MLB Off-Topic

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Kid 24

I can't imagine MLB would actually let this happen before Oakland and Tampa get a new stadium?

Why would they care?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Kid 24

I can't imagine MLB would actually let this happen before Oakland and Tampa get a new stadium?

I think if it were just up to MLB, both Oakland and Tampa Bay would've relocated already. As it stands, the Giants are blocking Oakland from moving anywhere that makes sense (this is largely out of MLB's control) and the St. Pete Rays are hamstrung by their stadium lease agreement/fines/litigation. MLB is not preventing either team from moving...other factors are.

In the case of Arizona, even though their ballpark is in no way as shabby as Oakland's or St. Pete's, it may still be easier depending on them already owning territorial rights to anywhere around Phoenix (thus avoiding Oakland's issue) and depending on if their lease has been violated by another party (thus potentially avoiding the Rays' issue).

If it's simply a matter of fundraising, that greatly simplifies the process of getting a new park.

Personally, I kinda like their park and hope the issue gets resolved with some funds for maintenance, but we'll see.

[Steven78]

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/0...l-sue-to-move/

[The Kid 24]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Why would they care?

They don't have any say over stadiums? Oakland and Tampa badly need something new before Arizona gets a new one.

[55]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Kid 24

They don't have any say over stadiums? Oakland and Tampa badly need something new before Arizona gets a new one.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[The Kid 24]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Ah ok... I wasn't sure.

Sent from my LG G2 using Tapatalk

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Kid 24

They don't have any say over stadiums? Oakland and Tampa badly need something new before Arizona gets a new one.

Quote: Originally Posted by The Kid 24

Ah ok... I wasn't sure. Sent from my LG G2 using Tapatalk

MLB has *some* say over stadiums, but for the most part this 'say' is only exerted when teams relocate from one market to another along with getting a new stadium. Clubs have been known to police each other over territorial infringement (i.e. when the Expos changed into the Nats and moved into Baltimore's "turf", an agreement that satisfied Peter Angelos...O's owner...had to be made) and MLB can really only help facilitate in making a deal to avoid litigation here.

In addition to this, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the owners also have to approve of relocation bids (3/4 majority in NL and simple majority in AL for an NL club to move), but this is, again, only when relocation to another market occurs (for example, the Braves didn't have to get MLB approval to go to Cobb County and build SunTrust Park).

MLB doesn't give new stadium funds to teams directly (although there is revenue sharing); the most MLB can do is saber-rattle and help lobby for taxpayer $$$ not being put up by the team's ownership. So in some ways, follow the money to its source to figure out where the 'control' really is with new stadiums. Oftentimes, it's state and local governments pulling the levers of power there.

There are also specific codes that an MLB ballpark needs to conform to (which is standardized according to best engineering practices and amenities to some degree), and the building codes are set by all kinds of different regulatory entities, but each team has a lot of leeway to build the ballpark the way they want it, when they want it and so forth without oversight by MLB.

So to summarize, the D'Backs aren't looking to relocate so the MLB voting process for relocation wouldn't apply to them. All they need to do is find a billion dollars on the side of the road to build a totally new stadium if they want to.

[The Kid 24]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

MLB has *some* say over stadiums, but for the most part this 'say' is only exerted when teams relocate from one market to another along with getting a new stadium. Clubs have been known to police each other over territorial infringement (i.e. when the Expos changed into the Nats and moved into Baltimore's "turf", an agreement that satisfied Peter Angelos...O's owner...had to be made) and MLB can really only help facilitate in making a deal to avoid litigation here. In addition to this, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the owners also have to approve of relocation bids (3/4 majority in NL and simple majority in AL for an NL club to move), but this is, again, only when relocation to another market occurs (for example, the Braves didn't have to get MLB approval to go to Cobb County and build SunTrust Park). MLB doesn't give new stadium funds to teams directly (although there is revenue sharing); the most MLB can do is saber-rattle and help lobby for taxpayer $$$ not being put up by the team's ownership. So in some ways, follow the money to its source to figure out where the 'control' really is with new stadiums. Oftentimes, it's state and local governments pulling the levers of power there. There are also specific codes that an MLB ballpark needs to conform to (which is standardized according to best engineering practices and amenities to some degree), and the building codes are set by all kinds of different regulatory entities, but each team has a lot of leeway to build the ballpark the way they want it, when they want it and so forth without oversight by MLB. So to summarize, the D'Backs aren't looking to relocate so the MLB voting process for relocation wouldn't apply to them. All they need to do is find a billion dollars on the side of the road to build a totally new stadium if they want to.

Thanks, I understand it now.

Sent from my LG G2 using Tapatalk