The last Bill Madden post

Listen to Bill Madden’s interview with The Drive. It’s far more substantial than the one with the KNBR morning zoo.

Bill Madden is not a pot-stirrer, or at least that’s not his reputation. On the Vecsey scale of sensationalism, he’s closer to George than to Peter.

Madden’s arguments are these:

  • From reading the Major League Constitution, the fact is that the Giants’ hold over the South Bay is ingrained. Per the document, any change would have to be via a 3/4 vote of the owners and could not occur via a Selig decree.
  • Changing T-rights would create a huge precedent, which Stuart Sternberg could use to move the Rays to New Jersey.
  • Bud Selig would like to broker an agreement but Madden doesn’t know how it could be done because Giant ownership feels it would be “committing suicide”.

Confronted by the A’s denial, Madden defiantly asked, “What did I get wrong?” Well, for starters, he got the history of the territorial rights arrangement wrong, though I figure he’d probably correct that if he had the chance. There is the question of how broad an action Selig can take. Madden says that Selig can’t. Lew Wolff’s position all this time has been that it is the commissioner’s decision to make. It’s not quite that simple, however.

Selig generally doesn’t operate by decree, so it’s something of a false argument. The only time in recent memory that he has “decreed” anything was the fateful decision to end the 2002 All Star Game in a tie. Everything other decision was the basis of him lobbying owners as a group to a specific decision or endgame. Yes, some kind of agreement has to be brokered, which Madden alluded to. No one’s breaking news there. How and for what $$$ have always been the sticking points, given the Giants’ and A’s positional gulf on the matter.

Madden even concedes this:

“… Or let Lew Wolff tell me how I’m wrong. I love Lew Wolff. He’s a great guy. My personally feeling is that I’d like to see the A’s in San Jose because I’d like to see them survive. San Jose is the second (sic) largest city in California and they ought to be able to have a baseball team. The fact of the matter is, for whatever reason, Wally Haas ceded those rights to Bob Lurie. And that was the reason Bob Lurie was able to sell the Giants for $100 million.”

San Jose is actually third largest, but I can see how a New York guy can get that wrong.

Eric Davis asks the proper question in the interview,

DAVIS: To your knowledge, have the A’s been denied San Jose or not?

MADDEN: No, I never said that. See, this is the problem. Everybody’s saying that Selig said has told the A’s that they aren’t going to San Jose. I DID NOT SAY THAT. The column does not say that… Is there anywhere in therewhere I said that Bud Selig’s gonna tell them they can’t go to San Jose? I’m saying that under these circumstances they’re not going to San Jose. But it’s not Selig that’s going to tell them that. These are the circumstances.

Bill Madden, you can thank your headline writer/editor/intern/monkey for having to go on the defensive on today. To his credit, he ends the interview with perhaps his most salient point:

I’m sure the commissioner’s not very happy with me on this story. Part of the reason being I’m sure he’s hoping he could broker a settlement between these two teams. Maybe he can. Right now I don’t see that happening.

After the Madden interview ended, Brandon Tierney and Eric Davis both came to the same conclusion: Madden’s connecting dots as opposed to reporting actual news. Is it nothing? Not at all. It’s properly giving attention to the elephant in the room, which is that the A’s and Giants are miles apart on what they think Santa Clara County is worth in terms of a settlement. It’s Selig’s job to broker that deal, and he reportedly won’t start brokering in earnest until the Giants’ astroturf group drops their lawsuit in San Jose. And let’s keep in mind that the way these settlements have gone in the past, there is a baseline: settling team pays half of $75 million “fee” to infringed team, league and other 28 owners pay the other half. Giants ownership know this and want no part of it. They’d just as soon pay the A’s to leave the Bay Area completely. Then again, there is the possibility that arbitration may be in order. Neither team is a stranger to the process. Shyam Das, get ready for Selig’s call on the batphone.

51 thoughts on “The last Bill Madden post

  1. Sure looks like the A’s are gone.

  2. Ugh, any arbitration would choose to stick as closely to the wording of the T-Rights rule in the MLB bylaws as possible, thus denying the A’s to SJ even if it’s not the most reasonable solution.

