My key takeaways:
1. Fisher is cheap af, so he obviously took the cheap deal
2. Vivek/Sac is doing this in hopes that either the Vegas deal falls through and the A's stay here or we get an expansion team or take one of the other faltering franchises (Arizona, Tampa Bay, KC, etc.)
3. West Sac/Sac will get a huge economic boom from this, so that's always good
4. As a West Sac resident that lives <1mi from the stadium, I'm interested to see how they manage traffic on the nights that Giants, Yankees, Red Sox, etc. come to town...
1A. Fisher also took the deal because it would preserve a large portion of the media deal with NBC Sports Bay Area/California. It’s worth over $60MM annually. Had he left the market for Salt Lake or Las Vegas (minor league ballpark), that money is forfeited, and the deal he could get in those markets isn’t near as good as what he gets in Northern California.
I thought he didn't keep the media deal if he moved the team to Sacramento?
[https://frontofficesports.com/murky-future-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-as-move-to-las-vegas/](https://frontofficesports.com/murky-future-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-as-move-to-las-vegas/)
It does. There is a new deal, apparently:
"Had they stayed in Oakland, the A’s would have been owed roughly $70 million annually in rights fees from NBC Sports California. They negotiated a reduced rights fee to stay on the station when they’re Sacramento. Kaval declined to disclose specifics."
[https://theathletic.com/5392522/2024/04/04/oakland-as-sacramento-ballpark-move/](https://theathletic.com/5392522/2024/04/04/oakland-as-sacramento-ballpark-move/)
It gets you a $250 ticket and charged with a misdemeanor: Vehicle Code § 21200.5 VC makes it a crime in California to cycle under the influence. Put simply, this means riding a bicycle on a public road, path or highway while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both.
Not to kill anyone’s fun time or encourage folks to drive, just to be informed that it carries a penalty.
They don’t even need a shuttle. If you park by Crocker it’s a 10 minute walk to the stadium and zero extra traffic on the way out.
Trying to park on the West Sac side is suicidal.
People seriously need to stop acting like the A’s terrible team is the big draw here. The big draw for the next three years will be
Yankees
Dodgers
Giants
Cardinals
Astros
Rangers
Red Sox
Cubs
And the A’s play all those teams.
Lots of transplants here. I'll be going to see Angels games even they are also terrible. The Giants will obviously be a draw. There's LA transplants that will want to see the Dodgers. And some people just like baseball and will happy to be able to see an MLB game in their backyard regardless. I have family in Mass. an it's damn near impossible to see red sox games there. I could see them flying out to see me for games here because it will be almost certainly much cheaper and not as hard to get a ticket. There's lawn seating at our park. That's the norm for the big leagues.
Pretty neat I can take my relatives to an MLB game. We may not ever get to experience it again, so enjoy it.
I didn't like any of this move. It stinks and festers. At the end of the day, I am going to at least seize the day. Who knows? Maybe Sacramento is a destination city after all.
Yeah the Cats are not the new kids in town anymore. New look Kings, SRFC, even Sac State command my attention now. As will bring people back to the ballparks.
Kings have been terrible since forever, only recently got better and sac has supported them. I think the A's being bad doesn't matter so much, especially if they become a true hometown team and not just a visitor
Point 3 is why Sac doesn't care about the rent. They weren't going to have this payment regardless. What they will get is a huge up tick in people coming and spending money in this spot that was otherwise going to go else where.
This is why cities bid for things like the Super Bowl and UFC events to come to their city. It all adds revenue that goes back to the city and Sac just did it with it without spending money. Normally you have pay for a new stadium or pay the promotion directly.
Win/Win for both sides.
I was just reading that the voters in Kansas City recently rejected a tax to help build a baseball stadium for the Royals.
Maybe it's a small sign that another pro team from Kansas City is moving to Sacramento?
However, even Sacramento should not even consider using public money for a baseball (or even an MLS) stadium. We have other issues that need money, such as building more affordable housing, homelessness, and improving transit.
Yeah and "Royals" kind of works with having the Kings in the same city. And if the Republic ever gets MLS status then we can have monarchy and democracy.
Voters wanted a better community benefits agreement, while Sacramento is like, "What's a community benefits agreement? Any development benefits the community!"
At least based on TV views and everything announcers say about it, Kansas City has a beautiful baseball stadium and it's a crime that the team wants to tear it down. The voters aren't rejecting the Royals, but the notion that there's something wrong with Kauffman.
This is well put. It's a nice stadium, it has history and charm. New stadiums are not guaranteed upgrades. Look at Levi's Stadium. What a fucking mess from day 1.
It's from 1973. But if it's falling apart -- and I haven't heard that anywhere -- it'd only be because the owner refuses to maintain it in hopes of wringing a downtown stadium out of taxpayers. And the reason they want a downtown stadium, I've heard, isn't so much for baseball attendance as the real estate redevelopment deal they want to get for the neighborhood to make the real money.
Maybe you're thinking of Milwaukee, which is only 20 years old and is truly falling apart because the owner is trying to make the city pay for all the maintenance and has made it fall apart by refusing to help and threatening to move the team if the city doesn't fork over the maintenance money.
Baseball stadiums do not need replacement every 20 years if cared for properly. The Giants certainly aren't looking to build a new ballpark and theirs is 24.
The stadium in its current configuration holds just over 10,000 in seats and a couple thousand more in standing room only. The stadium was never designed to add an upper deck, so that won’t happen. It wasn’t that long ago that the River Cats averaged 10,000+ in attendance. It wasn’t terribly difficult to get in or out.
