This afternoon, the St. Petersburg City Council approved $22.5MM in funding to repair the Tropicana Field roof (link via The Associated Press). That’s less the half the overall estimated $55.7MM necessary to get the Trop back to playable after last fall’s hurricane damage. Other necessary fixes include repairs to the playing surface and lighting. The roof is expected to take 10 months, according to The AP.
“We are pleased to see City Council take this important step toward preparing Tropicana Field for Major League Baseball in time for 2026 Opening Day,” Rays president Brian Auld said in a statement. “We commend in particular city, Rays and MLB staff for their cooperative efforts to get us to this point.”
The City of St. Petersburg owns Tropicana Field, which it leases to the Rays. The city is therefore obligated to cover repair costs. Major League Baseball and the Rays have maintained hope that the field will be ready by Opening Day. They have three years left on their lease. Since the field is not in use this year, the lease is extended by one season. They’re contracted to play at The Trop through 2028, assuming they’re able to return to the stadium next year.
What happens after that is unknown. Colleen Wright of The Tampa Bay Times wrote earlier this week that the project for a new ballpark to be built in St. Petersburg officially died on Tuesday. The Rays had already announced they would not proceed with that plan, citing cost overruns related to delays in the county’s approval of bonds. Unlike the Tropicana Field repairs, the Rays would have been responsible for excess costs on the new stadium. The bonds nevertheless technically remained available until March 31, when the tentative agreement formally lapsed because the Rays had not met necessary construction benchmarks.
The Rays were not permitted to speak with other municipalities until the St. Petersburg deal officially expired. Team president Matt Silverman suggested last month that they could reengage with the City of Tampa and Hillsborough County after March 31. Commissioner Rob Manfred has repeatedly stated that MLB remains committed to finding a solution in the Tampa Bay area. The Rays could not explore relocation without league approval.
I could barely do my kitchen for $22.5m these days
You live next door to Mark Attanasio?
Great. Now we get to watch games in that dump for the next three years.
Fenway Park is older and technically more of a dump than Tropicana Field. You’ll survive.
They’re both dumps.
Disagree. Fenway is old, and shows it, but it’s still a great place to watch baseball. The Trop? Not so much.
Fenway is still the best MLB experience I’ve had. Sure, it has some bad sightlines, narrow pathways and odd configurations, but the reno they did was impressive and welcome to the alternative of, like Yankee Stadium, creating a newer, shinier hollow replica
Only if the best baseball experience includes being treated rudely by Red Sox Nation, then yes.
welcome to the alternative of, like Yankee Stadium,
========================
I miss the history of old YS, but that was beyond a dump. The new YS has the aura of the Roman Coliseum.
@Jean Matrac
Fenway doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not which is the reason a manual scoreboard remains in use. One of my fav ballparks. Will be there next Tues. against the Blue Jays for a game (and rooting for both teams to lose).
The aura of Roman Coliseum……lol.
==================
Maybe by way of the Vegas Strip.
I also save a bit of coin on my Italian vacations by taking the family to Olive Garden. There, we’re family.
YBC, I moved to Boston for school, and stayed longer than I wanted to, because that’s where the jobs were for me. I didn’t particularly like living there, though I can understand why some do, and I moved away as soon as the opportunity arose.
But I loved going to Fenway. It wasn’t unusual for me to go 30+ times a season. When I was there bleacher seats w/o a back were $2, and with a back were $3. I avoided the $2 seats because it could get rowdy and you’ could get soaked in beer. I saw Roger Clemens’ first 20 strikeout game from a $3 seat. I sat in seats all over the park, except for the monster seats. They didn’t exist until after I left. Fenway was a special place for me.
@Run
It’s a beautiful ballpark stop being a hater.
Phillies ballpark tops in all of baseball
They don’t call them “Massholes” for nothing ya know.
Can we talk about how tickets used to be $3 and beer cheap enough to soak each other in? Yes inflation I know but how nice it would be to not spend crazy amounts of money to watch a live game on a whim
manfraud, Well, that was in the 1980s, and I remember Jim Rice being booed loudly for any failure because he was making the outrageous salary of $2M a year.
But I acknowledge your point. My wife and are I retired, and we live about 90 miles north of Sacramento. I looked into attending an A’s game, but the $185.00 for the cheapest tickets (not counting the lawn seating) shot down that idea. We’ll stick to going to River Cats games.
