Peter Gammons held court on KNBR’s morning show (MP3), talking about Billy Beane, the two managers named Bob, and the team’s economic predicament. Gammons has never been one to be particularly critical of Beane, so as expected he blamed Beane’s lack of success over the last five years on the A’s status as a low revenue, have-not franchise. When Brian Murphy challenged this by giving the Giants’ (and anti-Wolff/Fisher) narrative that the ownership should spend more because it is the 4th richest in baseball, Gammons replied:
Because nobody goes to the ballpark, there are no TV and radio rights. They’re not gonna lose their shirts. The Oakland A’s either have to move or be (contracted)… They can’t exist in a dump. There’s no chance of succeeding there. When Peter Magowan built PacBell he changed the market forever. Now, it was always a great baseball market. The Giants were always a really good franchise, but when they had those cold nights at Candlestick it wasn’t always a lot of fun. But they changed everything. I still think the Giants are one of the top five teams in the business.
San Francisco is a huge market. Oakland is not. The ballpark is in shambles and it’s in a bad neighborhood. People aren’t gonna go there. There’s no reason for wealthy people to give enough money so that they finish .500 and still lose money.
On this site we’ve occasionally discussed how AT&T Park has adversely affected the A’s. What surprises me is how Gammons so succinctly nailed that point when much of the local media have generally turned a blind eye to it. It’s not about hardcore fans. It’s casual fans. Regardless of how many seats are tarped over and what discounts are available, casual fans don’t come out to A’s games – at least not en masse. And when the A’s suck, there’s little hope for casual fans to show up. They know there’s a scene at China Basin and a buzz around the Giants.
Ken Rosenthal wrote a different take on Beane, wondering how long Beane will want to put up with his annual Sisyphean task. Unlike Gammons, Rosenthal doesn’t hold Beane above reproach. But he does point out the problem all low revenue teams have that we’ve gone over repeatedly:
All GMs swing and miss; it’s the nature of the beast (and not all of those deals appeared to be misses initially). The problem in Oakland — and Tampa Bay and other low-revenue markets, for that matter — is that big misses are almost catastrophic. Low-revenue clubs, unlike their big-money brethren, can’t spend their way out of mistakes.
It makes me wonder if the best way for the A’s to compete is to tank a few seasons to get high draft picks, as the Rays did unintentionally. Frankly, it’s depressing to think about. Rosenthal doesn’t offer any solutions, doesn’t mention San Jose once. I know this much. If the A’s don’t go on a big run towards the end of the season it’s gonna take the shine off Moneyball the movie. At least for me.
Updated 12:12 PM – Gammons also calls Wrigley Field “a dump” and similarly puts Tom Ricketts in a tough spot since he’ll have to go out of pocket to fund Fenway-style renovations to Wrigley.
newballpark.org 
Peter lied – he never tried! :X
Wow – hall of famer put up all the cons of Oakland very succinctly. Surprised he didn’t even go into corporate support, but that’s a pretty big laundry list of things right there!
…Yes, I’ve been wondering how they can release the “Moneyball” movie with the team losing every night and in total free-fall mode.
re: itt’s in a bad neighborhood
The Coliseum is NOT in a bad neighborhood. It’s not in a neighborhood at all. It’s in a big parking lot. Which is part of the reason it’s so unappealing.
…Meanwhile, the Giants have the A’s down on the mat with this t-rights nonsense and they’re not letting go. The guy who could do someting – Selig – is too busy hiding under a table.
btw – CCTimes is reporting that Raiders are candidates to relocate to LA….again! http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2011/06/10/raiders-certainly-in-mix-for-l-a-relocation/
re: When Brian Murphy challenged this by giving the Giants’ (and anti-Wolff/Fisher) narrative that the ownership should spend more because it is the 4th richest in baseball, Gammons replied:
…spend it on what? Players who don’t want to come to Oakland? More of the usual blame-the-rich-owners nonsense.
Glen Dickey weighs in too:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/teams/as/2011/06/s-owner-wolff-bad-bay-area-baseball
re: Raiders to LA
…why is it that the 49ers are almost never mentioned as a relocation candidate? Their stadium is even worse than the Coliseum, the Santa Clara project is looking more like pie-in-the-sky everyday and Frisco has the same problems as the A’s in Oakland: no decent site and no public $$ available.
raiders and 9ers are not leaving northern california…
If the Raiders are really talking with LA that’s the last straw. I tried giving them a second chance a few years back and have been following them casually. No more.