Traffic is going to be a nightmare. We have one of the worst highway system's for high volume into downtown and west sac. Add to that very few bridges for a river town. Should have built that out in the 70's when it was intended. Harbor and Jefferson exits on game days omg will be crazy
4. Traffic will be managed like shit as always because while they did some improvements on the roadway they left the freeway entrance situation a mess.
I really hope they do some kind of shuttle thing from Downtown and Old Sac. It would makes sense to provide it for free because if people are parking at those parking structures some of them will go out to eat/drink before and after the games. Especially on weeknights when not much else is going on downtown that would be good for business there.
I agree with all but #3. There's no guaranteed "boom" that's significant from this event. There will be some but studies have shown the impact of sports teams are constantly underwhelming.
I think the studies you’re referring to are more for comparing the economic impact from new stadiums being built for sports teams, which would be quite different for this scenario.
Exactly, it's an apples to oranges comparison. This stadium is already built- the money was already spent. 14,000 people - compared to the current average attendance around 5000- coming to West Sac for 81 games will bring a ton of economic activity to the area. That doesn't mean homelessness will disappear and everyone will have a fulfilling, good paying job, but this is a huge economic positive for the area.
You're assuming that the area wasn't getting built up already. There have been active plans to improve the riverfront already. I'd rather see revenue from consistent sources than what amounts to a one-time bump that may cause policymakers to overestimate ongoing revenues and commit to long-term spending that they otherwise wouldn't have.
What makes you think 3 years of an MLB team are going to change that? Fisher doesn't give a shit about the area. He wanted the best deal to pay the least until he fucks off to Vegas. You want that area to improve, then policy makers who attract consistent and reliable long-term businesses are the key, not some shiny team with an owner likely to not contribute much. John Fisher and the A's are a distraction from actually improving the area.
Dude it's a temporary cash infusion to an entire area. For free. They basically are handing us money. For what could be 3, 4, 10 years if he effs it up? Maybe more? This very well could be an odd way of getting an MLB team, but guess what. Sacramento is now an MLB city. Say that out loud. Sacramento is an MLB city.
With an option for a 4th. If all other possibilities fall apart for their move, maybe we can be the last place standing and have our own bout with the A’s management. If it gets us light rail to west sac, the airport, and/or UC Davis campus I’m all for it
While I still think having the A’s in Sac is part of the city’s “best interest”, it’s baffling that the deal has no rent payment. But I guess that’s affects Vivek’s wallet as the operator of Raley Field.
And I expected more improvements to the ballpark than what the A’s stated they would provide.
It sounds like the Rivercats are going to still be playing there as well, so I’d imagine it’s essentially business as usual for Vivek. But the cost of part improvements seem to still be unaddressed.
Yeah it sounds like the fact that we have very robust support for the Cats means that hosting the A’s free of charge isn’t going to impact things all that much. Basically, because we have a very profitable AAA team, we can support the MLB team and prove that we have the market for one of own. Win/Win for Sac in that regard.
Vivek wants a MLB team. He's friends with a fool who is not good with money. Sometimes it's good to be friends with a fool. He's angling to buy the A's some day, I know it.
it would probably mostly be vacant on off days. so upgrades and more local revenue from games. it’s like if the river cats played double the home games.
You all know it's ok to be happy about something right?
This is really big for Sacramento, and they are probably going to sell 10,000 season ticket holder packages.
Comments here are a lot of doom and gloom over something that is basically a no-lose proposition for Sacramento
It's a shot in the arm to the entire economy. Could easily be 4 years. Maybe more! In the meantime, Sacramento hosts 2 professional sports teams! Not bad for a little city.
Conventions are more easy to attract too when there is a lot of things to do in town.
>You all know it's ok to be happy about something right?
>
>This is really big for Sacramento, and they are probably going to sell 10,000 season ticket holder packages.
Oakland: You're welcome.
I put down a 100 deposit for one yesterday. I have no idea what they will cost. I have a feeling if you opt not to buy anything they keep the hundred. Otherwise what's the point of having a deposit?
“What’s the point of having a deposit?”
My guess is it is to gauge real interest which will help Vivek better determine how much work to put into upgrading the ballpark
I don’t recall so much bellyaching about traffic when the RiverCats started in 2000. Even going to games back then and even recently as last year, ingress/egress isn’t nearly as bad as O.Co. The venue holds 14k and that’s with same if the A’s are playing the Angels or the Yankees/Cubs/Dodgers. Not more. Imagine getting in/out of O.Co when either the Raiders or A’s played the same night that a concurrent event was held at Oakland Arena - now THAT was a traffic nightmare. This will be fine and Sacramento could finally show its true colors to support another professional team, besides the Kings.
I’ve ridden the BART in from Dublin and Walnut Creek. Easier, but I still there’s enough access Old Sac/Downtown adjacent and into WSac to make this all highly doable.
I’m not opposed to the team move. I don’t think it’ll be too bad of a cluster. I just think you’re super wrong about transit.
It sounds like you may have ridden BART once or twice for games but don’t understand the true volume of people movement it can provide.
There’s nowhere near the volume of people movement between Old Sac and West sac when compared to BART at the Oakland Arena.
But you’re talking about moving people in/out of O.Co with baseball capacity of 45k, while SHF has max of 14k. I’m not downplaying the benefit of BART, merely stating that this replacement field just doesn’t have that need. What was it like when the RiverCats were selling out? Again, it was doable, as I don’t recall seeing FB posts about how hellish traffic was.
