(03-09-2016 04:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think the A's situation will work itself out if/when the Raiders move.

IMO if the Raiders move, then the Oakland Coliseum will get a major remodel into a baseball-only park, similar to what was done in Anaheim. That gives them the most "bang for the buck" by far, and keeps them at the existing location which has plenty of parking, a BART station, and good freeway access.

(03-09-2016 06:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 04:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think the A's situation will work itself out if/when the Raiders move.

IMO if the Raiders move, then the Oakland Coliseum will get a major remodel into a baseball-only park, similar to what was done in Anaheim. That gives them the most "bang for the buck" by far, and keeps them at the existing location which has plenty of parking, a BART station, and good freeway access.

It's really tough to see how they're going to resolve up there any time soon. Mark Davis is blaming the A's for signing a long term lease. The mayor of Oakland has her eye on another site altogether. I have no idea how they'll sort it out but if the Raiders leave, yeah, keeping the same site is a no brainer.

(03-09-2016 04:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Royals basically have a new ballpark. Theirs was remodeled in 2010. The cost doesn't stand out as mind popping like you see at other stadiums, but that was because they built theirs right the first time, and it didn't cost as much to bring to modern standards.

I wonder if the Rays would do better in Orlando? I don't know one or the other, just wonder.

I think the A's situation will work itself out if/when the Raiders move.

I don't really think expansion is needed, but if it happens I do think Mexico City would bring the most value to the league, even if the team itself is not a major box office hit right away. No other city jumps out as a major coup, so any number of the other cities listed might work. But Mexico City has an upside no other US city, currently without a team in the region, can offer.

Mexico City would be a way better market for a MLB team than an NFL team as some as have suggested but it would be better to move a team there, perhaps one of the Florida teams, as opposed to expanding there.

As for the A's, they really should move somewhere else, Oakland is no longer a viable market despite being in a giant overall market because of the way people gravitate toward San Francisco. It's not much different than playing in Kansas City or Charlotte.

(03-09-2016 07:23 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 06:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 04:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think the A's situation will work itself out if/when the Raiders move.

IMO if the Raiders move, then the Oakland Coliseum will get a major remodel into a baseball-only park, similar to what was done in Anaheim. That gives them the most "bang for the buck" by far, and keeps them at the existing location which has plenty of parking, a BART station, and good freeway access.

It's really tough to see how they're going to resolve up there any time soon. Mark Davis is blaming the A's for signing a long term lease. The mayor of Oakland has her eye on another site altogether. I have no idea how they'll sort it out but if the Raiders leave, yeah, keeping the same site is a no brainer.

Raiders don't have and can't raise enough money to build a new stadium even if the A's moved to San Jose or someplace else in Oakland.

The only way the Raiders can do anything in Oakland with the little money they have (assuming no public money) is if the A's leave for another site and the Raiders stay at the Coliseum and just fix the plumbing and powerwash the concrete and put in a few field level seats where part of the baseball diamond is now.

Of course, there's a new football-only stadium in Santa Clara and another being built in Inglewood...

(03-09-2016 08:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As for the A's, they really should move somewhere else, Oakland is no longer a viable market despite being in a giant overall market because of the way people gravitate toward San Francisco. It's not much different than playing in Kansas City or Charlotte.

Is it feasible for the A's to stay in the Bay Area, but move to San Jose or Santa Clara?

(03-10-2016 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 08:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  As for the A's, they really should move somewhere else, Oakland is no longer a viable market despite being in a giant overall market because of the way people gravitate toward San Francisco. It's not much different than playing in Kansas City or Charlotte.

Is it feasible for the A's to stay in the Bay Area, but move to San Jose or Santa Clara?

They tried San Jose but it didn't work - MLB said no because that's considered Giants "territory". I assume the same would apply to Santa Clara since it's right next door.

It sounds like the city (and the club) want to stay in Oakland but they're in a weird stalemate. A's have another 8(?) years on the lease. Raiders are year to year. We don't know where the Raiders are going, if anywhere, and there's no Raiders stadium anywhere near real. Meanwhile, the city has been considering sites for the A's - and they favor one that has poor parking and no close BART access (near Jack London Square). Presumably, if the Raiders leave, the current site is as good as they can get in Oakland.

Wedge, you're a Bay Area guy, right? What they heck are they doing? What do they want?

(03-10-2016 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Is it feasible for the A's to stay in the Bay Area, but move to San Jose or Santa Clara?