Gammons makes no sense …. “There’s no reason for wealthy people to give enough money so that they finish .500 and still lose money.”
So they are inept? If we had $150 million dollar payroll we’d still finish .500?
I guess he didn’t completely recover from his brain injury.
interesting to hear about the way the U2 concert was managed the other night….concert goers were none too happy in the way that oakland managed that—guess some were never able to make it into the show because of traffic and parking problems—interesting quote though from a couple in palo alto who had to walk a bit to get to the event…said that being in oakland and knowing their reputation only added to their stress that night—Gammons hit the nail on the head about the coli and its location–bottom line is that oakland has a number of perceptions to overcome to attract the casual fan–
can’t find the article right now, but I think the Chargers are the team most likely to move to LA (if a stadium is actually financed and built).
@David – You think the A’s could have a $150 million payroll in the Coliseum? That’s a good one.
Also, lay off the brain injury jokes. Not cool.
Dickey’s position is no A’s to San Jose under any circumstances. But he’s in with the crowd that believes Fisher should personally pay for a new ballpark…
@David- brain injuries are not a joke man–being in a family where 2 of my siblings have had significant brain trauma and having to watch the challenges it is not a laughing matter–suprising from someone in the education field…hopefully you dont use the word retarded in your list of jokes
this is from Rosenthal’s column. Says it all about what the A’s are up against. Was posted in a prior thread also:
“No free agent comes to Oakland if given a better option. Even young players dread the thought of playing at the Coliseum. Diamondbacks outfielder Justin Upton, for example, has four teams on his no-trade list. Naturally, the A’s are one.”
@ML – Gammons basically said that if they raised the payroll they would still end up .500. I asked a hypothetical scenario. Clearly, Gammons doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Glen Dickey has a proper handle on what’s going on in the town.
brain injuries bad but “wingnut” is cool. ok, got it!
@GoA’s – that’s a huge leap using the “R” word from what i said…
there is no debating the fact that Wolff/Fisher/Beane are destroying the Oakland Athletics fan base and experience. The piece of the action they gave Beane was hush money. Wolff tried to buy Don Perata and looks like he has Rosenthal and Gammons in his back pocket.
@David – Gammons is right. The Angels had a $138 million payroll last year. Where’d they end up? 80-82. It absolutely is possible.
I got hit by a car in junior high and kissed windshield. Concussion. Back problems. 8 stitches to my head. Couldn’t play football after that. Had equilibrium issues for six months. It’s one thing to characterize one’s opinions as silly or nutty, another to equate them with a brain injury. Again, not cool.
David… Glenn Dickey is, as always, writing to get a reaction rather than writing to sound sane. He is a muckraker… His opinion is to be taken witha grain fo salt form where I sit.
.
And Peter Gammons is right… At least on the payroll thing… I don’t know why anyone would want a team owner to run the business in an unsustainable manner… Look at the other recentish examples and the aftermath… Florida in the late 90’s, Oakland in the early 90’s…
Glen has a style, but he laid out some facts that are to deny. The ownership is not committed to the task of winning and encouraging new fans to try the product.
Name another business, where the owners bad-mouths the product and blames the customers for not buying in??
@David- go spend a little time at a hospital called Kentfield up in Marin—sure it would be the last time you make jokes about brain injuries
@GoA’s – give it a rest. What i said was not a joke… i know someone who fell of his bike and sorry to say, he’s never been the same since.
when you say something stupid—at least apologize for offending people man—totally not cool–
i’m done with the diversion.
Reason the Niners aren’t mentioned is one, they’re actually trying to solve their problems even if pie in the sky, and two, they’re far more popular than the Raiders as evidenced by continued sell outs despite a bad team and crap stadium. The Raiders are the attendance laughingstock of the league with no plans for any stadium in the future.
niner games are sold out in name only. i’m a niner fan but watching home games on tv the past 5-6 years no way are all these home games sold out with teh amount of empty seats visable when they do a pan shot of the stick during the games.
raiders just aren’t smart enough to buy up those remaining tickets as the niners do. in fact i’d say even in recent years that the raiders game day attendance is just as much or even more than how many attend games at the stick.
