A San Jose Manifesto

Since the Earthquakes stadium renderings were released, many on this blog and elsewhere have asked how the fates of the Quakes and A’s are intertwined. They’ve asked if juggling two teams and two potential stadium deals – in the same city no less – makes things needlessly complicated. They’ve also asked if focusing on soccer even on a peripheral basis takes the focus off baseball. Such questions about motivation will persist for some time to come, and won’t cease until shovels hit dirt.

That brings me back to Mayor Reed’s ending quote from last week’s press conference:

“I’d like to thank Lew Wolff and the A’s. It’s Lew’s vision that makes it possible for us to build a ballpark in San Jose.”

I was then, and remain now, thoroughly shocked. Not shocked about the quote, as I figured it was coming sooner or later. I am shocked that it elicited zero response in the comments. The past six months, there’s been a lot of back-and-forth about what Wolff has been doing in San Jose, about what the nature of discussions are. I’ve heard outright denial that Wolff wants to move the A’s to San Jose, that the MLB panel will somehow ride to Oakland’s rescue, which given recent history is myopic to the extreme.

That quote above tells you everything you need to know. I shouldn’t have to spell it out. It’s Lew’s vision that brought the Quakes back, that tantalizes Quakes fans in that he may finally cure their scarred, oft-broken, oft-ignored hearts (they’re not fully healed yet). It’s Lew’s vision that may finally quell all of the talk of uncertainty regarding the A’s and their future. It’s Lew’s vision that may cement his legacy in San Jose, in the Bay Area, in California.

However, this is California after all. We don’t impress easily. One way or another, we force our sports teams to earn our praise and patronage (except for the Warriors I suppose). When it comes to stadium building, everyone here is a full-on bandwagoner. We’re skeptical to the nth degree, and rightfully so. As a result, we collectively aren’t easily swayed by nice sketches and renderings. Pols know better than to propose any publicly-financed facilities, no matter how nice they look in ads or how well they’re pitched in interviews. We innovate here. We propel the world. We want results because expect no less of ourselves. It’s how we survive. It’s how we thrive.

It’s with that mindset that I have to concur with Center Line Soccer’s Jay Hipps, who argues that despite the crappy economy and limp sponsorship numbers, the Quakes should plow ahead and build their stadium. I’ll take it a step further though. Not only do I think that it’s necessary for the Quakes, I also think it’s imperative for the A’s.

We talk here endlessly about attendance, population densities, and transit availability. All that stuff makes for nice presentation slides and lengthy reports, but it’s mostly academic. The thing that really matters is, as always, political will. Political will and political capital go hand-in-hand. Wolff can reach out to non-profits to get little boosts here and there, as he did in Fremont. All of those efforts combined don’t hold a candle to the value of getting the Quakes stadium built. Just as with San Jose Arena (publicly built), the actual building and opening of a new facility creates a veritable supernova of political capital.

With political capital comes momentum, which will come in handy during an election cycle. Momentum doesn’t just come from great ideas. Momentum comes from the execution of great ideas. An inexpensive soccer-specific stadium is a great idea, even if it’s value engineered to death. It’s the responsible way to move forward, and can show the citizens of San Jose that someone around here can get things done responsibly. That’s important because so many aren’t familiar with Wolff’s development history from 30 years ago. Half the people that live in the Valley are transplants. Some are from the Midwest and East Coast, others are from across a border or an ocean. They may be completely on board with a ballpark, but they want to want to see that train moving. They may need to feel that it will leave the station without them.

Wolff talks a lot about the pain that comes with the process, about how it’s an industry unto itself. The process isn’t as much the killer as the inertia the process creates. If ownership thinks the numbers can work given time, then inertia is the real enemy here. That’s not to discount the steady, methodical groundwork that’s been laid over the last several years. It’s simply no longer the time to be methodical. It’s time to be decisive. It’s time to break that inertia. It’s time to build. In fact, to paraphrase Ernie Banks, “Let’s build two.”