  3. The equitable method would be to allow the A’s to be in San Jose for five years and then arbitrate based on real, non-speculative damages. The Giants would put on evidence of lost sales, lost profits, lost opportunities, etc. and notwithstanding any lack of mitigation on their part, these would be colorable claims. The A’s would be able to rebut their claims. The arbitrator would be using real numbers, not speculation.

  4. ML….I see we are coming up on the seven year anniversary of this blog. Congrats!

  5. Maybe the gnats can pay the A’s to go away, the same amount they evidently want for comp ($250 million), giving the A’s a jump start on building in ……. Wait for it….. Sacramento. 😉

  6. So, what’s different about this guy is he is saying that the A’s DON’T have the 3/4 votes necessary because of the bad president it would set. It would explain the long delay. I still have a hard time believing that other than the NY teams and maybe Philly and maybe one other large market team that the owners would rather keep sending the A’s welfare checks or face contraction of the A’s and Tampa. Like he said, there are no other cities that can support a MLB team that are available. Why would the Giants go to arbitration when they don’t have to? It’s a tough poison pill to swallow.

  7. If this is true… I hope they come to sac… Only other way they stay in northern Cali. Unless Oakland come with a plan and quickly,

  8. So taking a step back to a more unbiased point of view (we are A’s fans, after all), the parallel scenario is that even though allowing the Rays to move to New Jersey would probably save the franchise, get them off welfare, and eliminate a messy contraction process, the owners wouldn’t allow it because then territorial rights lose some of their power and team values would suffer I guess. It isn’t a great argument, but it is an argument. It doesn’t matter that SJ is only 37 miles away. Ugh, I feel ill…

  9. Sac is the biggest market in the country media market wise that doesn’t have a team (San Antonio being the largest population wise that doesn’t have a team). But the issue with Sac is the same one Oakland has now. How to build a ballpark. Their basketball loving/playing mayor had to turn over every last couch cushion last week to get an arena deal structured for the Kings for an arena that costs $150,000,000 less than a ballpark would. Unless there’s a white knight up there I just don’t see it happening. Not with how much easier it is to build things outside California’s hyper restrictive legal framework.

  10. I just don’t buy this Jersey bullshit. Where in Jersey would they put a team? Even if they somehow wanted to?

  11. NJ has no big urban area conducive to a MLB team, baseball fans there have generations of support of the Yankee$ and Mets and there’s no public $$ available there to pay for a ballpark. Any fears that the Rays will move to NJ are pure paranoia. MLB owners: Each of you get ready to chip in $10 miill apiece to buy the A’s, plus whatever it costs to underwrite the continued losses. Obviously, “territorial rights” and turning A;s fans into MLB haters is more important than a viable solution for the A’s and growing revenues in Silicon Valley.

  12. I see this as Madden’s “Dewey defeats Truman” article.

  13. Dammit! Had to “eat” and end my hunger strike because quite simply ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I’ve just been amazed over the past couple of days how this piece of crap article has garnered so much attention EVEN without providing one ounce of fact. EVEN with Selig and Wolff debunking the bullshit from Madden the insanity continues. Why? Are we all that desparate for news of any kind (perhaps)? On with my post.

    Where’s the proof (i.e. facts) that somehow the A’s and Giants are miles apart in terms of a settlement? There’s nothing out there (article, news, etc.) which states this as being the case. In fact, I’ve seen some accounts that state the committee is in the process of brokering a deal (I’ve read so many articles on this over the past couple of days it’s pathetic). Remember, Selig himself said the issue in now on the “frontburner.” Yes, I know, I know, that was over a month ago (ancient times for some of you). For those loosing hope on this (i.e. pjk), I urge you to do your research, homework on the Expos/Orioles/DC drama and how long (and painfull) that process took to finalize

    Back to Madden and why he is wrong:
    1) The situation in the Bay Area is unique amongst all of baseball; a two-team market that is unfairly gerrymandered rather than shared like the others. If the Bay Area or Santa Clara County become shared than no precedent is set as the region simply would come in line with the other two-team markets.
    2) The idea that taking the T-Rights from the Giants would set a bad precedent is just plain stupid for this reason: Who’s gonna move? Would we all of a sudden see the Padres leave beautiful Petco Park for the spoils of LA? Would the Pirates leave gorgeous PNC Park for the bounty of NYC/NJ? My point is that (with the exception of the A’s and Rays) all MLB teams currently have new or renovated ballparks…NO ONE’S MOVING ANYWHERE IN OUR LIFETIME! And any future relocation (if they were occur ala perhaps the Rays) would be looked at on a case by case basis, not predetermined by the A’s to SJ.

