Selig says contraction off the table
- 07.12.11, 12:18
- 130 Comments
As part of the ongoing All Star media extravaganza, Bud Selig responded to an inquiry by the Chronicle’s John Shea:
There goes the idea that contraction was a bargaining item for the CBA. So let’s go with the idea that the Giants have been hoping that the A’s give up and leave town or get contracted. The latter is not happening, at least through the length of the next CBA (which is expected to approved by both MLB and MLBPA by the end of this season). Now let’s pivot to the A’s, who want Selig to force the Giants to make a deal or have Selig force a vote. Based on Selig’s reputation, the latter is not happening there either. Is that complex, as Selig says? Not really. Is it a difficult negotiation? Certainly. Let’s not make the issue bigger than it really is.
…I’d love to see Oakland get a new ballpark. But the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against it, given all the reasons discussed in full in this chat room. I don’t see how it gets done unless MLB agrees to build the ballpark itself, which I don’t see happening. Why de-value all the franchises (yes, forcing the owners to build their own stadiums makes buying an MLB franchise less attractive) just so Oakland, which has been so dismissive and non-supportive of its team over the years, can keep Major League Baseball? Better off picking up the stakes and moving to Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Charlotte, NC, New Jersey, etc…
“just so Oakland, which has been so dismissive and non-supportive of its team over the years” I assume you mean Oakland politicians, yes?
…Well, Oakland politicians and the fans who haven’t been going to games. Usually ranked in the bottom half of attendance, even when putting out a winning team (4 wins shy of the World Series in ’06, ranked 26th in attendance). Oakland is not likely to strike the owners as a place they must stay, given the sad political and fan support histories.
So you would say the same of the Giants? Before their new park they suffered a similar history of “poor fan support.” That can’t be denied.
@eb “Before their new park they suffered a similar history of “poor fan support.” That can’t be denied”
.
Apples and oranges. There were many factors suppressing Giants attendance that did not apply to the A’s, and many reasons there was WAY more upside for a new park in SF than there is for a new park in Oakland. Before AT&T, the following was true:
.
Giants: Hideous, freezing dump of a ballpark.
A’s: State-of-the-art ballpark, for its time.
.
Giants: Remote location and horrible traffic access. No transit access.
A’s: Central location well served by freeways. BART.
.
Giants: Big TV and radio ratings, merchandise sales.
A’s: Small TV and radio ratings, merchandise sales.
.
Giants: Perennially losing teams; no WS titles.
A’s: Winning teams, 4 World Championships
.
And considering the upside of a new park in China Basin vs. Victory Court:
.
Giants: Right in the middle of a major corporate base (downtown SF) with superior access to the region’s largest corporate base (Silicon Valley).
A’s: Little corporate base nearby. Hideously inconvenient for the region’s largest corporate base (Silicon Valley).
.
Giants: No meaningful competition nearby.
A’s: Would be going head-to-head with one of MLBs strongest teams in one of baseball’s best ballparks only eight miles away.
.
For these reasons, the Oakland-only meme “it worked for the Giants, it will work for the A’s” is, well, not the product of deep thinking, let’s put it that way.
“For these reasons, the Oakland-only meme “it worked for the Giants, it will work for the A’s” is, well, not the product of deep thinking, let’s put it that way. ”
How did you get that from any of my posts? I’ve never said I was Oakland only…*shakes head*
Just look at your response, you are using excuses to justify poor attendance at Giant games just to prove your “point.” You’re doing the same thing many have accused Oakland A’s fans have done on here to save their team, mainly making excuses. I’m sure you’re a nice guy bartleby, but almost all of your posts here consist of arguing any pro-Oakland response and defending anything San Jose. Now you are the champion of “logic,” I understand and I’m very impressed by that, but it is all very repetitive. I’m sure I’m guilty of plenty of annoying message board habits, but it’s just a tired act at this point.
@eb I never said you were an “Oakland-only” guy. I consider you more of an “Oakland-first” guy. But many Oakland-only’ers have argued on this blog over the years that a new park in Oakland will solve all the A’s problems just because AT&T Park solved all the Giants problems. They assume, without critical examination, that SF, San Jose and Oakland are all equivalent sites from an economic perspective. Your comment echoed that meme, so I responded to it.
.
