Where Do the Athletics Go From Here?
Last week, the Padres’ managerial search came to a surprising end when they signed Bob Melvin to a three-year deal. Even though the A’s had picked up his contract option for the 2022 season, the team allowed him to interview for the vacant position in San Diego, and he ended up moving on to greener (or browner) pastures. One of the most respected and successful managers in baseball, Padres general manager A.J. Preller got the man at the top of his list.
With Melvin at the helm, the Padres are hoping to take another step forward after an ugly late-season collapse caused them to miss the playoffs, which led to previous manager Jayce Tingler’s dismissal. His successor inherits a roster full of young talent, an organization committed to using its resources to build a winning franchise, and a front office that’s been aggressive in supplementing the homegrown core. But while San Diego still has some glaring questions on its roster even with Melvin in place, the A’s are facing a far murkier future.
Over the past decade, the A’s have won 806 games with Melvin as manager, fifth most in the American League over that period, and earlier this summer, he surpassed Tony La Russa to become the winningest manager in Oakland history. That also includes six trips to the postseason, tied with the Astros and trailing only the Yankees for most in the AL in the last 10 years. Even though Oakland hasn’t advanced past the divisional round in any of those appearances, it has been among the most successful organizations in baseball during the past decade.
Athletics executive vice president of baseball operations Billy Beane recognized the level of success Melvin enjoyed despite some difficult circumstances in Oakland.
“Bob, arguably, has been the most successful manager we’ve had here, especially when you consider the challenges that he’s had. He’s had a roster that has turned over multiple times since he’s been here. He has one of the lower payrolls to deal with. From a professional and personal relationship, his tenure speaks for itself.”
Melvin obviously had no control over the amount of payroll space the team was working with or the unsettled stadium situation in Oakland that has cast an air of uncertainty over the future of the franchise, but his success is impressive nonetheless. The six postseason appearances certainly stand out, but he also oversaw a three-year rebuild from 2015 to ’17, losing 274 games in those three seasons. Essentially, he guided two separate talent cores to two separate three-year postseason runs during his tenure as the A’s manager.
But even though they were in the playoff conversation through the end of the season, the A’s showed some signs in 2021 that their competitive window is nearing an end, something that Melvin’s departure further cements. Case in point: After bringing in a number of veteran players at the trade deadline to shore up the roster, an already long list of free agents-to-be for Oakland got even longer. There are 11 players set to leave once free agency starts after the World Series ends, with two more players holding options for the 2022 season.
| Player | Position | Age | 2021 WAR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starling Marte | OF | 33 | 5.4 |
| Mark Canha | OF | 33 | 2.6 |
| Yan Gomes | C | 34 | 1.6 |
| Josh Harrison | IF/OF | 34 | 1.5 |
| Andrew Chafin | RP | 31 | 1.4 |
| Jed Lowrie | 2B/DH | 38 | 0.9 |
| Sergio Romo | RP | 39 | 0.2 |
| Yusmeiro Petit | RP | 37 | 0.0 |
| Jake Diekman | RP | 34 | -0.1 |
| Mitch Moreland | 1B/DH | 36 | -0.2 |
| Mike Fiers | SP | 37 | -0.3 |
| Khris Davis | DH | 34 | -0.4 |
| Trevor Rosenthal | RP | 32 | DNP |
Diekman: $4MM club option / $750K buyout
That’s a pretty significant exodus of talent. The A’s do have a comparable replacement for Marte already on the roster in Ramón Laureano, who will return from an 80-game PED suspension early next year. Losing Canha is a potentially more serious issue, since Oakland doesn’t have a young outfielder ready to step into an everyday role in left field. The bullpen is also set to lose a bunch of arms, though that isn’t as pressing a concern for a team that’s consistently built cheap and effective bullpens year in and year out.
All those pending free agents are concerning, but the real issue is the group of players in the middle of salary arbitration who are set to earn raises next year. The core of the roster is in this group, and paying all of them as well as replacing those free agents with new talent will be difficult for the perennially frugal franchise.