    Some other things I learned over the past few days that I found interesting.
    Larry Baer doesn’t run the Giants; some guy named Charles Johnson is the primary owner, and MLB is apparently working with him on this issue (he’s also reportedly not an “insider” by any means).
    Jerry Rheinsdorf (am I spelling it right?) is an owner of a big market team in a two-team market; I wonder how he feels about the A’s being in San Jose ( ;).. Perhaps Bill Madden should talk to Rheinsdorf.
    Tim Kawakami is the biggest a$$hole of the Bay Area media. Read his bullshit over at the Merc and be disgusted at your leisure.

    Whew! Glad to get all of this off my chest. Erase the Madden crap from memory and all is looking good for the A’s to SJ…in due time people!

  14. Reading between the lines, I don’t believe that it is the Jersey argument that is really important. Personally, I smell the Giants in this whole thing.

  15. I’m just impressed that Madden who is just a writer saying he doesnt think owners would over turn it is more powerful than Reinsdorf and Loria who have made comments saying otherwise. what do actual owners matter anyways.

  16. One last point: this article did get me thinking about one angle to this. Is Madden perhaps trying to get an answer from Selig and MLB on this matter? I.E. “If you all think I’m wrong about all of this, than prove it and report what’s really going on.” Anyhow, still think his piece was dung and he needs to stick to the Yankees and Mets.

  17. The most telling part of the whole thing is the view Madden says the Giants’ brass holds, which is that granting the A’s San Jose is akin to “suicide” for them. They are in absolute horror and fear of the death of the SF Giants franchise should they A’s be allowed access to the South Bay revenue streams and the prosperity that access will bring, and that is the reason they have fought this and continue to fight it to the death… they are mortally terrified of an Athletics franchise out from under the Coliseum and what that might mean for their product. What does that say about the stability and efficacy of their product, that they spend all their time trying to ensure that they’ll never have to compete for the Bay Area entertainment dollar with a revitalized A’s franchise?

  18. en: Yeah that was the argument I always gave to the Oakland Only crowd. That the Giants would have to get their fans and corporate support from their own city, rather than leaching off of San Jose. Of course the Giants are scared, SJ would be great for the A’s!

  19. Hi everyone, you guys don’t know me but I feel like I know you all. I was born and raised in So Cal and I’ve been a die-hard A’s fan since 1987 when I was 10 years old. I recently moved up to the Bay Area this past January and I can’t wait for the season to start. Anyways, I’ve been a lurker on this site for a few years now and it’s by far the best resource to find stadium info on our A’s. ML: Thanks for all that you do!!! I usually don’t join message boards, but I can’t hold back any longer.

    Anyways, now for this article that Bill Madden wrote, mark my words, it will be a blessing in disguise! This issue needs a national spotlight to get MLB’s attention on the matter. I’m sure this issues has/is being discussed in great length behind closed doors, but that’s the problem. If the media is not talking about it, MLB can always put the issue on the back burner because it’s not a “priority”. Look at the Dodgers, once the LA media blew up the whole McCourt divorce thing, how quickly did MLB resolve the issue relatively speaking? I know that the Dodgers issue is not as complicated as the A’s but that’s not the point. Regardless of what Madden wrote it got national and MLB’s attention. We need this no matter what the outcome is.

    Go A’s!!!

  20. Sacramento A’s seem like a reality more and more each day

  21. @j Campbell,
    No it doesn’t! (And the insanity of Madden continues…)

  22. I get that the precedent becomes problematic because with a ¾ vote from the owners, they can force a team to accept another team in their territory, write a check to supposedly compensate the violated team- and that will still be cheaper for the owners than retraction – and they can use the “best for baseball” excuse to justify it all. So any basket case franchise that comes along in the future potentially becomes the third team in the NYC market or whatever. Now, I don’t happen to believe that crap, whether officially or not, the A’s have shared San Jose for decades with the Giants, so it’s not really the same situation. Considering that San Jose is actually slightly closer to Oakland than SF, if the Giants claim that they get 40% of their fan base from SJ, the A’s can claim the exact same thing. This isn’t a team moving here from out of state, we are talking about a 37 mile move to potentially save a historic franchise. Surely the owners can see the difference.

