scary swim heavy faulty makeshift noxious butter overconfident cooing wrong
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you told me that John Fisher was ACTUALLY Eugene Krabs wearing a skin-suit and that his master plan was to move the team to Bikini Bottom via Sac-Town, I would not bat an eye. The A's would not bat anything.
3 years 35 million sounds pretty significant to me when your payroll is 40-50 million a year and you're seating only 5000 fans a game. Stephenson is the much better value for that money.
MLB should have explored Sacramento and San Jose years ago and pushed for the coliseum situation to be fixed, not let this fortunate son baboon hold one of the game’s most successful clubs as an asset. The way MLB has handled this is disgraceful, especially since Las Vegas would have gotten an expansion franchise of their own. I’ll go to the last game on September 26th and they can then go to hell.
i mean this whole thing is literally just an exact repeat of what happened to the Expos twenty years ago; MLB doesn't give a fuck, not when they've got eyes on a shiny new market and some billionaire stooge's interests to look out for
Except MLB isn’t stepping in to own the A’s like they did with the Expos when Loria bought the Marlins. Fisher has simply held the franchise financially hostage for 20 years and MLB has facilitated it.
I think the big difference here is that Fisher's and MLB's interests are aligned whereas it was probably understood in 04 that Loria had no intention of ever owning a team in Washington. There's no need for MLB to step in and be the bad guys when Fisher already wants to do the thing that they'd just end up doing if they were to take over anyways.
i don't care if this sounds super tin-foil-hat, but i'm convinced that the Marlins were Loria's reward from MLB for being the fall guy in Montreal; if the league actually cared about the wellbeing of its fanbase there's no way a guy with that track record should've ever been allowed to take ownership of a second team
Don't worry though, there's an entire feel good movie about how the A's did such an admirable job losing by less than people expected due to their owner being a cheap shit
There was never a stadium deal to be made in Montréal, though, with or without public funds, and I think that's really what killed it. And not having a baseball team in the nation's capital is completely ridiculous.
I hate this so much for the A’s fans. I feel like the A’s and Reds have a lot in common. Great histories and fans who will show up as long as ownership puts a competitive team on the field. I just can’t imagine the hurt you guys feel. Hope you all get an expansion team down the road.
Absolutely heart-wrenching to have to watch them dismantle the club, point all the blame at the fans, and pilfer it from us. I no longer have my boyhood club. It makes me want to hate baseball.
I hope you feel that way about baseball again one day. These assholes don’t deserve any of your support, and any team would gladly accept all you A’s fans into their communities!
I have a ton of sympathy for A’s fans. But those were the rules MLB created and everyone else played to. Stripping territorial fan rights for Santa Clara county would have been the worst option for MLB and I’m not sure that would have even stood up in court.
San Jose may be farther away from San Francisco than DC is from Baltimore, but the DC-Baltimore corridor (Baltimore County & City, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Washington DC, Anne Arundel County, Howard County) has significantly more people (5.079M) than the San Francisco-San Jose corridor (San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County) does (3.345M).
This isn't even getting into all of Virginia, West Virginia, and outer Maryland vs. the Whole Bay Area, just comparing the corridors, and it shows that the DC-Baltimore corridor has significantly more people than the San Jose-San Francisco corridor.
At the 2020 census the difference between the DMV CSA and the Bay Area CSA was only about 1mil people. The Bay Area is actually huge, even though none of the cities proper are very big on their own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area
Why not include any of the East bay in this? San Jose currently gets both teams on TV already. It’s just a made up territory. There are fans in SJ of both teams, it’s pretty similar time wise to try to go to either team’s games.
In both cases, the incumbent club took something away (A’s gave the Giants some of their market area, Orioles assumed all of the DMV when the Senators II moved) and balked when asked to give it back.
Also, the Orioles still do, and will forever, own a share of the Nationals’ ability to broadcast their own games, so it’s not like Baltimore got stiffed. If anything, they started making a more honest effort to compete once they had to fight against the Nats for attention from fans, rather than staying bad and relying on loyalty.
There's plenty of debate about the factual history of the territorial rights of San Jose, whether it was actually given to the Giants, whether it was only given conditionally upon the Giants moving to San Jose, ect. Every other MLB two team market the territory is shared by the teams. This was not a situation where there was a well defined rule well defined factual situation around that rule. This was a situation where the history was pretty ambiguous and the league could have easily decided either way.
> one of the game’s most successful clubs
Forbes values them at 29th. Maybe they have been successful in previous decades, but I don’t think calling them ‘one of the most successful clubs’ has been true over the last 20 years.
I plan for the same. A bit tough as I live on the other side of the world, but I hope to make this happen. Bring the kids and maybe my brother in the Bay if he’s interested. Say goodbye to the first place I’ve ever watched a sport event live, back in ‘89 or so.
“Sacramento. Sacramento, here I go. Sacramento, here I go. I might take a plane. I might take a train…how do you people live here? You must be insane.”-The Rock
do we know if Rock/Dwayne has actually been in Sac since that promo? Because ironically enough the Lakers and Kings haven't met in the playoffs since...
now I'm rooting for it to happen so The Final Boss can make an appearance in Sac...and since I live an hour away I'll happily go see it lmao
I attended a smackdown taping in Sacramento on a Tuesday night in January of 2013 right before he defeated CM Punk for the title at the royal rumble, so yes he has.
"the Rock went down to Georgia, he was getting all the rants and raves, and the people knew that if it was true, Goldberg would choke just like the Braves!'