78 thoughts on “A San Jose Manifesto

  1. Thanks for sharing your views. I agree, let's do this and get it over with already.

  2. Learning that Lew Wolff's vision has made an A's move to San Jose possible is like learning that Dick Cheney was the one pushing the conservative agenda in the Bush White house. Now we know, but really, we already knew.

  3. Some of the best sports writing anywhere…thanks ML!!

  4. Didn't know the T-Rights were removed already

  5. They haven't been yet. But we'll know after the winter meetings whether T rights are being rightly removed from SJ for the Giants.

  6. T-rights are part of the process. They aren't the end product.

  7. So you're saying that building a soccer stadium will help keep things moving for the A's, or even grease the skids potentially. I suppose that's possible if everything goes perfectly with the soccer stadium. But what if it doesn't? What if people complain about infrastructure improvements that might be required, or even just the perception that Lew is getting a sweetheart deal on the soccer thing. What if that kind of sentiment is then turned against the A's new park? It seems to me there is just as much chance for the soccer stadium to create FUD as there is for it to appease it.

  8. The land deal and EIR for the soccer stadium are done. There is no additional public infrastructure needed there. It's all really a matter of when the Quakes want to start construction, a decision that is tied solely to funding. If the ballpark is the equivalent of a grand slam walkoff, the soccer stadium is a sac fly.

  9. Agree 100% with JC4Baseball!After reading this thread R.M., I had to stand up and applaud loudly. You should write speaches for the White House!Took me back to early 2006 when Wolff told Mark Purdy something to the likes of "If they (SJ) can come up with a viable plan for soccer, it will show their commitment to major league sports." Mark Purdy suggested way back then that the Earthquakes and A's were interlinked. As for the quote, You know I had a huge smile when I saw that from Chuck Reed.LeAndre,In due time my friend, in due time.

  10. lol Tony brown noser

  11. nice post and all…but what has lew wolff done to deserve this praise? a baseball team that whose fanbase is declining? a soccer franchise that hasn't gotten off the ground? After nearly 5 years of lew the a's are no closer to a stadium then they were in 2005. i just don't see how lew wolff is getting anything done. Lew wolff may be visionary and his visions may share the fantasies of this blog, but i'm not seeing it.

  12. That's the point of the post. The onus is on Lew to deliver. The soccer stadium is the first step.

  13. Lew's quote is the least surprising thing I have heard in my life. It's too bad Lew didn't/doesn't have any vision for Oakland.

  14. Sorry, I meant Reed's quote.

  15. Let's be honest. Oakland doesn't have a vision that includes the A's, Lord I wish they did.

  16. Anon 3:35I think Wolff has done a decent job since he and Fisher took over ownership in 2005. You have to remember that he has had to deal with a pretty crappy hand. A limited number of suitable ballpark sites, coupled with a bad economy has certainly slowed the process. It took Peter McGowan a number of years to settle on China Basin as the site for the Giants' new ballpark, this despite having a much larger fan base, good corporate support, and a booming economy.The next 6-12 months should be very interesting. We'll either be well on our way to having a ballpark in San Jose, or we will have a team looking for a new owner.

  17. That's certainly true, Jeffrey, but it would help if the A's had ownership that really valued the East Bay in and of itself, which hasn't been the case since the Haas family. Schott and Hofmann wanted Silicon Valley, too; they just weren't smart enough to figure out how.

  18. I'm speculating that the blue ribbon committee will defend the Giants' t-rights in the South Bay as long that there is no done deal for an SJ ballpark. If Wolff can't come up with a deal, the A's stay.Oakland can keep the A's if they put a plan in to motion. But instead of leadership, it's just a bunch of Ron Dellums making proclamations and doing nothing. Which is par for the course. As an Oakland partisan, I want the A's to stay. But I also see that Oakland's strategy is basically, let's hope for San Jose to fail. Hoping for your enemies to fail is never a good strategy. This brings my issue about Lew Wolff. He wants the fans to show before lavishing money on the team. But how can you attract fans when your teams suck? The A's will nevr sign a big name free agent and the Quakes will never sign a big name DP from overseas or Mexico. Seattle had a great start, but they had their DP lined up early. Lew Wolff is an astute businessman, and while pro sports is a business, it is more complex than real estate transactions because fans and sponsorhips are an x-factor. Unless Wolff is going to change his business model, and do see some promising things from the Quakes (unfortunately, not the A's) he will not be successful in this venture and the teams will sucks. You can't cheapskate your way into a consistantly successful sports franchise.