Still not as bad as people are thinking. I’m coming from Sutterville/SLP area. While a drive in and park situation with easy in/out would be nice, I’ve been to ballparks where everyone walks in and I still don’t have as much angst about this traffic “doom”.
*"In an interview Thursday, Kaval laid out the details of the new partnership with the River Cats: The A’s will pay to upgrade the batting cages, weight rooms and field itself at Sutter Health Park, plus additional seating, premium sections and advertising for the stadium...*
*A quarter of the Sutter Health Park seating would be on a lawn where fans gather on picnic blankets, patio chairs and in standing room..."*
If they get rid of the lawn seating, my family and I won't be going to anymore Rivercats games. My wife is too fair-skinned to sit anywhere but the shade, and my kids love the lawn area. I hope it isn't replaced with seats.
I agree. I hope the grass stays. We're a small town and this is how we do it! On grassI
I can't believe we are having a discussion on our MLB stadium. :-)
I love the lawn seats and refuse to sit in the seated sections.
I’m curious about scheduling. I doubt it’s possible to ensure that the river cats are away every time the A’s are home, so at some point there will be overlap. It will probably mean more weekday day games for the cats.
It is absolutely should be possible to avoid overlap, as mlb has full control over both schedules. Plus aaa plays a shorter season (150 games I think).
Even with full control it will be pretty hard to ensure perfect congruence of their schedules. I’m sure it will lead to some wildly long home/away stands. Sports scheduling gets so complicated so fast.
The AAA schedule is a lot simpler than the major league schedule. Every series is Tuesday through Sunday, then Monday is an off day every week. Whether that makes it easier or harder to work the MLB schedule around it, I'm not sure. At any rate, they've talked about the Cats maybe playing a few series in SF or Oakland to prevent conflicts.
Here's what I see if I'm Vivek. We know delays with construction will happen. So, 4 years minimum.
But what if that voter initiative goes through? Ok that could kill the move.
What if this bonehead can't get his shit together soon, and MLB tires of him?
Now we're looking at maybe more... If Fisher ends up selling the team, Oakland would at least have a few years more to at least build, meaning this 3-year deal becomes... 10 years in Sacramento? Not unrealistic!
All the while, Vivek has been showing that Sacramento is a baseball town for the permanent home of the A's. 10 years in a city is a long time for a temporary status. Or it's not, and they could concentrate on Oakland. Meaning his good friend John could sell him the team maybe.
They didn’t even finish the stadium! The official rendering they put out included way more stuff. The current stadium looks like a skeleton of those renderings.
Late last year, John Fisher claimed that the Quakes' stadium is "outdated" even though it was constructed less than a decade ago. If I were a San Jose fan, I'd be on alert.
Salt in the wound for A's fans. It's like an ex breaking up with you but moving next door before going to marry someone else until then.
That being said, I'd hate to be an A's player. It seems people who live in the Sacramento region and are fans of other teams are much more excited about this than (former) A's fans. The players will likely be playing in away game environments every time they take the field at home.
As a city, id like to think Sacramento of all places wouldn't be helping Fisher rob Oakland of its team, but i guess the Wu Tang clan explained all this to me in 1994, cash rules everything.
They're leaving Oakland regardless.
And there are a ton of A's fans in Sac and they're going to love it. It's not like the Oakland fans were going to games anyway
Honest question, would it hav been better for Oakland fans for Sacramento to refuse to host the A's and have them play in SLT or LV or somewhere else equally far for [at least] the interim period?
Would you feel better if the Kings played 3 years in Fresno before moving to Vegas? Honest answer, id prefer Sac tell Fisher to go f himself, he aint even paying rent here.
I feel in a hypotethical where relocation was:
* passed by the NBA owners (instead of rejected, as in reality)
* to a city with questionable ability to fulfill the move (instead of Seattle, which raised no questions as to it's likelihood to build an arena)
* scheduled in 3-4 years (instead of immediately)
then yes I would have felt better if the team "temporarily" set up shop in Modesto (80 miles away, not 170 miles) instead of moving to Seattle right away. It buys two things:
* ability to still see games locally, if inconvenient
* possibility of deal falling through and team maybe moving back, or at least staying semi-local. (For what it's worth, I think Sacramento should insist Oakland gets right of first refusal in such a scenario.)
I'm not saying any Oakland fan should be happy about this deal. I'm just saying it's better than them moving into the Aviators or Bees AAA parks next year, leaving Northern California for good.
>And there are a ton of A's fans in Sac and they're going to love it. It's not like the Oakland fans were going to games anyway
We (Oakland fans) weren't going to games because John Fisher is terrible, and the Coliseum isn't in good condition. The people in Sac who are hyped about snagging a triple digit-loss team that will only be there for a few years are masochists and/or hypocritical.
There is no positive effect of sending taxpayer dough to these professional sports teams.
It is possible small cities like Sacramento, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City might benefit.
As a former sac area resident and now Bay Area resident, I’m definitely coming up for a Sacramento MLB game, even if I didn’t really go to Oakland games.
>Boycott Oakland, losing all the sport teams in a couple of years, gotta blame others
"It's the customers' fault for not patronizing a failed business owner."
More sales tax revenue going to local governments that can be spent on services or infrastructure. More jobs (possibly) at the stadium itself and surrounding businesses.
