A’s not on May owners meeting agenda

Small item in John Shea’s report today:

Managing general partner Lew Wolff, who attended Tuesday’s game, conceded that the A’s stadium issue won’t be on the agenda at the May 16-17 owners’ meetings, and he wouldn’t guess whether it’ll be included at the next owners’ meetings in August.

As long as Bud Selig keeps leaving the A’s and Wolff twisting in the wind like this, he’s the one who’s going to have to fix it. The A’s lease runs out after 2013. Selig should have to be the one who negotiates any short or long-term Coliseum extension, not Wolff. The Coliseum Authority and Wolff aren’t exactly buddies these days. Then again, Wolff and Selig supposedly are. With friends like these…

187 thoughts on “A’s not on May owners meeting agenda

  1. I will just say this: I believe when a deal is reached (or finalized) a simple conference call will be made by MLB owners to ratify said deal. No need for it to be brought up formerly at the owners meeting. As for Wolff twisting in the wind: do we really believe that frat Bro Wolff doesn’t know how this will all go down? Hence no outrage from Wolff himself. Patience…

  2. I don’t think it’s a votes thing. I think Selig wants to wait for the A’s and Giants to negotiate, and he’s happy that each year is less the Giants have left on the mortgage, lowering any compensation package. I worry, however, that Selig might be looking at the Coliseum Complex as something to either A, avoid having to make a decision, or B, leverage against SJ to get a better deal. I don’t think Wolff wants to wait anymore, doesn’t care about getting a better deal, and it seems like there is a little rift forming between what Wolff is doing and what Selig is doing. Where Wolff used to say he’s following the process, now they appear to be trying to poke forward.
    .
    At this point, I’d rather they just start building in SJ, and deal with the consequences later. They can’t be any more headache than this has been up to this point. At the worst, you get ousted as an owner, which might be the same end result anyway if SJ is denied.

  3. @ls,
    Your post got me thinking: I have a funny feeling the A’s will play post 2013 at AT&T Park while Cisco Field is being built. Most likely part of a compensation deal; providing the Giants some extra scratch in terms of pouring, parking revenue for “home” A’s games. Just a thought.

  4. We already knew that it wasn’t part of the meeting agenda. It’s a separate negotiation. We also know that Selig is actively trying to broker a deal. Since that is the case, there’s no need for it to be on the owners meeting agenda.
    .
    Also, when the BRC did their report in the January meeting, the A’s situation was also not “on the agenda” (officially).
    .
    I think Selig is trying to keep this as behind the scenes as possible.

  5. re: Selig should have to be the one who negotiates any short or long-term Coliseum extension, not Wolff.

    …great idea. Selig and MLB have left Oakland in control. The city and coliseum authority can offer terms such as “15 years or nothing”. Should be fun to see what happens. I

  6. This is beyond ludicrous. I say Wolff and Fisher should circumvent the approval process. Fund a group to develop the San Jose site for the city and claim no association (Giants style). When Bud finally grows some balls, the stadium will be well under way and the A’s will be ahead of the game. There will be no sweet deal for MLB, public funds are not available in this economic era.

  7. What’s going to be ML B’s leverage here? “GIve us a three-year lease that we can opt out of anytime or we’ll have the team share ATT Park with the Giants” ? Sure. That’ll happen.

  8. I think J-A nailed it! ;)

  9. @pjk – The Coliseum Authority doesn’t have a lot of choices. It still has to pay off the complex’s debt. If it chooses not to deal with Wolff and Selig it’s effectively evicting the A’s. I’d like to see how well that goes over politically.

  10. ML: Didn’t Jerry Brown describe the A’s as a “cost center?” As in it cost more $$ to hold the games than it would have to not have them? Brown certainly had cutting edge thinking about economic development, particularly with his over-my-dead-body stance a bout a new downtown ballpark.

  11. @pjk – That’s because Wolff negotiated leases that were very tilted towards the A’s. The Authority was willing to give those terms because he was, at the time, looking to build in Alameda County. Not so anymore. If the rent went up $2 million a year, the “cost center” notion would go away.

  12. “the “cost center” notion would go away.

    Good. Let’s hope the A’s have to pay a whole lot more money to play in the obsolete Coliseum. That way, the team loses more money and the other owners have to pony up more subsidies. But the best interests of the Giants will continue to be served.

  13. still think the a’s will move down to sj eventually as i do think there are enough votes by the mlb owners to get the okay but have said all along that selig doesn’t want a big decision like this to come to a vote without getting all but near 100% vote on the deal which imo he wants and doesn’t have at this time.

    also as it’s been mentioned before that i think mlb is gonna want to make this decision with the debt service being near the end for it to give the okay to sj for the a’s but this whole process is b.s.

  14. @Tony D – I don’t think they’ll be playing in AT&T as a home park. If the Coliseum Authority refuses to give the A’s a reasonable rate, the Oakland constituents should complain immensely. It’s essentially free money. Honestly, I don’t see them being that dumb and refusing to renew the lease.

  15. @letsgoas – “but this whole process is b.s.”
    .
    Yes, this whole process is totally Bud Selig.

  16. Will the Oakland constituents complain? They’ve gone to the polls time and time again to vote in pols who don’t care about baseball and don’t understand the benefits of Major League Baseball. More political capital might be gained by simply running the A’s out of town. “We showed those billionaires they can’t push us around. Vote for us again!”..

  17. I can’t help be but optimistic here. I think that Wolff has the votes and are forcing the Giants to negotiate. I don’t see this BS as Wolff being patient. But I admit, I am biased as an A’s fan who would like to see them get a new stadium during this decade. Milone was awesome last night.

  18. Oaklanders just elected pro-stadium Mayor Quan. Who defeated anti-stadium Don Perata.

  19. @David – That’s revisionist thinking. Perata got the plurality of votes and lost because of the instant runoff system. Quan didn’t win because of a stadium stance. She won because more people hate Perata than like him.

  20. They both made their feelings on the stadium issue public, before election day. You cannot deny that Perata’s anti-stadium quotes, hurt his cause with *some* voters (A’s fans).

  21. We can’t deny that Oakland residents are staying away from the games in droves and that base ball doesn’t seem to be much of a priority. The A’s have been one of the most community-minded franchises in sports. Just this week, Jemile Weeks was doing some community-related stuff. How has this goodwill benefited they A’s? Well, they got their ballpark turned into a foot ball stadium and city leadership committed to spending $0.00 to construct a new ballpark. Also, the other day, KTVU did a piece about Little League baseball in Oakland. They talked to one of the parents. What was she wearing? A cap with “SF” on it, of course.

  22. re: Oaklanders just elected pro-stadium Mayor Quan

    …So by pro-stadium, Quan is ready to provide public funding for constructing a new ballpark? Or is it just “You can’t go to San Jose so you’re forced to build a new stadium here on your dime.” With stadium support like that…

  23. If this doesn’t get settled this year, why not start the 2013 season by renaming the team the SJ Athletics while continuing to play at the coli? They can start a marketing campaign targeting the south bay and technically, they wouldn’t be infringing territorial rights. That’s sends a message to the league and giants saying We re not fuckin around here.

  24. @pjk – there’s isn’t a force-field around Oakland that keeps A’s fans from the surrounding cities from coming to games. The attendance issues are not the responsibility of only Oakland residents. And there’s no law against Giants fans living in Oakland. My best friend is a Giants fan and every time we go out for a beer he where’s his 2010 World Champs jacket, in Oakland bars! I gave him hell forever about 1989, so I can dish it, as well as take it.

  25. Yes, I know, David. I drove up from San Jose a couple weeks ago to an A’s game that had about 5,000 people at it. About 1/3 of what the Sharks get. 5,000 (oifficially 11,000) is pathetic and unsustainable.

  26. Why don’t more folks drive up? Or drive down from the North Bay, or come in from the Tri-Valley area? I don’t think its the fan base, its the old stadium and the uncertainty about what the teams long-term plans are. Lew keeps reminding us what he thinks about the Coliseum and Good ol’ Bud, didn’t help the (attendance) cause with his recent comparisons of the Coliseum, to other stadiums he didn’t enjoy visiting. And aren’t the A’s as a team batting barely above the ‘Mendoza Line’?

  27. If its the responsibility of San Joseans to go to A’s games since Oakland residents don’t go, I have a novel idea: Have the A’s build a new stadium in San Jose.

  28. @David – You and I both know that sports and the relative fates of the sports franchises was not a major issue for any of the leading candidates in the 2010 Oakland mayoral election. All of them gave it lip service at best.

    People speak with their wallets and no one is obligated to go to games. If you do that, don’t be surprised if the fanbase as a whole gets criticized. No one is above reproach.

  29. If Oakland wants to defeat Wolff’s contention that it won’t work in Oakland, here’s how to do it: Put 25,000 people in the stands every night, not just on bobblehead giveaway days and when the Giants, Red Sox or Yankees are in town. Put 25,000 in the stands when the Royals are in town on a Monday night. Wolff makes it easy, providing very economical ticket prices. So far, the East Bay has not shown itself to be up to the task.

  30. @david,
    Did you really suggest that Quan beat Perata because she was “pro-stadium/A’s” and he wasn’t? Really? If so, wow…just WOW!

  31. @Tony – I said that most of the Oakland Mayoral candidates were asked about keeping the A’s iin Oakland. Perata was upfront that he was not going to support keeping the A’s in Oakland. To that point Lew Wolff gave his campaign 25 grand. Some voters probably didn’t choose him because of that. Although, his personal corrupt dealings is what lost it for him.

  32. Anecdotal evidence sure … but I ranked Quan (though 3rd on the ballot) and left Perata off because of the stadium issue. Several of my friends and family did the same. Frankly, we were not excited for either, but Perata’s stance sealed the deal.

  33. espn’s kurkjian was on knbr a few minutes ago and when asked about the a’s and sj, kurkjian says he’s talked with those who think in the end for the viability long term for the a’s franchise that they will eventually will be allowed to move to sj. don’t know why it’s taking so long but in the end he thinks the a’s to sj will happen because they just can’t survive in oakland.

    so that’s rosenthal, gammons and kurkjian three of the most prominant of national baseball writers who believe the a’s will move to sj eventually.

  34. Perata said was he was resigned to the A’s going to San Jose. Quan’s so-called stadium support is akin to my saying “I’m in favor of owning a brand new BMW. Now I’ll just wait for someone to come forward to buy one for me.” Quan has done nothing but tell the A’s to build their own stadium on the existing Coliseum parking lot. Wow. Any wonder MLB is not shooting off fireworks to celebrate Quan’s grand stadium “plan”?

  35. looks like more of the same circular arguments that never get anywhere on this blog …

  36. “If Oakland wants to defeat Wolff’s contention that it won’t work in Oakland, here’s how to do it: Put 25,000 people in the stands every night, not just on bobblehead giveaway days and when the Giants, Red Sox or Yankees are in town. Put 25,000 in the stands when the Royals are in town on a Monday night. Wolff makes it easy, providing very economical ticket prices. So far, the East Bay has not shown itself to be up to the task.”
    Anybody who calls themselves an A’s fan, anywhere in the Bay Area, is responsible for the low turnout. Any team that draws from just one city will be doomed to irrelevance and will be left in the back of the Bay Area sports pages.

  37. I said the East Bay has not been up to the task. It’s their team and they obviously don’t support it. 5,000 a night? Yuk.

  38. I went to opening day and a few other games this season. I’m highly disappointed in A’s fans for not showing up. The City of Oakland alone should provide at least 12K fans alone. I drive from Mountain View/Palo Alto through terrible traffic as much as I can to see MY team play. The folks in the East Bay have the luxury of BART. Where are they? I’m going to support wherever they may be, Oakland or SJ. If Oakland fans want the A’s there show up and be heard! Enough of this belly aching! As I stated, makes no difference to me where in the Bay they play because I’ll be there!

  39. @eb – You can’t have it both ways. The team’s name is “Oakland Athletics” and as long as it remains that way Oakland has to bear the brunt of criticism – especially since Oakland is the “hub” of the East Bay. No one’s going to single out Alamo or Newark. Either wear it or fix it.