“niner games are sold out in name only. i’m a niner fan but watching home games on tv the past 5-6 years no way are all these home games sold out with teh amount of empty seats visable when they do a pan shot of the stick during the games. ”
.
FWIW, the NFL calculates “attendance” the same way baseball does — tickets actually sold. Comps are not included in the attendance number, no-shows who paid for the seats they leave empty are.
.
If you want attendance numbers that include give-aways and otherwise fake numbers, look to the NBA, NHL, soccer, and all collegiate sports. Especially for soccer, the numbers are pretty much just made up.
I’d say build the stadium in San Jose, then merge the A’s and Rays.
@Vince – Sounds good to me. But please, leave Dan Johnson in Tampa.
@Marine Layer-I’m partial to merging the A’s and Ray’s also the Indians for that matter.
Remind me of the the old USFL when the Oakland Invaders and Michigan Panthers merged.
@Vince–sounds good too but build in the O, not San Ho. Merging with Tampa will make the A’s a hell of a lot better. There’s a few good players there we can use, but it will make it an odd number of teams at 29, where one team will always have a day off.
@jk-usa -We’ll add the Pirates. S we have the merger of the A’s/Rays/Pirates. Now we are even again. The high-revenue teams should be happy.
hey, check out this ESPN article on who will be the face of each franchise in 2016. They name Grant Green as the face of the San Jose Athletics. That’s right – San Jose Athletics. Can we say – Yes!!
http://espn.go.com/blog/SweetSpot/post/_/id/12194/faces-of-the-franchises-circa-2016
I’ve always felt the Raiders have more to do with the A’s current problems than the Giants do… If Mt. Davis had never been built, the Coliseum would still be a great place to watch a baseball game with access to BART and two major freeways.
Let the Raiders leave to either Santa Clara or LA, tear down Mt. Davis and let the green and gold play in the shadow of the Oakland Hills forever, the way God intended.
But Oakland and the county DID decide to ruin the stadium for baseball so they could bring Al Davis back and give him his 120 empty luxury boxes. Now, Oakland wants the current A’s owners to correct the politicians’ mistakes to the tune of giving Oakland a $500 mill ballpark.
Since Rosenthal didn’t mention it…$AN JO$E! There, article complete.
You do realize that if you merged the Indians into the A’s the team that would survive would be the merged Indians right? They’ve got the new stadium and a city to themselves. Hell if Tampa and the A’s merged the same may result. The A’s are in the least desirable situation in baseball.
@Travis,
God loves San Jose and Oakland equally, so leave him out of this.
Better get used to seeing that “San Jose Athletics.” It’s the future once MLB gets the Dodgers situation worked out.
Some people in here are seriously living in denial….a hypothetical, but also realistic scenario could possibly so no sport team in Oakland…W’s to SF, A’s to SJ, and R’s to LA….be a bit of a shame, but hey if the city can raise that much money to keep everyone, more power to them. Just hope you like sky high taxes a la the PSL fiasco….
..incidentally, Grant Green is coming along nicely at the plate, but it’s close your eyes, cross your fingers, say a prayer when a ball heads in his direction in the field. He’ll love Almaden, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Willow Glen or Silver Creek, which is where the Sharks tend to live.
@Dan,
Or more likely its the future once SJ gets the last two parcels at Diridon, which hopefully will be soon.
Speaking of SJ, check out this Sundays Mercury News. Apple almost considered SJ for their HQ vs Cupertino.
If Steve Jobs was willing to settle in SJ, there’s no question they’ll be major players at Cisco Field.
“That massive party suite down the third base line…that’s the iPAD!”
http://www.siliconvalley.com/scott-herhold/ci_18043289
Nothing new there in that article. San Jose’s already acquired most of the properties and Wolff will buy the rest. Cisco, meanwhile, still makes a big pile of money, has a 68% market share and has, after nearly five years, remained on the San Jose A’s bandwagon. Cisco Feld represents a fabulous opportunity for the company. Now compare that to Oakland, with no corporate sponsor, 16 businesses to move, bigtime infrastructure improvements and little to no ownership of the land. Not to mention the upcoming elimination of redevelopment, no EIR and no commitment from A’s ownership.
the column is about “complications” in the San Jose ballpark drive. Can someone name for me any real estate project without complications? Particularly one of this size? If I decide to spend a few hundred dollars to fix sidewalks, even I’ll bet I’ll run into complications.
