, the Giants owner. The A’s had a plan to become profitable in a new Bay Area ballpark and the Giants squashed it.

    • The smart move by MLB would be to inform Oakland officials to get their sh..t together, give Oakland a timeframe to complete a deal for the A’s and a new stadium. if the deadline isn’t met – revoke the giants rights to San Jose and approve the A’s plan of moving to SJ (Oakland has done zilch for the A’s so far and has been given plenty of slack to get a solutions for the A’s – 21 years and counting) and no closer to a stadium plan now than they were 21 years ago. We know that MLB wont’ do that though – this situation has been dealt with any way but logically by MLB, the Giants, even Oakland to an extent – what a mess.

      • I think what would be more realistic to your say, though I would find it quite distasteful (to put it mildly), that MLB gives Oakland a timeframe to build a new stadium for the A’s and if that deadline is not met, Wolff, Fisher and Co. would be allowed to move to any city they wish outside of the San Francisco Bay Area and its environs, rather than MLB pulling the Gnats territorial rights to Santa Clara county and allowing the A’s to build there.

        Respectfully, your suggestion, in my opinion, is quite unrealistic. Why penalize another team in another city if Oakland can’t get a new stadium built for the A’s?. It is as unreasonable as MLB threatening the Padres control of the San Diego area and giving it to the A’s if Oakland cannot get a stadium built.

        To me, a better solution would be to give the A’s and the Gnats similar territorial rights as the teams in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York enjoy. True, the Gnats will fight that proposal tooth and nail, but it seems to me to be the only fair solution to this mess. It would also be a way of revoking the Gnats rights to San Jose without really revoking their rights to San Jose since the A’s would have equal access to that particular community.

      • That idea makes sense (something Manfred and MLB are sorely lacking) Also Manfred’s suggesting that the A’s and Tampa Bay Rays are equally having difficulty building new stadiums – MLB is solely responsible for the A’s stadium woes, moving the team to San Jose would solve the A’s stadium problem – MLB won’t acknowledge that simple solution though.

        MLB is also pressuring the A’s to build a new stadium – but limiting the A’s to build in only two of the nine counties? – unbelievable..

  15. “To me, a better solution would be to give the A’s and the Gnats similar territorial rights as the teams in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York enjoy. True, the Gnats will fight that proposal tooth and nail, but it seems to me to be the only fair solution to this mess. It would also be a way of revoking the Gnats rights to San Jose without really revoking their rights to San Jose since the A’s would have equal access to that particular community.”

    This is a distinction without a difference. The issue is whether the A’s can build a stadium in San Jose, period. There is no way there will be two MLB venues built in San Jose, so for all practical purposes “revoking the Giants rights to San Jose and giving them to the A’s” and “making San Jose a shared A’s Giants territory” are exactly the same thing. I fail to see how one is more “fair” than the other.

    • This October or November, we will reach the 10th anniversary of Selig coming out to Fremont for the intro of the Fremont ballpark plan. And today, there is still no new ballpark, no ground broken, no deal.

    • @bartleby – Both the Dodgers and the Angels share geographical territorial rights. So, if Arte Moreno wanted to he could build a new stadium next door to Dodger Stadium and no one in MLB (save,of course, Dodger management) would object. If I recall correctly, the teams in Chicago and New York also share territory. That is what I am getting at, NOT the idea of building two stadiums in San Jose which I agree would be ludicrous. To be totally clear, I would like to see MLB declare the counties in and adjacent to San Francisco county including Santa Clara county as shared geographical territory between the Gnats and the A’s. My apologies for not making myself clear.

      • @Matt If I understood your previous comment, you were saying revoking the Giants rights to San Jose and giving them to the A’s would be unfair but making San Jose a shared territory would not. My point was that for practical purposes this is a distinction without a difference.

        Yes, the Yankees could build a stadium right next to the Mets, etc., but in the real world this would never happen. So in reality I don’t see how one option is more or less fair than the other – the reality is they are functionally the same thing.