I think I paid bleacher seat admission at Fenway in mid 70’s— 50 cents/ or 75 cents, beer 50 cents/ or 75cents— as a college student walking distance to the Dorm, amazing experience. With the SOX honoring ‘75 team today at opening day, I can’t believe I went to 1975 World Series 50 years ago.. still can’t believe Bill Lee gave up “Ephus – floater trick pitch “ homerun to Tony in game 7 of 1975 series to tie game up before Joe Morgan singled in winning run for the Reds in game 7… WOW! —- I liked the old 70’s Fenway, which is funny because it’s still the old Fenway but with updates now….
Phillies Citizen’s park, Never been there, but watching on TV, stadium and the crazy amazing fans make that stadium special…
Hello Nashville?
Blasphemy!!
Only one of the 2 is a cathedral to the game of baseball.
Hopefully Rays can get a stadium somewhere in TB/St Pete area. It sucks fans have to suffer for that parasite of an owner who has made an insane fortune off taxpayer $.
Fenway park is a MLB treasure. Not to mention iconic
Don’t watch
More curious to find what it’s like in Tampa later this year. Sacramento is extremely expensive and had many empty seats for 2 of 3 games. I assume they were sold but nobody showed up. And I’m talking 10 rows in front of home plate and 10 rows behind dugout. For fans that don’t want to buy a cable TV package to watch games on TV are they willing to pay $160 a seat or $75 for a lawn spot and $17 for a huge can of beer? This year will prove interesting as MLB has 2 teams in minor league ballparks charging premium prices
The dump? I miss it. I just cannot get into these MiL park games. It feels like spring training.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving franchise. They should move somewhere they would feel more comfortable – like Havana.
That would be cool.
Just send the owner to Havana or Moscow, Beijing, Antarctica, the middle of the Pacific with a porpoise raft, etc…
hahaha and now we get to the real reason that Tampa Bay can sell out hockey games , but not baseball. Thank you for admitting that.
Hockey is in Tampa, North side of Tampa Bay
Baseball is in St Petersburg, South side of Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay is not a city, it is a body of water.
Thanks for geography lesson mate. His wisenhammer comment had more to do with the make up of the team than the location. Comprende?
Waste of money. Just move to Nashville.
Or Portland or Salt Lake
What, do you have a death wish? How’s about Oakland, California? Zero flooding deaths in the past 24 hours.
@Bart And how many times have pro sports franchises left OAK area?
Sucks for A’s fans they are unfortunate victims. But clearly there’s a reason teams across multiple sports have been jumping to leave the area. As far as media markets having SF and OAK do close isn’t ideal by any means.
Sucks for A’s fans they are unfortunate victims.
========================
Are there any As fans in here that have attended a game in the past 3 years?
I’m a Phillies fan living in the Bay Area, and I attended eleven games at the Coliseum during the 2022-24 seasons.
I fully comprehend the situation. The Warriors returned to San Francisco when the Chase Center was built. The Davis family yanked the Raiders fans around for decades before taking their show permanently out of town. And we’ve all discussed at length what a substandard human being John Fisher is. Oakland fans were loyal when their team owners acted responsibly, but it’s been a while.
@Bart
Thank you for this. Most people see the Warriors, Raiders, and A’s moving and assume that Oakland fans are disloyal and lazy. Oakland fans are some of the best fans I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and it’s tragic how ownership have abused them.
But that wasn’t my question. Are there any As fan in here that have attended any games recently? I went to the Coliseum last time I was in the area, but I went there to see the Red Sox and Pedro.
TBH, I liked the place a lot, but that was a long time ago, and it was old then.
They have no fans. They’ve had one of the best W/L records in baseball this century, and have probably averaged way under 2M.
That said, I trust capitalism. If there is money to be made in Oakland, someone will start a team there. But I just don’t see it.
I’m an A’s fan and have attended at least 6 games a year at the Oakland Coliseum for decades, including each of the last three years. And I’ve seen two this year in Arizona and have tix for one in S.F. and three in W. Sacto. So yes, there are A’s fans who attended games in Oakland, and yes, at least some of us are still following the team while they remain in Northern California. I don’t know if the other two guys are reading this, but maybe they’ll chime in as well.