  40. re: The folks in the East Bay have the luxury of BART. Where are they? I’m going to support wherever they may be, Oakland or SJ. If Oakland fans want the A’s there show up and be heard! Enough of this belly aching! As I stated, makes no difference to me where in the Bay they play because I’ll be there!
    …amen.

  41. @ pjk – [q]If its the responsibility of San Joseans to go to A’s games since Oakland residents don’t go, I have a novel idea: Have the A’s build a new stadium in San Jose.[/q] roflmao…and the blame game continuees from Oakland proponents: it’s not their fault, it’s the [s]city government[/s], [s]south bay fans[/s], [s]martian invaders[/s], or [insert your excuse here] .

  42. ^^ damn…i massively failed on the intarweb. :(

  43. @ML If outsiders look at the Bay Area and fixate on it being Oakland’s fault for the attendance, I understand. However, when someone from here, who KNOWS that a team has to draw from all around the Bay Area to achieve desired attendance goals blames only Oakland, it makes me question where they’re motivation is coming from. Plain and simple, the A’s aren’t drawing because they have been bad and they play in a rundown park. Put them in any city and give them the same scenario and you’ll get similar numbers. The hardcore A’s fans, of which most of us here are, will be the ones supporting the team through this tough run. There just aren’t enough of us in the Bay Area, Oakland and beyond.

  44. Plain and simple, the A’s aren’t drawing because they have been bad and they play in a rundown park ahem….2000 and 2007……however:

    when someone from here, who KNOWS that a team has to draw from all around the Bay Area…. glad you agree that the Bay Area should be shared TR with Gnats… ;)

  45. @Anon I agree the Bay Area should be a shared market, I’d just prefer the team to stay in Oakland. Also, you don’t need it to be your territory in order to draw from an area. A team can market all it wants, where it wants.

  46. So Wolff is trying to fix the problem of poor attendance by building a new ballpark, which would attract not just the few diehards but bring in the here-to-be-seen, I’m-busy-with-my-iPhone “fans”. Oakland is offering $0.00 for construction of a new ballpark and, for the 10 trillionth time, there’s insufficient private capital available to privately a fund a new ballpark in Oakland. Wolff wants to move the team a whole 35 miles away and gets nothing from pure hatred from the East Bay folks who have had a long history of weak support of the team. Go figure.

  47. fix to previous post: nothing but. pure….

  48. @ eb – i understand your preference, but you must also realize how difficult it would build a new stadium in Oakland without public subsidies (which won’t happen). If it can be done, more power to Oaktown….but for now, I just want the easiet path to a new stadium that will reinvigorate and stabilize the franchise., which is to go down south whether it is in SJ or Fremont (yes, i still think it’s feasible albeit maybe not realistic).

  49. @pjk Why do you care if “East Bay folks” have hatred for Wolff? You constantly bring it up. People will feel how they feel and berating them is not going to change their minds. In the end, whatever happens with the A’s and a new stadium is going to happen, no matter what any sub-group of A’s fans has to say. I disagree with a lot of the hostility towards the East Bay on here, but I know that a lot of this passion comes from a deep attachment and love for the A’s, something that’s shared by all sides of this debate.

  50. times are a changing and with the rangers and angels signing these billion dollar tv deals, the a’s need to find the quickest way to get a huge infusion of money and that is moving the team into the heart of silicon valley.

  51. @ eb – re: EB fan “hostility”. I think if said Oakland/EB proponents would fess up to reality admitting partial blame for a dysfunctional government (you did elect them afterall) and not pushing forward on the A’s stadium issue, you would get much more sympathy from others. But continually trying to blame LW/JF, SB fans, etc. is just looking like a major cop out. Yes, while the blame may go around to differnt people/areas, the fact is the A’s have Oakland attached to their name (as most proponents have loudly stated) and do presently reside in Oakland, so Oakland itself should burden the blunt of responsbility for not having the foresight and planning of a new A’s venue. When you compare what other cities have done to date vs. Oakland, you really have to question whether they want the responsiblity of a baseball team in the first place.

  52. @eb “Anybody who calls themselves an A’s fan, anywhere in the Bay Area, is responsible for the low turnout. Any team that draws from just one city will be doomed to irrelevance and will be left in the back of the Bay Area sports pages.”
    .
    Sorry, this is a little disingenous. You can’t pretend distance doesn’t matter. No matter where the team is located, it’s going to draw primarily within a twenty mile radius. It needs the rest of the Bay Area, yes, but those fans are supplemental. If the close-by fans aren’t coming, the team is doomed.
    .
    As I’ve said repeatedly before, for me to make it to first pitch in Oakland on a weeknight I have to allow for two painful hours to get there. Most of the games are on weeknights. I consider myself a fan, but I have a family and a life. There’s simply a limit to how often I’m going to do this.
    .
    If you put the team in San Jose, it’ll take me only twenty minutes to get there. Not surprisingly, I”ll go to more often. I’m no different from most people in this regard.
    .
    By the way, I disagree with PJK’s initial premise. 25K fans per night at the Coli by itself would not prove the team is viable in Oakland, because it would provide no evidence the team can sell the requisite premium seat product. 10,000 club seat and suite customers is worth a lot more than 25,000 people buying tickets that top out at $40.

  53. @pjk “Also, the other day, KTVU did a piece about Little League baseball in Oakland. They talked to one of the parents. What was she wearing? A cap with “SF” on it, of course.”
    .
    You can’t really put much stock in this. Some of the little leagues use MLB names and hats for the kids. The coaches usually pick which team, and I wouldn’t be surprised if every one of those leagues in the Bay Area has the A’s and Giants selected.

  54. I have a lot of personal experience with the Oakland Little League. There are many Giants fans among the parents and kids. (Last spring, before the kids got their uniforms, more than half showed up wearing SF caps; but that was last spring.)

  55. @ letsgoas – I’m not so sure even moving to SJ would come even close to the TV deals you speak of in LA and Texas. The Rangers metro area (Dallas) is not all that far behind the entire Bay Area in population and has about 20 fortune 500 companies of their own. I realize that the Bay Area and Dallas Metro have been alternating between #’s 5 and 6 in the largest TV markets in the US since at least the middle of the 2000’s, but the most recent findings are that Dallas is ahead of the Bay Area (#’s 5 and 6 respectively). They have 5 major league teams representing each sport while the Bay has 7. Is there enough money, population, etc. to have 2 MLB and 2 NFL teams in an area that is just slightly larger in population than another area with just one of each? I hate to say it but I’ve always felt that the Bay can have two good MLB teams but it would difficult having two dominating teams simultaneously in today’s climate. One may be dominant while the other is in the cellar, alternating every so often. The NFL is a different animal because of the salary cap and huge NFL TV revenues being shared and I think the Bay can actually have 2 dominating teams at the same time. MLB, though, will always have the haves and have nots based on geographical area metrics. I don’t think the A’s should be contracted, of course, which is not why I bring this up. I just think that if you simply compare the Rangers and the A’s using all relevant factors, it’s hard to see the A’s (or even Giants) competing for any length of time given market saturation regardless if they are in Oakland or San Jose. It seems that one team must dominate at a time. Maybe I’m wrong. Can they draw more corporate support in SJ? Yes. Will this help them attract some decent talent? Yes? Can they sign huge TV deals like the Angels and Rangers while sharing this market with the G’s? I doubt it. Things have changed, some may think for the better, others for the worse. All I can say is that I truly miss the days when a team like Oakland can have the highest payroll in all of MLB and make it to the post-season frequently. Would MLB benefit from a salary cap? Perhaps that’s another discussion for another thread.

  56. Columbo’s point is a good one. The Bay Area media pie is not much bigger than the Dallas area market, in fact SF-OAK-SJ is smaller than Dallas-Ft Worth. I am not sure that the Bay Area can support two financial powerhouse MLB teams. The Bay Area is tiny compared to all other two team markets and is smaller than some one team markets.

  57. Well that goes back to the 20 mile radius thing. I wouldn’t be opposed to a new East Bay ballpark, but if you draw a 20 mile radius around each present day ballpark, the A’s in Giants pull too much from the same population. A’s moving to SJ would increase the chances of having two strong MLB teams at the same time, IMO.

  58. And I am sure that’s what the BRC concluded also- and that’s why BS is trying to figure out how to get the A’s into SJ- I can understand these types of statements from Ted who wants the A’s out of the bay area but Columbo… Wtf?

  59. IT’s sorta like why the Angles aren’t anywhere near downtown LA, and the Cubs are in the north while the White Sox are in the south side of Chicago. It just divides the population a lot better.

  60. When San Jose becomes a reality, will it really matter what Ted or Columbo think?

  61. RC – That’s probably true. I just want to add that there is a 20-mile radius around Arlington, Anaheim, NYC, etc. also. The premium seating that bartleby mentions is also important for revenues, but I think the TV contracts that letsgoas spoke of are huge in this equation. I’m more concerned with the product. Can 2 bay area MLB teams ever be simultaneously dominant in this modern environment? Only time will tell I suppose. I’m normally an optimist but I just somehow think that, if nothing changes, we will always have big market versus small market. Realistically, even if the Bay was equally shared you’d be looking at 1/2 of 7 million people per team, which is probably a decent size, but can it ever really be considered “big market” when you have over 22 million in NY, nearly 20 mil in LA, almost 10 mil in Chicago, etc.? I’m strictly speaking about these huge TV contracts that add money to the pot to buy the best talent. Look at Green Bay. They have about 300,000 people in their entire metro yet they are able to compete in the NFL with the big markets. I’m not opposed to whatever will make my favorite MLB team competitive, i.e. moving closer to corporations but I have always had doubts about the ability to really compete even in that situation. My worst nightmare would be that a handful of big market teams compete each and every year for the next 50 years. That would suck bad. Do I want to attend games for the next 20 years while my team had “good” talent and either makes it to the first round or falls just short each and every year only to watch the Yankees and Angels dominate because of the revenue disparity? To me this is a major turn-off. I know the MLBPA hates it but maybe a salary cap is what is needed after all.

  62. @ Tony D. – You’re right. My opinion is insignificant. Just ignore me.

    @ GoA’s – Did you actually read that as I want the A’s to leave? I’m an East Bay guy, born and bred (although I live on the Peninsula now), but the A’s have been my favorite team since I was a toddler. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying what you think I am. If anything, I’m advocating for some kind of salary cap in MLB, which will probably never happen.

  63. “I have a lot of personal experience with the Oakland Little League. There are many Giants fans among the parents and kids. (Last spring, before the kids got their uniforms, more than half showed up wearing SF caps; but that was last spring.)”
    There has been an influx of ex SF residents moving into Oakland for quite a while now. Many of their SF allegiances have followed, unfortunately.

  64. RC, I am not sure that two teams can draw really well (top 10 or even 15) but the point about the opportunity for media deals might be more important.
    GoA’s, what did Columbo or I post that you disagree with? SF-OAK-SJ is smaller than Dallas-Ft Worth and Philadelphia.
    Tony D, what the heck is your point? Do you think that having two below average franchises (financially speaking) in one area is a good thing for MLB?

    • @Ted/Columbo – The Bay Area media market doesn’t have a single definition. Radio is generally restricted to the Bay Area, though KNBR expands that significantly. TV-wise, the market is actually NorCal, central California, northern Nevada, and southern Oregon. Total combined population is almost 16 million, or 6+ million households. That larger definition is why Texas can get a huge cable payout – its market is much larger than the DFW Metroplex.

      The Giants are sort of locked into their deal with Comcast, and as a result they’re probably getting less than what they should be getting on the open market. And if the price for the Giants’ TV rights is depressed, you can bet that the A’s are as well.

      A’s win while I’m in the bleachers at Petco! Ain’t technology grand?

  65. I’m big time in favor of a salary cap, but I just don’t see it. MLB would see a small market team like Tampa Bay knocking the Yankees out of the playoffs as bad for business, for example.

