A’s To Escape Disaster of Their Own Creation

On Wednesday, the Oakland Athletics revealed that they’ve taken a concrete step toward building a ballpark in Las Vegas. Well, not “concrete” in the literal sense, but the A’s have “signed a binding agreement to purchase” a place to put concrete, a 49-acre plot near Allegiant Stadium (home of the NFL’s Raiders) and the Las Vegas Strip. Pending approval of a “public-private partnership,” A’s president Dave Kaval told the San Francisco Chronicle, a stadium could be completed in time for Opening Day 2027.
There are still plenty of components to be juggled, but this is the biggest indication yet that the years-long effort to find a new home for the A’s in California is doomed to fail. Should the A’s relocate, they’ll become the first team to do so since the Montreal Expos moved to Washington in 2005, and the first team in the AL-NL era to move three times.
At this moment, I’m struck by the beginning of the statement Oakland mayor Sheng Thao gave the Chronicle. Said Thao: “I am deeply disappointed that the A’s have chosen not to negotiate with the City of Oakland as a true partner, in a way that respects the long relationship between the fans, the City and the team.”
The “relationship,” the partnership, between fans, city, and team is a foundational pillar of the American sports franchise model. And it’s a farce. Thao is savvy enough to know it’s a farce. Kaval and his employer, A’s owner John J. Fisher, definitely know it’s a farce. But fans get attached to local teams based in part on civic pride, and mining that pride is a lucrative grift for the likes of Fisher.
Fisher, 61, is worth north of $2 billion, gained not through any particular abundance of ingenuity or effort of labor, but through inheritance from his parents, who founded the Gap. In 2005, Fisher, as part of an investment group that included his real estate partner Lew Wolff, bought the A’s, who had just made the playoffs four times in the previous five years. Since moving to Oakland in 1968, they’d won six pennants and four World Series.
When Fisher and Wolff took over the A’s, the Oakland Coliseum was outdated, part of the concrete bowl generation of multi-purpose stadiums that almost every city with an NFL and MLB team adopted around 1970 and abandoned in the decade after the Orioles moved into Camden Yards in 1992.
It was reasonable to expect the A’s to plan for a new stadium when Wolff and Fisher’s group bought the team.
According to a 2021 SFGATE story by Alex Coffey, Wolff was interested in at least exploring the possibility of building a new ballpark on the Coliseum site, but the idea was a nonstarter with Fisher.
What’s happened since, and especially since Fisher bought Wolff out in late 2016, is a concerted effort to move the A’s. Where did not seem important: elsewhere in Oakland — the famous $12 billion Howard Terminal site — or San Jose, or most recently Las Vegas.
There are three great often-repeated premises in sports comedies. The first is, “What if Kevin Costner played sports?” The second is, “What if the player or coach were a child/woman/animal/alien/some other fish out of water?” The third: “What if managerial/ownership incompetence were actually managerial/ownership malfeasance?”
When Fisher bought into the team, the A’s had been regularly competitive, and occasionally high-spending. They drew at least 2 million fans in each of the four seasons before Fisher and Wolff’s arrival, and 2.1 million in their first season. Apart from 2014, when the A’s went all-in at the trade deadline and just barely scraped over the 2 million mark in attendance, the team hasn’t drawn more than 1.81 million in a season since 2008. Last year, just 787,902 fans went to the Coliseum to watch the first 100-loss A’s team since 1979.
Here’s a question: If Fisher were on some comical Major League-type mission to tank the Athletics’ future in Oakland, how would the team have been run differently under his tenure, particularly over the past five years?
The A’s haven’t run a $100 million payroll in team history. They’ve never been in the top half of the league in payroll under Fisher and haven’t been out of the bottom quarter since 2007. They’ve frequently transcended that lack of resources due to some borderline heroic efforts by groundbreaking front offices under Billy Beane and David Forst and then-manager Bob Melvin. But with Melvin gone and the front office starting to fall behind the times, the team’s medium-term outlook is among the worst in baseball.
How else could the A’s have intentionally reduced fan interest? Constantly trading away star players, perhaps. Roping off the upper deck of the stadium. Neglecting not only upgrades to the Coliseum but the kind of basic maintenance and upkeep that would, say, prevent the Great Sewage Flood of 2016. Or the possum infestation that just last week rendered the visiting broadcast booth unusable.
Everyone who works in a major league park should be able to do so without having to rassle with varmints, on this I think we can all agree. But a possum embodies a charming underdog resilience baseball fans can get behind. It’s a funny story, under certain circumstances.
But listen to SNY play-by-play man Gary Cohen tell it.
Last night, Gary and Ron shared the story of how they got moved out of the visiting television booth thanks to a possum ? pic.twitter.com/t3aK3siEzT
— SNY (@SNYtv) April 15, 2023
“[O]ur tech people walked into the booth… and were immediately met by the stench of the possum having, you know, done his business in the booth. Apparently, the booth reeked so badly of possum leavings that an executive decision was made to move us to this booth, which is somewhat smaller and has a few impediments. There’s a pole right in front of me.”
That’s the kind of neglect that sends a message. We need a new stadium because the fans won’t come. We need a new stadium because this one’s toilets back up and flood the clubhouse when it rains. We need a new stadium because the visiting TV guys have to sit in obstructed view seats due to their normal workspace being so full of possum crap it’s unfit for human habitation. And most of all, we need a new stadium that’s not near the old one.
Why?
Consider the $12 billion price tag on the now-likely-defunct Howard Terminal project. The newest ballpark in the majors, the retractable-roof Globe Life Field in Arlington, Texas, cost a little more than $1 billion to build. And the A’s planned to spend no more than that on their new stadium, had that plan gone through. The other $11 billion would have gone to a new mixed-use development around the ballpark, $855 million of which would’ve come from public funding for infrastructure and development.
That’s the angle now. Real estate. That’s why the Braves moved out of Turner Field and into a new, less accessible park hewn out of the woods off the highway in Cobb County, so they could build and profit from a new $400 million hotel, retail, and entertainment district in the surrounding environs. That $400 million figure is roughly what the county committed to subsidies in stadium construction.
Fisher didn’t want a new ballpark so the team could draw more fans, he wanted a new ballpark so taxpayers could underwrite his real estate development project. That’s not a partnership in any meaningful sense. It’s a shakedown.
In Las Vegas, appropriate enough, he seems to have found a new and more lucrative class of marks. Kaval told Evan Drellich of The Athletic that once the land is bought, it would cost an additional $1.5 billion to develop the site, a third of which would come from a “public-private partnership,” by which he surely does not mean that the city government would purchase a one-third stake in the stadium or the team, or take in a third of the revenue from either.
Could the A’s have thrived in Oakland under different ownership? We’ll never know. Fisher never gave the team a chance, and now he’s off to fence off the commons somewhere else.
Las Vegas is an interesting venue for a major league team. As recently as a decade ago, it was viewed as a nonstarter. Too small, too hot, too remote. (Here I recall the axiom expressed in Ocean’s Eleven: “I’m sure you can make it out of the casino. Of course, lest we forget: Once you’re out the front door you’re still in the middle of the [expletive] desert!”) Too close to gambling. Too heavily peopled by transplants and tourists to develop a devoted multigenerational fan base.
One by one, those concerns are slipping away. MLB’s discomfort with gambling evaporated overnight once it became clear how lucrative legal sports betting could be. Las Vegas itself is one of the country’s fastest-growing urban centers. The city has been a going concern long enough now that there’s a growing multigenerational cultural identity. Bryce Harper, who got really into hockey when the Golden Knights got started, is the most notable of a group of Vegas-area natives that includes Kris Bryant, Joey Gallo, Amir Garrett, Bryson Stott, and Tyler Anderson.
Just last month, Harper stumped for his hometown as a potential site for a new big league team, though he specifically stated a preference for an expansion team, not the relocated A’s. Well, you can’t always get what you want.
Climate remains an issue. The average daily high from June to mid-September in Las Vegas is at least 95 degrees, which is why all the outdoor scenes in Las Vegas movies are either set at night or way out of town, where someone (usually Joe Pesci) is either yelling at or killing someone. Temperature can be mitigated by putting a roof over the ballpark, but altitude can’t. Las Vegas is 2,000 feet above sea level, lower than Coors Field but roughly twice the elevation of any other ballpark. And having the ball fly out of the yard has been a persistent problem for the city’s Triple-A team.
(Said Triple-A team, ironically enough currently affiliated with Oakland, just opened a brand-new 10,000-seat, $150 million park west of the city in 2019. I wonder what that investment is going to look like once a big league club blazes in and posts up on the Strip.)