Cisco for the most recent quarter reported net income of $1.8 billion. If we all could have such troubles…
Raiders aren’t going anywhere!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?entry_id=90733
That’s too bad. The sooner the Raiders leave the better off the Bay Area will be.
LOL Dan….
Gammons has the luxury of being bluntly honest. Local media often do not.
If someone in the newspaper biz – which is already dismally in decline – overtly slams a poor neighborhood, or blames the “average Joe” for not coming to the park, that’s a huge no-no in the newspaper business. Those people are subscribers. And the newspaper business can’t afford to lose any.
I don’t think it’s that local media have “missed” that angle; they just don’t have the privilege of being honest. Very few media people do.
NSJ,
Also to consider is the fact that the traditional Bay Area media (SF/OAK) A) doesn’t want to see the A’s leave Oakland (whether for civic reasons or wanting to see the A’s always struggle in the shadow of Giants/SF) or B) doesn’t want to see San Jose come into its own and emerge from the shadow of SF/OAK. B has a lot to do with the Herb Caen line of thinking; that nothing of significance lies outside of SF, or “Keep MLB out of San Jose so that those South Bay folk can continue to trek northward for their baseball.” Fortunately for us in the South Bay, San Jose is starting to see the light of day.
@NSJ–local media not being honest? Give me a break! Hammring LW and this piss poor ownership isn’t exactly PC. Okay, the Coli area isn’t all that great, rather blah, but I’ve never felt unsafe or had any probs seeing about 2000 events over the last 40 years there. Had my car scratched at a Raiders game back in 1979, that’s it. I’ve frequented the few eateries along Hegenberger, no probs. I’ve stayed at hotels there, no probs. I use to see movies at the old Domes there, no probs. It may not have that fuzzy, comfy suburban feel to the area, but that doesn’t bother me like some people.
China Basin for years was an area you didn’t venture out to. PacBell and all the development around there changed that. The Coli area has potential, but it may take years in this economy.
Correct, Tony: Old Time Bay Area media really resents San Jose breezing right by Frisco and Oakland in population, importance, etc. They really like it that MLB remains ignorant of San Jose becoming its own major city and not a Frisco suburb. Keeping MLB out of San Jose is important to these old media types. Although they won’t admit it, I bet most of these Old Time Bay Area Media persons would rather see the A’s leave the Bay Area than – gasp! – end up in San Jose. They may get their wish.
@Tony D–i liked Herb Caen but he was kind of an SF snob. He hated the Stick and was excited that the new owners were gonna build at China Basin. He died in 1997 before it opened up. Oakland and the east bay have been the butt of jokes from them city folks for years. That never really bothered me and I kind of like that underdog image. You guys in SJ want to be a big city oh so bad, but are stereotyped by the SF folks as too bland, rather suburban and not so couth. An A’s park won’t change things that much though, just bragging rights.. Can’t have a bay bridge series ever again. It would be a 101 series. BORING!!! VC and AT&T is as close to the bay bridge as you can get!
Who cares whether there is a “bay bridge series” or not? It’s just a marketing slogan, and a way for SF and Oakland to pretend they’re not now the 2nd and 3rd most important cities in the Bay Area. SF and SJ will ultimately be a better rivalry, because it will be more a rivalry of equals.
@bartleby-of equals?..lol..ok, whatever. A VC park could relive the old PCL days when the Oaks and Seals would travel via the ferry, with the press and fans, and play a double header, one in game in each park. That would be so cool.
@jk My exact words were “more of equals.” And anyway, yes, San Francisco leads in public profile and as a tourist destination. San Jose leads in population and as the economic heart of the region. Inarguably, this is more a match of equals than SF v. Oakland. As nice and funky as Oakland is, it isn’t first in the region in anything in particular.