  66. @bartleby “Sorry, this is a little disingenous. You can’t pretend distance doesn’t matter. No matter where the team is located, it’s going to draw primarily within a twenty mile radius. It needs the rest of the Bay Area, yes, but those fans are supplemental. If the close-by fans aren’t coming, the team is doomed.
    .
    As I’ve said repeatedly before, for me to make it to first pitch in Oakland on a weeknight I have to allow for two painful hours to get there. Most of the games are on weeknights. I consider myself a fan, but I have a family and a life. There’s simply a limit to how often I’m going to do this.”
    Of course, the further you are, the less amount of games one will typically attend, but San Jose aside there are a lot of places outside of the 20 mile radius that have BART stations which is an easy ride to the Coliseum. Most of the 680 corridor is an example of this, same with the southern part of Alameda County and SF proper. I would wager a very large portion of the Giants fan base comes from outside their 20 mile radius. All I’m saying is that A’s fans have been lagging in attendance and tv/radio numbers for a while now, even those far away could at least watch/listen to games, they aren’t, apparently the “A’s” brand isn’t strong enough to make that happen.

  67. @ RC – And therein lies the problem. Tampa Bay should be allowed to knock the Yankees out of the playoffs and it shouldn’t be bad for business. To me anyway, that’s why the NFL is exciting. Any one of those teams can step it up regardless of where they are located. I went to Catholic high school and we competed against other Catholic high schools, meaning we had similar resources. It was fun because every year you didn’t know who would rise to the top, i.e. it was about coaching, fundamentals, etc. That is, of course, until De La Salle began dominating football in the East Bay then it became a joke.

  68. The point about having 7 million people not being enough to support two teams- could you then conclude that a city with 3-4 million people isn’t large enough to properly support a single team? Or do you think that it is somehow different?

  69. @Ted- what exists today is not indicative of what the future holds- look at the job growth in the bay area last quarter- also- your assuming the fundamentals of how baseball is run today will remain in the future- lots of opportunity to level the playing field- and yeah- when your talking to a bunch of A’s fans about wanting to get rid of the team so your team can have the bay area to themselves- just a bit annoying-

  70. @Columbo- actually, that’s a good point. Not sure if you are a hockey fan but the salary cap has created a lot of parody in the NHL, the playoffs have been turned upside down this year.

  71. eb: Kids born and raised in the East Bay become Giants fans. I know many of them. btw, have you notice how hostile things have gotten between A’s and Giants fans since 2010?

  72. One thing all of us can agree on, CESPEDES!!!

  73. @Columbo “…but I think the TV contracts that letsgoas spoke of are huge in this equation.”
    .
    No question they are, and increasing in importance. All I can say about this is, the Bay Area is growing. And a new team in San Jose should help TV ratings as well. Proximity translates to new fans and new fans translates to TV viewers.
    .
    “Can 2 bay area MLB teams ever be simultaneously dominant in this modern environment?”
    .
    Why do they need to be? Really, people underestimate the importance of luck in baseball. It’s not necessary to be “dominant,” it’s just necessary to be competitive. Once the post season comes, it’s largely a crapshoot. For evidence of this, consider that the Yankees have only won the World Series once in the last ten years. For further evidence: 2010 SF Giants.
    .
    “Realistically, even if the Bay was equally shared you’d be looking at 1/2 of 7 million people per team, which is probably a decent size, but can it ever really be considered “big market” when you have over 22 million in NY, nearly 20 mil in LA, almost 10 mil in Chicago, etc.?”
    .
    It’s not as bad as all that. Chicago has two teams also, so its “population per team” isn’t that much greater than the Bay Area. Over the last ten years, the six teams in those cities have won only three titles between them. Over the last hundred years, it’s not like the Angels, White Sox, Cubs or Mets have been “dominant,” whatever that means. Even the Yankees are showing signs of recognizing the diminishing returns of big payrolls, and peeling it back a bit.
    .
    ” Do I want to attend games for the next 20 years while my team had “good” talent and either makes it to the first round or falls just short each and every year only to watch the Yankees and Angels dominate because of the revenue disparity?”
    .
    History shows big payrolls may result in frequent playoff appearances, but not necessarily playoff dominance. There’s just too much luck in baseball. If your team is good enough to make ti to the first round, there are no guarantees, but they’ll have their chances.
    .
    “To me this is a major turn-off. I know the MLBPA hates it but maybe a salary cap is what is needed after all.”
    .
    Well, no doubt that would be fairer and better.

  74. The point being that the playoffs have become a lot more exciting now that the same teams aren’t there every year. A’s win 5-4

  75. “The point about having 7 million people not being enough to support two teams- could you then conclude that a city with 3-4 million people isn’t large enough to properly support a single team? Or do you think that it is somehow different?”
    .
    Also don’t overlook the relative affluence of the Bay Area. 7 million people here can match far greater numbers in other areas in terms of discretionary spending and purchasing power.

  76. Yes, they go down 2 runs in the 14th, come back and win!

  77. RC – I think I know where you’re going with that and my best answer is…..it depends. Obviously St. Louis won the WS and is not a big area, population-wise. However, and no offense intended to those from this area, St. Louis is, well, St. Louis. A great, awesome city, no doubt. I just think that comparing certain areas to others you will find that there are different choices on what to do for recreation, etc. Also, their nearest competitor is, ugh, the Royals. Then comes Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc. If you focus on the TV ratings for baseball fans, St. Louis has a massive area with no competition, not just in the immediate area, but going southeast until they run into more Braves fans. My point is that, yes, there are exceptions but there are a lot of factors also, IMHO. If we assume there are lots of Cardinals fans in some sort of radius area we might conclude that they receive huge money from TV contracts, thus allowing for better talent. Again, I may be way off but I do think a salary cap would create more parity as you mentioned for the NHL. And to answer your question, yes, I’m a big Sharks fan.

  78. @ Ted “I am not sure that two teams can draw really well (top 10 or even 15)”
    .
    You keep fixating on rankings. Drawing “really well” is not synonymous with “top 10 or even 15.” Rankings considered out of context are a meaningless statistic.
    .
    I’ll provide an illustrative example: Let’s say seven years from now every MLB team with a substandard venue has gotten a new yard. The economy is booming, and average MLB attendance is 3 million per season. Let’s say the top team in baseball averaged 3.1 million and the bottom team averaged 2.9 milllion.
    .
    Some team is going to be ranked last. In that hypothetical, is that team failing? No, they’re wildly successful, virtually as much so as the top team.
    .
    That’s why this constant focus on rankings is mostly beside the point. Both the A’s and Giants can be wildly successful, even if they aren’t both in the top 15 in attendance simultaneously.

  79. @xoot “eb: Kids born and raised in the East Bay become Giants fans. I know many of them. btw, have you notice how hostile things have gotten between A’s and Giants fans since 2010?”
    Yeah, but working with kids, I notice parents usually will guide them towards the teams they favor. Can’t blame them, I plan on doing the same. :) I just hate seeing people who live in Oakland slamming the hometown teams. Like it or not, they represent the city you know live in.
    I think the anger, on part of A’s fans, IMO, is the complete disrespect our franchise gets from the local media and casual fans. I mean the on the field success by the A’s has dwarfed the Giants.The A’s have been the second most successful franchise in the Bay and the first to bring this area a title, yet they get treated like that doesn’t matter. That’s always been the case, but after 2010, it was taken to the extreme.

  80. “Of course, the further you are, the less amount of games one will typically attend, but San Jose aside there are a lot of places outside of the 20 mile radius that have BART stations which is an easy ride to the Coliseum. Most of the 680 corridor is an example of this, same with the southern part of Alameda County and SF proper.”
    .
    First off, most of the 680 corridor, southern Alameda County, and SF proper are within a twenty mile radius of the Coli.
    .
    Second, the fixation on BART is misplaced. Personally, I love transit, but that’s just not our culture. Most people drive to the games.
    .
    “All I’m saying is that A’s fans have been lagging in attendance and tv/radio numbers for a while now, even those far away could at least watch/listen to games, they aren’t, apparently the “A’s” brand isn’t strong enough to make that happen.”
    .
    Going to games helps forge a connection which makes people more interested in watching on TV. People don’t go to games because they’re inconvenient, thus don’t develop an interest which results in TV ratings. Another reason why placing the teams so close together in SF and Oakland makes no sense.
    .

  81. Just watched video of today’s game-winning hit. Spotted the usual acres and acres and acres of empty seats.”Keep Our A’s in Oakland,” though, right?…

  82. @EB- what effect do you think the mistreatment of the A’s by Oaklands political leaders over the past 17 years has had on fans attitudes- no one can deny that Oakland leaders have always treated the A’s as a stepchild- especially after the return of he Raiders-

  83. “First off, most of the 680 corridor, southern Alameda County, and SF proper are within a twenty mile radius of the Coli.”
    You’re right, I’m thinking of miles driven, which in a lot of cases is just over 20 miles.
    “Second, the fixation on BART is misplaced. Personally, I love transit, but that’s just not our culture. Most people drive to the games.”
    Maybe you’re right, but it is just so much easier. I would think more people take BART to A’s games or to leisure destinations than you’d think. I’m sure that information is available somewhere.
    “Going to games helps forge a connection which makes people more interested in watching on TV. People don’t go to games because they’re inconvenient, thus don’t develop an interest which results in TV ratings. Another reason why placing the teams so close together in SF and Oakland makes no sense.”
    I’m sorry, but that seems like a huge excuse.

  84. @ bartleby – I agree about the luck in MLB. I mean, 162 games, c’mon. You can play .600 ball for the entire season and crap out in the playoffs, i.e. Mariners. This I understand completely. Again, I just think that, to even have the talent to sustain .600 or even .500 over the course of many games, requires money, thus bigger TV contracts, etc….o.k., let me have it……. duh, right? Again, Green Bay is a prime example of why something should be implemented to create more parity in MLB. I know there are many owners who would like to see this but the union will never allow it. As to why should we expect 2 dominating teams in the Bay. I don’t necessarily believe that this is some kind of requirement but my fear is that there is will be 2 mediocre teams. Something has to change because, realistically, all else being equal, you will have your top 10 every year and your 20 cellar-dwellers, which would be a shame. This has nothing to do with Oak vs. SJ or 2 Bay Area teams. This is just my opinion on where my favorite sport has gone and I’m finding that I’m enjoying my 6-year old playing tee-ball than watching MLB nowadays. BTW, I’m not a socialist. I’m a huge capitalist for business but, for pro sports, I think there should be something in place to prevent dominance by a few. The problem (my opinion of course) is that MLB is more of a business than a sport like it used to be. I’m a huge football fan but I was always a baseball fan first. In the past decade or more I find that, once the Spring “smell of cut grass” anticipation of baseball subsides, I start looking forward to NFL because we just don’t know who will vie for the playoffs and, to me anyway, that’s exciting. We don’t really have that in MLB to the same degree, unfortunately.

  85. @GoA’s Well, a lot, because their actions led to Mt. Davis, which undoubtedly has hurt attendance. Political leaders will usually make decisions based on what is perceived to be best for them, not for the general populace. Although at the time getting the Raiders back WAS a big deal and was followed by a lot of excitement. It’s just too bad things got mucked up like they did. I won’t defend their actions.

  86. @ pjk – “Just watched video of today’s game-winning hit. Spotted the usual acres and acres and acres of empty seats.”Keep Our A’s in Oakland,” though, right?…” Dude, nobody is showing up to the games. That is completely evident. You have every right to post whatever you wish but this, I believe, is apparent to everyone, including both Oak and SJ supporters. If circumstances were different would more people be showing up? Who knows? Does the East Bay not support its MLB team as you imply? Perhaps, but I think we need to look at all of the surrounding circumstances today and not make conclusions about “Oakland” based on the 13th home game on a Wednesday afternoon. Just my opinion of course.

  87. I’m convinced that a major contributor to people staying away is all the people who keep moaning that the Coliseum sucks. Corporate folks hear this; casual fans hear this; tourists hear this. With all the negative talk, which team would you visit as a casual attendee? Yes, we need a new ballpark, but until that happens stop bad mouthing what we don’t have and focus on the fact that we have an affordable major league team and get all your friends to attend some games. It’s funny that last weekend I was sitting next to some people attending from Ohio. They wondered why people complain about the place. They said it wasn’t as bad as people made it out to be and their tickets would easily cost twice as much at home.

  88. Cespedes!!!!

  89. Bill, so what you’re saying is we should pretend the Coliseum doesn’t suck and try to sucker our friends and relatives who already suspect it sucks into coming anyway by lying to them… Got it.