  19. Look for the MLB Blue Ribbon announcment sometime around the World Series….didn't want to kick the Giants in the "___uts" during their playoff run.

  20. Anon: 12:08Couldn't agree with you more…"Didn't know the T-Rights were removed already"…that was sarcasm btw ; )

  21. Anon 12:08, I think you've got it backwards. San Jose isn't going to complete this process until T-rights are changed, which they will be at this winter's meetings if they're going to be changed. As for the team's sucking and so forth, actually the A's are the best team in the last 2 months in MLB. And they did make some big name signings in the off season, they didn't pan out on or off the field. It's ended up being their no name guys who were the motivator for the turn around late this year. Not the big names. Which makes sense, big names aren't usually the answer, just ask the Giants who finally figured that out after years of buying higher priced superstars only to figure out that it's the young hungry talent that turns things around.As for the Quakes signing a DP, the Quakes FO has stated if Frank Yallop and John Doyle have one in mind the owners will pony up the money for the DP. So far Frank and John have not stated they have a DP they want to pursue, in part no doubt because DP's aren't necessarily the answer in MLS right now since they count toward the salary cap. Yeah you can buy one great guy, but then you're stuck with a bunch of underpaid guys around him.

  22. anon 12:08, I actually agree with you also. Basically, no ballpark deal in San Jose and Giants territorial rights to South Bay remain. I don't think it'll be the other way around, in which the TRights would first be removed and A's/Wolff hope for a deal to happen in SJ.But I do disagree with you in terms of the "teams suck" statement. The A's have had one of the best records since the All Star Break, and actually have a better record than the Giants since the Break. They just dug too deep of a hole in the first half of the season for anyone to really notice.

  23. Here we go with teh whole "Oakland Sucks" v. "San Jose Sucks" v "My Crystal Ball says" triumvirate! Yipeee.I guess it's partly my fault for calling out Oakland City Hall.Whatever… Keep the A's in the Bay Area! Oakland rocks, San Jose is cool.

  24. Jeffrey,No one has said neither Oakland or San Jose sucks…at least I havent got that impression…In fact things seem to be surprisingly civil on this post, especially when you consider what the premise of this post is…

  25. I think everyone is just drained from arguing. It's better to avoid arguing until cold hard facts and presentations come out.

  26. LeAndre, I was more expecting future performance based on past results than calling anything out specifically.I was prepared for the whole "San Jose trying to steal Oakland's legacy and rape the future" and "Oakland is full of murderous thugs and everyone who goes to the Coliseum is murdered twice at least."Hyperbolic. Yes. I agree with CLyde Frog and Polly Prissy Pants when they say, "Everyone is tired of arguing." Bring on the offseason of cold hard facts!!!!!

  27. The A's have had one of the best records since the All Star Break, and actually have a better record than the Giants since the Break. They just dug too deep of a hole in the first half of the season for anyone to really notice. It's hard to find much significance on that narrow slice of information. Despite that fact, the A's are still 7 games under .500, and are guaranteed to have a losing season. The Giants are 11 games over .500, and are guaranteed to have a winning season. With Lincecum, Sandoval, Cain, and a primo ballpark, the Giants are also a lot more fun to watch. (Which brings us back to the subject of this blog — the ballpark.)

  28. 11 games over or 7 games under doesn't matter much if the outcome is the same. Neither team is making the playoffs. An entertaining team should consist of more than two stud starting pitchers and a bunch of guys standing around.

  29. The Giants were in the hunt for much of the season (and technically still have a shot at the wild card, although that's no longer realistic), while the A's never were.And are you saying that the Kung-Fu Panda is chopped liver? He has the second-best OPS west of Des Moines, and he's still a kid.