| Player | Position | Age | Arbitration Year | Estimated Arbitration Salary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sean Manaea | SP | 30 | Arb 3 | $10.2M |
| Chris Bassitt | SP | 33 | Arb 3 | $8.8M |
| Chad Pinder | IF/OF | 30 | Arb 3 | $2.8M |
| Matt Chapman | 3B | 29 | Arb 2 | $9.5M |
| Matt Olson | 1B | 28 | Arb 2 | $12.0M |
| Frankie Montas | SP | 29 | Arb 2 | $5.2M |
| Tony Kemp | 2B | 30 | Arb 2 | $2.2M |
| Lou Trivino | RP | 31 | Arb 2* | $2.9M |
| Ramón Laureano | CF | 27 | Arb 1 | $2.8M |
| Deolis Guerra | RP | 33 | Arb 1 | $0.9M |
MLB Trade Rumors estimates those 10 players will cost the A’s a little over $57 million in arbitration in 2022, nearly two-thirds of the team’s total payroll from 2021. Along with the guaranteed contracts already on the roster, that brings Oakland’s estimated 2022 payroll to just under $83 million. That’s roughly $4 million less than 2021’s outlay and $11 million less than what was spent 2019. Without a significant infusion of cash into the payroll, the A’s already appear to be up against their ceiling, and that’s without adding talent to replace the players leaving in free agency.
The A’s could still make one last run at the playoffs in 2022, even without any additions to the roster. Chapman, Olson and Laureano form a solid trio to anchor the lineup, and the starting rotation that was such a strength of the club in 2021 is largely intact. The bullpen will need some help, but that should be easy to solve. There are also two strong internal candidates to take over for Melvin in Mark Kotsay and Ryan Christenson; the culture of the team probably wouldn’t take a hit if one of those two stepped in as manager.
But then the cracks start to show. Olson had a career year in 2021, but Chapman took another significant step back at the plate after a rough and inconsistent 2020. Kemp, Pinder, Stephen Piscotty, and Seth Brown all seem perfectly suited for part-time roles but would likely be overmatched if asked to be everyday starters. Since the A’s traded away prospects in their valiant effort to make the playoffs, their farm system is a bit depleted, too. The talent on the major league roster is still present, but the depth behind those starters is lacking.
Then there’s the ugly elephant in the room: the A’s are in the midst of a protracted battle with the city of Oakland and Alameda County over a potential new stadium. Team ownership has been hesitant to increase payroll until that is secured, and I wouldn’t bet on 2022 being the year they’ll change their minds. That puts the A’s in an awkward position. Do they run out the same core in 2022 and hope that a few small acquisitions and a bunch of luck leads to one last postseason run before that core prices itself out of Oakland’s tiny payroll in ’23? Or do they make the difficult choice to tear everything down this offseason — an offseason that’s already clouded by the impending expiration of the league’s CBA? If Melvin had stayed in Oakland, the first option would have been the easy choice. Without him in the manager’s chair, that second option certainly looks to be the more likely outcome right now.
Trading away Manaea, Bassitt, Chapman, Olson or Montas would probably bring back a huge haul of young talent, and moving all of those players this offseason could set the organization up for a quick rebuild cycle. That’s essentially what happened after the 2014 season: The A’s made a ton of win-now moves at the trade deadline of that season but ended up losing the AL Wild Card Game to the Royals. They wound up trading away Josh Donaldson and Jeff Samardzija, who was acquired for that run, during the offseason, and got back Bassitt and Marcus Semien in the deal for the latter.
With so much uncertainty surrounding the organization, it’s no surprise Melvin departed for San Diego. He had already guided the team through one rebuild phase; a second probably didn’t seem too appealing. Beane and A’s general manager David Forst were already in a tough position before he left. Now they’re facing an offseason without a key member of their decision-making trio and another hole to fill. It’ll be fascinating to see which path they decide to take this offseason.
Jake Mailhot is a contributor to FanGraphs. A long-suffering Mariners fan, he also writes about them for Lookout Landing. Follow him on BlueSky @jakemailhot.
I really feel like people have a completely warped idea if what happened in the 2014-2015 off season because of Donaldson
Oakland didn’t rebuild. They added opening day payroll from the previous year.. they traded Donaldson for 2 MLB ready starters and Lawrie. And tried to makeup for the offensive difference between Lawrie and Donaldson by trading for Zobrist and signing Butler to a 10 mil a year contract. They traded Samardzija for Semien, Bassist, and Josh Phegley. All opening day starters.
That is not “rebuilding”. It didn’t work out, but that doesn’t change the fact that weren’t rebuilding.
As far as Melvin goes.: For the A’s sake, I hope he’s not the only major change. The whole player dev and scouting needs a complete overhaul. Melvin was only a single link in a chain that had a reliever with the lowest k/9 in baseball, a 4.72 fip, and 0.0 war lead the A’s in relief IP, and was 7th overall in the MLB.
Both Hendricks and Montas took major leaps off season by buying their own equipment and realizing the A’s coaches were having them there their worst pitches the most often .
Ok but Bassitt, Manaea and Treinen improved over time. Luzardo was good until he was terrible. Petit was somehow useful. Puk was always bad. I’d call it a mixed bag more than an abject failure. The minor league system is more an indictment of player development.