  90. The A’s ability to draw well on a consistent basis will be transformed when they get a new ballpark. Without a new park they are not economically viable in today’s game, even if they averaged 30k per game at the Colisseum.
    .
    There is no reason to believe that attendance at a new park will be higher in San Jose than it would in Oakland. There is certainly no reason whatsoever to believe that TV revenue would be increased by a move to San Jose. So these attendance arguments and the drivel about who is “responsible” for not supporting the team are beside the point.
    .
    The A’s just need a new ballpark. San Jose’s advantage is that it is more capable than Oakland at this point of delivering a viable plan to build one. That says nothing about The dedication of fans in one part of the Bay Area versus another. It says a lot about the bumbling politicians who run the City of Oakland and Alameda County.

  91. HOW ARE THE A’S NOT ON THE DAMN AGENDA!!!! THAT LITERALLY THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE IN BASEBALL RIGHT NOW! UNBELIEVABLE. IM SO SICK OF THE DISRESPECT

  92. RC, SF-OAK-SJ is a 2.5 million household TV market according to this site: http://www.sportstvjobs.com/resources/local-tv-market-sizes-dma.html looking at most markets that are listed at half that size they aren’t that great unless they have huge TV markets that span multiple states full of long time fans like STL.
    ****
    Bartleby, the Giants are a financial powerhouse and they need to remain that way. If the idea is to weaken them in order to prop up the A’s, that isn’t fair or good for baseball and it would be a tough sell for the owners.
    Chicago is a much bigger market than the Bay Area.
    Very few teams are lacking a new venue and several that have new venues are struggling as have nots so I don’t see new stadiums bringing all teams to within a few hundred thousand fans per year of each other.
    About most people driving to games…That isn’t the case with the Giants and if that is the case in San Jose if the A’s move there it will be a complete disaster. Anything more than 10K cars per game is too many.
    ****
    Columbo, it isn’t that STL is a great town as much as the fact that Cardinals games are broadcast across nine states.
    ****
    ML, sports media markets are tough to identify clearly but I agree with your assessment of the Giants and A’s market.

  93. @Dan, I’m not suggesting we lie. I’m suggesting we stop restating the obvious and dissuading others.

  94. @Simon “The A’s ability to draw well on a consistent basis will be transformed when they get a new ballpark. Without a new park they are not economically viable in today’s game, even if they averaged 30k per game at the Colisseum.”
    .
    I generally agree with this statement, but it overlooks an important point: It’s not only necessary to draw well, but to draw premium seat customers. This is where San Jose has an enormous advantage over Oakland.
    .
    “There is no reason to believe that attendance at a new park will be higher in San Jose than it would in Oakland.”
    .
    Actually, there is good reason to believe it would be. Attendance for the A’s in Oakland has been historically poor. Thus, it’s a low bar for San Jose to beat.
    .
    On the other hand, attendance for a niche sport like hockey has been fantastic in San Jose. If reading this blog has taught you anything, it should be that people care enormously about the city name on the jerseys. This is a big part of the reason for the success of the Sharks.
    .
    Finally, as noted above, general attendance isn’t really the issue, it’s premium seat attendance/revenue. There can be no reasonable doubt this would be higher in San Jose; even most of the Oakland-firsters don’t dispute this.
    .
    “There is certainly no reason whatsoever to believe that TV revenue would be increased by a move to San Jose.”
    .
    This fundamentally misreads one of the underlying dynamics. A new ballpark in Oakland is status quo. It will serve the same population that has shown indifference to the A’s over the years, and gives South Bay fans little reason to start following the team if they are not already doing so.
    .
    A San Jose park, on the other hand, provides proximity to a large population that has lacked it, and puts their city name on the jersey, an issue people care passionately about. There is massive upside for TV ratings. Especially if the higher revenues San Jose would provide translate into wins.
    .
    “So these attendance arguments and the drivel about who is “responsible” for not supporting the team are beside the point.”
    .
    The general attendance arguments are mostly beside the point. Debate about who is responsible for supporting the team is entirely beside the point.
    .
    “The A’s just need a new ballpark.”
    .
    Not entirely. Location matters.
    .
    “San Jose’s advantage is that it is more capable than Oakland at this point of delivering a viable plan to build one.”
    .
    That’s one of its advantages. Another is the massively higher ballpark revenue that could be achieved by a San Jose ballpark.
    .
    “That says nothing about The dedication of fans in one part of the Bay Area versus another.”
    .
    Agreed.
    .
    “It says a lot about the bumbling politicians who run the City of Oakland and Alameda County.”
    .
    They are bumbling, but this is also beside the point because even if they were efficient and effective the market would not support a privately-financed ballpark in Oakland.

  95. @ Ted “the Giants are a financial powerhouse and they need to remain that way.”
    .
    No, you personally want them to remain that way. It would not be a problem for MLB – or even the Giants – if they were to fall back from “fantastically successful” to merely “wildly successful.” Particularly if it meant the A’s were “wildly successful” as well.
    .
    “If the idea is to weaken them in order to prop up the A’s, that isn’t fair or good for baseball and it would be a tough sell for the owners.”
    .
    You have it exactly backward. It is the Giants who are seeking to be “propped up” through an artificial restraint on competition, to the detriment of the A’s and the league. This isn’t fair or good for baseball. As far as it being a “tough sell,” all evidence is that MLB is behind the San Jose ballpark or they wouldn’t be trying to broker a deal.
    .
    “Chicago is a much bigger market than the Bay Area.”
    .
    Based on the figures cited earlier in this thread (which I haven’t bothered to check), Chicago has roughly 5 million per team to the Bay Area’s 3.5 million per team. Bigger, but not dramatically bigger, especially when you consider the far greater affluence of the Bay Area.
    .
    “Very few teams are lacking a new venue and several that have new venues are struggling as have nots so I don’t see new stadiums bringing all teams to within a few hundred thousand fans per year of each other.”
    .
    You’re missing my point so completely I have to wonder if it’s intentional. It was a hypothetical example, not a prediction of anything I think will happen. The point is, the rankings you keep throwing out at us, taken out of any context, are close to meaningless as a measure of success of a team.
    .
    First, general attendance doesn’t track very closely to either team revenue or profit. Second, it is entirely possible for teams ranked #21 and 25 in either revenue or profit to be wildly successful – and not necessarily that far behind teams in the top 10.
    .
    You’re like a guy who’s trying to argue the defensive merit of a player based solely on fielding percentage. It doesn’t show a very good understanding of the meaning or relative importance of different statistics.
    .
    “About most people driving to games…That isn’t the case with the Giants and if that is the case in San Jose if the A’s move there it will be a complete disaster.”
    .
    You haven’t cited any authority for the premise that “most” people take transit to Giants games. Regardless, San Francisco is unique in the U.S. – it’s an outlier. I doubt any city in the U.S. can touch San Francisco for transit friendliness to the ballpark, with the possible exception of New York. So you’re saying the other 27 teams are all “complete disasters”? Your argument doesn’t wash.

    “Anything more than 10K cars per game is too many.”
    .
    Says who? The layout of downtown San Jose is great at dispersing traffic after games and it is served by four different freeways. Anyway, for a 36,000 seat ballpark in the heart of a downtown served by at least five different transit systems, who says there would be more than 10K cars?

  96. re: it should be that people care enormously about the city name on the jerseys. This is a big part of the reason for the success of the Sharks.
    ..except that the Sharks have never had “San Jose” on their jerseys. Just “SJ” on the shoulders once in a while.

  97. For the record, I want both teams to be dominant in the Bay Area. I am a lifelong A’s fan who grew up in the East Bay. I want tourists to come here and say “wow, this region supports all of their teams. This is a great sports area.” 1989 was a fantastic year because it really focused the entire country’s attention on the Bay Area. The earthquake also added greatly, albeit very negatively, but the World Series was the focus for a large part. Two of my brothers moved to LA in the early 80’s and moved back in the mid-90’s, both marrying women from down there, i.e. Valley Chicks. All I heard for the first 5 years when they came back was how lousy the weather was here and there was nothing to do, etc. Here we are in 2012 and they are still here with their families and they now love it. But I can remember feeling very defensive of my area, not to mention offended that my own brothers would take the sides of their wives. Perhaps, not unlike Oak and SJ feel toward SF. Ironically, although an East Bay guy, I remember pointing to San Jose as having annual rainfall comparable to LA while in arguments with them in those early years. Seriously. We are one big metro. That is the fact. For me there is a hierarchy; local area, expanded area, state, and so on. It’s no surprise that we have arguments about Oak vs SJ vs SF. The reality, however, is that we are one big metro. LA will always be bigger no matter how much we grow over the next 50 years. The Angels now have Pujols and that area will always have more money. It’s Hollywood, the miles of beaches, Paris Hilton, glamor, etc. How can we best compete with other metros that are larger, specifically in MLB? I have my opinions but, as with most people, my opinions mean squat in the grand scheme of things. I won’t lie, I truly hope Oakland can do something simply based on local pride. Hey, I’ve been a fan of the Oakland A’s since I can remember so you can’t fault me for that. But, seriously, if it came down to it, I would defend the greater Bay Area, including all sports teams, over any other metro in a nanosecond like I’ve always done. This post probably meant zilch but, whatever.

  98. “except that the Sharks have never had “San Jose” on their jerseys. Just “SJ” on the shoulders once in a while.”
    .
    I assume you realize I was speaking figuratively.

  99. Bartleby, what has having Washington on their jerseys along with a new ballpark done for the Nationals? Not too much.
    Hurting the Giants to help the A’s cannot be an option because we know how successful the Giants can be while we have no idea if the A’s move to San Jose will make them wildly successful. MLB has territorial rights for every market, these restrictions are part of the game and will be, including for the A’s.
    According to the site that I linked to, Chicago had 3.5 million TV households to 2.5 million for SF-OAK-BA.
    Rankings put numbers into context. It seems much more telling than pointing out that the A’s draw much better now than they did 30 years ago ignoring the fact that the sport as a whole has grown immensely
    I didn’t bring up attendance, my comments initially were about TV ratings but your hypothetical about a 25th ranked team being wildly successful seems to be quite a stretch because the 25th ranked team in revenue, ratings or attendance is not close to being considered successful.
    Studies I have seen in the past put the number of Giants fans arriving by car at around half. The Cubs don’t have any parking lots around Wrigley, I would say that a lot more than half of the people that go to Cubs games get their by public transit and I would bet that the White Sox get less than 10k cars per game as well.
    How well would traffic disperse with a concert or hockey game and a baseball game letting out at the same time? More importantly, how would a hockey game and a baseball game affect people’s commute to these events or home from work?

  100. “Just “SJ” on the shoulders once in a while.”
    .
    It’s been on their alternate home jersey for the past 3 years. That’s the jersey the players chose to wear for every home playoff game this season and last. So it’s far more than once in awhile.