Nothing against the traditional “Bay Bridge Series,” but a future “Bayshore Series” or “El Camino Series” will work for me. “Battle of the San’s”? Nahh!
Caltrain Series – in part because Caltrain will probably sponsor all six games the same way BART sponsors Double Play Wednesdays at the Coli.
CalTrain Series? Ugh! Hopefully it will never come down to that cuz the A’s will stay in Oakland, and CalTrain’s future looks rather murky.
Bartleby, as for Oakland not being tops in anything, they’re big manufacturing days are unfortunately long gone but their kick-ass port is pretty important to the whole region. Hey, they have 7 major championship titles (A’s 4, R’s 2, W’s 1), where SF has 6 (9ers 5, G’s 1), and SJ nada yet.
@jk-usa – Good point. By the time 2015 rolls around Caltrain will have been absorbed by BART, making it the BART series. You must like that.
@ML–hmm, not really. I’ll just stick to the Bay Bridge series 🙂
I’ll believe San Francisco is the second most important city in the Bay Area the day Steve Jobs (or his successor) announces a new product in downtown San Jose. It has an urbanity unlike anyplace else in California, only Seattle and Vancouver are close west of Chicago.
San Jose is much larger physically, but really, it only became big-league because it’s close to Stanford and Bill and Dave’s garage in Palo Alto. Santa Clara County is the most important economic center of the region.
Oakland is basically East Patterson, N.J., and can’t keep up with either one.
As far as the Bay Area media (which I’m part of) are concerned, there’s no monolithic voice. Media people aren’t really good at economics, so they still think Oakland is viable. Once it’s clear that Oakland is impossible economically, a majority will get behind San Jose. There are a lot of people who don’t want to lose American League baseball.
BC,
I believe the new Apple “Spaceship” campus will have a venue specifically for Apple product announcements and events; they’re coming home! I asked a Mercury News columnist why so many SV tech company’s made their announcements in Frisco rather than SJ, SC or SV in general. It’s basically because that’s where the traditional media is located: AP, ABC, CBS, formerly NBC (now in SJ). Maybe all the tech company’s can come home and start making announcements out of Hangar 1/Moffett Field; that would be cool!
Frisco has the flash, that’s about it. When the NHL held its All Star Game in San Jose in 1997, MTV held its NHL All Star Party in – you guessed it – downtown Frisco, despite the San Jose Live club at the then-retail pavilion that would have been an excellent venue…Even diehard South Bay people like myself take our east coast relatives to Frisco when they visit. Unless the Sharks are playing, there’s not much to see in San Jose except the WInchester Mystery House. But do people stay in Frisco when its time to settle down and raise a family? Usually not. Time to go…
@baycommuter “I’ll believe San Francisco is the second most important city in the Bay Area the day Steve Jobs (or his successor) announces a new product in downtown San Jose.”
As I said, San Francisco leads in profile/glamour/visibility. That doesn’t make it most important; population and economy are both more important, in my view.
“It has an urbanity unlike anyplace else in California, only Seattle and Vancouver are close west of Chicago.”
Agreed, but that doesn’t make it most important. Your statement includes Los Angeles; urbane or not, would you argue it is more important than LA?
“San Jose is much larger physically, but really, it only became big-league because it’s close to Stanford and Bill and Dave’s garage in Palo Alto.”
Who cares what the reason is? There’s a reason why every major city is where it is (e.g. natural deep water port, on trade route, close to natural resources, whatever).
“Santa Clara County is the most important economic center of the region.”
My point exactly, and San Jose is the flagship city of Santa Clara County.
The rest of the world’s fixation on San Francisco is really kind of annoying. Years ago, I was at a wedding in the East Bay. Lots of guests were from the East Coast, and we all stayed at the same hotel the night before. Consensus of the group was to go to a blues club. I suggested Eli’s Mile High in Oakland, a local institution (arguably the best blues club in the area), and which was right nearby. No sale, all the East Coasters insisted on going to San Francisco. We ended up in another dive blues bar in SF. It was fine, but it could have been anywhere. There was no discernible advantage to having made the trek all the way out there; just a bridge toll, a parking hassle, and increased DUI risk for certain members of the group on the ride home.