I'm not the grand authority on these things as much as I like to think I know everything but with that said, I could see that but part of the reason I say that they should leave Oakland is because the Giants own all of the Bay Area except the East Bay with little crossover. Moving to Sillicon Valley would keep them within realistic driving distance of their season ticket holders but they'd still be deep in Giants territory.

It'd almost be a better idea to be team number 3 in LA/OC, the Dodgers have a $300 million dollar payroll, so obviously even with the Angels around there's still room for another team, in theory anyways. UNLESS...they get a new stadium and replace the Roman--I mean [corporation] Coliseum.

(03-10-2016 03:19 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Is it feasible for the A's to stay in the Bay Area, but move to San Jose or Santa Clara?

...part of the reason I say that they should leave Oakland is because the Giants own all of the Bay Area except the East Bay with little crossover. Moving to Sillicon Valley would keep them within realistic driving distance of their season ticket holders but they'd still be deep in Giants territory.

I kind of glossed over this in my previous post: MLB and the CA Supreme Court have decided that the Giants *literally* own that territory.

I think you summed it up: Both Oakland teams want to stay at the Coliseum site while the other leaves.

Mark Davis talks big about building a new stadium on the Coliseum site but AFAIK the gap between that vision and reality - even if the Raiders have that site all to themselves - is about $800 million. The Chargers have a Plan A (and, I'm guessing, a Plan B) to try and get public money for a San Diego stadium. The Raiders have no public money and no realistic plan to get any. Which is why I think Mark Davis' unspoken hope is to keep the Coliseum with minimal changes to make it football-only, because that's all he has money to do.

The A's ownership has the financial capability to get a new ballpark built if they can use the existing Coliseum site or get a suitable site elsewhere in Oakland. They don't like the proposed sites with no BART access, as you mentioned. My guess is that the A's owners want to build a new stadium and the development around it so that they can make a lot of money off of developing the area around the ballpark, as the Padres' then-owner did in San Diego. If the Raiders leave and the city won't let the A's owners develop the surrounding land to generate revenue, then they'll settle for an Angel Stadium-like renovation of the Coliseum to make it an updated baseball-only park.

They are only looking at Oakland options because MLB sided with the Giants and held that the Giants have territorial rights to San Jose (and Santa Clara, and all of Santa Clara County) that allow the Giants to block the A's from playing there.

I know it is no longer en vogue, but it has to be possible with today's technology to design a multipurpose stadium that can serve both teams, but sill be true to each sport, since neither require a humongous stadium (35k for A's, 55-60k for raiders). If they can do that for a billion to a billion or so, split between two teams, both can be made happy, and the city can make it work.

The difference in size for a basketball court and a hockey rink is much bigger than the difference in size between football and baseball. Again I know it's not ideal, but with he raiders not needing near as big a stadium as most NFL teams, I think it could be done.

(03-10-2016 05:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I know it is no longer en vogue, but it has to be possible with today's technology to design a multipurpose stadium that can serve both teams, but sill be true to each sport, since neither require a humongous stadium (35k for A's, 55-60k for raiders). If they can do that for a billion to a billion or so, split between two teams, both can be made happy, and the city can make it work.

The difference in size for a basketball court and a hockey rink is much bigger than the difference in size between football and baseball. Again I know it's not ideal, but with he raiders not needing near as big a stadium as most NFL teams, I think it could be done.

It's not the size - it's the shape. I went to Rams games at the Big A (Angels' Stadium) and it was really weird. Lots of poor viewing angles. And in some places you end up with either large distances between seats and field of play or temporary bleachers. I'm sure you're right that there are ways to make multipurpose stadia better for fans but I assume that requires either: 1) spending a ton more money and/or 2) compromising in favor of one of the sports.

I think a better idea is for both to concede the market and move to greener pastures, even if it means sharing a stadium elsewhere though I'm not sure how viable it is for a MLB team (I don't remember any baseball teams sharing a stadium in modern times and only the Polo Grounds).

(03-10-2016 10:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 05:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I know it is no longer en vogue, but it has to be possible with today's technology to design a multipurpose stadium that can serve both teams, but sill be true to each sport, since neither require a humongous stadium (35k for A's, 55-60k for raiders). If they can do that for a billion to a billion or so, split between two teams, both can be made happy, and the city can make it work.