  101. @Ted- I assume you share the same concern about the gints wanting to develop an arena next to ATT- and how many times have the W’s and A’s overlapped and created traffic issues in their current location- rare- your arguments are getting weaker and weaker-

  102. @Ted “what has having Washington on their jerseys along with a new ballpark done for the Nationals? Not too much.”
    .
    According to the Forbes numbers you love so much, it has made them sixth in baseball in operating profit, sixteenth in revenue (and only 12% below the tenth place New York Mets). That is wildly successful, especially for a team that has never had a winning season in Washington.
    .
    “Hurting the Giants to help the A’s cannot be an option”
    .
    It’s far from certain that would happen, but of course it’s an option. A small hit to the Giants in exchange for a large boost to the A’s would be a no-brainer for MLB.
    .
    ” because we know how successful the Giants can be while we have no idea if the A’s move to San Jose will make them wildly successful.”
    .
    Any objective, rational, knowledgeable person can see this is the case. Two Giants ownership groups see it, or they wouldn’t be fighting so hard. Two A’s ownership groups have seen it. MLB clearly sees it, or they wouldn’t be working to make it happen. And anyone who understands local demographics can see it.
    .
    “MLB has territorial rights for every market, these restrictions are part of the game and will be, including for the A’s.”
    .
    A completely disingenous argument. No other market has territorial rights like currently exist in the Bay Area. Other markets are protected against outside invaders (although market forces would take care of this in anyway in virtually every other market except New York), but no other two team market kneecaps one of its teams for the benefit of the other.
    .
    “According to the site that I linked to, Chicago had 3.5 million TV households to 2.5 million for SF-OAK-BA.”
    .
    So, 1.75 million per team in Chicago vs. 1.25 million per team in the Bay Area. Bigger, but not dramatically so, especially considering the far greater affluence of the Bay Area.
    .
    “Rankings put numbers into context.”
    .
    This is actually the opposite of what you’ve been doing. Instead, you’re throwing out the unexamined and unsupported premise that any ranking in the bottom half means failure. As my hypothetical shows, curves may be flat and this premise does not stand up.
    .
    “It seems much more telling than pointing out that the A’s draw much better now than they did 30 years ago ignoring the fact that the sport as a whole has grown immensely.”
    .
    There are lots of factors that play into this. The A’s also face far more brutal competition know than they did thirty years ago.
    .
    Anyway, virtually any discussion on attendance I’ve seen on this board touched both on absolute numbers, rankings, and other factors. In other words, rankings are put into context. This is the opposite of what you do when you claim that because the Orioles (according to Forbes) are 23rd in revenue they are by definition failing and DC/Baltimore cannot support two teams, while ignoring the fact that (a) the difference between 23rd and 15th is nominal, (b) both the O’s and Nats are among the most profitable teams in baseball, and (c) both have had extended runs of absolute failure on the field.
    .
    “I didn’t bring up attendance, my comments initially were about TV ratings but your hypothetical about a 25th ranked team being wildly successful seems to be quite a stretch because the 25th ranked team in revenue, ratings or attendance is not close to being considered successful.”
    .
    As explained above, the team ranked 25th for any one of those things may still be wildly successful, depending on context. It is entirely possible that 25 – or even all 30 – MLB teams may be doing very well at the same time. The ranking by itself tells you nothing.
    .
    “Studies I have seen in the past put the number of Giants fans arriving by car at around half.”
    .
    If that’s true, I’m betting that puts them at or near the very top in transit usage. Still an outlier.
    .
    “The Cubs don’t have any parking lots around Wrigley, I would say that a lot more than half of the people that go to Cubs games get their by public transit”
    .
    Maybe, though I’d like to see some figures on this. If so, they are an outlier, too.
    .
    “and I would bet that the White Sox get less than 10k cars per game as well.”
    .
    This I doubt. I’ve been to the White Sox stadium. It’s in a crappy section of town, and it’s surrounded by giant parking lots. I bet their transit use is no better than the A’s (which ML has told us is around 15-20% in Oakland).
    .
    “How well would traffic disperse with a concert or hockey game and a baseball game letting out at the same time?”
    .
    Very well. The whole point is parking for HP Pavilion/Diridon is spread out through the downtown.
    .
    “More importantly, how would a hockey game and a baseball game affect people’s commute to these events or home from work?”
    .
    This would be a relatively rare occurrence, just as Warriors/A’s overlaps are a rare occurrence in Oakland. The schedule makers try to avoid this. If it did occur, it would have less impact than a Monday Night Niner game. Downtown San Jose is well served by transit, greater percentages of people would take transit in this scenario, and the total number of people going would still be less than for an NFL game. It would be manageable.

  103. @Columbo “BTW, I’m not a socialist. I’m a huge capitalist for business but, for pro sports, I think there should be something in place to prevent dominance by a few.”
    .
    I’m with you. I think part of the difference is, in the rest of market capitalism, competition is a mechanism for achieving better and cheaper profits. Having non-competitive businesses fail is desirable, because it removes inferior goods from the market. Competition is a means, not an end.
    .
    In professional sports, competition IS the product. It’s the end, not just a means. And because wins and losses are a zero sum game, it doesn’t necessarily mean that an organization that suffers some losing seasons is inferior, it’s just kind of the nature of the beast. And even if they were inferior, you still need to field teams and churning teams doesn’t really serve the needs of customers in those markets, who want stability.
    .
    All of which is to say, I agree with you.

  104. @Columbo Sorry, “profits” should say “products.” I wish there was some way to retroactively correct posts.

  105. Bartleby, The Forbes numbers are all we have. The Marlins were the most profitable team in MLB in recent years, were they successful playing in their former ballpark? The A’s have been more profitable than the Yankees in some years recently, does that make them more successful than the Yankees?
    The Giants are worried about being hurt by an A’s move to San Jose, they wouldn’t care if the A’s were as successful financially as the Giants as long as it didn’t cost the Giants any revenue or franchise value.
    The biggest factor for increased attendance from 30 years ago to now is the growth of baseball.
    I would bet the farm that the Cubs, Mets and Yankees all have half or less of their fans traveling to games by car.

  106. @ bartleby and others – I’m just curious. When you travel abroad and someone asks where you are from what do you reply? I’m only asking because, as I mentioned previously, I am from a little city in the East Bay near Oakland, born and raised. When I was on a cruise to the way, way outer Caribbean in the late 90’s I met a nice woman (before I married by the way) and, of course, origin came up. I immediately responded “I’m from the San Francisco Bay Area.” Notice I didn’t say Oakland or the East Bay. Why? She was from Rhode Island and I figured she’d have no clue if I told her what city I was from, much less if I said East Bay in California. Who cares? If I’m in San Jose or Sausalito, I will say I’m from the East Bay. If I’m in Munich, Caracas, Sydney, or Java (G-land) I say I’m from San Francisco. Just like both of my brothers, who lived in Redondo Beach and Torrance, they told people they were from Los Angeles. If having a sports team meant putting your city’s name on a worldwide map I don’t think it will happen. My sister moved to Gig Harbor in 2004 but she says that she lives in Seattle. That’s the way it is. We live in the San Francisco Bay Area and it is what it is. Personally, I could care less about city recognition. I just want the f#$king A’s and Raiders to start winning again like I know they can.

  107. @ bartleby – Great post! BTW, my previous post was prior to reading your last one. I especially agree when yo said inferior products will ultimately fail. That is the whole point of the limited-gov’t mindset. Note I didn’t say “free-market” because this can be interpreted in many different ways. I am on board with that completely. I just wish MLB was different, i.e. not so much of a business per se.

  108. @Ted “The Marlins were the most profitable team in MLB in recent years, were they successful playing in their former ballpark? The A’s have been more profitable than the Yankees in some years recently, does that make them more successful than the Yankees?”
    .
    The difference is, the Marlins and A’s achieved this through subsidies; to my knowledge, the O’s and Nats did not. See how important it is to put these statistics in context?
    .
    “The Giants are worried about being hurt by an A’s move to San Jose, they wouldn’t care if the A’s were as successful financially as the Giants as long as it didn’t cost the Giants any revenue or franchise value.”
    .
    The Giants know the A’s would thrive and compete in San Jose, they’d rather see them crippled and hopeless in Oakland. As would you.
    .
    “The biggest factor for increased attendance from 30 years ago to now is the growth of baseball.”
    .
    I don’t see the relevance of this to anything we’re discussing.
    .
    “I would bet the farm that the Cubs, Mets and Yankees all have half or less of their fans traveling to games by car.”
    .
    Then you would lose your farm on the Mets, and quite possibly the Yankees. Citi Field sits in a sea of giant parking lots, and lots of Mets fans come from Long Island. By far the majority of them drive. Yankee Stadium I’m less sure about, but they’ve build masses and masses of giant garages, and lots of their fans come from Jersey and Connecticut. They mostly drive.
    .

  109. “we have no idea if the A’s will be wildly successful in SJ”

    Yeah, splitting a 7.5 million metropolitan area with one other team 45 miles away, brand new ball park in an area where the NHL (the NHL!) sells out every single game this year in a non traditional hockey market (that already failed once), unusually good corporate sponsorship (and yeah, it doesn’t seem to be worrying the 49ers much about moving to the south bay, how much were those seat licenses?)… yeah I like our chances in SJ. Although I think a JLS location would have been gorgeous, SJ looks really good. I think what you are worried about is seeing nothing but Green and Gold everywhere in your home town, instead of the usual ugly Halloween colors. In less than a decade , the Giants fans will be the minority down there, vanishing faster than Oriole fans in Washington. Why? Because a city like San Jose supports their teams, and supports them well. They even supported the W’s when they were down there only temporarily, setting new attendance records that the W’s didn’t break until well into the 2000s.

  110. @Columbo “When you travel abroad and someone asks where you are from what do you reply?”
    .
    I usually just say California. If they say “Whereabouts,” I’ll say something like “Bay Area, near San Jose.” If I get a blank look or they press for clarification, I may grudgingly say “about an hour from San Francisco.”
    .
    I consciously try to avoid letting myself be referenced in terms of San Francisco. Although it’s one of my favorite cities in the world, I find it vaguely irritating that people west of the Sierras all believe it is the center of Bay Area life the same way New York in the center of the universe in the Tri-State Area. (Having lived in both places, I don’t believe this is the case). It also seems somewhat pretentious to claim San Francisco as home when I’ve never lived there.

  111. @ RC – “They even supported the W’s when they were down there only temporarily, setting new attendance records that the W’s didn’t break until well into the 2000s.” Huh? The Warriors at the Arena in Oakland sold out every game from the ’89-’90 season until they played in SJ for the ’96-’97 season while it was being remodeled. That’s 7 consecutive seasons of sellouts. The capacity was 15,025 prior to renovation. What is your point? Remember that NBA has one team in the Bay Area. If they break attendance records the argument is exactly what I just said….no other NBA option? If they lag in attendance it’s Oakland’s lack of support? Really? In case you haven’t noticed, the W’s have sucked badly for most of their existence at the arena. Please, and I mean this sincerely, give me some of what you’re smoking.

  112. @Columbo Having given this a little more thought, maybe another, subconscious reason I don’t want to name San Francisco as my home are my sports allegiances. I really don’t want to be mistaken for a Giants or Niners fan. :-)

  113. @ bartleby – Nice! Well said.

  114. No my point was that teams do well in SJ, not that they didn’t do well in Oakland. I realize that the old arena was too small, and especially during those great years. Who knows what they could have sold had they had a bigger arena. I never said that Oakland didn’t support their team. Take it easy. My point was more that the W’s hardly suffered in the south playing in a hockey arena. I am sure the quality of the team had a lot to do with why it took them a while to consistently fill Oracle, even though it had just been renovated. I never smoke this late, it just puts me to sleep.

  115. @Columbo/RC – I remember covering the W’s during that year in SJ. I went into the W’s locker room before the game and talked to Donyell Marshall, who’d come off his first full season in as a Warrior and averaged a pitiful 5 points and 3 rebounds. I asked him a stupid question, “What did you learn from your experience last year?” He replied, “I just want to forget about last year.” That’s how bad the W’s were.

  116. @ ML – You were a media reporter back then?!! With what outlet may we askl! ;)

  117. @Anon – I was in college and hooked on with a pro photographer by chance. Great experience, though it made me hate the press box atmosphere.

  118. @ ML – ah IC and thanks for sharing….must of been fun going into the locker rooms though, especially as a sports fan!

  119. Batleby, comparatively the Nationals despite being the new thing in Washington witht he town name on the jersey and a shiny new park are mediocre earners and despite a beautiful park in Camden Yards the Orioles are poor earners. Profit really doesn’t matter IMO.
    I don’t care if the A’s are crippled or not, I just don’t want the Giants to be hurt by an A’s move and I don;t want San Jose to be hurt by the A’s moving to town.
    Most people I know from Jersey, Long Island and Connecticut that go to NY do so on the train. I would think they would do this for baseball games as well as work.
    RC, the Bay area is the smallest two team market in MLB and it has never had two teams that have done really well financially at the same time. I do worry about the A’s taking away dollars from the Giants by having MLB take away territorial rights that belong to the Giants.
    About the Warriors, if Oakland supports the Warriors despite their dismal history, why wouldn’t they support the A’s?