The other open question is fan interest. Las Vegas itself has almost as many residents as Boston and Washington, and more than Detroit, Baltimore, Milwaukee, or Atlanta. But each of those cities have dense suburban populations to draw paying fans from. The Vegas metro area, while growing, would be on the small end among MLB markets.
It’s not unreasonable to expect that this market could support a major league team. The Raiders have a small stadium by NFL standards and were just 26th in percentage of ticket sales in 2022. The Golden Knights, on the other hand, are one of the highest-spending and best-supported teams in the NHL. This season, the Golden Knights spent more against the salary cap than any other team in the league, requiring nearly $14 million in injury exceptions to get under the cap threshold. And over the regular season, they achieved 103% attendance at T-Mobile Arena, also tops in the NHL.
There are three things worth considering when it comes to cross-sport comparisons of financial viability. First, the normal rules of economics don’t apply to football. The NFL prints money, always has, and always will. I’m not sure I understand it, but it’s true.
Second, the Golden Knights became so successful and popular so quickly for two reasons. Reason A is novelty. They were the first big four franchise to go to Las Vegas, validating it as a big league city. Reason B is team success. The Golden Knights spent money quickly, and made the Stanley Cup Final in their first season. In six seasons, they’ve made the playoffs five times and finished first in their division four times.
The iron law of fan attendance is this: If the team is good, fans will show up. If the team isn’t good, fans might show up, or they might not. Who wants to bet that Fisher, who in nearly two decades of ownership has made Dick Monfort look like George Steinbrenner, is going to outbid the Mets and Dodgers for Adley Rutschman in 2028?
Already, you can see the contrast between the Golden Knights and Raiders. That first mover advantage played a part in the NHL awarding that expansion franchise in the first place; the Las Vegas market might not have been so willing to embrace hockey had it not been so starved for major league sports when the Golden Knights arrived. Not only is MLB going to be the last of three leagues out of Oakland (after the Raiders and the NBA’s Golden State Warriors left in 2019), but it’ll be the last of three leagues into Las Vegas. Will the novelty of high-level pro sports be enough to draw fans with two other teams already in the city?
Third, sheer population volume matters for baseball attendance in a way it doesn’t for football and hockey. Let’s give the Athletics a new ballpark on the small end of normal for a big league team:
| Team | Stadium Capacity | Home Games | Total Potential Attendance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Golden Knights | 17,500 | 41 | 717,500 |
| Raiders | 65,000 to 71,835 | 8 or 9 | 520,000 to 646,515 |
| Athletics | 35,000 to 40,000 | 81 | 2.85 million to 3.24 million |
The A’s would have at least four times as many tickets to sell as either the Golden Knights or the Raiders. They wouldn’t have to sell all of those tickets in order to be financially viable, and baseball tickets — expensive though they might be — are still way cheaper than NHL or NFL tickets. But drawing 20,000 fans per game would still require more than twice as many fans in total as either current Las Vegas team. Hitting last year’s median average attendance, a hair over 28,000 per game, would require three times as many people to buy A’s tickets as Golden Knights tickets.
If they’re good, that’s doable. If Fisher keeps running bottom-third payrolls and the A’s lose 90 games a year, probably not.
The last note to make about this potential move to Las Vegas concerns expansion. Pro sports leagues love to leave at least one attractive and hungry relocation market vacant so they can use the threat of moving to convince local government to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize owners’ real estate investments. For 20 years, that’s what MLB and the A’s have tried to do to Oakland. For the NFL, the threat city was Las Vegas. For the NHL, it was Seattle, Quebec, Hamilton, or Kansas City, depending on the year, the franchise, and the commissioner’s mood.
Actually putting a team in Las Vegas would eliminate that threat for any other team with designs on a new ballpark. And while a few owners are angling for a new facility with better amenities and/or location (the Royals and Diamondbacks are two examples that spring to mind), the A’s and Rays (or at least, half of the Rays) are the only ones agitating for a move to a different market.
That’s an indication of stability among the 30 teams, that while the Diamondbacks might like to have a roof that works or the Rays might rather be in Tampa proper, everyone’s in a good place. In other words, it’s a good time to expand into new markets. Given the huge noise in recent months about Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Portland, the league and owners would seem to agree that the time for expansion will soon be at hand.
As an ardent proponent of expansion, that’s my silver lining. We might get to see the league shake things up and add two more teams. All it will cost is the neglect and dismantlement of a once-successful team, the betrayal and abandonment of a unique and devoted fan base, and half a billion dollars that could otherwise have been used to fund public services in Nevada.
Apparently, that’s the price of salvaging the sacred bond between the team, the fans, and the body politic. The price of partnership.
Michael is a writer at FanGraphs. Previously, he was a staff writer at The Ringer and D1Baseball, and his work has appeared at Grantland, Baseball Prospectus, The Atlantic, ESPN.com, and various ill-remembered Phillies blogs. Follow him on Twitter, if you must, @MichaelBaumann.
Great article – both insightful and well written as always. Calling a publicly financed stadium a “partnership” is an utter farce and it’s good to see it called out.
Yeah man. Heck of an article. Great job.
I remember back when the Seattle SuperSonics got bought out by a group led by a guy who spent his entire life in Oklahoma City, and then after the weakest possible negotiation effort, moved the entire operation to Oklahoma City. Shortly after Kevin Durant left, we started hearing all sorts of mumblings about how a small-market team couldn’t compete, and they couldn’t make the same money as the bigger markets. Some of these seemed to be coming from the team itself. But whose fault is that? The median income in Seattle is something like 50% higher than in OK City, and the metro area is over twice as large.
I am reminded of this now that the A’s are moving from Oakland to Las Vegas. It’s true that the A’s got eclipsed by the Giants on their own turf but it was partly of their own making; they made an entire brand about being cheap. And so they’re moving from a larger metro area that is wealthier to a smaller one that is poorer, and the revenue sharing in MLB is nothing like what you would get in the NBA. Everything about this was, and will continue to be, a self-fulfilling prophecy. So let’s just keep this in mind when we hear about the small-market Las Vegas Athletics.
It was entirely of their own making. Haas handed over the territorial rights to San Jose for no real compensation. The correct move would have been to share the entire Northern California and Northern Nevada area equally.
Haas handed over the rights to encourage the Giants to stay when they were threatening to move to St. Petersburg in the late 80s. Which seems like an incredible own-goal now. Why he wanted his chief economic rival to stick around, rather than to take off and leave the whole region to him, is a mystery. I think Haas was just too nice of a dude.
If the Giants had left the A’s probably would have pulled a Warriors and moved to SF by now, and become a large market team. There would be no Rays, and it would be the Giants struggling in St. Pete. A very different baseball landscape.
I’m surprised he didn’t build some type of back-door, escape clause into the deal so that rights could be reclaimed.
It was done as a good gesture. A reminder. No good deed goes unpunished.
The OKC thing was entirely because the new owner wanted to bring a team to his hometown, and was friends with David Stern so Stern let him. It was literally all about what one person wanted, and all the rest was window dressing.
All Fisher, and Wolff before him, see the A’s as is a real estate project. Wolff even bought land in San Jose, which he eventually sold when it became clear MLB wasn’t going to let him move there.
At the same time, the A’s have (almost) never drawn well in Oakland. They were routinely among the last in attendance in the league during the 1970s run (you can go back and look at old SI articles in which they ponder why the colorful, awesome A’s play in an empty stadium). In the period cited in the article pre-Fisher/Wolff, the A’s clawed to around the middle of the pack for a few years on the basis of a good young team, but also on an insane number of promotions. For example, there was one game every week in which tickets and hot dogs cost $1 each. There were Taco Tuesdays, in which tacos cost $1. There were big bumps in attendance around each of these games, which pushed the overall number up, but these were not lucrative sells, and were balanced by all the other games that drew 12,000 people.
There’s literally one period in which the A’s drew well, without having to resort to crazy promotions: the glory 1988-92 years, when they had the best and most famous team in the league.
I don’t know what the solution is. Vegas is not a great option. But Oakland isn’t either. I want the A’s to stay in Oakland, but even the fabled downtown ballpark might not change things. The Bay Area might just not be big enough for two teams.
Or maybe San Jose is more suitable than Oakland for the second MLB team
It’s obviously more suitable (and quite a bit further from SF than Oakland is), but MLB has made it clear they will never let the A’s move there.
TBF, the Coliseum could seat well over 60,000. At that size, any MLB team is going have a half-empty stadium most afternoons
For baseball, the max capacity of the Oakland Coliseum used to be around 45k. I believe now, since they started blocking off seats, it’s 32k. For football it is indeed around 60k. Not that that matters anymore, as now there’s no football either.