  30. KFP is quite good, every other hitter is a essentially a bum. The Giants deserve credit for being a year ahead of schedule. That said, there's nothing more desperate than the team's pandering for KFP to be on the All Star team, or the sad "We're In It!" ad campaign.Again, it's all about results. The best thing you can say about the the Giants is that they will gain season ticket sales as opposed to losing them the last few years. Then again, with the way the A's having been playing during the 2nd half, they should too.

  31. …Lincecum should make a great Yankee in a few years.

  32. Lincecum does not pitch well in hot or muggy weather – teams with big budgets like the Red Sox and Yankees probably wouldn't want him for that reason.

  33. I doubt weather would have anything to do with it. All they need is numbers.

  34. Again, it's all about results. The best thing you can say about the the Giants is that they will gain season ticket sales as opposed to losing them the last few years. Then again, with the way the A's having been playing during the 2nd half, they should too.This glosses over some significant facts (or results, if you will).The A's, despite their claimed great second half, still finished at the bottom of their division. They were also dead last in MLB attendance, having dropped 15% per game, and were still dropping even at the end.The Giants finished in the middle of their division, and were not eliminated until the final week. Their attendance was up slightly over 2008, was the 10th-best in MLB, and was more than double Oakand's (35,502 per game, compared to 17,450). Painting the two teams' results as roughly equivalent is not reality-based. Ironically, Oakland's abominable attendance and the Giants' good attendance actually benefits the A's in one respect. It's a strong argument for shifting the territorial rights to Santa Clara county from the Giants to the A's.

  35. That has nothing to do with it. If the South Bay was out of the equation or hypothetically disappeared for that matter, I doubt we would see any change in attendance regarding the Giants or the A's. If we did, I'm pretty sure it would be a minor difference. The A's attendance continuous to drop because of several factors that has already been discussed for some time now. 1) The location sucks ass. No one wants to go to 81 games in the Coliseum area.2) The A's have been sucking for the last few years.3) All our players are pretty much no names that we trade away as soon as they become more valuable.4) And probably one of the most strongest reason is the frickin' owner is a jackass. Knows nothing about baseball. Doesn't give a shit about the city or the fans and has done nothing to try and change that image since he took over in 2005. If you look at the numbers starting with the year Wolf & Co. took over, attendance has steadily have been declining. I know for a fact that there are plenty of fans who feel A's ownership is the main reason why they did NOT renew their season tickets or show up to any games after closing off the 3rd deck.

  36. I've said it before, the A's need to go out and hire someone to be the face of the franchise. Some who is articulate, and who possesses the marketing know how to change the image/perception of the team. The A's have and will always play second fiddle to the Giants. Not having a high caliber marketing/PR person just makes it worse.

  37. I agree, our PR and commercials used to be a lot better and way more humorous than they are today. Marketing is definitely a factor in drawing more fans. Lew Wolff has done absolutely NOTHING positive for this team since 2005. He's made promises but has never come through and has just looked like a lame owner to all the fans…well except for South Bay residents who swears he's the second coming of Christ or something.

  38. re: Lew Wolff has done absolutely NOTHING positive for this team since 2005….so spending millions of dollars to try to get a privately funded new ballpark in Fremont, only to have it shot down by NIMBYs, doesn't count? The guy buys the team and tries to keep it in the Bay Area but is cast as a villain just the same. OK.

  39. Exactly my point…the Fremont deal was also specifically inteded for the SOUTH BAY residents in mind. NOT the already existing East Bay fans.

