|
|
Post by guiltyparty on Feb 2, 2024 19:51:24 GMT -5
oh yeah, I understand Salt Lake City's motivation to be a temporary 3-year home for the As my guess for the name would be the Salt Lake City As as from what I recall the New Orleans Hornets became the Oklahoma City Hornets when they temporarily went to Oklahoma City after Hurricane Katrina (but then again didn't the Saints play in San Antontio after Hurricane Katrina and yet were still called the New Orleans Saints?) Officially they were the “New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets” for those two years. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 2, 2024 21:25:41 GMT -5
oh yeah, I understand Salt Lake City's motivation to be a temporary 3-year home for the As my guess for the name would be the Salt Lake City As as from what I recall the New Orleans Hornets became the Oklahoma City Hornets when they temporarily went to Oklahoma City after Hurricane Katrina (but then again didn't the Saints play in San Antontio after Hurricane Katrina and yet were still called the New Orleans Saints?) Officially they were the “New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets” for those two years. yeah, I remember now, so perhaps Las Vegas/Salt Lake City As especially since the As owner says he wants to play at least a few regular season games in Las Vegas each year until the full time move here in 2028. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 13, 2024 23:10:21 GMT -5
It looks like the As may be staying in Oakland until 2028 as the As are meeting in Thursday with reps from both Oakland and Alameda County about extending the team's lease there to cover the 2025, 2026, and 2027 seasons before they move to Las Vegas in 2028. However, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao is requesting the team leave the name Athletics behind (I'm OK with that) and MLB promise Oakland an expansion team in return for a lease extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by executioner on Feb 14, 2024 13:19:57 GMT -5
I feel bad for the A's fans. Ultimately they are paying the price for the club having dreadful ownership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cross on Feb 14, 2024 16:31:15 GMT -5
It looks like the As may be staying in Oakland until 2028 as the As are meeting in Thursday with reps from both Oakland and Alameda County about extending the team's lease there to cover the 2025, 2026, and 2027 seasons before they move to Las Vegas in 2028. However, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao is requesting the team leave the name Athletics behind (I'm OK with that) and MLB promise Oakland an expansion team in return for a lease extension. It is always crazy with teams moving and this one is crazy for sure, changing the team nickname is a good move and rewarding Oakland a expansion team could be good for A's fans... |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 14, 2024 19:28:32 GMT -5
I feel bad for the A's fans. Ultimately they are paying the price for the club having dreadful ownership. I agree, I am a Sonics fan so I can relate. I would rather Las Vegas get an expansion MLB team. One important difference though is that Seattle (which had just built a new arena that opened in 1995 for the Sonics) was only given 1 year in 2007 to finalize plans for a new arena or lose the Sonics and the As (who were not originally from Oakland anyway) have been seeking a new stadium for decades going back to the 1990s, but the fans in either case still lose out at no fault of their own. |
|
|
|
Post by TTX on Feb 15, 2024 5:55:38 GMT -5
if Las Vegas got an expansion team, they'd probably contend faster.
I feel sorry for Oakland and Las Vegas (for having an owner whose only interest is profit)
I agree Las Vegas would probably benefit from a nickname change (as would Atlanta but we'll see)
|
|
|
|
Post by guiltyparty on Feb 15, 2024 9:00:34 GMT -5
It's not the nickname that's going to break this deal, it's the demand that MLB guarantee an expansion franchise. The essentially amounts to a billion dollar ransom for the privilege of playing in a falling apart colosseum for three years? Promising an expansion franchise to Oakland would be the equivalent of MLB handcuffing themselves to a corpse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 15, 2024 21:42:47 GMT -5
It's not the nickname that's going to break this deal, it's the demand that MLB guarantee an expansion franchise. The essentially amounts to a billion dollar ransom for the privilege of playing in a falling apart colosseum for three years? Promising an expansion franchise to Oakland would be the equivalent of MLB handcuffing themselves to a corpse. yeah, without a confirmed stadium plan, there is no way MLB is going to agree to give Oakland an expansion team in return for agreeing to host the As for 3 more years as MLB has previosly said it will not address expansion until the stadium scenarios for all existing franchises are finalized. So even if the Rays situation is resolved in May's vote for a new stadium in St. Petersburg, MLB is not going to create a new team and then throw it immediatley into an unknown stadium situation in Oakland. |
|
|
|
Post by on_the_edge on Feb 15, 2024 22:32:46 GMT -5
The expansion aspect has two things going for it depending on what is said/written. If not timetable is set than MLB can wait as long as they want. At least to the point a new stadium is built or at least in the works.
To be honest, I see no need for expansion right now. The talent pool seems watered down and the playoffs have already expanded more in the name of money. I feel more teams right now, even one or two, would hurt the league.
|
|