@JoeBrady,
Not trying to be obtuse, but if by ‘recently’ you mean the 2025 season, no I haven’t been to one of the three A’s home games. That said, the Coliseum was 25 miles from my home and Sutter Health Park is 115 miles away. It was easy and enjoyable to attend 3-4 games per season when the team was 25 miles away.
Jarvis, Mark Davis moved the Raiders because of John Fisher. sfgate.com/athletics/article/raiders-mark-davis-tr…
The Warriors moved across the bay to San Francisco because John Fisher blocked the construction of an arena at the site of the Coliseum because it would interfere with his parking $$ rights for 2 years.
The issues in Oakland across 3 sports have been attributable to one person, John Fisher.
Joe, all of John Fisher’s cash flow is from the revenue sharing check he receives from MLB. He is not on the board of GAP and his position with the company earns him $112k per year. Fisher has lost money on all of his other investments outside of the A’s.
I too trust capitalism and there is a reason that buyers were lined up for the A’s that were ready to build a privately financed ballpark in Oakland included Lacob, Ranadive, and Ballmer.
MLB doesn’t want two teams in market if they can avoid it, even one as large as the Bay Area. If they could, they would force Baltimore out of that combined market. More markets equals more potential TV households. That is what pays the bills. They would rather have another team in Charlotte, Portland, or Nashville, or even in a tiny market like Las Vegas than a 2nd team in the Bay Area.
It is about capitalism, but that doesn’t mean a team in the east bay would not be a success with a competent ownership group.
I am an Angels fan and I have been there for games for at least one series every year for the past 26 years. 3-9 games per year.
@Casey I can only speak for myself, but I in no way view OAK fans as disloyal or lazy. Clearly Fisher holds part of the blame. From what I’ve read of OAK politicians, they seemed to hold some responsibility as well, but I haven’t followed it close enough to say with any certainty.
Aside from those two it seems it’s there are more profitable options that will also increase franchise values.
As far as new stadiums, Davis and Fisher weren’t happy not getting what they considered an adequate amount of tax $ to fund them. Which in my opinion should not be allowed unless it comes with a shared stake in ownership, profits, and liabilities. On too of that it should be passed in election by those who will ultimately foot the vill.
It’s sad that the other owners of other teams do not do more to block moving these franchises. Fans are left behind as collateral damage and taxpayers of new locations will be victims of tax revenue being pilcered. All the while these billionaire$ continue to see their net worths grow.
Again? There are at least 3 ownership groups ready and willing to buy and keep them in Central Florida although Orlando is now part if that. They’re not moving, sorry to disappoint those like you who rant the same thing every time a Rays stadium article posts.
The Rays come out on top, with all the power, while St. Petersburg gets stuck holding the bag.
All the power? The cannot get a new stadium built. Leaving does not to be enough of a threat. Even if they have a lease they can still say we are gone once it is done. So does not look like they have all the power.
@Slappy Dappy Doo
Your point assumes the Rays’ inability to secure a new stadium equates to a lack of power, but this misreads the deeper game theory at play. The Rays don’t need a new stadium to win—they’ve weaponized their existing lease to shift financial burdens onto St. Petersburg while preserving optionality. The $22.5MM repair cost, though only a fraction of the total $55.7MM, locks the city into a sunk-cost fallacy: they must fund repairs to maintain Tropicana Field’s viability, yet the Rays retain the ability to walk away post-2028 with no obligation to repay or commit long-term. The lease extension for 2025’s downtime further tilts the scales—St. Petersburg bears the immediate fiscal hit while the Rays gain a free year of leverage to negotiate elsewhere (e.g., Tampa, Hillsborough) without penalty. Power isn’t about leaving now; it’s about controlling the board state. The Rays hold a dominant position because they’ve externalized risk and maximized flexibility, while the city’s hands are tied by its own infrastructure.
@York The Rays are not repaying and it has nothing to do with power, it was I’m the lease agreement. If anything it’s just going to create further divide and lessen chances of the city and team coming to a deal on a new stadium.
Zero deeper game theory here, this has been playing out publicly all along.
So what if he doesn’t know the difference between a contractual obligation and the sunk cost fallacy, he used big words and used them with absolute certitude.
He’ll fool plenty of people.
He used an AI filter. It’s obvious when he does it.
Yes the city is stuck with the bill regardless. But his notion that it’s some deeper play at hand is absurd. It is a billionaire whose capitalizing on a national disaster.