  40. Wow, he marketed to South bay residents? I's swear he wanted to make his business profitable or something…

  41. re: the Fremont deal was also specifically inteded for the SOUTH BAY residents in mind. NOT the already existing East Bay fans…Prior to Fremont, Wolff proposed a new ballpark just north of the existing Coliseum site. That project went nowhere, as Wolff got no cooperation from anybody. Once again, Oakland and Alameda County did things such as wreck the stadium to bring the Raiders back and fire the city manager after he pitched a downtown site for a new ballpark. The A's in the early '90s asked for baseball-only modifications to the Coliseum but look at what their host city gave them instead: Mount Davis.But Wolff is the villain. OK. Can anybody blame the A's for wanting to go south?I know – let's have Wolff spend $600 million of his own money – with no commercial and residential real estate development attached – to build a new ballpark in a place that has disrespected the A's for years. Maybe he can even let in people for free.

  42. Anon 10:37I'm not talking about just the commercials, I'm talking about getting someone out there that has a marketing vision. Someone who is comfortable in front of a mic or camera. Right now, the A's front office could take a month off and no one would know it, because they just are not visable.They need someone like Larry Baer. He's bright, articulate, and knows how to communicate with the media and fans. The A's just don't have that person. Mr. Wolff at times comes across as being a little rough, and he lets his anger and frustration show through. It may cost a little money, but the returns would justify it.

  43. I see Kevin…that makes a lot of sense.

  44. Paul, are you crazy or something? Don't you know his plan for the Coliseum North site was again just an attempt for a failed plan so that he could move out of Oakland? Do you really believe his plan of having 80+ business owners relocate something that was actually going to happen??

  45. 1:07 – Wolff also pitched Coliseum South to the City and Coliseum Authority, an idea that got no traction.

  46. …Wolff made efforts to keep the team in Oakland and got no help from anyone. Now that he wants to leave Oakland, he is the bad guy. OK. Reminds me of that old song where this guy orders his wife to "put another log on the fire," "bake me up some beans," "boil up another pot of tea" and then the last line of the song is "Now come and tell me why you're leaving me?"Unless you have some sort of Vulcan mind meld capability, you are just guessing that Wolff's Oakland plans were a ruse. Looks like he spent a lot of money on so-called ruses.

  47. Larry Baer is an idiot and would stab anyone in the back who he thinks will be in his way. Ask John Fisher!Have patience; we are about to see a whole lot of movement and information in the next few weeks starting with the World Series. Good things happen to good people who have patience.

  48. He made efforts…yeah right. He never wanted to stay in Oakland, and it's bs to say he made efforts.

  49. …so let me get this straight:Oakland*Fires city manager after he suggests downtown ballpark.* Turns nice ballpark into lousy football stadium after A's request baseball-only modifications.* Dismissive of Lew Wolff efforts to cite ballpark in multiple parts of Oakland.Wolff* Tries to build ballpark north of Coliseum.* Tries to build ballpark south of Coliseum.* After these efforts fail, he tries to build a ballpark 15 miles away in Fremont.But Wolff is the bad guy. OK.

  50. ML,Can you PLEASE explain to me why Wolff asked for money from Oakland for the Coliseum South site? After all he never asked for money from Fremont and isn't planning on asking SJ for any if that pans out…If all he really wanted was a site, it makes absolutely no sense why he would ask for money for the Coliseum South site and not for that extremely far fetched Coliseum North site, Fremont site, or Diridon…

  51. Wolff was working on behalf of Schott/Hofmann at the time. He knew that Schott wouldn't be willing to foot the entire bill for the study, so he suggested that ownership and the Coliseum Authority split it 50/50. Schott agreed after much convincing, the Authority did not.

  52. Also, Wolff was willing to foot the bill for the Coliseum North study. He wasn't asking Oakland to pay for it.

  53. Anon 2:01"Have patience; we are about to see a whole lot of movement and information in the next few weeks starting with the World Series…."Is that a statement or prediction?I have to say, I'm not up to speed on what happen between Baer and Fisher, although I know Fisher has it in for the Giants. Can you fill me in?

  54. ML,Correct me if I'm wrong but Wolff isn't working for Schott/Hofmann anymore…so why not just do it again? Just like he planned on with the North site, Fremont, etc…This is what has always confused me, if he really wanted to build there…whats in his way now?The coliseum site isn't my personal favorite option by far…but if he wanted to really build south of the coliseum, I really don't see what's in his way if he wants to pay like he claims…

  55. By the time he took over, Coliseum North emerged as a better plan. And no, Coliseum South isn't as easy as it might seem. It would've required some amount of public funding. Not all sites are created equal.