@bartleby. Having San Francisco as a world-class city benefits the entire Bay Area. There’s a reason all those young people reverse commute to Silicon Valley when it’s not in their economic interest to do so. The tech industry could easily be centered in Charlotte, Boston, Westchester County NY, or Seattle if it weren’t for the attractions of The City. I live in Menlo Park so don’t have a lot of skin in this game but it never ceases to amaze me how residents of such a wonderful place as the Bay Area can be so parochial.
“I’ll believe San Francisco is the second most important city in the Bay Area the day Steve Jobs (or his successor) announces a new product in downtown San Jose.”
Been there done that.
iMacs & video iPod announcement 2005.
The link to the video was cut out:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/g/a/2005/10/13/applsho.DTL
Good find, A’s fan… but notice that after they strong-armed Macworld out of business and took Moscone for themselves, they’ve made them all in S.F.
jk-usa: I’ve witnessed drug deals outside of the Burger King on Hegenburger. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I don’t feel unsafe there, either. But my guess is that you, like me, are not rich. We are not the market they want cater to.
I want the A’s to be able to sustain a $100M payroll. I think they’ll be able to do that in San Jose. They never will in Oakland. And I realize that a new stadium will price me out of going to the park. But if it enables the team to remain profitable AND perennially competitive, that’s a good thing for me as a fan. I will watch that beautiful new stadium and 90-win seasons from the comfort of my apartment/mom’s basement.
I didn’t finish my first point: rich people feel unsafe more quickly than you and I do. So, if they feel unsafe in the current Coliseum environment, that is more important (from a ticket-selling standpoint) than you and me feeling comfortable.
“San Jose is much larger physically, but really, it only became big-league because it’s close to Stanford and Bill and Dave’s garage in Palo Alto. Santa Clara County is the most important economic center of the region.”
.
I don’t care much for my-city-is-better-than-yours stuff within the Bay Area. Why can’t we like them all? And I will admit that San Francisco’s ban-the-Happy Meals culture can be extremely obnoxious and annoying.
.
That said, having spent a lot of time living outside California, I will attest that the Bay Area is widely viewed as simply “the San Francisco area.” Silicon Valley has done nothing to change that — in part because the place most associated with SV innovation is Stanford/Palo Alto, not San Jose.
.
SJ is geographically much larger than SF or Oakland, so citing its city-only population stats is a meaningless apples-to-oranges comparison. SF remains the metropolitan center of Northern California and one of the country’s 5 or 6 world class cities. As a San Jose native, I don’t say that to denigrate SJ. But SF and SJ are very different kinds of places, and maybe LA vs. Orange County is the closest analogy though not a great one.
Simon is right on about the SJ and SF.
They are in fact 2 different metro areas and MLB right has two teams in one but zero in the other.
The South Bay is too far from SF/OAK to be considered the same metro area and to expect those fans in San Jose to travel to SF/OAK to games consistently is wrong.
The 49ers and A’s are trying in vain to move to Silicon Valley? Why? It is because there are rich fans and corporate sponsors all day in that area. Or at least a high concentration of them.
The fans in the South Bay are being neglected while the SF/OAK areas are “over-served” by having 2-teams 12 miles a apart. 49ers/Raiders do not count because all games are on Sunday’s and people on a weekend will travel for football.
This plus Larry Ellison is trying to bring an NBA team to San Jose as well.
This all points to the future of Bay Area sports being in the South Bay.
A perfect world has an NBA team competing with the Ws in San Jose, the A’s in Downtown SJ and 49ers in Santa Clara….It is only a matter of time..
“That said, having spent a lot of time living outside California, I will attest that the Bay Area is widely viewed as simply “the San Francisco area.” ”
Agreed; I said up front SF has the higher profile. But this is also the reason why getting/having an MLB team probably benefits San Jose to a greater extent than any other city in the country – it would be a HUGE boost in profile. For a city of its size and economic importance, San Jose probably has a higher visibility-deficit than any other U.S. city.
Again, my premise was that SF and SJ were the two most important cities in the region. SF does have the profile and cosmopolitan flair, but San Jose leads in economy and population. We can debate which is ultimately more important, but my original comment was that the two cities are more equals than SF and Oakland. And let’s be frank; San Jose’s importance will only increase in the future. San Jose still has plenty of room and opportunity for growth; SF and Oakland do not.