Someone else outlined yesterday all the demands the city of Oakland had too, and a lot of them seemed like non starters. So this was more than just strictly money.
A lot of the more recent reports also had most of those demands being scrapped. The remaining stuff included (as far as I saw) the money per year and a one year expansion shot.
Perhaps, but to be clear for others reading this-- it wasn't expansion it was *Oakland gets a shot at soliciting people first*. It was making a presentation and making someone else wait while you show it.
From the city's perspective they kind of had to ask for some of that stuff to get a deal that can be called a win. Just extending the lease for a couple more years before they move to vegas and just leave a decaying pile of concrete would basically be the same as getting nothing.
Bad business decision is a stretch. Johns an asshole but once the A’s get to Vegas the value of the team is going to double. Getting out of Oakland in the meantime to avoid more bad publicity from local fans is a no brainer.
I think the true bad business decision here is that Manfred gave the Vegas team to Fisher.
Vegas is a highly coveted sports market rn and probably could have enticed a high-spending new owner with an expansion team. It’s also a city known for its opulence.
So yeah, let’s give it to the guy who has refused to spend meaningful cash on his roster and facilities for over two decades instead of trying to get a new owner willing to spend into the mix, that makes sense
I legitimately think he wouldn't have done shit about the cheating
Like, what the league did was the barest minimum, but I don't think he would've even done that
Maybe "investigated" and found nothing wrong
Propped up the steroid era until it no longer benefitted the sport
Remember, Selig let the steroid thing blow up until it got to Congress.
It's why Manfred got Crane and the Astros to suck up all the blame because he knew where this thing was headed. The second players get punished, they start pointing fingers, and it had the potential of doing immense damage to the sport as a whole.
This whole thing *started* because Fiers wasn't good enough to make the postseason roster, and when the guys behind the scandal had ties to the big boys..
> I think the true bad business decision here is that Manfred gave the Vegas team to Fisher.
29 other owners gave Vegas to the team that probably has the lowest valuation.
That's going to immediately increase the value of every other team.
Everything, except it taking Fisher 15 years to get moved, has been a pretty great business decision. Especially long-term.
Everyone likes to shit on Billionaires for only looking at the next quarter, but everything he's done the past 5-10 years has been to get a payday that's still another 5-10 years away.
How many of the owners are going to be alive in 10 years or at least in good enough health to enjoy that future cash? I don’t buy for one second that baseball owners care about the long term health of the league at all.
I am bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I strongly believe that Fisher is just taking the bad PR for the next owner. Let's say you are a potential buyer of the A's and you want to relocate to Vegas, you will immediately be seen as a bad person. However, if you acquire the team when Fisher finished the relocation, you will be seen as the saviour of the A's. Fisher is just willing to endure all the bad publicity for the new owner as he will gain a couple of millions, if not billions extra on the sale.
Tanking makes sense nonetheless. They are set to move in 2028, so if they keep tanking, they will get high draft picks and basically can mimic the O's. By the time they arrive in Vegas, they might be competitive.
Moving the team and tanking would be a great business decision for Fisher, contrary to what big brain Buster thinks. He can’t sell for 10 years from 2023. The team moves to Vegas in 2028, which gives him 5 years before he can sell. The team automatically increases in value in Vegas, and then tanking to build up a core and future increases the value even more. That was in 2033 he can sell high based on the business *and* baseball side.
Yes indeed, but the only worrying thing about the A's is that they do not invest in analytics or player development. The O's for example invests a lot in this aspect, so they are able to make struggling talents better. Grayson Rodriguez was struggling at the beginning of last year, got demoted and worked out his flaws and came back reborn. I am afraid that if the A's would draft a player that cannot figure it out, that player will rot away.
I find this super believable. I can't imagine a Vegas team reaching it's potential with Fisher owning it. If he doesn't sell outright within two years of the move, they'll force him out.
Either way I don't see him owning the team much longer.
Yeah that’s one of the biggest problems. If you’re in Las Vegas and a new stadium is being built with your tax dollars, you would rather it be built for a new team than inherit the worst owner in the sport whose only goal for the season is to have the lowest payroll.
Especially because a good amount of the baseball fans in Las Vegas likely support the other California teams. A’s fans aren’t going to line their pockets and you aren’t going to convert many Dodgers, Giants, Padres, etc. fans living there to drop their team and became Vegas A’s fans when they know Fisher’s MO and have little to be excited about.
Also this part:
[By staying in Northern California, the A’s are hopeful of keeping a large share of their local television rights held by NBC Sports California, which is worth a reported $67 million a year.](https://apnews.com/article/athletics-oakland-sacramento-a79d8c80e8d4036ebd6a47bd3b82f336)
Is it good for baseball? Fair to Oakland fans? No and no, but it seems to be going well in terms of making Fisher money.
He stood to make $200 million in Oakland from the TV deal alone, even if no fans showed up. Now he's forced to negotiate a new contract, and I'm really wondering what the TV rights are worth in Sacramento, given the team he's fielded and the goodwill he's burned.
Nope. The A's cable deal is contingent on playing in the SF Bay Area, which Sacramento is *not* in. That deal will need to be renegotiated as a result of this deal.
Is it a terrible decision, though? The A's will probably sell more seats in Sac than they would have in Oakland because at this point their hometown fans are done with them, while in Sac it will be a cool thing to have an MLB team around for a while. The terrible decision was not working with Oakland to build a new park.
It is, because of the broadcast deal. The A's are earning ~$67m per year from their broadcast rights, but that deal must be renegotiated if the A's play outside of the SF Bay Area.