Bingo bingo bingo, the thing is, they have many more pieces they could move for prospects this offseason before it was really just Donaldson and “Shark”, this time, they have some serious talent, the mindset could be to trade them for quick turnaround prospects and really go for it when they have a stadium figured out somewhere and can spend some cash.
I was really flabbergasted when someone said they were going to try to deal some or all of Manaea, Bassitt, Olson, and Chapman to save money. The Astros are going to lose Correa, the Mariners aren’t quite ready to step forward…2022 would be their year. But letting Melvin go makes me wonder if they’ve given up on fielding a winner in Oakland and are preparing for the next phase of the franchise in Las Vegas. That would be rather cynical, but they didn’t take advantage of their competitive window last offseason and it doesn’t look like they’ll do it again, so it wouldn’t be that surprising if they just tore it all down.
I think the Mariners are ready for that step forward, I think they could be buyers this offseason.
They’re probably looking at filling out pitching depth and/or seeing if a younger starter like Eduardo Rodriguez falls through the cracks. I don’t think this team is going to be ready to challenge the Astros until Rodriguez is up and Kelenic is through the growing pains (which might be soon), so it doesn’t make a ton of sense to make a play for someone like Scherzer, or even Gausman.
That said, I’d see who the D-Backs would want in return for Daulton Varsho. The D-Backs have been really allergic to playing him in CF but he’s a much cleaner fit there than at catcher and the Mariners desperately need a center fielder since Kyle Lewis’s knee is just not going to cooperate. Maybe they go after Starling Marte but that doesn’t really seem like Dipoto’s style.
They have to at least look like they’re going for it this winter. They won 90 games and their young core is beginning to take shape. Add that to a wide open payroll, a deep farm system (either top 3 or top 5 in the game depending on which publication you cite), and the best free agent class in years, it’s a perfect storm. They’d be foolish not to capitalize on this opportunity.
It is also important to remember their Pythagorean record was like what, 75 wins? Run differential sure isn’t everything, but it also sure isn’t nothing. Seems like the Ms should make moves that can help them over each of the next 3 seasons or so. Don’t rob from 2023 now to pay for 2022. Do that at the deadline if you’re in it
Related to this, “capitalizing on this opportunity” is largely an opportunity that opens up in 2023. But since Correa is likely too expensive, Corey Seager is likely not an option for numerous reasons, and Nomar Mazara and Renato Nunez are not really worth pursuing, there aren’t a ton of ideal free agents. The bigger-name guys who I think are options for them are Javier Baez and Eduardo Rodriguez, and probably only on deals with less than an $85M guarantee.
Except shortstop isn’t the only thing they need. I think they can make some incremental improvements and line themselves up better in 23 with moves made this off-season.
Exactly. They’ve got a bunch of things lined up for them (youth, prospects, little payroll) that they can make a big splash. Or a series of medium splashes (like E-Rod) that go towards 23 when their window is open wider.
Seattle could trade for Montas, Bassitt or Manaea. For that matter Laureano might well be available. Chris Taylor also exists.
I think both Houston and Seattle are in a better position than Oakland next year.
If anything, the Mariners and Astros should both be trying to take those arb eligible pitchers off Oakland’s hands.
Moments like these make me hate A’s ownership even more than usual. For years this has been a team that would’ve been a serious threat with just $40-50M extra in payroll, but every penny is precious, so they’re about to blow up the core and trade away recognizable faces to save money. And watch them cry poor again about attendance and fan interest in 12 months time. Baseball needs ownership groups like these purged and spit out of the sport so badly. Same goes for many other franchises, the Rays in particular.
I feel bad for the fans.
You can go wrong with the simple wins-above-replacement formula but there was something like a 5.5 win difference between Semien and Andrus. They probably wouldn’t have won the division anyway because losing Laureano down the stretch was bad for them. But this team was pretty close and just decided they weren’t going to maximize the time they had with Olson and Chapman.
They didnt offer Semien what Toronto did for the same reasons that 28 other teams didn’t give him an offer. Because he’s was a player with a single season with an above average wrc+ looking to get 18 mil and he didn’t have a single standout underlying metric that made his 2019 look like anything other than a single year of 99% production on a middling profile.
I guess but he was nearly a 4-win player the year before that. His profile is a little scary because he has pretty much always outperformed his xwOBA by about 20 points but he didn’t have to get another 7-win season to justify a one year, $18M contract. He just needed to do 2018 again.
Plus he projected as a 4 win player
For you to believe his WAR you also have to believe that he was a top 3 defensive shortstop in baseball. Semen has improved a lot on that side of the ball but DRS and UZR can’t seem to separate his defense from Chapmans.