But either way, the A’s would have been quite happy for the stadium to look merely half empty throughout the 70s and the non 88-92 years beyond. The 1974 A’s, bidding for their third straight championship, drew 845,693 fans. Attendance was lower back then in general, but that’s still only 10k fans a game. The low point is 1979, when a terrible A’s team drew 306,763 fans. That’s less than 4k a game. There’s no MLB stadium ever in which 10k, let alone 4k, is going to look anything other than very empty.
Don’t bother bringing up the low attendance, it takes away from the real point of the article.
It matters in that insomuch as Fisher is a carpetbagger, and he is, Oakland isn’t a good location either. It’s a problem no one has been able to solve and isn’t going away. That’s why leeches like Fisher keep attaching onto the team and thinking they can pry it away.
Articles like this (not all like this – this was a great article) have been written about the A’s and their stadium situation for the last 20 years. The one thing most fail to address though is that Oakland is not a good location, has never been one, and doesn’t seem likely to become one.
This is why I don’t think baseball is going to expand again anytime in the near future: all the good locations are already spoken for. You’re just adding teams at the bottom of the economic ladder. You could fit a third team in Brooklyn and it would make tons of money, but the Yankees and Mets are never going to let that happen. Otherwise you’re just shuffling teams around from Oakland to Nashville to Indianapolis to San Antonio to Charlotte. It’s all the same location. From the owners’ perspective you get the expansion fee, but then you’re subsidizing the team for the rest of its existence.
Small market teams can do well but the solution is old fashioned. Handlebar mustaches.
To be fair, even if you only give the Giants 50% of the market, half of the Bay Area MSA is only slightly more than the Las Vegas MSA. Since the A’s have indeed lost a bunch of their market to the Giants in recent years, there will actually be more potential fans in Vegas.
At best this is naive, realistically it’s disingenuous.
This ignores the San Jose MSA which is the same size as Vegas as well as the Sacramento MSA which is 1.5-2 hours from the Bay Area. The potential baseball market in the Bay Area is nearly 9 million or 4 times the size of Las Vegas. Even if you apply a discount factor to Sacramento there’s a much, much larger fan base for the A’s in Oakland than Las Vegas. And this ignores the history which means fans actually exist in Oakland.
I’m not by any means condoning owners running their franchises like slum lords. As a WFT fan, I’ve lived through enough years of Dan Snyder’s rule to know how soul-crushing that is.
My issue is that that’s not by any means a phenomenon that’s limited to Oakland. What is unique to the city of Oakland seems to be its almost unique inability to retain its professional sports teams. As to why that is – which to me would be very interesting – this article seems, disappointingly, not to have the slightest interest.
It’s weird to criticize a piece of writing not intended to answer a question you’re asking for not answering that question. The answer to your question starts with an R, and is often couched in economic terms to make the explanation more palatable for the general public.
Yes, I was hoping the article would provide additional context. I’m a longtime Fangraphs reader and I’ve always enjoyed that about this website. If you know anything about what the specific sticking points were in the negotiations between club and city, I’d be interested to hear.
My understanding is that the sticking point was that the A’s wanted $800M in public funds for infrastructure improvements, plus the city to pick up any cost overruns.
Is that unreasonable? There’s been talk of $600M for improvements to OPACY (I think now agreed) so $800M for the OCo sounds, if anything, rather light.
yes, it is unreasonable
Yeah, $600M is too much money. I don’t know how much is a reasonable figure; I’m sure there’s a breakeven point somewhere. It’s better to have a team than not have one. But it’s definitely south of $600M. The Twins got something like $350M for their stadium and I believe the studies show that was also a bad deal.
My understanding is that the studies generally indicate that other than the construction itself, there’s very very little “economic development” benefit.
People spend money on tickets, bars, hotels, and shops to be sure – but it’s just a reallocation of entertainment dollar spend. A different division of the pie rather than an increasing in the size of the pie, if you will.
Yep – that’s why Cobb County was willing to spend more money than Atlanta proper.
Ok thanks, that’s helpful.
The City of Oakland struggled quite a bit financially through the 80s/90s/00s. They’ve only emerged in the last ~10 years when the tech boom finally spilled over into the city.
What that’s left is a very frugal Board of Supervisors, and a city that is never going to lay out huge chunks of public money to a private enterprise. Sports stadiums are notoriously bad investments. The city is just never going to pay.
There’s a very strong anti-owner bias among this site’s writers that often manifests in a relative moral scale which ends up painting everyone else as angels. And it can certainly be frustrating when the issue at hand isn’t quite so obviously good vs. evil.
MLB owners are, as a group, fall somewhere between criminal and unethical to be sure – it’s essentially impossible to amass enough money to buy a baseball team without doing a good amount of stuff that crosses that line, and the longer you’re able to hang on to it the larger that probability gets (in part because at some point hoarding that much wealth is in itself pretty questionable). Personal politics aside, it is actually possible to have a situation where there are no bad guys or no good guys, and the latter certainly seems appropriate here, perhaps excluding the citizens of Oakland who are sort of caught in the crossfire.
Using taxpayer money to build palaces for billionaires isn’t good, but that’s not entirely what’s been suggested here – $855 million in public funding for a $12 billion project is by no means wholly unreasonable. We’re not talking about a $12 billion baseball stadium that has a singular purpose – this is infrastructure development, which is a thing a city should be directing its funds toward. I’d rather it go to address the critical housing shortage that California and the Bay Area specifically are enduring, or maybe figuring out their water issues, but if we’re going to be spending public money, this isn’t the worst abuse of it.
But Oakland seems to have taken an unreasonably hard-line stance against things that are in the public interest if they come with any tinge of bitterness. I guess that’s a way to be if they’re going to use that money to do other things, but…are they? It’s not becoming a more attractive place to live or visit, that’s for sure. Perception is, like it or not, that it’s a place to leave. After all, the major icons are. Why would I want to go somewhere that three franchises ditched, all so soon? What’s wrong with it? And if I did go there, now that there’s no pro sports, there’s less to do.
Fischer sucks, he’s run the A’s terribly on top of that, these things aren’t ambiguous or unknown. That doesn’t mean Oakland are in the right, and it’s probably a better take to acknowledge that than act like it’s all on him. ESH.
Oakland is a thriving city and a huge percentage of us who lives in San Francisco 20 years ago now live here. Indeed, the vast majority of American cities that are thriving have no major league sports teams. What a bizarre thing to consider necessary for a city to be great.
Of course Oakland is a great city one way or the other, but I’m not sure it was in their interest that the Raiders (especially) left.
I don’t think having access to pro sports is generally considered a “bizarre” desire among residents. It’s obviously a reasonably popular attraction. Whether that makes a city great is way out of scope of this, and I don’t know what standard “thriving” is.
I’ve got no beef with the East Bay. But I can say the only reasons I ever went there were to go to and from the airport and to watch the A’s. And if I were unfamiliar with the area but looking to relocate, I might wonder why these teams are all leaving and what my entertainment options are as a sports fan. There are hundreds of other reasons to move or not move to a city, and perhaps Oakland will spend money on those instead – great! Losing a major sports franchise is still a loss and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
If there is one thing that Oakland does not have to worry about, it’s whether there are enough people who want to live there.
Ah yes, Oakland should accept the billionaire promise. One that is surely never to be broken.
“There’s a very strong anti-owner bias among this site’s writers”. Well, no shit. How much more data would one need to be convinced that owners are a massive issue?
Reality has a strong anti-owner bias, haha
terrific comment
I’m trying to think of a group of people who are not MLB team owners, and aren’t directly or indirectly in the pay of MLB team owners, who should have a “pro-owner bias.” Coming up empty.
I worded that specifically because “bias” means something.
As I (hopefully) made clear, I’m not on the side of the owners in any way. My point is that the writing and perspectives are biased because they generally don’t consider the possibility that MLB owners are really ever right about anything. The conclusion informs the research, instead of the other way around.
Lots and lots and lots of data indicates the owners are a massive issue. I take zero exception to that, and the positions drawn from it. To put it simply, they’re greedy as all hell and somewhere between amoral and cartoonishly evil. Plenty of evidence for these conclusions.
The problem arises when it’s already decided that because the owners are evil, then a) anyone acting against them is good, and b) there’s never a justification for their position. I definitely don’t think the first case is true here, and I’m pretty ambiguous about the second – it’s not unreasonable for an owner to operate within the revenue stream of a business without constantly pouring capital in. It’s also pretty questionable why Fisher would either want to tank fan interest, or why he’d need to do that to move the team. Isn’t it better to sell lots of tickets in Oakland and then move anyway? If anything, wouldn’t that make his asset more attractive to the markets he’s trying to sell it to? If I’m the city of Las Vegas, I want the A’s, but a lot less than say the Yankees (obviously they’re not moving, just that if we’re making a wishlist of teams a city would want, they’re #1) or say the Padres, an ownership group that’s put a lot of money into the team. And I’d be willing to do more to get them.
