Oakland A's and Tampa Bay Rays Potential Relocation Thread

Will the A's/Rays have to relocate?


  • Total voters
    141

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,592
609
Martinaise, Revachol
Tampa can't buy their way out of the lease until at least 2024, I believe.

The Rays would have a place to go (Nashville, Portland, Montreal), but the problem is that MLB wants to expand to two cities; leaving two teams (TB/OAK) with one city to go to should they need to move.

Like Mightygoose says, MLB is waiting on a stadium deal for OAK/TB before they can expand, but the reality is that they do not need to get deals done in BOTH Oakland and Tampa before expanding, they just need Oakland or Tampa to bite on a new stadium for their teams, and then the other one has the leverage they need.
I know the lease is written quite comprehensively to deal with these situations, but I thought the 2024 date was when the penalties for breaking early start to become pro-rated based on the time remaining. But there is no impediment to the parties mutually agreeing to a new deal, if they so chose. Sternberg is using Montreal as leverage for a new stadium, but if public authorities aren't going to give the Rays and MLB what they want, they'll simply wait for the lease to expire and then move without any restrictions, giving St. Petersburg nothing. Have to imagine that, at least theoretically, St. Pete would at least consider a deal.

I don't get the impression that MLB wants to rush expansion/relocation. Yes, it would suck for Tampa to remain in that shithole for six more years, and Oakland could use a new stadium yesterday, but six years is not that long. I still think it's more likely that Oakland will get a deal done (and they would already have one if SF would relinquish San Jose). Once that is in place, you can either wait out the St. Pete lease, move forward with expansion with the two cities who are closest to being ready (likely Montreal/Nashville) and then move the Rays to the third city for the 2028 season.

I am not sure where Sternberg's headspace is now. With no insider information I doubt he is very optimistic that he'll get a new stadium in the Tampa area. But I don't know if his contingency if he doesn't get the stadium is to pursue relocation to Montreal himself (with or without Bronfman), pursue relocation elsewhere in the United States, or simply sell the team to someone else who will relocate.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I know the lease is written quite comprehensively to deal with these situations, but I thought the 2024 date was when the penalties for breaking early start to become pro-rated based on the time remaining. But there is no impediment to the parties mutually agreeing to a new deal, if they so chose. Sternberg is using Montreal as leverage for a new stadium, but if public authorities aren't going to give the Rays and MLB what they want, they'll simply wait for the lease to expire and then move without any restrictions, giving St. Petersburg nothing. Have to imagine that, at least theoretically, St. Pete would at least consider a deal.

I don't get the impression that MLB wants to rush expansion/relocation. Yes, it would suck for Tampa to remain in that shithole for six more years, and Oakland could use a new stadium yesterday, but six years is not that long. I still think it's more likely that Oakland will get a deal done (and they would already have one if SF would relinquish San Jose). Once that is in place, you can either wait out the St. Pete lease, move forward with expansion with the two cities who are closest to being ready (likely Montreal/Nashville) and then move the Rays to the third city for the 2028 season.

I am not sure where Sternberg's headspace is now. With no insider information I doubt he is very optimistic that he'll get a new stadium in the Tampa area. But I don't know if his contingency if he doesn't get the stadium is to pursue relocation to Montreal himself (with or without Bronfman), pursue relocation elsewhere in the United States, or simply sell the team to someone else who will relocate.

Right, contracts are just agreements that the parties can amend anytime they feel like it. It just doesn't make any sense for the Rays to buy their way out yet, considering they don't have a destination to go to; and it doesn't make sense for the city of Tampa to negotiate the Rays exit, either.

The only reason MLB isn't rushing to expand is because BOTH Tampa and Oakland have this issue. If Oakland built a new stadium in 2010 and moved in already, MLB probably would have either expanded by now, or have at least awarded teams and been arguing over how to format the league with 32. Manfred has mentioned expansion like every 6 months for at least 5 years, probably closer to 7. MLB isn't looking to drum up interest. They have 3 candidates who are seriously into the process.