  120. Good night all, I am beat and we are going in circles.

  121. “comparatively the Nationals despite being the new thing in Washington witht he town name on the jersey and a shiny new park are mediocre earners and despite a beautiful park in Camden Yards the Orioles are poor earners.”
    .
    Why, ‘cuz you say so? You haven’t even stated any coherent criteria for this judgment, let alone justified it. The Nats have had seven consecutive non-winning years, the O’s fourteen. Both have had some truly wretched years in that time. In spite of this, neither is significantly behind your magic, arbitrary top 15 in revenue, and both are wildly profitable. There is every reason to believe if they have some success on the field, they will climb up the revenue later. They have been wildly successful from a business perspective, and shown DC/Baltimore can easily support two teams.
    .
    “Profit really doesn’t matter IMO.”
    .
    That’s just ridiculous.
    .
    “I don’t care if the A’s are crippled or not,”
    .
    Well, that will certainly endear you to the folks on this board.
    .
    “I just don’t want the Giants to be hurt by an A’s move”
    .
    You just said “profit really doesn’t matter.” There is no reason to believe an A’s move will do anything to the Giants beyond pinching their margins a little bit and forcing them to try harder. Smart Giants fans should be wishing for this to happen.
    .
    “and I don;t want San Jose to be hurt by the A’s moving to town.”‘
    .
    The notion of San Jose being hurt is ridiculous. San Jose will be getting the best deal on a professional sports team in my lifetime. It will be put on the map in a big way. It will get tons of free marketing. It will get a huge boost to its downtown, a goal it has already spent over a billion dollars on. It will reap far more in tax revenue than it invests. No rational person thinks San Jose will be hurt by this, any more than SF was hurt by AT&T Park.
    .
    “Most people I know from Jersey, Long Island and Connecticut that go to NY do so on the train. I would think they would do this for baseball games as well as work.”
    .
    You might think this, but you would be wrong. Citi Field has a subway stop, but it would take hours to get there by train from New Jersey, Connecticut, and much of Long Island. No one from those places does this.
    .
    Yankee Stadium is similarly inaccessible by train from New Jersey or Long Island. Since they built the new stadium, it now has a Metro North stop which could serve people from Connecticut. Nevertheless, I doubt this is their main means for getting to the stadium. People from Connecticut take the train to Manhattan because it’s impossible to park. People from Connecticut prefer the safety and convenience of their cars when travellling to the Bronx, especially now that there is ample parking there.
    .
    “About the Warriors, if Oakland supports the Warriors despite their dismal history, why wouldn’t they support the A’s?”
    .
    Good question. Why don’t they?
    .
    As you know, it doesn’t matter anyway, as its not about attendance its about premium seat revenue, which you well know Oakland cannot provide.

  122. Some silver lining to the A’s home attendance this year:

    Discounting the two games in Tokyo, the average is over 18,000 per game, good for 29th (Cleveland is last). Also, only 3/10 Coliseum contents were on Saturday or Sunday, and the weather hasn’t been great either.

    At this point last year, the average was over 20,000, but Oakland had hosted the Red Sox twice (on weekdays) and there were 4 Sat-Sun games (opening day was a Friday).

    Source: http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/schedule/_/name/oak/oakland-athletics

  123. For those who care, some numbers on how many fans ride transit to Yankees and Mets games:

    “The MTA has previously told Transportation Nation that about 37 percent of Yankee fans take the subway to games, about 15,400 per game. After factoring in Metro-North commuter rail, buses, and even ferries, the percentage who take transit rises to about 45 percent. The figure for Mets games, according to the MTA, is 25-30 percent, not including LIRR regional rail, for an average game and 30-35 percent for subway series games. That last fact indicates that the Yankees fans going to Citi Field are more likely to take transit than Mets fans going to Citi Field.” http://transportationnation.org/2011/07/18/more-fans-look-to-take-transit-to-see-yankees-than-mets/

  124. The facts are: (1) The next owners meeting will not have a vote about the A’s move to SJ. (2) LW and partners are not “publicly” upset about it and are not going to force a vote. (3) BS has publicly stated the issue is on the front burner. (4) Their is a virtual 100% agreement within the Lodge that the A’s need a new stadium.
    Other than TR rights being in contention with the Giants believing they are solid as a rock and the A’s strongly desiring SJ (and SJ strongly desires the A’s move there), there is little we know beyond this when it comes to The Lodge. Best we can do is ask the questions: (1) LW is not forcing it because the A’s are good Lodge members OR do they believe they would lose a “forced” vote? (2) Is Oakland out as a site for the A’s or is MLB working on an Oakland plan? (3) Is BS delaying it further and further because the vote would be contentious/fractured/conspicuously lack consensus OR is the delay a strategic part of a bigger plan? (4) Is there any indication to believe the Giants are softening their stance on TR or any indication the A’s determination to move to SJ is weakening?
    Answers are: ***I think LW is not forcing the vote because they are good Lodge members. Otherwise I think they would, by now, force the vote just to know if they need to starting looking elsewhere. *** Based on their attempted move to Fremont, at least 1 owner’s comments and Oakland’s track record, I do not believe Oakland is even in consideration by MLB. *** Oakland does not appear less determined to move to SJ. SF does not appear to be softening its stance (though maybe an iota of softening its public rhetoric).
    Maybe it was way too wordy to break it down like this but it really does come down to the question of BS and what is his thought process. Does he want a clear consensus before he will bring about a vote? If that is the case then a clear consensus is absolutely not there. After all this time that creates the question will it ever be there? Or is the long delay part of a strategic plan to either make the A’s or Giants blink? Or for a more optimum date or more of a plan in place? I think the anecdotal evidence suggests BS wants a clear consensus, it isn’t there, but the votes are probably there to allow the move. This is why the move to SJ hasn’t been given the green light or been given the red light. It is why it is a continuing saga. Which creates the last question: Does LW remain the good lodge member and quite possibly allow the move to SJ die on the vine OR does he push it and irk BS and others in the Lodge? I suspect they continue to be good Lodge members. All roads lead to back to BS and what his inclination is.

  125. Ted says””I don’t care if the A’s are crippled or not, I just don’t want the Giants to be hurt by an A’s move and I don;t want San Jose to be hurt by the A’s moving to town.””
    Sorry to be so pointed but that is plainly self serving non sense. Was SF hurt by their new ballpark? SJ hurt by the Shark tank? Oakland hurt by the Coliseum 40 years ago? You are similarly just as concerned by a new A’s ballpark at JLS or VC hurting Oakland? Concerned about the massive super expensive planned project of CC? Fyi, the many officials elected by the people of SJ have done quite a bit to get the A’s to move to SJ. I’ll bypass what the Oakland Pols have not done to keep the A’s — as the pro Oakland crowd seems mind numbingly determined to ignore that glaring and most germane fact. I’ll just say that the elected officials and voters of SJ (according to polls) want the A’s in SJ. Your, ahem, heart warming concern for the city of San Jose is therefore there because of what?
    What to say about your concern for the health of the Giants and disregard for the health of the A’s. So be it. I have disdain for you regarding your stance on the A’s but you have every right to be dismissive of the A’s. But your picking and choosing of who should be healthy and who should be left to wither seems to run counter to the wide net of concern you cast (such as SJ). But allow me to allay your fears, there is near consensus that a move to SJ for the A’s would be good for MLB. MLB would showcase a new high tech park with a worldwide recognized name on it. It is now the home of NHL, NFL and MLS and where the Giants wanted to move to (were you concerned for SC when they wanted to?). Again this is good stuff for MLB. The A’s and Giants are both members of MLB. And while it is widely believed that the Giants would be “hurt” by the A’s move to SJ, there is wide belief the “hurt” will be minor. But hey, we wouldn’t want the Giants feeling a small pinch and have the A’s get more healthy with it being a plus for MLB. The poor Giants have enjoyed the best TR deal in baseball which they received for a bag of shells. NOOO! We couldn’t cause them a pinch!!

  126. Maybe they’ve bought into a lie, who knows? But there’s just not enough owners to support this.
    The A’s aren’t going to San Jose and I don’t think Lew Wolff’s gonna stick around much longer. With relocation and contraction pretty much off the table, it’s time to find an owner who will work with Oakland.

  127. As a Harlem resident I cam attest that a big chunk of Yankee fans come from CT and NYS via Metro North to catch Yankee games. A lot of CT folks are from Darien, Westport, Stamford. Likewise a lot of folks from Yonkers, Westchester from NY. I’m Spanish Harlem so I see a lot of folks on the 4 train going up, but certainly an hour or hour and a half train commute does not deter Yankee fans. No does travelling all the way from Bay Ridge or Canarsie which is about the same time from Brooklyn. Obvious ly we are different fans but I’m not as afraid given that BART is going to be there

    I’m going to the May 21 game at the coliseum if anyone is going. I’m also going to try to check Diridon and maybe see Victory Court just for the hell of it

  128. As a Harlem resident I cam attest that a big chunk of Yankee fans come from CT and NYS via Metro North to catch Yankee games. A lot of CT folks are from Darien, Westport, Stamford. Likewise a lot of folks from Yonkers, Westchester from NY. I’m Spanish Harlem so I see a lot of folks on the 4 train going up, but certainly an hour or hour and a half train commute does not deter Yankee fans. No does travelling all the way from Bay Ridge or Canarsie which is about the same time from Brooklyn. Obvious ly we are different fans but I’m not as afraid given that BART is going to be there

    I’m going to the May 21 game at the coliseum if anyone is going. I’m also going to try to check Diridon and maybe see Victory Court just for the hell of it

  129. re: With relocation and contraction pretty much off the table, it’s time to find an owner who will work with Oakland.

    …You really think MLB will continue to commit long term to a market that hasn’t much worked for 40+ years and will never move the team? And will find somebody ready to spend $1 billion of his own money to continue this commitment, since Oakland expects a free ballpark? OK. I hope you’re right….

  130. re: With relocation and contraction pretty much off the table, it’s time to find an owner who will work with Oakland.
    …Guess you haven’t seen the video from 2000 of Selig calling the move of the KC A’s to Oakland a “horrible mistake.” Something tells me he’d love to get out of there.

  131. Joe, not seeing a silver lining unless you’re hoping attendance would be down further this year…

  132. Your, ahem, heart warming concern for the city of San Jose is therefore there because of what?
    .
    TW, not to speak for Ted but his heart warming concern for San Jose is because he lives there…

  133. @Jeffrey,
    Just for the record, I’ll be once again a citizen of SJ in June, and all my family and friends live in SJ…AND NONE OF THEM FEEL LIKE TED! Not even those who are Giants fans. Yes, he has every right to feel the way he does because he supposedly lives here, but his opinion is definitely in the minority. Hopefully (for his sake) Ted has a change of heart when Cisco Field is up and running. If not, oh well.
    @Rob,
    You have a lot of catching up to do. I recommend reading all entries on this blog from December 2011 to present to get a feel of what’s been going on. In summary: A’s to San Jose baby!!

  134. Total bummer. No guts, no glory.

    San Jose and Wolff should team up and do what St. Petersburg did. Build a ballpark and threaten to sue MLB. OR sell the team to a group that wants to build in Oakland and has the warewithal to get it done.

  135. @TonyD, I am not arguing for the validity of Ted’s arguments. Nor am I saying he is in line with popular opinion in the city of San Jose. Just that he is free to speak his mind and he is a San Jose resident.

  136. @Bartleby: Thanks for the Yanks/Mets/MTA info. Good stuff.

  137. The only opinions that matter are the MLB owners, not bloggers. I stopped reading most of the posts here a long time ago because it’s pretty much the “same old same old”, So I’ll just go back what I’ve felt from the very beginning: If the A’s were destined for San Jose, it would have happened a long time ago. Personally, I’ve love to see the city of SJ challenge the anti-trust exemption, but they’re too smart to try. For unlike some people, seeing “San Jose” on a baseball jersey is not priority one.

  138. Ted has a lot of nerve, and is receiving far more consideration and politeness than he deserves (not that I’m advocating rudeness or trolling).
    .
    He’s stubbornly arguing over and over how he thinks the A’s should remained hopelessly crippled for the betterment of the Giants, to a bunch of A’s fans.
    .
    What a total f&%$ing @&^hole.