  56. LeAndre–answer it this way–would you be willing to invest $500-$600M of YOUR money in the Colisieum South site—when you can have downtown San Jose with the same investment? It is a no-brainer–

  57. Or how about Jack London Square versus Diridon? I say JLS…yeah it's a no brainer. There's so much new things happening in the area right now it's an awesome location for a new ballpark with easy access to just about everything! Bars, restaurants, movie theater, clubs and mass public transportation. Need I say more??

  58. So where is the unbelieveable proposal that Oakland was supposed to present to the blue ribbon committee at the end of September…remember–heard it from a friend who has a friend who knows of a friend….is anything going to be put out by Oakland…or is game over?

  59. Or how about Jack London Square versus Diridon? I say JLS…yeah it's a no brainer. There's so much new things happening in the area right now it's an awesome location for a new ballpark with easy access to just about everything! Bars, restaurants, movie theater, clubs and mass public transportation. Need I say more??Yes, I think you need to say more, since the locational advantages on your list apply pretty much to both JLS and Diridon, but the JLS area has significant development constraints that have been discussed here more than once. If you had said downtown Oakland, you would have had a much stronger case.

  60. Mayor Reeds quote; Wolff wants San Jose; MLB will soon allow Wolff to have San Jose…end of discussion.

  61. FC at 3:20PIt's a statement….Be patient.Fisher v. Baer will be a bigger story once the SJ deal gets done. I'm not surprised the SF media (who loves the Giants management) hasn't written this story. Maybe it's something that Purdy or Kawakami can dig into after SJ election.BTW – Don't be surprised if the election comes sooner than November. Apparently Mayor Reed's staff wants November (for political reasons), but the A's want it sooner (March or June). There is a new piece of legislation on Gov. Arnie's desk which would possibly allow the cost of special elections to be reduced by as much as 75%.Keep your eye on the ball and your ear, nose, and throat to the ground.

  62. These arguments are pointless, The A's can't survive in Oakland and I am partial to Oakland, they need the ballpark so they don't have to keep trading off their players.They are not moving to Mexico they are moving down the road a few miles, the Bay Area cities are all jumbled together anyway except for Oakland and SF. Do you want championships or a name's sake. How many of you live in the north bay and root for the Sharks, by the way they are SJ good grief be practicle, by the way Giants fans– how many world series have you won in SF, sorry the 4 the A's have in Oakland got in the way of the answer.

  63. …yes, the league must address a situation in which the Giants hog the Bay Area's two largest cities and its most affluent counties while the A's are left with Oakland and a few surrounding cities. Neukom's junk about how the A's got the counties they wanted 15 years ago is as relevant as pointing out that Alaska used to be part of Russia. All irrelevant ancient history at this point.The owners can't be happy about having to pony up $32 mill a year to subsidize the A's. San Jose presents a solution. Tough luck for the Giants.

  64. Paul,While I agree with you, there won't be much "tough luck" for the Giants, considering they should get a nice compen$ation package from the A's/MLB and most Silicon Valley company's don't do any business with them anyway. Add to this that Giants fans on the Peninsula and SCCo. will remain Giants fans and, well, they won't be hurting to much when the A's find SJ. I think Neukom and Baer know this to. Again, it's always been about "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

  65. "By the time he took over, Coliseum North emerged as a better plan. And no, Coliseum South isn't as easy as it might seem. It would've required some amount of public funding. Not all sites are created equal."ML, you never usually fail me when it comes to answers, but you have this time…and I mean that respectfullyThis economy has proven that the Coliseum North was not a better site, and as we all now know all Wolff only wants is enough space for the ballpark now…why would the south site require any public money? it has plenty of space for a ballpark and has the least amount of clean up over any site.Please explain why Coliseum North would require public funding and not Diridon…Anon 9:13,thats not the argument Im trying to make…Im just trying to figure out why Wolff cant do what he already tried to do…and like I said, the Coliseum S. site is not one of my favorite sites by far

  66. LeAndre – The answer lies in your own words, "The coliseum site isn't my personal favorite option by far."It isn't anyone else's either. If you're going to spend $500 million, wouldn't you like to spend it in the best place for your team's economic future? By that measure, any site beats the Coliseum – whether it's in Oakland, Fremont, or San Jose.