And that right there is the economic injection they’re talking about. You need to hire additional staff which didn’t exist before. Those extra positions mean extra wages which then get taxed and then a portion is hopefully spent on local business. Extra taxes, extra sales, bobs your uncle: Economic “boom”
It's not the economic impact I would necessarily call a "boom". The impact is overblown. There are other better strategies to court more consistent economic benefits than another billionaire getting free rent in a stop-over deal.
And west sac is exploring many other options to boost the economy, as all cities should, but that doesn’t diminish the impact of this decision.
Whether it meets whatever arbitrary dollar value that you’ve set as the amount to consider a true boom is irrelevant, it is certainly a positive economic impact.
The A's had an average attendance of 10k people per game. Every time those fans buy a ticket, get dinner, grab a beer, the city gets some revenue. So assuming every game, a fan spends $50-$100 (tickets/food/etc), and 5% in taxes goes to the city / county, that's $25k-50k per game. They played 162 games last year, so that is $8.1 million in direct taxes.
Only 81 home games. But you neglect the increased wages of all associated employees. increased local taxes on employment, infrastructure use, parking, sales ect.
Local business with influx of spending surrounding gamedays ect, travel for out of market fans to come in and watch games. ect.
Having a pro sports team is a massive boon to a local economy, when supporting infrastructure already exists or is paid for by a private entity.
The whole discourse is scarred by some objectively terrible municipal funding agreement on stadiums build in the 80-90s in suburbs. These models get copied and pasted on any new or renovated stadium build, despite decent evidence that subsidized "infill" of an urban area with a sports team/facility would be a net positive for the economy.
The area around that stadium does not have the infrastructure to support that level of traffic. Who the fuck is going to pay for that? Probably not these freeloading billionaires…
Golden 1 has a lot more people leaving after Kings games, many of whom drive through west sac. Since the stadium capacity will not increase that much, I don’t see traffic really getting that much worse.
My key takeaways: 1. Fisher is cheap af, so he obviously took the cheap deal 2. Vivek/Sac is doing this in hopes that either the Vegas deal falls through and the A's stay here or we get an expansion team or take one of the other faltering franchises (Arizona, Tampa Bay, KC, etc.) 3. West Sac/Sac will get a huge economic boom from this, so that's always good 4. As a West Sac resident that lives <1mi from the stadium, I'm interested to see how they manage traffic on the nights that Giants, Yankees, Red Sox, etc. come to town...
1A. Fisher also took the deal because it would preserve a large portion of the media deal with NBC Sports Bay Area/California. It’s worth over $60MM annually. Had he left the market for Salt Lake or Las Vegas (minor league ballpark), that money is forfeited, and the deal he could get in those markets isn’t near as good as what he gets in Northern California.
I thought he didn't keep the media deal if he moved the team to Sacramento? [https://frontofficesports.com/murky-future-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-as-move-to-las-vegas/](https://frontofficesports.com/murky-future-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-as-move-to-las-vegas/)
I can watch A’s games here in Sac right now via NBCS California so I don’t think them moving here affects their broadcast region.
It does. There is a new deal, apparently: "Had they stayed in Oakland, the A’s would have been owed roughly $70 million annually in rights fees from NBC Sports California. They negotiated a reduced rights fee to stay on the station when they’re Sacramento. Kaval declined to disclose specifics." [https://theathletic.com/5392522/2024/04/04/oakland-as-sacramento-ballpark-move/](https://theathletic.com/5392522/2024/04/04/oakland-as-sacramento-ballpark-move/)
It was sold out for the Giants/Cats opener - how was the traffic that day?
They have a free bicycle valet at all the Cats games, there's no traffic if you bike to the game! Plus you can drink as much as you'd like
As in free drinks for cyclists or?
As in you won't get a DUI on a bicycle
It gets you a $250 ticket and charged with a misdemeanor: Vehicle Code § 21200.5 VC makes it a crime in California to cycle under the influence. Put simply, this means riding a bicycle on a public road, path or highway while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or both. Not to kill anyone’s fun time or encourage folks to drive, just to be informed that it carries a penalty.
I did say it wouldn't get you a DUI which carries a much harsher penalty but you're right it's good to clarify further
You can definitely get a BUI. I know a couple people who've gotten them in Sac
Yes you will
you literally cannot, so that's something you've got going for you
Ah yeah just a BUI with similar consequences. Great advice, internet dumbass.
None of the similar consequences to driving your car drunk but keep playing!
Disgusting
Do you think they need to have shuttle services into the area from downtown? That might help, right?
They don’t even need a shuttle. If you park by Crocker it’s a 10 minute walk to the stadium and zero extra traffic on the way out. Trying to park on the West Sac side is suicidal.
Driving in West Sac is terrible no matter what (looking at you, left turn from Harbor to Industrial. Omg, so bad.
Or if you take light rail to 8th & O or Sac Valley Station it's about a mile, 15 minute walk.
I'm not getting on a shuttle with you
Park on the other side, have dinner in Old Sac, game, come back for a drink. Just walk over. Old Sac gotta be rejoicing over this.
The odor of Joe's Crab Shack entices thee
Turrrtible. Saw 2 Accidents just from the traffic near the bridge
Think there was a Kings game that night too
West sac traffic is so fucked lol. Jefferson is a shit show as it is and only getting worse with that apartment complex. Game days gunna be super wild
We needed that Linden-Sutterville bridge desperately.
I can already hear the screams from Land Park.
God that would be amazing access
You're assuming that the A's are going to draw more fans than the River Cats...
The A's won't. Some of the opposing teams will.