And don't get me started on the Giants/San Jose debacle. The Giants have San Jose exclusively because (a) the A's signed their consent to streamline the process when baseball was in massive turmoil and didn't have time to take a league-wide vote, then (b) when AL/NL merged operations, someone rewriting three old documents into one MLB document misinterpreted that consent into exclusive territory and the A's new owners signed off on the new documents. It was a clerical error. It shouldn't be the Giants exclusive territory.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,402
2,742
Right, contracts are just agreements that the parties can amend anytime they feel like it. It just doesn't make any sense for the Rays to buy their way out yet, considering they don't have a destination to go to; and it doesn't make sense for the city of Tampa to negotiate the Rays exit, either.

The only reason MLB isn't rushing to expand is because BOTH Tampa and Oakland have this issue. If Oakland built a new stadium in 2010 and moved in already, MLB probably would have either expanded by now, or have at least awarded teams and been arguing over how to format the league with 32. Manfred has mentioned expansion like every 6 months for at least 5 years, probably closer to 7. MLB isn't looking to drum up interest. They have 3 candidates who are seriously into the process.

And don't get me started on the Giants/San Jose debacle. The Giants have San Jose exclusively because (a) the A's signed their consent to streamline the process when baseball was in massive turmoil and didn't have time to take a league-wide vote, then (b) when AL/NL merged operations, someone rewriting three old documents into one MLB document misinterpreted that consent into exclusive territory and the A's new owners signed off on the new documents. It was a clerical error. It shouldn't be the Giants exclusive territory.

If MLB wasn't give anti-trust exemption by the courts, the giants wouldn't been able to block the attempt of the A's to go to San Jose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,592
609
Martinaise, Revachol
Right, contracts are just agreements that the parties can amend anytime they feel like it. It just doesn't make any sense for the Rays to buy their way out yet, considering they don't have a destination to go to; and it doesn't make sense for the city of Tampa to negotiate the Rays exit, either.

The only reason MLB isn't rushing to expand is because BOTH Tampa and Oakland have this issue. If Oakland built a new stadium in 2010 and moved in already, MLB probably would have either expanded by now, or have at least awarded teams and been arguing over how to format the league with 32. Manfred has mentioned expansion like every 6 months for at least 5 years, probably closer to 7. MLB isn't looking to drum up interest. They have 3 candidates who are seriously into the process.

And don't get me started on the Giants/San Jose debacle. The Giants have San Jose exclusively because (a) the A's signed their consent to streamline the process when baseball was in massive turmoil and didn't have time to take a league-wide vote, then (b) when AL/NL merged operations, someone rewriting three old documents into one MLB document misinterpreted that consent into exclusive territory and the A's new owners signed off on the new documents. It was a clerical error. It shouldn't be the Giants exclusive territory.
I know, what I’m saying is if Montreal (or any of the other cities) was ready to put shovels in the ground for a new stadium, you’d see talks to contractually break the Rays out of St. Pete, or expansion formally proceed. You wouldn’t have a situation where the new prospective city and MLB freeze over who is going to make the first move. It would all just come together seamlessly.
 

Bondurant

Registered User
Jul 4, 2012
6,395
5,727
Phoenix, Arizona
There's no movement for the Rays because they're holding an empty gun.

These deals don't usually get done until politicians realize "I can't be the person who let the team leave or I won't get re-elected" and the Rays can't leave for another 7 years. All those politicians have to run again FIRST before that time comes. So, there's no reason for them to move now.
Tampa is a different animal. Rays don't move the needle. There is no political reckoning if Rays move.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I know, what I’m saying is if Montreal (or any of the other cities) was ready to put shovels in the ground for a new stadium, you’d see talks to contractually break the Rays out of St. Pete, or expansion formally proceed. You wouldn’t have a situation where the new prospective city and MLB freeze over who is going to make the first move. It would all just come together seamlessly.

That could be true if the A's stadium deal was done. What happens if you play a game of Musical Chairs with more chairs than people? It goes on for eternity.

That's what's happening now: There's no risk of BOTH teams leaving their markets, because there's 3 cites out there and four teams for those three cities to get (Expansion 1, Expansion 2, Rays, Athletics).

The only place for the A's and Rays to move to is the "expansion loser" city, which will only get one team, leaving the other with no leverage for a new stadium; and that's why MLB can't expand yet.

