A's move shows MLB will accommodate any owner. These big league towns are on the clock.

The Athletics’ move from Oakland to Las Vegas ― now nearly a reality ― has been a jolt for fans who have expended nearly six decades rooting for the club in the Bay Area.

For fans in other markets, it should be a wakeup call.

For the first time since 2004, when Major League Baseball yanked the Montreal Expos out of Canada and into Washington, D.C., a big league team has relocated. That Expos move ostensibly came under far different circumstances: MLB had taken control of the franchise, and it needed new ownership and a new home.

Yet the underlying motivation is identical: Owner accommodation.

The Expos’ fate was sealed when owner Jeffrey Loria ended dreams of building $200 million Labatt Park after Quebec officials opted against any public funds for the project. The club was stuck in Olympic Stadium, an aging facility that created an untenable situation for ownership that couldn’t be expected to front the cash for a new stadium.

Sound familiar?

Sub in Oakland’s Coliseum for Stade Olympique and Gap legacy boy John Fisher for art dealer Loria, and the song largely remains the same. Loria, who’d failed in efforts to buy the Royals and Orioles, was allowed to dump the Expos on MLB, buy the Florida Marlins for a relative song ($120 million, plus a $38 million loan) and eventually turned a $1 billion profit. John Henry, who dumped the Marlins on Loria, bought the Boston Red Sox, won four World Series and made a ton of money. Nice gig!

Now, a handful of franchises are gearing up to play hardball – and it couldn’t hurt for fans to know when their teams’ leases expire.

In Kansas City, it’s 2031 – but owner John Sherman would like the team to move into a $2 billion downtown stadium and entertainment complex before then.

In Milwaukee, it’s 2030 – but owner Mark Attanasio, like Fisher, is deploying Manfred as his heavy, telling Milwaukee media that the state must approve $448 million for renovations at American Family Field, or tempt meeting a fate similar to the A’s.

In Tampa Bay, it’s 2027 – and Rays owner Stuart Sternberg and fans alike know a current effort to line up investors and land a new stadium in St. Petersburg might be the last gasp for big league baseball there.

And in Baltimore, it’s (gulp) 2023 – and CEO John Angelos just turned down a five-year option to extend it.

Now, the sky isn’t yet falling in these markets. Almost all are in the throes of conceptual happy talk, with listening tours and soaring non-commitments to “multi-decade, public-private partnerships” and expectations of sticking around “for generations to come.”

But it always starts out this way.

Eventually, the private grows impatient with the public, at which point the partnership could fray. In Oakland, that tipping point arrived in 2021, and quickly:

On April 23, the A’s provided the city of Oakland with a long-anticipated term sheet/wish list/ransom note for their complicated, $12 billion Howard Terminal Project. Eighteen days later, MLB urged the A’s to consider relocation options.

And the circumstances of the A’s move should also give teams pause.

Manfred reiterated Thursday he will waive any relocation fee for the A’s, costing other owners hundreds of millions of dollars to divvy up. While that could be viewed as a one-shot waiver to resolve the A’s stadium odyssey, a precedent has nonetheless been set. That precedent will surely be voiced behind closed doors when MLB meets to approve the A’s relocation.

And second, expansion has provided a whole stable of stalking horses.

Groups in Nashville, Portland and Montreal (and, recently, Salt Lake City) are among those hoping to land one of two expansion teams by around 2032. No, they’re not shovel-ready, but then again, neither was Las Vegas.

And they offer owners wanting to squeeze money for stadiums a one-time dose of leverage.

A look at how that might play out in multiple markets in the wake of the A’s expected move:

Milwaukee: Time once again to pay up

Miller Park was truly commissioner Bud Selig’s legacy: A retractable-roof stadium that ensured his hometown team would stick around – and financed with around $300 million of public money (in 1995 dollars). Now, Manfred has taken the torch from his predecessor and said last month the 22-year-old stadium’s makeover must come largely from publicly-funded sources.

And if not, could the Brewers move?

“There is not a scenario that is in my mind at the current moment.”

Comforting!

That same day, Milwaukee County’s board of supervisors unanimously rejected public funding for renovations, highlighting a disconnect between local officials and state legislators over whether the original stadium agreement required renovation funds to come from a ballpark tax district. Gov. Tony Evers has proposed $290 million from the state budget. That may not fly among assembly members who think the funding should come from the five counties in and around Milwaukee.