  23. ML: is this Wilpon/Madoff business going to provide yet another Selig distraction? I haven’t read much beyond today’s headlines. What is the predicted outcome of this?

  24. Tony, unfortunately logic and common sense doesn’t seem to be in play here. If Madden’s article is to be believed, it would appear the Giant hold all the cards. With a solid fan base, and a near sold out season, there’s no need for them to come to the negotiating table. They can afford to wait the A’s out. The situation sucks, but it is what it is.
    .
    Maybe we’re quickly reaching the point where Wolff needs to call for a vote. At least we get an answer and we can move on.

  25. Longtime reader, first time post…

    Let’s just say that Madden is right, and that the Rays’ POTENTIAL relocation to New Jersey is concerning to teams with regard to the A’s stadium situation, since the precedent set by removing the Giants’ territorial rights to San Jose would in theory threaten the Philadelphia and both New York franchises.

    The A’s need 23 “yes” votes to pass the movement to strip the Giants of their T-Rights. That means they can afford to sustain 7 “no” votes. Obviously, count the Giants into that camp. Count in Philadelphia, the Yankees, and Mets. That’s 4.

    What other existing MLB markets could, even on a hypothetical level, sustain any MORE major league baseball? New York/New Jersey is the only one that works on a hypothetical level. The Chicago and LA areas already are maxed out with their two teams, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, and Washington, DC, simply don’t have the populations to make two MLB franchises a tenable option.

    My question is, where are the other votes? What do Houston, Anaheim, and Seattle care if the Rays move to Jersey? It would only serve to hurt the Yankees and Mets, and I honestly think that hurting the Yankees coffers is in the best interest of consistent parity in baseball. I understand where the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, and (obviously) the Giants are coming from. What would be the incentive for ANY other MLB franchises to vote no? The way I see it, the A’s would win 26-4, since high-income clubs like the Angels, Cubs, (soon-to-be) Marlins, Tigers, etc, are tired of subsidizing both Oakland and Tampa Bay to play crappy baseball that generates low ratings, against them. Can anyone tell me where I’m going wrong?
    I’m not as knowledgeable as many others about this issue, but this aspect of Madden-gate remains a mystery to me….

  26. @fc,
    Respectfully disagree. I believe logic and common sense will not only come into play but will prevail. See Reinsdorf and Loria commentary of a few months back. Heck, see Baer’s commentary of just last week!

  27. RC nailed it with the last sentence of his last post! Excellent!

  28. @Tony, I guess I wasn’t very clear in my statement. What I meant to say was there CURRENT isn’t any logic or common sense in play…

  29. If I was Wolff, calling for a vote himself would be a huge mistake. If owners abstain it hurts the A’s and helps the Giants.

    The other owners do not want to piss off Selig who has made them tons of $$ over the years and all together begged him stay just recently tells you they will not go against him if another owner calls a vote.

    “MLB” knows full well if they cannot get the A’s to San Jose they will be stuck with the bigger problem of relocating the A’s and finding a ballpark in another city………that would be in reality everyone’s worst nightmare…..fat chance in this economy.

    There is another “variable” here we are all missing that has complicated this issue.

    If you read Larry Baer’s response to there needing to be an agreement between the A’s and Giants of “not necessarily” and that may or may not be the question on the table tells you this “variable” is bigger than a simple deal to be brokered between the teams.

    Baer has also said the team is cooperating with the process and will do what is best for the game and not just themselves……It says straight up they are speaking with MLB about this.

    That tells me the variable is not a deal between the A’s and Giants but a deal between MLB and the Giants.

    The Giants are A’s are known not be speaking, this plus the fact the A’s have to privately finance a 460M ballpark in San Jose tells you they will not be the ones paying the Giants in any form.