I strongly disagree with your argument that I am making “excuses” for poor Giants attendance pre-2000. There has been a lot of statistical evidence posted on this board and elsewhere that attendance tracks closely with ballpark quality and success on the field, so pointing out those factors were working against the Giants is not an excuse.
.
Contrast this with the Oakland-only’er’s constant refrain that A’s attendance has been subpar throughout their history because they’ve always been cursed with bad owners (ignoring the fact that A’s attendance was bad through most of Walter Haas’ tenure, also). Statistical evidence suggests there is little or no correlation between “owner love” and attendance. THAT is an excuse.
.
I’m sorry you find my posts repetitive, but if you stick around here long enough I think you’ll find that true of all the regular posters. We’ve been waiting on this for years, and there’s only a limited number of things to say.
.
My thing is, if I see comments that are poorly supported by facts or logic, I feel driven to respond to them. Consider it a character flaw if you like, but no offense is intended. This is a debate, right?
@bartleby “This is a debate, right?” No, or at least it shouldn’t be like the kind of debate we’re seeing on this site. There is open antagonism between fans of the same team! This place looks like a Giants/A’s thread if you were just giving a casual glance. It’s depressing. As for attendance in Oakland/SF, do you know off-hand what parts of the bay the A’s draw from? People get stuck in this mindset that the team only draws from its city/county of location. There’s no guarantee San Jose is going to be a panacea if it ends up being the A’s new home, maybe attendance will increase tenfold, who knows, but the Sharks shouldn’t be a barometer of attendance.
…Why shouldn’t the Sharks be a “barometer of attendance?” If they were struggling at the gate, the Oakland-only folks would be shouting from the housetops about San Jose’s poor support of the Sharks and how that proves San Jose can’t support major league sports. But the Sharks are sold-out rock stars in the South Bay, which is a thorn in the side for anti-A’s-to-San Jose folks. So reasons are invented about why the Sharks are supposedly not a good comparison.
@pjk Well, the Warriors have drawn well in Oakland even after all that losing. True they are the only basketball team in the area, but the Sharks are the only outlet for hockey fans. Of which, there are a lot of east coast/mid-west transplants here, so there is a market for hockey. A lot of non-San Jose residents have adopted the Sharks as their hockey team. Baseball is a whole different animal than either of those two sports.
Like I said, the Sharks’ outstanding fan support leaves Oakland advocates having to devise reasons why this success supposedly would not be transferable to the A’s. I’m not buying these so-called reasons.
How about this comparison: Oakland used to have an NHL hockey team. Support was so poor the team now bears the distinction of being the only franchise among the four major sports to have folded in the last 50 years (after a couple years in Cleveland). Untested, untried San Jose got a hockey team and it sells out every night, every year. So there’s definite evidence of the South Bay being a pretty strong market for major pro sports.
@pjk So you choose to ignore the Warrior’s success and say Oakland is a bad market, but point to the Sharks as a reason San Jose is a good one? Ok, whatever floats your boat. The Warriors and Sharks are in a pretty similar situation, of which does not equate to a region supporting an MLB team. I guess we disagree.
BTW, San Francisco had a hockey team as well. Not anymore, does that mean SF is a bad market, inferior to San Jose?
….The Warriors set a team attendance record in their lone year in San Jose, despite being lousy and despite everybody knowing they would only be in town for one year. Even more evidence of San Jose’s strong support for major pro sports. Or is that to be dismissed, too, when pondering A’s-to-San Jose?
@pjk So you ignore my point and continue to promote San Jose at another city’s expense. *sigh* It never ends. I should listen to my ramblings in an earlier post and just cut the cord.
…Frisco as a sports city? Well, ponder these facts:
* it’s the largest city in the USA without a sports arena. It could have had both the Warriors and Sharks but didn’t care.
* the city was perfectly content to let the Giants leave, which is why they had to build their own ballpark
* Mayor Frank Jordan saved the Giants for Frisco. He was rewarded by being booted out of office at the next opportunity.
* Not much angst about the 49ers leaving town. No heads rolling. Only 5% of season ticketholders have Frisco zip codes.
Ignore WHAT point? About the Warriors drawing well in Oakland? It hasn’t translated to success at the gate for the A’s, has it? They play in the same parking lot. Meanwhile, San Jose, with the much-lower-profile NHL, has been outstanding in its support for the Sharks. This certainly looks good for the A’s if they move to the South Bay.