“Silicon Valley has done nothing to change that — in part because the place most associated with SV innovation is Stanford/Palo Alto, not San Jose.”
Stanford/Palo Alto IS in fact ground-zero for Silicon Valley innovation, but most people outside the region don’t realize that. The biggest reason Silicon Valley has done little to change this is because people on the East Coast don’t have a clue where Silicon Valley actually is, geographically. I’m from the East Coast originally, and go back frequently. You’d be surprised how many people confuse Silicon Valley with the Central Valley.
.
“SJ is geographically much larger than SF or Oakland, so citing its city-only population stats is a meaningless apples-to-oranges comparison.”
I think this is kind of missing the point. When I say San Jose, I mean metro San Jose, including its suburbs. This embraces most of Silicon Valley.
While it is true that tech isn’t focused exclusively or even primarily within San Jose city limits, it is primarily focused within Santa Clara County. A huge percentage of folks who work at tech companies in Cupertino, Palo Alto, etc. actually live in San Jose. As the largest city in the county, home to many big tech companies, and a huge percentage of the tech workforce, San Jose plays a real and important role as the capital of Silicon Valley.
“SF remains the metropolitan center of Northern California”
What does this mean, exactly? When I drive around Bay Area freeways during commute hours, I can’t help but notice a disproportionate volume of commuters heading to their jobs in the South Bay. Most people I know who live in the South Bay actually go to San Francisco pretty rarely. So besides its national profile, in what way is SF the “metropolitan center?” It’s not the economic center any longer, and it’s definitely not the center of the Bay Area’s most important industry.
“and one of the country’s 5 or 6 world class cities.”
I agree with this statement. However, I believe it is peripheral to my point.
@jk You do realize, if and when the A’s move to San Jose, all those WS tropies are coming with them (including the ones won in Philadelphia).
“SF remains the metropolitan center of Northern California.” What does this mean, exactly?
.
@bartleby, for sports purposes, it means among other things that a majority of people who live in any part of the Bay Area, or in Yreka or Redding or Marysville or Salinas or Stockton or Tahoe or most anywhere else between San Luis Obispo and the Oregon border happily embrace any “San Francisco” team as their own home team. Oakland and San Jose are much, much weaker as brand names. Teams in those places have to rely on sub-regional loyalty to totally dominate their immediate vicinity, because they can’t count on a whole lot of support beyond it.
.
For the rest of the league, it means that all things being equal a franchise called “San Francisco” has a lot more marquee value than one called “Golden State” or “Oakland” or “San Jose.” Better for the league and better for the other teams trying to sell tickets.
.
Putting a baseball team in San Jose is not going to change that dynamic.
@ simon94022 Your last argument is an interesting one. I think you underestimate a little bit the number of people who gravitate toward underdogs, who dislike bandwagoners, or who resent the “everything is always about San Francisco” thing we see in the media and from the rest of the country. (For example, during the ’89 quake when I lived on the East Coast, we heard lots about the poor folks in the Marina and little about the devastation in Santa Cruz or Oakland). Either an Oakland or San Jose team will tend to appeal to these folks. (These factors were a large part of why I adopted the A’s myself when I moved here many years ago). Notwithstanding the sentiment of the passionate Oakland-only’ers on this board, I believe many East Bay fans would gravitate toward/stick with the San Jose A’s in large part because it is NOT San Francisco’s team.
.
However, for want of any hard quantitative data, let’s assume for sake of discussion your premise is true (or at least largely true). The moniker “San Francisco” is taken. Out of all remaining options, I think most objective observers would agree “San Jose” has more marquee value than “Oakland.”
.
As far as “dominating their immediate vicinity,” I think this also is very possible in San Jose. Again, I think you underestimate the hunger for recognition of an up-and-coming city. Certainly, the formula seems to be working for the Sharks, who could have easily chosen “San Francisco” as a moniker if they felt it was in their economic self-interest.
“I think you underestimate a little bit the number of people who gravitate toward underdogs, who dislike bandwagoners,”
.