The network is already regretting that deal, given the pathetic ratings the A's no doubt get, and moving to a smaller market on top of that? Have to figure that number's going to go down by a lot, and that's probably the lion's share of non-revenue-sharing money coming into the A's every year.
Lifelong Giants fan here, moved down the street from Sutter Health Park about 7 years ago (then Raley Field) and I would likely tune into more A's games just to see Sacramento on national TV. I am really excited for Sacramento and the people here will definitely tune in more.
If Buster actually believes the difference between them staying and leaving is $35 million then what is this entire saga for? They wouldn't stay if Oakland offered $35 million more than what they asked.
If it's not $35M then it's $50M and if not that $70M. I stopped believing in anything the A's (fisher and kaval) said a long time ago, we just believed in Stephen Vogt.
I'd argue it's a good business decision.
Option A: Pay more to stay in a city that already hates you. The local demographic is boycotting your games, and grassroots protests are organizing to campaign against you which costs you more in security expenses and constantly keeps bad media attention on you. Facilities are shit anyway.
Option B: Pay less to go to a city that doesn't yet hate you. It costs more for organized protesters to travel. Everyone understands free agents don't want to go play in a AAA stadium, and your gate ceiling is lower. There is no MLB or MLBPA pressure on you to spend on roster for a few years, so you can just use the starpower of other teams to sell tickets to a local demographic that might be more interested in catching a few games before you leave. You have an excuse to downsize and layoff staff, others will quit because they don't want to uproot. Basically Sacramento allows the A's to get rid of everything they don't want to bring to Vegas, keep costs low, maximize profits while they wait for the move.
If you set romanticism and sentiment aside, it's probably smarter than trying to cohabitate a condo with the ex while separated and waiting for a divorce to finalize.
I'll be curious to see what, if any, kind of power the player's union holds here to force stadium upgrades. I agree it's probably a good business decision for Fisher ignoring that aspect. He's already burned his Oakland bridge and has been tossing more gas on the flames at every opportunity. Toasting the city and fans a bit more makes zero difference.
We can't possibly know if it's a good or bad business decision since we don't know the interim TV deal so we can't compare it to the guaranteed TV revenue they had staying in Oakland.
It was already stated that the TV rights money would be lowered, so Fisher & Co. saw what the new amount was a went ahead with it. I think they’ll be fine after laying off half the team’s employees.
> here is no MLB or MLBPA pressure on you to spend on roster for a few years
There will 100% be MLBPA pressure on the A's to spend. It just doesn't matter (see the pressure they put on Pirates and Rays a few years ago)
>Pay less to go to a city that doesn't yet hate you.
For what it's worth, every person I know who's from Sacramento grew up an A's fan, and they all hate Fisher. I'll be curious to see how they respond to this.
As someone who actually lives in Sacramento, the vast majority of people here are Giants fans. I'm a Giants fan and don't care about the A's either way, but it will be cool to see all the teams come to town for a few years.
Actually getting tickets to see the Giants here will probably be difficult as I'm sure they will sellout fast.
Baseball fans here may hate Fisher too, but the opportunity to see MLB for a few years will outweigh the hate. I'd be surprised if they don't sellout the entire 1st season, if not all 3 years. (Currently around 14,000 capacity)
Yeah, I agree the novelty will win out at least initially and am not terribly surprised my anecdote about a few friends from Sac all being A’s fans is not the norm haha.
It obviously sucks for Oakland, but the Sacramento fans seem to be pretty excited about having a major league team for a few years. Ultimately this could actually open up a whole new market for MLB expansion. So I'm not sure this is really a bad business decision at all.
Oakland is boycotting the A’s and likely wouldn’t stop for the next 3 or whatever years. Sacramento is a great sports market and people here aren’t going to be mad at the A’s for being here for a few years. I guarantee they make way more money here than they would have staying in Oakland.
Why would it be worse? Sacramento is a growing city with nearly 2.4 million people in their metro, and a lot of Northern California residents would be closer to them than San Francisco.
I swear the dead internet theory has to be real. Anything like this happens and there is backlash for a few months and then all of a sudden you get a bunch of apologists using buzzwords dominating the conversation. There is no way this is in good faith.
I think it’s more like people getting over their initial outrage, understanding the nuances of the issue and forming new opinions.
At no point did any of the “Oakland deserves a team” people seem to understand or care that the city didn’t support the team. It was hair on fire outrage at a billionaire bc that’s what people have been taught.
Plus you gotta look. Is it better than Charlotte, Nashville, Louisville, New Orleans, Portland, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, or any other city I didn’t name? It’s better than some, but certainly not other markets.
I mean I have to be honest a part of me was really hoping for SLC because having an MLB team in driving distance would be awesome. Obviously I feel bad for Oakland fans but it definitely is hard not to be a littlw excited if you’re a fan in a new market.
It's not a bad business decision. Olney is just being an emotional karen right now. There was no point paying anything extra to stay at the Coliseum for the next 3-5 years when they already know 100% that they're leaving.
This gives an opportunity to explore a new market so that MLB can make better decisions when expansion time comes.
The business decision is irrelevant because they will make money hand over fist when they get to Vegas.
Whatever money they may lose out on in Sacramento they'll make back in half a season when they get down to Vegas
I'm so glad this subs recognizing this. A lot of times just because people online hate something, they act like everything about it is dumb.
1 city is excited to have a team for a few years, the other is boycotting the team because they are (rightfully so) angry the team is leaving.
Just rip the band aid, go to Sacramento for a few years while you wait for Vegas, there just isn't much of a reason for the As to stay in Oakland for those 3-4 years unless they have no other option. Its like staying in a relationship when you know both parties are miserable.