If you look at OOA which does try to separate it I thi k you’ll get a clearer picture of where he lies on the spectrum.
Towel, OAA isn’t the end all be all. Is Semien really a true 16 point swing in OAA between SS in 2020 to 2B in 2021…?
Even if you take away a good chuck of his defensive project, he was still in the 3.5-4 WAR range as it STEAMER only had him at 5.5 defensive runs. And even if he’s somewhat below average at SS, you can’t push him too much farther down from his 4.4 WAR projection. That’s a *should be* super easy call on one year and $18M.
A 99 wrc+ and below average defense is NOT a 3.5 win player. Fangraohs had him as a top 3 defensive short stop in MLB, that’s where most of his value came from. So to believe that war means you believe he’s a top 3. If you believe he’s a league average or slightly below defender then you’re talking about 2 to 2.5 win player.
And that’s what the 28 other teams thought of him as. Which is why he didn’t get any offers
Semien had several red flags 12 months ago, obviously with hindsight we now know those red flags didn’t pop up in 2021 and he was a borderline MVP. To me the decision to not re-sign Semien was justifiable, what is not justifiable is thinking that Elvis Andrus has any productive baseball left in him
A’s fans have become used to this
Someone explain to me why Lew Wolff perpetually flies under the owner-hate radar.
He got a lot more hate back when he owned the team but Fisher is the point person now (Wolff may not even have a stake in the team anymore).
Apparently he’s Chairman Emeritus, and this happened in 2016. Where the hell have I been?
Because he’s no longer a minority owner of the team and hasn’t been for years?
A’s ownership has been let off the hook because we’re all supposed to love Moneyball so much. Of course Beane has been good under the circumstances, but the circumstances are depressing and they were never inevitable and I’m sorry we’re supposed to pretend otherwise.
If it helps I despised him when was the face of ownership
It’s probably mostly anagram destiny that Lew Wolff fflew low.
As noted elsewhere, I found it odd that Oakland didn’t ask for compensation from SD when they granted permission to speak with Melvin.
Supposedly out of respect to Melvin which I personally find commendable
They’re going to have to confront this more and more if they move to Las Vegas. While I’d guess many front office staff would be fine with moving to Las Vegas that not everyone in the front office would be thrilled with it; demanding compensation for Melvin leaving might lead to people looking for the exit sooner rather than later.
According to the most recent (2020) Nielsen DMA Rankings, SF-Oakland-San Jose is the 6th largest media market in the USA, with 2.4 million tv homes. For reference, Las Vegas is the 37th largest, with 0.7 million tv homes. Even if they are second to the Giants in SF-OK-SJ, something like a 40% share of 2.4 million is more than LV’s 0.7 million.
I know ownership has expectations about being gifted a stadium, but the point I’m trying to make is that SF-OK-SJ is _not_ a small market. Running the franchise as if it was a small market should be opposed by the public and by the other owners, since it makes them collectively look bad.
There’s more than media market size.
Leaving aside the stadium design, conditions, accessibility, and neighborhood, there is the matter of fan loyalty.
It’s hard to compete with tbe Giants history, both old and new, and their footprint in San Jose, with all the above handicaps.
The A’s need an entertainment complex kind of stadium ala Camden yards just to come close to the Giants fan appeal.
Again: baseball is a business and teams will always look to maximize their take. The A’s may not be able to make as much money off a “baseball palace” in Vegas as the Giants in SF but they don’t have to; they just need to make more in Vegas than in Oakland. Odds are that a park heavy with luxury boxes for corporate sponsors from the casinos will do just that. Besides, relying on cable revenues moving forward is a dicey proposition. That’s why MLB is looking to a local streaming solution.
Baseball used to shy away from any connection to gambling but those days are over.
So are tbe days of fanboy owners. Vegas is looking likelier by the day as is a selloff, especially if tbey are looking to move.
The A’s moved to the Bay in 1968, only ten years after the Giants. They’re a charter franchise of the American League and are third in all-time WS wins, one ahead of SF. (SF has a good lead on HoFs, to be fair.) So the Giants have a storied history, but the A’s do too, and it’s on ownership to capitalize on that, as well as on the Bay’s considerable media footprint. It’s only the ownership’s unwillingness to invest *in their business* that holds them back.
The originalConnie Mack A’s were a lot like the Oakland version : great players stuck with a penny pinching owner. Mack assembled some awesome teams but dismantled them as soon as success and zttendnced flagged a bit.
Charlie Finley was more of the same.
(The Kansas City exile? Best forget they were effectively a Yankees feeder team.)
