That's a good thing for Sacramento and another reason I think the idea of Oakland making unreasonable demands would be a mistake.
It still isn't one hundred percent that the A's are in Vegas in 2028 (I think it's probably 80-90% but not absolute yet with Fisher factored in) and if it didn't go through then Sacramento would likely be in the driver's seat for the A's since they would already be there and have an existing relationship.
If Oakland had that opportunity and chose to be unreasonable and let it slip through their hands they'd probably regret it.
I think our views in general are similar, it's just the differentiating between a "permanent home" and "temporary home" for the A's.
The A's walked away from negotiations with Oakland on a permanent home and signed a loose deal with Vegas and applied for relocation with MLB.
That's pretty much slamming the door shut on Oakland as a permanent home -- the Howard Terminal deal was nearing the finish line, they weren't that far apart. And so asking about a lease extension is like "I'm divorcing you, but let's keep sleeping together for three years." It's not unreasonable to say "We can try and make this work, or you can get out now."
The main reason for the A's to want Sacramento (and Oakland) over Utah or Nashville is their existing TV deal for $70m from NBC Sports California. Given the state of RSNs, they're not getting a better deal than that in a smaller market.
If the Las Vegas deal falls apart, Sacramento would be interested, but the Sacramento Athletics really doesn't make sense for either party:
Forget about their willingness to build a $1.5 billion or more taxpayer funded stadium. (Getting the NBA arena done took seven years and they almost lost the team like four times). The Howard Terminal project is way bigger than that and closer to the finish line than starting from scratch in Sacramento.
Brodie Brazil, who's a Bay Area media guy summed it up on his YouTube channel quite nicely:
The Sacramento A's would be both "too close for a 'honeymoon' and too far from 'home.'"
You don't get the Honeymoon effect of "This is OUR team! We finally got one!" like you would in a brand new market. You get that from A's fans in Sacramento, but Giants games have been on TV in Sacramento this entire time and they've been better than the A's the last 20 years. Most those fans are gonna just keep watching the Giants (now hundred years from now, that would shift).
But at the same time, half the A's fans in the East Bay are gonna consider that "losing the A's." They'll have bad feelings about their team being 80 miles away and won't go to games. Those who are "at least they're semi-local" will just go to less games, because it's 80 miles.
Now, if the A's move to Vegas or Salt Lake, then an EXPANSION team in Sacramento could make a lot more sense; (a) the Giants couldn't stop it and they can fight an Oakland replacement team to the death. (b) a new Sacramento expansion team WOULD be like "finally our own team" for the A's fans, who's team just left to another state and are no longer on TV, AND to some Giants fans, who's games COULD disappear from TV. And the available place to build in Sacramento is the site of Arco Arena and the failed MLB stadium plan from the late 80s, which is North of the city, which can still work for expansion, works against them for the A's.
