Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Want a pro baseball team?


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

As an Oakland A's fan (hence the name): 

Cbs No GIF by HULU

Of course this is one of the oldest tricks in the book:  The "Threaten to move your sports team to another city if you don't get a new stadium." ploy.

Oakland has faced this situation on multiple occasions in the past.  Let's see if they handle it any better this time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Of course this is one of the oldest tricks in the book:  The "Threaten to move your sports team to another city if you don't get a new stadium." ploy.

Oakland has faced this situation on multiple occasions in the past.  Let's see if they handle it any better this time.

 

They've already allowed two teams to leave.

The A's want to finance their own waterfront ballpark, but the City aren't allowing them to build it where they want to. It's almost like they don't want pro sports in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

They've already allowed two teams to leave.

The A's want to finance their own waterfront ballpark, but the City aren't allowing them to build it where they want to. It's almost like they don't want pro sports in the city.

Wow, that's a bit different, a team that wants to pay for their own ballpark.

What is the city's reason for not supporting the A's chosen location?

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Wow, that's a bit different, a team that wants to pay for their own ballpark.

What is the city's reason for not supporting the A's chosen location?

As I understand it - money. I don't know the area well (I've visited Oakland, but I'm not a city planner 🤣) but I think the city are worried about the required transport links to the new stadium, which is like 6 miles away from the Coliseum (which has great transport links). 

 

Edited by OldhamA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldhamA said:

As I understand it - money. I don't know the area well (I've visited Oakland, but I'm not a city planner 🤣) but I think the city are worried about the required transport links to the new stadium, which is like 6 miles away from the Coliseum (which has great transport links). 

 

Did a quick search and it appears the city could be on the hook for about 855 million in land development costs.  It also appears that staying in Oakland is still the teams preferred outcome, but if they have to leave Las Vegas is likely their destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Did a quick search and it appears the city could be on the hook for about 855 million in land development costs.  It also appears that staying in Oakland is still the teams preferred outcome, but if they have to leave Las Vegas is likely their destination.

As I said, it's money - there's always going to be a cost involved for the city when building a new stadium.

Unfortunately Oakland has always considered the A's a burden - but this is the same city council that let the Raiders and the Golden State Warriors walk, so I'm not entirely sure they want pro sports in their city.

Las Vegas seems like an awful option. Portland is a nothing-burger of a place. Who knows where they'll go - but I do think they'll leave now, this has been rolling on for two decades. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

How far afield from these two metro centers are we expected to go in order to justify our positions for MLB?  The larger the geographic area required, the weaker the case for a team becomes.  Population density is important.  Per capita the Charlotte MSA has gained more people during the last decade than the Raleigh MSA according to the folks at Chapel Hill (2020).  

Having said that, I believe either area could be attractive to a MLB team.  I might even favor RD due to the lack of professional competition beyond hockey.  On the other hand, there are a ton of collegiate sports in the area that they'd have to compete with for consumer dollars.   

  

Baseball makes more sense in a larger metro area.  Games are daily and usually in the afternoon after work, so if in a large metro area people can just go after or during work.  

Football can be more regional because its once a week on a day most don't work so people can come from all over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Wow, that's a bit different, a team that wants to pay for their own ballpark.

What is the city's reason for not supporting the A's chosen location?

I would assume that if the team wants to pay, then the city doesn’t get to raise food and beverage taxes to justify the public funds used on a Baseball stadium.

Then again they could just be really bad at negotiating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, joande said:

Your newspaper:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/databases/article251183669.html

For first time, Wake County tops Mecklenburg County in estimated NC population

North Carolina has a new population leader.

Mecklenburg County is no longer the state’s most populous county, new U.S. Census Bureau estimates show.

After years of creeping up on Mecklenburg, Wake County, which includes Raleigh, finally overtook it — 1.13 million to 1.12 million.

The change came after Wake grew by 1.75% from 2019-20 and Mecklenburg grew by 1.41%, according to annual population estimates released Tuesday. The census bureau has yet to release an official population count, which will be detailed in the 2020 Census.

Look up MSAs and then revisit this argument.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Of course this is one of the oldest tricks in the book:  The "Threaten to move your sports team to another city if you don't get a new stadium." ploy.

With the support of Major League Baseball in this case.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ricky Spanish said:

I think it can be done as long as it's an AL team and not an NL team. 

this is a good point. but also the braves have a stronghold and im not sure if the eastern part of NC pulls for Nats. I'm a Phillies fan though. But this would be hard market to crack, and honestly Oakland will move to Nashville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Squirrel said:

They was trying to do that when the Twins was thinking of moving. They wanted to put a stadium in Kernersville at the time in between winston salem and Greensboro. 

I think it came down to a $0.02 increase in sales tax for a stadium in K Vegas, which of course was voted down. Greensboro actually has a history with baseball, the Yankees minor league team was here when Jeter was coming up. And our old stadium was in Bull Durham for the "rain out" scene...so we had that going for us. We also had the Hurricanes here until RAL stole them.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AviationMX said:

I think it came down to a $0.02 increase in sales tax for a stadium in K Vegas, which of course was voted down. Greensboro actually has a history with baseball, the Yankees minor league team was here when Jeter was coming up. And our old stadium was in Bull Durham for the "rain out" scene...so we had that going for us. We also had the Hurricanes here until RAL stole them.

Raleigh did not steal the Hurricanes, they just played there in

 

22 hours ago, MikeD83 said:

The Charlotte metro area still has nearly 500,000 more people in it than the Raleigh metro. Raleigh area is growing faster though and will likely catch up in another decade or so. 

 Greensboro for the first two years until the arena was built and ready. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • We've never seen them outside of the structure of two very well ran organizations I'll give you that. And yes they are long in the tooth. I do think they are more than capable of getting a franchise turned around in short term capacity though. They are by no means a long term solution.
    • You're not making a good-faith argument by blaming literally everything on the quarterback when the defense gave him a fat 38 seconds to overcome its ineptitude, but it seems you're dead-set on blaming him for any problem the team encounters. In this case, it's not warranted. Sometimes it is. But he had no time to throw (pressured on 46% of all dropbacks, an insane amount) and that's simply not all his fault -- particularly when they rush 4 or less and are in the backfield in 1.5s or less. Should we have gotten more than 0 yards? Sure! But he hit a WR in the hands on fourth down and it was dropped. Not his fault. He missed one throw on second down but I attribute first down to a bad play call and third down to poor pass protection. I would've called some quick slants, personally, but it really seems you're saying: - playcalling: Bryce's fault - poor pass protection: Bryce's fault - defensive choking away a lead: Bryce's fault, not the defense - Horn dropping a pass: Bryce's fault It's a great way to garner support on here, because when it comes to Bryce, logic takes such a backseat to context that it's not even in the same vehicle. Plenty of games can be attributed to him. Can't take anyone seriously who solely blames him for that one. 
    • I don't see how you can logically make that argument when the team beat two of the top teams in the entire league during the regular season.  Now imagine the additional games we would have won against absolute tip top competitors like SF and SEA had we had a professional QB.  You can throw any random stat at the problem you want, but the proof is in the pudding.  We all watched it live.  This roster would have produced 13 wins (wins against SF and SEA, two wins against NO, and would have swept the Bucs) and (almost certainly) a #1 seed with a remotely competent QB.  Those were not games where we needed an all star performance to win.  Those were games where a very, very modest stat line would have netted us an easy win. Nearly every measurable aspect of the team would have been significantly improved with a competent QB.
×
×
  • Create New...