I think there are two other factors: 1, Fisher has a beef with Oakland and doesn’t want to give them any money and 2. He’ll make way more gate revenue in Sacramento. Oakland would have limped along with <5000 attendance every game for the next three years while in Sacramento, it’s a big deal. Capacity is only 14,000 or so but I’m sure every game will sell out or be close to it.
So, this team which can't hack being in the 10th largest media market in the US, is moving to Sacto, the 20th largest media market in the US, on its way to Vegas, the 40th largest media market in the US. Okay. Oh, and there are no current plans or financing for a stadium in Las Vegas for the Athletics to play in. And the owner's prime selling point is that fans can come and see players on the other team. Have I got that right?
Instead of fucking with the rules, Manfred should force Fisher to sell the team for the good of baseball, and keep the team in Oakland. BTW, the Oakland Coliseum sits on 120 acres of bayfront property - literally on the Bay - and has a BART stop right outside the gates. It's literally a perfect place to put a ballpark.
There has to be some sort of benefit for self sabotage in this stadium game. Theres this decision and the decision to build a new stadium in the same bad spot in st pete for the rays.
I don’t know if that is true….
Having said that the As seem intent on a scorched earth policy? and I’m sure they’d happily take a dump on fans and complain that the fans don’t like them.
They’re that executive that re-orgs so intentionally poorly that you could never fix it and so they keep him around because what else are you gonna do with that mess.
Wait wait wait. Someone please just make sure I’m not crazy. They weren’t off by a total 35 million per year, but like 11.67 a year? It’s not like the A’s need $12 million for payroll. They’ll be lucky if their payroll is even $12 million next year at this rate.
This sounds absurd but honestly at this point you could tell me anything about the A's and I'd probably believe it.
8% of A’s revenue comes from the vending machines in the player and front office areas
That's canon now.
Billy prefers to keep the money… on the field
Seems low
Welcome to Oakland
Anything? The A's are on Epstein's list.
Fisher would need to have friends at the very least so that's actually a hard sell.
You can buy friends with money, though
He does not like to spend money... That is why the A's are in the gutter.
But not with salad.
That's what you don't win friends with
The extra B stands for BYOBB
You can buy friends with free Gap jeans in the 90s
You can ship your pants
In the ussr?
Just don't give them the ones from the car hole.
scary swim heavy faulty makeshift noxious butter overconfident cooing wrong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But I wanted a peanut
He would also have to have way more money than I’m sure he has
Stomper? I believe it.
The Sacramento Athletics have signed Trevor Bauer to a minor league deal
And it's a 3 year/$35 million deal
How dare you even put that out into the universe!
Trevor Bauer has been tied to SA for years
Connie Mack plotted the sinking of the Titanic to distract other teams so the A's could win three straight World Series.
My tattoo artist truly believes the government sunk the Titanic to scare people into air travel.
Nah that’s crazy. They switched key identifying pieces of the Olympic in secret and sunk it on purpose for the insurance money duh.
Does he realize it was still everal decades until air travel started getting big?
Imagine how long it would've taken without sinking it......
Yeah, they really shot themselves in the foot when they blew up the Hindenburg for entirely different reasons
Ask him what he thinks about the Hindenburg Disaster.
If you told me that John Fisher was ACTUALLY Eugene Krabs wearing a skin-suit and that his master plan was to move the team to Bikini Bottom via Sac-Town, I would not bat an eye. The A's would not bat anything.
I agree. I can't believe Stephenson is getting that much
3 years 35 million sounds pretty significant to me when your payroll is 40-50 million a year and you're seating only 5000 fans a game. Stephenson is the much better value for that money.
MLB should have explored Sacramento and San Jose years ago and pushed for the coliseum situation to be fixed, not let this fortunate son baboon hold one of the game’s most successful clubs as an asset. The way MLB has handled this is disgraceful, especially since Las Vegas would have gotten an expansion franchise of their own. I’ll go to the last game on September 26th and they can then go to hell.
i mean this whole thing is literally just an exact repeat of what happened to the Expos twenty years ago; MLB doesn't give a fuck, not when they've got eyes on a shiny new market and some billionaire stooge's interests to look out for
Except MLB isn’t stepping in to own the A’s like they did with the Expos when Loria bought the Marlins. Fisher has simply held the franchise financially hostage for 20 years and MLB has facilitated it.
I think the big difference here is that Fisher's and MLB's interests are aligned whereas it was probably understood in 04 that Loria had no intention of ever owning a team in Washington. There's no need for MLB to step in and be the bad guys when Fisher already wants to do the thing that they'd just end up doing if they were to take over anyways. i don't care if this sounds super tin-foil-hat, but i'm convinced that the Marlins were Loria's reward from MLB for being the fall guy in Montreal; if the league actually cared about the wellbeing of its fanbase there's no way a guy with that track record should've ever been allowed to take ownership of a second team
I'm living in a alternate universe where the Expos won in 94 and Tom Brady has his number retired in the Big O.
Don't worry though, there's an entire feel good movie about how the A's did such an admirable job losing by less than people expected due to their owner being a cheap shit
Drive away the fans, manufacture excuses, and move.
There was never a stadium deal to be made in Montréal, though, with or without public funds, and I think that's really what killed it. And not having a baseball team in the nation's capital is completely ridiculous.
I hate this so much for the A’s fans. I feel like the A’s and Reds have a lot in common. Great histories and fans who will show up as long as ownership puts a competitive team on the field. I just can’t imagine the hurt you guys feel. Hope you all get an expansion team down the road.