@bartleby, but doesn’t the fact that we’re talking about underdogs vs. bandwagoners prove the point that the San Francisco brand name creates a broader base of support? There’s a reason the NFL uses its clout to ensure that its New Jersey-based franchises are called “New York,” and why Arte Moreno moved quickly to take back the “Los Angeles” name when he bought the Angels. Orange County remains the core of the Angels’ fan base, but the franchise was boxed in there with the name Anaheim, which had zero appeal to the rest of Southern California.
.
“As far as “dominating their immediate vicinity,” I think this also is very possible in San Jose.”
.
Well, that’s what the Giants have been arguing all along. I’m not sure it’s true, though. I think that kind of thing depends on an intense local feeling which borders on resentment against the rest of the region — Brooklyn’s attitude toward New York being the classic historical example. I’ve never experienced much of that in the South Bay, though no doubt some here do feel that way. The East Bay may have it a bit, dating back to the 19th century and the whole “there’s no there there” stuff that SF people say about Oakland. But currently the East Bay isn’t exactly short on Giants and 49ers fans, so I’m not sure it amounts to much there either.
@simon94022 “but doesn’t the fact that we’re talking about underdogs vs. bandwagoners prove the point that the San Francisco brand name creates a broader base of support?”
It might, but I think you and I differ on the degree to which this is the case. If it’s as strong a factor as you say, what stops the Sharks and Warriors from calling themselves “San Francisco?” For that matter, what stops the Raiders or even the A’s?
.
I suspect the answer is “product differentiation,” at least in part. And I would point out again, given that the name “San Francisco” is already taken, “San Jose” seems the best of remaining alternatives.
.
“Well, that’s what the Giants have been arguing all along. I’m not sure it’s true, though.”
.
The only area the A’s really need to “dominate their immediate vicinity” is with respect to the local corporate base. And corporations are the most fickle of casual fans: The convenience factor alone is likely to outweigh other considerations. Remember, we’re only talking a 32,000 seat venue.
.
“I think that kind of thing depends on an intense local feeling which borders on resentment against the rest of the region.”
.
I don’t think the “intense local feeling” needs to be a negative emotion; civic pride after being overlooked for a long time works as well. It’s the same dynamic that is bringing big NBA crowds to Oklahoma City. (I do think it’s more sustainable in San Jose in the long haul, however.)
I don’t understand why we still think of SF, Oakland and SJ as three separate markets. This is one, huge, freakin’ big metropolitan area that just happens to be fortunate to have more than one team in at least one of the four major sports (on that, the Bay Area is exceptional in having two teams in two of the major sports). Our teams just happen to call SF, Oakland, San Jose, and (soon?) Santa Clara as their home. Just as NY’s teams call the Bronx, New Jersey, Manhattan, Queens, and Long Island their “home”. But they’re not considered individual markets.
You don’t hear about trouble brewing because the Islanders might “relocate” to a proposed arena next to CitiField; or of the Nets pending move to Brooklyn (other than the usual financing questions). The Rangers aren’t asking for more compensation because the Islanders would be 12 miles closer to their home.
You don’t hear a lot of this “us vs. them” talk in the nation’s other comparable major metro areas. Ask most anyone from the Southland where they’re from, they say “LA” — why not, take away LA and there’s no “there” there. I don’t recall hearing about the Inglewood Lakers competing with the LA Clippers. Same for Chicago. Sure there’s the northside vs. the southside thing, but that’s a rivalry, not a competition. It’s Chicago vs. St. Louis or Milwaukee/Green Bay — teams hundreds of miles away. Again, take away Chicago and there’s no there there. And, New York baseball is more a family tradition. You either grew up a Yankees or Mets fan. It wasn’t because you lived in Queens or not. If there is an “us vs. them” it’s the NY vs NJ thing. But hey, it IS New Jersey. :~/
As others have mentioned, Bud “Lite” is a weakling. HIs lack of a final determination on this issue is so glaring on his already suspect record. But, just as with the 49ers going to Santa Clara (let me know when that happens), it’s not like we’re losing one of our teams. Better the A’s go to San Jose than to Portland, San Antonio, New Jersey, or even Sacramento.
Hey guys, here’s a nice long clip/trailer from Moneyball onET. It’s great to hear Bill King’s voice, even though for a few seconds on there “Just. Plain.Crazy!!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inEVDYptNT8