    The Nationals/Orioles were different because the Nats got a free ballpark and there were in fact infringing on the Orioles TV rights by moving in from Montreal…..hence why MLB and the Nats split the difference paying the Orioles.

    You cannot use that baseline in this situation since the Giants and A’s share the market already from a TV/Marketing perspective. MLB cannot ask the A’s to pay $$ to the Giants when they have to privately finance the ballpark in San Jose and already share TV.

    Unless Selig gets a deal done with the Giants and MLB; only then can he put something to a vote.

    Its bad thinking and in the spirit of free trade and Anti-Trust he should not care but this is Selig we are talking about…….Could be another year.

  30. here’s a kozimor article he wrote today at csn, koz being one of the few media members here in the bay area along with purdy who is pro a’s to sj. he better watch out, if he continues to show pro a’s to sj feelings he maybe out of a job soon.

    http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/athletics-talk/post/Giants-As-need-to-settle-territory-issue?blockID=663966&feedID=5880

    oh yeah whatever happens even if the a’s move to sj eventually as i think they will fuck the sfg and their scumbag front office brass who can go straight to hell. i have never despised a team and a group of individuals who run that puppet soft ass franchise as much as i do right now with them. they are a bunch of phonies who are scared of having a little competition in the bay area. this bs about how they’d basically fall apart if the a’s move to the south bay tells you something about how poorly they must think of their own fans and corporate sponsors in the oh so glamour city of sf right that they think the area 40 miles down south is that important to the org that i the a’s move there they’ll basically be putting up the white flag as a org.

  31. Lev, I could see the AL West teams voting no based on divisional competition.

  32. …And I would think Boston would be at a greater risk for a second team than Philly. While I think a Hartford team would be a bit of a stretch, it’s probably a better market than a second team in Boston or Philly.

  33. @Brian – The AL West owners aren’t going to vote no based on rivalries or competition. On field it’s intense, in The Lodge it’s more congenial and fraternal. I’ve never heard of Wolff having any enemies (besides perhaps Magowan/Neukom) within the owners ranks.

  34. @Brian…I don’t think any AL West team would vote no on the A’s to SJ. Let’s say the A’s cannot move to SJ and are forced to stay in Oakland or somewhere on the west coast what do the other AL West teams have to gain by saying no? The A’s would still be in the division. Now let’s say the A’s are forced out of state and move to a central or eastern division territory then that will cause a total realignment and create a mess. Not to mention scheduling, travel, TV conflicts etc…This would not be in the best interest of baseball!!!

    In business, charter amendments are not uncommon. If the A’s were allowed to move to SJ, then what would be the problem with MLB placing a provision that no new/existing team can move to a city where two teams reside within an X mile radius going forward?

    I would love nothing more than for the A’s to stay in Oakland but I’m also realistic. San Jose is the only option. As for contraction, that talk is total BS, if MLB is truly serious about contracting any team it needs to be executed on a seniority basis. With that said, sorry Colorado, you haven’t done much, you’re gone, A’s move in. This is a wild scenario but every option needs to be looked at to save one of the charter members of the MLB.

  35. How much future parking revenue does Sacramento have to pay to a baseball stadium again?

  36. Anyone who thinks contraction is on the table again is smoking some good shit- eliminating 2 American league teams after finally balancing the leagues with the move of the Astro’s wouldn’t quite do it for bud- btw- I wonder if the attorneys that madden says he talked to are from pillsbury- tha would be my guess

  37. Maybe Wolff should just sign a long-term lease with the Coliseum, under the premise that he tried for several years and failed to get a new ballpark done. In fact, he’s been demonized by so many in the media for his efforts. So let the A’s just continue to require tens of millions of dollars in annual subsidies from the other owners. Wolff has tried to fix the problem and the owners don’t like his solution and have none of their own. So let the owners keep those subsidy checks coming for the long term. They seem to prefer that over a profitable A’s ballpark in San Jose that would grow revenues.