Now, there's one other potential city that enters the picture if MLB said "screw it, expanded first!" And it's crazy, and will never happen, but is fun to think about: The Rays move to Montreal, and Nashville and Portland get expansion teams; Now there's a city the A's could go to: Tampa Bay. If losing the Rays makes the city of Tampa or St. Pete, or whichever technically, willing to build a stadium -- we've seen it in Minnesota and Winnipeg with the NHL, Cleveland in the NFL, Charlotte and the NBA -- then the A's could move there.

That same situation, but going the other way: From Tampa to Oakland would be a lot more complicated due to the shared market of the Bay Area. Chances are that scenario (which again is never going to happen but fun to ponder) would be that the A's decide to move, so Oakland then courts the Rays; and an agreement is reached where the TB owners take over the A's in Oakland, while the A's ownership takes over a rebranded team in the new city.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Tampa is a different animal. Rays don't move the needle. There is no political reckoning if Rays move.

The Rays ARE popular. It's just not convenient for the fans to go to the stadium's location, hence this whole ordeal. Their local TV ratings are 14th in MLB, and if you market-adjusted that, their share is quite good. (I wish we had actual stats for TV market size for each team based on how the USA/Canada is divided 30 ways, because looking at DMAs and CSA is silly when every inch of US/Canada is carved up among the teams).


But you do have a point, TAMPA don't really need to bend over backwards for the Rays, because they can't LOSE the Rays. They're St. Pete's to lose.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
That could be true if the A's stadium deal was done. What happens if you play a game of Musical Chairs with more chairs than people? It goes on for eternity.

That's what's happening now: There's no risk of BOTH teams leaving their markets, because there's 3 cites out there and four teams for those three cities to get (Expansion 1, Expansion 2, Rays, Athletics).

The only place for the A's and Rays to move to is the "expansion loser" city, which will only get one team, leaving the other with no leverage for a new stadium; and that's why MLB can't expand yet.

Now, there's one other potential city that enters the picture if MLB said "screw it, expanded first!" And it's crazy, and will never happen, but is fun to think about: The Rays move to Montreal, and Nashville and Portland get expansion teams; Now there's a city the A's could go to: Tampa Bay. If losing the Rays makes the city of Tampa or St. Pete, or whichever technically, willing to build a stadium -- we've seen it in Minnesota and Winnipeg with the NHL, Cleveland in the NFL, Charlotte and the NBA -- then the A's could move there.

That same situation, but going the other way: From Tampa to Oakland would be a lot more complicated due to the shared market of the Bay Area. Chances are that scenario (which again is never going to happen but fun to ponder) would be that the A's decide to move, so Oakland then courts the Rays; and an agreement is reached where the TB owners take over the A's in Oakland, while the A's ownership takes over a rebranded team in the new city.
Its not going to happen but I would like to see the rays owner take over one of MLB's problem children (CWS MIA BAL).If he sells the rays to an ownership group that will move the team.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Its not going to happen but I would like to see the rays owner take over one of MLB's problem children (CWS MIA BAL).If he sells the rays to an ownership group that will move the team.
Miami isn't selling.... Centrum.... it's Jeter..... the White Sox aren't a problem franchise.... if that happens, likely a new ownership would be forced to take on the Bulls in addition to the White Sox..... what makes Baltimore a problematic franchise if the Nationals aren't splitting their territory
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chan790

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
Its not going to happen but I would like to see the rays owner take over one of MLB's problem children (CWS MIA BAL).If he sells the rays to an ownership group that will move the team.

Don't know about issues with CWS and MIA. Regarding Baltimore, after months...perhaps over a year of lease extension talks, it's only been extended by 2 years.

Maryland Stadium Authority, Baltimore Orioles Agree To 2-Year Lease Extension At Camden Yards – CBS Baltimore (cbslocal.com)

It was originally up after this upcoming season and they had a 5 year option. So after all that they lock in shorter time frame. They now have a 5 year option Feb 1, 2023.

They also have a cloudy ownership situation that I don't think gets resolved until Peter Angelo passes. One would think setting up a long term lease would be a priority if the team we're to be on the market soon.
 