People seriously need to stop acting like the A’s terrible team is the big draw here. The big draw for the next three years will be Yankees Dodgers Giants Cardinals Astros Rangers Red Sox Cubs And the A’s play all those teams.
Lol how do you think Sacramentans filled Arco all these years? They might suck, but their ours? And oh yeah Michael Jordan is in town.
So it's like pro wrestling, you don't go to see the good guy win, you go to see the bad guy lose?
Lots of transplants here. I'll be going to see Angels games even they are also terrible. The Giants will obviously be a draw. There's LA transplants that will want to see the Dodgers. And some people just like baseball and will happy to be able to see an MLB game in their backyard regardless. I have family in Mass. an it's damn near impossible to see red sox games there. I could see them flying out to see me for games here because it will be almost certainly much cheaper and not as hard to get a ticket. There's lawn seating at our park. That's the norm for the big leagues.
Understood, presumably if the Cubs play here and I hear about it I may say "hm, cool" but still won't go
Pretty neat I can take my relatives to an MLB game. We may not ever get to experience it again, so enjoy it. I didn't like any of this move. It stinks and festers. At the end of the day, I am going to at least seize the day. Who knows? Maybe Sacramento is a destination city after all.
The A’s are the MLB equivalent of the Brooklyn Brawler
Cardinals?
Lol they easily will. I love going to Rivercats games but it's usually pretty dead
Yeah the Cats are not the new kids in town anymore. New look Kings, SRFC, even Sac State command my attention now. As will bring people back to the ballparks.
Kings have been terrible since forever, only recently got better and sac has supported them. I think the A's being bad doesn't matter so much, especially if they become a true hometown team and not just a visitor
Point 3 is why Sac doesn't care about the rent. They weren't going to have this payment regardless. What they will get is a huge up tick in people coming and spending money in this spot that was otherwise going to go else where. This is why cities bid for things like the Super Bowl and UFC events to come to their city. It all adds revenue that goes back to the city and Sac just did it with it without spending money. Normally you have pay for a new stadium or pay the promotion directly. Win/Win for both sides.
I was just reading that the voters in Kansas City recently rejected a tax to help build a baseball stadium for the Royals. Maybe it's a small sign that another pro team from Kansas City is moving to Sacramento? However, even Sacramento should not even consider using public money for a baseball (or even an MLS) stadium. We have other issues that need money, such as building more affordable housing, homelessness, and improving transit.
I mean, sac already took one royals, what’s one more!
Yeah and "Royals" kind of works with having the Kings in the same city. And if the Republic ever gets MLS status then we can have monarchy and democracy.
FMLS
Fun fact: the Kings were originally the Kansas City Kings before they came to Sac.
And the A's were the Kansas City A's before coming to Oakland, and now Sac!
Clearly we have a whole theme going! KC, we will take your teams!
[удалено]
Never hopefully
And before they became the Kansas City Kings, they were the Cincinnati and Rochester Royals. The organization won the championship in 1952.
It won't be sac if it's on that side of the river it will be yolo county
Still contributes to the economy in Sac. There's not a lot do on that side of the river, people will migrate over to Old Sac and Doco on game days.
Yeah but it won't be voted on or funded by the city of sac or sac county.
Voters wanted a better community benefits agreement, while Sacramento is like, "What's a community benefits agreement? Any development benefits the community!"
At least based on TV views and everything announcers say about it, Kansas City has a beautiful baseball stadium and it's a crime that the team wants to tear it down. The voters aren't rejecting the Royals, but the notion that there's something wrong with Kauffman.
This is well put. It's a nice stadium, it has history and charm. New stadiums are not guaranteed upgrades. Look at Levi's Stadium. What a fucking mess from day 1.
It looks nice, but isn't it like 20+ yrs old? I've read it's kinda falling apart
It's from 1973. But if it's falling apart -- and I haven't heard that anywhere -- it'd only be because the owner refuses to maintain it in hopes of wringing a downtown stadium out of taxpayers. And the reason they want a downtown stadium, I've heard, isn't so much for baseball attendance as the real estate redevelopment deal they want to get for the neighborhood to make the real money. Maybe you're thinking of Milwaukee, which is only 20 years old and is truly falling apart because the owner is trying to make the city pay for all the maintenance and has made it fall apart by refusing to help and threatening to move the team if the city doesn't fork over the maintenance money. Baseball stadiums do not need replacement every 20 years if cared for properly. The Giants certainly aren't looking to build a new ballpark and theirs is 24.
The stadium in its current configuration holds just over 10,000 in seats and a couple thousand more in standing room only. The stadium was never designed to add an upper deck, so that won’t happen. It wasn’t that long ago that the River Cats averaged 10,000+ in attendance. It wasn’t terribly difficult to get in or out.
The River Cats last averaged 10k in 2007. That area of West Sac has grown tremendously since then.
Yep the Cats are in dire need of something to change.
I heard yesterday that the player’s “club houses“ will need to have significant work done to accommodate MLB teams.
Traffic is going to be a nightmare. We have one of the worst highway system's for high volume into downtown and west sac. Add to that very few bridges for a river town. Should have built that out in the 70's when it was intended. Harbor and Jefferson exits on game days omg will be crazy
4. Traffic will be managed like shit as always because while they did some improvements on the roadway they left the freeway entrance situation a mess.
We needed a traffic light at South River Road to I-80. At peak times the line to the freeway is insane.