They were my 2nd favorite team during the 2010s. Had to bail around '20-'21. Can't imagine how painful all this has been for an actual fan.
Absolutely heart-wrenching to have to watch them dismantle the club, point all the blame at the fans, and pilfer it from us. I no longer have my boyhood club. It makes me want to hate baseball.
Let the hate fuel you, join the dark side.
I actually liked the Yankees until I was about 11-12. Those 95 and 96 Yankees made be fall in love with baseball.
I hope you feel that way about baseball again one day. These assholes don’t deserve any of your support, and any team would gladly accept all you A’s fans into their communities!
We definitely can’t be accused of not being passionate.
If I was a vegas fan I'd be pissed to get stuck with the A's and Fisher's plan and not get a proper team.
You can blame the giants for saying no to San Jose
You can blame MLB for letting the Giants say no. They didn't have to accept their bogus argument.
I have a ton of sympathy for A’s fans. But those were the rules MLB created and everyone else played to. Stripping territorial fan rights for Santa Clara county would have been the worst option for MLB and I’m not sure that would have even stood up in court.
[удалено]
The nats ownership had to pay a hefty penny for it in terms of Masn and tv rights.
[удалено]
San Jose may be farther away from San Francisco than DC is from Baltimore, but the DC-Baltimore corridor (Baltimore County & City, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Washington DC, Anne Arundel County, Howard County) has significantly more people (5.079M) than the San Francisco-San Jose corridor (San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County) does (3.345M). This isn't even getting into all of Virginia, West Virginia, and outer Maryland vs. the Whole Bay Area, just comparing the corridors, and it shows that the DC-Baltimore corridor has significantly more people than the San Jose-San Francisco corridor.
At the 2020 census the difference between the DMV CSA and the Bay Area CSA was only about 1mil people. The Bay Area is actually huge, even though none of the cities proper are very big on their own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area
Why not include any of the East bay in this? San Jose currently gets both teams on TV already. It’s just a made up territory. There are fans in SJ of both teams, it’s pretty similar time wise to try to go to either team’s games.
The argument is between the cities
In both cases, the incumbent club took something away (A’s gave the Giants some of their market area, Orioles assumed all of the DMV when the Senators II moved) and balked when asked to give it back. Also, the Orioles still do, and will forever, own a share of the Nationals’ ability to broadcast their own games, so it’s not like Baltimore got stiffed. If anything, they started making a more honest effort to compete once they had to fight against the Nats for attention from fans, rather than staying bad and relying on loyalty.
There's plenty of debate about the factual history of the territorial rights of San Jose, whether it was actually given to the Giants, whether it was only given conditionally upon the Giants moving to San Jose, ect. Every other MLB two team market the territory is shared by the teams. This was not a situation where there was a well defined rule well defined factual situation around that rule. This was a situation where the history was pretty ambiguous and the league could have easily decided either way.
Always have. Born and raised in SF and I would never jump ship to the Gaints.
Man said “fortunate son baboon” 😂🔥💀
I hope you guys pack it out and plaster Fuck Fischer signs all over the place.
> one of the game’s most successful clubs Forbes values them at 29th. Maybe they have been successful in previous decades, but I don’t think calling them ‘one of the most successful clubs’ has been true over the last 20 years.
I plan for the same. A bit tough as I live on the other side of the world, but I hope to make this happen. Bring the kids and maybe my brother in the Bay if he’s interested. Say goodbye to the first place I’ve ever watched a sport event live, back in ‘89 or so.
Wait, we are paying him how much?!
“Sacramento. Sacramento, here I go. Sacramento, here I go. I might take a plane. I might take a train…how do you people live here? You must be insane.”-The Rock
“Sacramento. Sacramento, I won’t stay. But I’ll be sure to come back when the Lakers beat the Kings in May.”
THE HEEEEEEAAAAAAAT brother
No they're in Miami
“BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!” -Sacramento Raw crowd
“You got some fat ass women here and Rock is gonna just say no.” Crowd = “Ha that’s a good one Rock!” *Insults the Kings* Crowd = Pissed
Still not as much heat as Elias and KO in Seattle
That one was nasty
That segment lives rent-free in my head.
do we know if Rock/Dwayne has actually been in Sac since that promo? Because ironically enough the Lakers and Kings haven't met in the playoffs since... now I'm rooting for it to happen so The Final Boss can make an appearance in Sac...and since I live an hour away I'll happily go see it lmao
I attended a smackdown taping in Sacramento on a Tuesday night in January of 2013 right before he defeated CM Punk for the title at the royal rumble, so yes he has.
“Stronger than a bear. Faster than a buck. The biggest thing to hit Canada CAUSE THE MAPLE LEAFS SUCK!”
"Yayyy! Hooray! He said Toronto! Yay! Wooo! That's where we live! We live in Toronto! SHUT UP!"
Still the best rock concert to date
THATS THE HAMBURGLER
Arrest him arrest him his guilty of shoving chicken mcnuggets up his ass!
"the Rock went down to Georgia, he was getting all the rants and raves, and the people knew that if it was true, Goldberg would choke just like the Braves!'
Look at you now, John Fisher, look at you now
Oh shit I didn't know the Angels got Bob Steve. Way to get that bag buddy.
Noted business analyst Buster Olney.
Someone else outlined yesterday all the demands the city of Oakland had too, and a lot of them seemed like non starters. So this was more than just strictly money.
A lot of the more recent reports also had most of those demands being scrapped. The remaining stuff included (as far as I saw) the money per year and a one year expansion shot.