That’s a narrative that doesn’t fit the “owners bad” position as neatly, though, because it means that maybe Fisher’s not the only bad actor in this situation and it could even excuse him from some of it. So a reasonable idea that’s relevant to the situation is ignored because we already know where we want to end up and it doesn’t help us get there.
That’s bias.
The real problem here is the monopoly that baseball holds. Ask yourself why the writers here never attack that monopoly, and you’ll have your answer.
It is not bias. We here on this site are baseball fans. Owners own baseball teams. And many of them don’t view the team they own as some ‘baseball product’ – they view it as an investment. I’m sure that Fisher has a justification for his decision – and that justification is the return on his investment. He doesn’t give a shit about baseball. And calling that out is not bias – it merely shows that his ‘side of the story’ is a justification to increase his wealth.
Is it “anti-owner bias” to point out that the A’s and Giants were worth about the same in 1995 and now the Giants are worth about triple? Or that the Milwaukee Bucks are worth double the A’s? Fisher, Schottman and Haas were terrible stewards of their franchise to their own detriment
Haas was a tremendous owner, by owner standards at least, but his decision to cede territory rights to the South Bay came back to haunt the franchise.
How was he “tremendous” when he made the single worst blunder in franchise history?
He was the only owner since moving to Oakland that actually spent money on the on-field product (highest payroll in 1991) and was the only owner they had that wasn’t constantly threatening to leave. And even though it was a huge mistake on his part to trust the Giants, the subsequent owner groups had plenty of opportunities to make it work in Oakland but they chose not to.
Haas spent on the on field product by taking annual losses not by increasing the revenue base. It was totally unsustainable
I’ve always understood that the decision to cede the rights was basically a tremendously nice thing to do, an offer of solidarity between two (rich) people to keep the Giants in the Bay. And he got screwed when Selig and the Giants decided, hey, that favor you did us? Sucks for you, we won’t help you back.
It is not, but that’s also not stated in the article.
I was replying to the previous comment
To clarify, I do think that any question of Fangraphs’ bias can only be proven/refuted with reference to things that Fangraphs has actually published, not with a statistic that you as a 3rd party (assuming you don’t work for Fangraphs) have produced.
Absolutely. Fisher’s a bad owner. Nobody’s disagreeing with that.
What I’m saying is that Fisher being a bad owner doesn’t mean that Oakland is blameless here, and acting like he’s either incompetent or malicious or both ignores the complexity of the issue in favor of what feels like a predetermined conclusion: the owners are ruining baseball and everyone else is helpless to stop them.
Oakland’s lost three major sports franchises in five years, and you’d think that pattern might mean something to people writing on a statistics-focused website. I don’t understand why Fisher being bad means I ought to think Oakland acted rightly when there’s growing evidence their negotiation strategy is “accept our terms or leave” after two teams already left. Maybe they don’t care, fine. Cities may well be better served by adopting that attitude anyway. It’s certainly not a good look, though.
*$855 million in public funding for a $12 billion project”
That’s a great way to frame $885M as small potatoes, but as the article pointed out, there’s no way that’s less than 75% of the stadium cost.
A more accurate comparison would be something like: “$855 million in public funding for a $950 million stadium which will be next door to a private property development that the owner is ready and able to sink $11.1 billion into.”
The public money is in EVERY case where I’ve looked at the so called subsidies for stadiums, all going to infrastructure improvements near the stadium. Mostly roads for access.
So, it’s a 12 billion dollar project, and he wants 855 million for publicly owned infrastructure improvements required for the people who will live and work in that project.
This may or may not be a good investment of public money, but the roads and storm sewers and power lines are needed for the entire development unless there’s a separate infrastructure budget for the rest of the project that isn’t being mentioned? Which I seriously doubt.
“There’s a very strong anti-owner bias among this site’s writers … MLB owners are, as a group, falls somewhere between criminal and unethical to be sure”
I mean, wow, with facts like these, where does that “bias” even come from??? [end sarcasm tag]
I’ll bite. Can you show us facts on the percentage – the actual percentage – of MLB owners that are criminal?
Are you familiar with how one might acquire billions of dollars and maintain this sum of money? Almost certainly all of them.
Oakland is crushing it right now. But the city has a history of frugality born of the (very) lean years. The Supervisors know that stadiums are a crappy investment and will simply never pay for one.
I don’t know why you’re getting down-voted for your comment. This article, as you seem to indicate, does a good job of discussing why Fisher has been operating in bad faith, but I think there is an interesting article to be written about Oakland’s struggles to retain its teams. Perhaps it’s all on the owners–that’s certainly plausible–but California’s struggles with land use, building housing, and NIMBYism are so well-documented that I think it’s a fair question whether any of these factors have contributed to Oakland’s current position. I like Baumann’s writing and have gotten the impression from reading him over the years that our politics are similar, but I don’t think readers are wrong for wanting to read about the other side of this coin.
(Downvotes are frequently dumb and incomprehensible, it’s best to pay them absolutely no mind.) I agree, also as someone who’s probably broadly politically aligned with you guys if that matters, that it’d be worth someone writing more about the tack taken by the city of Oakland in these negotiations — I don’t really think it’s a Fangraphs topic necessarily, but I hope someone will link it here if it gets written.
I don’t follow Bay Area politics very closely so I am sure I’m missing many things here, but it strikes me that, broadly, cities that know they’re being shaken down in these stadium-deal negotiations have two options: (1) basically just take a hard line against subsidizing it with a bad bond issue or whatever and tell the team to go hang, or (2) try to get a deal done that, even if it’s a “bad” deal for the city in an absolute sense, keeps the team while also tying it to some other goal on the city’s broader wish-list. Extend a transit line, get new housing built, revitalize a blighted neighborhood, something like that. My perception, ill-informed as it undoubtedly is and I’ll be happy to be corrected if someone knows the facts in more detail, is that maybe Oakland took more of a hard line than it should’ve — perhaps colored by the perception that a stadium got built across the bay without taxpayer funding, so why couldn’t it there too? But I’m not sure the city ever had a good option here; it’s possible that there’s nothing much they could’ve done, and ownership was just never really serious about keeping the A’s there.
I’m not sure downvotes add much to the conversation. If someone likes a comment, sure, upvote, but I’d much rather prefer down voters to actually express why they disagree. In many cases it’s quite obvious. Many instances it’s not.
I just approach it as someone who doesn’t live in Oakland and would like to understand the situation better. My only connection to the city is the sports and the music. Have no idea what the political or real-estate situation is.
As other commenters have pointed out, $800M is likely a bad deal. That’s fine. But to me, that bit of information should precede the assertion that “John Fisher is a spoiled, bad dude.” The article started with the latter and never really got around to the former.
Which article gets people more fired up and gets more eyeballs? The one that explains both sides of the issue, or the article that says, “rich dude bad!”?
I don’t think it’s a terribly difficult question.
How many cities have more than one team in multiple leagues?
NYC (metro population 23M+), LA (12M+), Chicago (9.5M+), and Bay Area (7.5M+).
It’s definitely on the small side for that many teams (before the moves, 6 teams in the big 4 leaagues).
Yes but a 7.5M metro area divided in half is still 50% bigger than the Las Vegas metro area. Probably more like 75%.
That’s why the Mets, Angels, and White Sox have been so good throughout the years, right?
They have! 2 of those 3 teams print money and have been pretty good, and the third won a whole lot in this century.
No, it’s not! The NYC, LA, and Chicago numbers are accurate, but the Bay Area Metro has nowhere near 7.5M people!
Estimated 2021 Bay Area MSA = 4,623,264
Estimated 2021 Bay Area MSA / 2 = 2,311,632
Estimated 2021 Las Vegas MSA = 2,292,476
For comparison:
Montreal CMA = 4,291,732
Charlotte MSA = 2,701,046
Vancouver CMA = 2,642,825
San Antonio MSA = 2,601,788
Portland MSA = 2,511,612
Spot on, Michael. Thank you for this.
Although, you missed a handful of other answers to your Q, “How else could the A’s have intentionally reduced fan interest?” Some other recent boners by Fisher:
Fisher’s track record of owning the SJ Earthquakes gives some indication of how he will (not) invest in the team, even after getting a new stadium built.
I think this is a key point. The city of Oakland could, in theory, find a place for a team. But it seems hardly worth it given how obviously cheap the A’s have been for the last 20-some years. There’s not a lot of evidence that paying for major league sports teams is a good investment for metro areas, and a fair amount of evidence against it. But to pay that much money to a guy who clearly isn’t that interested in putting a decent on-field product out there?