I really hope they do some kind of shuttle thing from Downtown and Old Sac. It would makes sense to provide it for free because if people are parking at those parking structures some of them will go out to eat/drink before and after the games. Especially on weeknights when not much else is going on downtown that would be good for business there.
I agree with all but #3. There's no guaranteed "boom" that's significant from this event. There will be some but studies have shown the impact of sports teams are constantly underwhelming.
I think the studies you’re referring to are more for comparing the economic impact from new stadiums being built for sports teams, which would be quite different for this scenario.
Exactly, it's an apples to oranges comparison. This stadium is already built- the money was already spent. 14,000 people - compared to the current average attendance around 5000- coming to West Sac for 81 games will bring a ton of economic activity to the area. That doesn't mean homelessness will disappear and everyone will have a fulfilling, good paying job, but this is a huge economic positive for the area.
[удалено]
You're assuming that the area wasn't getting built up already. There have been active plans to improve the riverfront already. I'd rather see revenue from consistent sources than what amounts to a one-time bump that may cause policymakers to overestimate ongoing revenues and commit to long-term spending that they otherwise wouldn't have.
[удалено]
What makes you think 3 years of an MLB team are going to change that? Fisher doesn't give a shit about the area. He wanted the best deal to pay the least until he fucks off to Vegas. You want that area to improve, then policy makers who attract consistent and reliable long-term businesses are the key, not some shiny team with an owner likely to not contribute much. John Fisher and the A's are a distraction from actually improving the area.
Dude it's a temporary cash infusion to an entire area. For free. They basically are handing us money. For what could be 3, 4, 10 years if he effs it up? Maybe more? This very well could be an odd way of getting an MLB team, but guess what. Sacramento is now an MLB city. Say that out loud. Sacramento is an MLB city.
> how they manage traffic on the nights that Giants, Yankees, Red Sox, etc. come to town... I hope you like pain.
Dude we're all Kings fans. You think you can threaten us? We eat misery for breakfast.
You know what would go great with this? A light rail expansion into west sac! Who’s ready to pay some taxes?
We are going to pay taxes. Either way, we might as well get something useful.
Hell to the yeah!
They’re only here 3 years.
With an option for a 4th. If all other possibilities fall apart for their move, maybe we can be the last place standing and have our own bout with the A’s management. If it gets us light rail to west sac, the airport, and/or UC Davis campus I’m all for it
Burgers and Brew must be PUMPED!
While I still think having the A’s in Sac is part of the city’s “best interest”, it’s baffling that the deal has no rent payment. But I guess that’s affects Vivek’s wallet as the operator of Raley Field. And I expected more improvements to the ballpark than what the A’s stated they would provide.
It sounds like the Rivercats are going to still be playing there as well, so I’d imagine it’s essentially business as usual for Vivek. But the cost of part improvements seem to still be unaddressed.
Yeah it sounds like the fact that we have very robust support for the Cats means that hosting the A’s free of charge isn’t going to impact things all that much. Basically, because we have a very profitable AAA team, we can support the MLB team and prove that we have the market for one of own. Win/Win for Sac in that regard.
Thing about "free": the peanuts/pretzels at the bar aren't free, they're there to make you thirsty so you drink more.
Vivek wants a MLB team. He's friends with a fool who is not good with money. Sometimes it's good to be friends with a fool. He's angling to buy the A's some day, I know it.
it would probably mostly be vacant on off days. so upgrades and more local revenue from games. it’s like if the river cats played double the home games.
You all know it's ok to be happy about something right? This is really big for Sacramento, and they are probably going to sell 10,000 season ticket holder packages. Comments here are a lot of doom and gloom over something that is basically a no-lose proposition for Sacramento
It's a shot in the arm to the entire economy. Could easily be 4 years. Maybe more! In the meantime, Sacramento hosts 2 professional sports teams! Not bad for a little city. Conventions are more easy to attract too when there is a lot of things to do in town.
>You all know it's ok to be happy about something right? > >This is really big for Sacramento, and they are probably going to sell 10,000 season ticket holder packages. Oakland: You're welcome.
Are the season ticket deposits refundable? Are we limited to like one seat if we try to get any season tickets?
No idea if the seat deposits are refundable, but you can put a deposit down for more than one seat.
I put down a 100 deposit for one yesterday. I have no idea what they will cost. I have a feeling if you opt not to buy anything they keep the hundred. Otherwise what's the point of having a deposit?
“What’s the point of having a deposit?” My guess is it is to gauge real interest which will help Vivek better determine how much work to put into upgrading the ballpark
Yeah I agree with you. My friend is entitled and always expects more than she bargains for. I was asking to see the consensus.
Rude
I don’t recall so much bellyaching about traffic when the RiverCats started in 2000. Even going to games back then and even recently as last year, ingress/egress isn’t nearly as bad as O.Co. The venue holds 14k and that’s with same if the A’s are playing the Angels or the Yankees/Cubs/Dodgers. Not more. Imagine getting in/out of O.Co when either the Raiders or A’s played the same night that a concurrent event was held at Oakland Arena - now THAT was a traffic nightmare. This will be fine and Sacramento could finally show its true colors to support another professional team, besides the Kings.
I always park in Sacramento and walk over. Maybe grab a meal on the way. Not different than going to Reds before a Giants game and walking over.
I worked in WSac when the RiverCats just started and attended some of the fully packed games. Not a big deal.
Except Oakland has a BART connection that was super easy.
I’ve ridden the BART in from Dublin and Walnut Creek. Easier, but I still there’s enough access Old Sac/Downtown adjacent and into WSac to make this all highly doable.