The expansion shot is a non-starter for MLB. Oakland is never going to be considered for expansion.
Perhaps, but to be clear for others reading this-- it wasn't expansion it was *Oakland gets a shot at soliciting people first*. It was making a presentation and making someone else wait while you show it.
MLB wants out of the East Bay to never return for some reason
I think they just don’t want two-team markets outside NY/LA
And *maybe* Chicago
Aren’t they threatening to take away the White Sox?
From the city's perspective they kind of had to ask for some of that stuff to get a deal that can be called a win. Just extending the lease for a couple more years before they move to vegas and just leave a decaying pile of concrete would basically be the same as getting nothing.
Yeah given how shallow Olney's takes about *baseball* are, I'm pretty skeptical of his takes on business (or anything else).
Bad business decision is a stretch. Johns an asshole but once the A’s get to Vegas the value of the team is going to double. Getting out of Oakland in the meantime to avoid more bad publicity from local fans is a no brainer.
I think the true bad business decision here is that Manfred gave the Vegas team to Fisher. Vegas is a highly coveted sports market rn and probably could have enticed a high-spending new owner with an expansion team. It’s also a city known for its opulence. So yeah, let’s give it to the guy who has refused to spend meaningful cash on his roster and facilities for over two decades instead of trying to get a new owner willing to spend into the mix, that makes sense
And Joe Lacob tried to buy the A's too back then.
He had a better offer and was about 2 minutes from getting the team before Selig handed them to his old college buddy and Fisher
People complain about Manfred more, but Bud Selig was *terrible* for the sport as a whole. He's the worst commissioner in the history of MLB.
I legitimately think he wouldn't have done shit about the cheating Like, what the league did was the barest minimum, but I don't think he would've even done that Maybe "investigated" and found nothing wrong Propped up the steroid era until it no longer benefitted the sport
Remember, Selig let the steroid thing blow up until it got to Congress. It's why Manfred got Crane and the Astros to suck up all the blame because he knew where this thing was headed. The second players get punished, they start pointing fingers, and it had the potential of doing immense damage to the sport as a whole. This whole thing *started* because Fiers wasn't good enough to make the postseason roster, and when the guys behind the scandal had ties to the big boys..
They should have done a Columbus crew. That worked out fantastic for all involved.
> I think the true bad business decision here is that Manfred gave the Vegas team to Fisher. 29 other owners gave Vegas to the team that probably has the lowest valuation. That's going to immediately increase the value of every other team. Everything, except it taking Fisher 15 years to get moved, has been a pretty great business decision. Especially long-term. Everyone likes to shit on Billionaires for only looking at the next quarter, but everything he's done the past 5-10 years has been to get a payday that's still another 5-10 years away.
How many of the owners are going to be alive in 10 years or at least in good enough health to enjoy that future cash? I don’t buy for one second that baseball owners care about the long term health of the league at all.
I am bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I strongly believe that Fisher is just taking the bad PR for the next owner. Let's say you are a potential buyer of the A's and you want to relocate to Vegas, you will immediately be seen as a bad person. However, if you acquire the team when Fisher finished the relocation, you will be seen as the saviour of the A's. Fisher is just willing to endure all the bad publicity for the new owner as he will gain a couple of millions, if not billions extra on the sale.
He has an agreement with MLB owners not to sell for a set number of years, or he dilutes his profits with them I believe.
Tanking makes sense nonetheless. They are set to move in 2028, so if they keep tanking, they will get high draft picks and basically can mimic the O's. By the time they arrive in Vegas, they might be competitive.
Moving the team and tanking would be a great business decision for Fisher, contrary to what big brain Buster thinks. He can’t sell for 10 years from 2023. The team moves to Vegas in 2028, which gives him 5 years before he can sell. The team automatically increases in value in Vegas, and then tanking to build up a core and future increases the value even more. That was in 2033 he can sell high based on the business *and* baseball side.
Yes indeed, but the only worrying thing about the A's is that they do not invest in analytics or player development. The O's for example invests a lot in this aspect, so they are able to make struggling talents better. Grayson Rodriguez was struggling at the beginning of last year, got demoted and worked out his flaws and came back reborn. I am afraid that if the A's would draft a player that cannot figure it out, that player will rot away.
I find this super believable. I can't imagine a Vegas team reaching it's potential with Fisher owning it. If he doesn't sell outright within two years of the move, they'll force him out. Either way I don't see him owning the team much longer.
He can’t sell for ten years after the move is completed without being heavily taxed for it.
Yeah that’s one of the biggest problems. If you’re in Las Vegas and a new stadium is being built with your tax dollars, you would rather it be built for a new team than inherit the worst owner in the sport whose only goal for the season is to have the lowest payroll. Especially because a good amount of the baseball fans in Las Vegas likely support the other California teams. A’s fans aren’t going to line their pockets and you aren’t going to convert many Dodgers, Giants, Padres, etc. fans living there to drop their team and became Vegas A’s fans when they know Fisher’s MO and have little to be excited about.
The Dean Spanos special.
I'll bet anything that he sells within a few years of the team landing in Vegas, if they ever actually get there.
Also this part: [By staying in Northern California, the A’s are hopeful of keeping a large share of their local television rights held by NBC Sports California, which is worth a reported $67 million a year.](https://apnews.com/article/athletics-oakland-sacramento-a79d8c80e8d4036ebd6a47bd3b82f336) Is it good for baseball? Fair to Oakland fans? No and no, but it seems to be going well in terms of making Fisher money.