@pjk No, it hasn’t always translated, it shouldn’t. The A’s are one of two teams in the market, have a longer schedule and demand higher attendance per game in order to be seen as successful. The Sharks and Warriors are the lone game in town, have shorter seasons and need smaller crowds for a sellout. What I’m saying is that neither is a very good barometer for fan support for the A’s in either city. San Jose may be great attendance wise, I’m just saying there is no strong evidence it would be WAY better than what we’ve seen in Oakland after the stadium shine wears off and 40 years go by.
…well, SJ’s arena opened in 1993 and the shine STILL hasn’t worn off. The team still sells out. And, once again, if the Sharks were a poor draw, it would be Exhibit A for the ant-A’s-to-San Jose folks about why the A’s shouldn’t move south.
@pjk Look, in my opinion, the Warriors shouldn’t be used as an example to justify/predict the A’s attendance success/woes and the Sharks shouldn’t be either.
The Sharks are San Jose’s only venture into major pro sports. But they should not be used as a comparative for how the As might do in San Jose? I wholeheartedly disagree.
@eb Your distinction between the A’s and Warriors situations is apt. But you ignore a similar distinction between the Warriors and Sharks situations. The NBA is WAAAAY more popular than the NHL, across the board. And the NHL is failing in most of its non-traditional markets – except San Jose. So the Sharks success in San Jose says a lot about the A’s potential in San Jose.
.
“I’m just saying there is no strong evidence it would be WAY better than what we’ve seen in Oakland after the stadium shine wears off and 40 years go by”
.
There is evidence attendance would be better, we can debate how strong it is. But there is overwhelming evidence that REVENUE would be WAY better than is possible in Oakland, and that’s the more important thing. Simply put: The target market for the primary venue revenue generators exists in San Jose, it does not exist in Oakland.
…Thanks, Bartleby. The NHL has hit a grand slam home run in the non-traditional San Jose market while striking out in other nont-traditional markets, such as Atlanta, Phoenix, South Florida. Shows strong, strong potential for MLB in San Jose. FWIW, the Giants sure believe San Jose would be a great place for MLB – that’s why they want to make sure it doesn’t happen.
There was a post, some time ago, that used the Fremont Economic Impact Report (ticket sales data contained therein) to show where fans came from. It also included statistical regressions to show where they should be coming from based on distance, etc. I can’t remember when or what ti was called… If anyone does, please post a link for eb.
@pjk–the Sharks are the only NHL team in the BA, and they make the playoffs just about every year, more than any BA team in any sport. Put that same team at the Oracle or the Cow Palace, they’d pack it. Just look at the W’s, and they suck. If they were playoff bound like the Sharks, the place would flip and would be a tough ticket.
…Um, Oakland already had the Bay Area’s only NHL team. It bombed. Very badly. (And the Sharks sold out even when the team was lousy. And despite failing in the playoffs each and every year, they still sell out.)
Sorry ML, for going OT on Sharks/W’s/Seals talks. No more.
“Your distinction between the A’s and Warriors situations is apt. But you ignore a similar distinction between the Warriors and Sharks situations. The NBA is WAAAAY more popular than the NHL, across the board. And the NHL is failing in most of its non-traditional markets – except San Jose. So the Sharks success in San Jose says a lot about the A’s potential in San Jose.”
Perhaps, but the popularity between the Warriors and the Sharks really isn’t that large of an issue. It still comes down to selling out a relatively small building. Even with the Sharks, their tv ratings are low and they aren’t a hot button issue type team in the Bay Area media. So while it is a good sign for San Jose that they sell out, there really isn’t a huge push for the team, even in San Jose, as a whole (unless it’s the playoffs). I just don’t think the Sharks = hard evidence the A’s will draw dramatically better in San Jose than in Oakland. The economic aspect, however, you got me there.
@pjk In terms of Oakland supporting a hockey team, at that point Oakland had other well established franchises, there wasn’t the fervor to prove Oakland was “big time.” Plus, and I have to say it, I don’t think the brothas in Oakland were clamoring for hockey.
I’ve already gone over this: For the anti-San Jose crowd, poor Sharks attendance would mean San Jose can’t support the A’s, while good Sharks attendance is no indicator of whether San Jose can support the A’s. OK. Sounds like tails, they win, heads, we lose…