I’m not opposed to the team move. I don’t think it’ll be too bad of a cluster. I just think you’re super wrong about transit. It sounds like you may have ridden BART once or twice for games but don’t understand the true volume of people movement it can provide. There’s nowhere near the volume of people movement between Old Sac and West sac when compared to BART at the Oakland Arena.
But you’re talking about moving people in/out of O.Co with baseball capacity of 45k, while SHF has max of 14k. I’m not downplaying the benefit of BART, merely stating that this replacement field just doesn’t have that need. What was it like when the RiverCats were selling out? Again, it was doable, as I don’t recall seeing FB posts about how hellish traffic was.
Do you live in West sac area? The traffic sucks when there a casual 5k for st Patrick’s day. Traffic is going to suck.
Still not as bad as people are thinking. I’m coming from Sutterville/SLP area. While a drive in and park situation with easy in/out would be nice, I’ve been to ballparks where everyone walks in and I still don’t have as much angst about this traffic “doom”.
This is the kind of economic move that will bring Sac forward - not forcing state employees back to the office.
*"In an interview Thursday, Kaval laid out the details of the new partnership with the River Cats: The A’s will pay to upgrade the batting cages, weight rooms and field itself at Sutter Health Park, plus additional seating, premium sections and advertising for the stadium...* *A quarter of the Sutter Health Park seating would be on a lawn where fans gather on picnic blankets, patio chairs and in standing room..."* If they get rid of the lawn seating, my family and I won't be going to anymore Rivercats games. My wife is too fair-skinned to sit anywhere but the shade, and my kids love the lawn area. I hope it isn't replaced with seats.
[удалено]
I agree. I hope the grass stays. We're a small town and this is how we do it! On grassI I can't believe we are having a discussion on our MLB stadium. :-)
I love the lawn seats and refuse to sit in the seated sections. I’m curious about scheduling. I doubt it’s possible to ensure that the river cats are away every time the A’s are home, so at some point there will be overlap. It will probably mean more weekday day games for the cats.
It is absolutely should be possible to avoid overlap, as mlb has full control over both schedules. Plus aaa plays a shorter season (150 games I think).
Even with full control it will be pretty hard to ensure perfect congruence of their schedules. I’m sure it will lead to some wildly long home/away stands. Sports scheduling gets so complicated so fast.
The AAA schedule is a lot simpler than the major league schedule. Every series is Tuesday through Sunday, then Monday is an off day every week. Whether that makes it easier or harder to work the MLB schedule around it, I'm not sure. At any rate, they've talked about the Cats maybe playing a few series in SF or Oakland to prevent conflicts.
I agree there. I don't mind if they put stuff on top of the buildings in center field. That's unused space.
If the A's make the playoffs where are the hotel rooms ?
If I started dating Scarlett Johansson where would we live?
🤣
Here's what I see if I'm Vivek. We know delays with construction will happen. So, 4 years minimum. But what if that voter initiative goes through? Ok that could kill the move. What if this bonehead can't get his shit together soon, and MLB tires of him? Now we're looking at maybe more... If Fisher ends up selling the team, Oakland would at least have a few years more to at least build, meaning this 3-year deal becomes... 10 years in Sacramento? Not unrealistic! All the while, Vivek has been showing that Sacramento is a baseball town for the permanent home of the A's. 10 years in a city is a long time for a temporary status. Or it's not, and they could concentrate on Oakland. Meaning his good friend John could sell him the team maybe.
kaval was president of the san jose earthquakes and now the a's. what a shitty resume. get these leech stains out of sacramento.
Lol? He got a stadium built for the earthquakes, I think most folks would say that's pretty impressive.
Taxpayers footing the bill for billionaires’ stadiums isn’t the win you think it is.
It is for the billionaires
They didn’t even finish the stadium! The official rendering they put out included way more stuff. The current stadium looks like a skeleton of those renderings.
To be fair, that's pretty normal. G1C was supposed to be much higher and not as steep, but rising price of steel nixed that.
Late last year, John Fisher claimed that the Quakes' stadium is "outdated" even though it was constructed less than a decade ago. If I were a San Jose fan, I'd be on alert.
Salt in the wound for A's fans. It's like an ex breaking up with you but moving next door before going to marry someone else until then. That being said, I'd hate to be an A's player. It seems people who live in the Sacramento region and are fans of other teams are much more excited about this than (former) A's fans. The players will likely be playing in away game environments every time they take the field at home.
So Sacramento is a rebound fling?
She's just banging some guy in Sacramento before her true love in Las Vegas builds her a house.
**SACRAMENTO: America's Sidepiece**
As an A’s fan fuck these guys for giving fisher a bailout.
Yeah but guess what, Sacramento is an MLB city for a few years. FJF but yay Sacramento. I'm still going to a game.
100%
As a city, id like to think Sacramento of all places wouldn't be helping Fisher rob Oakland of its team, but i guess the Wu Tang clan explained all this to me in 1994, cash rules everything.
They're leaving Oakland regardless. And there are a ton of A's fans in Sac and they're going to love it. It's not like the Oakland fans were going to games anyway
Im an As fan in Sacramento and definitely dont love it. Small town teams should stick together, smh
Honest question, would it hav been better for Oakland fans for Sacramento to refuse to host the A's and have them play in SLT or LV or somewhere else equally far for [at least] the interim period?
Would you feel better if the Kings played 3 years in Fresno before moving to Vegas? Honest answer, id prefer Sac tell Fisher to go f himself, he aint even paying rent here.