@Tigers3232
You argue the lease dictates the Rays don’t repay, negating any power dynamic, but that’s precisely where the power lies: the lease itself is a tool, not a neutral fact. Its terms—obligating St. Petersburg to fund repairs while the Rays bear no liability—aren’t an accident; they’re a pre-existing advantage the Rays exploit. You’re right that this has played out publicly, but dismissing deeper game theory overlooks the strategic asymmetry: the Rays aren’t just passive beneficiaries of a contract—they’ve positioned themselves to capitalize on it. The $22.5MM repair forces the city to double down on a decaying asset (Tropicana) to retain MLB viability, while the Rays preserve capital and flexibility to negotiate elsewhere post-2028. The widening divide you mention doesn’t weaken their hand—it strengthens it. A fractured relationship increases the Rays’ leverage to demand concessions or explore relocation, all while St. Petersburg foots the bill. The lease isn’t the absence of power; it’s the fulcrum of their dominance.
@66TheNumberOfTheBest
You suggest I’m misapplying concepts like sunk cost fallacy to contractual obligations, but the distinction isn’t as clean as you imply. Yes, the lease legally binds St. Petersburg to repair Tropicana Field—that’s the obligation. But the sunk cost fallacy emerges in the city’s incentives: having already invested in the stadium’s ownership and now committing $22.5MM more, they’re compelled to keep pouring resources into a finite asset (expiring 2028) to avoid “wasting” prior expenditures. The Rays, meanwhile, face no such trap—they incur zero cost and retain full optionality. My certitude reflects the logic of this imbalance: St. Petersburg’s contractual duty doesn’t erase the Rays’ strategic upper hand; it enables it. Whether I fool anyone is irrelevant—focus on the mechanism. The Rays hold power because they’ve turned the city’s obligation into their own gain, no big words required.
It appears you fooled two people with your own misunderstanding.
@Tigers3232
You claim I’m overcomplicating a simple case of a billionaire exploiting a disaster, but that framing undersells the structural edge at play. Call it an “AI filter” if you want—logic doesn’t need a human voice to hold. The lease predates the hurricane, true, but the Rays’ power isn’t in orchestrating the storm—it’s in how they’ve maneuvered within the resulting constraints. St. Petersburg’s $22.5MM repair bill isn’t just a contractual gotcha; it’s a forced move that keeps the Rays viable without costing them a cent, while they simultaneously derail the new stadium plan (dodging cost overruns) and open talks with Tampa or beyond. This isn’t absurd conspiracy—it’s rational opportunism. The billionaire isn’t just capitalizing on disaster; he’s leveraging a prebuilt system where the city bears all risk and the Rays dictate the next play. That’s not happenstance—it’s design.
“Yes, the lease legally binds St. Petersburg to repair Tropicana Field.”
This ends the discussion, sunk cost is off the table and yet you don’t realize it because you are either dim or possbly Elon’s AI.
Good luck either way with your “The Rays are geniuses ‘cuz their table cloth roof blew off” thing.
Old York, cost overruns caused by the city of St Pete and Pinellas county delaying the vote on final approval for funds to be released.
If they had voted when the vote had originally been scheduled, they would have already broken ground. Instead delaying the votes by 3 months pushed back construction by at least 6 months, possibly longer. Time during which costs inevitably go up.
There was no reason for the Rays to take on all of the additional costs that were caused 100% by the inaction of those two political bodies.
Sternberg is neither a billionaire, nor the majority owner of the Rays, He is the managing partner and holds the largest share at 48%..
@66TheNumberOfTheBest
Clearly, you don’t understand the situation.
You assert that the lease’s legal binding ends the discussion, dismissing sunk cost as irrelevant, but that’s a surface-level misstep. The lease doesn’t negate power—it codifies it.
Good luck with your “sunk cost” thing.
@outinleftfield
The Rays aren’t just reacting to political inaction—they’ve weaponized it, turning bureaucratic lag into a checkmate where St. Petersburg pays to keep them afloat, yet they hold the exit key.
There is no deeper game going in. The Rays have are liable for repairs its a forgone conclusion at this point.
You have an obsession with trying to make everything much grander and elaborate then they truly are.
@Tigers3232
I’m making arguments against claims from others. Is that not how a discussion works? Should I reply to this article by saying…
WOW!