Last edited:

Maestro84

Registered User
May 3, 2018
2,120
1,634
Toronto
It's such a shame Tampa gets no local support for their teams. They've all been having some unbelievable success recently:

Lightning - Stanley Cup Champs
Bucs - Super Bowl Champs
Rays - World Series Finalists
Temporarily got an NBA team playing in their city

If this were any other city, they'd be at an-time high in terms of excitement and cockiness, but because it's Tampa, no one there gives a s*** since none of them are even from TB. Imagine if this were Boston or Toronto or Philly, we'd never hear the end of it from their fans lol
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
It's such a shame Tampa gets no local support for their teams. They've all been having some unbelievable success recently:

Lightning - Stanley Cup Champs
Bucs - Super Bowl Champs
Rays - World Series Finalists
Temporarily got an NBA team playing in their city

If this were any other city, they'd be at an-time high in terms of excitement and cockiness, but because it's Tampa, no one there gives a s*** since none of them are even from TB. Imagine if this were Boston or Toronto or Philly, we'd never hear the end of it from their fans lol

Again, they DO give a shit... it's a geography problem. Look at a map of the Tampa Bay area. You've got 1 million people on the left half, 1.4 million on the right half.

If you built a stadium in the exact center of the metro population so EVERYONe who wants to go easily can.... you'd be underwater

upload_2021-2-12_15-46-53.png
 

oknazevad

Registered User
Dec 12, 2018
470
329
The coliseum site has so much space for new A’s ballpark idk why they are so determined to keep Oakland arena standing.
The arena is fully functional, if a little cramped, and the Bay Area is big enough that a third venue is viable for things like concerts even without a major tenant. Heck, the Cow Palace still books shows, and that place is ancient and small. No need to knock down the arena.

That said, a new, smaller ballpark on what's now part of the Coliseum parking lot would be a much less disruptive idea. However, the team has never seemed to like the idea, apparently because the kinda out-of-the way, semi-suburban location of the Coliseum is seen as outdated in an era of centrally located ballparks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Centrum Hockey

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
Might be more in the partial Rays relocation file...or could be expansion

Stade de baseball | Stephen Bronfman veut une aide financière de Québec | La Presse

Rough translation on part of the article.

"For several years, Mr. Bronfman's group has avoided giving details of how the new baseball stadium would be funded. But Claridge, Stephan Bronfman's investment company, just registered Monday with the Quebec Lobbyists Register so he could discuss with the Legault government a "financial contribution" from Quebec for the baseball stadium. Claridge did not specify the exact amount or form of the "financial contribution" requested for this multi-hundred-million-dollar project. "The money will be used to build the complex. The amount of this financial contribution remains to be determined, as are the sources of funding," the lobbying mandate states.

According to public lobbying records, Mr. Bronfman's group did not apply to the Government of Canada and the City of Montreal for this project. However, the land coveted by Mr. Bronfman's group at Peel Basin is owned by the federal government through the Canada Lands Corporation"

And now the ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHRDANHUTCH

BKIslandersFan

F*** off
Sep 29, 2017
11,447
5,060
Brooklyn
Tampa can't buy their way out of the lease until at least 2024, I believe.

The Rays would have a place to go (Nashville, Portland, Montreal), but the problem is that MLB wants to expand to two cities; leaving two teams (TB/OAK) with one city to go to should they need to move.

Like Mightygoose says, MLB is waiting on a stadium deal for OAK/TB before they can expand, but the reality is that they do not need to get deals done in BOTH Oakland and Tampa before expanding, they just need Oakland or Tampa to bite on a new stadium for their teams, and then the other one has the leverage they need.
Honestly, considering it takes time to get a new stadium built elsewhere, Rays don't really need to break the lease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: generalshepherd141

Mightygoose

Registered User
Nov 5, 2012
5,586
1,382
Ajax, ON
The A's have been very public on the city voting on the Howard Terminal plan before council breaks for the summer.

The passive threat is the next card to be played.
 

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,852
564
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
What does Oakland net from local TV rights?

What can Oakland net from TV rights in a new East Bay location? (Imagine them finding land just on the Alameda County side of the line with Santa Clara County, much closer to San Jose than Oakland)

What can they get in Las Vegas? [spit take] What can they get in Portland (somewhat better, but it’s not California)?

Vancouver? :D
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->