And yet the team has been successful win-loss wise.
Those successful years have been in spite of the owner, not because of him.
If you think the weather there is bad now, you’re going to hate 2030. It might not be a viable place to live in 20 years.
in Vegas: I’m not sure it will be this summer. But thankfully I work overnight as does much of the city.
With all the states allowing casinos and sports betting, I just don’t see how Vegas remains a viable tourist attraction in the coming years.
Vegas is about as likely to lose its status as a major US tourist destination in the coming years as the A’s are to win 125 games this season. 24/7 dispensaries alone probably has people in terrible states like IN, TN, AL, SC, etc. salivating at the thought of visiting. And I think you might be greatly underestimating how popular Vegas is with international tourists. Such an elite food scene, especially all the ethnic spots off the strip
They’d only have to go 122-37. Doesn’t seem too tough
I won’t pretend that I understand the appeal of Vegas as a tourist destination at a personal level–I know that it exists and those people have different tastes than I do. But I’m pretty confident that relying on tourist dollars is not going to make up the difference. The Raiders had the third worst attendance in the NFL last year, and there is no shortage of competition for tourist dollars in town. It will be better than playing in the Coliseum, but compared to another spot in the Bay Area it’s a bad long-term play. (Of course, the cynic would say it doesn’t need to a be a long-term play, because some other city will eventually pony up an even larger subsidy 25 years from now)
I was in the Venetian for work last summer…and had the depressing realization that this was the closest some people would ever come to visiting Venice.
And I don’t like Venice all that much!
I found the strip to be utterly depressing. There’s nothing fun about watching gambling addicts. It’s also not fun to be a gambling addict. The food on the strip is expensive for what you get, and some of it is just not very good at all. The shows are ridiculous; aside from the dance stuff (which is also ridiculous) it doesn’t appeal to me at all.
But I’ll tell you what, if you can get off of the strip things get a whole lot more interesting. It’s a bit like Southern California, which I have a soft spot for. But then I probably would just go to Southern California? I guess the outdoorsy stuff is fun too.
I do think that if I ever wound up in Vegas again–and I can’t see why I would–I would probably go to a baseball game. I’d guess that given the likely demand, it would probably be much cheaper than going to a stadium where the home team has solid fan support.
Yeah, I’ve heard some good stuff about “Old Vegas,” but my plan on that trip was definitely to maximize my time spent in not-Vegas, haha.
Personally my favorite thing about Vegas is the expensive cocktail bars and pool parties, and I’m not joking. With that said, gambling isn’t even Vegas’s number one revenue source now, it’s nightlife (including pools). I just don’t see how it is a great location for baseball. People who are there too party and go to pool parties and black out and do drugs are not the same people who like baseball. I mean there is some crossover of any group of people, hell I like all those things and love baseball. But it isn’t common. If they run low on attendance for a once a week football game, they gonna get crushed in baseball
Yeah, if my conference hadn’t been cancelled this year, I was fully planning to spend the entire time at the pool.
Also…is the “food scene” really all that good?
It fully seems like the sort of place where “celebrity chefs” slap their name on a cafeteria, because the yokels and social climbers visiting won’t know any better.
The Venetian, sir, is no Venice.
I live in Europe, haha – I’m very aware!
Having lived in Europe for a few years for work (no longer), and having been to both Venice and the Venetian, I’m not entire sure which one is better. I’m not saying either is my cup of tea. : -)
Venice is pretty beautiful…but only if you’re on the right side of the canal, haha!
The other side is a tourist shithole.
How many “international tourists” do you expect to buy As tickets, haha?
There are also plenty of things to do in Las Vegas that don’t involve gambling.
Yeah there’s drugs and prostitutes, as well
I visit Vegas maybe once every other year, but when I do go there it is for the crazy, over-the-top nature of the city. It’s not just because I want to go to a casino. People who enjoy the gambling experience will go there, and the casual tourist will also go there. I don’t see local casinos replacing the Vegas experience. Not sure however that MLB baseball will thrive there, although as someone else noted here, the minor league affiliate there does very well.
BTW, the story here about John Fisher deciding this is all about real estate has been reported other places. There was an amazing profile of Fisher a few years ago that interviewed a whole lot of people close to him and the thesis of the article was that he has been trying to build a legacy-defining real estate project his entire life and this was his shot. And that’s the only way any of this makes sense.
It’s not going to be a good legacy. For one thing he’s done nothing to show that he’s capable of any more than regurgitating conventional ideas. Any real estate project is likely to be unoriginal
As an architect/urbanist, what I saw of the proposal was more-or-less good on ideas, but realized in such a developer-driven way that it was never going to amount to anything better than the market response to a new stadium (but hey, that’s Bjarke Ingels). It was never going to be near as significant as Camden Yards.
I hate this relocation so much. I hope that the A’s don’t have a single fan in attendance from now until the day ownership sells the team.
They aren’t getting much more than that. They’re partying like it’s 1979
11K fans per game is definitely not much.
After seeing your comment I thought “wait were the A’s bad in 1979?”
Turns out that yes, yes they were. They were in fact very bad in 1979.
Agree with everything except calling Vegas one of the fastest growing urban centers. General consensus is that it’s reaching its peak.
That’s one of those “both of these things can be true at the same time” things, though. It can be fast-growing and reaching its peak.
Oh man, what a well deserved hit piece. Love it. Thank you for being one of the few sites to be this blunt (and honest) in its assessment of a situation.
Overall a good article, but your decision to end it with the idea that this somehow causes baseball to lose cities to threaten to move or expand to makes no sense – aside from the fact that Charlotte, Nashville, Portland, Montreal and Austin/San Antonio continue to exist, if the A’s leave then Northern California it will be awfully tempting for another group to give a go to Sacramento or Pleasanton/Dublin/Livermore or even Oakland again. There are 12M+ very rich people (including the Sacramento area) in No. Cal. and the other places of comparable population and wealth (Chicagoland and Baltimore/Washington) have two teams.
And one more thing. This is anything but a done deal. Fisher buying land is several steps away from Fisher building a stadium. And while the other owners do want the A’s out of the Coliseum, it is still not obvious that they want to give up the second team in Northern California. The odds of this move have increased, but they are still far from 100%.
I am not sure whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with you here–I think I am agreeing–but if they want another team in Northern California they can expand there. Or move the Rays there. If anything, this increases the number of viable places to expand to since they’re leaving a more desirable location for a less desirable one.
Heck, if this gets MLB closer to what I think is an appropriate size (36 teams) I’d even think this is a good thing.
Local Vegas news sure thinks it is a done deal!
It feels like a done deal, especially based on the comments by the politicians in Oakland. That said, there’s nothing to prevent discussions continuing in silence. Fisher buying land in Vegas means he’s going to either use it for the A’s, or he’ll eventually sell the land when MLB expands to Vegas. It’s an no-lose situation for him.
An expansion or relocation would have to trample on Giants territorial rights
The Giants don’t have any territorial rights in the East Bay. The Giants territorial rights include San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties, as per a 1994 agreement with MLB (recently relitigated and upheld when the A’s we’re trying to move to San Jose). Presumably MLB wouldn’t just hand the rights to the East Bay over to SF for nothing when they could keep them in their pocket for relocation blackmail purposes.
Although, if the East Bay misses out on a potential Rays move and the next round of expansion, I could see MLB letting the Giants have that territory back for some kind of compensation and maybe some kind of promise not to interfere with potentially putting a team elsewhere in Northern California like Sacramento.
I don’t think DC has a “comparable population” as the article states and as this comment reiterates.
The Washington Baltimore CSA which is probably the best measure of fandom and attendance (and includes Baltimore) for the Washington, DC area is 9.5 million. Vegas has about 2.9 million including a much larger geographic area.
Detail, but the Washington MSA has 5.49 million pop basically in the daily commute area and NOT counting rhe Baltimore area. Vegas is around 2.3 million by a comparable measure.
Especially when average incomes and wealth are included, these area are not comparable markets.
Tourists are a different matter though they don’t buy tv packages and season tickets:
38 million! tourists to Vegas annually.
~25 million to DC.
They’re comparing Washington/Baltimore to the Bay Area, not Las Vegas. In terms of their CSAs (since Washington and Baltimore are in separate MSAs), they are indeed similar at 9.9M to 9.7M respectively.
However, if you measure by MSAs (while diving the Bay Area MSA in half), then Baltimore and especially Washington are significantly larger, while Las Vegas becomes a lot more respectable.
Great piece.