Try replying something actually relevant. Not filtering through AI with to wide of parameters leaving a response far more in detail than the specifics of the article.
The attempts at stretching each story out as though it’s something far more elaborate is akin to a toddler who keeps saying “what if”.
I agree with that. The Rays and Hines Companies are definitely taking full advantage of the delays by the city and county. They were in agreement on a ballpark that would not have been any better for the baseball team than the old one and were only going to make money on the development of that area of town.
Now the Rays hold the upper hand. If St Pete and Pinellas county want that investment made in redevelopment in the Gas Light district they have to play ball with the Rays and Hines. If not, the Rays just go elsewhere in 3 years after the city spends $60 million to make the Trop habitable through the end of the lease. Yes, the city will have to spend the entire amount necessary to repair the Trop and it will not cost the small amount they have allocated so far.
The Rays have no liability for repairs. That is 100% on the city,. Always has been. Its part of the lease. The city decided to lower the insurance premium on the park to save themselves a few hundred thousand and now it will cost them $55.7 million or more.
Without asking your AI, explain your understanding of what the Sunk Cost Fallacy is…
@66TheNumberOfTheBest
I’ve already poked numerous holes in your argument without AI. Maybe try and learn something for once in your life. You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. But I guess it sounds great.
I understand your dimwitted narcissism will prevent you from learning, but…for anyone else who is curious…
sunk-cost fallacy
noun
noun: sunk-cost fallacy
the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.
So, as anyone who isn’t a dolt can see…IF abandonment is not an option, the Sunk Cost Fallacy cannot apply. Throwing good money after bad, not fulfilling contractual obligation is what define the Sunk Cost Fallacy. It can only apply when the spending is a psychological false choice, not a matter of obligation.
@66TheNumberOfTheBest
You say the sunk cost fallacy doesn’t apply because St. Petersburg has to fix Tropicana Field due to the lease. That’s too simple. You’re missing the bigger picture—and I’ve got something new that’ll flip this whole thing on its head.
You’re right that the lease forces the city to pay—$22.5 million now, probably $55.7 million total. But the fallacy isn’t about breaking the contract; it’s about why they keep doubling down. They’ve already sunk years and money into owning this old stadium, and now they’re throwing more cash at it to keep the Rays around until 2028, even though the Rays might leave after. If they weren’t locked in, a smart move would be to ditch the stadium and spend on something else—like redeveloping the land. The lease doesn’t cancel the bad decision-making; it makes it worse by tying their hands. They’re stuck chasing past costs, hoping it pays off, while the Rays pay nothing and call the shots.
And no, I’m not saying “the Rays are geniuses because the roof blew off.” That’s you twisting my words. I’m saying the Rays set this up smart from the start. The lease puts all the repair bills on the city—hurricane or not—and lets the Rays sit back. If the stadium works, they play for free. If it breaks, the city fixes it. Then in 2028, they can just walk away, no strings. That’s not luck; it’s a win-win for them and a lose-lose for St. Petersburg.
Baseball’s special rules give the Rays even more power. Major League Baseball has a legal shield—called an antitrust exemption—that stops other teams from moving into Tampa Bay without permission. The city can’t say, “Fine, we’ll get a new team.” They’re stuck with the Rays or nothing. So they have to fix the stadium, even if it’s a money pit, because losing baseball altogether is worse. The Rays don’t just use the lease—they use this monopoly to squeeze the city dry. It’s not just a contract; it’s a trap the city can’t escape.
You’re stuck on the lease like it’s the whole story. It’s not. The Rays aren’t just riding a deal—they’re playing a bigger game where the city loses every move. That’s the real power, and it’s way beyond what you’re seeing.
Enough with thos ‘you’re stuck on’ stuff. When something is an integral element of a situation you can not simply dismiss it. I know u prefer to do this as ubtry and talk around things opposed to being accountable, but that in nonway makes that component less relevant
@Tigers3232
I know the truth hurts but sometimes, you just have to accept it.
Just like when you claimed a team got “younger” you then resorted to “you’re stuck on age”. Well when younger is part of the conversation it absolutely is relevant.
For this particular topic the lease contract is absolutely relevant. That is was and will be the legal obligations for the duration of the lease. You can say he’s hung up on it, but that contract is absolutely the most relevant thing in regards to the lease of Tropicana Field.