It’s hard to compete in the SF-Oakland-San Jose market when the Giants own SF, San Jose, and a sizable chunk of the Oakland area to boot (pretty much everything that isn’t Oakland, Berkeley, or San Leandro/Hayward is now all Giants, and the Giants have a strong foothold in those areas now too with so many people moving out of SF/San Jose due to housing costs).
What gets forgotten in these convos is that the A’s have NEVER drawn well in the Bay Area, except for the brief 88-91/92 window when they were the most recognizable team in the league with the most marketable players in the league. Other than that they’ve always been at the bottom, no matter how good or how bad the team has been. Their real market just isn’t that valuable, even if they’re in a huge MSA.
jdr, if the A’s haven’t drawn well in the Bay then the Giants hadn’t until the creation of ATT park either. Through from 1988-2001 the A’s out drew the Giants in most years even. And prior to that the difference wasn’t that big.
They also share the Sacramento (20th) and Fresno (55th) markets. East cost areas are most compressed with more overlap and difficulty assigning sharing due to multiple teams getting involved, but putting together and you get to 4.2M TVs. That’s a lot, even shared sub-50:50 with the Giants, to be enough for a viable team.
the last time Oakland out drew the Giants was 1992. It hasn’t happened since. Oakland will never again have the highest payroll in baseball. Those days are long gone, but hopefully they get the new stadium, and can get a higher, more consistent payroll.
You can throw every aggregate number at the situation you want; it won’t change the fact that the Giants dominate the local market 3 or 4 to 1, including all the wealthiest areas that are the most valuable to advertisers. There comes a point where it doesn’t matter how large the market is if you only own a tiny piece of it. That’s where the A’s are.
And you are correct, the Giants didn’t draw huge numbers for a lot of years as well when they were down in Candlestick. They pretty much always did better than the A’s other than that brief window I described, but it often wasn’t great. Now that they are in right in downtown SF and accessible to every part of the Bay Area (all of the Bay’s public transportation is designed to do one thing, i.e. to get people into downtown SF) their natural advantage has multiplied exponentially.
I don’t know what the A’s solution is. If they got a new stadium they would be able to bump their annual payroll a bit, maybe to the middle of the pack-ish. Is that worth a new stadium? I don’t know. They’re never going to be an upper-echelon or even high middle payroll team in Oakland though because their share of their market is just too small.
I looked at the wrong column there for a second. Apologizes. But no, the A’s have not never drawn well outside 88-92. They have been at or above 90% of league average through about 4 time periods, the early/mid 70s, early 80s, late 80s/early 90s, and early 2000s. The team has always been very responsive to the product on the field, it really was only recently that good on field products have not lead to the typical increases in attendance that were found in the earlier in their team history.
Until the opening of PacBell/ATT/etc, the Giants were much the same and generally drew worse than the A’s. It was not until that park existed that the Giants came to own such a high fraction of the market share of the Bay Area. Strong competitive years, WS wins, Bonds, or other factors matter here too, but the premise that the Bay Area market is lost to the Giants and never to be disputed again, is not supported. Obviously, I new park and some on field success turned things around for the Giants. I don’t see much reason to believe that is not possible for the A’s. That’s absurd. Oakland is more of the freeway hub than SF is, and is also more of a Bart hub. The only thing it lacks is CalTrain. Is the make or break CalTrain?
Now can they do it? Who knows. Much depends on if the stadium is approved, if it is executed well and the park can actually compete with the one across the bay, if the team preforms well on the field, if the owner isn’t continued to be viewed as cheap, if the team markets themselves well, and maybe more. I’d agree, they aren’t going to turn into the Dodgers or Yankees, but they don’t have to be that in order to be successful.
Woo hoo, when they have great teams they get to 90% of league average!
50:50, yes, but the ratio isn’t even close to that!
The longer I read about the A’s stadium saga, the more I think it has to do with John Fisher’s insatiable desire to build a massive development of some kind. Apparently, these kinds of developments have always been his passion, and it’s entirely possible he cares more about the development than the team itself.
I’m not of the mind that moving to Las Vegas is going to work at all. The big difference is that Oakland’s side of the Bay area, even if you’re not including San Jose (which has some of the richest communities in the world), is way richer than Las Vegas. The per capita income of Las Vegas is something like 55% that of the Bay Area, and even if you just restrict it to Oakland’s territory you’re looking at probably 65%. Add in the sprawl which makes it hard to find a good location for a stadium, and the inevitable growing pains of developing a brand new fanbase, and the payoff for this will be lower than expected and might never be enough to make it work financially. They’d be far better off going to Portland or Vancouver.
Look around tbd league: Camden Yards started it, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, SF, SD, DC, etc, etc.