What say you, Supervisor Sheldon Wasserman?

“I’m supposed to vote for this again? Hell, no.”

Buckle up.

Kansas City: A kinder, gentler ask

The Royals have had a pauper’s payroll and a horrible record since John Sherman bought the team. But what Sherman lacks in roster investment he makes up for with lengthy social media posts and a “listening tour” for a fanbase he hopes will pine for a downtown real estate project that also includes a stadium.

All for just $2 billion.

It’s a “public-private partnership,” he says, with $1 billion for the ballpark, another billion for the adjacent district an an extension of a county sales tax to fund the public portion of that. Sherman says the project will bring in an additional $185 million annually to the region. That figure, Sherman says, will grow to $500 million once the project lures additional surrounding developments.

Keep in mind it’s been just 14 years since taxpayers spent $250 million to renovate Kauffman Stadium. An updated jewel, some might say. “Sixth-oldest stadium in the majors,” say the talking points.

The kid gloves might stay on a while longer, but the tune could change if lawmakers and locals alike believe a monstrous development centered around a team that’s 200-476 since 2018 isn’t necessary.

Tampa/St. Pete: One more try

Give the Rays this much: Unlike the A’s and Royals, they haven’t put forth an awful baseball product, and thus won't claim a new facility will be the panacea for on-field woes. The year 2027 has been burned into fans’ minds since, like the A’s, new ownership began their ballpark quest in the mid-aughts.

This time, it’s St. Petersburg’s turn to try. A 30,000-seat ballpark and development on the Tropicana Field site is the goal. There is will, but as of right now, no funding. Stay tuned.

Baltimore: A long honeymoon?

There’s a relatively new control person, John Angelos, helming the Orioles. There’s a new governor, Wes Moore, who threw out the season’s first pitch at picturesque Camden Yards. For now, they’re still in the bff stage.

The two roadied down to Atlanta together in March to take a long look at The Battery, the Braves’ wildly successful live-work-play ballyard nirvana. That came one month after they announced “a joint commitment to creating a long-term, multi-decade, public-private partnership that both develops and revitalizes the Camden Yards complex as a magnet for sports tourism and leverages Maryland taxpayers’ investment in the property.”

That tasty word salad came in conjunction with the Orioles declining to exercise a five-year option on their Camden Yards lease. That option came with the chance to borrow up to $600 million from the Maryland Stadium Authority for stadium upgrades; their neighbors, the Ravens, leaped at that opportunity and extended their lease for 15 to 25 years.

The Orioles seem to be thinking on a grander scale. They are free agents after Dec. 31, but Angelos insists they’ll be around.

Oakland: Run it back?

It’s easy to forget Manfred told reporters in 2018 that MLB was bullish on Oakland and remained so apparently until Fisher told him to switch up. And that’s the great folly of this A’s move: Oakland loses a team yet ascends near the top of any expansion candidate list.

With Fisher apparently unwilling to sell the club, A’s fans are stuck with the same fantasy: That an area billionaire (Joe Lacob, anybody?) comes along and peels off a few bills for an expansion fee and a stadium. That feat would be easier to pull off at the Coliseum site, which may suddenly look more “acceptable” to MLB if a potential owner wants to make a deal there.

So sure, the Oakland Oaks or the Bay Area Gentrifiers or whatever remains very much in play. (And begs the question: Can MLB force Fisher to leave the A’s name behind?)

The hopefuls: A waiting game

For Nashville and Carolina and Portland and anyone else wanting in, the A’s saga showed they don’t have to wait until MLB is ready to expand. Certainly, expansion remains the likeliest route for their hopes and dreams to be realized.

But getting “used” by an existing franchise that stays put can be a prelude to expansion. The due diligence that comes with trying to lure a team – lining up financing, site exploration, fuzzy economic impact projections – can clear a path that might enhance their value when the time comes to expand.

There will be opportunities. The A’s gambit showed the rules have changed. Plenty of franchises will be primed to use them to leverage billions of dollars in public funds. And MLB will follow right behind, ready to suss out the highest bidders and cash-friendliest municipalities once it is ready to expand.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A's move to Vegas, and these MLB towns are now on the clock