The difference in size for a basketball court and a hockey rink is much bigger than the difference in size between football and baseball. Again I know it's not ideal, but with he raiders not needing near as big a stadium as most NFL teams, I think it could be done.

It's not the size - it's the shape. I went to Rams games at the Big A (Angels' Stadium) and it was really weird. Lots of poor viewing angles. And in some places you end up with either large distances between seats and field of play or temporary bleachers. I'm sure you're right that there are ways to make multipurpose stadia better for fans but I assume that requires either: 1) spending a ton more money and/or 2) compromising in favor of one of the sports.

It's technically possible, but it's too expensive to be feasible.

The old Mile High Stadium in Denver was a compromise that was greatly in favor of the football configuration. The stadium was built for minor-league baseball before the Broncos and the AFL began, and was expanded in the 1970s for the Broncos.

The expansion portion was a giant section of stands (over 25,000 seats, apparently) that moved in to sit along one sideline of the football field and then moved out to sit behind the left field wall in the baseball configuration.

In addition to the ginormous cost if a new stadium was built with this feature today, an MLB team would not agree to build a new stadium this way with an NFL-sized capacity (Mile High had over 76,000 seats). To compare to newer baseball parks: AT&T Park in SF and Petco Park in SD each have about 41,000 seats.

This was the football configuration. The stands along the east sideline (right sideline in the photo below) slid eastward into the baseball configuration in the second photo.



This was the baseball configuration with the stands moved outward.

(03-10-2016 10:43 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 05:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I know it is no longer en vogue, but it has to be possible with today's technology to design a multipurpose stadium that can serve both teams, but sill be true to each sport, since neither require a humongous stadium (35k for A's, 55-60k for raiders). If they can do that for a billion to a billion or so, split between two teams, both can be made happy, and the city can make it work.

The difference in size for a basketball court and a hockey rink is much bigger than the difference in size between football and baseball. Again I know it's not ideal, but with he raiders not needing near as big a stadium as most NFL teams, I think it could be done.

It's not the size - it's the shape. I went to Rams games at the Big A (Angels' Stadium) and it was really weird. Lots of poor viewing angles. And in some places you end up with either large distances between seats and field of play or temporary bleachers. I'm sure you're right that there are ways to make multipurpose stadia better for fans but I assume that requires either: 1) spending a ton more money and/or 2) compromising in favor of one of the sports.

Right. But what I am referring to is the ability to have much better technology for moveable stands, as compared to the cookie cutter stadiums of the 60's and 70's with the results you mentioned. Ones that can hold both shapes well, and would not require compromises in terms of viewing angles. I don't claim to have a design for how to do it, but I just can't imagine it cannot be done today, and in a way much more convenient than the moveable parts of stadiums of yesteryear.

Now I agree about the cost. It would cost more than either stadium individually, but I think less than the cost of two full stadiums. Plus it solves one primary issue, in that there appears to only be one place suitable for a stadium, and that is where O.Co sits right now, a problem this would alleviate. And it would probably sell a lot better to the public that one stadium is saving both teams.

I pointed out the basketball/hockey analogy because if you ever step into a basketball arena built around a basketball court, as opposed to one built around a hockey rink that has temporary seats for basketball (the vast majority of arenas), you will see the striking difference in seat quality nearly everywhere in the arena, especially the entire lower bowl, and the upper deck endzones. The same is true if you have a basketball designed arena retrofitted for hockey, such as Barklay's or when the arena FKA America West arena hosted the Coyotes. Many of the seats were terrible for the sport. Yet people accept them without gripe.

I actually think O.Co's current design might be a good starting point, where it has the baseball diamond at midfield of the football stadium, as opposed to a corner (only they have it on the wrong side of the field based on the grandstand of suites for Mt. Davis). That aligns the best seats from each sport into the same place and might work to start. From there, a design would be worked out. Then again a horseshoe aligns well to, leaving one empty outfield wall. [throw's hands up]

(03-11-2016 02:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  In addition to the ginormous cost if a new stadium was built with this feature today, an MLB team would not agree to build a new stadium this way with an NFL-sized capacity (Mile High had over 76,000 seats). To compare to newer baseball parks: AT&T Park in SF and Petco Park in SD each have about 41,000 seats.