@Tigers3232
In both cases, you had no clue what you were talking about. I proved you wrong numerous times but you just kept yapping your mouth. It is what it is.
In no way did u prove anyone wrong. One of players signed was same age as player who left. Another player u mentioned was not even on the team.
And in this case the contract for the lease is basically the Bible. It is the legal framework outlining the agreement, you have provided nothing contrary to that.
Noble attempt tho of being self righteous and not wrong after the fact. You just hope nobody speaks up or that they don’t comment altogether. All the while the you continue to comment and come across as an inept fool.
“If they weren’t locked in, a smart move would be…”
Anyone with an IQ over 90 understands this eliminates ANY possible (correct, at least) invocation of the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
People with IQ’s under 90 will continue to try to deflect from this misunderstanding with a pile of words and delusions of vicarious grandeur.
You are using a term that has a very specific meaning incorrectly exposing that you do not in any way grasp the concept. The people who do understand the concept know that.
Seriously, congrats on using full sentences, though. No sarcasm. More than most can manage these days. Just work a bit harder on the words actually meaning what you think they do.
From the dictionary
sunk-cost fallacy
noun
the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial..
We shouldn’t be talking about power. Instead, we should be talking about ‘cards’. Who has the ‘cards’?
York – That’s what happens when you’re the landlord, they are the tenant, and the lease stipulates the landlord is responsible for repairs. Today’s vote was a mere technicality.
What I’d like to know is why no mention of insurance covering some of the cost?
Fever pitch guy – the city significantly reduced the insurance policy before last season started. They changed the coverage so they could save about 300k for the premium that year
Came back to hurt them big time because a decision to save 300k is now costing them well over 20 million in out of pocket costs, for a garbage stadium that may not be used beyond 2028
Fever pitch guy – never mind it seems you already knew and I misunderstood the question
Two – No worries. I knew about the coverage reduction, but the insurance still should have covered something… right?
I’ve read there may not be coverage because the age of the roof was well past it’s useful life … if so, then why was an insurance premium paid at all? Seems like there’s important information that reporters failed to report.
@Fever Pitch Guy
You’re correct that the landlord-tenant dynamic obligates St. Petersburg to fund repairs, but this isn’t a neutral “technicality”—it’s a deliberate asymmetry the Rays exploit. The lease’s repair clause isn’t a standard boilerplate; it’s a fulcrum that lets the Rays offload hurricane-related costs while they pivot to extract concessions elsewhere. Consider this: the absence of insurance in public discourse isn’t an oversight—it’s a signal. If insurance were a significant factor, the city would trumpet it to offset political blowback from the $22.5MM outlay. Silence suggests either insufficient coverage or a strategic choice to absorb the cost to keep the Rays placated. Meanwhile, the Rays dodged a bullet on the new stadium’s cost overruns, which they’d have shouldered. They’ve engineered a scenario where St. Petersburg pays to maintain a depreciating asset (Tropicana) while the Rays preserve capital and dictate the timeline for their next move. That’s not tenancy—it’s mastery of economic leverage.
Libbys drop that kind of coin on T&A in one weekend. Depends whose island you go to.
@slidepiece
The Rays’ refusal to proceed with the new ballpark wasn’t just about cost overruns—it was a calculated rejection of liability. By letting the bond deadline lapse, they shifted the burden of maintaining MLB viability back to the city, forcing St. Petersburg to prop up a decaying status quo. This isn’t about who spends more; it’s about who controls the dependency. The Rays have turned the city into a caretaker of their short-term needs while they plot a long-term exit or renegotiation, all without risking a dime.
@York The Rays haven’t turned the city into anything. The team has carried the liability of repairs ever since the lease was signed.
Yes Steinberg is playing games. That is not a shock to anyone. He has been a parasite leaching off the government since his Wall St days. He pocketed billion$ in bailout $ while at Goldman Sachs.
His name is Sternberg. He is not a billionaire, so he hasn’t pocketed billions. He was not at Goldman Sachs when they received the $10 billion bailout in 2008. He retired in 2002.
You dislike him, that we can see. You know nothing about him or the situation. That is even more clear.