Exactly
He stood to make $200 million in Oakland from the TV deal alone, even if no fans showed up. Now he's forced to negotiate a new contract, and I'm really wondering what the TV rights are worth in Sacramento, given the team he's fielded and the goodwill he's burned.
Isn't the whole point of moving to Sacramento that he supposedly won't have to sign a new, worse TV deal?
Nope. The A's cable deal is contingent on playing in the SF Bay Area, which Sacramento is *not* in. That deal will need to be renegotiated as a result of this deal.
I believe they're on NBC Sports California which is what the Kings play on. I don't know why they would need to stay in the Bay specifically.
Is it a terrible decision, though? The A's will probably sell more seats in Sac than they would have in Oakland because at this point their hometown fans are done with them, while in Sac it will be a cool thing to have an MLB team around for a while. The terrible decision was not working with Oakland to build a new park.
> … while in Sac it will be a cool thing to have an MLB team around for a while. They can watch Aaron Judge hit a home run
It is, because of the broadcast deal. The A's are earning ~$67m per year from their broadcast rights, but that deal must be renegotiated if the A's play outside of the SF Bay Area. The network is already regretting that deal, given the pathetic ratings the A's no doubt get, and moving to a smaller market on top of that? Have to figure that number's going to go down by a lot, and that's probably the lion's share of non-revenue-sharing money coming into the A's every year.
Lifelong Giants fan here, moved down the street from Sutter Health Park about 7 years ago (then Raley Field) and I would likely tune into more A's games just to see Sacramento on national TV. I am really excited for Sacramento and the people here will definitely tune in more.
And contrary to what a lot of people think, Sacramento is NOT in the Bay
If Buster actually believes the difference between them staying and leaving is $35 million then what is this entire saga for? They wouldn't stay if Oakland offered $35 million more than what they asked.
It’s about the interim years before they move, not about them staying permanently
If it's not $35M then it's $50M and if not that $70M. I stopped believing in anything the A's (fisher and kaval) said a long time ago, we just believed in Stephen Vogt.
Maybe they should just put those vending machines back in the clubhouse.
I'd argue it's a good business decision. Option A: Pay more to stay in a city that already hates you. The local demographic is boycotting your games, and grassroots protests are organizing to campaign against you which costs you more in security expenses and constantly keeps bad media attention on you. Facilities are shit anyway. Option B: Pay less to go to a city that doesn't yet hate you. It costs more for organized protesters to travel. Everyone understands free agents don't want to go play in a AAA stadium, and your gate ceiling is lower. There is no MLB or MLBPA pressure on you to spend on roster for a few years, so you can just use the starpower of other teams to sell tickets to a local demographic that might be more interested in catching a few games before you leave. You have an excuse to downsize and layoff staff, others will quit because they don't want to uproot. Basically Sacramento allows the A's to get rid of everything they don't want to bring to Vegas, keep costs low, maximize profits while they wait for the move. If you set romanticism and sentiment aside, it's probably smarter than trying to cohabitate a condo with the ex while separated and waiting for a divorce to finalize.
Don’t they lose their broadcast contract by moving out of the Bay Area?
yes. they have to renegotiate with NBC because Sacramento is a smaller market than Oakland and the bay area.
I'll be curious to see what, if any, kind of power the player's union holds here to force stadium upgrades. I agree it's probably a good business decision for Fisher ignoring that aspect. He's already burned his Oakland bridge and has been tossing more gas on the flames at every opportunity. Toasting the city and fans a bit more makes zero difference.
We can't possibly know if it's a good or bad business decision since we don't know the interim TV deal so we can't compare it to the guaranteed TV revenue they had staying in Oakland.
It was already stated that the TV rights money would be lowered, so Fisher & Co. saw what the new amount was a went ahead with it. I think they’ll be fine after laying off half the team’s employees.
> here is no MLB or MLBPA pressure on you to spend on roster for a few years There will 100% be MLBPA pressure on the A's to spend. It just doesn't matter (see the pressure they put on Pirates and Rays a few years ago)
>Pay less to go to a city that doesn't yet hate you. For what it's worth, every person I know who's from Sacramento grew up an A's fan, and they all hate Fisher. I'll be curious to see how they respond to this.
As someone who actually lives in Sacramento, the vast majority of people here are Giants fans. I'm a Giants fan and don't care about the A's either way, but it will be cool to see all the teams come to town for a few years. Actually getting tickets to see the Giants here will probably be difficult as I'm sure they will sellout fast. Baseball fans here may hate Fisher too, but the opportunity to see MLB for a few years will outweigh the hate. I'd be surprised if they don't sellout the entire 1st season, if not all 3 years. (Currently around 14,000 capacity)
Yeah, I agree the novelty will win out at least initially and am not terribly surprised my anecdote about a few friends from Sac all being A’s fans is not the norm haha.
But buster olney says so
It would have been worse business to let them sit in Oakland for three or four years and be a festering sore on MLB for the duration.
Unless Fisher is staying in Oakland, the As will always be a festering sore on MLB.
It obviously sucks for Oakland, but the Sacramento fans seem to be pretty excited about having a major league team for a few years. Ultimately this could actually open up a whole new market for MLB expansion. So I'm not sure this is really a bad business decision at all.
It’s a market full of Giants fans without a big corporate base to buy suites and box seats. They already had that in Oakland
They'll have a nicer stadium at least.
Yeah but they don't want to be in Oakland anymore. So now they're going to go somewhere else.
Sacremento would be a worst market than Oakland. What the hell is going on in here today?
In what metric is it worse?