I understand completely. The reason it may work here is the Raiders as it is, have tarped their stadium down to like 55,000 as it is, and it they stayed I would imagine they would probably rebuild not much more than that, maybe up to 60,000. I point this out because that is far closer to an MLB sized park than any other NFL team would want. And the moving parts would naturally reduce capacity for an MLB stadium anyway, depending on the design

Now the cost of the technology you mentioned, that was what I was talking about. I think today it would cost a lot less to do such a thing than it did (adjusting for inflation) four decades ago, and it could be done on a better scale. Now, since we are talking about an owner who did not want to share a football only stadium with someone else, this may be a moot point. But it just seems like it could be done here, moreso than anywhere else.

It is not ideal. But it may be the only way both can stay. And right now, neither seems to have better options they can leave for, unless LA suddenly opens up for the Raiders.

(03-11-2016 09:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 02:17 AM)Wedge Wrote:  In addition to the ginormous cost if a new stadium was built with this feature today, an MLB team would not agree to build a new stadium this way with an NFL-sized capacity (Mile High had over 76,000 seats). To compare to newer baseball parks: AT&T Park in SF and Petco Park in SD each have about 41,000 seats.

I understand completely. The reason it may work here is the Raiders as it is, have tarped their stadium down to like 55,000 as it is, and it they stayed I would imagine they would probably rebuild not much more than that, maybe up to 60,000. I point this out because that is far closer to an MLB sized park than any other NFL team would want. And the moving parts would naturally reduce capacity for an MLB stadium anyway, depending on the design

Now the cost of the technology you mentioned, that was what I was talking about. I think today it would cost a lot less to do such a thing than it did (adjusting for inflation) four decades ago, and it could be done on a better scale. Now, since we are talking about an owner who did not want to share a football only stadium with someone else, this may be a moot point. But it just seems like it could be done here, moreso than anywhere else.

It is not ideal. But it may be the only way both can stay. And right now, neither seems to have better options they can leave for, unless LA suddenly opens up for the Raiders.

The A's wouldn't agree, because the configuration is extremely unattractive for baseball (look at the second photo again) and they have 8 or 9 years left on their lease so don't have to cooperate with any such plan. They also have the financial means to build on their own if necessary, and outside the city of Oakland if necessary.

Also, I think you are underestimating the cost of a reliably and quickly movable section of 25,000 seats, even though it's a neat engineering solution. Denver didn’t repeat the multipurpose solution when replacing Mile High Stadium; they built a separate ballpark and stadium.

The Raiders do have other options, not that they want to take advantage of them, they can move in at Santa Clara. They had a chance to be equal partners and bypassed that. If not, it may even be ideal to be a second tenant in another large market like DFW or Chicago if San Antonio/Austin doesn't come into fruition.

(03-11-2016 11:23 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The A's wouldn't agree, because the configuration is extremely unattractive for baseball (look at the second photo again) and they have 8 or 9 years left on their lease so don't have to cooperate with any such plan.

I wasn't saying that I think the current set up is ideal. I said the design with home plate in the middle of the field (but the exact opposite of how O.Co is set up), which is different than how nearly every other multi-purpose stadium placed the baseball diamond, would probably be a good starting point. They have it on the opposite side, and made no attempt to make it better for the A's, nor did any real work to work on the sidelines, as I am suggesting, when they remodeled it and added Mt. Davis.

I don't think I am underestimating the engineering (but I could be). My entire point was it really hasn't been tried in almost 30 years, and with even stadium engineering having advanced since then, especially if you look at the first retractable roofs and look at the ones we have now), I think if someone tried to do it, it could be done. No one has tried to do it in ages, because teams desire their own parks and have been able to coerce cities into building them for them. Now that it has dried up, at least in Oakland, this is just another option to try.

(03-11-2016 02:12 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I don't think I am underestimating the engineering (but I could be). My entire point was it really hasn't been tried in almost 30 years, and with even stadium engineering having advanced since then, especially if you look at the first retractable roofs and look at the ones we have now), I think if someone tried to do it, it could be done. No one has tried to do it in ages, because teams desire their own parks and have been able to coerce cities into building them for them. Now that it has dried up, at least in Oakland, this is just another option to try.

Considering their current predicament, I think you are right that a multipurpose stadium WOULD make sense. That we haven't heard anyone talking about it might be because the engineering you're imagining is not yet cost-effective enough. The City of Oakland is not going to put any tax dollars into construction, so if this thing costs $2B (or even close - and I think that's probably optimistic), Mark Davis is going to have to raise a truckload of cash that I don't think anyone thinks he can raise.