One thing I’d love to see is a study of how teams fare under “children of rich people” vs “people who created the wealth themselves”.
Seems like most of the really bad owners are silver spoon nepo-babies, who never had to build anything..Looking at William Clay Ford (Lions), Fisher, James Dolan (Knicks), Bill Wirtz (Black Hawks). Stan Kroenke married into Walmart $$. Tigers have collapsed under Chris Illitch.
Daniel Snyder is an exception to this, but, it seems people that have been a part of building something have an acumen that their children don’t have.
Everything fares worse under the children of rich people compared to the founders. Studies have been done many times in business and mostly finance, but exceptions exist. I suggest you look in Google scholar.
Or just google “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.” It turns out it’s much harder to squander family wealth of billionaires’ than that, but the general direction of the adage is correct.
“It turns out it’s much harder to squander family wealth of billionaires’ than that”
I damn well would like to give it a try though!
I could own a baseball team and do things like sign Xander Bogaerts to a 43-year contract and it would be awesome.
Jeff Lurie came from money, but he also had an actual life on his own merits before going into the family business.
Mark Cuban is also an exception, as he’s been a terrible (and weirdly cheap) owner.
But he only “built” something in the sense of riding the dot com bubble and selling a “business” that was gone 3 years later. He’s never really been that much of a visionary, so he almost fits better with the owners who lucked into money.
Kroenke may have married into the Walton family, but when he did Walmart was very small compared to today. He made his money in commercial real estate and his wealth is separate from his wife’s. It can be argued that his success was in some ways tied to Walmart’s – he was the developer for may Walmart sites during it’s growth – but to throw him in with “silver spoon nepo-babies” isn’t quite right. I also make no comment on if he is a good owner or not, but he did win a Super Bowl.
Considering that Kronke could wind up lynched if he ever shows his face in the St. Louis area again, I’ll leave his ownership quality as an open question there…
The owners of the Rockies are so bad at running the Rockies I worry about anybody who bought their cows
They don’t have cows anymore, they traded the herd for three kittens in a box from the overpass and a squirrel to be named later
This is pervasive throughout history. Children of those who accomplished “great” things are often failures.
Michael Bidwill (AZ Cardinals) is also in this camp
Bill and Stormy didn’t achieve much either
Children of rich people are the worst. Even in the instances when they are good people, growing up never having had to struggle (financially) leaves them unable to ever get it. They expect to win and they don’t understand why you just won’t give it to them.
Great article, but I’ll say… the “new, less accessible park” you speak of is actually way more accessible than the old park so idk what the point of saying that was.
Less accessible in the sense of not easily used by people who live in the actual city the team is named for.
They moved to where all the season ticket holders are. It’s much more accessible to the people who went to games, not some theoretical ITP baseball fan who never really existed
I don’t know why it’s not a good move to park your ballpark in the middle of the map here:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/11/why-the-braves-want-to-move-in-one-ticket-sales-map
Yes exactly.
Lookiy at that map and also looking at a satellite photo, the most only clear takeaway is that the first map uses way too large of dots.
More accessible to the people who have always went to the games and more accessible to get to in every definition of the word accessible.
I don’t necessarily like that Liberty Media got paid so much to build essentially their own entertainment complex but it is WAY more accessible than where it was (even from parts of Atlanta that were close to the old park!)
Now, if only we could get MARTA expansion to Truist!
(Things that will never, ever, ever happen, because Braves season ticket holders are basically Art Newlie)
just gotta lean into what everyone calls it and formally name it “Moving Aryans Rapidly Through Atlanta.” Station would get built tomorrow.
Man, Emory and the CDC have been begging for an expansion for decades at this point.
Druid Hills ain’t gonna let it happen.
Michael, you left out the movie scenario where an animal inherits the team, such as Rhubarb. Starring Ray Miland, the cat mascot inherited the Brooklyn Loons leading them to the pennant in a delightful screwball baseball comedy. Unlike Costner the cat has charm.
I’d put that in scenario 2. The owner simply happens to be the “fish out of water”.
Corollary : Water world is the best sports comedy.
1) Costner 2) plays a literal fish out of water in a world where 3) the world has been run into insolvency by malfeasant owners (I think, pretty vague on the plot of that one after all the years).
Either ownership has a commitment to being competitive, or it doesn’t. It’s OK to partially strip down a team in return for controllable talent, but the focus needs to remain on getting to competitiveness. If the game is simply a side business for ownership, a source of funds, a gateway to taxpayer freebies…then this i something that institutionally MLB should care about. But if Manfred doesn’t care…if he’s more focussed on rule-making and how he can get players to take less…then it’s up to individual owners to act with integrity towards their players and the city/fanbase.
The traded for “talent” isn’t worth controlling
I don’t necessarily think the problem was the tearing down, it was that ownership was hellbent on not maximizing that window where the team had a shot of competing for a championship. They didn’t even issue Marcus Semien a QO and he went off and put up 6 wins for the Blue Jays.
(I think you can quibble with the big return on the deals being Shea Langeliers, Esteury Ruiz, JP Sears, and a bunch of pitchers who can’t pitch but that’s not necessarily the owner’s fault)
The QO for Semien was bad. As to the teardown window maximization, reminded me of the post World Series Marlin teardown under old management. It’s hard on a team’s fanbase
I basically agree with you, but how exactly would MLB be able to crack down on such a vague concept? It’s way too hard to prove that a certain ownership doesn’t care about the product on the field as long as they claim to just be rebuilding for future success. Even some of the teams who legitimately tank are doing so with future success in mind.
We were talking about this the other day: When you’re looking at the demographics in Las Vegas, remember that you’re also talking about 45 million tourists a year–plenty of whom would rather watch a baseball game than a show on the strip.
In regards to the heat, that appears to be a non-issue. Here are the number of tourists coming to Las Vegas in pre-pandemic 2019 by month (taken from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority):
Jan: 3,412,100
Feb: 3,189,900
Mar: 3,679,100
Apr: 3,542,000
May:3,691,100
Jun: 3,607,400
Jul: 3,685,900
Aug: 3,579,000
Sep: 3,475,900
Oct: 3,668,100
Nov: 3,509,800
Dec: 3,465,700
Tourists go to Las Vegas consistently–throughout the summer. And there’s air-conditioning. The new stadium will have it–and a casino.
When the franchise can make money from slot machines and blackjack tables, the economics change. They aren’t just selling tickets, peanuts and beer anymore.
New stadium will have a “partially retractable” roof whatever that means for air conditioning or lack thereof
I bet it means they’ll pull the roof across when they want air conditioning.
The Raiders were 30th out of 32 teams in NFL attendance. I think it’s possible they would attract tourists, but enough to compensate for the fact that the residents aren’t going? Probably not.
I suspect more of those tourists will have an interest in seeing the MLB than the NFL. American Football is a weird novelty to tourists from, say, Japan. The MLB is a different version of the game they know, plus features some of the biggest stars from their native leagues.
So they’ll draw well every 5 days when Fujinami pitches and the rest of the time…
The median for average attendance at a home game in the NFL was 68,724.
The Raiders’ average was 62,045.
That’s 90% of the median–when the Raiders were 6 and 11.
Vegas was 6th in the NHL in attendance at home games–18,100 per game.
The median for an NHL home game was 17,181.
I think the difference is that the Golden Knights are serious contenders, and the Raiders are . . . um . . . not.
Incidentally, the A’s will no doubt ask for government assistance in building a stadium, but they don’t need it. They’d tear down the Tropicana or the Rio to put up a stadium and build another huge casino around it–all with private casino money. The state of Nevada is run by the casinos. If the casinos want government funding for a stadium, it’ll be there–and the casinos always want more reasons for more people to fly to Vegas.
That being said, when the Raiders’ stadium was funded with government guarantees, it was because Adelson wanted ownership in an NFL team. The ownership group brought Adelson in just long enough to get the financing from the government, and once that was in place, the NFL owners told the Raiders’ ownership group that they didn’t want someone in the gaming industry so close to the ownership of an NFL team.
They snubbed Adelson at the last minute. The Raiders came to Vegas with a new a stadium courtesy of Adelson but without Adelson. Don’t expect any of the casinos to fall for that with a baseball stadium.
Either Oakland is particularly unlucky when it comes to owners or their government is doing something wrong (or they’re unwilling to do shady things that others are, IDK). They’ve lost three pro sports teams in the past 5 years! Regardless, I loved the write-up here and I’d love to read a book pulling the cover back on this mess. So, get writing before Michael Lewis beats you to it!