  16. @bartleby – The difference is that if the A’s and the Gnats have shared geographical territory, the A’s could build a new stadium in San Jose and the Gnats cannot prevent them from doing so even if they wanted to.

    • @Matt That’s not a difference. That would be true in both cases.

      • Sorry, but there is no basis for MLB to revoke the Gnats claimed territorial rights to San Jose if the city of Oakland and the A’s can’t come to an agreement to build a stadium. Your scenario will never happen. Mine is more plausible.

      • MLB is never going to revoke the Giants claim to San Jose entirely, the best you could hope for is a shared teritory. Weather anyone thinks that’s fare enough or not.

      • Media rights are already shared. The territorial rights just impact where the teams can build a stadium.

        The only difference is that if the rights are given to the A’s and in the future the Giants wanted to build in San Jose they couldn’t do it. I would never say never, but I think the odds of the Giants leaving SF and building in San Jose are pretty slim.

        The flip side of course is that if MLB where to say it’s shared, the logical (not that logic and MLB go together) decision would be for them to just say the entire Bay Area is now shared. In that scenario, the Giants might actually prefer giving the A’s territorial rights to Santa Clara (and probably San Mateo) counties while the Giants could own SF and Alameda counties. That would at least guarantee the A’s could never build in SF.

        Either way though, the Giants goal here is to block the A’s from building in SJ. Regardless of if the rights are shared or fully given to the A’s, the A’s can build in SJ. In both scenarios the Giants lose. Everything else beyond that is a minor issue.

  17. “MLB is never going to revoke the Giants claim to San Jose entirely, the best you could hope for is a shared teritory. Weather anyone thinks that’s fare enough or not.”

    The Giants would be equally opposed and the A’s equally happy with either option. The chance of MLB doing either is almost equally slim. The Giants would never build a stadium next to an A’s stadium, so the only practical way it would make a difference is if the A’s built a stadium in San Jose, later leave the region, and the Giants decide they’d rather build a new stadium in the South Bay rather than remain in San Francisco. This is never going to happen. So why are we wasting time talking about this?

    • This is never going to happen. So why are we wasting time talking about this?
      Probable for the same reason we wasted time talking about the Raiders ending up in St. Louis, and what a wonderful market it was (-:

      • It was (and remains) far less obvious that the Raiders won’t end up in St. Louis than that the A’s won’t build a ballpark in San Jose, then leave, then have the Giants want to build a ballpark in San Jose, The latter scenario is a near certainty not to happen, and even if it did the timeline for all those things to occur is probably somewhere between 50 and 100 years.

        It does look less likely that the Raiders end up in St. Louis at this point, mainly because nobody’s talking about building a publicly funded stadium there right now. But a scenario where the Raiders strike out in Vegas, Oakland and Los Angeles and St. Louis starts talking about luring a team again seems a hell of a lot more likely than Giants to San Jose.

      • “It does look less likely that the Raiders end up in St. Louis at this point, mainly because nobody’s talking about building a publicly funded stadium there right now. But a scenario where the Raiders strike out in Vegas, Oakland and Los Angeles and, and, and, and, and, and, and… St. Louis starts talking about luring a team again”

        I don’t think you got my point.

        “seems a hell of a lot more likely than Giants to San Jose.”

        I personally did not say, or allude to the Giants ever going to San Jose.

  18. “I don’t think you got my point.”

    Admittedly, to the extent you had a point it was not obvious.

    “I personally did not say, or allude to the Giants ever going to San Jose.”

    The distinction between revoking Giants rights to SCC or making it a shared territory is ONLY relevant to the possibility of the Giants ever building there. This is so remote as to not be worth discussion. If you think you did not allude to the Giants ever going to San Jose, then clearly you did not get MY point.

    • “Admittedly, to the extent you had a point it was not obvious”
      It was not obvious to you.
      ‘If you think you did not allude to the Giants ever going to San Jose”
      I don’t have to think about what I was alluding to, because I know what I was not alluding to.
      “, then clearly you did not get MY point.”
      I really wasn’t responding to YOUR point, I originally stated what I did based more on Matt’s input. But, then I should have known you would think I was considering your point…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s