  67. Tony D,It would be interesting to see what would happen in the unlikely event that MLB decides that the entire Bay Area should be a shared market. Isn't that the arrangement in Chicago, NY and LA? One would have to then ask whether the Giants would be entitled to any compensation, since they would then have access to Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

  68. FC,Interesting thought. I for one would love for the Bay Area to become a shared-market just like the other two-team markets. For the record, I personally don't think the Giants deserve any compen$ation for giving up/loosing their "rights" to SCCo./SJ. As has been stated before, the Giants didn't pay a dime for the TRights back in 92 and don't play ball in SCCo./SJ. My thinking regarding possible compen$ation has to do with what occurred in the Expos/Nationals/Orioles/DC saga and the idea that currently (like it or not) SCCo./SJ legally belongs to the Giants.Who knows, maybe Lew Wolff is trying to get SJ WITHOUT giving the Giants crap…that would be nice.

  69. The absurdity of the territorial rights. Don't the Giants already have access to Alameda and Co Co County's through advertisements, ticket sales, TV/Radio broadcasts, sponsorships, etc.? And for that matter, don't the A's have access in a similar fashion to all the county's under the Giants "control?" Just make the Bay Area a shared-territory already damnit!!

  70. I think the Orioles/Nationals situation is very much different from what we have here. There, the Nationals relocated from outside of the region. Heck they came from another country. Here, it's a situation where the A's are already in the Bay Area market. In fact they are moving farther away from the Giants. One could argue that in a way the move would be beneficial to the Giants.As pointed out by Anon 10:05, both teams already seem to have open access each others territories.

  71. Anon 10:05 pointed out the exact reason the territorial rights issue is absurd. The two teams already share the "territories." The A's have ticket offices in San Jose, the Giants sell tickets and advertise in the East Bay. They are both on TV in each others territories. The whole concept of "territories" is laughable. Particularly considering the Giants paid less for their territorial "rights" than I did for my free breakfast this morning.

  72. ML, you're banging your head against a wall. LeAndre has decided that Wolff was out to screw Oakland and never gave them a fair chance. No amount of logic or facts will ever convince her or any of the other "Woe-is Oakland" types.

  73. 7:33, if your gonna falsely accuse me, at least get my gender right…I'm a he not a "her"…I don't see any harm in wanting to know why Wolff won't revisit a site when things are on different terms…he's not working for the same people, and he's not asking for public funding anymore

  74. How about we discuss something real? Like where and when is this team going to find some hitters who can drive in some runs?We can salivate all we want about moving to San Jose, but there's another pressing matter… such as the fact that beyond a catcher, 2B, CF, and maybe RF (Sweeney), there are too many positions up for grabs.Or is Wolff's strategy to wait for San Jose? Is he channeling Dionne Warwick?

  75. Sorry, meant to put him or her. As to the other accusation, it's been your pattern. You can play all innocent and curious, but your questions are always leading and their conclusion is as I stated.

  76. "Sometimes a no is as good as a yes.""I don't want to open the door that never closes."These are quotes from Lew Wolff… quotes I personally agree with and they say everything about reviewing old sites and trying to redo things that have been ruled out.From my perspective, proposing building at the Coliseum site is a great example of the second quote. The players involved in Oakland City politics have not changed since the last time any of this was proposed with the exception of Jerry Brown replaced by Dellums. IDLF, Larry Reid, etc. They are still there and it seems to me, as an outside impartial observer that they are more interested in saying they are working on it, then actually making something viable happen. I'd be happy to be wrong on that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s