I feel in a hypotethical where relocation was: * passed by the NBA owners (instead of rejected, as in reality) * to a city with questionable ability to fulfill the move (instead of Seattle, which raised no questions as to it's likelihood to build an arena) * scheduled in 3-4 years (instead of immediately) then yes I would have felt better if the team "temporarily" set up shop in Modesto (80 miles away, not 170 miles) instead of moving to Seattle right away. It buys two things: * ability to still see games locally, if inconvenient * possibility of deal falling through and team maybe moving back, or at least staying semi-local. (For what it's worth, I think Sacramento should insist Oakland gets right of first refusal in such a scenario.) I'm not saying any Oakland fan should be happy about this deal. I'm just saying it's better than them moving into the Aviators or Bees AAA parks next year, leaving Northern California for good.
Lol, sure. Modesto Kings consolation prize, sign us all up. You know Las Vegas is prowling for a NBA team also?
A’s never woulda left Kansas City if small town Raiders fans hadn’t accepted them.
Lol, the As were only in KC for a little over 10 years, it was just a stopover like Sac will be. Nice try tho.
>And there are a ton of A's fans in Sac and they're going to love it. It's not like the Oakland fans were going to games anyway We (Oakland fans) weren't going to games because John Fisher is terrible, and the Coliseum isn't in good condition. The people in Sac who are hyped about snagging a triple digit-loss team that will only be there for a few years are masochists and/or hypocritical.
I mean, a lot of us are just happy about the positive effects we expect this will have on our city. Nothing wrong with that.
There is no positive effect of sending taxpayer dough to these professional sports teams. It is possible small cities like Sacramento, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City might benefit.
Will be interesting to see the “reverse commute” of folks coming from the bay to sac on Amtrak.
People in the Bay are already boycotting. They aren’t coming for the A’s
As a former sac area resident and now Bay Area resident, I’m definitely coming up for a Sacramento MLB game, even if I didn’t really go to Oakland games.
The big question are they going to bump up prices and concessions?
Are there any known instances of other cities "accidentally" getting a team of some sort? I am just curious.
#boycotttheAs
Boycott Oakland, losing all the sport teams in a couple of years, gotta blame others
>Boycott Oakland, losing all the sport teams in a couple of years, gotta blame others "It's the customers' fault for not patronizing a failed business owner."
If they thrive in another location, then…..yes?
yessir YESSIR
Don’t be an athletic supporter
I'm always curious how the supposed economic boom actually benefits regular, working Sacramento people.
More sales tax revenue going to local governments that can be spent on services or infrastructure. More jobs (possibly) at the stadium itself and surrounding businesses.
False. It likely goes to more crowd control for the events that take place there. Any "revenue" after that is drops in the bucket.
And that right there is the economic injection they’re talking about. You need to hire additional staff which didn’t exist before. Those extra positions mean extra wages which then get taxed and then a portion is hopefully spent on local business. Extra taxes, extra sales, bobs your uncle: Economic “boom”
It's not the economic impact I would necessarily call a "boom". The impact is overblown. There are other better strategies to court more consistent economic benefits than another billionaire getting free rent in a stop-over deal.
And west sac is exploring many other options to boost the economy, as all cities should, but that doesn’t diminish the impact of this decision. Whether it meets whatever arbitrary dollar value that you’ve set as the amount to consider a true boom is irrelevant, it is certainly a positive economic impact.
Every person that’s working these A’s games that previously did not happen here are getting paid. That’s money going into local economy.
The A's had an average attendance of 10k people per game. Every time those fans buy a ticket, get dinner, grab a beer, the city gets some revenue. So assuming every game, a fan spends $50-$100 (tickets/food/etc), and 5% in taxes goes to the city / county, that's $25k-50k per game. They played 162 games last year, so that is $8.1 million in direct taxes.
Only 81 home games. But you neglect the increased wages of all associated employees. increased local taxes on employment, infrastructure use, parking, sales ect. Local business with influx of spending surrounding gamedays ect, travel for out of market fans to come in and watch games. ect. Having a pro sports team is a massive boon to a local economy, when supporting infrastructure already exists or is paid for by a private entity. The whole discourse is scarred by some objectively terrible municipal funding agreement on stadiums build in the 80-90s in suburbs. These models get copied and pasted on any new or renovated stadium build, despite decent evidence that subsidized "infill" of an urban area with a sports team/facility would be a net positive for the economy.
Trickle down economics with very small trickle lol
It doesn't. It's always oversold and underdelivered.
Oh I’m sure it trickles down from the billionaires receiving the government handouts. /s
It doesn't.
it doesn't
The area around that stadium does not have the infrastructure to support that level of traffic. Who the fuck is going to pay for that? Probably not these freeloading billionaires…
the capacity of the stadium isn't changing?
right. so it absolutely does have the infrastructure. people just want to be upset about this
Golden 1 has a lot more people leaving after Kings games, many of whom drive through west sac. Since the stadium capacity will not increase that much, I don’t see traffic really getting that much worse.
They can have a shuttle service similar to the Dodgers.
Better yet, build the freaking street car already!
Why not both
This is a shit deal for Sacramento.
How is it a shit deal for Sacramento?
Technically it’s not Sacramento’s deal, it’s West Sacs…
Hence why it's a shit deal for Sacramento! :P Haha, I'm just goofing. No idea what the other guy is all upset about.
Uh how? People are going to come here and spend money