Pretty much all teams have their baseball palace complex with restaurants, bars, parking, etc, ( and lots of luxury loges!) all in a foot-traffic friendly upscale neighborhood.
How much of that do the A’s have?
Plus their TV deal (by the estimate right here) is lower tier, closer to Cleveland than NYY or Boston, much less LA. They may not be as bad off as the Rays but they start out each season with a revenue lag versus pretty much every team in the division and region. If the owners want to extract *some* profit out of the business, something has to give. Especially after a year where they hung on to the end instead of clearing out the FA crowd with not even a play-in game to show for it.
So yeah, they want the same deal everybody else got.
Which is why MLB gave them the go ahead if they can’t extort their very own billion dollar complex to keep up with the Angelos.
Yes, the A’s having a revenue situation that is mid-tier, if not lower tier. Although part of that is them complaining about money and so obviously trying to be cheap. You really do have to look like you’re trying, and the A’s are famous for trying to save money. It’s not exactly a move to build fan loyalty.
The other issue is that I don’t think moving to Las Vegas solves these problems. But I think we’re going to find out whether it does.
As I said: they are trying to compete *and* make money.
You only do that by pinching pennies.
So they’re cheap. As Cleveland, Pitsburgh, and the Rays.
Is anybody going to buy the team,keep it in Oakland, and do different?
Those teams are like chess-playing dogs: the miracle isn’t how well tey do it but that they do it at all.
It is appro priate to judge players and especially managers from the point of view of the fans but today’s owners are in it for the money. Different rules. Doesn’t mean its right or wrong. It just is and isn’t changing.
Well, I think they’re leaving Oakland. I don’t see them staying. But I think they’d be better long-term to stay there than move to Vegas, where they have to build a new fan base from scratch and will move to a smaller and less wealthy metro area.
As far as being cheap…those are four teams (along with the Marlins) that *advertise* that they’re pinching pennies by talking about it at every opportunity, and their fan support has suffered. Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Minnesota have a very different strategy and it’s much more viable for them (the Twins have a larger metro area than the other three, although I think the other three have smaller markets than any of the places I mentioned). They all have pretty clear financial limitations but they don’t whine about it.
For Vegas, do you really only look at local income? It’s so unique, you have to factor in tourism right? And corporate sponsors.
Look at the logos at their existing stadiums. San Francisco has Oracle Park ($200M+ for 20 years I read). You see logos like Salesforce, Audi, etc. It seems like that’s where the sexy companies put their money. Who do the As have? RingCentral for $1M/year for the stadium. I did not see any named suites.
Who else? Snapple?
That scrappiness makes the As a fun underdog, but also shows the reality of their situation.
If anyone here has been to Oakland Coliseum, you’d know just how bleak the situation is. As noted, there are few sponsor signs of any consequence, you have the monstrosity of Mount Davis, the stadium and surrounding area is an eyesore, there are few corporate suites, and everything about it is just OLD. The real question should be: if MLB was going to expand, and Oakland DID NOT have a team, would they put one there? The answer is a definite NO! The area is Giants territory, end of story, and the Bay Area can’t really/won’t support two teams. Whether they move to Las Vegas, Nashville, Salt Lake City, San Antonio (I’m just spitballing) doesn’t matter – they can’t survive and thrive in Oakland.
I think a team about 30 minutes south of Austin would be perfect. They’d be a reasonable trip for the 5M people in the Austin/San Antonio metroplex.
Austin/San Antonio residents are all pretty entrenched as Rangers/Astros fans.
It would be interesting to see if MLB could carve out a footprint in San Antonio. The Spurs fans are rabid and UTSA football is up-and-coming, so it could be done, but I imagine MLB would rather set up shop somewhere without two other big league clubs in driving distance.
Or how about just another team in the Dallas / Fort Worth / Arlington area? It’s easily the largest metro area in the U. S. that currently has only one MLB team.
I go to games at the Coliseum four or five times a year, and I love it. The tickets are cheap, it’s easy to get there on BART, and the people who come to the game are there to watch baseball (not gladhand clients and investors). Plus the weather is almost always perfect, especially for day games.
The situation is only “bleak” if your chief concern is that the billionaire owners aren’t making as much money as they would like to be making. And even if that is your chief concern, you can always buy a couple of $15 beers to help them out.
I’m pretty sure this is what the A’s are banking on–tourist dollars. I’m skeptical. Las Vegas is a place for gambling and shows of various kinds; is baseball going to attract those sorts of tourists to come to games? I’m skeptical. But maybe I’m wrong.