  139. j-a – Frankly, I’m amazed anyone bothers to read or respond to his posts. It was clear very early on what his agenda is and I find it utterly dishonorable and about as anti-social as can be. In a nutshell he disgusts me. He’s not here to learn or honestly debate anything. He ignores all facts and logic and lies through his teeth (unless it’s not willful ignorance and he really is that dumb). Why you guys waste the energy to even read his drivel is beyond me.

  140. @Georob – I wouldn’t rule out an antitrust lawsuit too quickly. Just sayin’…

  141. Bartleby, I am surprised by the Mets numbers but the Yankees numbers likely mean that half or less people that go to Yankee games arrive by personal vehicle (that is assuming 5% or more arrive by cab or walk to games). Thanks for the information. Here are some early AT&T numbers: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/mitig_traf_cong/pac_bell_case.htm
    No Giants fan in their right mind would want the Giants to have less resources to acquire and keep talent.
    ****
    TW, I am not so sure that San Jose got that good of a deal for building the Tank, the Sharks get the revenue for non-hockey.
    The health of the A’s is not a concern of mine or the Giants and I don’t see how it makes sense to take something away from the Giants to prop up the A’s. The Giants built a ballpark in their own town on their own. The A’s want to take something from the Giants and hurt the Giants to make themselves stronger.
    San Jose is not home to the San Francisco 49ers nor will it be when the 49ers start playing their home games in Santa Clara.
    The A’s and MLB had multiple chances and decades to argue about TR, instead, the A’s and the rest of MLB repeatedly reaffirmed that those rights belonged to the Giants. What the Giants paid for them is irrelevant IMO.
    *****
    Tony, if the A’s move down here I will hope for a new EIR and TMP report as well as full disclosure about public subsidies for land and construction prior to a vote. If things look good at that point I will likely still vote no on the proposal but if it passes I will be happy for my friends in the restaurant and bar biz downtown and I will just have to avoid going down there on game nights along with spending as little time on 880 south on those nights.
    ******
    Jeffrey, thanks for vouching for me.

  142. jeff-athletic, we are all arguing for one thing or another for selfish reasons so we are all equally a-holes in that regard. I really don’t wish the A’s to be crippled. I would be happy with them doing something on their own in their hometown without a handout from the Giants or San Jose.

  143. Dude, sorry I offend you but I certainly have learned a few things here and have even softened some of my negative opinions about the A’s moving down here. Feel free to point out any lies, I would be more than happy to admit that I am wrong about something.

  144. I’m pro-Oak, no secret there. I think Ted is being unfairly singled out. On the other hand, if I lived in SJ and wanted the A’s to move to my city I just might be criticizing him as well so I can sincerely understand many of your positions. However, I really don’t think Ted wants the A’s “crippled.” I base this on most of his posts in the past (not just selected ones that appear that way). Maybe I’m incorrect but I think he simply wants to the A’s to do what they can in their territory to make it work without infringing on the G’s, which kind of flies with the pro-Oak stance, i.e. you bought a team with a territory… now maximize it to the best of your ability. I won’t name posters but I’m sure I’ll get the usual, “who’s going to pony up $1 bil for a stadium and the team,” or “Oakland can’t support this team based on historical attendance data,” or “Oakland sucks,” or “Oakland doesn’t have the demographics to sell out the premium seats,” etc. I’ve heard all of this a million times and I fully understand the SJ position. The point that I’m expressing anyway is that I really don’t think Ted wants the A’s to leave the Bay Area. Let’s be honest just for a second. Let’s put aside the “unfairness” of the TR situation for just a moment. Has ownership really maximized their territory? I’m not trying to start a whole new discussion about management motives, etc. but I’m seriously asking if you really believe ownership has given 110% to their area before they raised the white flag? Did they really? I’m expecting a flood of answers like “of course they did,” or “Oakland can’t work and anyone can see that,” or “it’s a money-losing option in Oakland, ” or “owners are not in this to lose money,” or “what can be better than $2 tickets and hot dogs.” This I fully expect and I know I’m in the minority on this blog. I would then, myself ask, “why buy the team knowing the limitations in the contractual agreement?” Ted may be a G’s fan but I’m a die-hard Oak-A’s fan and I’m asking these questions from this point-of-view. I’m seriously asking, though, has the Oakland ownership given all it can to at least attempt to make it work in the area that they knowingly purchased? If you say “Yes,” that’s fine. I’ll rephrase since I was babbling here, and I do apologize for that… What I really want to know is………..Does the SJ crowd truly believe ownership gave it their all in their own territory before deciding on SJ or bust? If you bring up Fremont I have opinions on that. If you bring up the 90 minute binder that LW has to go over all of his work I have opinions about that. I’m talking about sprucing up the Coli, spending some of that RS dough, marketing in the area, appealing to the fans, etc. Even if they received SJ approval way back in ’09 by the BRC, why not make the final years in Oakland a fun experience? I’ll be honest, I don’t buy the argument that Oakland can’t support this team. If the East Bay knew they had 3 years left until the move AND ownership made the experience somewhat pleasant I truly believe the crowds would be larger. I went to 2 games this year and it took me nearly 30 minutes to get a beer and food for my boys. Why? Because there were a limited number of stands open. We went to the bathroom and there was urine all over the main floor and, pardon my language, turds sitting in the toilets. WTF? SJ or not, make the damn experience worthwhile.

  145. @Ted,
    You’re wrong about everything, and no, you don’t have to admit it. BTW, hats off to J-A and his fine post earlier (glad it wasn’t deleted; it needed to be said and aired).
    @rob,
    If you’re still trolling, can you enlighten us on the opinions of the MLB owners, since our opinions don’t matter? Why don’t you start out with the opinion of Jerry Rheinsdorf and get back to us with the rest later…

  146. Correction – Beer for me and food for my 2 boys.

  147. Tony D, you may disagree with my opinions but I have posted plenty of things that are factually accurate. Why so hostile?

  148. Columbo wrote: “Maybe I’m incorrect but I think he simply wants to the A’s to do what they can in their territory to make it work without infringing on the G’s, which kind of flies with the pro-Oak stance, i.e. you bought a team with a territory… now maximize it to the best of your ability.”
    That is a pretty spot on summary of my feelings. Thanks

  149. @Ted – No offense, but you’ve repeatedly ignored or discounted many facts when they are presented to you, and you’ve conflated your own opinions with facts. That’s how discourse in comments sections often works. Don’t expect anyone arguing from the other side to do otherwise.

  150. @Columbo- no offense intended but you really are naive about what Ted wants- which is the same thing that the gints want- A’s out of the Bay Area- at least the gints are upfront and transparent in their desires- Ted hides behind interesting arguments such as a $500M private investment in a downtown ballpark will hurt the city of SJ- seemed to work wonderfully for SF- or the A’s in SJ will negatively impact the gints- the ultimate prize here is a one team market and I would respect Ted if he came out and said that’s what he wanted- even Larry Baer has at least said that-

  151. ML, that is a fair assessment. I will do my best to be honest and not ignore anyone’s facts although much of what has been presented as fact by others is speculation or opinion.
    ****
    GoA’s, I have no problem with the A’s committing to Oakland by building a stadium there. I would commend them for doing it on their own in their hometown and if that took fans or corporate dollars away from the Giants so be it, they would have done it on their own with what was theirs just like the Giants did with Pac Bell Park.
    The $500 million investment thing doesn’t really mean much to me. How much of that $500 million is going to end up in the city’s coffers?
    The economic impact of stadiums is questionable, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf
    I think that if the Giants didn’t have territorial rights to San Jose to San Jose for 20+ years and that I knew that Wolff was going to build in San Jose without any land subsidies I would have been much more open to the idea. I have warmed to the idea a bit due to the fact that the construction will supposedly be almost entirely privately financed but Wolff’s tactics and the fact that he feels entitled to an asset that is very valuable and belongs to my favorite team makes it very hard for me to get behind a move to San Jose.

  152. @Ted- you, I and most other logical folks know that you can’t build a privately financed ballpark in Oakland- MLB knows this also which is why bs is trying to negotiate a settlement for SJ- gints know this also- denying SJ will force the A’s out of the Bay Area- you know this and so do the gints-

  153. @ GoA’s – Let me preface what I’m about to say by saying that I must surely be naive and illogical about this entire situation. Now……..”Ted- you, I and most other logical folks know that you can’t build a privately financed ballpark in Oakland- MLB knows this…” Are you privy to financial data in Oakland, i.e. a financial plan to build a park somewhere in their current territory? I’m not being facetious I’m seriously asking you. I realize all of the financial analysis, especially here, that has “proven” that Oakland cannot be viable under any circumstances but I’m just curious if you really have data to disprove a viable East Bay site? Sorry, I’m being naive again. If you had data to this effect would you actually share that with me? Likely not. Nevertheless, I’m just wondering if you are basing your statements on facts or opinions? Would Oakland pencil out with a brand new park? Everyone has an opinion on this. I’ve personally done data analysis for both locations, Oak and SJ. While SJ would have more corporations close by, an East Bay park seems to pencil out as well based on my personal analysis (take that with a big grain of salt), which I’d be happy to share with anyone. Remember that the repetitive argument “SJ is further from SF” is quite acceptable to a degree but the East Bay and West Bay (as I like to call it) is separated by a huge amount of water, i.e. without public transportation you have to drive around to get where you want. We take for granted that BART will run each and every day without complications but, in my naive opinion, we have to account for a disruption of this. You are an A’s fan who lives in SF. You normally take BART. One day you have tickets to a Yankee game and BART, for whatever reason, craps out, thus causing massive delays on the bridge. How do you now get to the park? Ferries? Maybe. Don’t discount this body of water that we call the Bay. It’s easy to look on Google Maps and see that SJ is much further in miles but we have to account for how we actually get there. Let me be clear. I’m not defending Ted because I’m a closet G’s fan. Quite the contrary. I have always hated the G’s (sorry Ted) and, when they won the WS in ’10, I was extremely bitter. Secretly (because my wife’s family are hardcore SF fans) I was hoping TEX would smoke them somehow. They didn’t and I had to live with this, well, intolerable boasting for the next year.

  154. @Columbo- if Oakland/east baywas viable would bs be negotiating for SJ as we speak? Once gain logical minds can draw conclusions based upon what we do know-

  155. Fisher and Wolff could finance a ballpark in Oakland quite easily whether they went to a bank or borrowed from their own interests. I get why they would rather do it in San Jose but I don’t buy that it would be impossible in Oakland. Just because Oakland is less attractive than San Jose doesn’t mean that Oakland isn’t viable.

  156. @GoA’s,
    Excellent point. If what Columbo stated had any validity, why is Selig negotiating with the A’s and Giants? You mean to tell me Columbo knows more than Selig, Busch, Raij or Wolff?
    @Ted,
    FACT: the only reason the Giants have my hometown/my county as their “asset” is because they were supposed to relocate here themselves. Want to close your eyes to this fact? Fine, but Selig knows the deal, hence his most recent comments regarding the whole situation (facts can sure be annoying for some…).

  157. @Ted,
    I guess you know more than Selig, Busch, Raij and Wolff as well (LOL!). Glad your not the one making the decision.

  158. As a San Jose resident myself I would vote yes to giving the land away for free.

    Why? If you look at other cities including San Francisco and Los Angeles (privately built) San Jose is getting the best deal of all time in the history of MLB ballpark construction.

    We as the citizens can at least provide the land and transportation infrastructure if the A’s are going to built it on their own dime….Even SF had to built a muni line to Pac Bell which cost far more than what San Jose is doing with the A’s.

    Cities do this all the time for private businesses, ask Cisco what San Jose did to keep them in town.

    Am I for San Jose paying for the ballpark? No way, and I would vote no to any public subsidy.

    But to give the A’s land to build a 500M ballpark for city pride and entertainment plus tax revenue? Where do I sign up for that?

  159. Tony, I am not 100% sure of that but even if that is a fact that is somewhere in writing and has never been disputed the territorial rights have been ratified four times over the past 22 years and the territorial rights as written in the MLBC were part of the package that was sold with each team to their current ownership groups. I have stated these facts previously but since I have gotten nothing right here you must not believe that the territorial rights were ever ratified by MLB owners.
    What decision is being made Tony and how obvious is it? Wolff has been begging for this handout for years and no one has been willing to give it to him.
    *****
    Sid, the Giants lease the land that Pac Bell was built on and taxpayers will have to pay for transportation and infrastructure updates to support a stadium.