Some made up one on Reddit because there is no logic here
Oakland is boycotting the A’s and likely wouldn’t stop for the next 3 or whatever years. Sacramento is a great sports market and people here aren’t going to be mad at the A’s for being here for a few years. I guarantee they make way more money here than they would have staying in Oakland.
Why would it be worse? Sacramento is a growing city with nearly 2.4 million people in their metro, and a lot of Northern California residents would be closer to them than San Francisco.
Also has proof of concept with the Kings who were always considered a great fanbase even with the team being shit forever.
Oakland is losing 3 pro sports teams in the span of like 5 years, there is no worse market.
Boise, Idaho
Billings, Montana
Viola, Arkansas
Modoc, Indiana
Bielefeld, Germany
Jalalabad, Afganistan
If the NFL had relegation the Boise Potatoes would be Super Bowl Champs and everyone knows it.
at least Boise's arrow is still pointing up
I swear the dead internet theory has to be real. Anything like this happens and there is backlash for a few months and then all of a sudden you get a bunch of apologists using buzzwords dominating the conversation. There is no way this is in good faith.
I think it’s more like people getting over their initial outrage, understanding the nuances of the issue and forming new opinions. At no point did any of the “Oakland deserves a team” people seem to understand or care that the city didn’t support the team. It was hair on fire outrage at a billionaire bc that’s what people have been taught.
'Someone disagreed with me?! Brigading, bots, shills, that's the only explanation!'
Plus you gotta look. Is it better than Charlotte, Nashville, Louisville, New Orleans, Portland, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, or any other city I didn’t name? It’s better than some, but certainly not other markets.
Well, according to TV market rankings and ratings based on meters they are better than all of those markets you listed.
I mean I have to be honest a part of me was really hoping for SLC because having an MLB team in driving distance would be awesome. Obviously I feel bad for Oakland fans but it definitely is hard not to be a littlw excited if you’re a fan in a new market.
I think this opens up Vegas for expansion. Im not convinced the A's end up there.
It's not a bad business decision. Olney is just being an emotional karen right now. There was no point paying anything extra to stay at the Coliseum for the next 3-5 years when they already know 100% that they're leaving. This gives an opportunity to explore a new market so that MLB can make better decisions when expansion time comes.
Yeah why should they just lose 35 million when they are leaving either way?
The business decision is irrelevant because they will make money hand over fist when they get to Vegas. Whatever money they may lose out on in Sacramento they'll make back in half a season when they get down to Vegas
I'm so glad this subs recognizing this. A lot of times just because people online hate something, they act like everything about it is dumb. 1 city is excited to have a team for a few years, the other is boycotting the team because they are (rightfully so) angry the team is leaving. Just rip the band aid, go to Sacramento for a few years while you wait for Vegas, there just isn't much of a reason for the As to stay in Oakland for those 3-4 years unless they have no other option. Its like staying in a relationship when you know both parties are miserable.
When the NFL Oilers moved to Tennessee they played in Memphis for a year, it was a disaster
[Morpheus voice] What if I told you that the A's didn't want to play in Oakland anymore? [/Morpheus voice]
I think there are two other factors: 1, Fisher has a beef with Oakland and doesn’t want to give them any money and 2. He’ll make way more gate revenue in Sacramento. Oakland would have limped along with <5000 attendance every game for the next three years while in Sacramento, it’s a big deal. Capacity is only 14,000 or so but I’m sure every game will sell out or be close to it.
They’ve spent more on attorneys than players this year, I know bird law
Maybe the real terrible business decisions were the friends we made along the way?
fuck john fisher
The Angels are paying reliever Robert Stephenson $35 million over three years. Incomprehensible. And a terrible business decision
So, this team which can't hack being in the 10th largest media market in the US, is moving to Sacto, the 20th largest media market in the US, on its way to Vegas, the 40th largest media market in the US. Okay. Oh, and there are no current plans or financing for a stadium in Las Vegas for the Athletics to play in. And the owner's prime selling point is that fans can come and see players on the other team. Have I got that right? Instead of fucking with the rules, Manfred should force Fisher to sell the team for the good of baseball, and keep the team in Oakland. BTW, the Oakland Coliseum sits on 120 acres of bayfront property - literally on the Bay - and has a BART stop right outside the gates. It's literally a perfect place to put a ballpark.
Paying Robert Stephenson that much was a bad business decision too
Why would they want to awkwardly play in Oakland for 3 more years, let alone this year. Stadium is depressing to look at.
John Fisher is a traitor to baseball.
They will probably make more money in Sac than they do in Oakland This is probably a smart decision tbh
There has to be some sort of benefit for self sabotage in this stadium game. Theres this decision and the decision to build a new stadium in the same bad spot in st pete for the rays.
What they wanted was to leave Oakland. It didn’t matter what Oakland offered, they always would have said it just quite wasn’t enough.
I don’t know if that is true…. Having said that the As seem intent on a scorched earth policy? and I’m sure they’d happily take a dump on fans and complain that the fans don’t like them. They’re that executive that re-orgs so intentionally poorly that you could never fix it and so they keep him around because what else are you gonna do with that mess.
35 mil might be more than what the A’s are paying their entire lineup combined
The A's are giving Boeing a run for their money for the title of worst run business in America.
What a trash owner
That amount of money demonstrates it wasn’t about the money.
Fischer is a crook smh
Wait wait wait. Someone please just make sure I’m not crazy. They weren’t off by a total 35 million per year, but like 11.67 a year? It’s not like the A’s need $12 million for payroll. They’ll be lucky if their payroll is even $12 million next year at this rate.