The corporate sponsors thing is interesting, although that’s probably partly a function of having a lousy stadium to begin with. I don’t think anyone disagrees that Oakland is the team in MLB that needs a new stadium the most, but I’m not convinced that the sponsorship situation is going to be that much better in Las Vegas with a new stadium than in Oakland with a new stadium.
Right.
They need a new stadium complex.
They’ll either get in the bay or in Vegas.
Now looking at today’s economy, which is it going to be with the deadline in place?
BTW, do a web search for “most active convention city US”.
You’ll find Vegas at the top.
Further research will show tbe city grossed $10-12B a year from conventions pre pandemic.
Also, at 650K residents, Vegas is 50% bigger than Oakland and comparable to Austin and SF By itself.
There’s money there.
Rays fans might argue with you there, but then again the Rays need to leave town (and especially the state) even more badly than the A’s do.
Vancouver BC? No, I don’t think that’s a good destination… if you think property in the Bay Area is expensive, Vancouver would shock you. Plus it’s pretty close to Seattle and the M’s, who would certainly kick up a fuss. Portland makes more sense, it’s in a bit of a no-man’s-land between the M’s and the Bay Area teams by support and there’s been efforts to bring a MLB team there for a while. That said, if Vegas were an option I don’t see a reason why the A’s would choose Portland as their new home over LV.
Unfortunately Portland and Vancouver (or Montreal or Austin) aren’t giving them the deal Vegas is. Free land trumps everything for Fisher. He doesn’t even seem to care where the land is. He’s a strange dude.
He’s definitely thinking about this from the perspective of developing a big new complex. Whether or not that’s the right frame for the franchise’s health, it does seem to align more closely with Fisher’s passions.
Vegas plays up because of the massive number of “tourists” that go there every year. Those “tourists” have money and pay up for everything. He’ll have more boxes in Vegas and higher ticket revenue.
When somebody wins in Vegas they are frequently comped free stuff. Free tickets to professional baseball in a luxury box will be common. plus he will be allowed slots in the stadium for increased revenue. Vegas may not be the biggest media market, but it will easily pay the bills.
Agree that Vegas is partly/mostly a tourist play. Having travelled there for various friends’ debauches, at least pre-pandemic, dance clubs with premium couches, poolside cabanas ($1500 for 2hrs for 6 people and for us, totally worth it), premium seating areas in restaurants – these are all huge sources of income.
One Vegas business site says the Vegas business model is vast “nightclubs (and day clubs) with casinos attached.” If they can reproduce any of that young n sexy party dynamic in the stadium, the sky’s the limit. Not to mention the huge convention crowds with time to fill at night. And the odd family that thinks there will be family friendly entertainment and is surprised otherwise.
The likelihood of said theoretical ballpark being built well out into the Vegas suburbs will test that theory, to be sure.
All true but Vegas has been adding kid friendly spectacles.
At any time there’s about a dozen kid friendly spectacles ongoing.
It’s not Disneyland but its not just gambling and adult entertainment. 🙂
Tbey’ve diversified.
Maybe to start, but how do you expect to build a permanent fan base among so many temporary visitors? How many of these tourists are going to attend multiple games a year, buy team merch, and pay a local TV service to watch the team on TV?
The problem is the A’s don’t have a 40% share of the SF-Oakland-San Jose market. It’s much closer to maybe 20% or so by population, and if you want to offset that by wealth/disposable income it gets even worse.
Even if it beats out Las Vegas, 40% (or worse) of the Bay Area market is still comparable to other small markets with MLB teams like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Kansas City, none of which are currently stuck with a terrible stadium.
It isn’t all of a sudden. The team is getting expensive relative to budget and was looking at a rebuild with or without Melvin. A’s have been radical rebuilders for budget reasons since 1914. I suppose they didn’t have a team worth rebuilding 1915-1968 but the stinginess was there.
It’s in their DNA. 🙂
“they didn’t have a team worth rebuilding 1915-1968 but the stinginess was there.” Connie Mack built, then tore down, one of the greatest teams in MLB history _again_ at the start of the Great Depression. 1929 A’s, World Series champs; 1930 A’s, World Series champs, 1931 A’s, won 107 games but lost to the Cardinals in 7.
Actually, the simple solution to the current A’s problem is simply to sell the team and move them back to Philadelphia. It would correct a historic wrong.
Not an option under current territorial control rules.
Philly would sue and win.
Even Booklyn or Jersey is out of bounds even though the megapolis can easily support three franchises.
There really aren’t many options; Vegas, Charlotte, maybe Montreal.
Portland is pretty much off the table for a while.
Austin?
San Antonio has double the population.
Plus Austin’s bigger corporations are techies and other startups. More San Jose than SF.
Vegas has the added advantage of not requiring realignment.