They definitely weren’t unlucky with Schneider. NFL is purely extractive at the franchise level. A’s haven’t had business building owners ever— Mack, Johnson, Finley, Haas, Schottman nor Fisher. You need that in MLB for sustained success
Everyone else seems way smarter than I and has already made the best points I could imagine thinking of, but as a New Orleanian who watches the so-called Jazz play in Utah, for pete’s sake, make em change the name when they move to LV. Then give Oakland an expansion team (tech bro owned of course- what could be more stable financially), and let them take all of the team history back (like the NBA’s Charlotte Hornets 2.0 did).
Also the new team name in LV should be categorically awful. Only fair!
Las Vegas Possums!!
This would be awesome. Open Pit Mine is a good singalong song
They were known as the Athletics when they were in Philly and in KC. Also Oakland’s not getting an expansion team.
I get your point about how the Jazz should’ve been renamed (as should the Lakers), but the Athletics are an old, generic name that has worked just fine in 3 different cities, so it should also be just fine in the 4th city.
What Charlotte did with the Hornets name and Cleveland did with the Browns name was stupid, arrogant, and embarrassing. Besides, Philly and KC have just as much right to the team name and history as Oakland does.
Thanks for this, the best thing I’ve read about a very sad story. I’ve been sorry to see how many sports-media commentators have been totally snookered by the deliberate, ownership-led sabotage of the A’s into thinking a move was inevitable or a good idea, because “things had gotten so bad in Oakland.” As if the opossum or the sewage overflow just happened, rather than being a symptom of completely intentional disinvestment from even the most basic maintenance. As if it were somehow the city’s or the fans’ fault that you don’t sell out a stadium with a 100-loss team.
Keeping individual owners from pulling this disappearing act is the exact kind of thing the commissioner’s office should be there for, or what the hell else does “not in the best interests of baseball” even mean? But of course since it’s making the sport look bad for the purpose of shaking down taxpayers, it’s in the interests of the other owners to pretend otherwise.
This was not the direct point of this particular article, but I’m interested why Billy Beane isn’t in the conversation more when considering “villians.” After all, isn’t he the executive vice president of the team? He’s been there the entire time during its fall into disgrace. Sure, he’s not the major owner, but doesn’t he have some stake? He’s also got enough money to be involved in ownership in other sports.
If he announces he’s leaving the team now that this purchase in LV has been made, then we could assume he opposes it. Otherwise, hasn’t he been as much of the problem this whole time? He could have left this menace any time, maybe most crucially when Wolff got bought out. Are we giving him a pass since he is charismatic Mr Moneyball?
I have no background on this, curious what you knowledgable people have to say on him.
He’s probably the most recognizable name associated with the A’s for a modern baseball fan (I follow an AL West team and I don’t recognize half the names on the A’s roster anymore). James Click chose to leave a WS winner after he was low-balled by the owner. That Beane remains at the helm of the A’s should prompt some questions about how okay he is with their ownership’s decisions.
I don’t know the answer to this exactly but I have some details that I can piece together.
He turned down the Mets deal because he didn’t want to move his family, and was very explicit about it.
He is no longer the head of the A’s baseball operations in terms of day to day decisions. He has formally turned that over to Forst. This was pretty recent; in the last year I think.
If we add those two things together, my educated guess is that Billy Beane is not moving to Las Vegas and he is washing his hands of the whole situation.
I would also take a wild, completely baseless guess that he will essentially be a consultant for the A’s unless a team offers him an ownership stake equivalent to what he has with the A’s. And only after his kids graduate from high school which…I don’t know what that would be.
Agree, Billy should shoulder some of the blame/ire here for sure. He’s been more and more disengaged from the A’s, as he’s ramped up his involvement in various soccer teams and tried to quit outright when he joined the SPAC that ultimately went nowhere. But he’s still an exec + part-owner of the A’s, so he shouldn’t get a pass.
I don’t think this article touches on the key reason that Las Vegas is likely to land the A’s – it’s their monorail!
It put Ogdenville, Brockway, and North Haverbrook on the map…
This article was a real bear to trudge through, it is so loaded with negativity and crass words and phrases (“The relationship…is a farce”, “…not through any particular abundance of ingenuity or effort of labor…”, “…ownership incompetence…or malfeasance”, to name a couple) that I wonder if anything is true or if it is just a jealous, propagandic dig at someone “rich”.
Obviously we bring our own points of view to bear, but man, the truth hurts sometimes
“Rich” lol
In the 19 years since Fisher bought the team, the A’s have had a winning record, seven playoff appearances, and more wins than the Giants. How is that “not competitive”? What did they get for all that winning? 29th in the league in attendance. It’s just a lie that if they somehow made the team better that they would have ever had good attendance.
Who were these star players they should have kept around? Barry Zito? Yoenis Céspedes? They kept Eric Chavez around. That really helped with attendance. I agree that Olson and Chapman would have been nice building blocks, but with those two they won 97 games two years in a row and they were 27th and 24th in attendance. They could have won the World Series every year and they wouldn’t get people to go to the Colosseum.
I was at the game where they gave away all the tickets for free. They took off the tarps. You know how many people were in the center field upper deck for a _free_ game? Three.
If you went to someone’s apartment and it was flooding with sewage or had pests in the walls would you blame that person, or their landlord that showed no interest in keeping the apartment up? It’s ridiculous to blame the A’s for the lack of upkeep at the colosseum. Oakland gave up on it.
The fact of the matter is, Fisher has overseen a largely successful team and has made good faith efforts to get a new stadium built. He wasn’t asking for a free stadium, just general infrastructure enhancements (that Oakland needs anyways). He had deals in hand that were blown up by city councils or the Giants. He gave the Bay Area every chance to keep the A’s, but they turned it down. He’s certainly not a model owner, and he’s made many mistakes, but leaving Oakland just isn’t one of them.
In addition to the ones you mentioned, off the top of my head…
I’m sure there are others I’m forgetting. Add in Cespedes, Olson, Chapman, Bassitt, Murphy, Montas…that’s a ton of talent dumped on the market just because the team wanted to save some money. And you think the fans are to blame if they get gun-shy about investing their emotions in the team? Many fans stuck with the team even when stars were dumped time and again, but many others were trained not to care, even when a new core of players started winning games.
Mentioning Zito and Cespedes was obviously a joke. Zito was possibly the worst free agent signing up to that point, and Cespedes played about 400 games over the remainder of his career while making $120M.
Here’s what the next five years looked like for each of the players you mentioned:
Nick Swisher – 11.8 WAR – $35M
Huston Street – 5.3 WAR – $33M (3.08 ERA, 140 saves, 14 blown)
Gio Gonzalez – 13.2 WAR – $41M
Dan Haren – 19.8 WAR -$32M
Josh Donaldson – 25.3 – $79M
Josh Reddick – 6.4 WAR -$52M
Sonny Gray – 13.5 WAR – $34M
Of those, Haren and Donaldson are the only obvious bad trades. All the others ended up being around league average players, or they had one good year and then were injured or bad the others.
Like I mentioned, the recent trades have been unfortunate, but those all happened after it was obvious they weren’t sticking around.
Even there though, I’d hardly call trading Montas away a mistake, seeing as though he’s out for the year with a major shoulder injury. Same goes for letting Semien walk. They didn’t offer him the qualifying offer, but he ended up signing a one year make-good contract with the Jays that was worth less than the qualifying offer, so it’s not like the A’s were the only one suspicious he could get back to what he was.
Yeah, I don’t blame them for not tendering Semien. He was a 30-year-old SS coming off a real stinker of a year. No one else thought he was worth much either, given the offer he finally took.
None of the talent the A’s have traded was truly foundational, because they haven’t had many true stars for a while. The closest guy was Donaldson, and even he is not a dude you build around because he was on the older side when he finally broke out. Chapman was great, but lost it. Olson is the 3rd best guy on a championship team. The rest of them going back to Swisher and such are above average regulars. If you can keep all of them yes you’ll have a strong team (as the A’s showed, several times). But the A’s can’t afford to keep 10 above average free agents. Pretending that they can is silly.
The point isn’t that the A’s should have burned that money to keep all those players. It’s that they didn’t even try to keep any of their best/most popular players. Like you said, it was obvious they weren’t sticking around, even if the team was winning in a given season. You don’t think that will impact attendance?
Hey now. Let’s not let facts get in the way of “rich man bad, grab your pitchfork”
The City of Oakland is by no means responsible for basic stadium maintenance. In this case, the A’s *are* their own landlords.
THIS. The A’s have been majority owners of the Coliseum for years. They could have spent their own money to fix the place up, but they chose not to. They could have spent their own money to build a new ballpark in the vast expanse of adjacent parking lot, but they chose not to. They could even have spent their own money to build a new ballpark at the Howard Terminal site, but they chose not to. They’ve gotten exactly what they’ve paid for.