  38. The Mets and Skanks being worried about TR precedent is totally silly. The A’s/Giants situation is completely different than the Rays potentially moving to Jersey.
    1. The A’s are already in the same urban area, and in fact are currently only 12 miles away from the Giants, and want to move 37 miles from the Giants.
    2. The SCC territory was previously shared, and given to the Giants by the A’s to help them with getting their stadium moving forward, with the agreement that the Giants build in SCC.
    3. The Bay Area is the only two team market that is carved up between the two teams, and quite unfarily so – the Giants have 6 counties and most of the area’s wealth, the A’s have only 2 counties.
    4. The carved up two team market is what is the bad precedent. The move would only put the market in line with the other 3 two team markets.
    .
    And if it’s the Mets and Skanks, and potentially Philly, and of course the gnats, that are the only likely no votes, then I feel pretty good about it. After all, Madden has only talked to a handful of lawyers representing some undisclosed teams, and he is extrapolating from that. And I think that all of the above teams, sans the gnats, could be persuaded with the idea of having one less team on the dole, and of course the arguments listed above.
    .
    I actually feel better about it now, the more I think about it. Regardless, it’s going to take a long time. But the soonest the A’s could move into new SJ ballpark is 3 years, probably 4 years, possibly more. So, in the meantime, I’m not going to worry too much about it. I don’t mind going to the Coli (it’s convenient), and I like that Beane is good at getting the most out of his limited resources, always at least keeping the A’s interesting.

  39. Last Bill Madden post from me: Bleacher Report reads “Bud Selig says San Jose to stay territory of the San Francisco Giants.” WOW! Just WOW! Kind of sums up what we’ve had to deal with over the past few days. Thankfully the stupidity is starting to die down. Until the next thread …

  40. Selig must feel 10,000% vindicated in his long-held belief that Oakland never should have had MLB. Oakland got MLB, has not supported it well and now has stranded the team in an outdated facility with no hope whatsoever of a new one being built there. And Selig, who doesn’t like to make decisions, is left dealing with the mess…

  41. Wolff and Fischer don’t have enough money to buy the rights to Santa Clara County from the Giants. The Giants ownership bought the team with those rights secured, built a solid business plan based on those rights being secured and financed a stadium on their own with those rights in hand. Losing those rights would hurt the Giants short term and could eventually make them the second fiddle team in the Bay Area. There is no reason for the Giants to let the A’s have those rights. That leaves MLB owners having to take away the rights from the Giants and I don;t see 75% of the owners wanting to open up the possibility of territorial rights being revoked from their team.

    Why are people talking about arbitration? The A’s don’t have a case to take this to arbitration, they are looking for a handout at the expense of a more successful franchise.

    About the carved up market…Lew Wolff bought this team knowing that the market was carved up and he got the team for a price that reflected the territorial rights issue.

    Lew Wolff has most likely made plenty of enemies in the ownership ranks with the way he has run the A’s into the ground.

  42. It’s flat-out unAmerican to have the Frisco Giants overrule the people of San Jose. And MLB SHOULD NOT have an anti-trust exemption. If/when San Jose is rejected, I hope the city files a nice lawsuit in federal court….As far as Wolff’s “enemies,” you are incorrect. He is one of the most well-liked owners in MLB…

  43. Ted = troll just trying to stir up crap. Don’t take his bait all! (Just let him be with his gibberish BS)

  44. Ted, Lew Wolff is fairly popular amongst his fellow owners. This is well documented.
    .
    You realize that Fischer brings the lion’s share of wealth to an ownership group that has the 4th highest net worth of any MLB ownership group?
    .
    It’d be awesome if you had your facts straight before spouting so definitively.

  45. pjk, I am a person of San Jose and we have not been asked if we want the A’s here. The city is laying off firemen and police and libraries are rarely open. I wonder how much the A’s are willing to pay for the land and what they will pay for stadium costs. That is all irrelevant at this point anyway because the Giants have territorial rights to Santa Clara County.

    Tony, I am a San Jose resident and a Giants fan. This is my issue as much or more than anyone here. Just because you disagree with my point of view it doesn’t mean that I am a troll. Would you care to tell me what you think is gibberish in my post?

    Jeffrey, I think Wolff’s act might be wearing thin with other owners. He takes revenue sharing and doesn’t reinvest it into the team and he doesn’t seem to be trying to draw fans in Oakland. I don’t doubt the ownership group is loaded, Fisher’s dad fought to protect the Giants territorial rights that his son now wants to be stripped away and given to the A’s. Perhaps they should invest their money into the team and a stadium in Oakland. What facts did I get wrong?