The city and county delayed votes on the final approval of funds to build the new ballpark and it set the construction back an entire season. That setback would cost at least $100 million, possibly more and those overruns would have been eaten entirely by the Rays. It is obvious why the team turned down those terms. Politicians were playing games and now it will cost them billions in redevelopment money pouring into a downtrodden area of St Pete and hundreds of millions in tax dollars over the next 2 decades.
Then they delayed voting on releasing the funds for the repairs to Tropicana Field. When they did vote they didn’t allocate the entire amount needed for repairs. If the ballpark is not ready on opening day 2026, the Rays can rightfully sue for lost revenue.
It is the politicians playing games and losing ones at that. .
Waste of taxpayer money.
Fred – They were legally obligated. But yes, the apparent lack of insurance coverage created a huge amount of taxpayer money being wasted.
Wild that they can put a whole roof on the stadium for the price of 2 years of Christian Vazquez.
ben – It’s easier to cover Tropicana Field than it is Vazquez’s stomach.
The Twins might kick in to cover the roof if the Rays are willing to take Vizquel in return
They couldn’t call Jake from State Farm?
They did not bundle their home and auto so he is not happy with them.
Slappy – The way Raymond drives, Jake shouldn’t want to bundle their home and auto.
Bundlerayski
Why exactly does that stadium need a roof? How unbearable is the weather? Has anyone been to Arlington?
The field isn’t meant to handle being rained on. There’s no built=in drainage system so it would flood over the course of a season.
The issue is thunderstorms.
Lars – Agreed, that’s the difference. Tropical Season in Tampa/St Pete is far worse than summer in Arlington. Severe lightning, torrential downpours, strong storms, very high humidity … there’s a reason why both Florida MLB teams are/were playing under a roof.
And to answer the last question of texasgus, I just came from Arlington …. they have a roof that they kept closed even though it was sunny and only 85 on Sunday. Not sure what he’s getting at there, does he think they play in an open-air stadium?
There’s no drainage system in the Trop that can handle rain…
I still believe MLB made a huge mistake by not making the Rays and A’s “test market” franchises for potential expansion or relocation cities. The NBA did a great job of that after Hurricane Katrina forced the New Orleans Hornet to play in Oklahoma City for a year. It laid the groundwork for the Seattle Sonics to move there.
Let’s say you have 8 cities you are considering for the next round expansion. You could have had the Rays and A’s each test out those cities over the next two years each getting two cities per year (one first half, one second half) as their “home.” The data taken from that experiment would be invaluable when deciding if a city is really viable as a big league market. At the very least, you could build a fan base in those cities even if they don’t get an expansion or relocated team.
A’s are kind of doing that with Sacramento.
Not really. They aren’t even really acknowledging Sacramento as their home city. Plus, I don’t think Sacramento would ever be considered by MLB for a permanent franchise unless they went to 48 teams or something. There are just far bigger markets to work with before them.
I don’t think whether they acknowledge the city has any effect on how they see the results from testing the market. And the Kings owner Ranadive said that he considered the temporary home to be an audition for a permanent team.
I would think it would affect the results. If a team is playing in my city, but not acknowledging my city at all, I wouldn’t pay to go see them.
I guess it would be the same thing, but the optics would feel different to me. One way I would feel like an audition for potentially getting a full time gig. The other way, I would feel like a gas station where you stop and grab a sandwich and a bag of chips on the way to the real destination.
Not many markets that are bigger than Sacramento. Its bigger than Charlotte, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas. The only market being talked about that its not bigger than is Orlando and that belongs to the Rays,. ustvdb.com/seasons/2024-25/markets/
It may be “technically” a bigger market, but it is too close to the Giants for a team to really succeed there. All 4 of the cities you mentioned may be slightly smaller, but they would also be the only game in town in each of those states. So it is not just solely about population, it is about competition as well.
Tampa is #11 on that list and they have not been able to really build a fan base in 30 years mainly because Tampa is a Yankees town.
As with most of the things you say, that is total BS. it is not technically anything. Its a bigger market. Only Charlotte is close. Its 200k TV households bigger than Portland and a half million households bigger than Las Vegas
Its 90 miles from Sacramento to San Francisco,. There are 3 teams within 120 miles in Southern California, There are 3 within 130 miles from DC to Philadelphia.
Portland, Salt Lake and Las Vegas each have 2 of the other 4 major sports in town.
The Trop is not in Tampa, it is in St Petersburg. That is the entire problem with drawing fans.