The A’s bought out Alameda County’s half of the site in 2020, but it is still run and maintained by Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority, which, as far as I can tell, is not affiliated with the A’s. I’m sure they could dump money into the area, but why? The city is obviously determined to run the site into the ground.
Las Vegas also gets forty million tourists annually; that’s what they’ll be counting on to drive tickets sales—not fans of the A’s, but fans of other teams. That’s why they bought land just across the I-15 from the Strip and are planning to build a walkway over to T-Mobile, where the Golden Knights play. Speaking of the Knights, they have provided a model for how the A’s may deal with their minor league team. The Knights have their AHL team—the Silver Knights—in nearby Henderson. The A’s AAA team, the Aviators, play in Summerlin, well away from the Strip and thus more likely to draw strictly local fans.
40M annually means, on average, ~370,000/ day. That takes them from an MSA population of 2.22 M to 2.59 M.
Enough to move the needle? I don’t know. What happens when they play Miami/Tampa/Pittsburgh at home and away games at NYC/LA/STL?
Tourists spend more per day on average on entertainment than locals.
They also usually spend more than one day at their destination.
There are points to be made but pointing out that possums live in the bay area while other stadiums have exactly the same issue or that the bay area sewage infrastructure is not great when we get large amounts of rains just reads as pilling on
The a’s couldn’t prevent the water backing up any more than the giants could when it happened to them that same year.
Yet only one got massive media coverage. Wonder why ..
No proper place to put this but the Cubs-Dodgers game this afternoon saw Drew Smyly retire the first 21 only to lose the perfect game/no -hitter on a 30 foot squibber down the 3rd base line from Peralta, At least he was given the chance to go for it and was just removed. Might have been the most exciting 13-0 game ever.
The Athletics will be the fourth major sports franchise into Las Vegas: they have a WNBA teams, The Aces, which relocated from San Antonio.
The Aces are owned by Mr Davis, and their move to Las Vegas preceded the Raider’s own relocation.
They also got an XFL team this year.
Um. I don’t think the the WNBA counts as major sports
The Oakland Coliseum is outdated but it was significantly nicer before Al Davis had that center field monstrosity, not so pleasantly referred to as Mount Davis, built.
Wah Wah. Some rich guy didn’t do what I think he’s supposed to do with his money.
I’d argue what Rockies ownership does is far worse than anything Fischer did. At least with Fischer, you KNOW he didn’t care, so if you spent one cent supporting the team, it’s your own fault.
Rockies ownership on the other hand being wildly incompetent with the money fans are giving them is far more egregious.
MLB is a for profit entertainment industry. Don’t like the product or the way the company is managed? Don’t give the owner your money.
The city of Oakland isn’t owed a baseball team.
I live 6 hours away from the closest MLB team…nobody would suggest an MLB team be placed in my town simply so I have a local team to root for or for the communities “civic pride”
If the team is good, fans will show up, unless it’s an MLB team in Florida.
Unless they’re the A’s, winning record under the current ownership, in the playoffs six of the last eleven years. Winning records in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, no attendance to speak of.
I have not read and enjoyed anything written this much, ever. Thank you for laying down what many long-time A’s fans feel.
Nice “objective” hit piece. Isn’t the real story that three professional sports teams have vacated Oakland in five years, the raiders for the second time? Wouldn’t a good article be “why can’t a big market like Oakland retain professional sports teams?”
It’s rather easy writing “big bad entitled CEO hurt fans who never go to games “.
As Wilbon and Kornheiser both agreed on PTI recently, the A’s have made the playoffs six of the last eleven years – more than Wilbon’s Cubs – and people still don’t come to the park.
“Blame the rich” is such a tired trope. Why bother to bring up the source of one’s wealth?
Exactly. “Rich guy bad” is tired and lazy. The entitlement of the author and many of the comments is pathetic.
Again. MLB does not exist as a charity for anybody’s benefit.
The author of this article literally gets paid by a website that makes money off helping people gamble and then blames owners for being greedy.
You telling me this author gets paid? And he criticized a billionaire? Well if that just isn’t hypocrisy at its finest!
As a local, part of the Golden Knights’ success is also related to how the organization responded to the 1 October shooting. Their inaugural home game was basically the first event to occur after the shooting, and as the season went on, the success of the team was something the city could rally around. It helped, of course, that the team had no history anywhere else. I definitely see way more VGK license plates around than Raiders.
So far, our legislators seem to be saying all the appropriate things about how a deal hasn’t been approved yet. The session basically ends in May though, so it shouldn’t be too long before there’s more info one way or another. (Though the legislature can also call a special session, which is actually what was done for the Raiders.) Hoping our politicans are able to drive a harder bargain with the A’s ownership!
The Golden Knights management did a fantastic job with that expansion draft. They came out of the draft with a solid depth team, and a pile of picks.
10 trades were made to influence which player they would select in the expansion draft. A standout bad one was the Penguins gave Vegas a second round pick, to select the player who became their starting goalie that was a major part of their success and was the better goalie than the one kept in Pittsburgh.
Other team GMs were so embarrassed by the results they were a lot more conservative in dealing with the Kraken in the next one.
As a slightly reluctant corporate shill and overly enthusiastic baseball fan, this article was just perfectly researched and presented. *chefs kiss*
It’ll be good for baseball to stop subjecting Las Vegas to ridiculous blackout rules.
Las Vegas is a “home team” for all of the following:
If you’re a fan of any team in the National League West (except for the Rockies), you can’t buy a package to stream your favorite team at home–or away–when they’re playing anyone in the division (except for the Rockies).
So glad to see cable fade away.
Fangraph’s writing has really gone to shit, I remember why I stopped reading posts
It seems you haven’t.
Fisher is bad for baseball no doubt about that. But the author’s line, “ Braves moved out of Turner Field and into a new, less accessible park” is lazy journalism by a guy who who has probably never been to a Braves game. The Braves put Truist smack dab in the middle of their fanbase. Is it less accessible to MARTA? Sure. But more accessible to the majority of their fan base, which doesn’t live downtown.
Correct. I have family who relocated from NY to GA a couple decades back and have adopted the Braves as their second team. They’re baseball fans and have attended more games at Truist in the last couple years than they did the prior 15 at Turner Field. Not sure it was lazy, but it sure indicates he doesn’t understand the politics and demographics of Atlanta and the suburbs.
Whats the chances they rebrand and change the team name? Las Vegas Athletics sounds weird
I am curious about the name. The Athletics, or the A’s, have been part of MLB from Philadelphia, to KC, to Oakland. The A’s are one of the eight founding members of MLB dating back to 1901.
Well, one of the 8 founding members of the American League.
This is a great article, but it’s clear you never went to a 7:05 game at Turner Field.
Worth noting: The Las Vegas Aviators, the A’s AAA affiliate, led the PCL in attendance in 2022; they led their league in attendance in 2021 (we’ll ignore they temporarily changed the name of the PCL to Triple-A West that year); they led their league in attendance in 2019. (Something happened in 2020, but I’m drawing a blank.) So 2019 was the first year of the A’s affiliation and, more importantly, the first year of their brand-new $150MM ballpark. There are nights when the Aviators outdraw the A’s. That’s a combination of the Aviators being popular for a AAA franchise, and the A’s being unpopular for a “MLB” franchise.
What’s interesting is the Aviators play in an open-air stadium. There are already rumors that the A’s may be forced to leave Oakland after the 2024 season when their lease expires. If so, they’ll be playing in the Aviators home park for a couple seasons. Supposedly both could co-exist there. It will certainly make call-ups from AAA much smoother. The player won’t even have to leave his club house. The player could be called up 15-minutes before game time and be in uniform to play! How that will impact attendance for MLB games and minor-league games will be interesting.
Oakland has been able to build a pitching staff over the years by identifying pitchers who can take advantage of the Coliseum. Big park, ball doesn’t fly, lots of foul room. Bad for hitters, great for pitchers, especially certain types of pitchers that other teams may not value as highly. Vegas will be 180 degrees opposite (no, I’m not referring to the heat!).
I’m still holding out hope, however irrational, that there is still negotiating room here. The A’s pretty much had to announce a new home for revenue sharing purposes by the end of this season, IIRC, but no reason a new deal in Oakland can’t still be struck, especially with the city of Oakland knowing the A’s already have locked in the Vegas option. Fisher buying the land? As I noted elsewhere, it works for him either way. It’s either going to be the A’s new home, or he’ll be able to sell it to the future expansion franchise. He won’t be losing money on prime Vegas land.
I suppose there’s always the possibility until the deal is finalized, but it’s certainly trending very bad for Oakland A’s fans.