  46. Ted – I don’t even know where to start in terms of your comments, so let’s go one by one:

    a. SJ was asked to take the Giants before, and turned it down. Does that also mean it’s not Giants territory?

    b. Layoffs of firemen and police have more to do with the surmounting pension funds then anything else. If you’re concerned as I am being a citizen of SJ as well, I would suggest your support Reed.

    c. The stadium itself is privately built a la Phone Booth Park. The land will be paid by the A’s per the option agreement given to them already. The road infrastructure will be done by the city, because Diridon area is supposed to be the new Grand West transit corridor.

    d. The Giants territorial rights were granted by the A’s when they were both considered shared territory as an exploratory exercise to move the team to SJ. That did not materialize. There is speculation still running that Lurie never specified SJ as their territory when he sold off the team (this has not been denied, confirmed or otherwise).

    e. According to Wolf the broke even last year. They have invested back in their players (notice the FA signings of the past years), including the bonanza year when Holliday was with the A’s. When MLBPA investigated the small parket teams pocketing money (see Marlins), the A’s were cleared of any wrong doings.

    f. Oakland is a “dead market” area. It may be able to temporarily sustain a new stadium, but after that it does not have the corporate or suite support necessary to thrive (see Washington Nats).

    In summary, you, as a supposed SJ resident, need to get your facts straight and stop cherry picking stuff you hear from KNBR drinking the Krukow koolaid. Provide your support to the police / firefighters by demanding more from them in the pension negotiations to note continually bankrupt the city. Keep your Gnats allegiance, but don’t declare that SJ “belongs” to the SF because they don’t (we already turned them down once). With the A’s thriving in SJ, it will force the Gnats to actually be mindful about their expenses (how’s Zito and Rowland working out again) so that you can keep LIincecum and Cain longterm and have the money to go after the FA like Pujolsin the future. Learn it, live it, love it…..

  47. Would blocking the A’s from spending $500 million of their own money in San Jose enable expanded library hours and more cops? Uh, no.

  48. Yeah Ted, they turned them down 20 YEARS AGO. Completely irrelevant now. Don’t be mad that Ted actually makes some good points. Hilarious how all you SJ backers bash the shit out of pro-Oaklanders for being uninformed, hostile, and resistant to other view points, yet you turn around and do the same thing to Ted for presenting a well thought out and valid opinion. Way to be contradictive and condescending.

  49. Ted,
    .
    You said the A’s ownership didn’t have the money to pay for San Jose. That’s wrong (and shows you don’t understand how MLB operates). You said Lew Wolff is wearing thin with other owners. The only owners to speak publicly about the situation have been in support of Lew Wolff.
    .
    Your facts are wrong.

  50. Anon-
    From what I understand, the Giants were granted territorial rights to San Jose and they were never overturned. The Giants have set themselves up nicely based on a plan that included territorial rights to San Jose.
    I don’t support Reed, he lied about future pension costs and I don’t support taking cops and firemen off the streets.
    I have not seen any indication that Wolff will pay San Jose fair market value for the land or that they will 100% privately finance the stadium.
    It doesn’t matter why the Giants got the territorial rights to San Jose, they had them when current ownership bought the team and when Wolff bought the A’s he knew the A’s didn’t have them.
    The A’s were the 11th most profitable team in 2010 according to Forbes, Wolff and Fisher pocketed $23 million in revenue sharing money.
    I am sorry that Oakland is a dead market but that is the market that Wolff chose. It isn’t the Giants problem. They can move anywhere but San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin or Santa Clara counties or territories that belong to other MLB franchises.
    I haven’t heard Krukow since the season ended last year. Why do you talk about the Giants losing revenue as a good thing? Do you think it is bad that they put themselves into a good financial situation and that they spend money on players?

    PJK,
    I don’t know how much money a stadium in San Jose will cost the city. They have already spent a substantial amount of money acquiring land.

    Jeffrey,
    Which owners are supporting Wolff and do you have links to some quotes that I can look at to confirm this support?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s