  160. Tony isn’t Raij one of the consultants that lied to Washington taxpayers about what kind of revenue the Nationals would produce? That guy doesn’t have much credibility at this point.

  161. @Ted- by ratified youbare implying the owners voted on Santa Clara count TR- please produce evidence of this- and comments by gints ownership dont qualify-

  162. @ – Tony D. – As I said before… just ignore me. @ Jeffrey – Thanks for your personal email. I will be more than happy to send you my analysis. It’s a tremendous amount of data, spreadsheets & whatnot, but I’m sure you’d have no issues with that because you are clearly intelligent and would have zero issues with it. It has been awhile since I’ve updated it (months) so, at least allow me a few days to just peruse through it and make sure it doesn’t look like s&*t. I don’t want to embarrass myself. I kind of gave up updating it when things really went awry months ago in terms of WTF was really going on, i.e. at least Nov 2011. Actually, I have to check because it might be Dec. Plus, I have 2 small boys who insist on going to Pacifica or Half Moon Bay despite the temp being in the low 60’s. They are my 1st priority but I will get it to you. Blame it on an “old soul-surfer,” who taught his boys way to young. Well, not too old anyway. Thanks.

  163. @Ted – Raij wasn’t a consultant. He was MLB’s and the Nats’ lawyer at the time. It wasn’t his job to “sell” the deal – that was all on the District’s pols.

  164. @ Jeffrey – One last thing. Please keep in mind that I have no inside information. This is purely my personal analysis.

  165. @GoA’s — the owners votes to merge the leagues and adopted the MLB Constitution. The T Rights are prominently spelled out for each team in the MLBC. What more “proof” of ratification do you need? Are you really taking seriously the A’s claim last month that this was all some sort of typo or clerical error? Because nobody within MLB ownership ranks is taking that seriously.
    .
    That the Giants own exclusive MLB rights to Santa Clara County is not in question. The question is whether it can be changed.

  166. GoA’s, It is my undertsanding that TR are spelled out in the MLB Constitution which is ratified by MLB owners.
    *****
    ML, “Represented MLB in the relocation of the Montreal Expos, now the Washington Nationals, to Washington, D.C. This work included negotiating and drafting interim lease agreement, the baseball stadium agreement for the new ballpark, the new stadium lease, the construction administration agreement and following the relocation to Washington, the legal work related to the team’s operations.”
    http://www.foley.com/irwin-p-raij/
    That is what made me feel he was part of selling the bill of goods the Washington taxpayers. The politicians didn’t come up with revenue and attendance forecasts on their own, if he had nothing to do with the economic impact promises then I apologize. Poor DC and Miami though eh? New stadiums and nothing to show for them. I have to admit that of Wolff does come close to paying for the land and all of the stadium costs in San Jose he will deserve accolades.

  167. @Simon- when you have the likes of sandy aldersen stating it was an error then I think it is something to be taken seriously- and where do you get your info that none of the owners take it seriously- we know of a few very prominent owners in influential positions who have indicated they support the A’s moving to SJ-

  168. Columbo, I wasn’t expecting any inside info. And glad to see some folks have their priorities straight (says the man with 3 little girls at home but is still sitting at his desk).
    .
    All, here’s to hoping this whole thing is over in no time… Oakland, San Jose or Crockett…

  169. @Ted,
    Raij has no credibility? Really? That one’s to easy, so I’ll leave it alone.
    @Simon,
    Yes, territories can be changed. Hence why SJ/SCCO is Giants territory in the first place.
    @all,
    At this point in the game, its completely irrelevant if MLB ratified those stupid rights 4 times or 4 million times; it 1) doesn’t change the fact of why they exist and 2) has nothing to do with NOW and the FUTURE. And that my friends is what this is all about: the future of the A’s franchise and ALL of MLB, including the Giants.

  170. On the MLB Constitution tip… Nobody in their right mind (or without a San Jose bias) thinks of it as a clerical error, but conversely… Which team is going to hold up to collective bargaining process (which is what the Giants are referring to when saying the rights have been ratified multiple times) over a territory that hasn’t even been in dispute until 4 years ago? What the Giants and A’s did in their dueling PR releases was comical and all about spin. The MLB clubs have not ever voted specifically on the Giants rights to Santa Clara County. The Giants claim to Santa Clara County, while based on an intent to move originally, is obviously not bound to that anymore. Move on….

  171. @Ted “I am surprised by the Mets numbers but the Yankees numbers likely mean that half or less people that go to Yankee games arrive by personal vehicle (that is assuming 5% or more arrive by cab or walk to games).”
    .
    Sorry, not buying it. The Yankees target customer does not live in the neighborhood, and Yankee Stadium is no where near a downtown area like AT&T is. A tiny number of people walk to the games. There’s no way that many people take cabs to the games, and whatever number do are likely already bundled into the 45% figure.
    .
    To keep all this in perspective, let’s recall why we’re even discussing this. You said something like putting 10,000 cars on the road would be a catastrophe. I pointed out that for the vast majority of sporting venues, the vast majority of patrons drive to the games – meaning if your statement were true, the vast majority of sporting venues would be “catastrophes.”
    .
    In response, you said the Giants, Yankees, Mets and Cubs have most people arrive by transit. So far, we’ve established that the Giants and Yankees are likely at or near 50%, while the Mets are nowhere close. I could not find statistics for the Cubs, but let’s assume for the sake of argument they are comparable to the Giants and Yankees.
    .
    This suggests that three out of thirty MLB teams even get close to 50% transit ridership. For everyone else, the vast majority of people drive, which we can assume regularly puts at least 10,000 cars on the road, probably considerably more. It must be pointed out, Yankee Stadium seats almost 10,000 more people than Cisco Field will, meaning even if Cisco Field does not achieve comparable transit ridership, it may still put fewer cars on the road. Also, freeway access is a lot better from the Diridon site.
    .
    Meaning, your premise does not hold water.
    .
    “No Giants fan in their right mind would want the Giants to have less resources to acquire and keep talent.”
    .
    The Giants will have plenty of resources to acquire and keep talent regardless, especially once the note is paid on the ballpark. Every Giants fan in their right mind would want the Giants to have the INCENTIVE to acquire and keep talent. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics recognizes that protected businesses and industries tend not to perform or treat their customers very well. Exhibit A: PG&E.
    .
    “TW, I am not so sure that San Jose got that good of a deal for building the Tank, the Sharks get the revenue for non-hockey.”
    .
    The whole health of the downtown is largely because of the Tank. San Jose would be a far less appealing place to live without it.
    .
    “The health of the A’s is not a concern of mine or the Giants and I don’t see how it makes sense to take something away from the Giants to prop up the A’s.”
    .
    I call bullshit. It’s the Giants that are seeking to maintain an artificial “prop.” They should man up and compete like virtually every other American business.

    “The Giants built a ballpark in their own town on their own.”
    .
    Good, then let them compete without artificial restraints on competition.
    .
    ” The A’s want to take something from the Giants and hurt the Giants to make themselves stronger.”
    .
    You do realize this is like listening to Paris Hilton argue against increasing the capital gains tax because we should not be taxing “achievers.” You have an underdeveloped sense of self-awareness.
    .
    “San Jose is not home to the San Francisco 49ers nor will it be when the 49ers start playing their home games in Santa Clara.”
    .
    That wasn’t the point. The point was, combined Cisco Field/HP Pavilion events put less cars on the road than many other events which occur without major problems.
    .

  172. @Ted – I’m not sure how you could have miscomprehended Raij’s role so completely. Nevertheless, it’s not a big deal except that you shouldn’t go on some kind of character assassination if you don’t understand what he did/does.

  173. @Jeffrey,
    Agreed. The Giants aren’t bound to the original intent of the TRights. That said, ratifying them umpteen times doesn’t mean they CAN’T be changed or altered. That’s my real point to those who push the ratifying crap; they can be dealt with if MLB sees it in their best interest. And based on Seligs recent commentary…it’s happening brother!
    @Bartleby,
    Leave it to you to set a thread straight ;). Do I hear 200 posts!?…

  174. Tony, I overstated my point about Raiji but I wouldn’t say that what happened in Washington adds to the credibility of anyone involved. The taxpayers got hoodwinked and the Nationals are the worst drawing team in the league.
    About the TR to SCC, it is my understanding that they were given to the Giants and not taken from anyone.
    Bartleyby, the majority of stadiums aren’t in traffic congested areas. Dodger Stadium is and it is a catastrophe with most fans not making it into the park until the 3rd inning or later and leaving early to avoid traffic on the way out. An East Bay solution would help immensely. Ideally they would have run Caltrain up to BART but for some reason they want to run outdated, unfriendly and expensive BART down to San Jose which is why I wonder if it will ever make it to downtown.
    What is a vast majority of people, how many cars does it equal and which teams are you referring to and why the heck are you arguing against mass transit?
    About talent and resources, are you arguing that having less resources is makes it easier to field a competitive team?
    I worked and grew up in downtown clubs in the late 80s and early 90s and I worked in a huge building downtown from 2000-2008. I am well aware of the development of downtown. I know the impact of the Arena and the Sharks and I think you are overstating it.
    Territorial rights are a fact, if you think teams should be able to move anywhere they want whenever they want like a lot of other US businesses that is fine but that isn;t how MLB works and it will never be how MLB works.
    The comment was about the traffic impact of 10 NFL games per year in Santa Clara? That doesn’t seem very relevant.

  175. ML, what was his role in the stadium deal that is plaguing DC?

  176. Tony, MLB TR can certainly be changed, with a 75% vote by the owners.

  177. @Ted – He wrote the contracts. The guys dictating the terms were Bud Selig and Bob DuPuy. The guy who deserves the most blame is then-DC Mayor Anthony Williams, who was the one who truly “sold” the gross receipts tax bonding scheme for Nationals Park.

    Besides, the only thing to note regarding Washington is that it’s a cautionary tale for any stadium campaign. Nothing like that is being pitched in San Jose so it’s irrelevant.

  178. @Ted,
    You don’t know a damn thing about how MLB works! This isn’t about teams moving Willy nilly; its about a two-team market that is unique amongst all of baseball. One is trying to move further from the other and to the regions largest city. This conundrum doesn’t exist anywhere in MLB, so stop making it sound so simple and straw man! Again, if (most likely) MLB sees it in their best financial interest to relocate the A’s to San Jose, it will happen.

  179. For the record: Giants once played in NY, Dodgers in Brooklyn, A’s in KC/PHI, Nationals in Montreal, etc etc. Why did these franchises once relocate? Because MLB saw it in their best interest to allow them to move. The same will one day be said of the A’s in San Jose.

  180. ML, I was under the impression that he represented the Nationals in their negotiations with DC and the Marlins with their dealings with Miami. Is that not the case? About the other BRP members, you’ve got Busch who is the guy that helped put McCourt and the Dodgers together and Starkey was a Pohlad advisor prior to and during the contraction charge. I am not sure how distinguished that bunch is.
    ****
    Tony, me saying that a 75% vote is required in order to force territorial rights to be overturned is a sing that I don’t know how MLB works? I certainly know that the TR can change, Selig may try to push the Giants to cede the rights or he may have to take it to a vote, I guess he could also try to use the Best Interest clause but I don’t see that happening.

  181. @Ted – Ah, so you’re attacking all of the panel now. Nice. Stay classy. Stop now while you’re way behind. A couple of desperate Google searches when you’ve clearly lost a debate doesn’t make you fully informed. It reeks of trolling.

  182. ML, I have no problem with anything the panel has done thus far. I indeed did Google the guys on the panel and wandered off topic. I wasn’t trying to troll and I can’t imagine any A’s fan is much pleased with the BRP anyway. I found it amusing that these guys all seem to be best known in baseball for things that really didn’t turn out all that well, I didn’t expect you or anyone else here to take exception to that opinion. Were we debating the merits of any of these guys?

  183. @Ted – No we weren’t. You took us off course. Thanks for reminding me. Thread closed.

Comments are closed.