The A’s are kind of doing that with Las Vegas, as in relocating to that once potential expansion city when their new stadium is finished. 🙂
The idea of auditioning 8 cities ignores a lot of pragmatic issues. The A’s aren’t playing in just a AAA ballpark. It’s AAA sized, but over $7M in renovations still took place for it to meet MLB standards.
A lot of research was done to determine if Sutter-Health Park was a viable home for an MLB team. Not every AAA park will be. Any expansion team will be playing in a completely different park, in a different location, built for the new team.
Agreements for a new park takes time, with construction that takes years. And, it could be misleading, when the decision is based on attendance at a park that’s only 1/3, or 1/4 the size of a ML park.
My company was part of that construction. It was closer to $21 million.
The problem is that you can sell out for thee years, and then the novelty wears off.
The A’s have not been able to sell out for 3 weeks in Sacramento.
Most major cities have some type of multipurpose arena that can house an NBA team for 40 games per season. What they don’t have is an MLB caliber stadium that can house a team for 81 games which is why the A’s and Rays are playing in minor league stadiums as close to locally as they can get.
I laugh at you all talking about expansion when more than half the teams in baseball are sputtering along due to the RSN fiasco and the Rays and A’s are playing in minor league parks because MLB can’t even get those situations right.
Where would the teams play in those cities if no major league park. Most cities if awarded a team would need to build a stadium. I guess they could use a minor league park but that would usually hold smaller crowd. And easy to show fan acceptance.
Portland is very interested in team and has group for financing, land and stadium plan but no mlb park yet.
Sounds like they’re kinda taking the cheap route? So you know those app ads that show you that when you only get half of the coins you need to make something right for some mom and her daughter who are down in the dumps, and then since they don’t get 100% of the coins, everything just falls apart, and they’re still left in bad shape?
That’s what this feels like. If that roof gets blown off again, man, it might so funny that I lose the ability to laugh ever again. The better be making an unbreakable titanium shield dome thingy.
What greatly added to the stadium having 50m+ of damage was a serious design mistake. They had absolutely no built in drainage. Most likely will be less seating and areas probably never reopened.
What a waste of money. Spending 50+ million on a roof you’re going to demolish within a few years. Totally makes sense.
Nothing is being demolished. The stadium deal is dead. The city can still use the venue for other events.
It’s only $20 some million the rest is covered by insurance. Does Florida really need two teams anyway? Neither can draw flies! Reds n Braves are playing at the Bristol Speedway in August.
You may want to check on that. Tampa Bay Times has several great articles on it.
tampabay.com/sports/2025/04/04/tropicana-field-roo…
They cut the insurance just before the hurricane hit to save $200k a year in premiums and the replacement costs after insurance are $55.7 million.
The stadium will be fixed just in time for them to leave town
Not like they have a choice. City is responsible for the facility and have a lease they have to uphold. If they don’t fulfill the lease, the lawsuit over the losses the Rays suffer could bankrupt the city.
They’re still going to be playing there 20 years from now.
Yes, 14-year old children are now legally permitted to work overnight shifts in Florida! 🇺🇸USA! USA! USAI🇺🇸
Another black eye for Robby the robot and MLB, just like the A’s situation.
Another black eye for Robby the robot
========================
A hurricane blew the roof off, and they’ll be back next year. Nothing here to blame anyone for.
They had to approve it? Would have been funny if they said “nah we are just going to leave it as is.”
They can’t leave it as is. They are contractually obligated to replace the roof and repair damages to the interior of the park.
Can you say the Nashville Rays!?
Nashville is Braves country. Atlanta ain’t giving that up.
Braves don’t own that territory.
Nashville is the #1 choice to get an expansion team in 2028, why wait?
Nashville is a good market, but Portland is much further along in the process. They have a stadium site purchased, 5,000 season ticket deposits, and the city has already signed off on the location and infrastructure costs.
Tampa is a much larger market than either Nashville or Portland.
MLB says Nashville, Montreal, and Charlotte.
It’s about damn time the council voted on this . They’ve only had 5 months to approve funding. I don’t know how people can blame the team when the council drags it’s feet on every approval?
Why not just have a series of lasers along the roof line? If it starts to rain or is real humid, the lasers could burn off the larger molecules of moisture and what’s left will just steam up and float away.
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, MLB!