SA does not have double the metro population. The metro matters more than the city proper. Austin household income is $80k, SA is $52k. Austin has Oracle and Tesla, SA has HEB and Valero.
Austin makes more sense. That said, the metros are only an hour a part. A park 20 min north of SA or 20 min south of ATX could get both as the metroplex grows.
Nashville?
Cincinnatti might gripe. 😀
They’re a big draw in Kentucky and Nashville might be too close for comfort.
Charlotte might work. Research Triangle is a big target.
I’d put Vegas and Chatlotte at the top because they’re both more or less outside anybody’s territory. Montreal might be third and SA fourth.
All that said:The Oakland politicians might yet cave in. Sometimes the horse does learn to sing.
Yes I’m not sure how I overlooked that
Looking at that list of free agents, I see three players they’d want back but likely can’t afford.
The rest they can do without.
Given the slim farm their choices are to muddle tbrough hoping nobody out West steps up or prep for a move to a new facility, whetber in Oakland or Vegas.
Me, I’ll bet on Vegas and a housecleaning.
Yeah the only person who really really matters from that list is Canha. Marte of course every team would love to have, but he was a rental from the start who nobody has ever expected will be on the team in 2022.
The A’s are going to do what they always do – let all the marginal guys go, sign other marginal guys to replace them, play out another year with the studs they developed from the farm, and then trade those guys too.
I hope the amazing new Mets GM has a plan in place to trade for Chapman. Perfect fit & they can afford him, getting great defense and hoping for a bounce-back on the bat.
Oh, wait, the Mets don’t have a GM.
They’ll get one soon enough.
Only question is whether he’ll last to opening day.
😇
They will be fine. And to the people talking about payroll look the only team to really spend big and win a World Series lately has been the dodgers, and I guess the Red Sox had a good size payroll in 2018. The best FA deals have been the short term deals or the mid tier deals like lance lynn a few years ago. Time to get on it and do some trading and scouting cause you ain’t spending like the dodgers or even the astros.
Or the Angels or the Mariners.
It’s tough being fifth (by a lot) in a five team division.
Also fifth in the state.
The local answer has always been San Jose but that wou ld hurt SF.
They really need a modern facility and the odds the pols will agree to even partial assistance is low. Not holding my breath.
The issue isn’t just the team on the field but the business side. Not enough revenue streams.
Still, aside from the facility problems, that roster? Way too many 30+ guys. The game is younger than it used to be. Old these days more often than not means pricey. And as the old saw goes: better to move a player a year too soon than a year too late.
They can’t even do the short term, mid tier deals…. They don’t have to spend like the Dodgers or Astros, but spending like the Braves, Cardinals or White Sox would really help.
What they should do is trade everyone for the best prospect deals available and plan for the new stadium in Vegas or Oakland. Their minor league system is bare. This team has probably peaked would have trouble winning even 86 games if kept together. They could contend within 3 years.
It might happen.
Trot out placeholders and live cheap until the next wave is ready. At once.
The Rangers have money and did it anyway.
Good summation of the current situation. It’s too bad. This window of contention seems like it’s shut even before it had a chance to really get going, partially due to the COVID half-season. We never really got peak Semien, Chapman, Olson, Laureano, Bassitt, Montas, Manaea in the same season.
This is what A’s fandom is. If the A’s let Melvin walk to save on his $4MM in 2022 salary, I don’t see any way Fisher pays Olson, Chapman, Manaea, Bassitt what’s coming to them next season. They’ll be traded to slash payroll, and the only hope is that they can get enough quality in return to transform their farm system and build a great future core to supplement Allen + Soderstrom.
As always, the only real question is how many A’s fans will continue to put up with this M.O., in addition to the A’s feeding their minor leaguers kraft singles and wonder bread, exponentially increasing ticket prices, and the F-U attitude towards Oakland in this stadium situation.
I’m optimistic about Forst getting a decent return on the guys you mentioned plus Montas and Murphy. I’m guessing Laureano stays another year. The minor league thing is horrible.
You may be right about the selloff, but with a couple more years of control on Olson and Chapman, I have a hard time imagining why they should punt on the 2022 season before it even starts. The starting rotation of Bassitt-Manaea-Montas-Irvin-Kaprelian is still very competitive. Why not make another run next year, and if things go sour, deal Bassitt and maybe Chapman at the trade deadline? They do not need to tank to drive down attendance to justify MLB approving a move, they already have that approval.
The waterfront stadium project is six months away from being resolved one way or another, and it’s actually looking good now that the county supervisors had a 4-1 vote in favor of a tentative version of the financing plan. I think they’ll tread water till then except for letting most of the free agents go.